From my own experience with hardware and real life in general, I imagine they probably had some equipment who they already knew was not working 100% and it was the only one to detect such missiles. I can’t imagine any other reason why they wouldn’t report it without risk of being labeled a traitor afterwards.
This is pretty close to Petrov's account of his reasoning, plus that the early warning system only showed four or five missiles inbound and he expected a hypothetical American first strike to be way bigger
If you have a handful of tanks, your enemy has to spend a lot of effort on getting rocket launchers. Not just buying them, but also the logistics strain to get them to the frontline.
And if you notice the enemy forgot to bring their launchers, you can deploy your tanks, and exploit their mistake.
Mass tank assaults are over. But using them as an integrated part of a force still makes sense to me.
I am no fan of US interventions, but I find it interesting that apparently the US Navy had left the red sea for a while, but the Iranian marine seemed to be emboldened by the absence of US ships and started harassing commercial ships, prompting the US Navy to send a presence back into the red sea.
They kinda feel out of place because with sufficient context you realize they’re the result of some of the most inhumane conditions human beings can endure and are being shamed for taking an extremist position when the only alternative is to lay down and die. Kinda rough.
Nah, “if D-Day failed” implies everything up to that point being unchanged save for bad planning, in that scenario the Soviets would have had the war materials the US had been sending them and which they had turned the invasion around using by that point.
You’d need to have failed landings along the Mediterranean as well before we get to the point where the Nazi commanders who didn’t have their heads up their own asses last estimated they could turn the momentum back against the Soviets, and at that point the question isn’t if Germany could win, it’s how far Stalin would be willing to go to take the initiative back again, because the earth is a globe, and if needed, the US and Canada could have deployed their troops into the Soviet Union to mount a reinforcement operation while the UK doubled down on supplying asymmetric resistance against the Nazis, and now we’re dealing with what Japan’s role as an acting defense against such a maneuver would be or if they’d even be willing to mount a defensive operation against such a troop movement purely for Germany’s benefit.
Then again we’ve gone so far down the rabbit hole now that we’ve run into the fact that the US would probably have deployed the bomb since Germany was their intended target in the first place anyways, so does Japan just fold seeing that the US can make nukes now after Berlin becomes a glass floor?
WWII is just so all over the damn place that any point falling the other direction spirals half a million what ifs, none of which end up being answered really well in alt-hist media purely because people just have a really hard time picturing all the angles of attack in a war that truly encompasses the whole world in scope.
Dragunov: disrespected. PKM: also disrespected. Skorpion: most disrespected on this unhappy day.
For real, infantry training is way more valuable than any particular weapon gimmick as long as it is “good enough”. The Soviets figured out qd optics crazy early, but it’s not like every grunt was issued an AKMN and taught to use a magnified optic.
I dont think so. Because of Nukes I think the threshold for foreign countries to declare for either side is going to be much higher, ie a direct strike on their own soil. So at most they get nuked back by whichever big boy they thought they could take.
noncredibledefense
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.