TS Eiseihei-san no Senjou Nikki - Vol. 1 Ch. 3.2

[trash5502]

Whole ass bullet

Half-assed bullets, as of late.

 

[Carn109]

Big boolet

 

[CyanHide]

He did say that the world really wasn't like he imagined it, so that his background kinda became irrelevant. Even more so since he's a girl medic.

And yeah, the demonic commander is charging full blast, but it'll only take a sniper to shoot him in a blind spot and he's dead. =/

watch as his plot armor causes the shot to hit a nonvital part of his body, causing minimal damage and doing nothing to stop his slaughter lmao

 

[Twics]

"the ones under siege will always defeat the ones attacking"
"even if they are defeated and retreating they will just find a new hole to hide in and take a even more stronger position"
"that's what makes trench warfare perpetual"

Yes but also no.

The reason why trench warfare was a pain in the ass was the artillery made the terrain difficult to reinforce the attackers, this made it significantly easier for the defenders to counter attack the attackers, since their artillery and auxiliary units are closer, hence the bloody stalemate. Oddly, if done right it be in the attackers favor as the defenders will suffer more cuaslites than the attackers.

That's right, the correct call in trench warfare is to send your men to the grindhouse because the enemy will have to grind more of their guys as well to keep their stuff, as retarded as that sounds.

Trench warfare is a pure war attrition.

To oversimply it trench warfare is more like a tf2 control point map with instant spawns. For those who never played tf2, normally defending respawn is closer to the objective but take longer to respawn than the attacker for game balance because the devs hate stalemates.

I love how you used TF2 as an example. It's been a while since I've heard/played that game.

 

[Lurac]

I think this guy here and there elaborates what I was saying pretty well. Feel free to provide reasons why he has an "insane" take as well.

'this guy' is Bret Devereaux, a historian who focuses on ancient Mediterranean economies and militaries.
He has very good education in the Ancient history field, and definitely knows more than me...

but historians disagree all the time, and quite a few disagree with his take on WW1. Funnily enough, he actually falls perfectly into the 'Cult of the offensive' ideology of the commanders at the time, who agreed that hitting fast and hard was the valid strategy of the time.

History proved them wrong quite clearly though.


Although it is true that there are situations where the casualty ratios favored the attacker. The reasons for that are entirely unlinked with idea of the best strategy being to attack constantly, for example, it is common knowledge that 75% of all battlefield casualties were from artillery. Quite simply; best artillery won.

One of the most quoted 'attacker bias' battles, Verdun, the death difference between the two armies was around 12-18%. And the Germans had higher casualties for most of the battle until the end, when they took advantage of the French retreat.

 

[Kampfarsch]

Yeah great talk of how useful gunpowder is while the commander runs around with a sword and neither touri nor salsa get a gun

 

[Alalalus]

they're firing the whole cartridge what the hell!?

or the bullet is just big af???

That's not the whole cartridge. This is how the rifle bullet looks like. Notice how it's tapered at the bottom, that's the part that sits inside the casing