|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Borderguy190 writes: |
I agree Scott. It seems ole Geoffrey has an axe to grind and doesn't care if facts get in the way. |
Back to the Homepage
309 hits since 21 May 2020
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?
If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?
| VOTING RESULTS | |||
| Answer | Votes | % | Chart |
more blue-on-blue casualties | 4 | 2% |  |
|---|---|---|---|
use of outdated tactics | 31 | 12% | |
less experienced troops | 58 | 23% | |
inexperienced leadership | 51 | 20% | |
American hubris | 21 | 8% | |
excess aggressiveness | 44 | 18% | |
pushing too far in an advance | 19 | 8% | |
other (please explain) | 2 | 1% | |
none of these/no opinion | 10 | 4% | |
this is ridiculous | 3 | 1% | |
not my genre | 6 | 2% | |
not my cup of tea | 1 | 0% | |
| POLL IS CLOSED |
| POLL DESCRIPTION | |
According to historian Geoffrey Wawro, in the final campaign of WWI, the British and French were able to kill four to five Germans for every one of their own casualties. The Americans, on the other hand, had a ratio closer of 1 to 1. What accounted for the Americans' higher cost of warfare? Poll set up by |
, based on