It would be great if we learned our lessons from this and were able to redirect much of our incomprehensibly high military budget into schools, healthcare and infrastructure. Unfortunately the military-industrial complex will find other ways to spend the money.
The F-35 is a plane that has cost billions and is worse in combat than any of its contemporaries. In fact, it's worse than any production aircraft in the history of the US air forces, and that includes some truly terrible places like the Brewster Buffalo, the P-39 Airacobra, the F102 Delta Dagger and the Vought F7U.
Those World War II era piston-powered-engine aircraft were workhorses. The reliability factor depended mostly on the reliability of the engine. You really can’t compare them with the computerized fighter jets of today.
one day, remind to tell you about the completely insane experience of my dad on his first mission in the 8th Air Force, during which a bomb remained undropped and had to be defused on the way back to Wymondham. he had learned to navigate a B-17 but suddenly was confronted with a B-s4 in which he was also bombardier, but had never had ANY bombardier training. the previous bombardier gave him twenty minutes of pointers and he was off...landing back at base with an undropped bomb, as they hit the landing field, the bomb fell out of the plane and bounced down the tarmac. his CO, Jimmy Stewart, had come to meet the plane, but hightailed it outta there very quickly when that bomb hit the field. the following week, on leave in London, having lunch at the Cafe Crown, my dad was regaled with a story about the "damned idiots" involved in the incident (an early example of things "going viral") and the inexcusability of the bombardier committing such a fuck-up. my father said a few words in defense of these nameless "idiots" and beat it out of there as fast as he could. since this was his first mission and a perfect SNAFU, he decided not to identify himself as that idiot and, while appropriately frightened on the next 31 missions, was considered to be the calmest guy on his crew. and I guess no "reminders" are necessary, since I've managed to tell the more-or-less complete, quick-and-dirty version....
I talked to two different bombaders who had an experience of a bomb hanging in the bay. There was a pair of bolt cutters in the tool kit that they used to cut the cables when this happened.
The bombs were loaded unfused and then the bombardier would go back and screw the fuses into them after the plane was airborne.
After 1943, the bombadier position was streamlined to become a togglier, a forward gunner who threw a switch on signal from the lead.
They began to realize that the idea of precision bombing was a fantasy and that the norden bomb site could not put a bomb into a pickle barrel from 20,000 ft. Often it could not put a bomb within a half mile of the chosen target.
There are several videos on YouTube that show bombardier training, but unfortunately almost everybody who was an officer in that war is no longer living.
I was fortunate to interview several survivors who were captains in lieutenants in the early parts of the war before the stunning reality of how dangerous bombing Germany was had been driven home by the disastrous Schweinfurt raids.
By 1944 we were just dropping bombs to destroy places, precision be damned. This started in 1943 over Hamburg with Operation Gomorrah, a round the clock attack with British bombers dropping fire bombs at night in Americans dropping high explosive during the day. The city was pretty much destroyed. The same technique was used to destroy Dresden year or so later.
among the people my dad flew with (I don't think he got to England until early '43), it was widely accepted that the worst raid they experienced was Ploesti, which he described as "a bloodbath" in which he lost his best friend.
Yeah. The B-24 was nowhere near as durable as the B-17, even though it had a lot of great things about it. In 1988 I was living in Tucson when a B-17 and a B-24 flew in and landed near the Pima Air Museum. The Fort had quite a little crowd around it, mostly old guys who'd flown in them during the war. The Liberator had very few fans that day. I head it described as "the crate the B-17 came in."
that'd be really, really cool. my father would have LOVED the idea...I kept telling him to write it somehow (he was also a writer who published about fifteen YA biographies, as well as being a major administrator at CCNY for 33 years). I once had a DVD of him telling the whole story during one of his every-two-year reunions with whatever part of his crew was still around; obviously, the group's size thinned out as time went on until one day he wasn't. on the DVD, telling the story, my father began to cry, which was really spooky for me. if I can mange to find the DVD (not necessarily a sure thing among the thousands of books, CD's and god knows what else I have piled up here. but if I can't find it, I know it pretty well...possibly we could talk. but I'm very eager to do this....
