Friday, December 18, 2009

War becomes deep







The Photos are of Big Bertha (German gun that smashed the Belgian Forts), the French 510mm Gun, two captured German Rail Road Guns (actually from WWII), a Canadian 16 Inch Super Heavy Gun, and two photos of US Navy 14 Inch Guns.

This is the next part on artillery evolution. I have hit on some lessons learned by both sides in the First World War. Mostly doctrine which is really important for being able to effectively use your artillery (or any military equipment). Both the Central and Allied blocks learned various lessons and adapted a great deal. Be it the impacts of improved survey methods, the effects of weather, planning, the benefits of centralized control versus much to decentralized control (key point here to be addressed later), and one item that doesn't actually get much attention due to it being somewhat of a flash in the pan. For a short time it was VERY important, but was shut out by another technological advance, the airplane.

This item is heavy artillery. I am not talking 155mm guns or howitzers which were division heavy artillery back then. I am talking the MONSTER guns, the railguns, the dismounted naval guns and mortars, the Paris Guns, the Big Berthas, the US 14 inch Battleship guns that were put on huge rail cars. For about 3 years these guns were at the level of cruise missiles in importance and level of control (i.e. they were controlled and received targeting orders from Army level or higher, not a division FA HQ). In about 1918 though, newer bombers began to replace them.

The reason I am discussing these monsters (aside from the fact that they are incredibly cool) is that they added the element of DEPTH to the modern battlefield. WWI changed many definitions, tactical and strategic being two. What was considered the realm of tactical changed considerably with the advent of a howitzer or cannon that was able to shoot out of visual range accurately. With the new 75mm gun (and its like), the tactical battlefield was now no longer just what you could see in front, right and left. It now included what was way in front of you (out to about 6 or 7 kms) and BEHIND you (the enemy can also do unto you). Think of the questions this added to the mix. How can you move troops and supplies safely? Can you store your ammo and food without it being blown up? Can you have your reserves close at hand (and risk them being blown up before you can use them?) or do you keep them farther back (and risk them not getting up in time or being seen and then blown up on the march in). Depth also impacts time, because if you start spreading out and back to avoid the artillery, you now have to factor in more delays and time spent moving things around or time spent digging stuff in so its safe.

No one had really given this a whole lot of thought prior to WWI so tactically speaking it was a bit of a mess as everyone fumbled around figuring out what was up and how to make changes. Eventually they did and what you got was a type of defense in depth to offset the artillery (you had your main defenses back so artillery couldn't see it to be accurate, or was out of range).

Enter the BIG GUNS. The Germans actually had the first big, mobile, monster guns and they were used to reduce Liege and various forts in Belgium. They were slow moving, but the fact that they could be moved at all was amazing. The Belgians had built their forts with the idea that their own big emplaced guns could out range anything the Germans could bring up (155mm being the biggest) and were emplaced in so much concrete that what guns the Germans did get there would be ineffective. The Germans had two designs (one a straight up cannon, the other a howitzer) which were able to smash the forts flat. After the first year, everyone began to use the big guns for something else.

The monster guns were first real operational or strategic (the term operational and the level of command really came into existence in WWI, but not in a formal sense so both terms work for this) weapons that were really hands on for ground combatant commanders. The huge range of these weapons (20 plus miles, some as far as 26 miles) allowed commanders to hit targets well beyond the front lines. But the big guns were slow to load, hard to move (usually took several dozen train trips to move one), and there were never that many. So you couldn't just use them on any target that happened along, you had to do targeting. In today's Army, targeting is a matter of course. It is simply deciding what you must hit and how you hit it, and what order the targets go in. Targeting has moved from just artillery to general concepts like "targeting the enemy's morale, or the support of the local population", but in WWI it was artillery only. You have x number of big guns, you have y targets (usually more than you have assets to hit with), so who gets hit first, with how much, with what endstate (i.e. are we trying to destroy, neutralize or suppress the target?). This was a critical development in artillery doctrine, and it moved from big guns down to all guns eventually (took about 2 years to be standard practice for all countries involved).

Since you were going for the biggest bang for your limited buck, the big guns came under the control of Army level command who were looking at the big picture. A Corps sized ammo dump is obviously going to be a bigger loss than a company of Machine Gun Troops so the Army FA commanders would work off of the Army (or Corps on occasion) plan and angle the monster guns to hit operational/strategic targets deep in the enemy rear that would effect more than just a narrow front. The rear areas became more dangerous and the actual battlefield became much more two dimensional with depth becoming a major factor. Where the tactical issues of moving troops and supplies and digging them in and time involved had been impacted, it was now an army level problem. Its tough enough when you are only worried about a regiment, how do you space out and protect 5 division worth of troops and all the support requirements? How do you fix roads and rails for all of that? Hide and dig in the supplies? Where do you keep your replacements and reserves? How about your Army and Corps level HQs? You can't go left or right, you have to go back. Space required by armies increased massively. To use a WWII example, when the Germans Blitzkrieged into France 1940, the armored thrust was in three echelons. One on the border, one going back to the Rhine River and the final one was on the other side of the Rhine in Central Germany.

Now for the funny part. In order for these monsters to be used effectively, map firing was used. But intel on exact locations was needed for proper targeting. Since recon units could get through the lines, observation aircraft were used to photograph positions. Using the new survey and map firing techniques, the monster guns then could hit the targets. But over time the planes got better and someone figured out that rather than use the big guns you could use bombers instead. Which then led to even deeper missions and eventually to true 3D warfare. You could make more bombers and bombs for the money than the big guns and hit targets further out, so the big guns were replaced during the 1920s and 1930s by more modern aircraft. The last of the Allied monster guns were in the Coastal Artillery units and those were abolished in 1946 (the Coastal Artillery became instead the Anti-Aircraft Artillery). None of the Allies used the big monsters in WWII (other than the coastal defense guns in certain areas, mostly against the Japanese), but the Germans certainly did.

Which is another funny part. The monsters spawned the idea of depth, the targeting process, the concepts of operational/strategic level weapons used by combatant commanders, and some more monster guns (such as the 420mm gun the Germans built in WWII). The three key concepts (depth, targeting, and operational/strategic weapons) were picked up by the Allies (especially the US) who ran with them like a bat out of hell. The Germans, who actually started the mobile big gun ideas and had concurrent developement of the same ideas, ended up ignoring the three good ideas and instead focused on the dead end idea of making bigger guns.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

And some more






Due to size restrictions I had to add these separately. One historical note: The one about the Sullivan Brothers is a true story. 5 brothers enlisted in the US Navy and all 5 were on the same ship (USS Juno). All five were KIA in 1943 when their ship went down. Also included is a picture of a radical "tea party member" attempting to disrupt a meeting with his Congressman (yes I am joking, but not so much).

Old Posters






Here are some old posters from WWII sent to me by a friend of my uncle. I love these posters and the history behind them. I especially like the Political Incorrectness behind them. Sorry, but if someone is trying to kill me, or flies a plane into a building full of civilians I don't have an issue with calling them a bad name. These posters come from a time when we actually had a real "US" versus "THEM" mentality, and we called our enemies the "Bad Guys" and had no problems doing that (I still don't have any issues with that). But we won't ever see posters like this again as the CAIR or ACLU or some other "Progressive" group would sue the pants off of the person who made it.

Some of these are motivational (buy bonds, work hard), some are requests (enlist), some are to remind us to be careful (OPSEC, or not blabbering about important info), some are to remind us of why we fight (which is something I think we need to have today).

Friday, December 11, 2009

Books: Fighting Divisions and The Bear Went Over The Mountain

I keep meaning to put up book reviews as I finish off books, but I usually end up forgeting or deciding that they are too job related to be of interest (or just to goofy to admit to reading).

I have just finished up several books and I am going to hit on several. For all Sci-Fi lovers out there read The Use Of Weapons. Its part of a, hurm, grouping of books (not exactly a series, but the same background, situation and culture) about "The Culture" who is trying by fair means or foul to get and keep mankind on the right track. I won't get into more as this book was a middle one and I am not entirely sure I have the whole background down yet. Works great as a stand alone novel, but more to it if you read the others.

