Manning the rails

"Manning the rails" is a navy tradition.  Usually, we civilians see it when a ship enters port, and all the crew in their starched whites are standing along all the railings.  It sure looks impressive.

This version is even more impressive.

That is a picture of the German destroyer Lütjens.  On 14 September, 2001, she was steaming near the USS Winston Churchill and USS Gonzolaz.  The crew manned the rails, raised a US flag, and displayed a banner.

WE STAND BY YOU

Frequently I've reposted or posted the link to my little poem about Arlington National Cemetery on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.  If you want to find that post, its here: Rest Well.  Otherwise, enjoy this bit of nautical brotherhood.

Lies, Darned Lies, and Statistics (or) I Think I Over Thought This One, But I'm Too Far To Stop Now

Yeah, this one's kinda long.  Sometimes having access to a blog is a dangerous thing.  So, if you like tangental discussions of aircraft, military history, and Star Wars, stick around.  Otherwise, maybe I'll be back tomorrow with something "normal."

Well, normal for me, at least.

There are a few things that I like that have no real usage in the profession I seek.  I am a fan of Star Wars. ("oh really?" you snark say)  I like World War 2 aircraft (well, actually, any aircraft, but 1939-45 had a lot of great planes).

What?  You're surprised I'm a nerd?  Clearly you've not been paying attention if this comes as a shock.

Anyway, being a nerd, I enjoy kibitzing the discussion regarding the ships of SW, and the aircraft from whenever.  So I was happy to have found a number of people on the interwebs who make videos about such things.  One is EckhartsLadder, who compares sci fi ships, most notably Star Wars.

What EL does is a "who would win" scenario, comparing two craft in "firepower," "defenses," and "intangibles" in a 1v1 with equal skilled pilots without mods or backup.  Best out of 10 wins.

The one that caught my attention was the Incom T-65 X-Wing vs. Incom/Subpro ARC-170. (here if you are interested)

Before I say anything else, I think if fair to say his method is flawed and shortsighted, but not a bad start.  Why?  Eric "Winkle" Brown and the Wildcat.

(insert Tim "the Toolman" Taylor questioning grunt here)

Captain Eric Brown, Fleet Air Arm, served during WW2 as a pilot.  Most notably he served with N. 1426 Flight: the RAF enemy aircraft testing squadron.  This mean that Brown got the opportunity to fly a lot of types of aircraft.  487 types.

Let that sink in a moment.  487 types.  Not 487 aircraft, but aircraft types.  This is a record that will never be broken.  Especially if you count the individual marks, not just types.  For example: Brown flew 14 versions of the Spitfire during his career, yet the record only lists Spitfire once.

Brown also has the most carrier landings ever: 2,407, in 20 different types.  Including the first tricycle undercarriage and first jet.

And he was the only Allied pilot to ever fly the Me 163 Komet rocket interceptor.  You know, the one with the corrosive fuel that would melt pilots, and if the plane hit a bump during takeoff it might explode.

He was a fan of the de Havilland Hornet and the F-86E Sabre, thinking both to be exceptional aircraft and his favorite regarding their engines.

Because of this vast experience, Brown was able to quantify what made for a good fighter plane.  He came up with six characteristics that an effective fighter should have.  They were:

1. Speed
2. Rate of climb
3. Firepower
4. Armor protection
5. Pilot visibility
6. Maneuverability (though he would stress "don't dogfight")

Corky Meyer, test pilot for Grumman during WW2 and beyond, listed four missions any "best" fighter should be able to perform.  These were:

1. Fighter vs. fighter
2. Bomber escort
3. Ground attack
4. Photoreconnaissance

Add on "easy to fly" (200-flight hour pilots can handle it) and built in numbers above 10,000 for a long duration.  Now, Corky claimed the P-47 Thunderbolt was best in Europe, and the F6F Hellcat was tops in Pacific.

What does any of this have to do with Star Wars?  Well, unless you were asleep in history class, or are not a nerd (even a little), it will come as no surprise that Mr. Lucas used a lot of inspiration from WW2.  Hey, if you've got good material, use it.

So, the Incom T-65B X-Wing vs. the Incom/Subpro ARC-170... who would win?  The X-Wing.

How frequently?  About 90+%, assuming we have a trained pilot in the seat.

So, to break it down, the X-Wing meets Brown's criteria better than the ARC.  It has the speed, and climb, sufficient firepower and armor/shields, and maneuverability.  All it lacks is an advantage in visibility.  Based on Corky's mission lineup, the X-Win does it all.  Perhaps not as well as a dedicated craft, but it is a "swing role" fighter.

Usually "jack of all trades" don't come out on top frequently.  But, bear with me a second while I take and replace the Star Wars craft with their 1940s doppelgängers.  (This is where EL missed some important items in his 1v1.)

The X-Wing is comparable to the P-38 Lightning, while the ARC-170 is the P-61 Black Widow.

If you're still wondering who wins, just look at the to planes for a second.

the Lockheed P-38G Lightning

the Northrop P-61 Black Widow

Any questions?

Oh, still aren't sure.  Well, consider, one is a twin engine single seat interceptor, the other is a twin engine three place night fighter... that is the size of a medium bomber.

Now, I ain't knocking the P-61.  She was designed as a purpose build radar equipped night fighter.  Heavily armed with 4x 20 mm cannon and 4x .50 cal machine guns in a turret.  Powered by two R-2800s, and able to tote around 3 tons of bombs, she was a powerful plane.  Very agile for how big she was, too, thanks to Northrop's clever spoilers.  A little late to prove itself, but, that's not the point.

The Lightning's a bit of an oddball.  Designed as a heavily armed interceptor, found to have great range, respectable agility, decent armor, and ridiculer versatility.  Four .50 cal machine guns and a 20 mm cannon, backed by up to a ton of bombs.  And her twin V-1710s made her one of the fastest planes of the early portion of the war.

So, who wins in a dogfight?  Well, first is the need to acknowledge the caveat to Brown's 6th characteristic: don't dogfight.  Why are speed and climb first?  Because the pilot who has the altitude and speed picks when the fight starts, and when it ends.  Diving attacks trump spinning and loops.  See the work of the Flying Tigers, or Red 2's interception over Yavin.

We have this notion that fighters are all about dogfighting and that goes back to the "romantic" depictions of the Great War.  Watching men like Ball, Bishop, Barker, Guynemer, Voss, and Richthofen dueling in chivalric arial joust makes for great stories.  Its not the truth.  Check out Oswald Boelcke's dicta:

1. Try to secure advantages before attacking. If possible keep the sun behind you.
2. Always carry through an attack when you started it.
3. Fire only at close range and only when your opponent is properly in your sights.
4. Always keep your eye on your opponent and never let yourself be deceived by ruses.
5. In any form of attack it is essential to assail your opponent from behind.
6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to evade his onslaught but fly to meet him.
7. When over the enemy's line never forget your own line of retreat.
8. (For the Squadron) Attack on principle in groups of four or six. When the fight breaks up into a series of single combats take care that several do not go for one opponent.

Reading through the dicta it is clear that altitude and speed, employed in a slashing attack, are better than trying to "mix it up" with classic dogfights.

Okay, so performance is kinda the keystone factor.  If the fighter doesn't have enough get-up-and-go winning won't be likely.  But what about the other factors?

Firepower is self-evident.  You can have all the speed in the world, but without enough punch, it doesn't matter.  The MiG-3 found that out the hard way.

Armor protection should be obvious as well.  You need a strong, rugged craft to ride into battle.  There are plenty of stories of American planes shrugging off lots of hits.  Robert S. Johnson's P-47 taking all the ammo from an FW 190 is a paramount example.  But if your ship has the heft to shrug it off, it had better have the power to move.  Hence the order.  The A-4 Skyhawk is a great case study in how to correctly build a fighter.  First, find the limits of your size and weight, then pick a powerful engine, finally don't exceed the limits.

Pilot visibility is one that is easily forgotten and taken for granted.  The Bf 109 had a narrow canopy that made turning your head difficult.  The F-4 Phantom had heavy frames that limited view, especially for the rear canopy.  The F-8 Crusader had a lot of stuff in the windscreen, which made landings especially "fun."  Having visibility is majorly important for pilots, especially combat pilots.  The one who sees the target first wins.  Modern technologies, like radar, IR, long-range cameras, all improve situational awareness.

Lastly, again, is maneuverability.  If having the ability to "zoom-boom" is top, then agility isn't important, right?  Not at all.

The agility then is for defense, avoiding an attack, as seen in #6 of Dicta Boelcke.

So then, back to the P-38/P-61 debate.  In a straight up 1v1, who wins?

Answer: the pilot who sees his opponent first and has the altitude to start a diving attack, most likely.  But lets be "fair" for the argument.  In an equal level fight, where they meet at the merge, who wins . The P-38.  All the time.

Why?  Size is not the P-61's friend, and all that firepower is useless if you can't get it pointed at the target.  At this point some table-top gamer will be like "aha, what about the turret?"

You mean the turret that didn't work in the initial marks?  The turret that was there primarily for bomber interception?  The turret that added weight and complexity which degraded performance?  The turret that was a throwback to the turret fighters of the early 40s (the Defiant, Roc) and the two seat fighters of WW1?

Yes, in WW1 many of the early attempts at building a working fighter resulted in a pilot flying the plane, and the main armaments being manned by a gunner.  Care to guess how well it worked?  Well enough that one of the best fighters of the war, the Bristol F2A, was shot down a lot when flown like a two seater.

You see, the idea of the turret guns was a symptom of not paying attention to reality.  This exemplified itself in the phrase "the bombers will always get through."  Who needs escorts when the bombers are literal flying fortresses, bristling with guns?  The 8th Air Force, that's who.

What does any of this have to do with the X-Wing/ARC-170?  A lot.  EL assumed, like many do, that the numbers can lead to the answer.  This is what has lead to the X-Wing table top game.  People think that if you have a quantifiable amount more of speed, or agility, or aggression, you can win.  Which is where EL's idea of "intangibles" makes sense.

So, who wins, the X-Wing or the ARC-170?  With exceptional pilots in both, the X-Wing.  With average pilots in both, the X-Wing.