This is excellent. I write aviation-oriented historical fiction so I always love learning new things about WW2 aircraft (all aircraft, actually). Is it true that the Mustang was a dog until they ditched the Allison for a Rolls Royce Merlin? I did hear that the P-39 suffered from altitude sickness, but that the 30mm cannon was a monster (used by the Soviets as a tank killer). There was a line in a song "Don't give me a P-39. The engine is mounted behind. She'll choke and she'll spin and she'll auger you in, so don't give me a P-39." They also had a line about the P-38.
I agree about the Buffalo, though Saburo Sakai talked about chewing through them in the early days of the war. He learned to respect the F4F and (through a catastrophic error) the TBD. I recall reading that Chenault used the P-40 to devastating effect when he played to its strengths.
But there were dogs that were killed after only a few months, like Republic's P-43 Lancer (the budget Thunderbolt) and the B-18 Bolo. Hartmann shot down a whole lot of transports, too.
I'd be interested in reading your work. Happy to share mine with you as well.
Excellent! I will check out your work. Drop me a line if you're at all interested in reading a novel about a B-17 bombardier in WW2. I'm still scouting an agent and haven't self-published it, but I have free kindle and mobi versions of it if you're interested. I'd appreciate a knowledgeable reader, to be honest.
I read an article about the P-47's enormous cost being a factor in the relatively low rate of deployment. That and the B-26 are my favorite WW2 planes.
Percentage of GDP used for defense spending has declined nearly thirty-four percent in the last 14 years, and most economists predict increased cuts. NO other world power (the world needs them) has made such decisive cuts while remaining dominant on the battlefield.
Ask Congress what it has done with the surplus. Better yet, ask our executive branch to develop better strategies and policies so that force and forever wars don’t become self-fulfilling prophecies.
You just pulled a bait-and-switch, a logical error. You asked for less, and the US government gave you less. Now you want something different. Is it that we stop spending on defense? Again, I ask, why don't you ask COngress what they've done with the surplus.
I am quite familiar with current trends and with the overall ranking of the US wrt defense spending. But I have a perspective that there is a lower limit. And there are consequences for which you might not care when such someone engineers such a cut in defense.
SO which is it? How much, what programs or systems, and what consequences (peer-state hegemony, invasions, cross-border attacks of smaller neighbors) are you willing to accept? How will you face the people of the next country invaded by a larger thug bent on domination?
I'm not going to argue with you any longer. You have your opinion shaped by your years and paychecks from the military-industrial complex. I have mine shaped by a more special operations background. I believe there is a better way. Good luck to you.
And just to pile on- you're right. In absolute US$, we are the highest amount of spending on defence. As a percentage, we are but 45% of the top spender's GDP expenditures on "defence". In fact, we are behind Saudi Arabia (8.4%), Israel (5.6%), and Russia (!) (4.4%) in that regard.
So for the sake of your perspective, whom would you rather see in that "top" position? China? Russia? India? How does their percentage compare, and how do you feel about that? What is an acceptable amount to you, and what would you do to reduce military spending on unwinnable systems (sic)?
It'd be wonderful if small hand-held munitions made modern warfare (sic) obsolete. If that happens, there will still be those who wish to dominate others. They will spend whatever it takes to do that. Humans are dangerous. Some are wolves, and most are sheep.
Michael, I served everyone in America, including you. I was simply a field-grade officer doing my Duty. Would I like it if I'd not had a Duty at the frontiers staring at the Russians, and then the Iraqis, et al? Certainly. Did I like it that I didn't get to stay home with my newborn son rather than be in Europe for the night when the Wall came down? Not one damn bit: we had no ideas about Russian and GSFG intentions, only their presumed capabilities and their histories of oppression. Duty. Not complex.