The two I will hit on are history books. First off is "Fighting Divisions". A quick read, and not exactly a deep read either. Written in 1945/6, this book gives a VERY short history of each US Army (no Marines) Division in WWII. Every Armored, Cavalry, Infantry, and Airborne Division has a short 2 or 3 page history covering its war record. Not something for someone looking for lots of info, but a great "taste" of what they did that could make you want to read more. I liked the fact that this book usually included at least one interesting "Division Lore" story that may or may not have really happened (or at least not the exact way it was finally remembered), such as the division who hacked into the German National Phone system and tried to place a collect call to Hitler's Bunker (they captured a phone exchange intact and for a short time had control of all phone routing in Central Germany). The history also hit on famous high points in the division (invasions, its biggest fights, airborne drops, etc). It was also a great historical peek into how Politically Incorrect things were back then (and I find that to be greatly refreshing). You could definately get the feeling that the guys who wrote it didn't like the enemy and had no problems saying it or bad things about them and the media didn't care. On the downside this book was very short on what it could say about each division (it appears that there was a page limit) so the history was limited. It also tended to gloss over bad fights or problems. I know of several units that did not have great records or had big problems but they are certainly not addressed in this book. And I also thought some things were skipped that should not have been. Using my granddad's unit, the 79th Infantry Division, as an example, they did not mention any of its fighting on the West Wall or the Rhine River Crossing. These two items were probably the most important and the biggest fights they had and not a word (they did talk about Cherbourg though, which would be the third major fight). But not a bad read overall.

The other book was "The Bear Went Over The Mountain". This book was a complilation of short After Action Reviews (AARs) by Soviet Officers on actual small unit fights in the Soviet-Afghan War in 1979-1988. These officer wrote up short AARs (about 4 pages long with a map) and the Soviet Red Army CGSC (the Frunze Academy) analyized them and added some "you could have done this, you should have done this" commentary. The American who translated it added his own commentary for the "the US would have done this" point of view. Great Book. If you want to get a feel for how war in Afghanistan got fought, this book will give you a pretty good idea and give you some ideas of what we are up against. It is a snapshot in time so not all lessons apply now. I used this book for my Officer Professional Development Classes we have once a week. Each LT gets to do a report and brief us on what happened and what could have been done better. The book is not long, but its not a quick read for military folks. You will find yourself re-reading stuff, and doing a lot of thinking. The biggest thing I got from this book is how different the Soviet/Russian Army's mentality was from ours. Things that I consider absolute must haves for a true professional army were not (and still are not) found in the SOviet Military. And those absolutes are ironclad, this is not a question of "different cultures do it differently so keep an open mind".

What I got from this book: a Professional NCO (Sergeants) Corps is a MUST for a truely professional army, patterns kill and humans are creatures of habit and pattern, mechanized forces don't belong in Afghanistan, even small units of specialized troops are worth their weight in gold (Cold Weather/Arctic, Mountain, Air Assault), stupid insurgents get killed quick so after a couple years you are only fighting the smart survivors, you MUST have trained Forward Observers for you artillery to work and you need to have it work, you must work the native population to have any chance of winning, you must practice all actions you may have to use (react to ambush, etc.), you must know how to coordinate air support, and lastly RECON, RECON, RECON your area ALWAYS (if you don't have enough men to be able to send out patrols, you need to leave the area).

I won't get into how well the US Army is following these lessons (we are definately doing better at this than the Soviets did, no doubt), but you will get a real good idea on how different our militaries are by reading this book. I can honestly say we are much better at working with population than the Soviets ever were. Several of the AARs openly talked about executing prisoners, mistreatment of prisoners and civilians and complete disregard for any civilians on the battlefield. If the US military did even one of these events, it would be bigger than Abu Girabi. And it appears to be just about standard practice for the Soviets. But I digress. Excellent book for people wanting to understand the tactical fight and why the Soviets lost in Afghanistan.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Cracks Appearing

If you haven't read about this yet, you need to.

Give North Koreans A Chance - Forbes.com

BLUF: The Norks (North Koreans) have just instituted a currency exchange to fight inflation. You turn in something like 1000 Won (Korean Equivalent of a dollar) to get one new Won. However, there is a distinct limit as to how much you can turn in, something like 20000 Won personal cash, and then 50000 for a savings/bank account. This totally screwed lots of North Korean civilians, especially those who were dealing with the pseudo-free market places opened several years ago to offset the famine that was hitting NK (again). Well, it turns out that the markets worked really well and lots of folks were starting to make some money and get a leg up. This even pushed into the Communist Party pukes as they were taking bribes hand over fist.

But these limitations on currency trade ins actually sparked something that has NEVER happened in NK before: actual protests. Not the big campus ones the US had in the 60s or the street riots in Iran, but in the marketplaces. Lots of people were actually putting up anti-government graffiti, handing out anti-government leaflets and the big one, buring old money publically rather than turn it in.

FYI: that is a federal offense in North Korea due to the fact that it has the pictures of the Ill Jung family (the original jackass and the current $%^&tard). Defacing pictures of the great leaders is considered treason and you face up to life in prison for doing it. And LOTS of people are doing it, including lots of party officals, police and security forces (who stand to lose lots of money off of bribes and taxes).

Maybe, just maybe, this is finally the beginning of the end for the Norks and the final Stalinist regime will go down and we will get yet another example of how Communism is a flat out failure. But then again, maybe the current jackass will keep in power, shoot the people protesting, and then launch a missile in order to get more food and fuel from the West while promising to stop his nuke program. I hate to hope (Hope is not a method after all), but still it is nice to dream about what could be.

One Thing I Like About Fort Sill and Lawton

Around here they just say "Merry Christmas" instead of Happy Holidays. Meaning of Christmas once you boil it down is "Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Men (aka humanity)". If you get insulted by that, you need help or a slap upside the head.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Speech

I have had several questions from various people about President Obama's speech at West Point and what I thought of it.

First off, I missed it. I was in an online class for ILE Phase IV (CGSC for the older generation) during it so I missed a lot of it. I read a bunch about it afterwards (including that idiotic comment about West Point being an "Enemy Camp") so I have the general idea.

Short and sweet of it is I really don't have much to say about it. I wasn't really surprised by anything he said or any of the reactions (too much or not enough depending on who you listened to). It was about what I was expecting.

I have my own personal option about his decisions, the length of time it took him to reach them, and about his delivery. But they are just that, personal. As a serving officer I don't feel that I need to be spouting off about them on a public forum. I'll talk privately about them if you want to call me. The only thing I will say is that publicly stating a pull out time is not the most militarily intelligent thing to do, but it may have been a smart thing politically. And the big thing to remember is that the government drives the train. The military has gotten orders to do things that are not good military sense before due to political situations (the US Civil War has numerous examples of this and many of them make much more interesting points than anything from Vietnam). Its not always nice, but that is an accepted part of being a US Soldier.

That may sound a bit odd, but its a good thing that we accept it (and we can always quit if we don't like it or can't accept it) becuase if we didn't deal with it that way the US would go the way of the Roman Republic. If the army back then felt like it was getting a raw deal they didn't soldier on, they marched across the Rubicon.

The other thing I will say is about that asinine comment about West Point being an enemy camp. If President Bush had gone to Berkley, would the crowd have stood up when he walked in, listened quietly and politely, and then politely applauded when he left? Yeah, thought so. It doesn't matter who the President is, we soldiers serve the US. We chose to, so that means that we go "yes sir" and carry out orders even if we DIDN'T vote for the guy in the White House (unless he decides to violate the Constitution, but that is another story). Enemy Camp? We are the greatest supporters of this country bar none. That comment was huge insult to every servicemember out there.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Global Warming takes a hit.

If you have missed it, check out the story here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

And you might very well have missed it if you just follow the regular media. The BBC and Reuters both have not run anything on this since the story broke. Neither has MSNBC, and the NY Times has refused to publish anything from the leaked data as its "illegally obtained" (funny, that didn't stop them during the Bush Years).

Short of it is that a hacker (or maybe an insider who is in hiding) put out a huge amount of papers, emails and data from a climate research unit in a college in East Anglica, Great Britain. While everything has not been gone through yet due to the amount, several trends have been noted: constant referals to actual data not conforming to Global Warming Models, data being tampered with to make it conform, emails dicussing how to lose data or delete dicsussions about tampering or reasons why the model was not matching the data, emails discussing how to marginalize opposing viewpoints and other scientists, emails discussing how to ensure that only one viewpoint was acceptable, and emails discussing how they actually got rid of data and stonewalled Freedom of Information Act Requests in both the US and UK.

So much for science being open to critical debate. This sounds more like something the Spanish Inquisition would pull (I'll leave off the obvious MP reference). And the media is tucked in nice and snug with the AGW crowd.

I am a biology major (environmental) from college. I haven't used the degree much, but I have a pretty good understanding about how things work in terms of environmental science. We really are still learning about how our planet works, and how its interacting with the sun and space. Real science, able to really start understanding what is going on has only been around for less than 100 years. Not a lot of time to start making grand pronouncements about how we are dooming the earth. And I also have issues with how they are pushing this. I actually am all for new types of energy and moving away from coal and oil, but we can't seem to make the jumps because these idiots keep getting in the way. Nuclear is clean, natural gas in clean, how about we move into these more? One more nuclear plant (as in brand new) could shut down a lot of coal power. Natural gas burns much cleaner, and we have loads of it in the US, so no more "blood for oil" and less greenhouse gas (if that is actually a real problem). Nope, we have to hold out for "alternative energy" becuase god forbid we actually move gradually, we need the miracle NOW. Or we need to shut down the US economy in order to save the world from itself.

But even if we do all of this, I honestly don't think it really is going to stop climate change. The climate is GOING to change because it always does. Its how the earth works, its NATURAL. So let's drop this stupid idea and work on clean and more efficent power because its the smart thing to do. Even if Greenhouse gas is bogus (and it is certainly an unproven theory) it stinks. That's enough reason in my book to switch to a cleaner fuel right there.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Winning the war against Car Bombs

Check out the link: http://www.popsci.com/bown/2009/video/video-bombproof-wallpaper-vs-wrecking-ball

A Popular Science article that discusses a new Bomb-proof Wallpaper. No I am not making that up. Its a type of flexible, stretchable wallpaper that will flex and then snap back when his with kinetic force (wrecking ball, bomb blast). Helps the wall mantain its structual integrity and also prevents splinters from blasting into the room or the other side of the wall.

This is VERY cool. It probably won't stop a huge truck bomb, but it will certainly reduce damage and this thing has the potential to vastly reduce the effectiveness of all types of explosives against buildings. A hardening of the infrastructure. A major science breakthrough in the counter-terror art.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

And the pictures

WARNING: Due to it being a bit dark out and my wife using a different camera, the picture is a bit, urm, graphic (as in you can see some of the knife work from the field dressing). So you have been warned.

Well, THAT didn't take long...

Hi everyone, Mike here from the farm. Deer season opened yesterday. I missed the morning because I had to drive up here. But I got here in time for the evening hunting. A day in deer season is divided into two sessions: morning and evening. Deer only move around during those times so if you are hunting in the middle of the day you are wasting your time.

Let me run this down for you. I arrive at 1430, just in time for the UNL/KU kickoff. I watch the first half of the game (tied at 10 all at half). I get dressed in the old Woodland pattern BDUs and Gortex, with winter boots (it wasn't that cold out, but the boots are water proofed and the padding wicks away sweat so the feet stay dry). We move out to the south pasture. Once there, we have a bit of stumbling around as my dad forgot the exact location of the blind. We find it, and I climb up into it. I have to say it was a scary blind to be in. No safety bars or straps and some of the "steps" were just small knots in the wood. Well, I get up there, hang up the camelbak (water and knife), and the rifle, dad leaves and I start scanning with the binos.

I am not there more than 5 minutes when two good sized does move out behind me in the river. I hear the splash and turn around and see them. I would have shot one if they had been closer, but I had a 30-30 with iron sites (I was going to use the 30-06 with scope this morning). The shot was VERY awkward from the blind so I figured I would wait. Were does are, bucks will soon be.

About 10 minutes later I heard a lot of brush breaking and twigs snapping from off to my right. I at first thought it was a hunter on foot. Deer can be loud, but not that loud. Whatever it was, I made noise for about 5 minutes, but I never saw what it was. The noise dies down and I turn around to face the river and I am staring at a four point buck standing on the sandbank not 25 meters from my tree blind. And I mean staring, the blasted deer had seen me turn around and was looking me in the eye. So I froze, and tried to make like a bush (30 feet up in the air, but what else can you do?). I had my binos in my hand, and I had to switch out for my rifle. I moved slowly, but he spooked and ran off.

So I figured I had blown it for the night's hunt. I had a good location certainly, but no other deer would be back after that right? Wrong.

Key rule about deer: they are stupid. Especially when its this time of year and they are after does.

I am slowly scanning around for about another 20 minutes. The sun finally drops a bit so I have a good view up river. I am doing a slow scan when I here another splash and some twigs snapping off to my left again. I turn around and there is a nice big buck coming across the river onto the sandbank. He keeps looking over to his right (my left) where those does were at earlier. Everytime he looks over I move a bit and bring my rifle around. He gets about midway to the main bank and instead of going over where the does were he starts moving my way. He walks almost to the spot where the other buck saw me and he looks up and sees me. And right as he freezes I shoot him dead center chest. We looked at the wound later and while I missed vital organs I broke his back about what would be waste level if he was bi-pedal. This paralyzed him. He actually sat down and didn't move, just stared at me with this "crap, this is what I get for thinking with the wrong head" look. After about 20 seconds he started to move and (not knowing where exactly I had hit him) I shot him again which dropped him (heart shot).

The buck weighed about 160 pounds after field dressing, which will give me about 90 to 100 pounds of deer meat. My mouth is already watering. Not the most impressive rack I have taken though. Only a 3/2 point. The two point horn was actually broken off, so this guy had been mixing it up earlier. He was a 2 or 3 year old. Bigger by a good 60 pounds than the last one I got though, so more yummy, deery goodness for me and the family.

This was the SHORTEST hunt I have ever had. From start to my second shot it was not even an hour. In that time I saw a total of 5 deer (another doe happend by after the first buck, but was running at a distance) in that time and I would have gladly shot anyone of them for size. I had five days of leave for this, now I just get to sleep in and goof off. Photos to follow.

"Its the second day of deer camp, and all the guys are here, we drink, play cards and shoot the bull but never shoot no deer, the only time we leave the camp is when we go for beer, the second day of deer camp is the greatest time of year!"

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Why it pays to invest in your military

Here is something you should keep in mind when wondering why we spend so much on the military. We are coming up on nearly a full 10 years of war (we are at about 7 and a half). We have over 4000 dead in that entire time in two theaters of war against some rather tough opponents fighting us in a way that is as much as possible focusing on our weaknesses.

In the Battle of Antietam, in 1862, we lost 3600 dead in one day, with another 19500 (approximately) wounded.

When you invest in a professional military and make them constantly study and work and change and think, you go from two mobs slaughtering each other to nearly 8 years of war with roughly 500 dead a year (and that includes accidents and causes other than combat).

Money well spent? I think so.

Here's a more modern comparison. Russia in Afghanistan offically lost 15000 soldiers in 9 years. Recent studies have shown that number was grossly understated (new estimates by the Russian military (surpressed by the Russian government) put the number at 45000). We have been there for nearly 8 years now, we have less than 1000 dead including losses other than combat.

And not one of our losses was a draftee, everyone volunteered for this.

And for the people who made this Holiday possible...

HAPPY VETERAN'S DAY!

The 11th Hour of the 11th Day of the 11th Month.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Japanese Addendum

This is an add on to the other post. Japan was the other country on the Allied side that had some input into the artillery fight in WWI, but not in the way you might think.

The Imperial Japanese Army had fought the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War in the early 20th Century. Despite the fact that they had older weapons than the Russians, the Japanese were actually one of the first countries to develop the concept of Indirect Fire. This is the idea of having your guns/howitzers firing from far enough away that you cannot see the target from the gun. Observers must be used to successfully determine if you are hitting the target and to make adjustments as needed. The Japanese didn't use range so much as they used terrain. They would position guns behind hills, folds of ground, in forests, anything that concealed the guns from the Russians seeing them. Often the guns were very close to the fight. But the Japanese used their Battery Commanders to go forward with phone/telegraphs and flags to signal back to the guns adjustments needed. The Japanese were able to maximize their guns and beat the Russian Army in artillery in just about every battle.

Now, this had two impacts. One was that the Japanese got a very poor opinion of European artillery. Even when the Japanese used guns in direct fire mode, the Russians were often unable to knock them out. The Japanese started using their guns in more direct fire modes as they could greatly assist the infantry against dug in Russian positions. In WWI, the Japanese fought limited actions against small German forces in China, and again were able to use guns in direct fire mode without issue (the Germans had very small forces and couldn't stand up to the Japanese attacks). Then when fighting the Chinese in the 1920's and 1930's the Japanese again had zero counterfire threat and pretty much moved to close in support of the infantry via having the guns close in. They never developed the concepts of massing guns or centralized control due to their experience.

The other impact: one country was highly impressed by the Japanese ability to use indirect fire effectively and going into WWI had this as their key concept for artillery deployment. This country would build on it and combine it with the centralized fire concepts of the French.

