Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
  • Welcome to the forum!

    Welcome to the War History Online Community Forum, please register or login to start commenting.

Stephen N Russell

WW2 stragetic bomber concepts

Recommended Posts

What if the US did fund Long range bombers & we had these in WW2:

B29

B30 Connie bomber

B19

B32.

& YB49.

What would  outcome belike for Pacific area alone asideETO.

B17s would be be delegated to Lifeboat service to save crews & Maritime patrol  over convoys inbound to UK.

What If if funding & tech issues No problem.

Imagine 10 squadrons of B19s bombing Japan with its bomb load  alone.

Or B19s raiding Japan from Alaska vs Doolittle Raid by B25.

Ideas, comments.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the possibilities if the B29 would have been used in ETO.  Sure the PTO was longer range and that was important. But consider the addition of a squardron in europe . They could have flown over flak and had much longer range and time on target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it the big problem with the USA bomber program in WW2 was the lack of ability to carry a decent sized bomb, coupled with accuracy problems in aiming the bombs.  The B-29 for instance could not carry the 22.000 lb "Grand Slam" internally, though able to be modified to carry two EXTERNALLY. (What the effects of two of these, mounted externally, on take-off performance would be I would rather not imagine, the B-29 was a bitch anyway on British_Grand_Slam_bomb.jpg.aa4f2ad732440a82fb28e39ab0607b53.jpg

take-off due to having a non-steerable nose wheel, causing its engines to overheat after being used to steer the aircraft.)  Accuracy is also something which needs to be taken into account, the idea of one aircraft aiming and the rest of the formation toggling when they see the lead ship unload would seem to be counter productive to accuracy.  I realise that the discussion includes the proviso " What If if funding & tech issues No problem."  However, as can be seen by looking at the engine reliability problems of the B-29 alone this is a very big "What if."

With further reference to the idea of introducing squadrons of B-29s to the ETO, I admit that the ability to cruise above the flak and fighters is a nice idea, but given that the European weather is frequently clouded over from that height, accuracy of bombing (already suspect) would be further compromised except on the clearest of days.  Even No 617 Squadron of the RAF, who had arguably the highest accuracy of any unit in the bomber offensive (No 9 Squadron bomb aimers would probably argue that one), had to bring their bomb back when they could not see the target, and this was from the much lower altitude of between sixteen and twenty thousand feet.  Europe does not have the "gin clear" skies of the PTO, and even there the B-29s were attacking at medium altitude due to accuracy problems and also at night to try to bring down losses, as RAF Bomber Command had done much earlier in the European theater before the Americans entered the war.

For further information see:

The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany. 4 volumes. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1961. official British history and co-authored by Noble Frankland and Sir Charles Webster

Bomber Offensive: The Devastation of Europe by Noble Frankland (Ballantine's Illustrated History of World War II. Campaign Book no. 7, 1970)

Whirlwind: The Air War Against Japan, 1942-1945, by Barrett Tillman, Simon & Schuster UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 When you want to use the big bombs you have a time disconnect in Europe because the big bomb targets, Ruhr, Ploesti, Turpitz, and some others had already been hit and destroyed by greater effort before the big bombers were operational .  That in reality is why we never got around to using them. IIRC wasn't there an attempt to send the 29 to ETO, like the one Greenermyer dug out of the ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen, try researching Barnes Wallis and his "Victory Bomber". Barnes Wallis was the man who came up with the idea of the "Bouncing Bomb" used by the Dam Busters. He also designed the Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs. But his BIG idea, from early in the war had been for a few massive strategic bombers, able to cruise at very great heights and to carry just ONE big bomb each.The bomb, when dropped, would bury itself deep in the ground before exploding, and produce a result very like an earthquake, sending a massive shockwave through the ground. The result, in theory, would have been much like the Atomic bomb - "one bomb, one city" You can't fight a war if your major engineering capacity lies in ruins as the result of a "synthetic earthquake."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Bomber

Quote

The British "Victory Bomber" was a Second World War design proposal by British inventor and aircraft designer Barnes Wallis while at Vickers-Armstrongs for a large strategic bomber. This aircraft was to have performed what Wallis referred to as "anti-civil engineering" bombing missions and was to have carried his projected 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) "earthquake bomb" to strategic targets in Germany. The Victory Bomber was considered to be extremely ambitious, the Royal Air Force (RAF) at that time not yet having introduced four-engine heavy bombers and to give the necessary performance, the Victory Bomber was to have six engines and was highly specialised to its role.

