Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Not ymmv
Deleted line(s) 4 (click to see context) :
* CreatorsFavorite: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed when the Soviets launch their assault there (Two U.S. Brigades were deliberately placed in NORTHAG in the early 80's to shore up the defences). He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a WorthyOpponent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
* HilariousInHindsight: Like most things that dealt with political and military subjects published between 1988-1992, a lot of the foundations of the book were rendered naught by TheGreatPoliticsMessUp. It does serve as an interesting scenario depicting what a grounded war would look like if the Soviets played their cards right however.
to:
* HilariousInHindsight: Like most things that dealt with political and military subjects published between 1988-1992, a lot of the foundations of the book were rendered naught by TheGreatPoliticsMessUp.the Soviet collapse. It does serve as an interesting scenario depicting what a grounded war would look like if the Soviets played their cards right however.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
* CreatorsFavorite: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed when the Soviets launch their assault there. He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a WorthyOpponent.
to:
* CreatorsFavorite: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed when the Soviets launch their assault there.there (Two U.S. Brigades were deliberately placed in NORTHAG in the early 80's to shore up the defences). He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a WorthyOpponent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4,5 (click to see context) from:
* HilariousInHindsight: Like most things that dealt with political and military subjects published between 1988-1992, a lot of the foundations of the book were rendered naught by TheGreatPoliticsMessUp. It does serve as an interesting scenario depicting what a grounded war would look like if the Soviets played their cards right however.
* CreatorsFavorite: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed when the Soviets launch their assault there. He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a WorthyOpponent.
* CreatorsFavorite: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed when the Soviets launch their assault there. He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a WorthyOpponent.
to:
* HilariousInHindsight: Like most things that dealt with political and military subjects published between 1988-1992, a lot of the foundations of the book were rendered naught by TheGreatPoliticsMessUp. It does serve as an interesting scenario depicting what a grounded war would look like if the Soviets played their cards right however.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
* HilariousInHindsight: Like most things that dealt with political and military subjects published between 1988-1992, a lot of the foundations of the book were rendered naught by TheGreatPoliticsMessUp. It does serve as an interesting scenario depicting what a grounded war would look like if the Soviets played their cards right however.
to:
* HilariousInHindsight: Like most things that dealt with political and military subjects published between 1988-1992, a lot of the foundations of the book were rendered naught by TheGreatPoliticsMessUp. It does serve as an interesting scenario depicting what a grounded war would look like if the Soviets played their cards right however.however.
* CreatorsFavorite: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed when the Soviets launch their assault there. He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a WorthyOpponent.
* CreatorsFavorite: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed when the Soviets launch their assault there. He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a WorthyOpponent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* HilariousInHindsight: Like most things that dealt with political and military subjects published between 1988-1992, a lot of the foundations of the book were rendered naught by TheGreatPoliticsMessUp.
to:
* BrokenBase:
** It's long debated as to whether the book's depiction of a Soviet military victory is as realistic as the book intends it to be and that's all that needs to be said.
** Whether the book is antipatriotic in more pro-American circles is another thing. On one hand, some have accused the book of being too pessimistic about America while fawning over Soviet capabilities, while supporters and Peters himself argue that the book is pro American on the grounds that it's meant to serve as a warning to brush up on NATO's tactics lest the Moscow overrun the west. Peters subsequent career after the book is similarly open, but critical, support of the United States.
* HilariousInHindsight: Like most things that dealt with political and military subjects published between 1988-1992, a lot of the foundations of the book were rendered naught by TheGreatPoliticsMessUp. It does serve as an interesting scenario depicting what a grounded war would look like if the Soviets played their cards right however.
** It's long debated as to whether the book's depiction of a Soviet military victory is as realistic as the book intends it to be and that's all that needs to be said.
** Whether the book is antipatriotic in more pro-American circles is another thing. On one hand, some have accused the book of being too pessimistic about America while fawning over Soviet capabilities, while supporters and Peters himself argue that the book is pro American on the grounds that it's meant to serve as a warning to brush up on NATO's tactics lest the Moscow overrun the west. Peters subsequent career after the book is similarly open, but critical, support of the United States.
* HilariousInHindsight: Like most things that dealt with political and military subjects published between 1988-1992, a lot of the foundations of the book were rendered naught by TheGreatPoliticsMessUp. It does serve as an interesting scenario depicting what a grounded war would look like if the Soviets played their cards right however.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Requires more than one side.
Deleted line(s) 1 (click to see context) :
* BrokenBase: The Soviet POV at the end of the Cold War aside, the book was accused of overhyping Soviet capabilities, while the author and fans of the book accuse other American World War III books of doing the same for NATO. Talks about the quality of Soviet tech in the book are also divisive given the Gulf War Coalition's ability to obliterate Iraq's Soviet exports, while counterpoints involve the notion that standard and non-export quality Soviet material would have lasted against harsher punishments as detailed in the books.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Requires they be hated by fans for it.
Deleted line(s) 1 (click to see context) :
* [[CreatorsPet Authors Pet ]]: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed when the Soviets launch their assault there. He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a WorthyOpponent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* [[CreatorsPet Authors Pet ]]: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed when the Soviets launch their assault there. He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a WorthyOpponent.
to:
* [[CreatorsPet Authors Pet ]]: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed when the Soviets launch their assault there. He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a WorthyOpponent.WorthyOpponent.
* BrokenBase: The Soviet POV at the end of the Cold War aside, the book was accused of overhyping Soviet capabilities, while the author and fans of the book accuse other American World War III books of doing the same for NATO. Talks about the quality of Soviet tech in the book are also divisive given the Gulf War Coalition's ability to obliterate Iraq's Soviet exports, while counterpoints involve the notion that standard and non-export quality Soviet material would have lasted against harsher punishments as detailed in the books.
* HilariousInHindsight: Like most things that dealt with political and military subjects published between 1988-1992, a lot of the foundations of the book were rendered naught by TheGreatPoliticsMessUp.
* BrokenBase: The Soviet POV at the end of the Cold War aside, the book was accused of overhyping Soviet capabilities, while the author and fans of the book accuse other American World War III books of doing the same for NATO. Talks about the quality of Soviet tech in the book are also divisive given the Gulf War Coalition's ability to obliterate Iraq's Soviet exports, while counterpoints involve the notion that standard and non-export quality Soviet material would have lasted against harsher punishments as detailed in the books.
* HilariousInHindsight: Like most things that dealt with political and military subjects published between 1988-1992, a lot of the foundations of the book were rendered naught by TheGreatPoliticsMessUp.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* CreatorsPet: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed whern the soviets launch their assault there. He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a Worthy opponent.
to:
* CreatorsPet: [[CreatorsPet Authors Pet ]]: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed whern when the soviets Soviets launch their assault there. He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a Worthy opponent.WorthyOpponent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*CreatorsPet: The U.S Forces come off like this. The author deliberately removes all US forces from NORTHAG, so they would not be destroyed whern the soviets launch their assault there. He alludes to them destroying all opposition in their area of operations and consistently reminds us that the Soviets think of them as a Worthy opponent.
