The Taliban government of Afghanistan let the world know that Huawei, China’s CCP-owned digital telecommunications company, is installing a comprehensive surveillance network across the country in the style of the one built in the province of Xinxiang, the home of the ethnic group the Uyghurs, which are being exterminated by the CCP even as we speak.
The Taliban released a series of posts which were later deleted (probably at the behest of the CCP) as they exposed the brutality of the CCP and its CCP-controlled company in aiding an Islamo-Fascist regime in murdering dissenters, conveniently called “terrorists,” a phrase the Chinese government also uses to describe resistance to the brutal regime that the Taliban represent.
Given the nature of China’s regime, it is no surprise the two fascist regimes find such camaraderie with one another.
Bloomberg News claims to have an inside source on what went down with this agreement, stating in their report, Representatives of the Shenzhen-headquartered tech company met with Interior Ministry officials on Aug. 14, the person said, and a verbal agreement was reached regarding the contract. The Interior Ministry initially posted images and details of the meeting on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. In one post, spokesman Mufti Abdul Mateen Qani said the advanced camera system was being considered “in every province of Afghanistan.”
Let’s face it – tanks are sexy. So are “combat vehicles.” We’ve all seen them on television for years: big, brutalist vehicles, racing around a course, firing monstrous cannons, or grinding their way across the desert. Massive engines of war, practically defining the idea of the “warrior ethos.”
A Brigade of the U.S. 3rd Armored Division masses for the invasion of Iraq during the Gulf War, February 1991. US Army photo. Public Domain.
Or, perhaps, they are carrying infantry, dramatically exiting their vehicle, perhaps under fire. These kinds of vehicles fulfill another part of the “warrior ethos” equation, with warriors heading into violent, close-range, face-to-face battle with a dogged opponent. Very Audie Murphy.
US Army soldiers from 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, dismount from a Stryker APC, Mosul, Iraq, 2005. US Army Photo. Credit: SPC Jory C. Randall, US Army.
The idea of “sex” selling military equipment is alive and well, as can be seen by the marketing at any international arms show.
But this, of course, begs the question: Is this all there is? Of course, there are other aspects of “militarydom” that news media outlets and “infotainment” channels talk about relentlessly, as long as the public expresses interest in “things war-like.” These include paratroops, Rangers, or commandos, or special forces either stealthily creeping through enemy territory, or storming a “bad guy” hideout to neutralize said bad guys, or to rescue the hostages in dramatic fashion, especially if news cameras are present. Again – we’ve all seen these images and videos repeatedly, either on the news or in popular entertainment…and, for the most part, these all definitely deliver and validate that sort of drama, courage and honor.
This, of course, brings us once again to the question: it that it? In a word – no. Not by a long shot.
Combat troops require support. While combat troops are certainly capable of improvising, they are far better at executing their combat missions when the “non-combat” troops are relentlessly driving food, fuel, ammunition and spare parts forward, and doing the jobs that the combat units do not need to expend time and energy to learn: maintenance, medicine above the 1st Aid level, building (or destroying) structures – occasionally under fire – all of which are things that the combat forces need, but are too busy to spend time doing.
In “the biz,” this is expressed as the “tooth-to-tail ratio”, or, the proportion of combat to support troops. This is a very dense subject to get into, and there are a wide array of opinions on the subject, most of which disagree at one level or another with all of the other opinions. The point, however, is that any group with pretensions to military force is going to have more support troops who are unlikely to see actual fighting, than combat forces intended for straight up combat.
And those support forces need equipment – a LOT of equipment – and the unique supplies and spare parts to keep those running. And a main component of that equipment is armored support vehicles.
Lurking in the background, seldom photographed, and even less talked about or reported on, are the “combat support vehicles.”
These vehicles are not cargo trucks, but the sort of vehicles you can see on your daily commute when passing a construction site – everything from road graders to backhoes, bulldozers. These vehicles frequently have a coat of “military green” paint slapped onto them; hopefully, they have slats of armor plate welded onto them to protect the operator. They are then sent out to build anything from roads, to towns and camps for refugees, to large airfields.
A United States Navy Seabee uses a grader to construct a parking lot during the combined US/Honduran training operation “AHUAS TAR” (BIG PINE), 1983. Photo Credit: TSGT Ken Hammond. US National Archives. Public Domain.
But these vehicles also include highly specialized vehicles, such as minefield breachers and high-speed trenching machines, like the Soviet BTM-3. The BTM, in particular, has made a resurgence in the Ukraine war (YouTube link), as both Russia and Ukraine quickly turned to trench warfare, as the war bogged down into a bloody stalemate. With trench systems resembling those of World War 1, the BTM and its later derivatives and cousins have worked frantically to construct vast trench systems far faster and more efficiently than individual soldiers can. After a trencher slices through the area, troops need to do no more than to expand the position, “filling in” the parts that the trencher vehicle cannot easily do.
Unfortunately, since these vehicles, as highly effective and vital as they are, are rarely given any kind of real consideration…because they are not “sexy.” And, disappointingly, the leaders of most countries have little interest in these vehicles (because they are not “sexy”), so the vehicles sit, rarely used or considered when discussions of “militarydom” occurs…until, of course, tensions suddenly escalate into actual war, and those vehicles – many times, barely running – become a decisive combat multiplier, usually outweighing actual “combat vehicles” in value.
And that’s before we talk about trucks.
If you’ve read this far, I will offer you the following advice: The next time your elected officials start talking about the “defense budget,” spend some time, and look into what they actually want to spend your money on. It’s your tax money, after all, that is spent to “defend” you.
You might want to look into how it is being spent.
The genesis of this article came from a completely different angle, namely, the deployment of laser weapons to the battlefield. However, as things frequently go, that initial idea led to something of much more immediate interest.
Previously, the Freedomist has covered some aspects of “improvised warfare” that some seem to take as James Bond-like fantasy. Yet, as we progress through the third decade of the 21st Century, remotely controlled drones – available in most countries through their local Amazon store – capable of both conducting tactical combat surveillance, as well as tactical air support by dropping small fragmentation grenades, are serious and maturing battlefield threats, threats that military and security forces are struggling to counter.
“Improvised warfare” has been around since the first caveman grabbed the jawbone of his last dinner to bash in the noggin of another caveman trying to muscle in on the first one’s turf. Throughout military history, outside of the heroically vast and sweeping battles of storied yore, there has always lurked the “PBI” – the “Poor, Bloody Infantry” – struggling to make do with usually-substandard weapons and equipment, improvising on the fly, on the idea that “if it looks stupid, but works – it isn’t stupid.”
This is also true in naval warfare. “Suicide boats,” in the form of “fire ships”, go back to at least the 3rd Century AD in China, and the 5th Century AD in the Mediterranean, and those dates are only the earliest we have on record. The use of fire ships in combat has always been problematic, as controlling the vessels after the skeleton crews abandoned them was impossible, and the abandoned vessels could easily come back on the attackers.
Chinese fire ships used by the navy as floating incendiaries, from the Wujing Zongyao military manuscript written in the year 1044 during the Song Dynasty. Public Domain.
As naval technology advanced however, fire ships, as such, disappeared, replaced by explosive-laden boats propelled by early steam engines. These boats had some advantages, not being as subject to winds as the old ships, and their explosive warheads were much more capable of inflicting serious, if not fatal, damage to large warships. Still, the inability to steer the boats remotely left their utility still strictly limited.
As with so many things in the military sphere, during World War 2, everything changed. The intersection of technologies with mass production and sincere desperation, allowed the first tactically useful guided weapons, not simply on land and in the air, but at sea, human control was still the primary aiming method until the last moment.
Post-WW2, the use of explosive motorboats continued, eventually evolving into actual “suicide boats”, where the crews rode the craft directly into their targets. While this was always a danger for the operators of these boats, very few navies outside of WW2 Japan set out with this as their operating profile. Beginning in the 1980’s, this began to change, first with the LTTE in Sri Lanka and with Iran in its “WW1, 2.0” war with Iraq. This is, in fact, what happened to the USS Cole (DDG 67) when it was attacked at anchor in October of 2000, as the suicide crew happily “saluted” the American crew before detonating their massive charge, nearly destroying the ship.
And then – another “sea change” (no pun intended) happened.
As the Soviet Union collapsed, and Communist China finally figured out how mix capitalism with a brutal, totalitarian governmental system, the West welcomed the Communist remnants into a burgeoning world trade system with open arms. As the global economy shifted and changed, the technology sector exploded in its own form of “business as war.” Technology once reserved only to the “Great Powers” became ‘democratized’, available at reasonable prices to the general public. While major nations certainly had far better and more capable – and much more expensive – systems, smaller states (and groups) suddenly had access to technology and manufacturing bases that significantly increased their capabilities versus local opponents (including their own citizens, but that’s another conversation, entirely).
Container port in operation. Credit: Piqsels.com. Public Domain.
All that was waiting was another spate of desperation to drive improvisation.
As the “Global War on Terror” (the “GWOT”) drove on in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the many small, localized wars it spawned drove desperate innovation, once again. Various ethnic and religious factions around the world desperately sought some sort of advantage. This has led to everything from “homemade tanks”, to artillery, to ‘sci-fi’ weapons manufacture.
But now, desperation-induced technological innovation has caught up with the navies of the world.
On January 30, 2017, the Saudi Arabian frigate RSN Al Madinah (FG 702) was struck and seriously damaged by an explosive-laden speedboat. Initially, it was believed that the craft was a piloted suicide boat deployed by the Shi’a Islam Houthi rebels of Yemen, which country has been in its most recent civil war since 2014. Soon, though, it became apparent that the attack craft was actually a remotely- controlled craft.
Speculation immediately turned to Iran. Iran, in addition to being co-religionists to the Houthis, was already supplying the rebels with short-range ballistic missiles and combat drones. In this regard, Iran differs from Ukraine only in that they supply their craft externally.
Ukrainian naval drones, c.2022. Unknown author.
Given the rapid advances in remote-operations technology, it would be no great task to re-engineer common pleasure boats to function as drone attack craft; as well, the issue of a simplified, “standard issue” refit kit (similar in theory to an aircraft JDAM unit) is virtually guaranteed.
But ultimately – what does all this actually mean, in the grand scheme of things?
Simply, insurgents and guerrillas are now much more capable than they were in the past, as they are now capable to extend remote-controlled warfare into the nautical dimension. With the democratization of military training, this opens the ugly possibility of radical forces being capable of enforcing localized (if not regional) combined-arms dominance over all the most capable of national militaries.
The fact that this is an operational possibility worthy of consideration is not something that should alarm only strategic planners – it is something that average citizen needs to seriously consider.
Act accordingly.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
A Highly Unofficial Military Assessment of the UAP Threat
We need to talk. It’s time for “that” discussion.
On April 27th of 2020, the Department of Defense officially released three videos of “anomalous objects” or “unidentified aerial phenomena” (along with some even more shocking revelations in 2022). These videos, recorded as “gun camera” footage by F/A-18 fighters of the US Navy in 2004 and 2015, were leaked in 2007 and 2017, respectively, sparking off furious speculation as to what the objects recorded actually were. For its part, the Navy and the DoD admitted publicly that they had no idea what the origin or nature of these objects actually were.
While that might true for the people issuing the public statements, it is yet another bald-faced lie by the government. If that sounds harsh, or even histrionic, it isn’t – it is an objective truth, as we will show below.
Let’s talk about the videos, first.
Exotic Craft
While the videos may seem pretty mundane at first glance, they are most certainly not…especially when one begins to read more deeply into the situations behind the videos in question. The short answer, based on the testimony of skilled, veteran pilots – people trained in air-to-air combat – is that these craft are performing maneuvers that are not possible within the currently accepted realm of physics.
For you, the Reader, your choice is simple: you can believe the testimony of professional officers and pilots, trained to engage with hostile aircraft, or you can believe the hysterical denials of wholly unqualified rando’s on the interwebz trying to sell you a website membership, a book or a magazine subscription.
Choose one.
The other issue at hand is the number of craft being sighted. In the now-famous “Tic-Tac” video, described in detail (Spotify link) by retired US Navy Commander David Fravor on the Joe Rogan Podcast in 2020, the additional details of the story – not discussed on Rogan’s show – were laid out (YouTube link) by whistleblower Luis Elizondo in 2019. In short, radar and air defense operators aboard the USS Princeton (CG-59) reported tracking up to one hundred objects at once, over the course of the week prior to the intercept by Commander Fravor. According to the operators from the Princeton, these craft dropped down from 80,000 feet, essentially out of nowhere.
Ok…So what?
Seeing a single object doing extraordinary things can be written off as either a mistake or a hoax. Seeing a hundred such objects is neither. The United States Navy – inter-service rivalry jabs aside – is not in the habit of re-tasking extremely-expensive-to-operate aircraft to investigate hoaxes and jokes. It is simply not done in the real world.
Given that reality, why is the number of targets spotted on radar important?
Right now, if the Reader has the money, you can order a “kit car” online. In a couple of weeks, a truck will arrive with several large boxes of components, and you can assemble a fully functional and road-legal automobile in your garage. Doing so, however, does not make one an “automobile manufacturer”. The same is true for aircraft.
According to Cmdr. Fravor’s description, the object he and his flight of F/A-18’s intercepted was about the size of his fighter. Presuming – a loaded term, to be sure – that the other radar tracks were similar in size to the intercepted unknown, a number of craft equivalent in number to the entire complement of a modern aircraft carrier, appeared to descend from orbit, within the engagement envelope of an aircraft carrier battle group, essentially with no warning.
F-18 Hornet of the US Marine Corps. Photo Credit: Pixabay.com Public Domain.
Clearly, if these claims are true – refer to the above comment – the US Navy (at the operational level, at least) has no idea what these craft are, nor who they belong to.
That’s a problem.
The other problem is: Like a kit car or plane, making a one-off craft with a breakthrough propulsion system in your barn is not “manufacturing” said craft. Making a hundred – is. In the “biz”, that is called “serial production”.
So…If the United States is not making these – as the government insists that they are not – then who is? It isn’t the Russians. Nor is it the Chinese. There is simply no nation or organization on Planet Earth that can do so, because (“conspiracy theorists” aside – who have had a pretty good track record over the last few years) no one has the technology displayed by the recorded craft.
The reason this can be stated so conclusively, is that any craft with this range of performance characteristics is a dominating advance – a leap in technology so decisive, any nation on Earth that can place such craft into serial production can and will dominate every other nation on Earth. Yet…no one has done so.
And recall: the first of these videos were recorded in 2004, some nineteen years ago, at this writing.
