If the vulnerability of Pearl Harbor to carrier attack was identified, it would make more sense to increase defenses than abandon it as a major naval base.
This is wildly incorrect. The Navy had been steadily expanding Pearl Harbor since 1910. It’s too valuable a natural harbor and to well positioned for force projection to not be a major naval base.
I’m not sure when it comes to political careers, but Tukhachevsky surviving could have some serious butterflies regarding the Soviet military leading into WW2.
This move is one of the first made by Not!Bomber Harris in They Shall Reap the Whirlwind.
Generally historians agree this would have been the right move given the Stirlings were kinda garbage at actually bombing Germany. They wouldn’t have even needed to sink that many actual u-boats. Just...
My only criticism is of the Soviets nuking Guangzhou. Wouldn’t its proximity to Hong Kong, then still a British territory, be considered provocative to the US and NATO? Fallout from nuking Guangzhou has a good chance of killing people in British territory.
One of the best timelines on this site is based on this scenario:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-giant-sucking-sound-a-president-perot-tl.208277/
Would the scenario Bruder Gegen Bruder from Wargame: European Escalation or the scenario from Regiments count as “Germany starting WW3”?
In both cases, it’s a local conflict between East and WestGermany that rapidly spirals.
The real solution for the debacle with the Zumwalt class and the AGS would be to simply have the government produce the shells at a government owned arsenal at cost.
From what I understand, the FAL beat the M14 in basically every category of testing, but Springfield was able to claim that the M14 would be incredibly cheap to produce because it was highly parts compatible with the M1 Garand and could reuse most of the tooling. But that was a lie. It had...