see below post - #90300936 added by golbot at World War III explained

#284 - golbot

Reply +7 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

For the record.... the North killed more southerners than the south killed northerners.

'union

#338 to #284 - neverposting

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

Did it not occur to you that that is how wars are won?

#344 to #338 - golbot

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

see below post

#324 to #284 - wootshop

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

And that's how wars are won, kids.

#314 to #284 - anon id: d6140a3a

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

William Tecumseh ******* Sherman

I play wars in Civilization on a plan modeled after his brilliant tactics.
1. Kill everyone
2. Burn Everything
3. Repeat

#329 to #314 - vparrish

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

I don't view rapeing the land everywhere you go so that it takes an forever to recover back to a reasonable state brilliant tactics (sherman neck ties were just an asshole move) but at least he was better than grant. After all they were fighting to keep this land in the first place, that's basically just saying if we can't have it neither can you.

#320 to #314 - calawesome

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

I feel kinda conflicted about this statement.....You say you're a fan of his, yet you're an angry black man?

#321 to #320 - anon id: d6140a3a

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

He was a vital asset in freeing the slaves. Destroyed all their food, but at least they had their FREEDOM to sustain them.

#322 to #321 - calawesome

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

Fair deuce.

#306 to #284 - shitposting

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

and thats why you dont piss with MURICA

#293 to #284 - daedrakiller

Reply +9 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

That's typically a condition for winning a war

#332 to #293 - golbot

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

ACTUALLY, Wars are won by destroying the enemy's center of gravity, which is not always an army, or "kill count". A recent example of this is the war in vietnam. A center of gravity can be a city (like Stalingrad in the eastern front of ww2) or a person (george washington in the war of independence). The center of gravity for the North in the civil war was DC, whereas for the south, it was Lee and his army (early union generals wrongly thought it was Richmond, hence the reason the war dragged out).

#357 to #332 - smokedmeatlog

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

Usually in order to get to those centers one has to win a lot of battles, and individual battles were won with whoever killed more.

#361 to #357 - golbot

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

Also not true, individual battles can be won despite not killing more than you lose. classic examples are, once again, stalingrad, the battle of Cowpens, the battle of cold harbor.... all of which the winning side lost more men than the other

#352 to #332 - anon id: d6140a3a

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(04/22/2013) [-]

When you started talking about using Vietnam as an example, I expected descriptions of the Vietnamese center of gravity.
I understand what you're saying, and you are right, but you shouldn't bring up an example and then not use it. That's just poor form.