Prepping the Battlefield
So – if no one on Earth is producing these craft, who is? What are they doing here? Why aren’t they landing in Washington, New York, London, Moscow or Beijing, popping their hatches and say, “Take me to your leader”?
If these sightings are neither hoaxes, drug-addled ramblings, mistaken identities, “ball lightning”, “swamp gas”, “lenticular cloud formations”, “extremely slow-moving meteors that change direction” (my personal favorite) or craft from terrestrial nations…the only other alternative is that they are from “elsewhere”. That is the presumption we will work from in this article, going forward.
“Prepping the Battlefield” is military slang for a directed and wide-reaching survey of a potential battlefield. The purpose is to identify the terrain and nature of the potential opposition, in order to refine a potential battle plan.
US Marines on reconnaissance exercise, 2003. USMC Photo. Public Domain.
Now, there are a large number of people, with…unfortunate…critical thinking skills, who will insist that any species capable of crossing the vast gulfs of space at presumably faster-than-light speeds would have no trouble soundly defeating “puny humans” like us.
People with such tangled thought processes are why there are safety warnings on Pop-Tarts.
History is replete with examples of technologically advanced groups being soundly defeated by peoples well behind them in technology, but that is not the issue here. The issue is that technology is not linear in development. The ability to build a typewriter does not equate to the ability to build a computer. Industrial or mechanical abilities can only define possible technologies; they do not guarantee the existence of technologies.
So – presuming that “aliens” are coming here from outside the solar system, and are neither invading, nor formally contacting us as the “Galactic Brotherhood”…why are they here?
Aside from a few hazy reports from so long ago that most of the witnesses are now long dead, the modern “UFO” milieu began in 1947, with the Roswell Crash.
Roswell Daily Record from July 9, 1947 detailing the Roswell UFO incident. Public Domain.
What is not often discussed, however, is the fact that Roswell was not the only incident in 1947. In fact, there were multiple incidents that year, incidents that led to the United States Air Force to launch not one, but two formal investigations of what was going on in United States airspaces because, to paraphrase the words of former UK Ministry of Defense investigator Nick Pope, countries do not fail to pay attention to uncorrelated targets in their airspace.
Not surprisingly, this pair of investigations, spanning the period from 1948 to 1951, concluded that there was nothing to see, that virtually all of the reported sightings – including those from professional and military aviators – were uniformly either mistaken identity, outright hoaxes, or any number of unusual but natural phenomena, because clouds always look like aircraft, apparently.
So adamantly and rigidly did the US Air Force adhere to this stance that as late as the late-1990’s, that organization issued no less than two separate reports on the Roswell incident directly, both of which did not simply lie and demean the general public, as well as its own officers, but that openly claimed that its own records of major projects were completely mislabeled as happening at least a decade earlier than they did.
…But – why? Why all the secrecy and deception, especially after it became painfully clear to the public that the military and the government were proverbial lying through their teeth? There are two reasons. In reverse order: first, because once you defend a secret as vigorously and for as long as the government has regarding “UFO’s”, you are going to commit more than a few crimes along the way (YouTube link).
Second was the desperate attempt to avoid widespread public panic. One basic mistake made by most “UFOlogists” in the modern day is to equate the attitudes and perceptions of today, to the late-1940’s; this is comparing apples to hydraulic jacks.
In 1947, World War 2 had only been over, in an official sense, for barely a year. In many cases, the military and political leaders at the “sharp end” of this wave of sightings had seen friends, and sometimes family members, killed, seriously wounded or possibly even severely reprimanded and forcibly retired. Additionally, the panic caused by Orson Welles’ “War of the Worlds” broadcast was only nine years in the past. Going on-air, nationwide, and admitting that the government had no idea what or who were responsible for the extraordinary things in the sky would have caused an immediate, worldwide panic.
Given all of the above, we return to the core question: Assuming that these craft are a) real, b) are from and operated by entities that are not native to the Earth – What are “they” doing?
An Unofficial Military Assessment
UFO’s, UAP’s, “flying saucers”, etc., are here. They are not contacting us, at least publicly. Many people – in the tens of thousands – have reported seeing the craft. Some people have claimed various types of contact with the crews of the craft.
Beginning from at least 1947, there has been an intense series of what can only be described as “surveillance flights” began to be observed over the Earth, primarily in the United States, but quickly spreading outside the country. These flights were concentrated in regions near military bases, government centers, “high tech” laboratories, and production and refining facilities relating to the production of both missile systems and nuclear materials.
It is a fact that the first known atomic weapons were detonated in 1945, barely two years prior to the wave of sightings in 1947. (NB: There were scattered reports (YouTube link) of “Foo Fighters” among Allied pilots during World War 2, indicating a possible early phase of surveillance.)
With clear interest in terrestrial states’ development of atomic weaponry, it is equally clear from the pattern of observable surveillance that this was a major factor of interest. The implication is that these “visitors” view such systems as a threat.
