@Ryuksgelus:
The original objective was just to make sure Ace's execution went through. Killing WB was a bonus but was obviously essential since he would have destroyed their Island with Ace gone. Luffy is com
I thought it was fairly obvious that the Marines geared for full on war with the Whitebeard pirates, not just executing Ace.
If not why even bother to lure Whitebeard in. Or prepare all those traps and plots to kill the fuckers. Or all those pacifistas to deal with them.
Thats bullshit. Its been said multiple times pirates don't actively attack the WG.
So as long as they dont attack the military directly they should be allowed to do fuck all with the rest of the population?
Without the Head(WB) all these pirates just go back to being regular strong pirates partying in the new world.
Yeah i'm sure that that's all they will do, it's not like it's their philosophy is kill whoever hurts their crew mates right?
That only happens in situations where one side is cut off from relief and still be pestered by the enemy. If the option to regroup, resupply, and help your soldiers exists then any reasonble commander would take it.
I dont see anyone ever stopping when they're so close to victory even if they're taking losses.
Like i said if they were being pushed back, or Sengoku and Garps front was breached then they'd probably fall back and re-group. But when they are still holding on without problems and their own men have excellent morale, numerical superiority and are clearly fighting a headless mob then there is no chance any sane commander would miss that opportunity.
No competant commander would ever drag out a battle they've already won. Especially when another battle with a less than clear outcome is being fought on another front.
They havent won the battle tho, that's the point.
They've won the first round and have the upperhand and want to strike while the iron is hot. Now if they wanted to after this battle was over, to directly oh i dont know go fuck with Shanks that would be something a sane commander wouldnt do.
Baseless assumption in a world with cyborgs, magical fruits, and superhumans who survive gunshots, stabwounds, and explosions all the time.
If we wanna argue it that way then why the heck does it matter if they lay there for another hour. They've still got cyborgs and magic. I mean jesus christ it's medical science not magic. The logistics of moving all those bodies of the field in the middle of a war coupled with the hours of transporting them to the hospital even if it was through the whirpool would most likely leave the majority of them dead.
I'd like to know what books on military strategy you're reading. Never in the history of man would an army pursue a defeated enemy when they are being threatened elsewhere and allow casualties to rise.
Napoleon, Charles XII, and Peter the great are generaly those i rely on when i'm talking about field battles.
They arent defeated, they're weakend. And yes there are plenty of cases where commanders stubbornly goes after a weaker enemy in order to squash them once and for all. For instance when Charles XII was under a three pronged attacked from Denmark, Poland, and Russia he first dealt with the weakest link Denmark, leaving all his other territories to the troops stationed there while making sure that he crushed the Danes totaly so that when he went to deal with the other mightier armies he would have his back totaly free.
Crushing the headless rabble before they can reform to a potent army again is the right call, even if your other flank has to fight a hard battle. That is of course if you have faith in your other flank, which the Marines have.
Mimising casualties is one of the biggest priorities in any army. Honestly you're hating on Coby when its Oda's words that are perfectly grounded in reality.
The field battles of that era were little more than slaughtering shows. Where people marshed forward knowing that they will most likely be crushed my incoming enemy artillery or gunned down long before they actualy got a chance to fire of one bullet.
And while they obviously think that the fewer soldiers we lose the better you'd better not start thinking that they put the lives of the troops that fall into the acceptable losses category ahead of the mission. Nor do we do that today.
Where did you get a third is alright? Sacrifices are worth it when the opposing outcome is much worse. U.S. dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to avoid invading Japan and prolonging the war because the invasion would have resulted in far more casualties. Here pursuing can only lead to more casualties and its purely because of a potential threat. Coby opinion is the option
When the potential threat is someone everyone there knows is going to change history then i'd say it's worth it.
And i got that exact figure from this book.
http://www.firehouse.com/node/171465
"During military battles, field commanders are prepared to accept the loss of up to 33% of their troops during combat."
And honestly based on what i've read history wise i thought it was a low estimate, But i'll take their word on it.
Despite this being a shounen where the theme is always elders having their ways corrected by the younger generation? Despite the fact that we know its not going to go their way because its all based on the assumption that Teach is someone they can handle without much issue?
If they cant then they'll call for help, and Akainu, Aokiji and Kizaru would come running.
He even has Akainu and Teach on the same page to show how their acting exactly alike in their hunger to destroy the enemy. The marines are running of a battlehigh.
Which is bad why?