The project was studied in detail, the bomber proceeding to wind tunnel testing while the earthquake bomb to equip it was tested on representative models. The Air Ministry choose not proceed with development of the Victory Bomber, terminating it in May 1941. No prototypes were built but the Avro Lancaster utilized a similar role as well as being fitted with a similar armament array. The Lancaster used Wallis' Bouncing bomb during Operation Chastise to perform the famous "Dambusters" mission.

 

vickers_victory_bomber_canard_concept_blueprint.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/03/2018 at 4:49 PM, Robert Follis said:

 When you want to use the big bombs you have a time disconnect in Europe because the big bomb targets, Ruhr, Ploesti, Turpitz, and some others had already been hit and destroyed by greater effort before the big bombers were operational .  That in reality is why we never got around to using them. IIRC wasn't there an attempt to send the 29 to ETO, like the one Greenermyer dug out of the ice.

If you research No 617 Squadron RAF (along with No 9 Squadron RAF) you will find that they destroyed the Tirpitz using the "smaller" big bomb Tallboy, which "weighed in" at 12,000 lbs.  The largest single bomb capable of being carried by the B-17 due to its small bomb bay was 1000 lbs in wieight.  (It should be remembered however that the US classified it's bombers not by weight carrying ability, but by size, armour protection and armament)

tallboy1.gif.cc09049e6d2ed39c78dbdbf08e495d2d.gif 

These bombs were also used against the V1, V2 and V3 concrete bunker launching sites in France with pretty impressive results.  The 22,000 lbs Grand Slam was first used in anger against the Bielefeld Viaduct only hours after the first bomb was tested in the New Forest in Southern England.  In all some 40+ Grand Slams were used by the Royal Air Force in the last two and a half months of the Second World War in Europe.  Targets included U-Boat pens in Hamburg as well as strategically important rail targets all over Germany.  Of course, none of this would have been possible without the fitting of the Avro Lancasters of 617 Squadron with the Stabilising Automatic Bomb Sight.  Some other Squadrons, most notably No 9 Squadron RAF, arguably, became as accurate with the Mk XIV bomb sight.  It should also be noted that the RAF equipped all their bombers such that each aircraft aimed it's own bomb, there was no "toggling" when the lead ship dropped its load, this leading to greater accruacy than could ever be achieved with the "area bombing" technique used by the 8th Air Force bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end of the day this has to do with timing, and technological ability, and maybe foresight?

The B19 came in 1946. The war was over.

