Timeline for Why bother to attack in trench warfare?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jul 14, 2018 at 23:00 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
Jul 13, 2018 at 16:14 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Pieter Geerkens: Oh, I don't disagree about casualty counts, just musing on the monumental egos of some politicians, and the sheer stupidity of some generals. | |
Jul 13, 2018 at 10:55 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 30 characters in body
|
Jul 12, 2018 at 21:24 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | @jamesqf: And, by comparison, compare it to the carnage at Waterloo in barely 1/3 the time and with less than 1/2 as many men on both sides. | |
Jul 12, 2018 at 20:59 | comment | added | T.E.D.♦ | @jamesqf - Sadly, for WWI that phrase is quite possible to write. :-( | |
Jul 12, 2018 at 19:06 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
Jul 12, 2018 at 18:29 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 413 characters in body
|
Jul 12, 2018 at 17:09 | comment | added | Pieter Geerkens | That's only 6% of the attacking force (170,000 strong). A remarkably low casualty rate in any war for an attacking force, never mind WW1. Try to find any significant battle of the American Civil War with at least half as many combatants and less than twice as many casualties. I don't think there is one. | |
Jul 12, 2018 at 16:56 | comment | added | jamesqf | I really appreciate the way you can write "barely 10,000 casualties". | |
Jul 12, 2018 at 15:31 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 134 characters in body
|
Jul 12, 2018 at 15:21 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 134 characters in body
|
Jul 12, 2018 at 15:11 | history | edited | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 277 characters in body
|
Jul 12, 2018 at 14:59 | history | answered | Pieter Geerkens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |