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.