This is coolbert:
Thanks to the blog "The Audacious Epigone" through Steve we have interesting facts and statistics. Regarding the "desirability" and "undesirability" of youth in various states to be eligible for military service.
As is generally known [?], currently only one-quarter [1/4] of American youth are considered to be "fit" for military service.
"Fit" in a very subjective sense, NOT only considering physical aptitude and general health. "Fit" includes a range of factors for which eligibility is determined!
Factors to include:
* Physical health. Obviously! General overall health, vision, over-weight, absence of chronic illness or infirmity, etc.
* Mental ability. At least a high school [secondary education] graduate. Having demonstrated a minimum of intellect, some "gumption" and willingness to be educated. And pass the standardized test eligible recruits are given prior to induction.
* Lack of criminal record. NO arrests or convictions, not having served time in the "juvenile home", no dope smoking or drug use, etc. Wanted is a person that has demonstrable moral fiber.
"The report lists the percentage of each state's young people are undesirable enlistees because they:
- are high school drop-outs
- have a criminal record
- have a health problem (typically, obesity)."
AND.
"the Top Ten states with the most fit-to-serve youths":
State Eligible %
1. Vermont 59.8
2. Minnesota 59.2
3. Wisconsin 57.4
4. Iowa 57.1
5. North Dakota 55.4
6. Connecticut 53.0
7. Montana 52.7
8. Utah 52.4
9. New Hampshire 51.9
10. South Dakota 51.5
"And here are the Bottom Ten":
42. Alaska 32.2
43. Florida 28.8
44. Alabama 27.9
45. New Mexico 23.1
46. South Carolina 22.4
47. Louisiana 21.2
48. Georgia 19.3
49. Mississippi 17.4
50. Nevada 15.9
51. District of Columbia 15.2
Comments:
* States such as Vermont, New Hampshire, the Dakotas, Montana, have small populations to begin with. You are not going to get a lot of enlistees from those states period. Same with Nevada and DC. You will get very few recruits from the latter - - population is so small.
* Being physically ABLE to perform military service DOES NOT mean you are already "able" to run, jump, throw, perform the normal physical requirements of a common soldier to standard. Just means you can perform up to a standard if trained properly!
* The general overall health and mental ability of American youth and their "eligibility" to perform military service can been a topic of discussion EVER SINCE THE TIME OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR!! The U.S. Army quickly came to the conclusion that the mental capacity of the American people was that of a moron! NOW the factors under consideration are more extensive.
The lack of youth meeting even the most basic requirements for military service is a problem now and has been for a long time. With no amelioration in sight!
coolbert.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Black Death.
Presumably an intrinsic part of Russian participation in BALTOPS-2010 will be the incorporation of Russian Marines. Traditionally referred to by the Russians as "naval infantry". THE BLACK DEATH!! NOT naval infantry as the term is understood in the west. Marines and not mere sailors picking up small arms and going ashore to fight. Marines!!
Russian marines are called the "Black Death" because of their at-one-time all-black uniform complete with cape. Noted for their ferocity in combat, willingness to close with the enemy!
The Russian DOES have some sort of amphibious capability - - to include the world's largest military hovercraft. A fighting vehicle of unusual design and capability, without peer - - unique even? The designation of this hovercraft unknown to me!
A military hovercraft with turreted rapid-firing cannon and multiple rocket launchers.
Here "Black Death" coming ashore from the hovercraft. It all looks so easy when there is no one firing at you!
It is said of the Russian Marines: [according to Suvorov]
"Each Fleet [four fleets existed during Soviet times and I believe all four are still in existence!] has Marine Infantry contingents , consisting of regiments and brigades . . . these regiments are similar to the motor-rifle regiments of the Land Forces. They differ from the latter in receiving special training . . . and also in being allocated personnel of a higher calibre. Generals from the Land Forces who have watched exercises carried out by the marine infantry often say, with some envy, that a regiment of marine infantry, with the same equipment as that of the Land Forces, is the equivalent in its operations potential of one of the latter's motor-rifle divisions." [one marine infantry regiment is the equal of THREE conventional Russian ground force infantry regiments!!]
Black Death!
coolbert.
BALTOPS-2010.
This is coolbert:
For those of you who live in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Poland, etc., keep your high-frequency receivers tuned to the military bands. You are probably going to hear a lot of interesting activity in the next few days.
Starting 7 June is BALTOPS-2010.
NATO naval exercise with Russian involvement!!
"Russian warship to join NATO naval drills"
"An amphibious assault landing ship, the Kaliningrad, will take part in the BALTOPS-2010 naval exercises in the Baltic Sea on June 7-18, Russia's Baltic Fleet spokesman said on Tuesday."