That would be the US Army.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

The Allies

Greetings all, this is the next part on my little series on artillery evolution. This focuses on the Allied Forces. We are mostly discussing the British and French, with a bit of Japanese. No Russians (they really didn't add much for this war in anything, but learned a lot), and not really anything from the US (I'll hit the Yanks later for a special reason).

The Allied forces were mobility focused in their artillery concepts. Lighter guns, rapid firing, able to keep up with the maneuver forces. When you hit the enemy you smother him with firepower allowing your infantry (sometimes cavalry) to then rapidly overwhelm him. This concept had developed from two main experiences. For the French it was the concepts of Napoleon and the experiences of the Franco-Prussian War. Maneuver was the key to victory, massed firepower allowed you to break through and keep moving. So the guns had to keep up, and you had to use them to provide DIRECT support to the infantry. If you study Napoleon, you see his use of artillery in mass as key in many of his fights. For the British, the concept was similar. Mobile guns, direct support. This concept came from the "Small Wars of Empire" that they had been fighting for decades. Artillery slaughtered the natives in direct usage because they had nothing to hit back with.

As the saying goes "Works in Theory"...

The sad part of this whole concept is that both the French and British had some very close examples of why this theory was no longer the case and that they were dangerously behind in artillery theory, if not actual equipment (their guns were actually quite good). For the French, the reorganizations that followed the Franco-Prussian War were not actually very good in certain areas. The big point the French completely missed was that their new rapid firing guns still needed to be massed for maximum effectiveness. The French created a huge army with a reserve system, but they did not create an integrated method to fight it. Once you got down to it, the French were fighting battles like they were hundreds of little regiment on regiment fights with almost zero coordination. You could have three units within a few miles of each other and would be in a practical vacuum, unable (or unwilling) to help the flank unit. Now, the communications problems still existed for everyone (no radio, phones were crude) but the Germans continually worked on these issues so they had an understanding of what they faced. Not so much the French. The really bad part for the French was that because of poor coordination, their wonderful artillery was parcelled out and unable to mass to support the key operation. There were some seriously bad strategic thinking going on too but that goes beyond what I am looking at.

The British were in the same situation. No centralized fire control for artillery, and an absolute archaic theory on its use (drive it to the sound of firing, roll up to the front of the lines, and start shooting direct fire and whatever moves). Worse, the British had very recent experience with the Boer War against people who were as well equipped as them (the Boers had Krupp artillery, Mauser Rifles and Machine Guns) and had seen what that theory got them (lots of dead artillerymen and lost guns).

Both the British and French lacked in heavy artillery and had no concepts about using deep fires to disrupt enemy forces beyond the front lines.

But as learning curves go, the British and French actually outpaced the Germans in this case. They started farther back in theory, weapons and development and they pulled even and even ahead by the wars end.

First, the Allies rapidly learned that the concept of firepower usage had changed. Simply rolling up the guns and blasting the nearest front line no longer worked. Even rapid breechloading guns could not win the firepower war against hidden machine guns in a direct firefight. So they rapidly learned that the new long ranges had to be used to make the guns survivable and effective. More guns were needed to hit an area, even with 15 rounds a minute a battery could not effectively support a regimental attack. So habitual relationships (battery to a infantry regiment) were broken up and artillery centralized control was set up to mass and control the growing numbers of guns needed.

With the creation of Central Fire Control for the Allies, the next big developments were in observed and unobserved firing. With newer phones, the Allies set up OP (Observation Posts) that could spot artillery and adjust the rounds on to target. Ground units alone could not see everything so the airplane (equipped with new wireless radio) and the balloon were used to spot artillery (this led to more air to air combat as each side was trying to shoot down the other sides observers, but that is another story). The Allies got to be very good at this as the Germans stood on the defensive for 3 years and had dug in on the best defensive terrain (highest ground).

As this was going on the Allies started bringing in heavier guns. The French had the 155mm howitzers and the British had the 4.7 in and 6 in guns and howitzers. These heavier guns led the Allies to discover the concepts of depth in the battlefield. These guns could hit the German rear areas and disrupt transportation and the movement of reserves. But often this was in areas they could not see or get observation planes over. Which led to the development of Map Firing.

Map Firing was simply the process of hitting a target using a map only. Sounds simple but it is actually VERY complicated. The Germans never quite got it, but the Allies did after much trial and error. First, the Allies fixed surveying problems and designed new mapping methods that finally created maps with modern levels of accuracy. In doing this, they discovered the issues involved with making a square map work when you are dealing with a round area (the world is round remember?). Azimuth adjustments, curvature of the earth, height of sea level (for both the target and the guns), actual versus magnetic north. And once these were fixed the Allies then discovered how weather effected long range firing (wind direction, air temperature, the possiblity of different wind directions at different altitudes). The Germans also did some work on this, but the Allies were the ones that really ran with it. The Germans focused this on their heavy guns, the Allies realized that this effected ALL artillery and used it as such.

The final problem that the Allies (as well as the Germans) ran into was the tying in. Making your artillery hit where and when it had to sounds simple enough, but how do you do that without a radio? ONce the infantry moved out, they were almost immediately out of contact with higher HQs. There were no man portable radios, runners were slow and had a bad habit of dying, wire got cut or shorted out or ran out, and pigeons often times got lost. So what happens if you are 10 minutes late to a location and the artillery fire has stopped firing suppression? You get mowed down by unsurpressed MG fire. Various Tactics were developed to deal with this. The "Creeping Barrage" was an Allied invention that more or less worked, but still had issues. A Wall of Artillery fire moves forward at so many meters per minute, the infantry walks behind it and in theory arrives at the target just after the FA fire lifts. But what happens if you get delayed (happened a lot), or you missed something like a concrete bunker that wasn't knocked out? You fall behind and your artillery fire outruns you. And you get mowed down. This problem was never quite solved in WWI by either side.

The Allies ended up with a huge learning leap in WWI in terms of artillery. Becuase of this the artillery became the key component of the War for them, the French Army went from being insanely gung ho to incredibly methodical (which bites them in WWII). The British were much slower learners and it wasn't until 1917 that they really started getting the ideas down. And this was actually lost lessons in many cases due to some rather stupid attacks in 1917.

Next time we start talking about the end of WWI and what everyone started taking away from it for the next round.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Education

This last week we bid goodbye to 4 "Snowbird" Lieutenants. A Snowbird is a soldier (officer, enlisted or NCO) who has to wait at some location for several months (usually not more than 4) until their next assignment is ready for them. We had four LTs who had been comissioned but their OBC date was not until November. So we got to use them for about 3 months.

We were glad to have them as we are usually short on officers, and they did a great job for the short time they were here. The one thing I very much enjoyed was our OPD (Officer Professional Development) sessions. We had (and still do) have one a week when we do a short battle analysis. The idea is to see what we can learn from a certain battle so that we don't repeat the problem later on. The books I used are "The Bear Went Over The Mountian" and "The Other Side Of The Mountain", both about the Soviet/Afghan War in the 1980's. We focused on the Soviet side and I tried to zero in on things that we are doing now over there (Convoys, raids, ambushes, etc.). The concept is to figure out what both sides did right and wrong, and what would we do as Americans (our TTPs are different so many times our solutions to the same problem are different).

We all learned a lot. I can tell you this much: my estimation of the Soviet Military machine dropped considerably after this study. I knew that the Soviets didn't have much focus on NCOs, but our studies brought home the difference in a huge way (example: for a squad sized ambush would YOU put a MAJOR in charge? In the US, that is the job of a corporal or a buck sergeant, but they Soviets used Majors and even higher several times). But this was all lead up.

Our Capstone study was an analysis of the Battle of Wanat. This was a US action fought last year, 8 US troops died and over 20 were wounded. A COP (Combat Patrol Base) was almost overrun by Taliban. We held them off, and inflicted heavy losses. But the point was I wanted my LTs to see that many simple lessons we thought were absolute in the US Army were not so absolute. I told them this was the "hard look in the mirror" and to not slant their views because these were US troops involved. It was not a pleasant discussion, especially considering these guys were also paratroops and part of a unit considered to be elite by many in the US. But it was a great learning experience. It really hammered home to the LTs that the military is a profession, and in professions you must study and apply what you learn. Lots of folks miss the difference, but I think I have got the point across.

Now we are going to study the Afghan side. Should also be useful.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

God, We SUCK

I just got back from the UNL/Iowa State Game. I have rarely said bad things about Nebraska Football, but I have to say it now:

WE SUCK.