Timing is everything. It was about B17, (and holy moly did young Americans crews die in them until the P51 could provide escort) and B25, mostly. Those were the ones the factories were spitting out at the time. The bombing of Germany in daytime is something I personally never understood, but of course placing your bombs exactly where you wanted them might have had something to do with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If memory serves me correctly, the B-29 program was initiated in the [then] likelihood that Britain would fall, and the U.S. would have to mount trans-Atlantic bombing raids on our former ally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How plausable was that? If England had fallen, mass starvation would have followed.  B-29 bombers against Britain in such a scenario? Hardly likely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Dan Crowley
      This is the memoir of Lt. Leonard G. Lomell, which was delivered as a speech at Brookdale Community College. He has given the Center for World War II Studies and Conflict Resolution permission to offer his speech in written format online for the "War Memoirs" Project. In the speech, Lt. Lomell recounts the destruction of the guns of Pointe du Hoc on D-Day by the 2nd U.S. Army Ranger Battalion and his role.
      Lt. Lomell, D Company, 2nd Ranger Battalion, was described by historian Stephen Ambrose as "in my view...the man, if you want to pick out an individual other than Eisenhower, more than any other single individual that made D-Day a success...."
      In his own words:
      GREETINGS. I have been asked to speak to you about the five 155MM coastal artillery guns (6"ers), claimed to be located at Pointe du Hoc. These "Big Guns" had a range of 10-12 miles that could be fired at Omaha and Utah American landing beaches and other allied beaches, and at the thousands of ships of the invasion fleet anchored off the shores of Normandy, France, the morning of D-Day, June 6, 1944. Located on the west flank of Omaha Beach, Fortress Pointe du Hoc, was believed to be one of the strongest forts in Hitler's Atlantic wall, possessing the most fire power. It was located on cliffs 100 feet high. The five large coastal artillery guns, and the German Army divisions nearby were totally able to prevent the successful invasion of France if the "Big Guns" were not put out of action quickly and early on June 6, 1944, D-Day. Why was I asked to speak to you about this great historic battle that took place over a half century ago? Why should you be interested in this ancient history at this late date? Answer: So you can better understand and appreciate the risk of the loss of life, limb and lots of blood of the guys and gals of the then greatest generation, and also understand why this Ranger mission was called the most dangerous and one of the most important missions of D-Day. The invasion of France was the largest and greatest invasion in all of the history of wars in the world to date. The battle for Normandy would take two and a half months for it to be liberated, longer than either Iraq war lasted with the U.S. On D-Day, thousands of military personnel and innocent civilians would die, homes and communities would be destroyed and the invasion fleet would be severely damaged, if the "Guns of Pointe du Hoc" were not put out of action by American forces as early as possible on June 6, 1944, before H-hour, 6:30 a.m., when the troops were scheduled to land. The U.S. Army Air Corp, as it was then known, unopposed by German aircraft because of bad weather, flew 1365 bombers, dropping 2746 tons of bombs, hopefully on or near the American landing areas, Omaha and Utah beaches, before the tens of thousands of Allied troops landed. The American Navy fired 21,600 rounds before the landing. Unfortunately, there was very little damage, if any, to the German targets including the "Big Guns of Pointe du Hoc", and the 30,000 plus German soldiers. They had not been destroyed or rendered less effective by the above described American fire power as planned. The German targets were missed by three miles, according to WWII historians. The Allied landing was not a 'piece of cake' as some anticipated it to be. Due to bombing errors, there were no bomb craters on Omaha Beach that could be found or used for protection in the assault. It became referred to ever after as "Bloody Omaha Beach." Thousands of Americans died there that day, and many more thousands were wounded. Fortunately, the most dangerous ground mission of D-Day was assigned early on to the Rangers with orders to "Find the Guns of Pointe du Hoc and render them inoperable as soon as possible" in case the above described mighty American firepower did not succeed as expected, and it did not. The biggest surprise of all to the Rangers when they climbed the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc, was that there were no big guns in the encasements, only telephone poles or something similar. The U.S. Army and U.S. Army Air Corp Intelligence units had unintentionally and unknowingly, misguided the Rangers by use of their aerial photography and other misinformation. The French Underground Resistance Units informed the Rangers right after D-Day that the 'Big Guns' were never installed at Pointe du Hoc. They claimed that U.S. Army Intelligence had been duly informed about this several times months before D-Day. Nevertheless, the 'Big Guns' were in an undisclosed alternate position over a mile from the Pointe du Hoc fortress inland, still capable of killing tens of thousands of allied troops and innocent civilians. These Ranger volunteers strongly pursued and accomplished their mission by rendering the 'Big Guns' inoperable by 8:30 a.m. It was the answer to the surviving Allied troops prayers. Now, let me tell you the rest of this historic and exciting war story. I was there. I was First Sergeant of Company D of the 2nd Ranger Battalion, U.S. Army, acting as a Lieutenant platoon leader of the 2nd Platoon. We were short one officer when we landed at Pointe du Hoc on D-Day, June 6, 1944. He was transferred to Battalion Headquarters for special duty a few days before D-Day. After the hours of tremendous aerial and naval bombardment as earlier described, the greatest invasion i n history started landing troops at 6:30 a.m. as planned. After a stormy two hour trip in our British LCA, through cold rain and high seas and running the gauntlet for three miles, 300 plus yards offshore, under fire from the German soldiers from cliff tops along the