Why?  Well, four cannon is more weight-of-fire than two, meaning greater chance of hitting the target.  While the ARC does have more torpedoes, not enough to make a difference in a dogfight.  In an attack mission, different story.  The ARC is the better attack bomber.  (And, by the way, torpedoes are guided in the SW universe.)  Better acceleration, and the ability to keep that speed means the X-Wing determines when, and where, the fight starts and ends.  The X-Wing's smaller size means its harder to see, therefore harder to evade.

Of course the swing-role fighter beats the high-performance attacker in a dogfight.

Yeah, this one kinda got away from me.

Comparing history and confusing apples for dynamite

Okay, its been a long while since I've written, but something said on the news has been bugging me.

I've been hearing a number of "talking heads" (mostly Democrats) comparing the "acceptableness" of a diplomatic negotiation with Iran regarding a nuclear weapon with the discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

It is official: we don't teach enough history in schools.  We're a nation of people who understand useless things like football and quadratic equations but have no idea about the danger of isolationism and the pointlessness of diplomacy without the threat of military force.  Or, to be blunt, we are making ourselves stupid because we've placed math at the top and history at the bottom.

Education rant over, on to why POTUS and all his supporters are worse than wrong on this.

In the 1930s we, as a nation, were stupid.  Officially its called isolationism.  There were problems in the world in the name of Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin.  But those threats were across oceans, so they could "never" hurt us, so we buried our heads in the sand.  The "heroic" Charles Lindbergh was quasi-pro-Nazi, visiting Berlin and speaking with the architect of The Cataclysm.  We had a president who was extremely reluctant to aid Britain in the early portions of the war.  It took a dastardly attack to get us to wake up.

Right now we have a president who is emulating not Franklin Roosevelt (sadly) but Woodrow Wilson.  There is no doubt, when you read history (not what's in the textbooks, throw those in the recycle bin) it is painfully evident that Wilson failed.  He drug his feet to get the US to war, and had people in positions of authority who made stupid mistakes that left our boys ill-prepared for the trenches.  He went to Versailles, not with military or political advisors, but fellow law professors and marketing advisors with the goal to create a world "safe for democracy."  He preached the "14 Points," the League of Nations, and self-determination for nations.  (Note: of all the nations once part of the German, Austrian, or Russian empires, there were some nations who did not get to be part of this.  The nations of the Balkans were "gifted" to Serbia, the instigator of the war.  Yugoslavia would go on to cause trouble for the next century.  Thanks a lot Wilson.)  His lackluster participation in the intervention against the Soviet Union resulted in nothing.  In the end, the failing of the Treaty of Versailles is what established the Second World War.

Obama wants to be the next Wilson, thinking that "pen is mightier than the sword."  Other than the third Indiana Jones movie, pen's are not useful as weapons at all.  Diplomacy lead to the Munich Agreement, which was claimed to achieve peace.

Here's the quick version: British PM visited insane dictator who clearly stated (in a best selling book) what his intentions were.  PM is sure he can discuss with dictator as equals with common goals and values.  Dictator convinces PM that he and his people will behave.  PM says diplomacy works.  Dictator breaks his word.

Hmm... so far Obama is discussing with an insane dictator who has clearly stated (in everything) what his intentions are.  And Obama is sure we can discuss with dictator as equals with common goals and values.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to 1938.

And this is the where the uneducated master-degree-holding liberal political "scientists" say "well, Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union.  Weren't the Soviets evil, too?"  They try to use the descriptions of the Iran regime and DAESH to describe the USSR.  But they do not want to allow anyone to explain what the difference is.  They think "oh, if I can convince people Reagan did it than Obama will be allowed to do it."

If Obama would do what Reagan did I'd be okay.  (Note: what Reagan did was enlarge the military and force the Soviets to run out of money trying to keep up.)

While there is some truth to the liberals' lies (as usual), they've left out the cornerstone issue: religion.

What is the difference between communism and Islam?  One is a political theory, the other is a religion.  This means that there are different rules to how you deal with each.  This is the same as the argument between science and religion or history.  (Those of you who think you can use science to "disprove" Christianity, note, you can't any more than a peashooter can take out a battleship.)

The methods, philosophies, and rules governing these two schools of thought are very different, and even mutually exclusive at times.  A diplomatic method that works for discussions between two political entities do not work when trying to discuss anything with a fundamentalist religion.  You have to play by the rules of the academic discipline.  What works to create treaties between two nations does not work regarding religion.

Suppose a religion believes that an alien made out of bacon told them that they can only wear wooden clogs on Tuesday, and that anyone who doesn't deserves to be flogged with a wet squirrel and beheaded.  No one should expect to have a calm and rational discussion with this religion's leaders.

We have a better chance to convince North Korea to give up its military than to diplomatically deal with Iran and convince them to delay their nuclear program.  That's one of the problems with diplomacy: compromise.  Diplomacy only works as compromise, either with both parties as equals (or near equals) or with one party who is stronger and the weaker party must concede something.  Regardless, both sides must be willing to compromise and negotiate.

Megalomaniacal dictatorships do not compromise.  The Soviets were willing to compromise, because they were willing to take the "slow path" to victory by spreading their political system through diplomacy and aid programs (and small proxy wars).  The Iranians are not willing to compromise because they desire to have victory now, through fear, terrorism, nuclear programs, and proxy wars.