VMI could have done better than what I saw today. Our Defense is pretty solid, but our Offense is non-existant. 7 Turnovers, 4 of which were within 10 yards of the goal line. UNL has imploded, and it sucks.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

A Moment of Silence

My Laptop appears to be DEAD. This is being typed on my wife's new Toshiba. I have just about everything saved on my portable harddrive (thank god). But its a sad day, it was a vet of the Iraq war like me...

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Grant's Memoirs

I finished read Grant's Memoirs about two weeks ago and forgot to put out the review. So better late than never.

This is the biography of US Grant, aka LT General Ulyssess S Grant winner of the US Civil War. One of my personal favorite generals of that war and in general (no pun intended there). His rep has been beat up, usually due to his drinking problem and his rather poor performance as a President. And of course, LOTS of people like to beat him down so they can build up Robert E. Lee of the Confederates.

Well, all that aside, the book. This book seems par for the course in that just because you are a great general you won't necessarily be a great writer. It starts rather slow and glosses over a great many things in Grant's early life. I was especially annoyed that he didn't write anything about his drinking issues and his business failures. I can understand why you would want to gloss over things like this, but one of the reasons I admire Grant was that he overcame some rather great adversity to quite literally get to the top. Much more than Lee did by my estimation. Much of this book focused on the Civil War, and was quite good. His insights into other generals was particularly interesting. He didn't write anything about after the end of the Civil War, so I got nothing on his Presidency (again a shame).

I would recommend that you either read this and then read something else immediately after about Grant that fills in the gaps to get a good feel for him, or vice versa. He sounds much like a general I would very much get along with and follow. He was always calm, and he conquored some major personal demons along the way. As I am very much a believer that someone who has failed and keeps at it is usually a better person for it, I can very much relate to Grant.

I also like his take on how he viewed the Civil War. He had a very high level outlook. Not just a battle (McCellan) or a campaign (Lee), but a broad a to b to c approach to win the war. He was probably one of the first American Generals to have a mental breakdown of warfare by Strategy/Operational/Tactical levels and how they interacted. Mass your men, attack where the enemy (weaker than you, outnumbered by you) has to fight, force him to defend everywhere or give up areas that will hurt him (the South had to fight for Atlanta, the Valley, Fort Fisher, and Richmond, but could NOT hold every area, so not enough set to win, but enough sent to get beat and weaken other areas). And Grant was a pretty good hand at maneuver warfare despite what critics think. You don't think so? Vicksburg. Still no? Chattanoga. Still no? Virginia 1864/65. Yeah, the last one was bloody. But old Bobby Lee never once held the initiative in that campaign, not once. He moved to Grant's tune, no one else ever did that.

Over all good book, but needs some filler to get all the details about a great man.

(PS: Thanks Jim and Maddie for the book).

Monday, September 28, 2009

Suspected flag burner pilloried -- Page 1 -- Times Union - Albany NY:1884:

Suspected flag burner pilloried -- Page 1 -- Times Union - Albany NY:1884:

I am testing the link thing. It looks like it will work so if not, hit the old Bing.com for searching (I am trying not to use Google anymore).

I just LOVE this article. It would be so much better if this happened to a anti-war protestor instead of someone who was kicked out of the VFW bar for failing to produce an ID to buy a drink, but its still great.

Simple point here, your right to protest is equally matched by others rights. If your protest involved messing with their property or something they REALLY care about, you could rapidly end up in world of hurt (as in being given the chance to have your butt whipped by a war vet which was choice B in this incident).

I have to think this is why you never see anarchists targeting the American Legion Convention to stick it to the man, or ALF trying to attack a biker rally over the leather jackets. Even the truely dense understand that there are things you don't do and places you don't go when protesting. This truth spans the spectrum of right to left (you never see KKK at a Black Panther rally, or PETA in Deep woods West Virginia on the opening day of hunting season).

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Initial Lessons Learned

This is the next bit on artillery evolution in WWI.

In my last post I discussed the initial doctrines of the various world powers going into WWI. 1914 saw the only true bit of maneuver warfare on the Western Front until late 1918. For the rest of this time, it was "static" or "trench" warfare. It was in this arena that the concepts of true modern artillery came to be as the various grey areas that had been discovered were eliminated through often painful real world experience. We are going to talk about the Central Powers first (aka Germany).

For the Germans, the major breakthroughs were actually not many. Their concepts of centralized fire planning (that is artilley planning) were actually very much ahead of the allies and given the large battles being fought (we are talking whole armies worth here numbering in the hundreds of thousands), this was actually very successful. Being able to control and mass your artillery to support the decisive effort (the main push if you will) was often key in the German victories. It also greatly helped the Germans that they were on the defensive on the Western Front until the spring of 1918. In defending, the Germans were able to avoid the communications issues that still plagued the offensive (they had dug in phone lines).

Where the Germans did make advances were in Chemical Warfare. The Germans were the first to use Poison Gas, and rapidly discovered that artillery shells were much more effective in dispersing it. Just releasing gas from a cannister only made a cloud that could blow back on you or dissipate rapidly. But with artillery shells you could keep pumping gas into the cloud, put the chemicals were you wanted them and you could put them FAR to the rear of the enemy. The biggest military benefit of Chemical weapons isn't actually their killing power, its their staying power. Soldiers can function in protective gear in a chemical environment, but everything takes longer and you tire quicker. But the Gas is persistant, even stuff like Chlorine gas can linger for over 24 hours in certain places. When confronted with this, often time military units will just place the area off limits or go around it. This great for area denial, or for helping cover your flanks or rapidly plug gaps. Or for contaiminating a logistical node or railhead. Even 12 hours can be critical if the area off limits is a key road intersection for instance.

In utilizing gas, the Germans discovered the weather played a huge roll in how this weapon was used. Not only in how the chemicals were effected, but in how accurate their deep artillery fire was. Meteological data (or MET as we call it) has a major impact on how artillery shells fly through the air and even how the shells react (i.e. go boom or not). First there is the wind, which the Germans (and also the allies) discovered can be at different directions at different altitudes. This can throw a shell off by hundreds of meters at long distances (such as in a deep chemical strike). There is temperature. This can also effect the shell's trajectory, but it can also effect the mechanics of the shell. Certain mechanical timers would freeze or become brittle in cold weather which would make a dud or might set the shell off early (bad that). Certain shell loads could melt or freeze which would effect the shell's rotation and cause it to literally spin off course (this mostly happened in White Phosphorous Rounds, but also chemical rounds). And of course the weather in general would effect how well the chemicals would work. Rain would wash away most persistant agents, but cold, snow and even sun effected them. Rain could even set off shells early if the fuze (set for point impact) hit a raindrop when flying through the air.

The Germans discovered that by gathering accurate MET data, they could adjust the artillery computations using mathmatical formulas in computing firing data. Through some trial and error, they learned certain methods of storing ammunition that would cut down on weather effects (such as covering ammo when it rained, keeping it off the ground, not stacking it but placing it on its base). They also fixed the mechanical problems for most fuzes (although the rain drop one was only fixed in 1986).

In fixing these issues the Germans refined their methods of Map Firing. Map Firing is basically shooting blind without someone observing where your artillery actually landed. The Germans had figured out by late 1915 that with a accurate map and accurate data, you could do this successfully (more or less, we are not talking 1 shot with a Tomohawk missile, we are talking 500 guns taking out a square mile or two). Since they were standing on the defensive, they could survey in all their controlled territory, and zero their targets. This was one of the main reasons why the Western Front was so bloody, the Germans were often times shooting fish in a barrel.

The other major area of German Artillery development was in heavy artillery. While the Allies were focused on the lighter, more mobile stuff. The Germans focused on the BIG guns. The Germans had more heavy artillery per division than any Allied division, and they had corps and army level artillery commands to use it properly. Krupp (those lovable German arms makers) specialized in heavy guns. 6 and 8 inch guns and howitzers were the norm in the German Army of WWI. Please note I said howitzers. Unlike the Allies, the Germans liked using howitzers because of the range and ability to hit entrenched troops. The Germans quickly learned something with their heavy guns and that was DEPTH. The German battle plans throughout the war (and this includes the early years) always had artillery hitting the enemy key areas as far back as they could. While the Allies intially had a very short view of the battlefield, the Germans realized that with long range weapons you could hit things behind the lines that would effect the actual battle. This was one of the driving forces to get Chemical Weapons modified for artillery use. The Germans were really the first group to get a truely 2 dimensional view of the battlefield (length AND depth). And this led to the REALLY big guns.