But the real world is one step away from anarchy you cannot pretend doesn't' exist. Do I disagree with some military budgeting issues? Damn straight. But (again) Congress are the ones who really determine the budget (such as providing the USAF with aircraft it doesn't want, just for an example). Someone will always be the top spender of GDP, especially that someone (the US Currently) patrols all the free world's waters to ensure freedom of navigation, and especially of we are going to be prepared. Canada and Mexico won't invade us anytime soon, despite posturing by politicians and extremists, so I think we have to focus further afield.
If you expect to live inside an echo-chamber, and that everyone will agree with your opinions or perspectives, you've got another thing coming in the real world. I don't give a damn about your background, only your ability to form a cogent argument and to stand for it. If you cannot do that, ignore me all you wish. It's not personal, I assure you,
Ukraine is a graveyard for invasions, especially invasions that are telegraphed. Why would anyone invade another country? Before nationalism: maybe. But now that nations have become established, now that people identify as members of a nation with specified territory, no nation of people wants to be invaded. Once invaded, a nation will do everything in its power to repel that incursion.
Does anyone just take over their neighbors property without permission? Do you just go in and confiscate your next-door neighbors front yard or backyard? Do you just seize one of the rooms in your neighbor’s house?
In Vietnam, the “Vietnam War“ is called the American war. The Vietnamese will always be there. The Americans would ultimately have to leave. Same in Afghanistan. The Russians and the Americans both had to learn that lesson, and considering that the Russians had already learned it, you have to think the Americans are pretty stupid for not taking heed of that history lesson, especially since almost all the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and since Bin Laden was eventually located in Pakistan.
I'm trying to apply your theory to the U.S.: "now that people identify as members of a nation with specified territory . . ." USians seem to identify as members of (at least) two different nations occupying the same territory. Members of one nation seem to believe that they're being invaded by the other. Would we come together if we were invaded, say by extraterrestrials? I've got my doubts.
Do you ever realize what a thrill it is to read columns like this? The detail and the writing style is marvelous. I save all your columns. This war will be remembered for the inhumane and indefensible destruction of apartment houses, schools and hospitals. Russia's complete failure to just hit Zelensky and government buildings shows they wanted to brutalize the population. Russia should be made to pay for reconstruction, but they wont. The world will hate Russia for a very long time.
Great analysis. Now let us hope if Putin decides to continue his folly we are providing the Ukrainians as many of these as they can use against an occupying army. Also, IMHO we need to be supplying the Ukrainians with more surface to surface short range missile systems or precision guided artillery weapons to counter the massed artillery the Russians are using to bombard cities. Make these massed concentrations of artillery look like some of the tank hulks we now see. And, in the process let Russian soldiers manning these units know the fear they have been so far immune from. Their morale is cracking; let's help more of them wish they were back home with Svetlana and the kids.
I am so pleased to have Lucian’s excellent analysis of this Russian invasion. Considering the amount of space this war is taking up in my mind, considering how monumentally significant this war happens to be on the world scene, Lucian’s work is an absolute gift right now.
Excellent analysis and explanation! I hope those Pentagon planners conclude that asymmetric warfare is a dangerous trap. The Ukrainians haven't even had to break out the IEDs yet.
This must be the nightmare scenario for Putin. Unsustainable losses, no wins to brag about, and the only thing that's "working" is shelling innocent civilians. I fervently hope he stands in The Hague one day soon and is convicted of crimes against humanity.
Lucian: I think you are spot on! The "New" battlefields are and will be much different, sooner than later. Cyber in combination with drones, digital, and Special OPS---highly trained small deadly units---will prevail almost as an international "Police Force" instead of traditional military combat units. Professional guerrilla tactics will probably be normal. Big aircraft carriers, jets, tanks, et al, will become obsolete except as power projections. The "Old" world as far as military is concerned, is nearing its end as the Ukraine demonstrates. You are correct. Right now our entire self-defense as a nation, culture and society is wrapped up in our strategic weapons---ICBMs, nuclear submarines, etc etc. Again, I agree... we are reaching the end of conventional warfare and sooner or later we're going to have to learn to live together ...or die together as one.
