3 ms·
I don't think you're speaking with much context. > USA could lose the war because the front line got cut-off or sieged No formation is set up to operate witho
by chrisseaton 5y ago
I don't think you're speaking with much context.
> USA could lose the war because the front line got cut-off or sieged
No formation is set up to operate without resupply anyway. That's not a thing in the first place - issues with contracting or not.
> don't need to wait them to run out of food or ammo, just have to wait until their gear stopped working properly
Why do you think gear would stop working before they run out of ammo? Ammo is almost always going to be your limiting factor way before anything else. Ammo runs out in hours.
> can be won by just sieging them
Just run a siege. Simple as that, huh? How many people do you think that takes? Huge cordon, defending in both directions at the time same? I wouldn't want to do that. Would you?
- snypher 5y agoEven the Admiral Kuznetsov, intended to sail solo, would completely ruin any type of 'siege' attempt.
- Nasrudith 5y agoWorse yet, sitting in one place like that with modern artillery and air support is just asking to be obliterated from beyond line of sight range. And if you have the ability to counter them with counter artillery or air superiority why not just shell or bomb it in the first place? If you want to recover sensitive intelligence - if you are cutting off supply lines then you already lost as the obvious response is to destroy any intelligence so it doesn't get captured.