If that is true, the lack of outright physical attack in the 1947-1950 period makes little sense, assuming that a) the “command authority” of the reconnaissance elements conducting the surveillance viewed such developments as a threat to themselves, and b) that this alien society was significantly advanced technologically over that of post-World War 2 Earth.
Functionally speaking, these points are contradictory, as logical threat response would dictate that some level of direct intervention – the proverbial “landing on the Capital Mall”, if not actual military invasion – would be necessary. Indeed, in 1947-1950, the nations of the Earth were in absolutely no position to effectively resist any such action.
Or…were we?
A Dangerous Place
Referring back to the technology discussion above and considering – with trepidation – the “Ancient Aliens Hypothesis” [sic] in concert with this, it is entirely possible that these alien visitors did not develop weapons technologies in sync with us…And specifically, as regarding firearms.
The “Ancient Aliens Hypothesis” presumes that non-human aliens have been “visiting” Earth – “interfering” is not too strong a term for that hypothesis’ view – for thousands of years. Yet, when one looks back through verifiably ancient works of art, there are no personal weapons identifiable other than swords, spears, slings, and bows and arrows. Certain implications contained in Indian Vedas do indicate the possibility of high-technology weapons – potentially atomic weapons – there is no representation of identifiable firearm-type weapons.
Mesopotamian god. Pixabay.com Public Domain.
Eschatologically and religiously, there are non-Abrahamic scriptural and textual descriptions implying “magical” instruments being wielded by “the gods” that could be taken as various types of directed-energy weapons. Presuming that aliens did visit Earth in the remote past, a non-human alien deploying a laser-type weapon – or even a taser-equivalent – could easily be seen as “godlike”, even leaving aside “miracles” like instant communication, advanced medicine and “talking boxes” (i.e., computers). This is even more true, when handheld weapons such as simple clubs and crude swords would appear helpless in the face of aliens.
This is important, because the vast majority of credible contactee reports indicate that the alien crews are physically far smaller and weaker than the average human. This syncs up with the timing of credible reported contacts, the vast majority of which occur at night. Humans are ‘diurnal’, in nature, meaning that humans operate best in daylight and typically sleep at night, as opposed to nocturnal creatures, which are active at night, and generally sleep during the day.
The implication is that, all other things being equal, the alien ship crews as physically described would likely faire poorly in hand-to-hand/unarmed combat against an aroused and angry human who is unimpressed or unaffected by their high-tech weapons.
However, consider individual firearms. The firearm, as such, is a comparatively ‘brand new’ development in human history, being barely nine hundred years old. And modern firearms – shooting high-velocity, aerodynamically stabilized projectiles – are another matter, entirely over the simple ‘black powder’ muskets of barely two hundred years ago.
While seemingly counter-intuitive, it is entirely possible that the alien race[s] behind the sudden “visitation” campaign that came to public prominence in 1947 never developed firearms, simply because firearms are a unique development in technology, having no relation to any other relational sphere.
There are, however, other possibilities for non-engagement:
One factor to consider is a demographic one – maybe the aliens from Zeta Reticuli have a comparatively low population, or are loathe to losing a good chunk of it in an all-out, D-Day style invasion of Earth.
There may also be logistical concerns: perhaps, while being able to travel interstellar distances, the technology to do so is complicated and expensive in some way, limiting the number, capacity and/or size of ships that can be sent.
Another potential factor could be a ‘near-peer’ threat closer to the alien’s home area, leaving them unable to divert sufficient forces for security reasons.
While there are numerous possible reasons for the non-engagement, at least publicly, there is another intriguing possibility: treaty violations.
Much has been made in the fringe areas of UFOlogy about the “Galactic Brotherhood” or the “Galactic Federation”, concepts dating at least to the 1950’s. More sober and mainstream UFO researchers have uniformly dismissed the very idea, but that may have been hasty.
In recent years, Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, PhD (Oxford) has presented a theory (YouTube link), based on translations (YouTube link) of the Assyrian “Epic of Ninurta”, postulating that a war was fought across the Solar System in the extremely distant past, and that the peace treaty that resulted from the end of that war is still in force at some level. If such a treaty does exist, that would almost certainly be a limiting factor, per Option #3, above.
In support of such an idea, research conducted (YouTube link) by Dr. John Brandenburg, PhD (UC Davis) indicates the distinct possibility that the planet Mars was once bombarded by nuclear weapons at a scale that make the current arsenals of Earth look like firecrackers in comparison.
“Disclosure”, at last…?
Assuming that the above points are even plausible – and especially if they are true – then, what actions would military and political leaders have taken in the period of 1947 and onward?
First, a dedicated study would need to be conducted, both of any recovered objects (biological, as well as technological) as well as a detailed look back through history (“classical education” used to involve far more than simply Greco-Roman writers). The behaviors of alien craft would need to studied, at far more depth than in this article, in order to try to guess at the focus of their reconnaissance, while a deception campaign would need to be deployed to try and confuse the aliens about what our level of knowledge actually was. All of this would have to be coordinated in such a manner, that the operation’s progress would be difficult to impossible to intercept.