The Soviets/Russians at one time did deploy coast defense units [division size] - - according to the wiki - - THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH WAS UNKNOWN TO NATO INTELLIGENCE!!
"a rather sudden emergence of three so-called coastal defence divisions (including the 3rd at Klaipeda in the Baltic Military District, the 126th in the Odessa Military District and possibly the 77th with the Northern Fleet), along with three artillery brigades/regiments, subordinate to the Soviet Navy, which had previously been unknown as such to NATO." [as reported in the wiki - - as of 1990]
The existence of these commands, "units", was totally UNKNOWN TO NATO, at least prior to 1990, ONLY made public by the Soviets/Russians at that time?
Various combat arms military units integrated under NAVAL command and designated solely for coastal defense. Consisting, I would think of coastal artillery, to include conventional guns, anti-ship missiles, an air defense capacity consisting of AAA and surface-to-air missiles [SAM], and perhaps marines as the combat ground force element!!
My hunch would be that NATO "knew" about the various constituent units of the coastal defense divisions, but was unable to determine the exact command structure, subordination, mission, etc.
NATO too felt that dedicated coastal defense units were an anachronism, passe', out-dated and out-moded. Obviously the Soviets/Russians thought otherwise.
coolbert.
For those of you who live in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Poland, etc., keep your high-frequency receivers tuned to the military bands. You are probably going to hear a lot of interesting activity in the next few days.
Starting 7 June is BALTOPS-2010.
NATO naval exercise with Russian involvement!!
"Russian warship to join NATO naval drills"
"An amphibious assault landing ship, the Kaliningrad, will take part in the BALTOPS-2010 naval exercises in the Baltic Sea on June 7-18, Russia's Baltic Fleet spokesman said on Tuesday."
The Soviets/Russians at one time did deploy coast defense units [division size] - - according to the wiki - - THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH WAS UNKNOWN TO NATO INTELLIGENCE!!
"a rather sudden emergence of three so-called coastal defence divisions (including the 3rd at Klaipeda in the Baltic Military District, the 126th in the Odessa Military District and possibly the 77th with the Northern Fleet), along with three artillery brigades/regiments, subordinate to the Soviet Navy, which had previously been unknown as such to NATO." [as reported in the wiki - - as of 1990]
The existence of these commands, "units", was totally UNKNOWN TO NATO, at least prior to 1990, ONLY made public by the Soviets/Russians at that time?
Various combat arms military units integrated under NAVAL command and designated solely for coastal defense. Consisting, I would think of coastal artillery, to include conventional guns, anti-ship missiles, an air defense capacity consisting of AAA and surface-to-air missiles [SAM], and perhaps marines as the combat ground force element!!
My hunch would be that NATO "knew" about the various constituent units of the coastal defense divisions, but was unable to determine the exact command structure, subordination, mission, etc.
NATO too felt that dedicated coastal defense units were an anachronism, passe', out-dated and out-moded. Obviously the Soviets/Russians thought otherwise.
coolbert.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Bereg!
This is coolbert:
Once again - - NOT so fast Charlie Brown!!
Coastal artillery is alive and well - - and has reached a state-of-the-art technology - - in Russia!!
Bereg. MOBILE coastal artillery. NOT firing from a fixed position. An awesome weapon with amazing capability. Bereg! Called the A-222 in Russia.
Thanks to the Russian Navy Blog, as dated Thursday, April 15:
"And you thought coastal artillery went out with the Lindy Hop... "
"The self propelled artillery system Bereg is the only coastal artillery system of its kind in service in Russia and is based exclusively in Novorossiysk."
["based exclusively" for service in defense of the Black Sea coastline!]
"The coastal artillery system has advantages over guided missiles"
Please read the comments to the blog entry!
And here a comment from a military forum:
"Actually fixed coastal Artillery is obsolete, Bereg offers many advantages compared to missiles especcialy cost per fired projectile. And artillery shells don;t care ECM or missile defense much, and shells don't emit radar to warn the target."
Well, this Bereg just looks bad-assed, doesn't it? And don't hope to find yourself on the receiving end of a projectile either!
I think that these modern UN-ARMORED warships of the present era would not stand up well to a hit by a round from Bereg!
[and for those of you devoted readers to the blog that are not old-timers, the Lindy Hop was a popular dance from the era of the 1930's and 1940's]
coolbert.
"I would have thought such a thing to be passe', outmoded, archaic. Coastal artillery as a 'doctrine' began to become irrelevant with the advent of the warplane? Around the year 1900 or so?" - - Bert.
Once again - - NOT so fast Charlie Brown!!
Coastal artillery is alive and well - - and has reached a state-of-the-art technology - - in Russia!!
Bereg. MOBILE coastal artillery. NOT firing from a fixed position. An awesome weapon with amazing capability. Bereg! Called the A-222 in Russia.
