Haha not entirely.

There was no flight with any precision, hand dropped bombs from biplanes often only got the planes shot down. Fortified entrenchment made the flank impossible. Until later mechanisation could maneuver around any entrenchment, by surrounding and isolating supply lines and pummelling with artillery.

WW1 built railroads to the frontlines, the German trenches had railroads inside some of theirs. These were tirelessly maintained, ferrying munition and the wounded, and it had various trucks which often faired horribly in comparison to the heavy horse. Where cavalry was still used. Faired horribly although the tank was invented it got stuck in the mud and was barely deployed until later stages of the war, where again it was hardly used. A figure of probably less than 1000. The Germans had less than 50.

The comparison is heavy urbanisation. The entrenchment. In this conflict there has been no real means to render it obsolete. Except by the slow degradation of artillery and missile.

Tactically I am still struggling to understand this. Unless it is the slower degradation of an opponent's capacity, armour, troops, and munitions. Because at no point has any command structure been compromised, or its services and utilities and supply lines. There is the entrenchment. One trench to the next. From town to city. Edging forwards costing millions of causalities.

That figured last time I check was getting close to around 3.5 million on both sides wounded and dead. I reckon it was conservative.

I might agree there is different goals. Capture and territory. But if I can put a finger on it seems to have another agenda and architecture. It's seemingly wearing down capacity and drawing and stalling as wider objects or even truce unfolds. Of course some of this is assumed modern weapons sam's, anti tank, and missiles, claiming otherwise. But it is problematic. Hence our discussion.

Haha not entirely.

There was no flight with any precision, hand dropped bombs from biplanes often only got the planes shot down. Fortified entrenchment made the flank impossible. Until later mechanisation could maneuver around any entrenchment, by surrounding and isolating supply lines and pummelling with artillery.

WW1 built railroads to the frontlines, the German trenches had railroads inside some of theirs. These were tirelessly maintained, ferrying munition and the wounded, and it had various trucks which often faired horribly in comparison to the heavy horse. Where cavalry was still used. Faired horribly although the tank was invented it got stuck in the mud and was barely deployed until later stages of the war, where again it was hardly used. A figure of probably less than 1000. The Germans had less than 50.

The comparison is heavy urbanisation. The entrenchment. In this conflict there has been no real means to render it obsolete. Except by the slow degradation of artillery and missile.

Tactically I am still struggling to understand this. Unless it is the slower degradation of an opponent's capacity, armour, troops, and munitions. Because at no point has any command structure been compromised, or its services and utilities and supply lines. There is the entrenchment. One trench to the next. From town to city. Edging forwards costing millions of causalities.

That figured last time I check was getting close to around 3.5 million on both sides wounded and dead.

I might agree there is different goals. Capture and territory. But if I can put a finger on it seems to have another agenda and architecture. It's seemingly wearing down capacity and drawing and stalling as wider objects or even truce unfolds. Of course some of this is assumed modern weapons sam's, anti tank, and missiles, claiming otherwise. But it is problematic. Hence our discussion.

Haha not entirely.

There was no flight with any precision, hand dropped bombs from biplanes often only got the planes shot down. Fortified entrenchment made the flank impossible. Until later mechanisation could maneuver around any entrenchment, by surrounding and isolating supply lines and pummelling with artillery.

WW1 built railroads to the frontlines, the German trenches had railroads inside some of theirs. These were tirelessly maintained, ferrying munition and the wounded, and it had various trucks which often faired horriblely in comparison to the heavy horse. Where cavalry was still used. Faired horribly although the tank was invented it got stuck in the mud and was barely deployed until later stages of the war, where again it was hardly used. A figure of probably less than 1000. The Germans had less than 50.

The comparison is heavy urbanisation. The entrenchment. In this conflict there has been no real means to render it obsolete. Except by the slow degradation of artillery and missile.

Tactically I am still struggling to understand this. Unless it is the slower degradation of an opponent's capacity, armour, troops, and munitions. Because at no point has any command structure been compromised, or its services and utilities and supply lines. There is the entrenchment. One trench to the next. From town to city. Edging forwards costing millions of causalities.

That figured last time I check was getting close to around 3.5 million on both sides wounded and dead.

