Why did they only do frontal assaults and get assfucked ?

Why did they only do frontal assaults and get assfucked ?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What side of an island is the back?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      both.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      An Island only has one side

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Y'know what, I'm not quite sure I'm right but I'd say that would actually be the center of the island. I know it doesn't sound like it makes any sense, but when the entire coastline is considered the front then the center has to be the back.
      On top of that, If you want to defend the island, you build defenses along the frontline AKA the coast. So by that logic, enemies popping up in the center (either through paratroopers or magic, whatever sounds more fun) would be an attack on the enemy's rear.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Just swim under it and dig up idiot

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The only time anyone tried attacking the 'back' of an island was when the Germans paradropped on Crete and it was a near disaster

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      windward

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mmm, roasted white piggu

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    since the marines only lost 1000 men and the japanese lost 4500, it is undeniable that if there was an assfucking on betio, it was the japanese that were the catchers of a vigorous and unlubricated assfucking.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Op’s photo is from Guadalcanal. Those are dead Japanese soldiers who attacked the US position during the Battle of the Tenaru.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the japs did this for a while, then changed tactics on Peleliu and then Okinawa to defence in depth and really mauled the yanks

    i think US casualties may have outnumbered Japanese on both

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      defense in depth was most famously employed by the Japanese at Iwo Jima, which would be the only major amphibious action where the Americans suffered higher casualties than the Japanese. Both Peleliu and Okinawa were tenaciously defended by the Japanese and the Americans would suffer high casualties, however the Japanese casualties in both battles were still greater than American casualties

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >which would be the only major amphibious action where the Americans suffered higher casualties than the Japanese
        if casualties before amphibious landings are discounted, this would be true for a lot more engagements.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Compared israelis to termites
      >Fear of Guam tipping over
      Based old Hank

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no intel on enemy locations
    exhausted
    no artillery support
    no air support
    attrition eating through the ranks

    swap sides and it won't look much different. in fact, if you look at the island battles where the Americans were the ones doing frontal assaults the casualties are still huge even after essentially leveling the enemy's defenses with naval gunfire and aerial attack.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Far as I member it was usually isolated garrisons choosing to banzai rather than starve themselves to death. Reading the pacific war really drills in how bad the Japs were at defense

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Reading the pacific war really drills in how bad the Japs were at defense
      Weird, you must be really retarded to come to the opposite conclusion of most historians, people that were on the ground and even the official USMC and US Army histories.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *