The Dutch made some and even the Germans. Prior to WW1. They were about. Czar Nicholas just made his on the border. In defense of the Germans. Big Bertha. Whoops.
Because they were in the Civil war and prior. Rendered obsolete by longer ranged artillery.
Although not completey obsolete because any fortifications were sooner back up in WW2 with even bigger guns, until the tech changed to missiles.
I have had enough of your irrational answers.
Artillery isn't static dumbass except when it's in a fortification.
But if your army has no range, flight was bullshit in WW1, it did facial damage. Because most attempts were shot down. Until bombers in WW2, and many of them got shot down. It had no real mechanisation. Trucks with no capacity, crank shaft, as larger armies still used cavalry and deployed numbers, against changing technology. Tanks faired terribly, stuck in the mud, but had more armour and mounted guns, as mines were sooner deployed. Guns were rifles and carbine, no automation. Unless mounted machine gun turrets.
The railway like the canal was still in full usage as capacity haulage.
You are using what. What is your main gun. Artillery. It gained range, bigger guns, and it also became mechanised.
Men won WW1. Yes many died because the tactics rapidly changed. They won with what.
You replied to me. And any reminiscing. Because I am not wrong. I never am it's something I'll debate. Until learning otherwise. It is painfully reminiscent today. There was no real Blitzkrieg. Territorial capture. It has faster led to the artillery seige. It is seemingly faster exchanging troops, and otherwise dragging on strategy.
Let me take a step back and ask a single question, mon ami, because you're getting increasingly angry that someone dare challenge you, and posting stupid shit about, for example, about cavalry, which in WWI was as valuable as your appendix, and when you're upset your ability to write coherent English degenerates and it is more and more difficult to figure out what the fuck you're even trying to say. A shit-ton of unconnected sentences and links don't construe an argument. You cannot....
Stay
on
Topic.
If America had not entered the war, who would have won?
Read the fucking links. I am not angry no. Just tired of your stupidity. I am speaking to somebody who cannot process information. It was rather obvious. But somehow you struggle? Tediously
That is not the topic. You're literally autistic. How is who won WW1 relevant to this topic. But you're telling me to stay on topic. Why do dumb people do this? They accuse somebody else of the thing they're guilty of. It's Autism.
We were discussing the weapons and tactics of how any current warfare is reminiscent.
Not the victors. This war could have none. Nukes. Or did you think a nuclear power will surrender. They might withdraw. Except that's their historic border. Meaning a loss. Except that's not very probable. So this war drags on, territory capture, and territory held. Causing far more seiges, and fortified lines. As it bleeds an opponent degrading their manpower and munitions and expenditure. In similarities. Never mind a few other strikingly similar coincidences.
But it shows the gaps in your education. You didn't take apart the tool, studying the mechanics. Instead you have diverted a thought, a submission of mine into USA USA. I don't know what you're trying to prove. You have trolled repeatedly. How many times. It's tedious.
The Dutch made some and even the Germans. Prior to WW1. They were about. Czar Nicholas just made his on the border. In defense of the Germans. Big Bertha. Whoops.
Because they were in the Civil war and prior. Rendered obsolete by longer ranged artillery.
Although not completey obsolete because any fortifications were sooner back up in WW2 with even bigger guns, until the tech changed to missiles.
I have had enough of your irrational answers.
Artillery isn't static dumbass except when it's in a fortification.
But if your army has no range, flight was bullshit in WW1, it did facial damage. Because most attempts were shot down. Until bombers in WW2, and many of them got shot down. It had no real mechanisation. Trucks with no capacity, crank shaft, as larger armies still used cavalry and deployed numbers, against changing technology. Tanks faired terribly, stuck in the mud, but had more armour and mounted guns, as mines were sooner deployed. Guns were rifles and carbine, no automation. Unless mounted machine gun turrets.
The railway like the canal was still in full usage as capacity haulage.
You are using what. What is your main gun. Artillery. It gained range, bigger guns, and it also became mechanised.
Men won WW1. Yes many died because the tactics rapidly changed. They won with what.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_of_
https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/ww1-artillery.phpWorld_War_I
Read something stop quoting me crap.
You replied to me. And any reminiscing. Because I am not wrong. I never am it's something I'll debate. Until learning otherwise. It is painfully reminiscent today. There was no real Blitzkrieg. Territorial capture. It has faster led to the artillery seige. It is seemingly faster exchanging troops, and otherwise dragging on strategy.
Let me take a step back and ask a single question, mon ami, because you're getting increasingly angry that someone dare challenge you, and posting stupid shit about, for example, about cavalry, which in WWI was as valuable as your appendix, and when you're upset your ability to write coherent English degenerates and it is more and more difficult to figure out what the fuck you're even trying to say. A shit-ton of unconnected sentences and links don't construe an argument. You cannot....
Stay
on
Topic.
If America had not entered the war, who would have won?
Read the fucking links. I am not angry no. Just tired of your stupidity. I am speaking to somebody who cannot process information. It was rather obvious. But somehow you struggle? Tediously
Answer the question. Stay on topic. Who would have won the war without American Doughboys?
That is not the topic. You're literally autistic. How is who won WW1 relevant to this topic. But you're telling me to stay on topic. Why do dumb people do this? They accuse somebody else of the thing they're guilty of. It's Autism.
We were discussing the weapons and tactics of how any current warfare is reminiscent.
Not the victors. This war could have none. Nukes. Or did you think a nuclear power will surrender. They might withdraw. Except that's their historic border. Meaning a loss. Except that's not very probable. So this war drags on, territory capture, and territory held. Causing far more seiges, and fortified lines. As it bleeds an opponent degrading their manpower and munitions and expenditure. In similarities. Never mind a few other strikingly similar coincidences.
But it shows the gaps in your education. You didn't take apart the tool, studying the mechanics. Instead you have diverted a thought, a submission of mine into USA USA. I don't know what you're trying to prove. You have trolled repeatedly. How many times. It's tedious.