The other amazing weapon in use by Russia is AK rifles. The Russians murder civilians fleeing in cars -or by foot - and then going through their corpses for money and jewelry. They have also been accurately accused of robbing homes as well as ATM Machines. So, murder is a weapon useful to the Army of lowlife scum from Russia. Great article for sure!
Great article. I was thinking this same thing when I first saw the successful kills by these guided weapons. I figured all their tanks would have to be destroyed before they changed tactics. The Soviet-era tanks with the explosive armor fare worse than the Grant and Lee tanks did in North Africa, it seems.
The tank was DaVinci's invention, sloped armor and all. When they were introduced to combat in 1916, they changed warfare for the next century. Germany's famous last offensive of the second world war relied on the terror of tanks that attacked while the weather grounded the mighty allied air forces, but once the skies cleared it was all over. A tank cannot fight a P-47 or B-26 attacking it from above.
It's interesting how the generals are always taken aback by what seems obvious in retrospective. Ira Eaker believed fervently in the wholly unproven theory of pinpoint strategic bombing, relying on what he thought was an unstoppable technology of the heavy bomber equipped with the Norden bombsight. The principal heavy bomber was the B-17 "Flying Fortress" (a PR evasion, since a fortress is wholly defensive and these were attack weapons) which was armed with ten Browning M2 .50 caliber machine guns. Thing was, none of these weapons faced forward. There was a ball turret in the belly and top turret; both could rotate 360 degrees, but the idea of a frontal assault from a pursuit plane was considered impossible by all the brass in Washington from Arnold on down. There was just no way that a fighter pilot could rush head-on toward a plane flying 300 miles per hour at 20,000 feet.
Of course what happened was the German pilots did exactly that, attacking from the front and using their long range .20mm cannon to rip these planes up like dog food cans on a fence. It took designers more than a yard to include a chin turret on the B-17, but by then the need for long-range fighter escort had been proven by multiple raids with 60% casualties and the bomber's ability to defend itself was less important.
The concept of strategic bombing was out the window by then as well, gone the way of rationalization by the likes of Arthur Harris (he called the nighttime firebombing of civilian populations "de-housing," remarking that "if the Germans can't sleep at night then they can't very well work in the morning," or something to that effect). By 1945, there was no longer an attempt to even try this, and wholesale war crimes murder of civilians became the standard practice (It was an easy jump: they just declared that there were no civilians in Japan or North Korea and left it at that.)
As you predicted, Russia has fallen back on the Zhukov technique of flattening everything with artillery and then sending in a poorly trained rabble of peasant soldiers to loot, rape, and kill everything and everyone.
If you can’t come up with the paltry $5 a month for this material, you shouldn’t even be reading it unless you warrant a payment exemption. Substack should be providing an adjustable firewall that gives the author the option of allowing a visitor (unsubscribed reader) a defined number of articles, maybe a selection of specific articles, and no more.
It would be great if we learned our lessons from this and were able to redirect much of our incomprehensibly high military budget into schools, healthcare and infrastructure. Unfortunately the military-industrial complex will find other ways to spend the money.
The F-35 is a plane that has cost billions and is worse in combat than any of its contemporaries. In fact, it's worse than any production aircraft in the history of the US air forces, and that includes some truly terrible places like the Brewster Buffalo, the P-39 Airacobra, the F102 Delta Dagger and the Vought F7U.
