steed you dont get the point all im saying is its not as clear cut as u make it out to be russia is bigger therfore they win although history did prove that correct what i proposed was speculation on a question was the med campaign a waste and yes it was . would the men wasted in the afrika campaign make a difference possibly . we could argue all day about the pro's and cons of what may have happened . russia won yes its easy to say they would have won all the time but superior numbers and equipment dont always win .
a few examples
israel 1967 ,73
falklands 1982
Thermopylae 480 bc
Rorke's Drift, 1879
i have no doubt of your well presented and studied answers to the speculation but the are no absolutes in war or the special figures in formulating the possibilties of victory there are far to many variables to say any army will definately win or lose,we in the military have a special saying to help its called KISS (keep it simple stupid) and invariably the most simplest of plans are the most fool proof but to have some jumpped up corporal stick his fingers in every plan made it hard for the plan to be simple
p.s and for all our arguing the too and fro of logistics we forget that the weather played a major part in the outcome
|