way, we Rangers finally fired our grappling hooks with their plain or toggle rope up ove the 100 foot cliffs of Pointe du Hoc (visualize a 10-story building), when our British LCA landed and the ramp was dropped. The Germans were waiting for us on top of the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc, determined to drive us back into the sea. (If we had been on time we would have caught them in their underground quarters, but we were 40 minutes late due to a British navigational error.) They were waiting to cut our ropes, drop grenades on us and shoot us off the ropes. We could not shoot back or defend ourselves very well while climbing. We were seriously outnumbered but we prevailed. Shot through my right side as I led the men ashore in a wet landing, I suddenly disappeared in water over my head as I stepped off the ramp into an underwater bomb crater, which I could not see. I came out of the water cold and wet, my right side hurting, with my arms still full of combat gear with the help of my men. We hurriedly headed for the nearest ropes and up we went as fast as we could climb. There had been twenty-two of us in our British LCA, and we were all up the cliff within 15 minutes, rushing through the German small arms fire, as quickly as we could to the three gun emplacements that were our original objective on the west flank: of the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc on Omaha Beach. We continued to have more combat with the enemy as we moved from bomb crater to bomb crater, which had been created months before. This fortress had underground tunnels, troop quarters, etc. and the Germans popped up often firing their weapons from where we least expected. We moved on very quickly to avoid more sniper and machine-gun fire, as well as flat trajectory anti-air craft machine gun fire, too, which was becoming more and more of a serious problem. We neutralized one German machine gun position on our way across the point and temporarily quieted down the antiaircraft position, in order to get by it quickly and not get pinned down or delayed as we continued our assault. We got to our first objective in a matter of minutes after the assault; only the three guns in positions number four, five and six were not there. Remember, there were no big guns anywhere on the Pointe's 40 acre fortress area that we could see, only telephone poles or something similar sticking out of the bombed out encasements. By this time we were taking mortar and heavy 88MM artillery fire, crawling fire to our rear. We moved out of that position fast, hoping to locate the missing guns, thinking they were in an alternate position inland and we would soon hear them firing. It did not happen that way. By the time we fought our way about a mile or so to the blacktopped coastal road (about one hour), I had only a dozen men left, some of whom were lightly wounded, but able to fight on. Ten of the original 22 Rangers in my boat team had been killed or were very badly wounded. We still had not found the guns nor had any idea of where they were. It seemed we were surrounded and greatly outnumbered by German troops, in broad daylight. We were then behind their second line of defense. Fortunately, the Germans had no idea we were in their midst. I left all my men except S/Sgt. Jack Kuhn, behind to set up a roadblock as ordered. S/Sgt. Kuhn and I started leapfrogging down this sunken farm road heading inland, following wagon tracks between the high hedgerows with trees, not knowing where it was going. It led to a little swale, or draw in an apple orchard. There was netting with camouflage over the missing guns, their barrels were over our heads. There was not a shell or bomb crater anywhere that we could see. Looking over the hedgerow, I saw the five big 155MM coastal artillery guns and their ammunition and powder bags neatly in place, aimed at Utah Beach. The German gun crew could easily turn the 'Big Guns' around to fire on Omaha Beach when they so desired. The five Big Guns were located a little over a mile from where we had landed. About one hundred yards away, a German officer was talking to about 75 of his men we believed to be his gun crews, at a farm road intersection. A few minutes earlier, S/Sgt. Kuhn and I had discovered another 50 Germans, a combat patrol about two hundred yards in the other direction. They eventually passed within 20 feet of us across the blacktop road behind a boundary wall on their way to join the German troops just referred to. Our Rangers had totally surprised the Germans. They never expected an attack from the sea, up those 100 feet cliffs of Pointe du Hoc. The E Co. Rangers were continuing to attack the German Observation Post, a mile away at the cliffs so there were no firing orders coming back to the German crews where Kuhn and I were. We thought the Germans could have a roving Observation Post patrol out trying to relocate in another advantageous spot to send firing orders back to them as soon as possible. Still, no one was 'a sitting target' guarding the guns themselves that I could see, so I told Jack to cover me. Between us, we had two incendiary grenades, later called thermite grenades. When the pin was pulled and the incendiary compound was exposed to air, it poured out like solder, flowing over the gears and crevices, setting and hardening up like a weld. I used them to weld and fuse fast the traversing mechanisms of two of the guns. I also silently smashed the sights of all five of the guns with my padded gun butt. I had, wrapped my field jacket around my submachine gun stock to silence any sound that possibly could be heard. Then Jack and I ran back down the sunken road about 200 yards out of sight of the Germans to the blocking position, got more thermite grenades from our guys, and hurried back to finish the job of rendering the remaining three 'big guns' inoperable, several minutes, at most. Since thermite grenades make no noise, we luckily managed to do our job. quickly and escaped without being discovered. All of our especially chosen 225 Rangers had the same mission, but not our good luck. Our Ranger front moving in land searching for the guns was over a mile wide. We (D Co.) were on the extreme right or west flank of the front. S/Sgt. Jack Kuhn and I just stumbled onto the guns in our efforts to find them. We were at the right place at the right time. Luckily, we were a couple of well trained Rangers on patrol doing our job. The guns were rendered totally and completely inoperable by 8:30 a.m., D-Day morning as ordered. From