Those World War II era piston-powered-engine aircraft were workhorses. The reliability factor depended mostly on the reliability of the engine. You really can’t compare them with the computerized fighter jets of today.
one day, remind to tell you about the completely insane experience of my dad on his first mission in the 8th Air Force, during which a bomb remained undropped and had to be defused on the way back to Wymondham. he had learned to navigate a B-17 but suddenly was confronted with a B-s4 in which he was also bombardier, but had never had ANY bombardier training. the previous bombardier gave him twenty minutes of pointers and he was off...landing back at base with an undropped bomb, as they hit the landing field, the bomb fell out of the plane and bounced down the tarmac. his CO, Jimmy Stewart, had come to meet the plane, but hightailed it outta there very quickly when that bomb hit the field. the following week, on leave in London, having lunch at the Cafe Crown, my dad was regaled with a story about the "damned idiots" involved in the incident (an early example of things "going viral") and the inexcusability of the bombardier committing such a fuck-up. my father said a few words in defense of these nameless "idiots" and beat it out of there as fast as he could. since this was his first mission and a perfect SNAFU, he decided not to identify himself as that idiot and, while appropriately frightened on the next 31 missions, was considered to be the calmest guy on his crew. and I guess no "reminders" are necessary, since I've managed to tell the more-or-less complete, quick-and-dirty version....
I talked to two different bombaders who had an experience of a bomb hanging in the bay. There was a pair of bolt cutters in the tool kit that they used to cut the cables when this happened.
The bombs were loaded unfused and then the bombardier would go back and screw the fuses into them after the plane was airborne.
After 1943, the bombadier position was streamlined to become a togglier, a forward gunner who threw a switch on signal from the lead.
They began to realize that the idea of precision bombing was a fantasy and that the norden bomb site could not put a bomb into a pickle barrel from 20,000 ft. Often it could not put a bomb within a half mile of the chosen target.
There are several videos on YouTube that show bombardier training, but unfortunately almost everybody who was an officer in that war is no longer living.
I was fortunate to interview several survivors who were captains in lieutenants in the early parts of the war before the stunning reality of how dangerous bombing Germany was had been driven home by the disastrous Schweinfurt raids.
By 1944 we were just dropping bombs to destroy places, precision be damned. This started in 1943 over Hamburg with Operation Gomorrah, a round the clock attack with British bombers dropping fire bombs at night in Americans dropping high explosive during the day. The city was pretty much destroyed. The same technique was used to destroy Dresden year or so later.
among the people my dad flew with (I don't think he got to England until early '43), it was widely accepted that the worst raid they experienced was Ploesti, which he described as "a bloodbath" in which he lost his best friend.
Yeah. The B-24 was nowhere near as durable as the B-17, even though it had a lot of great things about it. In 1988 I was living in Tucson when a B-17 and a B-24 flew in and landed near the Pima Air Museum. The Fort had quite a little crowd around it, mostly old guys who'd flown in them during the war. The Liberator had very few fans that day. I head it described as "the crate the B-17 came in."
that'd be really, really cool. my father would have LOVED the idea...I kept telling him to write it somehow (he was also a writer who published about fifteen YA biographies, as well as being a major administrator at CCNY for 33 years). I once had a DVD of him telling the whole story during one of his every-two-year reunions with whatever part of his crew was still around; obviously, the group's size thinned out as time went on until one day he wasn't. on the DVD, telling the story, my father began to cry, which was really spooky for me. if I can mange to find the DVD (not necessarily a sure thing among the thousands of books, CD's and god knows what else I have piled up here. but if I can't find it, I know it pretty well...possibly we could talk. but I'm very eager to do this....
This is excellent. I write aviation-oriented historical fiction so I always love learning new things about WW2 aircraft (all aircraft, actually). Is it true that the Mustang was a dog until they ditched the Allison for a Rolls Royce Merlin? I did hear that the P-39 suffered from altitude sickness, but that the 30mm cannon was a monster (used by the Soviets as a tank killer). There was a line in a song "Don't give me a P-39. The engine is mounted behind. She'll choke and she'll spin and she'll auger you in, so don't give me a P-39." They also had a line about the P-38.
I agree about the Buffalo, though Saburo Sakai talked about chewing through them in the early days of the war. He learned to respect the F4F and (through a catastrophic error) the TBD. I recall reading that Chenault used the P-40 to devastating effect when he played to its strengths.
