Type A.

This is coolbert:

Very interesting program on public television broadcast this evening.

From Nova: "Killer Subs of Pearl Harbor".

An entire program dealing with the five Japanese midget submarines attacking Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941.

An attack to have been made simultaneously with and in conjunction with the attack on the American fleet moored at anchorage, Pearl Harbor. Attack from above and below!

It is well known what happened to four of the five attacking midgets. Failed totally in their mission, sunk, run aground, scuttled, etc., all accounted for by the U.S. Navy and historians.

One sub and what happened to it remains a mystery and has for almost seventy years now?

Mystery, however, now, solved?

One of those five midget subs DID penetrate the defenses of Pearl Harbor, and DID fire two torpedoes, ONE of which may have been a dud [fired at the Arizona], the other striking home, crippling an American battleship [Oklahoma or West Virginia].

So seems to be the evidence. A midget sub, apparently dumped outside of Pearl Harbor, at a depth of 1,000 feet, MISSING the two torpedoes normally carried by the Type A midget. This apparently is the fifth up-until-now unaccounted for missing sub.

This entire program however, omits a point that to me is even more important.

The torpedoes carried by the Type A were of the Long Lance variety. Top secret potentially war-winning weapon developed as a means for the Japanese Navy to wage asymmetric warfare against the surface fleet of any potential rival. A torpedo used most effectively on a number of occasions during naval surface battles [1942], A WEAPON OF WHICH THE ALLIED NAVAL INTELLIGENCES SUPPOSEDLY HAD NOT INKLING OF!

It was supposedly not until 1943 that the allies captured intact an unexploded Long Lance that had run aground on a Pacific island, having missed the intended target, continuing to run long and far, finally coming ashore without detonating! This is the generally accepted history.

Comments:

* That Long Lance was a formidable weapon. Carrying a 1,000 pound warhead that could do a lot of damage. The Arizona showing absolutely no sign of torpedo damage, but was the target of the dud found in the aftermath of that 7 December attack?

* Those subs [Type A Ko-Hyoteki midget sub] were engineering marvels, running strictly on an electric motor with battery power, two man crew operating the vessel from a compartment about the size of a closet!

* An asymmetric weapon system firing an asymmetric weapon make for a deadly combo.

* Surely analysis of that dud or those Long Lance captured from any of the other Type A subs at Pearl would have alert allied naval intelligence that the Japanese were in possession of an extraordinary naval weapon that gave the enemy a significant advantage during a surface engagement. NO HEED was paid to whatever analysis was done, if any?

coolbert.

Siachen.

This is coolbert:

Here is a battleground where that inhaled drug, as currently being developed by Darpa, could be field tested, the efficacy of the chemical being instantly proven or disproven - - an aid to troops working and fighting in a high mountainous combat zone.

Siachen glacier.




A massive field of ice, at high altitude in the Karakorum mountain range, just southeast of K2 [second highest peak in the world], referred to by those in the know as the 3rd Pole!!

"Siachen is the world’s largest non-polar glacier, and thus is sometimes referred to as the third pole."

NOT ONLY "world’s largest non-polar glacier" but also located at high altitude [5500 to 7300 m (18,000 to 24,000 feet)].

Exactly on the border [??] between Pakistan and India, Kashmiri territory claimed by both nations since independence was achieved from Britain over sixty years ago now. Claims, territorial, never resolved, conflict occurring from time to time over Kashmir a constant sore point between two nations NOW NUCLEAR POWERS!

Intermittent combat taking place on the glacier and the surrounding mountains since 1984, about 4,000 soldiers killed total combined, the glacier now having a known armed military presence year-round, a WAR ZONE!!

Warfare occurring well beyond was is called the "Dead Zone". That altitude [14,000 feet/meters] beyond which human life is UNSUSTAINABLE!! NO matter what measures are taken, humans living within the dead zone suffer sure but steady deterioration of their bodies, mentally and physically, a person NEVER BEING ABLE TO BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO LIFE AT THAT ALTITUDE!!

As with jungle warfare, most casualties as suffered by the combatants on the Siachen glacier are of a NON-COMBAT nature. Cold, altitude sickness, avalanche, accidental fall from precipitous heights, etc.

Troops to operate in such an environment needing special equipment, training, experience, and the appropriate mental wherewithal.

A three month deployment and duty on Siachen being deemed as the MAXIMUM possible for a soldier - - the physical and mental breakdown of the troop beyond that point rendering a man ineffective!!

Comments:

* The Kashmir "situation" has festered without amelioration for over sixty years now! NEVER will be resolved in a peaceful manner? Kashmir is one of those intractable problems that only warfare can resolve?

* Troops [Indian and Pakistani both] deploying from a tropical climate to Siachen must undergo a traumatic shock of the worst possible sort? Mental preparedness in such situations is a MUST!

* Those borders between Pakistan, India, China were never successfully surveyed and agreed upon. The chickens have come to roost. Trouble is, chickens can never live at that altitude, and neither can people!

coolbert.

High Altitude.

This is coolbert:

Thanks to the Danger Room here.

American soldiers while forbidden to take illegal controlled substances, BEING ISSUED DRUGS TO ENHANCE PERFORMANCE AT HIGH ALTITUDE [mountain warfare]!

"Darpa’s Inhaled Drugs to Boost Troops at Extreme Altitudes"

American soldiers finding it hard going in the high altitude mountainous terrain of Afghan. Especially when fighting a guerrilla enemy BORN AND BRED IN THE SAME MOUNTAINS, ACCUSTOMED FROM BIRTH TO THE HIGH ALTITUDE!!

Darpa [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] has an antidote to the problem in the works. An antidote that will come too late at least for Afghan?

"Extreme altitudes are a major barrier for troops fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan, and the military’s spent millions trying to minimize altitude’s impact on physical and cognitive ability. Now, Darpa-funded researchers are making impressive progress towards inhaled drugs that would pump up troop performance by fast-tracking the body’s natural adaptations to altitude."

"the drugs will work by increasing blood levels of nitric oxide, which is naturally released by red blood cells to dilate vessels and increase blood flow."

This is similar if not analogous to the amyl nitrate capsules that used to be issued to American soldiers during the Cold War. Amyl nitrate capsules, called "poppers", were the antidote to blood agent poisoning [HCN]. Blood vessels constricted by blood agent could be dilated by inhalation of the amyl nitrate.

"Within three years, Darpa wants to see animal models and human subjects capable of immediately exercising more efficiently at altitude after taking the drugs"

Within three years the majority of U.S. troops in Afghan will have been withdrawn. NO need for the drug after that unless the U.S. becomes involved in another part of the world where mountainous terrain exists.

American Special Forces [SF] troops that for some time have been training for Afghan style mountain warfare are reputed to use oxygen bottles during combat operations. At even higher altitudes, the use of oxygen in this manner will give a distinct advantage to the user. BUT also add a lot of weight to the basic fighting load.

And too, abuse of the drug, inhaled, when fielded, will be a potential problem?

Troops using amyl nitrate as a way of getting "high" became such a problem that the capsules had to be taken away from the soldiers, not issued, indiscriminate and callous use a "drug" problem!! Too many uses of "poppers" being "popped" and voila' you have a "stoned" soldier!

coolbert.

Junkers.

This is coolbert:

More updates on ground attack aircraft.

Combat aircraft providing close air support [CAS] for friendly infantry. Combat aircraft flying close to the ground, dropping bombs, strafing with cannon or machine gun fire enemy forces.

From the era or World War One [WW1] we have the Junkers I. The Halberstadt CL family of ground attack warplanes were not the only German CAS of the era.

The Junkers I also saw yeoman service during the German Spring Offensives of 1918.

The Junkers in particular ARMORED, having the "flying bathtub" armor structure protecting the pilot and tail gunner.

A plane, flying slow and very ponderously at low-level over the battlefield, referred to by the German troops as the "furniture van"! But a deadly "furniture van"!

"The Junkers J.I . . . was a German "J-class" armored sesquiplane format warplane of World War I, developed for low-level observation and ground-attack . . . the first all-metal aircraft to enter mass production . . . its metal construction and heavy armour, which comprised an extremely advanced, single-unit armoured "bathtub" that ran from just behind the propeller to the rear crew position, and acted both as the main fuselage structure and engine mounting setup in one unit, was an effective shield against anti-aircraft artillery."

The Junkers I NOT able to drop bombs, a strafing type of aircraft, relying upon dual machine guns for firepower. Possessing too the rearward facing tail gunner providing cover and protection [also firing a machine gun]!

"Armament"

"2 × fixed, forward-firing 7.92 mm (.312 in) LMG 08/15 machine guns"
"1 × trainable, rearward-firing 7.92 mm (.312 in) Parabellum MG14 machine gun"

"They were used on the Western Front during the Kaiserschlacht {Kaiser's Battle} of March 1918 . . . none were apparently lost in combat, a tribute to its tough armoured design."

A rugged robust specimen of combat aircraft, advanced for the time. And the basics of CAS and the type of airplane most suited for the mission already having been worked out in the minds of the German military. Dedicated and sophisticated CAS airplanes of the WW1 era existed and saw good service. Much more so than realized.

coolbert.

Warthog.

This is coolbert:

"Have 30 mm gun, will travel - - wire Paladin, San Francisco"

From some time ago now, the blog had an entry that dealt with the aircraft, military and civilian versions both, that was build AROUND an engine. Enormous and powerful radial engine up-front to which was attached an itty-bitty airplane with stubby little winds and fuselage. A fundamental inherent instability found in both the military [Soviet I-16 "Rata"] and civilian [speed race GeeBee] versions posing significant danger to the pilot.

Here now with the airplane built AROUND a gun.

The American A-10 Thunderbolt.

Affectionately called the "Warthog" by pilots, ground crews, airplane spotters and aficionados.

The A-10, a warplane designed specifically for the ground-attack role. Able to fly low over the conventional battlefield, providing support to the ground forces using cannon fire, dropping bombs, firing anti-tank [Maverick] missiles. Also incorporated into the design a robustness of structure allowing the aircraft to absorb enemy AAA [anti-aircraft-artillery] and small-arms fire and keep going. A heavyweight "boxer" without the glass-jaw.

[heavyweight boxers with a "glass jaw" are said to be strong and have a very good knockout punch, but also susceptible to taking a single punch and being knocked unconscious themselves. The A-10 IS NOT THIS WAY!!]

The A-10, performing the ground attack combat support role as did the famous Soviet Il-2 of World War Two [WW2] or for that matter the German Halberstadt CL of World War one [WW1] fame.

It should not be suggested that the American military has NOT previous to the A-10 had ground-attack warplanes. The P-47 and P-51 in WW2 and the F-100, F-105, and F-4 from the Vietnam era all functioned as ground-attack role, however, in LESS than a satisfactory manner, those jet aircraft from the Vietnam War era supersonic "fast-movers" originally designed to drop an atomic payload, not conventional weaponry! The A-10, again, has been specifically designed as ground-attack from the start, from the "get-go"!

The A-10, possessing an extremely powerful and devastating 30 mm rapid fire automatic gun [GAU-8], designed as an anti-tank weapon. A gun firing a uranium depleted round able to defeat any known Soviet armored vehicle. A TANK KILLER.

Modern 30 mm ammo as fired by the GAU-8 also explosive as well!