What the president doesn't understand is that this is not about what the American people (along with most of the world) want.  It is what we don't want.  We don't want a bunch of lunatics who call themselves the leaders of Iran to be in possession of the most powerful military explosive or the ability to make one.  Not "no nuclear weapon but peaceful nuclear power."

Historically speaking there is no such thing as "peaceful nuclear power."  Chernobyl is a prime example of nuclear power gone wrong.  And which came first, the nuclear reactor to create electricity, or the atomic bomb?  If you can't answer that without looking it up, you obviously failed history class.

Our political leaders and their advisors believe that they can find a peaceful solution through diplomacy and compromise.  I'm all for peace, but I know more about international politics than Obama.  Any parent who believes in healthy discipline is smarter than Obama (and by extension the UN and Woodrow Wilson) regarding diplomacy.

Healthy discipline means I am not my child's best friend, or that I use appeasement (sticker charts, rewards) to convince him to do something.  And I do not compromise.  When I say "pick up your toys" there is no negotiations.  He must pick up.  Failure to do so results in consequences.

Obama is like the parent who is willing to say "okay, five more minute, then bedtime," each time the kids whine "but dad."  There is a place for healthy fear, and that place is especially obvious in politics.  Rogue nations who do not care for anyone's survival should be afraid that tomorrow an American carrier task force could be off their coast with planes loaded to strike.  They should go to sleep at night wondering which vital portions of infrastructure will be targeted by American cruise missiles.  They should be paranoid that we have listening devices in every meeting room and are recording every conversation.  They should wake up every morning thankful we didn't send troops in the night to liberate their nation.

We should be taking the same position in the world that the Jedi had in the Star Wars universe.  The Jedi were the "guardians of peace and justice."  One Jedi was enough to send countless thugs, criminals, and warlords running.  Those who did evil had every right to fear them.  Those who sought protection from evil saw the Jedi as heroes.

America used to be like that.  Our allies saw us as ready and willing to come to their aid against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Our enemies rightly feared us.  Right now, though, our enemies laugh at us because they know that the American people are powerless to stop them.  And we are powerless because our elected elders have relinquished power in the name of diplomacy.

Suppose you travel to Africa on a safari and a lion starts to chase you.  Which one of these two items will be more likely to safe your life: a Hallmark card or a shotgun?

Right now there is some sort of sporting event happening.  But which is more likely to win a championship game: skilled cheerleaders or a talented team?  No victorious sports team has won because they spoke nicely to their opponents and compromised saying "you can have one goal, and we'll take two."  No, in sports you win by being better than the other team.  The better your players, the more you practice, the more likely you are to win.  (Yes, I'm not counting "underdogs," but only because the example is the norm.)

But regarding Iran and its desire for nukes, we don't want them to play nice.  We don't even want to play them "fairly" on the court.  We want them to sit on the bench and forfeit.

The War To End All Wars

On this day (28 June), in 1914, something insignificant happened.  A member of a second-rate European monarchy and his wife were assassinated by a teenage terrorist from a fourth-rate nation.  I'd be willing to bet that most Americans haven't heard of the nation Franz Ferdinand was from, though more probably know about where Gavrilo Princip was from.

Its almost funny how something seemingly insignificant now can be so life changing to millions.

I'm talking about the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, at the hands of Serbian terrorists.  The results may be best described simply: "well, that escalated quickly."

Escalated might be an understatement.

The archduke was assassinated on 28 June.  The Austro-Hungarian empire gave Serbia 30 days to comply with a number of demands.  Before going farther, it should be noted where this happened, because it is surprisingly important.

The archduke was Sarajavo, in modern-day Boznia.  Boznia, and a number of other modern European nations were part of an empire controlled by a branch of the Habsburg family.  I won't get into the "who's who," because European monarchial families are difficult to unravel.  The Austro-Hungarian Empire had been very powerful in its day.  That day was not 1914.  The archduke was the heir-presumptive, and had plans to increase the empire's power.  This was a problem for Serbia.  Serbia wanted to be the leading nation in the Balkans.  For those that do not know, the historic fact is that the Balkan region is the "powder keg of Europe."  There are a few dozen different ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and religious groups in an area about the size of Texas.  These groups live in relative close proximity.  And a few have hated each other for centuries.  Some hatred goes back to before the fall of the Roman Empire.  Regardless, the majority of people there are Slavic.  They are ethnic and linguistic relations to the Russians.  These "southern Slavs" have been fought over by a number of nations in the last two millennia.  In 1914, it was Serbia's turn.  They wanted to rule a unified nation of Slavs, thinking themselves the best of the group and worthy of leadership.  But it is difficult to take over nations owned by someone else.