I might agree there is different goals. Capture and territory. But if I can put a finger on it seems to have another agenda and architecture. It's seemingly wearing down capacity and drawing and stalling as wider objects or even truce unfolds. Of course some of this is assumed modern weapons sam's, anti tank, and missiles, claiming otherwise. But it is problematic. Hence our discussion.

Haha not entirely.

There was no flight with any precision, hand dropped bombs from biplanes often only got the planes shot down. Fortified entrenchment made the flank impossible. Until later mechanisation could maneuver around any entrenchment, by surrounding and isolating supply lines and pummelling with artillery.

WW1 built railroads to the frontlines, the German trenches had railroads inside some of theirs. These were tirelessly maintained, ferrying munition and the wounded, and it had various trucks which often faired horriblely in comparison to the heavy horse. Where cavalry was still used. Faired horribly although the tank was invented it got stuck in the mud and was barely deployed until later stages of the war, where again it was hardly used. A figure of probably less than 1000. The Germans had less than 50.

The comparison is heavy urbanisation. The entrenchment. In this conflict there has been no real means to render it obsolete. Except by the slow degradation of artillery and missile.

Tactically I am still struggling to understand this. Unless it is the slower degradation of an opponent's capacity, armour, troops, and munitions. Because at no point has any command structure been compromised, or its services and utilities and supply lines. There is the entrenchment. One trench to the next. From town to city. Edging forwards costing millions of causalities.

That figured last time I check was getting close to around 3.5 million on both sides wounded and dead.

I might agree there is different goals. Capture and territory. But if I can put a finger on it seems to have another agenda and architecture. It's seemingly wearing down capacity and drawing and stalling as wider objects or even truce unfolds. Of course some of this is assume modern weapons sam's, anti tank, and missiles, claiming otherwise.

Haha not entirely.

There was no flight with any precision, hand dropped bombs from biplanes often only got the planes shot down. Fortified entrenchment made the flank impossible. Until later mechanisation could maneuver around any entrenchment, by surrounding and isolating supply lines and pummelling with artillery.

WW1 built railroads to the frontlines, the German trenches had railroads inside some of theirs. These were tirelessly maintained, ferrying munition and the wounded, and it had various trucks which often faired horriblely in comparison to the heavy horse. Where cavalry was still used. Faired horribly although the tank was invented it got stuck in the mud and was barely deployed until later stages of the war, where again it was hardly used. A figure of probably less than 1000. The Germans had less than 50.

The comparison is heavy urbanisation. The entrenchment. In this conflict there has been no real means to render it obsolete. Except by the slow degradation of artillery and missile.

Tactically I am still struggling to understand this. Unless it is the slower degradation of an opponent's capacity, armour, troops, and munitions. Because at no point has any command structure been compromised, or its services and utilities and supply lines. There is the entrenchment. One trench to the next. From town to city. Edging forwards costing millions of causalities.

That figured last time I check was getting close to around 3.5 million on both sides wounded and dead.

Haha not entirely.

There was no flight with any precision, hand dropped bombs from biplanes often only got the planes shot down. Fortified entrenchment made the flank impossible. Until later mechanisation could maneuver around any entrenchment, by surrounding and isolating supply lines and pummelling with artillery.

WW1 built railroads to the frontlines, the German trenches had railroads inside some of theirs. These were tirelessly maintained, ferrying munition and the wounded, and it had various trucks which often faired horriblely in comparison to the heavy horse. Where calvary was still used. Faired horribly although the tank was invented it got stuck in the mud and was barely deployed until later stages of the war, where again it was hardly used. A figure of probably less than 1000. The Germans had less than 50.

The comparison is heavy urbanisation. The entrenchment. In this conflict there has been no real means to render it obsolete. Except by the slow degradation of artillery and missile.

Tactically I am still struggling to understand this. Unless it is the slower degradation of an opponent's capacity, armour, troops, and munitions. Because at no point has any command structure been compromised, or its services and utilities and supply lines. There is the entrenchment. One trench to the next. From town to city. Edging forwards costing millions of causalities.

That figured last time I check was getting close to around 3.5 million on both sides wounded and dead.