Re: [Epic] EPIC40k Rumor (Control)

From: Chris Swearingen <tall-guy_at_...>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:59:42 -0800

>
> >also, do you mean by "assault" a close in infantry battle,or are you
> >stating (in the whole GW mentality) that HTH combat is what wins
> >wars?
>
> Infantry assault consisting primarily of short range fire (less than 50m)
> and _occasional_ hth. HTH definitely does NOT win battles.

cool, that's what i though you meant, but had to check
i agree with you totally here

>
>
> By the way, airborne aren't particularly trained for close combat, at
least
> no the guys I know.

well, i didn't think so, but the army guys i hang out with sure think
a LOT of their "special boys"...
good casualty rates, lots of work for my type

> >the new GW close combat rules (from rumor control) actually made more
> >sense to me; you have a close range fire-fight with lots of short
ranged
> >lead throwing, grenades, etc and near by units can assist.
>
> Exactly my point. If it lives up to the way it sounds it will be a good
system.
>
> Check your history. It's pretty hard to find a position that was
> successfully overrun that didn't result in massive casualties for the
> defender (unless they abandoned it while the attacker was at range).
It's
> just as hard to find an assault that broke against the defense that
didn't
> get decimated (Gettysburg always comes to mind - Pickett's charge and
all).

ok, we are kinda saying the same thing, just in different ways :)
>
> >just my (military) input...
>
> What branch?

USNavy, medical for two MEU(SOC)s, ACMAGTAF, couple of MEDCAPS
>
> >Chris Swearingen
> >tall-guy_at_...
> >
> >"my brain hurts!"
> >"well,... it will have to come out then!"
> >
>
Received on Sat Feb 15 1997 - 01:59:42 UTC