I am going to stop here as the really heavy artillery I am going to cover separately (the Big Berthas and so on). Next time we will hit the Allies (no pun intended).

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

And its a...

GIRL!

Tamara and I will be having a baby girl in early February. We just had the ultrasound today and found out. Tamara is 4 and 1/2 months along and the baby is doing great (mother also). The baby was also doing some rather severe physical activity because it took us 30 minutes to get her to stop moving long enough to get all the ultrasound data. She is into crunches apparently.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Into the Wilderness

After a bit of hiatus, I am going to continue with my artillery historic posts. I am picking up with the start of WWI.

August 1914 saw the start of the First World War. Artillery-wise every major combatant (even the US) was equipped with roughly the same types of artillery. Recoilless, long ranged (as in over 6 kms), rapid firing, and using self-contained ammo (i.e. you put in one shell at a time and fire away instead of loading powder, then shell, then primer). Everyone was WAY short on ammo stocks (everyone was thinking a short war). Where the difference lay was doctrine and number of gun types.

The Allies (Britian, France, Russia and a host of smaller nations) had a focus on lighter, more "mobile" rapid firing guns. Heavy guns and howitzers existed, but were much rarer. The British actually had to use dismounted naval guns for heavy artillery (4.7 inch and 6 inch) due to the shortage. The basic tactical doctrine for the allies was to splice out your artillery to maneuver units (usually the regiment or a brigade) and have them provide on the spot artillery in support of the tactical maneuver unit. Great for small unit warfare, bad when its not just small units. Where this system had problems was when you attempted to mass your fires of several artillery units on one target. Without a higher artillery headquarters or a doctrine for controlling hundreds of guns (and we do mean hundreds) you had major issues of command and control, and it was an absolute mess getting the guns to obey you instead of the local commander.

The Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary) were pretty much the exact opposite. Centralized control and massed fires were their method and it was pretty damn effective too. The German General Staff was arguably the only military group who had actually been working on war plans that focused on whole armies instead of smaller units. They were very much "Big Picture" guys and their fire doctrine reflected it. An operations order would contain very detailed instructions on how to use your artillery and it was massed to provide the maximum amount of fire support for the key operations and the decisive (or main) effort. Instead of everyone getting some fire support, the most important effort got everything and then some. This worked great but its weak spot was in being able to adjust when things went wrong. If some defensive points were missed, it was incredibly hard to get fire support to take them out if it was not in the plan. Since a couple of machine guns could hold up entire regiments, this was not a minor problem.

Both sides had one shared major issue: communications. Fires could be adjusted, new targets plotted and changes made IF YOU COULD TALK. But this was very hard in an era of no radio and unreliable telephones. Once battles started, unless you could keep up with messengers (not bloody likely), pigeons (yep, they were used), flags, or phone, you were gong off the plan. If you were allied you couldn't help nearby units in trouble and if you were central you couldn't get help to knock out a missed machine gun nest.

So how did everyone do and how did they adjust?

That will be in the next article.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

XM-326 Dragon Fire II

New toy for us artillery types in the works. Called the XM-326 Dragon Fire II (I can't get a picture to download right now, sorry), this is the rather belated arrival of wheeled self propelled artillery. And technically its not really artillery but an improved rifled 120mm heavy mortar.

The brain-child of the USMC, this baby has a range of 8.2 Kms (an increase of 1 Km over current 120mms) and is mounted on a wheeled 6400 mil capable baseplate. You can tow it OR you can mount it in a modified LAV (the eight wheeled armored car the stryker is based on) for a SP gun. This thing is semi-auto, so its rate of fire is pretty good (sorry, no unclassified numbers for this). Its a heavy mortar, but its loaded by prepackaged shells so no "hanging" of mortar rounds (quick item, the USMC considers heavy mortars to be "artillery" versus the lighter mortars (81mm and less) that are "Infantry" weapons).

And the most cool aspect of this baby is that it is able to shoot while on the move (you have to slow down some though). That right there brings down the artillery house if they can make it continually work without issue. Right now this baby is in experimental stages, but prototypes are already existing and the USMC (and the Strykers in the Army) are VERY interested. For the Army, this would be a near perfect SP weapon for the medium/stryker BCTs in existance. And I would be happy that the US Military has finally figured out you can actuall have wheeled SP artillery (which the Czechs proved in 1990, but we didn't buy into).

Saturday, September 5, 2009

This is why Mercenaries Suck

I am going to assume that everyone has heard about our "contract security" and the "situation" they have with them in Afghanistan. If not, short and sweet was that a group of hired contract security guards who were supposed to be protecting the US Embassy and other US State Department building/compound in Afghanistan are now being investigated for having drunken orgies complete with naked dancing, hookers and lots of booze (in a supposidly Muslim country too I might add). Several guards have told investigators that they were hazed, forced to perform sex acts for their bosses for good shifts and that the multination force couldn't even talk to each other due to language differences. Which was really great since the guys that they couldn't talk to were Gurkas and arguably the most effective guards they had.

I am a professional soldier, and I don't have much use for mercs. Historically speaking, mercs (usually) are not effective fighters or soldiers. Yes, there are exceptions, but not many. Usually the biggest issues with them are discipline related, and if the chain of command for them is hazy, they rapidly can go out of control. The 30 Years War in Europe is a great example of how out of control mercenary forces can get. Other most recent examples of stupid merc tricks are Abu Gurabi (contract interrogations without supervision which spilled over to a regular unit), Blackwater (take your pick, but the famous ones are the shootout in Baghdad which killed a lot of civilians, the heliocopter getting shot down becuase they were in a hurry, or lots of other smaller incidents, some of which I saw firsthand), and Triple Canopy (had the initial contract to protect US diplomats in Iraq and got fired after one year). This one, however takes the cake.

Simply put, the mercs don't fall under a military chain of command so the military cannot hold them accountable if they jack up. And the civilians they work for frequently don't want to really dig down as this stuff is something they don't understand or don't want to be bothered with. So the mercs can get a pass for doing some outragous stuff. And this makes the problem worse by who it attracts.

I have dealt with mercs in Iraq. The high pay and rather loose discipline attract a bad crowd. Frequently, the guys I talked to were prior military, with over five years in but usually less than 15 years in. This is important because it indicates something. A military retirement is 20 years service, and a initial hitch is usually 4 or 5 years. Most mercs were over 10 years in, so why not go all the way for retirement? Because they wouldn't have made it. Usually discipline problems. I heard a lot of "the army was just jacked up and wouldn't let me do my thing, or do what would have worked, or let us really get tough". Translation: I couldn't follow the ROE and other orders, I was trigger happy and I had trouble with authority. So, ex military with discipline problems? Why not join a high paying group that shoots first and rarely asks questions?

The State Department requently has issues with the Defense Department. I can understand that, but for crying out loud we can follow orders and have discipline. I can't say this mistrust is why State is hiring so many mercs to protect them. I know that State is short security personnel because of the various wars we are in so that is probably a more realistic reason. But this is what you get when you really don't want to be bothered with "details" on security because its something you don't get or think is beneath you. But how are they going to punish these guys? If the army did this, how many coals would we be raked over? But what about these clowns? What can they do aside from fire them? Can they be brought to court? Can they be sued? Can they be punished in any way? THe contract can get jerked, another one awarded and you know what? They will probably hire the same boneheads to do the same thing.

This should be a scandel equal to Abu Garabi, these are STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES having ORGIES! But since they are mercs (and a couple of other political reasons I will not go into) they fall into a nice grey area. So now, the US Army is having to provide guards to guard the guards while this is "looked into".

This alone should be the biggest argument for a professional military you would ever need.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

A Clue for the Masses

This is a mix of rant and FYI for various folks out there. Before ranting or rambling on about what books we should be studying for Afghanistan, or that our "Strategic Focus" is off, do myself and other professional military types the favor of at least reading the definitions of what tactical/tactics, operational and strategic mean.

I recently read a WSJ article on how Afghanistan was headed in the wrong direction and that we were following the wrong "Strategy" for winning the war. Now, there is some truth to that saying and certainly we can improve on many things (you always can, no one ever jumps into war and it goes 100% perfect and exactly to plan, not even the Nazi War machine which usually gets tossed up as an example). Where I had the issue is the following paragraph which the author gave a list of books that many officers were reading and studying to prep for action over there. Books like "The Bear Went Over The Mountain" which is a translated copy of the Red Army's AARs for over a hundred small unit actions ranging from squad to battalion size. The reviewed the actions and commented on improvements that could have been made within the Soviet Doctrinal framework. Then the translator added some more based on what the US would have done using ours. Numerous highly useful TACTICAL lessons can be gained from this book. The article author made a huge stink about how this book was merely showing the US "failed" (and most of the actions were not exactly shining examples of how to do it right certainly) ideas and that this was totally undermining the strategy and teaching our officers bad ideas.