The A-10, the American answer to the worst case nightmare scenario of NATO military planners. Soviet tank armies and GROUPS of tank armies moving west during a conventional war, the Cold War having turned HOT, the aim of the communist powers the defeat of NATO and the subjugation of western Europe under RED control. A conventional military offensive by the Soviets of course to be spearheaded by massive use of armor [tanks], overwhelming and unstoppable. The A-10 poised to play an important role in STOPPING such an attack!!

The A-10, unfortunately, a warplane that when originally proposed [early 1970's], NEITHER the plane or the mission [ground-attack] being desired by the U.S. Air Force [USAF].

The A-10 was not felt to be adequately "sexy"! A jet aircraft NOT flying at supersonic speeds. NOT able to fly at 40,000 feet on an intercontinental bombing mission, dropping a single atomic bomb on a Soviet target. The A-10 having also an unaesthetic appearance, ungainly and even grotesque, not sleek and aerodynamic - - not "sexy".

It was also thought that the A-10, having the ground-attack role, conflicted with the agreed upon 3,000 foot rule! Army rotary-wing attack aircraft [HueyCobra] operating in the envelope BELOW 3,000 feet, the U.S. Air Force operating in that airspace ABOVE 3,000 feet! It being thought the combat mission of the A-10 would violate and negate the agreed upon rule!

Congress and the Pentagon finally prevailing upon the Air Force to take into the inventory the A-10, the "Warthog" proving itself most successfully so in four wars now [Gulf War One, Bosnia/Kosovo, Gulf War Two, Afghan War]!

Indeed, the USAF, in the aftermath of the First Gulf War, attempted to relegate the A-10 to the scrape heap, decommission every single plane in existence, again the Congress and the Pentagon carefully instructing the USAF to retain the "Hog" in the inventory, both on active duty and in Air National Guard units. A situation that remains to this day. A-10's as currently envisioned will remain on duty until at least 2028!! Amazing and remarkable both!!

A LOT of consideration was given to the proper design of the A-10. Considerations as to what features were necessary for a ground-attack warplane to accomplish a difficult mission on the modern battlefield, surviving all the while operating in the offensive role. Features found to be useful, even fundamental, to include:

* Dual jet engines.
* Dual tail.
* Redundant and triple-redundant controls.
* Titanium armored protective "bathtub" for the pilot.
* Immense "loiter time". Carry a lot of fuel and "hang" for a long time over the target area.
* A radio that will net directly to the ground forces.
* A tank-killing gun.

Indeed, it has even been suggested that the famous German combat aviator from WW2, Hans-Ulrich Rudel acted as a consultant during the design phase of the A-10 development!! If any man would know the pros and cons and desirable features as to be possessed by a ground-attack aircraft, it would have been Hans-Ulrich!!

The A-10, all the while "unsexy" and "unwanted" has proven to be an eminent success!! Combat proven and still going strong. What more could one want?

NOW, for the pièce de ré·sis·tance . See this accompanying photo contrasting the size of the GAU-8 30 mm gun with a Volkswagen! For scale purposes this is incredible!!



The A-10, the plane that can, has and is! Long live the A-10!

Surely so!

coolbert.

Camouflage.

This is coolbert:

Thanks in this instance to Pete through Colonel Craig USMC.

Most interesting photographs from the era of the Second World War [WW2]. An American defense plant, an aircraft factory, camouflaged in such a manner to represent a semi-rural or rural sub-division.

Pylons holding aloft camouflage netting. An ENTIRE FACTORY disguised in this manner. Vital wartime installation subject to enemy air attack [??], protected in a way possible ONLY during wartime. The Lockheed plant, Burbank California, vital to the war effort, proper measures being taken to safeguard this facility.

"During World War II the Army Corps of Engineers needed to hide the Lockheed Burbank Aircraft Plant to protect it from a possible Japanese air attack. They covered it with camouflage netting to make it look like a rural subdivision from the air."

The photographs speak for themselves:

Before:

And After:

Very impressive indeed! It must have been a laborious, time-consuming, and expensive process just to camouflage that entire factory to begin with, not to mention continual maintenance?

