K-19 II.

This is coolbert:

Kursk!

Continuing with extracts and commentary from the book: "K-19, The Widowmaker" by the American author Peter Huchthausen.

"On August 12 2000 . . . the Russian super-submarine Kursk exploded and sank in 350 feet [about 100 meters] of water in the Barents sea . . . taking 118 Russian sailors and engineers to the deaths . . . Forty-nine top submarine officers, 36 more than the normal complement, were aboard the Kursk that day. They had come to observe a test firing of a remarkable new undersea weapon called the Shkval torpedo-missile. A super-cavitating missile capable of underwater speeds of more than 200 miles per hour [320 kilometers per hour] . . . The Kursk was testing an improved version of the Shkval that had a longer range and used liquid fuel, replacing the earlier solid-fuel system."

Liquid-fuel from the torpedo having leaked and reacted with other metals, causing a spontaneous fire with secondary explosions responsible for the loss of the Kursk.

As suggested an alternative theory the explosion of a conventional torpedo and not an improved version of the Skhval.

Mere firing of the Shkval torpedo creating an over-pressure within the torpedo room necessitating the opening of bulkhead hatches rearward in the boat, danger from accident that much greater, watertight
integrity of the submarine in a combat and in this case peacetime situation compromised.

That loss too of so many senior Russian submariners exacerbating the situation that much more! Such personnel hard to replace, years of institutional memory and experience gone in an instant!

coolbert.

K-19 I.

This is coolbert:

Here begins a series of blog entries, extracts with commentary from the book: "K-19, The Widowmaker" by the American author Peter Huchthausen. Peter a retired American naval Captain and an acknowledged anti-submarine warfare expert.

I recommend this book [2002] highly and without reservation or qualification. Pertinent to many unrevealed aspects of submarine operations during the Cold War. Chock full of interesting tidbits probably not found elsewhere.

"Drawing on Zateyev's own outspoken diary, author Peter Huchthausen, a former U.S. Navy antisubmarine expert, tells the story of the K-19 and as he does, he also presents a capsule history of the U.S.S.R's desperate race to keep up with American submarine technology."

K-19 of course the story of which has been made into a movie. A near nuclear meltdown on the Soviet atomic powered submarine, crew members subjected to dangerous levels of radiation, those charged with containing the disaster even receiving lethal doses.

This book to a degree reminds me of the Penkovskiy Papers from forty years earlier.

"During his entire career Zateyev kept a meticulous diary which in his later years he used to compose a memoir. He regularly recorded his thoughts and feelings about the navy, the system, and detailed his experiences. His insights into the life of naval officers, specifically the navy culture, are unique. That most valuable parts concern his experiences during the crucial formative years of the atomic submarine force."

"'We had to try to drain the reactor compartment lower-level sump., The main stripping pump for Compartment Eight had failed; it was out of order. We decided to drain the sump with the main drainage pump for the central post . . . I felt my gorge rise. I went off to my cabin and lay down on my berth. Thoughts of all kinds were racing through my head. I knew I had to take action. The problem was how to save the crew and the ship. My main worry was the men.'"

To a degree I am surprised that Captain Zatayev maintained a diary/journal during his long military career. That sort of thing I would have thought strictly forbidden during the Soviet era.

 But there it is! 

 coolbert.

First Cav.

This is coolbert:

The American First Cavalry Division during that period of the Second World War retained state-side for some period in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and not deployed overseas in an expeditious manner for what was apparently good reason to the Pentagon planners.

"The reason that the Army had a continuing interest in horse cavalry operations in 1942 was simply that there was no fully developed strategy for fighting the war in the event of an invasion of the western hemisphere. If the Army, in a tactical situation such as the invasion of France by Germany, could have been guaranteed networks of good roads, ample fuel supplies, gentle familiar terrain and constant air superiority, it might have decided to get along without the horse cavalry operations. However, chances were, that the US defenses might be challenged on less than ideal terrain; perhaps an enemy landing in Western Mexico or along the coast of Brazil, that was friendly to Germany. In such an event mounted soldiers, using sturdy, sure footed-horses, could prove invaluable."

An "enemy landing" on the west coast of Mexico I presume to be the Japanese. An "enemy landing" on the Atlantic coast of Brazil I presume to be the German. Possibility of such events transpiring low but not to be totally precluded from war plans.

"An important operational factor of the horse cavalry was that it could quickly get around and over hazardous terrain such as hills, rocks, trees or desert, but the majority of actual enemy engagement is done fighting dismounted. On such ground, supported by its own artillery and armored units, the 1st Cavalry Division could lick its weight [???] in enemy tanks."

Cavalry also to a large degree while in the field self-sustaining, foraging freely! There is advantage to this!
     
"Near wartime 'full strength' levels, the 1st Cavalry Division was equipped with one hundred forty-five armored reconnaissance cars, six hundred trucks of all sizes, and three hundred seventy motorcycles along with thirteen light tanks. Horses combined with the pool of vehicles could pull or carry a complete mobile arsenal "

At the insistence of Mac Arthur, the division relinquishing all horses when deploying to the Pacific theater.

coolbert.

First Cavalry.

This is coolbert:

"the shield they never carried, the horse they never rode, the bridge they never crossed, the line they never held, and the yellow is the reason why."

Further extracts with commentary from the book: "HUBRIS THE TRAGEDY OF WAR IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY" by Alistair Horne.

Conclusion!

2. Regarding the destruction [1950] of the American 8th Regiment, First Cavalry Division [1st Cav] in Korea.

* "the overall casualty statistics show a less unflattering picture; where as in all the battles of the Second World War the First Cav had lost 734 killed in action and 3,311 wounded (236 died of wounds), in Korea they would amount to 3,811 killed with 2,086 wounded."