In that last regard, the Earth establishments of 1947 had a distinct advantage over their descendants of today, since the use of human couriers carrying locked briefcases was far more common than it is, today. Such a communications method would force the aliens to physically intercept every single person with a briefcase, something they simply would not be able to do. In the modern day, virtually every communication passes through some form of digital interface – and as anyone who has had their computer hacked knows well, attacking a digital signal is almost comically easy. Hand-carried information? Vastly harder.
As the decades passed, information and technologies would be gleaned and exploited, albeit slowly. But, if the deception operations against the aliens were successful, the nations of Earth could eventually reach a level where it was not viable to actually invade or even attrit human capacity with a “main force” attack, by making direct military action too expensive to contemplate.
But.
In the world of terra firma, maintaining such a dire body of secrets means that governments and agencies are going to do a lot of highly illegal things (YouTube link) to wholly and completely innocent – even patriotic – people. The people who carry out these kinds of operations have a vested interest in keeping these secrets for as long as possible, because if the secrets are released without ironclad guarantees of legal immunity to those who willingly carried them out, those people will be lucky to spend the rest of their lives in prison, if they are not lynched, first.
Is the United States government finally admitting, “we are not alone”? Given both the official recognition of leaked gun-camera footage, and the recent “whistleblower” testimony of USAF intelligence officer David Grusch, it seems that an admission may – after over seventy years – be coming…
…Because at some point, the big secrets have to come out.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Researchers from Oxford University published a study in nature that claims to have developed a technique to scan EV batteries at details that will allow scientists to fine-tune material to greatly enhance the capacity to store power, as well as extend the shelf life of the battery at exponential levels. If proven true, the breakthrough could change the whole dynamic for the EV and Electric Aviation industry, both of which are significantly limited compared to their fuel-based counterparts.
In this latest study, the group used an advanced imaging technique called X-ray computed tomography at Diamond Light Source to visualise dendrite failure in unprecedented detail during the charging process. The new imaging study revealed that the initiation and propagation of the dendrite cracks are separate processes, driven by distinct underlying mechanisms. Dendrite cracks initiate when lithium accumulates in sub-surface pores. When the pores become full, further charging of the battery increases the pressure, leading to cracking. In contrast, propagation occurs with lithium only partially filling the crack, through a wedge-opening mechanism which drives the crack open from the rear.
This new understanding points the way forward to overcoming the technological challenges of Li-SSBs. Dominic Melvin said: ‘For instance, while pressure at the lithium anode can be good to avoid gaps developing at the interface with the solid electrolyte on discharge, our results demonstrate that too much pressure can be detrimental, making dendrite propagation and short-circuit on charging more likely.’
The breakthrough could also potentially greatly reduce the current high demand on resources for EV batteries, especially for lithium.
We would like to express our thanks to naval OSINT analyst H I Sutton, of Covert Shores, for his kind assistance with this article.
Illness is an odd thing. One rarely pays close attention to outside events unless those events have a direct and immediate impact on the ill person. In the case of your humble author, 2022 was a rough year. As a result, I completely missed this article when it came out, and didn’t think clearly about the implications of using larger vessels in a DIY Navy when that article was written.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa…Consider this to be Part 2.
For small national navies, as well as “guerrilla” navies, Part 1 is still absolutely true: limited funds and resources limit options when building a naval force of any kind. However, for the nation-state that is in the “middle sea” [sic], so to speak, those have more options.
As described in a previous article, a nation desiring to construct a navy needs to first decide on exactly what kind of navy they need – not want, but need. To briefly recap, there are three basic choices: Blue, Green & Brown:
A “blue” navy is basically the kind of navy used by the United States, Great Britain, and France, the kind of navy that Communist China aspires to: a naval force to maintain the “Sea Lanes of Communications” (the SLOC). This is the hardest kind of fleet to build, and far and away the most expensive.
A “green” navy is mostly a coastal force, whose main job is to facilitate amphibious operations, i.e., landing troops ashore. Still expensive, but the better choice for nations like the Republic of the Philippines.
A “brown” navy operates almost solely along rivers and close in to coastlines. These naval forces are comparatively cheap, but are very limited in range and capabilities, compared to the other two types of fleet.
Obviously, there is a good deal of overlap between the various types: brown and green navies complement each other well, where their environments meet. Likewise, green and blue navies can have a very great deal of overlap when projecting state power at a long distance. While there is little overlap between blue and brown fleets, blue water units can benefit from the lightweight/high-speed boats of the brown squadrons.
Iran, however, has taken the path of outside-the-box thinking to a different level.
Beginning in 2021, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commissioned the building of at least two “drone carriers,” former “Panamax” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax] box-carriers [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship] refitted to operate combat and surveillance drone aircraft, “Shahid Mahdavi” and “Shahid Bagheri”. In form, the two ships initially looked like their recent sister ship, the “forward base ship” “Makran”.