Thanks to the Russian Navy Blog, as dated Thursday, April 15:
"And you thought coastal artillery went out with the Lindy Hop... "
"The self propelled artillery system Bereg is the only coastal artillery system of its kind in service in Russia and is based exclusively in Novorossiysk."
["based exclusively" for service in defense of the Black Sea coastline!]
"The coastal artillery system has advantages over guided missiles"
Bereg is net-centric. Receives commands are targeting data from a variety of sources.
Please read the comments to the blog entry!
And here a comment from a military forum:
"Actually fixed coastal Artillery is obsolete, Bereg offers many advantages compared to missiles especcialy cost per fired projectile. And artillery shells don;t care ECM or missile defense much, and shells don't emit radar to warn the target."
Well, this Bereg just looks bad-assed, doesn't it? And don't hope to find yourself on the receiving end of a projectile either!
I think that these modern UN-ARMORED warships of the present era would not stand up well to a hit by a round from Bereg!
[and for those of you devoted readers to the blog that are not old-timers, the Lindy Hop was a popular dance from the era of the 1930's and 1940's]
coolbert.
PLAN.
This is coolbert:
NOT so fast Charlie Brown!
The Chinese still employ coast defense forces. Conventional artillery, anti-ship missiles and some sort of air defense. Was at one time an integral and important part of the People's Liberation Army Navy [PLAN]!
"the navy's coastal defense force forms the vanguard of China's defense from amphibious and air attack. The coastal defense troops operate a variety of artillery and missile systems that are capable of engaging air and sea targets . . . In 1958, this force fired artillery against KMT forces on the islands near the mainland. Throughout the 1960s-80s, the coastal defense troops were focused on defending China's coast from a possible Soviet sea-borne invasion."
"The principle weapon that has served with the coastal defense troops is the HY-2 coast-launched anti-ship missile . . . These missiles could be launched from either fixed emplacements, or mobile truck mounts."
"Today the primary weapons of the coastal defense troops are the HY-2, YJ-82, and C-602 anti-ship missiles."
"Though no longer a vital component of the PLAN, the coastal defense forces nonetheless would be important in any conflict to protect key PLAN coastal assets from enemy sabotage, as well as air defence."
PLAN artillery did see extensive service during the Quemoy and Matsu stand-offs.
NOT necessarily anymore "a vital component" but I am sure still a concern to American naval military planners. Any confrontation between the U.S. and China would undoubtedly involve PLAN coast defense elements!!
coolbert.
"I would have thought such a thing to be passe', outmoded, archaic. Coastal artillery as a "doctrine" began to become irrelevant with the advent of the warplane? Around the year 1900 or so?" - - Bert.
NOT so fast Charlie Brown!
The Chinese still employ coast defense forces. Conventional artillery, anti-ship missiles and some sort of air defense. Was at one time an integral and important part of the People's Liberation Army Navy [PLAN]!
"the navy's coastal defense force forms the vanguard of China's defense from amphibious and air attack. The coastal defense troops operate a variety of artillery and missile systems that are capable of engaging air and sea targets . . . In 1958, this force fired artillery against KMT forces on the islands near the mainland. Throughout the 1960s-80s, the coastal defense troops were focused on defending China's coast from a possible Soviet sea-borne invasion."
"The principle weapon that has served with the coastal defense troops is the HY-2 coast-launched anti-ship missile . . . These missiles could be launched from either fixed emplacements, or mobile truck mounts."
"Today the primary weapons of the coastal defense troops are the HY-2, YJ-82, and C-602 anti-ship missiles."
"Though no longer a vital component of the PLAN, the coastal defense forces nonetheless would be important in any conflict to protect key PLAN coastal assets from enemy sabotage, as well as air defence."
PLAN artillery did see extensive service during the Quemoy and Matsu stand-offs.
NOT necessarily anymore "a vital component" but I am sure still a concern to American naval military planners. Any confrontation between the U.S. and China would undoubtedly involve PLAN coast defense elements!!
coolbert.
Coastal Warships.
This is coolbert:
Regarding the prior blog entry, the Nordic countries HAVE in the past adopted innovative and unusual approaches to coastal defense. Warships, NOT INTENDED TO OPERATE IN PELAGIC WATERS [DEEP, OCEANIC] , shallow-draft, but very heavily armored and possessing guns that were oversize [?]! Designed for coastal defense only, recognized as such AND employed as such!
Those Nordic nations bordering the Baltic DO NOT NEED OCEAN-GOING WARSHIPS. Defensive only vessels operating close to shore are adequate, special design characteristics that give advantage in such circumstances being incorporated.
