Monday, October 21, 2019

Dreadnought III.

This is coolbert:

See my previous blog entries on the same topic here and here.

From a Russian military Internet web site copied in entirety the posting at a forum by KomissarBojanchev.

"Possibility of return of the Battleship? Empty Possibility of return of the battleship?"

"Do you think building cannon armed dreadnoughts is the answer for future warfare? Giving it an MBT [main battle tank] grade composite armor of massive thickness would make AshMs [anti-ship missiles] nearly useless against it since most have fragmentation warheads only useful against the unarmored CVs [aircraft carriers] and destroyers of today and while HEAT [high-explosive anti-tank] warheads might penetrate its armor it would only affect one compartment of the modern dreadnought and wont do much damage unless it is extremely lucky enough to hit an ammo compartment. Also giving it a respectable CIWS [close-in weapons system] will negate the threat of missiles and bombs even more. While the base range of an average 406mm [sixteen inch] projectile would be only about 40km [twenty-five miles] having using assisted shells will give it range surpassing some AshMs. If a 152mm assisted round can go 80km, a 203mm round might go around 120km [seventy-five miles] imagine how much a will a 400+mm [sixteen inch+] round go! The battleship would expend its ammo a lot slower than a missile armed ship. And if a battleships gun could do heavy damage to an armored WW2 cruiser imagine how volleys of guided 406mm [sixteen inch] shells will pulverize unarmored missile destroyers and carriers. Even so adding missiles will still be a good idea for very long range strikes (the iowas had tomahawks). A modern battleship carrying 460mm [sixteen inch] turrets (and carrying about 1000 rounds) and 16 brahmos [supersonic anti-ship missile] or klub-K [Russian anti-ship missile] missiles would be easily the most powerful ship in the sea. Of course carriers could still be useful but adding a battleship to the task force would make it a lot more powerful."

ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION AS POSED MORE OR LESS UNIFORMLY NEGATIVE.

And thank you KomissarBojanchev.

coolbert.

Saturday, October 19, 2019

MDC2.

This is coolbert:

Multi-Domain Command and Control (MDC2).

From a previous blog entry the question as asked: "Details of this latest modernization not given but said to include and to concentrate on multi-domain warfare. Whatever that includes."

Multi-domain warfare!

From the Internet web site War on the Rocks and for the perusal of the devoted reader to the blog info on multi-domain warfare.

"MULTI-DOMAIN BATTLE: AIRLAND BATTLE, ONCE MORE, WITH FEELING"

"So, what is this Multi-Domain Battle that everyone seems to be talking about? Is it a brave new concept that will carry the day and the Army to a revolution in military affairs? Or is it just AirLand Battle with a dose of cyber?"

See also additional web sites with an index or various articles the topic of which is multi-domain warfare:

https://www.tradoc.army.mil/Multi-Domain-Operations/

https://breakingdefense.com/multi-domain-warfare/

Personally I do not understand and do not pretend to know so.

coolbert.




Friday, October 18, 2019

Overhaul.

This is coolbert:

U.S. Army due for a major overhaul. According to the Russia media outlet Sputnik that is.

Major "overhaul" as has not occurred now in forty years or more? We have to rely on the  Russian Internet media for such reporting.

"US Army Embarks on 16-Year Modernization Program to Match ‘Pacing Threat’ Russia, China"

"The Army’s [USA] latest modernization strategy report revealed they will prioritize countering military developments in China and Russia, the US’ 'pacing threat,' as the branch begins a four-stage plan to become a multi-domain force by 2035.

From over forty years ago it was the concepts and doctrine of AirLand Battle [2000]. A means for NATO defense against a massive Soviet attack [doctrine as not totally confined to NATO also envisioning military operations in the Middle East and Korea employing the same weapons and doctrine].

AirLand to be successful in large measure based on the development and fielding of war-winning weaponry to include:

* Bradley vehicle.

* Abrams tank.

* Apache attack helicopter.

* Patriot air defense missile.

* MLRS. Multiple Launch Rocket System.

AirLand Battle and the weaponry as associated with same proving to be successful. Not only a deterrent against Soviet attack [Big Red moves west] but think also Gulf War I and the destruction of Saddam's army, an action accomplished with relative and surprising ease.

Details of this latest modernization not given but said to include and to concentrate on multi-domain warfare. Whatever that includes. Again the idea deterrence but also having a war-winning formula that combination of weapons and doctrine most vital and having been thought through well in advance.

coolbert.




Thursday, October 17, 2019

SLRC.

This is coolbert:

Consider this to be the U.S. Army answer to the hypersonic weapon problem? From a variety of sources and authors.

SLRC = Strategic Long-Range Cannon.