But there were dogs that were killed after only a few months, like Republic's P-43 Lancer (the budget Thunderbolt) and the B-18 Bolo. Hartmann shot down a whole lot of transports, too.
I'd be interested in reading your work. Happy to share mine with you as well.
Excellent! I will check out your work. Drop me a line if you're at all interested in reading a novel about a B-17 bombardier in WW2. I'm still scouting an agent and haven't self-published it, but I have free kindle and mobi versions of it if you're interested. I'd appreciate a knowledgeable reader, to be honest.
I read an article about the P-47's enormous cost being a factor in the relatively low rate of deployment. That and the B-26 are my favorite WW2 planes.
💙
Percentage of GDP used for defense spending has declined nearly thirty-four percent in the last 14 years, and most economists predict increased cuts. NO other world power (the world needs them) has made such decisive cuts while remaining dominant on the battlefield.
Ask Congress what it has done with the surplus. Better yet, ask our executive branch to develop better strategies and policies so that force and forever wars don’t become self-fulfilling prophecies.
You’re asking the wrong question.
You sir, are making the wrong argument. While it was higher in Reagan years, it hasn't consistently declined. It's still a huge amount compared to our GDP and should e significantly less. For other readers, please first look at this - https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget
then this - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/defense-spending-by-country
We could cut our defense spending in half or even to a third and still outspend other countries.
MIchael-
You just pulled a bait-and-switch, a logical error. You asked for less, and the US government gave you less. Now you want something different. Is it that we stop spending on defense? Again, I ask, why don't you ask COngress what they've done with the surplus.
I am quite familiar with current trends and with the overall ranking of the US wrt defense spending. But I have a perspective that there is a lower limit. And there are consequences for which you might not care when such someone engineers such a cut in defense.
SO which is it? How much, what programs or systems, and what consequences (peer-state hegemony, invasions, cross-border attacks of smaller neighbors) are you willing to accept? How will you face the people of the next country invaded by a larger thug bent on domination?
Ted,
I'm not going to argue with you any longer. You have your opinion shaped by your years and paychecks from the military-industrial complex. I have mine shaped by a more special operations background. I believe there is a better way. Good luck to you.
And just to pile on- you're right. In absolute US$, we are the highest amount of spending on defence. As a percentage, we are but 45% of the top spender's GDP expenditures on "defence". In fact, we are behind Saudi Arabia (8.4%), Israel (5.6%), and Russia (!) (4.4%) in that regard.
So for the sake of your perspective, whom would you rather see in that "top" position? China? Russia? India? How does their percentage compare, and how do you feel about that? What is an acceptable amount to you, and what would you do to reduce military spending on unwinnable systems (sic)?
It'd be wonderful if small hand-held munitions made modern warfare (sic) obsolete. If that happens, there will still be those who wish to dominate others. They will spend whatever it takes to do that. Humans are dangerous. Some are wolves, and most are sheep.
Duty- that most sublime of words.....
LOLZ-
Michael, I served everyone in America, including you. I was simply a field-grade officer doing my Duty. Would I like it if I'd not had a Duty at the frontiers staring at the Russians, and then the Iraqis, et al? Certainly. Did I like it that I didn't get to stay home with my newborn son rather than be in Europe for the night when the Wall came down? Not one damn bit: we had no ideas about Russian and GSFG intentions, only their presumed capabilities and their histories of oppression. Duty. Not complex.
But the real world is one step away from anarchy you cannot pretend doesn't' exist. Do I disagree with some military budgeting issues? Damn straight. But (again) Congress are the ones who really determine the budget (such as providing the USAF with aircraft it doesn't want, just for an example). Someone will always be the top spender of GDP, especially that someone (the US Currently) patrols all the free world's waters to ensure freedom of navigation, and especially of we are going to be prepared. Canada and Mexico won't invade us anytime soon, despite posturing by politicians and extremists, so I think we have to focus further afield.