So, terrorist group kills future emperor.  Current emperor threatens nation protecting terrorists.  Nation protecting terrorists ask for help.  Help shows up.  Emperor calls his allies.  And so on, and so on.  Soon almost every nation in Europe is involved.  Like dominoes.  Serbia calls up Russia, who later calls France.  The Austrians get aid from the Germans, and later on from the Turks, too.  Britain shows up, helping the French, on the flimsy excuse of "Germany invaded Belgium."  Italy started out helping Germany and Austria, but switched sides because it wanted a small piece of Austria's territory.  Soon there's a "great war."  Men were scrambling to enlist because they were afraid the "adventure" would be over by Christmas.  Recent wars up till that point, at least in Europe, had been relatively short.  Some barely lasted a month.  The "Great War" officially began on 28 July, 1914.  It did not end until 11 November, four long, bloody years later.

In the meantime there is the "race to the sea," a two front war, trench warfare, machine guns, unlimited submarine warfare, gas, convoys, tanks, no-man's-land, aircraft, barbed wire, and "shell shock."  Technology, especially the technology of killing, advanced almost twenty years.  And epic battles that lasted days, even weeks.  Battles like Gallipoli, Verdun, Ypres, the Marne, Lodz, and Tannenberg.  It was the first truly world war, since it was fought everywhere.  Fought in both western and eastern Europe, in Africa, in the Middle East, and on the Atlantic Ocean.  There were even a couple of minor battles in the Pacific and Indian oceans.  By the time the United States dragged itself to the war, millions had died.

All because one assassination.

During the peace treaty, Serbia got what it wanted: control over the southern Slavic nations.  Germany was demonized as the instigator, in the same way a video game designer is to blame for a shooting rampage.  And Franz Ferdinand?  Not mentioned.

There is a lot that can be learned from World War One.  How numerous treaties can cause a domino effect.  How minor political issues in one part of the world can have ramifications elsewhere.  How easily politicians can be blinded by their ambitions instead of seeking true justice.

On a lighter note, check this link for a simple explanation to the war.  World War One "Bar Fight"

Birthday Wishes

Happy Birthday 239th to the United States Army.

D-Day - Overlord: Overlord

70 years ago: the military term "D-Day" was made famous due to the amphibious landings in Northern France.

This is one of the most studied and relived events of World War II. So much so that the term "D-Day" has become synonymous with Operation Overlord, specifically the invasions of Operation Neptune.  What about Operation Torch (North Africa), or Shingle (Italy), or Iceberg (Okinawa)?  The date those invasions started are all "D-Days."  Now, I'm not belittling the sacrifice of those who scaled the Atlantic Wall and liberated France.  No, I am trying to inform the masses in the official use of the term.  So consider yourself informed.  Will I yell at you if you say "D-Day" and mean Operation Overlord?  No, I can safely assume most who say "D-Day" mean Normandy.

Okay, I'm done ranting.  Enough of the side-show, let's get to the main event.  Based on the numbers and circumstances, it should not have succeeded.

The invasion of France, with the long-term goal to liberate western Europe, was titled Operation Overlord.

This operation had three parts: Operation Pointblank (bombing campaign aimed at halting the Luftwaffe's ability to react), Operation Neptune (the landing of troops on Normandy beaches), and Operation Bodyguard (deceptions and tricks used to convince the Germans the invasion would land elsewhere).

There were a number of operations within each of these operations.  Sometimes it seems like the military can't help but make things more complicated.  Adding to the complexity is that the targeted area, Normandy, was divided into American and British sectors.  And tasks within a sector was given a codename, like Tonga, Boston, and Epsom.  The use of the codenames was to keep opposition from discovering the truth.

One of the most impressive, is underreported, portions of the Normandy invasion was Operation Bodyguard.  The goal was simple: keep the Nazis in the dark.  The execution of this operation was anything but simple, but they pulled it off.  Fake military units were created, such as the First US Army Group (FUSAG).  Dummy equipment, such as inflatable Sherman tanks, were built.  (If you look up "Operation Bodyguard tank" you will find a picture of four men carrying what appears to be a 66,800 pound tank on their shoulders.)  Even double agents helped spread the lies.  George Patton was even put in charge of the FUSAG, in hopes of attracting attention with his record and attitude.  The Allies worked hard to make it appear that Calais was the target of the invasion.

The result of this massive shell-game?  The Germans spent a lot of time and effort to fortify the area around Calais, and the Fifteenth Army was delayed by several weeks, allowing the Allies to break out of Normandy.

One for three on the "Long Shot" list.

There was a major factor in the actual landings that the Allies could not control: the weather.  The planners wanted to be landing at night with a full moon when the tide was going in.  This allowed for the greatest chance to clear obstacles on the beach, and for aircraft and boat pilots to see.  Had Eisenhower postponed the landings, the next available time was two weeks later, without a full moon.  The weather available June 4-7 was bad, but it would have been worse.  On a plus side, the Germans believed that there would be two weeks of bad weather in early June, so many commanders, including Field Marshal Rommel, were not immediately available when the landings happened.  Sometimes it pays to play in the rain.

But the Germans had other reasons not to be worried.  The Atlantic Wall.

After raids in 1942, Hitler ordered the fortification of the Atlantic coast, from Spain to Norway.  Blockhouses, bunkers, pillboxes, trenches, and tank traps were build.  Thousands of tons of concrete were poured.  Hundreds of miles of barbed wire were strung.  Rommel, a brilliant leader the Allies dealt with in North Africa, realized Normandy was a key location for landing.  He tripled the mines in the area, had anti-tank and anti-boat obstacles placed at high-tide marks, and created Rommelspargel.  These "Rommel's asparagus" were 13+ foot tall wooden poles "planted" in fields.  The idea was they would damage gliders.  Some were placed on beaches, in hopes of ripping the bottoms off of boats.  A number even had mines attached to the tops.  By the time Rommel was finished, the Atlantic Wall appeared impenetrable.