Unlike Makran, however, Mahdavi and Bagheri are apparently focused solely on drone craft operations. The Bagheri is being fitted with an overhanging deck extension on their port (left) side. While visually similar to US Navy carriers of the last c.65 years, this seems to have been designed in order to launch and recover heavier drone craft on an angle, from port to starboard, due to the container ships’ superstructure at the aft (rear) end, which cannot be easily modified. This seems to be confirmed, as Iranian state news is showing pictures of a “ski jump” being installed on the Bagheri. The “ski jump” flight deck has been used to aid in flight operations since at least the 1970’s, when the UK’s Royal Navy used them for their “Harrier carriers”, HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible, during the Falkland Islands War of 1982.
IRGC ship “Bagheri” under construction in shipyard near Bandar Abbas, 2022, showing angled flight deck. Diagonal arrows show the non-standard flight deck. Photo credit: H. I. Sutton, Covert Shores
IRGC ship “Bagheri” under construction in shipyard near Bandar Abbas, c.early-2023, showing the ‘ski jump’ nearing completion on the flight deck. Photo credit: H. I. Sutton, Covert Shores
Harrier Jump Jet, Farnborough Air Show 2014 by Christine Matthews. CCA/2.0
This modification opens the possibility of launching much heavier drone craft, capable of carrying much heavier ordnance than other drones. While certainly incapable of handling heavier, manned craft, this bodes ill for anyone Iran chooses to focus on.
Bayraktar TB2 on the runway. Credit: Bayhaluk, 2014. CCA/4.0/Int’l.
There has not been a direct, “force on force”, aircraft carrier battle since WW2; the aforementioned Falklands campaign nearly resulted in one, but that turned out to be a false start. While there have been thousands – if not tens of thousands – of carrier-launched fighters and bombers attacking land targets and land-based aircraft, these were not “carrier” battles, in the naval sense. The concern, here, the nightmare of rational naval planners since the 1970’s, has been the “improvised aircraft carrier.” The naval dimension of the Falklands War, once again, informs on the problem.
SS Atlantic Conveyor, approaching the Falklands. About 19 May 1982. Photo: DM Gerard. CCA/2.5
A combination roll-on/roll-offcontainer ship, Atlantic Conveyor was used primarily to ferry aircraft for the British invasion force. When the vessel arrived in the combat area, the Harrier ‘jump jets’ she carried were launched from her, and flown off to the aircraft carries. On May 25th 1983, during the ferocious air attacks by Argentine air forces during the Battle of San Carlos, Atlantic Conveyor was struck by two Exocet anti-ship missiles, killing twelve of her crew, including her captain; gutted by fires, the ship sank three days later, while under tow, joining several other vessels in becoming the first Royal Navy vessels lost in action since World War 2. The loss of all of the remaining aircraft aboard (all of them helicopters) would severely hamper British operations ashore for the remainder of the campaign.
But note the first part of that story: Atlantic Conveyor was able to at least launch manned fighter jets while underway. What the Royal Navy – long starved for funding for ships and manpower (HMS Hermes was scheduled for decommissioning – without a replacement – when the invasion happened) had built a “jack carrier”, effectively equivalent to a WW2 “escort carrier”, at very short notice, with the potential – had she not been destroyed – of being able to conduct combat operations at some level.
This capability had been recognized with helicopters for many years, but this was the first time it had been proven valid for manned combat jet aircraft. Although conjectural, this is likely the real reason why the US and UK defense establishments buried the Harrier’s proposed follow-on aircraft, the supersonic version of the Hawker Siddeley P.1154, cancelled in 1965. No serious attempt was made to perfect a supersonic-capable VTOL until the introduction of the F-35B by the United States in 2015. As there are few carriers in the world capable of operating conventional jet aircraft, this ensured the naval dominance of those states that possessed these massive and expensive weapons.
F-35B Lightning taking off from a ski-jump, from HMS Queen Elizabeth, 2020. Photo: LPhot Luke/MOD. UK/OGL v1.0
Now, however, we find ourselves in the 21st Century, and technology has significantly progressed, across the board. Long-range drone craft, capable of carrying heavy ordnance, and armed – presumably – with anti-ship missiles and capable air- and anti-ship missile defenses, have now changed the structure of naval “battle calculus.” This is because the world’s second- and third-line military forces have relearned the fundamental truth of national military strength: it doesn’t matter how strong a nation’s military is overall, but how much of that force can be brought to bear against a particular target.
Iran’s naval deployment of ersatz carriers may seem laughable to many in first-line forces, but no one in second- or third-line navies are laughing. Iran has demonstrated that they are perfectly capable of worldwide naval cruises and deployments, and while their carriers and other vessels almost certainly stand no chance against a US or UK task force, they are more than a match for most of the other navies in the world. This is especially true for their “forward base ship” concepts, which are capable of deploying commando units via helicopter and speedboat, in a manner similar to first-line navies.