An artillery cannon possessing incredible range. I can understand there is merit to this idea. You can fire more rounds repeatedly at long-range cheaper than using hyper-sonic missiles. Missiles expensive!

1. "Army Building 1,000-Mile Supergun".

"While the Strategic Long-Range Cannon will hit targets at ranges comparable to bleeding-edge hypersonics missiles, Army officials emphasized the cannon is built on proven principles, just bigger."

2. "The U.S. Army Wants a Cannon with a Crazy and Nearly Impossible Range".

"The U.S. Army wants to push its long-range guns into territory artillery officers have previously only dreamt of. The service’s Strategic Long Range Cannon is projected to fire way, way, way farther than any existing gun, or any gun ever made."

3. "US working on 1150 mile range supergun".

"The US Strategic Long Range Cannon (SLRC) will have a range of up to 1,150 miles."

"The Strategic Long Range Cannon could be a follow-up to supergun work that Gerard Bull started for Iraq from 1988-1990. It could be a long barrel using high-performance propellant powder."

"The SLRC could also be a scaled up railgun."

Details of the SLRC not known. Will be MOVE-ABLE but not MOBILE. Electro-magnetic railgun as favored by the U.S. Navy that project now discontinuted? Or is SLRC an adaptation of the railgun?

ACCURACY TOO MOST IMPORTANT. YOU WANT TO FIRE A PROJECTILE LONG-RANGE BUT ALSO HIT AND DESTROY THE TARGET!

coolbert.


Tuesday, October 15, 2019

EU BG.

This is coolbert:

The Pan-European military force? Not just on paper or a concept as in the minds of European Union bureaucrats and politicians?

The EU Battlegroup. Consider this a new one of me.

"An EU Battlegroup (EU BG) is a military unit adhering to the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the European Union (EU). Often based on contributions from a coalition of member states, each of the eighteen Battlegroups consists of a battalion-sized force (1,500 troops) reinforced with combat support elements"

Battalion sized combat-arms size force task tailored reinforced. For use if needed within the EU to deal with external threat and also possibly as peacekeeping troops outside the EU.

BATTLEGROUPS APPARENTLY MULTI-NATIONAL AND MULTI-LINGUAL!

Rapid reaction type force even when combined really not capable of thwarting massive invasion of the Euro Zone by an external enemy. Missions as designated with far less in mind.

Type Rapid reaction force:
Size 18 battalions, including:
*14 battalions with ~1,500 soldiers
*4 battalions with ~2,500 soldiers

I GUESS YOU GOTTA START SOMEWHERE!

coolbert.


Sunday, October 13, 2019

Sworbe.

This is coolbert:

The Sworbe Pocket. Germans under the command of Field Marshal Ferdinand Schörner.

Hold out! To the end! No retreat! Terrain of no great value!


Thanks to You Tube video. Sworbe I had never heard of. 

Consider: 1. Sworbe yet one more example of German senior officers acting in a manner [after discussion perhaps?] contrary to the explicit and direct orders of Hitler himself. 2. Also one more instance of the successful reverse amphibious operation. Amphibious operations considered to the most difficult of all military tasks. Such an operation while under intense pressure even more so. 3. Ferdinand Schörner having so strongly encouraged his men to fight under hopeless conditions at the very end of WW2 himself donned a civilian suit and was flown out of the battle area to surrender to American forces.

coolbert.


Schörner.

This is coolbert:

The good, the bad, the ugly! German style WW2.

Conclusion.

The bad! Ferdinand Schörner.

"Ferdinand Schörner . . . was a German army officer and Nazi war criminal. He was a general and later Field Marshal in the Wehrmacht of Nazi Germany during World War II. He commanded several army groups and was the last Commander-in-chief of the German Army."

"Schörner is commonly represented in historical literature as a simple disciplinarian and a slavish devotee of Hitler's defensive orders, after Germany lost the initiative in second half of World War II 1942/43. More recent research . . . depicts Schörner as a talented commander with 'astonishing' organizational ability in managing an army group of 500,000 men during the fighting in late 1944 on the Eastern Front. He was harsh against superiors as well as subordinates and carried out operations on his own authority against Hitler's orders when he considered it necessary"

THE STEREOTYPICAL UNREPENTANT NAZI! BUT NOT IN ALL CASES SO ABSOLUTELY OBEDIENT TO HITLER, DEFYING DIRECT ORDERS IN SOME INSTANCES.

FERDINAND A SENIOR COMMANDER MOST NOTED FOR HIS SUMMARY EXECUTIONS OF GERMAN SOLDIERS THOUGHT TO BE DESERTING, MALINGERING OR SHIRKING!

Within the context of "organizational ability" the German generals during World War Two noted for their ability on very short notice to form ad hoc credible fighting units. Making bricks without straw!

coolbert.