[quote]CptData wrote...
@ Rudy Lis: I wouldn't go for positive points @ Wehrmacht stuff. It's still a touchy chapter in my ppl history.[/quote]
I'm aware of that. But that's my opinion and that's my trait - I'm saying what I'm thinking.
However, if it makes you feel better, I can point on mistakes they made.
[quote]CptData wrote...
Not sure if it was that efficient - and at some point (especially in late war) it was quite inefficient since the higher ranks had to be filled with inexperienced soldiers [/quote]
Nope. It was efficient. Not many countries could affort fighting on multiple fronts, with limited reserves, yet hold on for so long and maintain quality of training through most of the period.
What you stating is strategical mistake - hopes that every campaing will end fast.
[quote]CptData wrote...
Think today armies in the western world are quite efficient - but far too expensive.[/quote]
They efficient because they fight weak. They've yet to meet adequate adversary. Adequate in all aspects.
[quote]CptData wrote...
It doesn't matter if you spend full five years for education - or just five months. A single bullet still can kill the "Soldier of the 21st Century" - but to get one you need more time and far more money.[/quote]
But it doesn't mean you shouldn't train them at all, because bullet can fly nearby and not kill anyone and properly trained officer could save a lot of lives of his subordinates. Or, at least, "exchange them for highest bidder", if you get my meaning.
[quote]CptData wrote...
So our modern soldiers are simply not the best choice for extended campaigns where manpower is more needed than specialization.
[/quote]
That's correct - any adequate conflict will deplete resourses fast and with modern politicians few countries have those reserves. They too busy trying to keep their chairs so in attempts to please "electorate" they went far in this denial.
[quote]Ushanka wrote...
Yes, very good system, but too expensive. [/quote]
Nope. It's not expensive. Of course, having "field schools" to train 20 y.o. guys and give then leitenant's stars in six months could be cheaper, unless you start calculating things on long run.
[quote]Ushanka wrote...
And I don't think that our government will change something. [/quote]
On that - we agree.
[quote]Ushanka wrote...
Maybe we have bad officers and backward technology, but our soldiers have a strong spirit.[/quote]
With all due respect (and I don't mean "kiss my ass") - I think "had strong spirit" is more appropriate.
[quote]Ushanka wrote...
That's one of the reasons why they won in WW2. Situation was terrible, it's a miracle how they did it.[/quote]
It wasn't miracle.
[quote]Ushanka wrote...
In difficult times officers growing too fast in ranks. Maybe that's the reason?[/quote]
Not that fast. Even Hartmann with all his allegedly 352 victories had one fast promotion - from Oberleutnant to Hauptmann in two months. But he was promoted to Oberleutnant rank in more that two years and he got his Major at last day of war (almost).
Ash jumped from OC to LtCdr in six months? Nah. Unless she singlehandedly beat couple of Sovereign class Reapers in melee...
[quote]Ushanka wrote...
So then I hope your Shepard will not see her soon... On the other side, well, you know. (:[/quote]
Well, that's the reason why I'm fine with Shepard's death. I'm not fine with way he died.
[quote]ExorioN PL wrote...
Well, I think so. I really don't want to force Vega to eat Frag Grenade. ^^
[/quote]
Incendiary. Ash use incendiary.
Modifié par Rudy Lis, 04 mai 2012 - 01:03 .