If you expect to live inside an echo-chamber, and that everyone will agree with your opinions or perspectives, you've got another thing coming in the real world. I don't give a damn about your background, only your ability to form a cogent argument and to stand for it. If you cannot do that, ignore me all you wish. It's not personal, I assure you,
Ukraine is a graveyard for invasions, especially invasions that are telegraphed. Why would anyone invade another country? Before nationalism: maybe. But now that nations have become established, now that people identify as members of a nation with specified territory, no nation of people wants to be invaded. Once invaded, a nation will do everything in its power to repel that incursion.
Does anyone just take over their neighbors property without permission? Do you just go in and confiscate your next-door neighbors front yard or backyard? Do you just seize one of the rooms in your neighbor’s house?
In Vietnam, the “Vietnam War“ is called the American war. The Vietnamese will always be there. The Americans would ultimately have to leave. Same in Afghanistan. The Russians and the Americans both had to learn that lesson, and considering that the Russians had already learned it, you have to think the Americans are pretty stupid for not taking heed of that history lesson, especially since almost all the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and since Bin Laden was eventually located in Pakistan.
Way too many "American Wars."
Way too many men making these deadly decisions!
Yes. McNamara, Nixon, Putin, what’s the difference.
I'm trying to apply your theory to the U.S.: "now that people identify as members of a nation with specified territory . . ." USians seem to identify as members of (at least) two different nations occupying the same territory. Members of one nation seem to believe that they're being invaded by the other. Would we come together if we were invaded, say by extraterrestrials? I've got my doubts.
The crazies on the right would deem it fake news.
Do you ever realize what a thrill it is to read columns like this? The detail and the writing style is marvelous. I save all your columns. This war will be remembered for the inhumane and indefensible destruction of apartment houses, schools and hospitals. Russia's complete failure to just hit Zelensky and government buildings shows they wanted to brutalize the population. Russia should be made to pay for reconstruction, but they wont. The world will hate Russia for a very long time.
The world will hate Russia for a very long time.
Great analysis. Now let us hope if Putin decides to continue his folly we are providing the Ukrainians as many of these as they can use against an occupying army. Also, IMHO we need to be supplying the Ukrainians with more surface to surface short range missile systems or precision guided artillery weapons to counter the massed artillery the Russians are using to bombard cities. Make these massed concentrations of artillery look like some of the tank hulks we now see. And, in the process let Russian soldiers manning these units know the fear they have been so far immune from. Their morale is cracking; let's help more of them wish they were back home with Svetlana and the kids.
I am so pleased to have Lucian’s excellent analysis of this Russian invasion. Considering the amount of space this war is taking up in my mind, considering how monumentally significant this war happens to be on the world scene, Lucian’s work is an absolute gift right now.
If it weren't for you and TC, I would've never had the opportunity to get to know Lucian, so thank you both!
You’re welcome Marlene! TC turned me on to Lucian, so ultimately TC gets all the credit 🏆
US navy take notice. Are aircraft carriers vulnerable sitting ducks to the latest generation of silkworm and Exocet missiles? Or cruise missiles?
If we get into a shooting war with China, we'll find out very quickly.
They can launch enough regular ol' missiles to overwhelm defenses by sheer numbers, I'd think. An ICBM would be the icing.
Oh, my mistake. This is another type of "ballistic" missile you refer to.
For a non-military person (that would be me), this is extremely helpful! Thank you!
Likewise 🙏
Me, too. Lucian's writings make me sound really smart when I talk to guys.
:)
Absolutely fascinating, Lucian!
Sadly for Russia, Ukraine didn’t agree to do tank battles.
Excellent analysis and explanation! I hope those Pentagon planners conclude that asymmetric warfare is a dangerous trap. The Ukrainians haven't even had to break out the IEDs yet.