This shows an incredible lack of simple understanding of terminology. This book (which I use to train my Junior Officers on in weekly OPDs) is a TACTICAL book. It isn't supposed to be about STRATEGIC level thinking or even operational. It does make some tie ins for certain items along the lines of "The US wouldn't do this as the press would crucify us and its a war crime", but that isn't the point of the book. Its about small unit tactics that junior officers and NCOs might use if they are ever deployed to Afghanistan, and mostly about what NOT to do (I am not kidding, you read this book and any idea of the Red Army being a major military power is going to take a severe hit).

Junior Officers are supposed to have some understanding of strategic aims and operational aims, but their focus is the close in fight. Commanding platoons, doing maintenance, training and so on. The books that this writer was hammering were excellent sources for THIS LEVEL. They were not aimed at strategic levels or operational levels. But this civilian (brutally obvious if you know what you are reading) had his levels and terms mixed up. I agreed with some of his points, but he really needed to work on his understanding of the different levels of warfare. The books he cut down are excellent sources of information that are very useful to draw on at the TACTICAL level.

Apples to apples, not apples to pears or peaches (or guavas).

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Inglorious Basterds

Today my wife and I saw "Inglorious Basterds" by Taretino.

It ROCKED!

This is certainly NOT a war film, or even mildly historically accurate. But it was vastly entertaining. It went from being funny to "ewwww, that is a bit graphic", to a mix of both.

And it was absolute proof of a something I have noticed. That item is this: no one cares if you do bad things to Nazis.

No lie, they showed a Nazi being beaten to death by a guy with a bat and the audience was laughing at the one liner. I was, and so was my wife. Of course the idea behind the unit was that they were going to be as bad as the Nazis (and they were and then some), but no one had any issues with US Troops doing this to Nazis.

Nazis are the one group that absolutely NO ONE will defend at all. The absolute bad guy, the perfect villan, the one undeniable product of WWII in that you have someone that no one can ever possibly root for. And everyone is tickled pink if you are doing something to them that would repulse you if it was someone else and make the ACLU call the President.

Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that Nazis are thought of this way. They should be. But so should Communists, Maoists and Stalinists. AQ and Hamas too. They are not, and that is a pity. I really don't like how the term Nazi gets tossed around so much and how many on the left use it paint those on the right (especially since the Nazis were actually socialists, irony can be thick in history). Call someone on the left a Nazi and you will get a strong reaction to be sure. My biggest issue isn't the labling, its the fact that this label runs the risk of loosing the sting of due to over use. Nazi might join the legion of other words that no longer pack the punch that they once did due to over use. Remember when "damn" was something you never heard on TV?

The Nazis were as close to pure evil walking the earth as has even been (and they had some good company who got off light). I really hope that the term never looses its punch and that no one ever has a qualm about laughing when watching a Nazi getting beaten to death.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Happy Birthday!!!!!

I am a day late, but HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

to the CANNON!

Erm, maybe.

On August 26th, in 1346 AD at a location know as Crecy (Yes Russ, right up your alley this one is), the Genonese crossbowmen had the very distinct honor to be the first soldiers in history to be taken under cannon fire.

Maybe.

There are two other possible uses of cannon prior to this (one in approximately 1250 AD by Muslims against Mongols, and in 1339 by the French against Edward), but neither was well documented and cannot be verified. Edwards the IIIs army had records and even some pictoral records of the cannons.

So Happy Birthday to the CANNON my fellow Redlegs and other lesser creatures...

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Speech

I just got back from speaking to the Oklahoma Chapter of the "Friends of Ukraine" in OKC. They paid for my lunch (Porogi, similar to cheese raviolli) and I gave a short 20 minute speech on my trip to Ukraine and my impressions as a "true" American.

The speech went well and everyone seemed to enjoy it. The lunch was great too.

The best part was this guy I met. I can't pronounce his name (never mind spelling it), but he had some awesome stories of his own. This gentleman was from around east-central Ukraine. I told him what I did and he really lit up. He told me repeatedly how much he loved US soldiers and the US. After we talked more I found out why.

This gentleman was liberated from a concentration camp/factory in the Hartz Mountains by US soldiers in 1945.

When he was about 13 or so, the Germans invaded the USSR. They had driven to his area of Ukraine with a couple of SS Panzer Divisions. The Red Army had been smashed up pretty bad and was trying everything to stop the Germans. The Soviet Commissars rounded up every male 14 and older and marched them to the front to fight. No training, equipment (other than rifles and ammo) or support. The man said that he lost one brother in this fight. The other brother survived and retreated with the Red Army. He heard after the war that his brother had been wounded 11 times during the war and the last time they sent him back in before he had healed and he was killed. Since this gentleman was not old enough he stayed in the village and ended up behind German lines. He told me how the next village over was wiped out as a reprisal for a Insurgent attack on some SS. They rounded up 180 people, herded them into a church and burned it down with everyone inside. THey took him and all the other boys and impressed them into a forced labor battalion. They were the ones who dug the tunnels were the ME262s were built. Another crew they were barracked next too dug and ran the V2 tunnels and another one was working on the German Atomic Bomb program (not much was really done other than dig some work areas, the Germans were way to far behind in development to do much more). US troops liberated him and about 15000 prisoners (his count).

Talking with him made my whole day worthwhile. Its nice to hear nice things about US troops and to hear someone make the point that US troops have never herded people into churches and burned them down, or impressed young boys as slave labor to dig tunnels for weapons projects, or gathered a bunch of civilians together, tossed them rifles and said "Charge those Tanks" (although our militia troops have ended up doing about that good, difference there is that all the militia volunteered). This guy had some great history to share and I am really glad he did.

Hearing stories like this make me glad to live in the US and prouder to be defending it.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Whole Foods, Greenpeace and Health Care

If you haven't heard about all of this you need to get online more. First off, Whole Foods CEO wrote an article suggesting his take (as a private person) on how we could do better on Health Care. He had some good points I thought (Tort Reform anyone?), but it was the response he got that makes him my hero and gives me a reason to shop at Whole Foods (other than my wife who likes them).

The far left "progressive" crowd went completely bat#$%% over his commentary and article. Lots of them stated that they would NEVER shop at Whole Foods again (wow, an added bonus for me). Daily Kos posters have pretty much called for his public execution. I absolutely love this. I am wondering what is making them madder; the fact that a CEO of a major corporation is weighting in against the President, or that they are now realizing that for all the "progressive" food and ecology and world love that they are associating with Whole Foods its still a major capitalist corporation run by a guy who makes tons of money off of them and doesn't care if they shop there or not.

And if this guy hadn't been running it, it wouldn't have worked out to start with.

The GreenPeace item is the article in the BBC Today in which the retiring head of GreenPeace admitted that the famous "All the Arctic Ice will be melted by 2030 unless we do something NOW" statement was a flat out lie. He said that they knew the data was wrong but went with it because the cause was just and the "US economic growth had to be curtailed". Nice. So if my cause is just I can lie? Wow, what a concept. It appears that lots of our current political establishment has taken that lesson to heart and then some.

Which leads to Health Care. Not much to say on this except that being in the military I am currently on the closest thing to a Socialist Health Care System the US has. And it sucks compared to the alternative. Tamara has kept her own health care as long as she could because its nice to be able to make a same day appointment instead of having to wait 5 to 8 days (that is the rough turnaround time at our Post). I'll agree we can improve our current system and that we have some serious issues with it. But this current monster they are pushing? Oh hell no.

Not only is it 1000+ pages of legalise, but its going to run run by an organization that can't run a used car sale or even read the entire bill before pushing it.

Guys, how about some research or something? Or keeping that promise to post all the bills for the public to read before signing? Bueller?

Monday, August 17, 2009

Wife Celebrating

My lovely wife is off to Chicago for a week to visit her parents and to celebrate Ukrainan Independence Day. This is the day when the Ukrainians celebrate the collapse of the Soviet Union and gaining their freedom.

This was also the day that EVERY statue of Lenin was ripped out of the ground rather violently and with malice of forthought.

Anyone who ever thought Communism was a good idea is invited to swing by the Ukrainian section of Chicago this weekend and get some "feedback" on that.

And I highly recommend you leave the Che Geuvera T shirt at home...

