Couldn't the US of done this to show its strength without having massive casualties?

I know that in ww2 there were several factors playing on the battlefield: supplies, crew skills, air cover, quantity of armoured vehicles and At guns, coordinations of units, etc.. but did someone analyzed a bit of statistics to find out which type of design was more effective to eliminate the enemy armoured units? I mean statistics not based on test trials, but actual numbers after frontline battles or something like this.

PS: thanks for your time and if a similar question was already asked, could you help me to find it?

I'm reading An Edible History of Humanity by Tom Standage for a World History course and noticed something interesting in a passage about Christopher Columbus:

The problem was that his calculations looked fishy, particularly since they relied on evidence from Marco Polo, whose book describing his travels was widely regarded as a work of fiction.

I want to know more about the extent of this belief. Was The Travels of Marco Polo considered a exaggerated version of a true story (the closest analogy I can think of is Journey to the West, as that was based off a true event, albeit with a godlike monkey) or was it more folklore/legend like Sinbad?

For instance, I doubt that World War II was referred to as WW2 during its course, or that the 100 years war was known as the 100 years war while it was still going on. Were they just referred to as "The War", which I can't really see since I imagine that would get confusing really fast when multiple wars are ongoing, did they have boring names like "War of German aggression" or something along those lines?

With the 20th anniversary of Operation Storm a few days ago, I'd like to ask a few questions related to the war and life during it.

1. Was there any tourism in Croatia during the war? I've found one reference to the tourist industry in Istria during it, but what about areas such as near Split?

2. Did the JNA have any intention of conquering Croatia as a whole, or was their aim specifically to secure strategic interests such as the RSK and some other areas such as Konavle and Prevlaka?

3. In general, how was life for Croatians living in places far away from the front lines? I'm aware of the general attacks on Zagreb and so on, but for instance - would someone living near the Slovenian border have a normal life?

4. Were Croatians free to travel (for instance, to Slovenia and onwards to Austria or to Italy) during the war, or did they require visas?

Thank you for any help with this!

I had a look in the "Book List" tab and could not find what I was looking for.

Especially what happened to the Tasmanian aboriginal people, who were killed on mass. Paul Keating in the Redfern Park speech acknowledged the killings and rapes, and cultural destruction, and Madley (2008) states that what happened fits the UN definition of genocide. Yet there isn't even a Wikipedia page to discuss it (as there is for other controversial genocides), nor is it heavily discussed. What is the reason for this?

Madley, B. (2008) From Terror to Genocide: Britain's Tasmanian Penal Colony and Australia's History Wars, Journal of British Studies, 47, no. 1: 77-106.

More specifically how did these groups refer to their own architecture in their native languages? Are there any primary sources suspect, as many new world documents can be, or not that reference how these or later groups referred to their architecture?

From what I understand boys were accurate at a longer range than muskets were, how then did muskets overtake bows as the primary weapon of war if they were less effective?

I understand that Canada was far less developed than the 13 Colonies as of the 1770's, and that the American Revolution led to a massive influx of United Empire Loyalists into what's now Canada. However, there were already quite a few English (and historically-French) communities under British control which didn't become part of the USA.

To what extent did the rebellion reach the now-Canadian parts of British North America? Did the inhabitants completely decline to join the revolution? If so, what factors caused these communities to react differently from the ones that rebelled?

Edit: Asking out of curiosity. I'm a Canadian with no North American ancestry reaching that far back, living in an area near the border in which there was a lot of Loyalist immigration.

Simply question really. All of the Japanese swords I have seen or heard of have a tsuba, or some variation of disc guard. Disc guards have always struck me as offering very limited hand protection, especially on a two-handed sword, so why didn't Japanese swords evolve beyond the tsuba? Was there any real advantage or reason behind the use of disc guard's, or did Japanese swordsmiths just never come up with anything better?

Do we know how these wars were waged, went, were settled? Before europe came and started colonizing I'm pretty sure there were conflicts between tribes but to be perfectly honest (even being a decently big history buff) I've never explored the subject.

How did they fight each other, what did they fight over? Did tribal affinity even really matter on a grander scale?

Did most of them survive? Is there any accounts of what they would do once the hatch to let the soldiers out was lowered? Did they go back or stay until the beaches were clear?

I remember recently reading that 'colonial' forces made up to a third of soldiers in the BEF during the first WW. Is this accurate, and/or were they appreciated as front line forces or chai boys?

Having tried to research this online and found little but wildly contrary opinion, i'd be very interested to hear any Reddit opinions.

Many thanks.