Thread 64400715

So historicaly how did armies with lower range options deal with those that had longer range?

>>64400715 (OP)
historically most wars were fought at close range

>>64400715 (OP)
historically, they just waited for them to get bored and leave even further away

>>64400715 (OP)
With massive range differences like British vs Zulu the Zulu were slaughtered, with shorter range differences you either dig in, push a rapid advance or infiltrate to hit the long range weapons systems or their logi.

>>64400715 (OP)
Vietnamese employed what they call "grab them by the belt", meaning they'd generally try to sneak up as close as possible to the Americans before engaging to make calling in air support more difficult.
>>64400729
CRASSUS! THEY ARE NOT RUNNING OUT OF ARROWS!

>>64400715 (OP)
Get closer

>>64400715 (OP)
>chechens vs russians
They died. The chechens killed a lot of russians in small ambushes and raids. Then they got encircled and it was over for them. The russians CQB'd them with 240mm mortars.

The historical answer was that tanks were the hard counter to dumb artillery. But that age is almost half a century past. Today you SEAD or you bleed.

>>64400805
>russian fanfiction
russia lost the 1st chechen war, and only won the 2nd by bribing one of the warlords to betray the others and paying him tribute to this day

>>64400715 (OP)
They got closer. What kind of stupid question is this?

>>64400805
>tanks were the hard counter t
How well would space marines work against artillery since they can ran pretty fast for long, have heavier armor than an ifv but sill caj use cover like infantry

are all frogposters just GPT bots prompted to ask retarded questions?