The lead-in bombing campaign, Operation Pointblank, began a year earlier.  The goal, again, was simple: destroy the Luftwaffe, the German air industry, and any other industry that could be used against the landings.  The Combined Bombing Offensive, which Operation Pointblank was a part of, was a massive, if controversial, success.  But this isn't about that.  Operation Pointblank itself was tasked with destroying fighter bases, to establish air superiority and air supremacy over the beaches, and over Europe in general.  They succeeded in both.  Air superiority means you have total control of the air over your territory and substantial control over enemy territory.  From 1944 onward, few if any Luftwaffe fighters were seen over Allied territory.  And the USAF and RAF had near complete control of European airspace during the last two years of the war.  Sure, German fighters could still attack and harass bombers, but the Luftwaffe was a faint shadow of its former glory.  Air supremacy means you have total control over all airspace, both your's and your enemy's.  Nothing flies unless it has your insignia on the wings.  At the end of the war the Allies achieved that, but only at the end.  Regardless, the air superiority over Europe, especially over Normandy, allowed the landings to occur with less casualties.

Two for three on the "Long Shot" list.

Operation Neptune started at 0015 (local), 6 June, 1944, with the landings of pathfinders, whose task was to guide in 13,000 paratroopers from the US 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions.  Unfortunately, due to clouds, only 1 in 5 paratroopers reached their landing zone.  Some of these American airborne did not reach drop zones until afternoon.

The British got the first shots of D-Day, with Operation Deadstick.  Gliders landed near the bridges over the Caen canal and the Orne river.  This first operation of the landings was a success.

The amphibious landings started at 0630.  From the start, things did not go according to plan.

The first "boots on the ground" were at Utah beach.  Only they were not.  Gen. Teddy Roosevelt's 4th Inf. Division didn't land at the designated Utah beach, but 2,000 yards west.  The son of the famed president and Rough Rider said they would "start the war from right here."  The advantage was that there was less resistance at this Utah.  By the end of the day there were less than 200 casualties.  A stark contrast to the other American beachhead.

Omaha.

It was the heaviest defended beach.  It was the target of one of the most experienced Allied unit: the 1st Inf. Division.  Bombers were concerned with hitting landing craft, so many of the beach obstacles were not destroyed prior to landings.  Currents caused boats to drift east. Many boats hit sandbars 50-100 yards out, forcing the men to wade the remainder of the distance.  In full combat gear and packs.  Under fire.  The call at 0830 was to hold off on further landings, until some destroyers provided cover fire.  All told around 2,000 died on Omaha beach.

The British at Gold beach weren't having an easier time either.  High winds forced the boats off course.  A number of casemates caused trouble until cruisers or tanks were able to knock them out.  The British lost around 1,000.

At Juno beach, troops landed before tanks, and didn't have the support to defeat the un-bombarded batteries.  The three nearby towns became the sites of fierce fighting, and the airfield remained contested for a month.  But, on the day of the landings, less than 1,000 men died.

Because of wind, obstacles and mines, and a fast rising tide, Sword beach became congested quickly.  It was at Sword beach Free French forces landed, helping to capture at least one stronghold.  Here British troops moved towards Caen, coming within a kilometer of it.  German tanks also attempted to counterattack, and nearly reached the English Channel.  At the end of the day, around 1,000 died at Sword.

Five landing forces embarked.  Five beachheads taken.

Three for three on the "Long Shot" list.

The largest amphibious invasion in human history was a success.  Operation Overlord, which ended August 25, 1944, was a success as well.  The Allies had the first stepping stone toward the liberation of Europe in place.  In a way, the hard part was over.  They had breached the Atlantic Wall and proven that "Fortress Europe" had weaknesses that would be exploited.

Next came the long road to Berlin.

On the way would be bitter cold, armored fortifications, massive airborne attacks, and some of the most disciplined, determined, and desperate soldiers in history.  The "Battle for Europe" had begun.

The goal: Liberation.  No exceptions.

***

To all the veterans of the Normandy Invasion:

Thank you, and God bless.

US Army

"This we'll defend."

US Navy

"Non sibi sed patriae."

US Marine Corps

"Semper Fidelis."

US Coast Guard

"Semper Paratus."

US Air Force

"Aim high... fly, fight, win."

To all our brave young men and women, past, present, and future, who are called to defend this nation, thank you.

God Bless America, and may you have a peaceful Memorial Day.


If you wish to revisit my poem "Rest Well," you may do so here: http://baumann-intheloop.blogspot.com/2012/05/rest-well.html

Happy B-Day Army!

