Even though the US military is significantly weaker with less ammo, WAY more bloodied in the region and in a worse position in just about every way than they were the first time, surely Iran will collapse this time

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DornerStan@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It can even be boiled down further to do what wins and that's still insightful because most of us are running around doing what feels right or whatever lol

I have to regularly ask myself is this actually going to achieve the outcome I want? And sometimes the answer is no and I still do it anyway

[–] spudnik@hexbear.net 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Chester Nimitz version of "Is the proposed operation likely to succeed? What might the consequences of failure? Is it in the realm of practicability in terms of material and supplies?" is another really funny, super obvious sounding piece of advice

[–] fox@hexbear.net 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It specifically took a genius to point out that putting armor on bullet damage of returning planes was dumb, because the planes could keep flying with that damage, and you'd need to put armor where there were no bullet holes at all

[–] KobaCumTribute@hexbear.net 13 points 4 days ago

That one's a myth. The various mathematicians credited with it were members of the team that collected and collated the stats in the first place and there's no record of the data being misunderstood in the manner the funny anecdote presents it. The famous diagram associated with it is also not from their report and isn't the right kind of plane.