And this wartime measure was necessary? Such a degree of camouflage to a civilian facility of great importance was warranted?

In particular, at least during the early stages of the war in the Pacific theatre, California and the entire American west coast for that matter was susceptible to Japanese air attack?

I am thinking here of a massed air attack by the Kido Butai. The Mobile Air Arm of the Japanese Navy. The same naval task force that sunk the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor could have acted in a concerted manner against the Lockheed plant and other facilities in California vital to the war effort?

"The Imperial Japanese Navy . . . at the beginning of World War II contained the world's largest carrier fleet. At the centre, was the 1st Air Fleet . . . which was a grouping of naval aircraft and aircraft carriers"

This is debatable! A Japanese naval carrier task force massed off the coast of California during WW2 attacking targets inland was a possibility. At least, during 1942, until the climactic Battle of Midway, a massive and destructive enemy air attack on the west coast of the U.S. could have occurred.

Japanese sea-plane attack was also a maybe. The Japanese did have submarines possessing a capability to launch sea-planes [only one per sub] at discrete targets. Drop a minimum bomb load on vital targets, such as the Panama Canal. Such attacks never did materialize during the war. Whatever damage a single lone attacking aircraft could accomplish would have been minimal at best?

American military planners in the case of the Lockheed plant were obviously thinking possibilities and not intentions. Such a massive effort at camouflage was warranted, at least in the minds of the Pentagon brass!

coolbert.

Shturmovik.

This is coolbert:

Further info regarding Soviet/Russian post-World War Two [WW2] ground attack aircraft.

Armored warplanes designed specifically to attack ground targets, drop bombs, strafe with cannon fire, all in tactical support of the ground forces. A killing machine with a lot of firepower, also able to take a lot of punishment while in furtherance of the mission.

In this case, the Il-102. Two-seater military combat aircraft, again, as with the Il-40, having the rear-ward facing tail gunner firing a remotely-operated cannon in defense of the warplane. For whatever reason, even many years after the end of WW2, the Ilyushin design bureau feeling the incorporation of the tail-gunner being an important factor for a ground attack airplane.

"The Ilyushin Il-102 was an experimental jet powered ground-attack aircraft designed by Ilyushin. This aircraft was never chosen for production . . . only a few development prototypes were built"

The Il-102 based upon an original concept from THIRTY YEARS EARLIER!

"The Il-102 first prototype flew on 25 September 1982"

"in 1967, the Soviet Air Forces drew up a specification for a jet powered . . . armoured ground attack aircraft . . . Ilyushin proposed a modified version of their Il-40 of 1953 under the designation Il-42 . . . [which] was a two seat aircraft with a remotely controlled rear gun turret. The design was rejected by the Soviet Air Forces."

The Su-25 being the Soviet/Russian aircraft of choice. A single-seater aircraft NOT having the rear gunner firing the rearward mounted tail gun. The Su-25, NATO reporting name "Frogfoot", seeing extensive combat during the Soviet incursion into Afghan.

We have to take special note of that remotely-fired rear-ward facing cannon as found on the Il-102. A double-barreled cannon having some interesting features.




"The Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23 (??-23) is a twin-barreled 23 mm automatic cannon developed in the Soviet Union, primarily for military aircraft use."

"The GSh-23 works on the Gast Gun principle developed by German engineer Karl Gast of the Vorwerk company in 1916. It is a twin-barreled weapon in which the firing action of one barrel operates the mechanism of the other"

"it had the unusual ability to fire infrared flares and chaff rounds, allowing it to function as both a weapon and a dispenser of anti-missile countermeasures."

Sure! The pilot is so busy with those targets in front of him, he does not have the mental or physical wherewithal to deploy chaff, infra-red countermeasure flares, etc., and do so effectively.

Allow the rear gunner to do that.

coolbert.