In 1775 the Continental Army was established, meaning this day is the US Army's 237th birthday.
In 1777 the "Stars and Stripes" was adopted as the official US flag.
And in 1954 President Eisenhower approved the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
Oh, and it's Flag Day.  (I wonder if that is a coincidence, considering "Old Glory" was adopted on June 14th... hmm...)
Now, I'm a big fan of the Navy and Marines, but that doesn't mean I am anti-army.  Kinda hard to be against a branch of the military when you like studying military history.  Especially with a family that has a fair amount of military connection.
My grandfathers both served in World War II, Gordon in the Army Air Force and Lee in the Navy.  Megan's grandfather Lester served in the Navy too.  I have an uncle who served in the Air Force, as has his son, and two of my wife's uncles.  And my father-in-law, Tom, served in the Army.  In fact, he served for a while with the 3rd Infantry Regiment.
The "Old Guard" is based in Washington D.C. and is the oldest infantry unit.  Their role is primarily ceremonial.  It is this esteemed unit that tends Arlington National Cemetery, including guarding the Tomb of the Unknowns.  While serving with them, my father-in-law was responsible for changing the guard at the Tomb, and even got to open the door for President Ford at the White House.  Now he participates in the Memorial Day services every year, often speaking about his experiences and his view on the nation he loves and defended.
But his stories don't stop on November 11th.  One of the most memorable, to me, is about his time in Germany.  He was driving someone around in a Jeep, and was told to go around some M113 armored personnel carriers.  However, the road had a steep hill instead of a shoulder.  Tom voiced his concerns about rolling the vehicle, but was told that Jeeps are impossible to roll.  Guess what, they rolled the Jeep.  No one hurt, pride not included.
Tom is a collector of stories, having a number of friends who are retired military.  His personality and ability to make friends with almost anyone in less than 5 minutes is becoming almost a superpower (my opinion).  It is this personable nature that aided him in climbing the ranks while in the Army.  Everyday, while moving Jeeps about the base, he would pass a General each morning.  Not content with saluting, he would greet the General every day.  Apparently that looks good when promotions come around.
Anyway, I realize that I've been rambling, and it took me all day to get around to it.  If everyone wants, I can have Tom tell his stories on this blog, but I'm not sure how he'd adjust to the world of blog.  Heck, I still haven't fully acclimated myself.  Not that it's going to stop me.
Anyway, happy birthday Army.

Rest Well

Recently one of the poems I wrote was published in an annual anthology at school.  (Wow, four word alliteration.)  I had submitted three poems and a piece of a story I'm working on.  Now, I don't write poetry too often, but mostly because I prefer to write narratives.  But, sometimes I just need to vent literarily, and poetry is a good an outlet.  Perhaps that is why only one was selected.  Since it is just me and my feelings, the form is rough.  Not like the "pretty" poems that made it in the booklet.  Which, I'll admit, there were only 3 or 4 good poems in the whole thing.  And they didn't make sense.  They didn't tell a story, convey an emotion, or paint a mental picture.  They were just a scrambling of "word vomit."

The poem I submitted was written last September.  And recently, I was playing around with the movie making program on my laptop, and used it as a "test."  It turned out better than I hoped.  I posted it a while ago on Facebook, but I'll post it again here, so that more people can read it.

Enjoy.

(Background music: "Remember Me" from the album "Illusions" by Thomas Bergersen)

Tonight on "Top Shot..."

One of the most dangerous things on earth: a military enthusiast holding a shotgun and no idea what the heck he's doing.

Hey all, wanted to post this really quick for a few reasons.
1- I haven't yet posted any pictures and I though now was a good time to "test" it.
2- I haven't posted since Saturday.
3- I got to go shooting today.
I have never fired a gun before.  And, no, Nerf and BB guns do not count.  So my friend Tim invites me out to try my hand at shotguns.  Now, I like history, especially if that history is involving the military.  So my opinion on shotguns is so-so.  Lots of kick to make a handful of little holes; doesn't really sound like fun to me.
Boy was I wrong.  We head out to his in-law's farm and "blast" things in their burn pile.  First victim is an old door.  I'm given a 20 gauge (seen in pic) and I go all out.  There's already a couple of holes in it, which I kindly widen.  So much so that the door looks like it is being cut in half.  I also take off the door knob, and try to blast a hinge off.  Next up is a television, which gets both the 20 gauge, and a 12 gauge.  I don't think we can fix it.  Finally we try to destroy an empty helium tank, but all we do it make hundreds of tiny dents.
But it was fun.  And worth the slightly sore shoulder.  I didn't even bruise (darn).

French Toast, Flattops, and Frustration

On 16 July 1934, workers at Newport News Shipyard in Virginia began work on the second ship in a brand new class of warship for the United States Navy.  As will most ships, this first piece was the keel; the literal foundation of the vessel. If only they had know that they were laying the foundations of the most famous warship in US history.

Fast forward to 29 February, 2008.  The History Channel premiers a special 10 part series unlike any other.  Not only is it actually focussing on history (which is very unlike the History Channel as of late) but it mixes CGI, interviews, live footage, and expert opinions to paint a portrait of the life and service of one intrepid ship and her crew.  The show's title: Battle 360º.   The subject: USS ENTERPRISE (CV-6), aka: the "Big E," the most decorated ship in the US Navy.

