Just to clarify, in the last bit are you saying that I could go to a certain point in space, but then when I tried to return there, it'd be a different point, because even though the space coordinates of the location might remain the same, the fourth coordinate (representing the time dimension) has changed (so I go to 5363,6363,2652,8727, then to 5363,6363,2652,8842)?
The Battle of the Bulge was a failure thanks to both technology and strategy in a way.
The Nazis made a huge mistake by pulling forces away from the Eastern front to face the Western allies at the Bulge. All that did was slow down the West while allowing the Russian army to advance faster. Considering the feelings of the Russians towards the Germans after what the Nazis did to Russia -Antony Beevor's Berlin goes into detail on just how terrible the Red revenge was on both the soldiers and civilians of Germany's capital city- along with the facts that the Russian army was much bigger and more formidable than the armies of the West, and that it was lead by Zhukov, arguably one of the greatest military leaders in history, if not the greatest leader of any nation during the war, Hitler's strategy of pulling men from the eastern front to face the West was, in a word, idiotic.
One of the reasons the Nazis lost the Battle of the Bulge was that their tanks ran out of fuel. German tank numbers were greatly reduced not due to the superior strategy of the Americans, but by a failure of logistics and supply. (This is also a major reason why the Japanese were forced back in the battle for Australia - when it came to the Battle of Milne Bay, they had advanced too fast for their supplies to keep up.) In short, when the Americans turned the tide of the battle, they had tanks, the Germans did not (besides, perhaps, a pitiful number). When two armies are facing each other on the ground, one with tanks, the other without, the former army has the advantage.
As the Vietnam war (along with Napoleon's occupation of Spain, and the Nazi occupation of France), a superior force can lose battles and numbers to guerrilla tactics. Indeed, conventional warfare on the ground, even with superior numbers and firepower, can be quite ineffective against the unconventional tactics used by the guerrillas; however history has so far failed to show an example of how guerrilla warfare can be sustained for long without support from either a supply line (as in Vietnam) or another military presence (as in the Peninsular War), or how such strategies can win a war when the only way to win is to invade and conquer the enemy's country, even if that country is right next door and accessible by land. The Spanish guerrillas gave Napoleon a bloody nose, but it was the conventional armies of the British et al who marched into France to Toulouse, and it was the conventional armies of Russia that marched into Paris in 1813.
Had the Northern army of Vietnam had to invade America to win that war, and if the domestic situation in America (caused as much by the way American soldiers were representing themselves, what with war crimes and all, as by how well their enemies were fighting) hadn't caused American politicians to have to pull the troops out, the Vietnamese war would have been long, bloody, but ultimately futile for America's opponents.