TrustMe

I remember reading a book about a potential invasion of Taiwan and a lot of the target beaches have a very long length of sandy land before they hit the roads. All these long beaches means no cover and the Chinese would take massive casualities in the open terrain.

I just thought that each character of the 3 main actors were all disgusting to each other, to the point were I stopped watching. There was nothing in it that was nice. It wasn't because of the homosexual scenes.

It's worh watching if it's on a streaming subscription you have, but I must warn you it ends on a cliff hanger. It wil be contiued in Dune part 3.

Thanks for that. As for Zandaya I semi-watched her film about tennis rivals called Challengers. It was so disgusting I stopped half way through.

Have you ever read the books Stuart? for both films a lot of it was cut from the book to make both the 1984 and 2019 versions of dune. To give some back story to the 1984 film. The directo,r David Lynch, so disliked his product that he refused to allow his name to be associated with it. Instead the name Alan Smith was used as a pseudonym. The 1984 film bombed at the box office because of it.

Theres a hard edge to Zendaya's acting which to me is a big turn off.

David Lynch has died. I He did a lot of weird movies and TV programs including which Twin Peaks was my favourite. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly9vymjexvo

If nothing else I guess it's good training for raids against Iran.

Their F16I's. I wonder how far they can go before aerial refueling?

I agree there would be no winners in a nuclear war as the whole of the northern hemisphere would be irradiated. But the Soviet armed forces doctrine was to be prepared to fight in one. It was one of the reasons (not the main one but still) why the army was so heavily mechanized for maxinium mobility to move around before it was pinned in place and targeted for a tactical nuke strike.

I wasn't thinking in terms of WW2 but as a methodology in the later stages of the Union such as in the 1980's. From what I understand, if in a WW3 situation, the Soviets divisions would advance and in high intensity conflict sustain massive casualties for only a few days. Then, they would replaced in the front lines by a fresh divsion and repeated until either it won, stalemate or lost. Another thing to remember was the category A divisions wouldn't have a full personnel strength but would have a full equipment strength and which would require some time to assemble personnel. Thus alerting NATO of a planned attack. Of course it could attack at a moments notice but it wouldn't be fully manned. They were to be only fully manned if a general mobilization was ordered, altering NATO. EDIT Sorry, I didn't explain that used up divisions that attacked when used up would be sent to the rear. But wouldn't be reinforced with new personnel. It's highly likely that nukes would be flying at this point rendering the whole world dead and nothing to fight over.

I think the change is because of NATO advisors telling Ukraine what to do. Fun fact but during Operation Desert Storm the US used a similar approach to the Soviet practice. I don't know what became of it though.

Creating new brifades was standard Soviet practice which Ukraine inherited from the old Soviet military.

Nearly finished Shogun https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2788316/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1_tt_6_nm_1_in_0_q_shogun Started really good but then became a bit repetitive and a number of episodes could of been left out as nothing happens.

IMHO it's all vapourware.