What does this have to do with "french toast?"  And why am I posting about a show that you can watch on You Tube?  (Which you can watch here: Battle 360º E1 "Call to Duty")

Its pretty simple.  On the weekends over the last couple years, Meg has been working 8 hour shifts.  So Nate and I have had free-reign of the house.  By sheer luck or divine providence we kept from burning the place down.  And we bonded over breakfast.  Its amazing what one egg, a little milk and cinnamon, and 4-6 slices of bread can do.  Nate and I would sit at the table and eat our french toast as in the background I had episodes of Battle 360º playing on the laptop.

I had known that ENTERPRISE was one of the most famous and important ships of the Pacific War.  But I had not known how awesome her service record was.  During 4 years of constant combat, she earned 1 campaign star, 20 battle stars (the most of any USN ship, EVER), the Presidential Unit Citation (first carrier to receive this), numerous campaign and service medals, and the Royal Navy Admiralty Pendant.  Read that last one again.  The ENTERPRISE is the only foreign vessel to have received the 400 year award.  Impressed yet?  Because I was.  Then I started paying attention to the episodes.

The ENTERPRISE is the highest decorated ship of the US Navy for a reason.  She and her crew earned each and every award and accolade.  Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal even said that the "Big E" is the "one vessel that most nearly symbolizes the history of the Navy in this war."  The story of Bruno Gaido hit that home for me.  This mechanic manned the twin guns in the tail of a dive bomber  (which he was not trained to do) while the ship was under attack.  One of the attacking bombers was hit, and intent on crashing into the ship.  Despite the enemy plane slicing the tail off his plane, Gaido continued to shoot at it until it crashed into the sea.  For that he was granted a double promotion on the spot by Admiral "Bull" Halsey.  And that was on a quiet day.

The record of the "Big E" takes one from Pearl Harbor to the end of the war.  If there was a battle involving the US Navy in the Pacific, ENTERPRISE was probably there.

But, I my opinion, there's a problem.  This illustrious vessel has not been honored properly.  Don't think for a second that I am belittling the service of CVN-65, the current USS ENTERPRISE.  That amazing vessel has served longer than any other, a phenomenal 51 years.  Her deactivation in December of this year will be emotional for many in the service, I bet.

No, the problem I have originates 8 September 1966.  On that day a sci-fi television program first aired, staring an exploration vessel tasked to "boldly go where no man has gone before."  Perhaps if Gene Roddenberry (who, ironically served in the USAAF, therefore probably not very supportive of the Navy) had made his "Enterprise" a full combat vessel carrying at least two squadrons of fighters into battle, I wouldn't be as frustrated.

I also wouldn't be as "perturbed" if the Department of Defense would just do the right thing and stop naming carriers after people.  This came out a couple days ago while watching my family's favorite show: NCIS.  Every so often, Meg and I get on an “NCIS kick.”  This means having running marathon of all the episodes we own, though the episodes play as “background” as much as they are actually watched.

Anyway, enough tangent.*  One episode after the team is split up features Tony on the “USS Seahawk” with a case that requires the aid of everyone.  Careful attention to the photos reveal that “Seahawk” is CVN-74: the “John C. Stennis.”

Now, I love history, especially military history.  And aircraft carriers are a favorite of mine.  I pride myself with being pretty familiar with them, but the name “Stennis” drew a bit of a blank.  Who is he?
Well, apparently he was a Democrat from Mississippi, who had never served in the Navy.  Actually, he never served a day in uniform.  And we named a carrier after him for what reason?

This keeps happening, the naming of carriers after politicians.  I'm fed up with it.  The Nimitz class is mostly named for presidents or politicians supportive of the Navy.  Well, except for Stennis.  I'm still trying to find a connection between him and the Navy.

But, Nimitz class are old, and being replaced by a new class: Gerald R. Ford.  So far there are three on schedule for service by 2025.  Two are named for presidents who served in the US Navy: Gerald R. Ford and John F. Kennedy.  I can accept these names.

But CVN-80 is causing issue for me.  There's a petition out to name it after the "Big E," but a senator from Arizona has suggested the names "Arizona" or "Barry Goldwater."  While I like the suggestion that Arizona be honored like this, I think that having the name remain resting on the floor of Pearl Harbor is a greater honor.  As for Goldwater, he's half of the "Goldwater-Nichols Act," which re-structured America's military and attempted to eliminate the rivalries between the services.  And while that's great and all, remember that Goldwater served in the US Army Air Force, not the Navy.  Naming a carrier after him would be like naming a football stadium after a famous baseball pitcher.  Sure he's well respected, but the connection isn't there.

So, where am I going with this?  Simple: I can't eat french toast without thinking about the "Big E."  And I can't think about the "Big E" without hoping that the DOD takes the online petitions and proud history of the Navy seriously when it comes time to announce CVN-80's name.

And now I've got a craving for some french toast with melted butter, warm syrup, and powdered sugar.  I'm going to stop now before anyone shorts out their computer due to drool.

P.S. - Let me know what you think.  There's supposed to be a button labeled "comment."  Click it and give me feedback.  It could be about what I've written, about this endeavor, or about whether french toast or waffles are better for breakfast.  I want to hear from you.  Thanks.

*( Yeah, right.  This whole blog is nothing but one big electronic tangent.)