the time we landed (7:10 a.m.) until the time we crested the Pointe, no more than 15 minutes had passed, landing and then climbing the ropes. Because we moved very quickly, kept our objective in focus, and worked as a disciplined team, we had completed the operation in little more than one hour. Sergeants Harry Fate and Gordon Luning of D Co. using different routes back to the Bn. Command Post on the Pointe, notified Col. Rudder, our CO, "mission accomplished" before 9:00 a.m. Our work at the alternate gun positions completed, we rejoined the other D Co. men at the roadblock and began to consolidate our defensive position for the rest of D-Day and to protect our D Co. roadblock. In the meantime, Sgt. Koenig of our platoon destroyed all the German communications along the coast road. About this time, the remnants of our 1St platoon of D Co. joined us (about 11 men); they had been helping to defend the Pointe where half their platoon became casualties. We needed them now to strengthen the roadblock. (Our third LCA with the rest of D Co. men had earlier sunk offshore. A Ranger company consisted of 68 men. At this point in time we only had 20 men left). The original battle plan indicated we would be relieved by noontime on D-Day by the American troops on Omaha beaches. It never happened, they were over two days late. We had gathered about 85 other Rangers during the afternoon to defend our roadblock D-Day night. Our orders were to hold our blocking position on the coastal road until relieved, which we did until D+2. Despite on and off shelling and three counterattacks, D-Day night in which we were outnumbered 10-1, we never lost control of our D Co. roadblock. No German troops ever got through to help out their comrades at Omaha Beach. The 225 Rangers who attacked Pointe du Hoc, had only 90 left standing when relieved D+2 (June 8, 1944). Eighty-one had been killed in action, the rest of the casualties were unable to fight. Many of the 90 left standing were lightly wounded; nevertheless, they fought on. D Co. had the highest number of casualties at Pointe du Hoc. Our medics often remarked it was difficult to get our wounded to the rear for evacuation, which remained true throughout the war. Like everyone else that day, we did what we were trained to do. With a lot of luck and a lot of casualties, I like to think we did it well. The Ranger Force, consisted of the 2nd and 5th Ranger Bns, (U.S. Army) under the command of Lt. Col. James Earl Rudder, 2nd Bn. C.O. D, E, F and part of Headquarters Co. of the 2nd Bn were assigned to assault Pointe du Hoc. All of these Rangers had the same three part mission: 1) destroy the guns of Pointe du Hoc as quickly as possible; 2) destroy all German communication along the black top coast road; 3) create a roadblock to prevent any Germans to come through from the west (Grandcamp and Utah Beach area) along said coast road to help the Germans on Omaha Beach. Our D Co. of the 2nd Ranger Bn accomplished this important and most dangerous mission. C Co. of the 2 nd Ranger Bn. took Pointe de la Percee and accomplished their mission. A and B Co. landed at the Vierville Draw, and successfully did their part, and the 5th Ranger Bn, led by Lt. Col. Max Schneider, landed east of them, later to successfully lead the troops off Omaha Beach to the high ground above at the command of General Coda (E.O.) of the 29th Infantry Division, when the General at the top of his voice shouted his command, "RANGER LEAD THE WAY". It has become our motto ever since. All Rangers eventually gathered at Pointe du Hoc and prepared for their next objective on D+3. The angry tidal drifts, underwater obstacles and the terrible pounding from the enemy caused the early landings (6:30 a.m.) at Omaha Beach very high casualties, and scattered units up and down the beach. The unplanned landing and fighting of Rangers on Omaha Beach added an element of stability just at the right time to overcome the enemy and establish the beachhead. Captain James W. Eikner, our 2nd Bn communication officer explained that the above information distracts nothing from the heroic efforts of the combat engineers, the troops of the First and 29th Inf. Div. and other special forces including the Navy, Air Corp, Marines and allied troops. Fighting together, we got the job done. Yes, I think the Rangers did well on D-Day, as most troops did. Tens of thousands of lives were saved with those guns put completely out of action by the Rangers so early. Yes, and the armada of thousands of our ships, the invasion fleet could now move in closer to shore to offload men and equipment, ensuring the success of the D-Day invasion of France - the climactic battle of WWII and the largest: invasion in history. For their bravery and combat excellence, the 2nd Ranger Bn was awarded the U.S. Presidential Unit Citation (P.U.C.) There were no Medals of Honor awarded by our U.S. Congress to a Ranger in WWII. The highest medal for valor the Army can award is the Distinguished Service Cross, which Col. Rudder presented to me. S/Sgt. Jack Kuhn received the Silver Star. Gen. Omar Bradley, Commanding Officer of all American ground forces, who assigned this mission to the Rangers, said it was the most dangerous and one of the most important missions of D-Day. See his book, The Soldiers Story. The Rangers of WWII fought in nine campaigns, 13 invasions, 1 1 major battles and six Ranger raids. They conducted innumerable combat patrols and just as many recon patrols. We did not have PR sections in our table of organization (T.O.). Many of our missions were classified or secret. The Rangers also cleared up and resolved many pockets of resistance and successfully completed the many missions assigned to them by various divisions they were attached to. In WWII, there were only 3000 Ranger volunteers chosen after testing and qualifying, plus many chosen volunteer replacements. Their casualties were very high, approximately 500 Rangers were killed in action or died of their wounds, and many more were wounded in WWII. Few escaped without a Purple Heart. Our 2nd Ranger Bn, while in Europe in 1943-45, trained in Scotland and England, and fought through France, Luxemburg, Belgium and Germany, finally meeting the Russians on the River Elbe in Czechoslovakia. The war in Europe ended in May, 1945. I was wounded three times. I was honorably discharged December 30, 1945. The two Rangers who found and rendered the Big Guns of Pointe du Hoc inoperable, Len Lomell and Jack E. Kuhn, each returned to a successful civilian life. Jack