The Finns did have coast defense vessels in their naval inventory, and did use ships of this class during World War Two [WW2]!
These tank turrets from 1950's era design "embedded", placed-in-the-ground are an expedient and cost-effective means of providing SOME SORT of defense?
Nations with limited resources must use limited means and do well with they have.
coolbert.
Regarding the prior blog entry, the Nordic countries HAVE in the past adopted innovative and unusual approaches to coastal defense. Warships, NOT INTENDED TO OPERATE IN PELAGIC WATERS [DEEP, OCEANIC] , shallow-draft, but very heavily armored and possessing guns that were oversize [?]! Designed for coastal defense only, recognized as such AND employed as such!
"Coastal defense ships (sometimes called coastal battleships, coast defense ships or Baltic dreadnoughts) were warships built for the purpose of coastal defense . . . They were small, often cruiser-sized warships that sacrificed speed and range for armor and armament. They were usually attractive to nations . . . that could be satisfied by specially-designed shallow-draft vessels capable of littoral operations [green water] close to their own shores. The Nordic countries and Thailand found them particularly appropriate for their island-dotted coastal waters."
Those Nordic nations bordering the Baltic DO NOT NEED OCEAN-GOING WARSHIPS. Defensive only vessels operating close to shore are adequate, special design characteristics that give advantage in such circumstances being incorporated.
The Finns did have coast defense vessels in their naval inventory, and did use ships of this class during World War Two [WW2]!
These tank turrets from 1950's era design "embedded", placed-in-the-ground are an expedient and cost-effective means of providing SOME SORT of defense?
Nations with limited resources must use limited means and do well with they have.
coolbert.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Coastal Artillery.
This is coolbert:
The Finns still continue to deploy - - and have done so for some time - - coastal artillery?
I would have thought such a thing to be passe', outmoded, archaic. Coastal artillery as a "doctrine" began to become irrelevant with the advent of the warplane? Around the year 1900 or so?
Coastal fortifications in this particular instance consisting of the turret and gun of a Soviet T-55 tank [first designed and fielded in 1955!], "embedded", NOT firing in the direct mode but rather the indirect mode!
"100 56 TK or 100 TK ("100 mm, . . . turret gun") is a Finnish stationary coastal artillery gun that utilizes the tank turret from the Soviet T-55 tank with its 100 mm D-10 tank gun"
The Finns still continue to deploy - - and have done so for some time - - coastal artillery?
I would have thought such a thing to be passe', outmoded, archaic. Coastal artillery as a "doctrine" began to become irrelevant with the advent of the warplane? Around the year 1900 or so?
Coastal fortifications in this particular instance consisting of the turret and gun of a Soviet T-55 tank [first designed and fielded in 1955!], "embedded", NOT firing in the direct mode but rather the indirect mode!
"100 56 TK or 100 TK ("100 mm, . . . turret gun") is a Finnish stationary coastal artillery gun that utilizes the tank turret from the Soviet T-55 tank with its 100 mm D-10 tank gun"
You cannot tell much from this photo. Purportedly taken in 2009. That is supposed to be a camouflage coating applied to the turret? NOT much camouflage. And below that slab is a quarters for the gun crew? Where is the engine or power source for the turret? Maybe the apparatus is hand-cranked in some manner? I think not!
I would have thought by now that the anti-ship missile would have rendered such fortifications obsolete, outdated, ineffective. This is a cost-effective way to solve a problem? The Finnish military is noted for being innovative? This "system" was in place and up and going during the 1980's and into the 1990's? Perhaps still is?
Take the gun and turret out of a Soviet T-55 tank, em-place on top of a concrete structure, and voila', you have a defensive weapon of effectiveness. And the power source is? The engine too has been ripped out of the tank and is co-located below ground? Crew quarters are below ground too?
What you see is just the proverbial "tip of the iceberg"?
NOT sure about any of this.
That turret can be traversed from left to right and back again, the gun elevated, etc. And maybe only two persons needed to man the "fortification". Some central command authority issues orders, targeting, etc. AND CAN BE MANNED BY OLDER, OUT-OF-SHAPE RESERVISTS!!
According to Suvorov, the Soviets to defend their border with China had done something similar. Ripped the turrets, guns and engines out of the older Joseph Stalin and T-10 tanks, situated those portions of the gutted tank along the border at one and two kilometer intervals, welding cut-off pieces of old railroad track to the turret to provide additional armor thickness. Again, an expedient and cost-effective way of solving a problem for which their is no easy answer. NOT recognized as a total panacea but a small part of a whole! [until revealed by Suvorov, these Soviet "fortifications" were a SECRET!]
Perhaps a Finnish reader to the blog can provide some insight into this "system"? Still operational? Just a museum piece now or is it smoke and mirrors?
coolbert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
