A hammer and a sack against a submarine?

6 Replies
John Black
11 July, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

A hammer and a sack against a submarine?


Do you think the loss of troops is the end? Captain, during World War I, sailors left without the support of submarines used crazy tactics. Late at night, a smith and a few artillerists would get on a raft to carry out a cunning plan… Once they noticed a periscope, they would quietly get close to it and wrap a bag around it or simply smash it with a hammer thus rendering the submarine ‘‘blind’’. The submarine would then be forced to rise to the surface, where the artillerists were waiting for it.


Do you think losing troops is a big deal for a true warrior?


UTC +3:00
0
Aavon Strendtberg
12 July, 2016, 1:38 AM UTC
Sometime casualties are needed to defeat enemy..... it is the "war law" I would say....
UTC +0:00
0
Omar Smith
13 July, 2016, 1:08 AM UTC
Sacrifice is necessary but this is not to be mistaken for suicude
This is Commander Smith of AREA 597. You are now in the custody of the most lethal F.O.B. on Zandian soil. Refusal to cooperate will be met with the appropriate level of force. You don't have the right to remain silent.
UTC +4:00
0
Gul Vega
16 July, 2016, 2:44 PM UTC

John Black said:

A hammer and a sack against a submarine?



A Submarine? I love Submarines! Where is the "The Syndicate" nuclear submarines naval base ?  Zandia Republic has access to the sea ?  Absolutely give me a topographic map of east repubblic of Zandia!
"Glory to the Bomb and his Divine destructive Cloud"
UTC +0:00
1
Omar Smith
19 July, 2016, 12:36 AM UTC
I don't think subs will be effective since most of the actions is on land. Would be interesting.
This is Commander Smith of AREA 597. You are now in the custody of the most lethal F.O.B. on Zandian soil. Refusal to cooperate will be met with the appropriate level of force. You don't have the right to remain silent.
UTC +4:00
1
Raging Bro
28 August, 2016, 3:33 AM UTC

Yes it is a big deal, The viking warriors had no fear of death due to their belief that in death they would be welcomed into Valhalla if they died in battle. Japanese kamikaze is aligned with the ancient samurai tradition of loyalty and honour until death called the bushido code where death was better than defeat or capture. In the second world war the japanese used aerial Kamikaze pilots to crash explosive laden aircraft into American ships, and this was said to have come about when Japanese pilots earlier in the war were known to voluntarily sacrifice their lives during battle completely autonomously without command from the higher imperial order.


 Later these pilots became known as thunder gods, but as japan came under increasing pressure due a weakening economy and because of  the inferior japanese aircrafts compared to the americans superior air force and with defeat in sight  the imperial command began to pressure and force pilots to become kamikazes, this resulted in some pilots launching strafing attacks on their their own headquarters in defiance of being forced to become kamikazes.The unpopular imperial order was not sufficient for the japanese to win the war as ultimately they lost, but as we know this was mostly due to the intervention of a nuclear attack by the USA. 


Was the forced kamikaze missions a futile last attempt to force regular soldier to sacrifice their lives a futile gesture in the eyes of defeat?  


Could the japanese have gone on to win had it not been for the advanced invention of the atomic bomb created by the  technological race to produce an atomic bomb before the nazis did?


A true warrior knows his life is a big deal and will willingingly sacrifice it , but normal men are better to use their intelligence to outwit their enemy rather than splatter their brains on hard steel in a forced attempt to delay eventual defeat. 

Selfridges for style you can afford
UTC +7:00
0
Blank
30 August, 2016, 10:59 PM UTC
NO, every war has it's casualties
UTC +2:00
1
1775969 users registered; 47844 topics; 285670 posts; our newest member:zhenyamaryanin91