E. Kuhn had been promoted in service from platoon sergeant to First Sergeant of D. Co., 2nd Ranger Bn, and retired as the Chief of Police in his hometown of Altoona, Pa. While still in service, I was promoted from 1st. Sgt. of D. Co., in June 1944 to Sgt. Major of 2nd Ranger Bn. In October 1944, I was given a battlefield commission to 2nd Lt., and was assigned to D. Co. 1st platoon. In civilian life, with the help of the G.I. Bill to complete my legal education, I became a lawyer. I am now retired and reside in Toms River, NJ. Incidentally, the French people of Normandy have erected another monument to the Rangers on Pointe du Hoc, part of which is a large 155 MM coastal artillery gun like the D-Day guns described above. Over a million tourists visit Pointe du Hoc each year. The Ranger volunteers of WWII were America's brightest and most proficient counterpart to the commandos of other nations, special forces for special and dangerous missions. Their Ranger motto was: "Be the best of the best" and "Rangers lead the way" and still is. Many generals and other members of the "high brass", as well as some historians, thought the Rangers were the best soldiers in any army. Please excuse my modesty or the lack thereof, whatever,c'est la guerre.
    • By Clara12
      German media are interested in the Russian anti-missile system PRS-1M. Judging by the publication in the German magazine "Stern", Western experts recognize that Russia has pulled ahead in the development of hypersonic weapons.
      Particular attention was paid to the recent test of anti-missile system PRS-1M. These missiles belong to the A-135 antimissile system: they can be launched from an underground mine or from a tractor. In this case, PRS-1M is supposed to be used in the event of an atomic war against a nuclear missile strike to protect the capital and other important cities. According to the "Stern" publisher, "PRS-1M is a true Doomsday weapon".
      A special feature of that anti-missile system is the use of a few kilotons nuclear warhead as a charge, which should explode at high altitude. PRS-1M can intercept missiles at an altitude of 50 kilometers, and its range is estimated at 350 kilometers. In this case, the missile is equipped with special protection against overheating. Moreover, it is assumed that the engine used on the PRS-1M can also be used on the other missiles.
      In general, this article separately talked about other Russian hypersonic missiles, which the US antimissile systems could not intercept, and it was noted that Russian missiles and warheads are controlled even at great speeds.
    • By Clara12
      The well-known fact that the southern part of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, formerly owned by Japan, fell under the jurisdiction of the USSR in accordance with the Yalta Agreement of 1945 and the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, and that Japan lost its rights to these territories. However, led by revanchist spirit, Japanese politicians cannot accept the results of the war and cannot stop their attempts to get back these so-called "northern territories".
      Thus, the well-known journalist Sakurai Yoshiko from the right-wing nationalist segment of the political class of Japan, defying Russophobia in popular weeklies regularly writes about the "fight for the northern territories". Also, a courageous woman in the fight for the ideals of revanchism, calls upon the Japanese to "keep their mouths shut" during their stay on the Kuril Islands in order to prevent a repetition of the blatant incident that occurred with the member of parliament from the "Isin no Kai" party Maruyama Hodaka in May 2019. It should be recalled that, being on a visit to Kunashir Island, which is one of the islands of the Kuril Islands Ridge, the politician declared "resolving the territorial issue by war". Nevertheless, Sakurai herself, decrying his tone, calls on the people to "fight and win", which is not at all distinguished by peace-loving and tactfulness.
      Moreover, it should be noted that the current government of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is now distorting the content of the 1956 Japanese-Soviet Declaration. We want to recall that the leader of the USSR, Nikita Khrushchev, as a "compromise" at that time agreed to transfer the Small Kuril ridge, but only after the signing of a peace treaty. However, now the Japanese authorities demand first "to return the northern territories" and only after that they will deign to sign the treaty.
      Of course, for Russia this is unacceptable and Moscow will never do this. After all, in November 2018, S. Abe and Russian President V. Putin agreed to speed up negotiations on a peace treaty and only after Japan would recognize Russia's sovereignty over the "northern territories" as a result of the World War II. Moreover, Moscow stresses that the alliance between Japan and the United States complicates intergovernmental negotiations, because, as it is known, the Japanese are only puppets for Americans.
      Despite the fact that Japan itself recognizes the strategic importance of the islands for Russia and the complexity of their return, it naively believes that when disasters strike Russia and its economy fails, Moscow will turn to "rich Japan" for help and will be ready to give them the northern territories". But the Japanese hopes that the Russians can be lured by an "economic carrot", for which they donate their legitimate lands, are unrealistic. It should be noted that the Kuril Company "Gidrostroy" has built one of the largest fish processing plants in Russia on Shikotan Island, which in July 2019 will begin to produce products.
      Thus, Tokyo continues to wait for its chance, having silenced for a while with its loud statements about its "basic position", which it calls "the return of the northern territories". Also, Japan aims to "closely monitor the situation in order to have the strength, spirit and readiness of the state for a long fight and victory".
    • By Clara12
      It is known that on February 2, 2019, the United States announced the suspension of its participation in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), accusing Russia of violating it. A complete withdrawal from the agreement will take place on August 2, 2019. However, NATO, replicating accusations against Russia regarding the INF Treaty, is trying to help the US hide the real reasons for the collapse of the treaty and divert attention from the real intentions of the American side.

