Running out of ammunition sounds like they lost. Like It doesn't matter how clever or good at war you are if you lack the resources to maintain a war.
Makes me think of strategy games where someone makes a bid for an early rush that didn't pan out and then losing 10 minutes later because their opponent developed their economy.
or vice versa - going for a build that's too greedy and losing to a rush. you'd be surprised how many people whine about how their opponent was dishonorable for rushing them.
Ah, the old scrub play. Tbh, if you're new to rtses, it feels more natural to turtle and city-build, but the game can't encourage it or else matches go on forever and nothing happens.
> 6 hours into a 1v1
> other player attacks
> wtf we agreed no rush!
Even if we take that as true, it just shows how bad they were at survival and war, as logistics is definitely a very important part of war, and they should've spent any time actually making bullets instead of larping.
No no you see they were valiant and talented garbage people fighting for slavery
Their diplomacy game was garbage. They went to war with their key supplier and doubled down on undiversified cash crops as their main bargaining chip with other nations
The south had a large advantage straight out of the gate because of their interior lines making it possible to provision troops very quickly. But too much productive power was centralized in the north, so as long as the north could maintain the political will to continue, the south would have eventually collapsed regardless. These white supremacist historians go through the motivated reason of clinging to early victories and advantages because it serves as propaganda of white superiority prior to Lincoln “becoming a race traitor and dividing the race”.
The confederacy saw themselves as the cultural inheritors of the founders’ legacy, with the civil war being the Second American Revolution against tyranny. Ironically, had they not fought for states’ rights to enable slavery, the states might have maintained significantly more autonomy. The Civil War changed the way US dwellers spoke about the country. Before the Civil War, the phrase was “These United States are…”, whereas after the phrase became, “The United States is….”. The federal government gained a lot of authority and resolved a contradiction in order to continue existing that it wouldn’t have otherwise bothered with. It’s really crazy how much the war kickstarted the (partial) abolition of slavery. There’s plenty of argument about whether it would have eventually died out on its own. But it’s hard to argue against how states being unwilling to compromise on their own immediate interests laid the contradictions bare, sparked the whole thing, and forced the government to at least partially resolve those contradictions or risk ceasing to exist.
It makes me hopeful that we see this pattern again and again. Capital is a parasite that can’t help but undermine its own food source. There will always be more opportunities for revolution, so as long as we continue to learn and adapt, we will win.
Ironically, had they not fought for states’ rights to enable slavery, the states might have maintained significantly more autonomy.
Kinda like how the Nazis we're all about Crusading against Bolshevism but their war resulted in half of Europe becoming socialist.
KDAs don't win wars, logistics and supplies win wars. If you're running out of bullets and food, then your side lost. You don't get to declare the first total war and then complain about all the nonmilitary reasons you lost.
gamer historians who can't play the FUCKING objective
You probably guessed as much, but this just straight up isn't true. Going by the National Park Service's numbers:
The 642,427 total Union casualties have been divided accordingly:
110,100 killed in battle
224,580 diseases
275,174 wounded in action
30,192 prisoners of warThe 483,026 total Confederate casualties have been divided accordingly:
94,000 killed in battle
164,000 diseases
194,026 wounded in action
31,000 prisoners of warBoth sides suffering 2/3s of their total deaths from disease :yea:
So the Union lost about 10% more in battle and suffered about 30% more wounded, which is fairly typical as they were on the offensive for most of the war which favors the defender. The Union also lost more troops to disease, which is also expected given that they recruited far more men to the army, but if you do the math you'll find that a given individual was more likely to die of disease in the Confederate army.
tl;dr: don't learn history from memes.
That was the overland campaign aka when they started really winning. Before that was mostly anaconda plans and conventional attempts to take virginia.
even if this wasn't some weird confederate fetish fan fic, they still lost. this would make the south losing even more embarrassing.
It's ironic that the Union army is one of the few historical examples from the last 200 years of something resembling "human wave tactics" since Grant was apparently content to just toss soldiers into the meat grinder until it jammed.
Honestly, the civil war didn't have any really excellent generals. People jerk off Lee since he was one of the better ones, but 90% of civil war battles were just meat grinders without a major victor.
If you ignore all the things that led to their defeat they actually did pretty well
It's basically also about Korea if you want it to be and decide it is about Korea
An actual historian explaining the Panzer IV was a revolutionary, the Tiger tank was so superior it could destroy Shermans from 2km away, the Bismarck literally destroyed the Hood with 1 shell, the German blitzkrieg of Poland was the biggest military achievement of the war and only they only surrendered after their leader committed suicide.
ah yes, the famous Confederate surrender at Bennett Place was due to lack of ammunition and not Sherman's march to the sea and subsequent carolinas campaign lol