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Progress

I was working on my personal set of tactical gear this week. I have what the army gives me, I have what I have been given or acquired over the years (the army paperwork will gradually give you stuff over time) and I have what I have personally purchased for my own use. Usually ammo pouches for gear or ammo (I do use this stuff for hunting and camping), but I also purchased a lot of stuff when I shipped over to Iraq as the stuff they gave us didn't quite work for me (I needed some regular pouches for a small set of binos, language phrase books and some other stuff). And of course it didn't help that the Army has gone through 3 different camo sets since this war started and we can't mix and match.

So I have a bunch of gear. One item I was finishing out was my personal first aid kit. I had what the army has given me and I have some stuff I have picked up. But I had also just purchased something called an IFAK. IFAK: Individual First Aid Kit. These are the new first aid kits that have come out due to the war.

I have to admit, nothing pushes progress in certain areas like war. This kit is a great example. WHen I first joined, your first aid kit was a sealed field dressing in a small pouch. Anything else you provided on your own. Now you could do a lot with this thing, tourniques, pressure bandages, regular bandages, seal sucking chest wounds. But still, all you had was a large bandage and that was it.

When I deployed we got this plus a new quick release tournique which was all the rage. So an improvement, but still not exactly amazing. But after much research the army realized two things.

One: every soldier coming out of basic training is Combat LifeSaver Qualified (think of this as one step below a medic, 40 hour course taught by medics).

Two: these same soldiers can actually use all kinds of first aid gear.

So why not give it to them? Result: IFAK.

This thing is really advanced. It has pressure bandages, quick release tourniques, some of those QuikClot bandages, a lung depressurizer (for lung shots), a special air passage kit for CPR and for clearing breathing passages (you can also do a quick and dirty trac with it). This kit is designed to treat the 6 most common and life-threatening wounds on the battlefield with the most advanced first aid gear in existance. It is designed to allow anyone with a modicum of first aid training (such as a combat lifesaver) to be able to the simple things that can keep people alive until a medic can get there.

I have to wonder about why it took the army so long to get to this point. I remember when I was a Platoon Leader, the requirement was one combat life-saver per platoon (in MLRS which is a small unit, usually it was one per squad). Now it is EVERYONE. The 10th Mountain was the first unit to do this right as they entered Afghanistan in 2002 and everyone took notice with the results. But still you would think that this would be common sense.

But progress is progress. I wonder if they will keep it up once the war is over with. IFAKs are pretty expensive ($80 plus), and in peace time you know what happens. But for now its good progress.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Fishy

Short post.

Did anyone else have a "WTF?!?!" moment when you heard the news release about the White House asking for people to send them an email about "fishy" healthcare info?

I did.

This is what we get from a government that is so inept that it can't run a Used Car sale...

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Yoiks and AWAY!

I have been debating posting this as I don't want to be talking ill of an officer in another unit, but I can't hold out any longer.

This is an example of someone who helps to give new Lieutenants their reputation and reaffirms the old adage that you shouldn't try to show off how cool you are.

For anyone who ever watched the cartoons on Saturday morning and saw the Bugs Bunny Roadrunner show, you will recognize the title line from Robin Hood Daffy. This was the line Daffy shouted as he leap from a tree on a vine and promptly smashed into another tree. When I heard this story, the cartoon popped into my head and I could not get it out.

We have a training event in the first week that is a rappel tower. Nothing you really ever do in the military (unless you are in the Air Assault), but its a good gut check and helps motivate new soldiers. You have to do rope bridges, jump into a cushion from a height and rappel down a tower.

When you rappel you should have the following: a set of gloves, a belay man (runs a safety rope) and someone above you to make sure you don't get tangled. You can rappel several ways including a method called "Austrailian" which you are facing your front straight down the tower and you basically run down the side of the building (commandos use this a lot). When done correctly it looks very cool.

Of course this story involves it NOT being done correctly.

We had a LT who wanted to show off to the new soldiers. So he decided to do Australian down the tower. Well, there was no other cadre available to help so he had no belay man. He also discovered that they had not brought all the gear out yet so he only had ONE GLOVE. But no problems there. Last issue was that the rope was wet from some rain. Anyone who has done this should be whincing by now.

Well, the LT lowers himself into position and does his first bound. He tries to pull the rope to his waste (which will usually stop your slide down the rope), and discovers that the wet rope is sliding through his ungloved hand and won't stop. He has no belay man to use the safety rope to stop him so he has to hold on or he goes freefall three stories into a sandpit. He is able to slow himself enough to fastrope face first into the ground.

Minus most of the skin on his right hand.

Ow.

His failure to save cost him all cool points, a trip to the hospital with 3rd degree burns, and a honorable mention in the Darwin Awards since he lived.

This was quite literally a "Yoiks and AWAY" moment. He jumped off and just went straight down for the "CRUMP" and dustcloud out of a Wiley Coyote cartoon. IN front of 200 new privates and the cadre that showed up right as he was starting.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Continuing Education

I am into my third week of AOWC (Advanced Operational Warfighting Course) online. The virtual class room is pretty much boned and yet again another example of the DOD living up to accusations of Fraud, Waste and Abuse. Btu the course itself is pretty fun. The idea behind this course is simple. You are going to be a staff pouge for much of your military career (simple fact of army life) so we are going to make you a really good one. Why? Simple, it is better to have 12 Blutchers than one Napoleon (for my readers lacking any military history knowledge (Hi Aunt Jan) Blutcher was the Prussian who aided Wellington at Waterloo and helped win the big one).

Translation: Genius is a great thing, but if you only have one of them he can't do two very important things. One, he can't be everywhere. Two, he cannot be 100% on his/her game 100% of the time. So what happens if you get hit in 2 places or on a bad day? Bad things happen. The Prussians figured this out and devised the staff system as we have come to know it (although we in the US modeled ours after the French Staff System developed prior to WWI). The idea is that even if we don't get a genius (a Fredrick the Great) we can train enough Blutchers that it won't matter. Our sum whole leadership will be better than your sum whole (especially if you only rely on one guy).

I am doing the AOWC to finish off my ILE (Intermediate Level Education) which is the Masters Level of military training. This stuff isn't easy by a long shot. We study leadership, operational and strategic thinking, critical thinking, history (as in we dig out the lessons it can teach us, this is not done very much in civilian schools or they are horribly off due to lack of (go figure) critical thinking). I personnally am really enjoying this as it is challenging (nothing good is easy) and it makes me think and learn and push.

Now, as I am wont to do, I have been thinking about all of this. When you boil it down, the US military produces some amazingly educated people. Then I realized that actually we produce not some, but a hell of a lot. A Captain is going to have not only lots of hands on experience in high pressure situations and in "intersting" locations, but he has been taught a huge amount. College, but also the courses the army will send him too. In my case, a rough translation of what I have been taught is going to equal two BA/BS degrees and 2 Masters degrees (when I complete ILE anyway).

This being the case, can someone tell me why the hell we still get looked at like we are gunslinging cowboys who can't put two words together in a sentence? I guess it is just easier to steriotype us, because actually thinking about what we say and do, and realizing that maybe the answer can't be condensed to a bumper sticker, would require some critical thinking and some serious education too.

Which is seeming to be in shorter and shorter supply in this country.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

RFO

RFO = Request For Orders.

This is the what you get when the bs'ing and gopher dancing between you and your branch gets done and you finally find out where your next assignment is.

I got mine today.

And the winner is...

Fort Drum, New York.

I was getting bounced around by branch (I was offered Hawaii and Colorado, but couldn't get released in time. Don't ask how I feel about that.) and I almost ended up with the 3rd ACR in Fort Hood Texas. But that fell through due to poor management on branch's part (they started filling early and Fort Hood shut them down due to an overabundence of majors). So I got a gig with the 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry.

Yes, you heard right. Light as in "we walk everywhere". Good news is that I report to the Division HQs, so this is probably a staff gig. I am hoping for an Effects Cell or Fires Coordination Cell as I am already Branch Qualified with (by the time I move) 2 years as a Bn XO. Combat tour guarrented, Iraq possible but I'll lay even odds on Afghanistan.

In other news, I discovered and fixed a little problem with my date of rank and board dates. This is majorly good as if this had gone un-noticed, I would have missed my initial board and had my file jacked up.

Oh yeah, Mike Rezabek was picked up for LTC below the zone...

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

NORK Humor

This is too funny. Follow the link:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/27/twitter-north-korea-technology-internet-twitter.html?partner=email

This link is to an article about a guy who impersonated the PRK (aka North Korea) on Twitter. What is truely histerical? The guy didn't change anything, he just used actual headlines from the NK media.