      Now, according to a message from Pentagon spokesman Michelle Baldanza, the United States will be ready for testing of two banned by the INF Treaty missiles in summer 2019. We are talking about a cruise missile with a range of about 1,000 km, as well as a ballistic missile with a range of 3,000 - 4,000 km.

      Moreover, Washington began to develop an artillery weapon, which will be able to shoot at a distance of more than 1600 km. This was told by the US Land Forces Minister Mark Esper, who announced the development of a "supergun" capable of hitting targets a thousand miles away (1600 km). Experts believe that in fact the new American weapon is a medium-range ballistic missile. And, calling it a "supergun", Washington is trying to avoid violating the joint Treaty with Russia on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces.

      Also, on May 15, 2019, it became known that Under Secretary of State Andrea Thompson in writing explained the reason why the US was working on the development of missiles that were banned by the INF Treaty. And the answer was obvious - "to ensure that Russia would not get unilateral advantages in that sphere". At the same time, A. Thompson argued that the projects of their own missile systems are supposedly conventional, not nuclear. It is important to note that experts in the nuclear power industry believe that the United States is now trying to shift the blame for the collapse of the Treaty from "a sick head to a healthy one".

      Thus, the withdrawal from the INF Treaty is necessary for the United States to develop new weapons, and Washington prepared for this in advance, having worked out plans for the production of banned missiles. The US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, according to Russian President V. Putin, was a "direct step to shatter" international security and all these actions by the United States would undoubtedly entail a new round of nuclear arms race.