This must be the nightmare scenario for Putin. Unsustainable losses, no wins to brag about, and the only thing that's "working" is shelling innocent civilians. I fervently hope he stands in The Hague one day soon and is convicted of crimes against humanity.
Bravo! As usual.
Lucian: I think you are spot on! The "New" battlefields are and will be much different, sooner than later. Cyber in combination with drones, digital, and Special OPS---highly trained small deadly units---will prevail almost as an international "Police Force" instead of traditional military combat units. Professional guerrilla tactics will probably be normal. Big aircraft carriers, jets, tanks, et al, will become obsolete except as power projections. The "Old" world as far as military is concerned, is nearing its end as the Ukraine demonstrates. You are correct. Right now our entire self-defense as a nation, culture and society is wrapped up in our strategic weapons---ICBMs, nuclear submarines, etc etc. Again, I agree... we are reaching the end of conventional warfare and sooner or later we're going to have to learn to live together ...or die together as one.
Day in and day out - The finest reporting on this war. I see a Pulitzer.
The other amazing weapon in use by Russia is AK rifles. The Russians murder civilians fleeing in cars -or by foot - and then going through their corpses for money and jewelry. They have also been accurately accused of robbing homes as well as ATM Machines. So, murder is a weapon useful to the Army of lowlife scum from Russia. Great article for sure!
Leadership inspires the lower ranks. A diehard criminal at the top inspires the underlings to new depths of behavior
Great article. I was thinking this same thing when I first saw the successful kills by these guided weapons. I figured all their tanks would have to be destroyed before they changed tactics. The Soviet-era tanks with the explosive armor fare worse than the Grant and Lee tanks did in North Africa, it seems.
The tank was DaVinci's invention, sloped armor and all. When they were introduced to combat in 1916, they changed warfare for the next century. Germany's famous last offensive of the second world war relied on the terror of tanks that attacked while the weather grounded the mighty allied air forces, but once the skies cleared it was all over. A tank cannot fight a P-47 or B-26 attacking it from above.
It's interesting how the generals are always taken aback by what seems obvious in retrospective. Ira Eaker believed fervently in the wholly unproven theory of pinpoint strategic bombing, relying on what he thought was an unstoppable technology of the heavy bomber equipped with the Norden bombsight. The principal heavy bomber was the B-17 "Flying Fortress" (a PR evasion, since a fortress is wholly defensive and these were attack weapons) which was armed with ten Browning M2 .50 caliber machine guns. Thing was, none of these weapons faced forward. There was a ball turret in the belly and top turret; both could rotate 360 degrees, but the idea of a frontal assault from a pursuit plane was considered impossible by all the brass in Washington from Arnold on down. There was just no way that a fighter pilot could rush head-on toward a plane flying 300 miles per hour at 20,000 feet.
Of course what happened was the German pilots did exactly that, attacking from the front and using their long range .20mm cannon to rip these planes up like dog food cans on a fence. It took designers more than a yard to include a chin turret on the B-17, but by then the need for long-range fighter escort had been proven by multiple raids with 60% casualties and the bomber's ability to defend itself was less important.
The concept of strategic bombing was out the window by then as well, gone the way of rationalization by the likes of Arthur Harris (he called the nighttime firebombing of civilian populations "de-housing," remarking that "if the Germans can't sleep at night then they can't very well work in the morning," or something to that effect). By 1945, there was no longer an attempt to even try this, and wholesale war crimes murder of civilians became the standard practice (It was an easy jump: they just declared that there were no civilians in Japan or North Korea and left it at that.)
As you predicted, Russia has fallen back on the Zhukov technique of flattening everything with artillery and then sending in a poorly trained rabble of peasant soldiers to loot, rape, and kill everything and everyone.
If you can’t come up with the paltry $5 a month for this material, you shouldn’t even be reading it unless you warrant a payment exemption. Substack should be providing an adjustable firewall that gives the author the option of allowing a visitor (unsubscribed reader) a defined number of articles, maybe a selection of specific articles, and no more.