That normal ratio wounded/killed as observed from both World Wars normally 350/100. For every three-hundred-fifty wounded [WIA] one hundred dead [KIA]. 

The experience and casualty ratio of the Indian Army during the Aksai Chin conflict [also in combat with Chinese regulars] VERY SIMILAR!!

From Professor Al Nofi of Strategy Page at his CIC # 435 as noted the performance of the First Cav during WW2 considered to be quite good:

"Dismounted and converted to a kind of 'lite' infantry formation in 1943, the 1^st Cavalry Division nonetheless proved quite effective in combat in the South Pacific, in part because it was the only pre-war division (Regular Army or National Guard) that was not heavily drained of experienced personnel to provide cadres for the raising of new divisions."

So the 1st Cav did well in WW2 but not so well in Korea? Perhaps it was that the Chinese were very good rather than the 1st Cav was very bad? Do not think however that the 1st Cav was YELLOW!

coolbert.

DBP.

This is coolbert:

Some extracts and commentary from the book: "HUBRIS THE TRAGEDY OF WAR IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY" by Alistair Horne.

1. The French defeat at Dien Bien Phu.

* De Castries, commanding the French garrison at Dien Bien Phu [DBP] was no stranger to battle. The man did have a distinguished World War Two combat record.

* "It is not correct to speak only of 'French' defenders. Many in fact were foreign legionnaires of whom the majority were Germans escaping from the debacle of the previous war at home. In addition, there were substantial numbers of colonial Algerian tirailleurs, who fought with varying degrees of determination in what was for them an unpopular war."

That predominant number of personnel defending DBP not Frenchmen as that word Frenchmen normally, ordinarily and commonly understood. The DBP garrison, those combat contingents consisting primarily of French Foreign Legion soldiers, colonial troops and friendly Indo-Chinese. A French conscript during that period could NOT HAVE BEEN COMPELLED to serve in Indo-China.

* No mention of Na San. From one year earlier also a deliberate siege, the French emerging victorious from what was for them a strictly defensive battle, the Viet Minh sustaining heavy casualties. Taken in a vacuum DBP makes little sense. Taken within the context of Na San DBP makes perfect sense. 

* As noted by Mr. Horne: ("that whereas during the 167 day of siege at Dien Bien Phu the total number of air sorties was 10,400, in 1966, during the Second Vietnam War, the weekly American total alone often exceeded 25,000.")

Air defense assets of the Viet Minh at DBP also quite formidable. Even if more air sorties of all types available, aircraft on missions having to fly higher and faster, their ability to deliver with accuracy on target ordnance of supplies that much more limited!

* "Instead of the 25,000 shells that French intelligence had assessed were all Giap's transport could bring up, 350,000 had fallen on the garrison."

NOT ONLY many more shells but rounds fired of larger caliber too. That number of artillery as employed by the Viet Minh at DBP to include Soviet mortars of 120 mm or larger.

Regarding the topic of Dien Bien Phu see previous blog entries:

http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/11/na-san.html

http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/02/analysis.html

http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/02/dien-bien-phu.html

coolbert.

Occupied.

This is coolbert:

The Swedish General Anders Brännström has been watching too much television? The moment I saw this item thanks to Freeper that was my instantaneous reaction.

"TV drama depicting Russian invasion premieres in Norway"

"Norwegian thriller Occupied has been condemned by Moscow and is likely to tap into fears in Scandinavian countries of Russian aggression"

"Russian commandos have kidnapped the prime minister. The Russian tricolour is flying over the capital. Citizens must decide whether they will collaborate with the occupation, or resist."

"The scenario of Occupied, a Scandinavian thriller that premieres in Norway this weekend (Sunday 4 October 2015), and in western Europe during the autumn, is likely to tap into fears of Russian aggression – and perhaps, according to critics, inflame them."

DO NOT EXPECT THE NORWEGIAN MILITARY TO COLLABORATE. THEIR TROOPS HAVE SEEN THE POSTER ON THE WALL! AND KEEP SAYING TO YOURSELF IT IS ONLY A MOVIE!

coolbert.

Proxies.

This is coolbert:

Yet more from the latest edition of the DEBKAfile newsletter.

Syrian Army and associated proxy forces and backed up by Russian air power continue to advance. Rebels as opposed to the despot Assad under attack NOT THOSE COMBATANTS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE.

The Russian plans the offensive and issues the orders, others obey!!

1. "Russian-backed Syria pushes ahead after taking key town of Salma"

22 January.

"Syrian forces pushed forward Friday to capture more parts of Latakia province from rebel hands after taking the key town of Salma backed by Russian air strikes. The town was held by Syrian rebels for three years during which they fired on government-held Latakia and threatened the nearby Russian base."

2. "Second Russian-Syrian-Hizballah conquest near Latakia"

24 January.

"Syrian-Hizballah forces backed by Russia captured Rabia, the last town held by rebels in the province of Latakia after the fall of Salma . . . For four years, Rabia was in rebel hands, including the Al Qaeda affiliate the Nusra Front. The combined Syrian-Hizballah force fought under Russian officers with the support of heavy Russian air strikes." 

3. "Syrian army takes key town near Israeli border in major breakthrough"

26 January.

"A Syrian army force under the command of Iranian and Russian officers has captured Sheikh Maskin, a key southern town near the Israeli border, thereby isolating rebel groups in the Deraa region. . . . Sheikh Maskin controls the southern hub of the roads leading to the Jebel Druze town of Suwaida, the Golan town of Quneitra and Damascus."

coolbert.