    • By Clara12
      Recently, Japan has increasingly demonstrated a desire to strengthen its armed forces. It is worth to recall that after World War II, Japan lost the opportunity to have its own army, and in 1947 a new Constitution of Japan was adopted, according to which the country was forbidden to use the army and use military forces as means of resolving international disputes. Despite the fact that almost every of the Japanese Prime Ministers tried to circumvent or cancel that article, it is still exists in the Constitution.

      So, bypassing that article, in 1954, with the help of the United States, which needed an ally in the Asia-Pacific Region, the Japan Self-Defense Forces were formed. The Self-Defense Forces with the help of Washington became one of the most powerful and well-armed armies in the world quite quickly. Now the number of Self-Defense Forces is almost 250 thousand people, which is not so little by modern standards.

      Nowadays Japan’s ground forces have 700 tanks, 2.8 thousand wheeled armored vehicles, 202 self-propelled artillery mounts, 99 salvo fire systems and 500 towed guns.
      The Japanese Navy has 131 combat ships: 4 aircraft carriers, 43 rocket ships, 27 minesweepers, 6 corvettes, 6 coast guard ships, 17 submarines, etc. The coast defense is provided by about 100 Tura-88 anti-ship complexes.

      Over 350 anti-aircraft missile systems protect Japan’s airspace. The country owns powerful aviation (including sea): Self-defense forces comprise 288 fighters, 287 bombers and 119 attack helicopters.

      In 2018, with serious help from Washington, the Marines appeared in Japan. The creation of the Japanese Marine Corps units means that the Japan Self-Defense Forces finally change their status: the Marine Corps is a strike force, it is not designed to protect its territory, which was previously the main task of the Self-Defense Forces. Thus, the Japanese army turns into one of the foremost armies of the world. All this is being done with the support of the United States, which is interested in strengthening the military potential of Japan, and now has a well-armed ally in the APR, which they themselves have equipped with the latest weapons and equipment.

      And this powerful military force, thanks to the "militaristic" policy of Shinzo Abe, supported by the United States, with who Japan has an agreement on mutual cooperation and security guarantees, will expand and develop. And this causes concern to the world community. At the same time, no one in the world questions the right of Japan to provide its security with the means that it considers the most effective and necessary. But the sovereign right of other countries is to think about their security and draw conclusions about what is changing or may change in this regard in the region and in the world as a whole in terms of security.

      The world community is now witnessing a rapid growth of military cooperation between the United States and Japan. So at the recent meeting of the leaders of the two countries, that was held in Japan, the expansion of military cooperation between Washington and Tokyo was discussed. President Trump and Prime Minister Abe discussed new arms shipments to Japan, the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the fact that Japan has a positive attitude to the deployment of various weapons systems on its territory, including the US.

      Undoubtedly, the militarization of Japan is very beneficial for Washington, for which this part of the Pacific region is the most problematic, since there are three countries at once concentrated, considered by Washington as key opponents - Russia, China and North Korea. Consequently, the United States will continue to monitor the development of the armed forces of Japan. Further development of the Japanese army, which will defend the interests and tasks of not only their country, but also the interests of the United States, will undoubtedly lead to another round of arms race in an already troubled region.

×
×
  • Create New...