The deployment of these three vessels, the Makrun, Mahdavi and Bagheri, marks the first time since 1976 (in the days of the Imperial Navy of Iran) that Iran has had a truly capable naval arm for its military forces. Given the country’s friendly relations with Russia and Communist China, the possibility of joint fleet operations with at least China, if not Russia, along with their recent truce – brokered by the PRC – with Saudi Arabia, means than Iran can easily conduct far more complicated and wide-ranging power projection operations than they were able to in the past.
Much more worryingly, these ship commissioning’s are being done in public, and there are plenty of nations in the world at Iran’s tier who can take inspiration to boost their own naval capabilities.
The foundations of the world economy are set on the concept of the “freedom of the seas”, a concept enforced since World War 2 by the United States, Great Britain and France…but all three states are in financial trouble, and their navies are down to razor-thin numbers, in both ships and sailors. It will take careful, resolute and competent leadership to navigate through this.
The question is: is that leadership in place? Or even on the horizon?
In a move that has caused many to question Elon Musk’s alleged commitment to make Twitter the American platform for free speech, Linda Yaccarino, an Ad Marketing maven and former high-ranking member of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum, was announced as the new CEO to take over Twitter from Musk. The elites who favor hate speech laws and sexualizing children as early and as often as possible are accusing Musk of hiring a woman to do a job that she’s doomed to fail in carrying out. One such person, a business professor at Santa Clara University who advocates for the Woketarian agenda, complained that “Her credentials are impeccable and she’s been extremely successful so far. But she’s also been in settings where her success was achievable. I mean no disrespect to her or to diminish her in the least. I just think that this is an impossible situation for basically anybody.”
With the recent arrest of an Airman of the Massachusetts Air National Guard, the United States’ defence and intelligence establishments are once again under fire for apparently lax information security. In fact, this is the second time in less than a year that this has happened.
At first glance, this seems like a very bizarre thing…until you realize, sadly, that it is not.
Instead, incredibly – or, sadly, not so incredibly – the leaks were the result of rabid video game players trying to prove how cool and ‘edgy’ they were.
While some of the leakers may be older, this is the result of the programming of the so-called “Generation Z”. This is the first generation to grow up with social media as a main facet of their lives. When “social media” as we would now recognize it, first arose in 1997, no one had any real idea of what its impact would be. Whatever the imagined intent, what it has evolved into, is a sort of electronic version of an elementary school playground at recess, with no adults present to regulate it.
Where older generations who entered the various defense and intelligence services would never, in their wildest nightmares, have taken classified materials to their local watering hole and deliberately passed them around to score social points, this is becoming increasingly common for a deliberately infantalized generation of youth. While there certainly were, and are, spies and informants stealing and passing on information for money, ideology or “love”, those reasons were at least tangible and understandable. Scoring social media points is, to be blunt, pointless in the extreme.
Coupled to the insanity of the RESTRICT Act (deliberately misconstrued as the “TikTok Ban” bill), this works to sweep away all the foundations of legality of the Rule of Law, in the fleeting hope of gaining some sort of security.
And, like the hysterical attacks from the music industry against services such as Napster and Grokster, idiocies like the RESTRICT Act are guaranteed to have exactly the opposite effect, as outraged online activists will find ways to send out increasingly large amounts of classified material – not for the older reasons, nor even the newer reasons, but simply out of anger at such tight restrictions. The fact of facing heavy penalties for doing so, are irrelevant once the information is “out in the wild,” as the saying goes: the damage will have already been done.
But the above does not address the real question: Why are these kinds of leaks so dangerous?
For those not familiar with intelligence gathering, as a discipline, the short answer is that, in the “old days,” obtaining intelligence – meaningful intelligence – on a hostile target was hard…very hard. An intelligence agency – from East or West – had to insert “non-official” (or “illegal”) agents into the target country; those illegal agents would then have to either infiltrate a facility, or suborn an intelligence worker (assuming that they could identify them). Conversely, they could hang out in bars, nightclubs or restaurants (good for staging a honey trap) outside the gates of military facilities, or take menial jobs at establishments outside the gates such as working as a barber or as a waitress, in an attempt to glean nuggets of information from random conversations…Not very flashy, and not very James Bond, but such methods did work.
An example of a one-time pad. Credit: Mysid, 2007. Public Domain.
(My favorite intelligence warning in the mid-1980’s, was an order that came down, telling service personnel to stop…”liberating”…large bottles of Tabasco® sauce from restaurants outside base main gates in preparation for going to the field or “rapidly redeploy strategically”, to make the early Meals-Ready-to-Eat (MRE’s) at least somewhat palatable. The problem had gotten so bad, those base-local restaurants developed their own internal intelligence networks, and were suddenly “out of Tabasco” when they learned of a local unit deployment…thus giving hostile agents a dead giveaway that large unit movements were afoot.)
With the rise of online gaming and their associated forums and chat servers in the early 2000’s, however, intelligence agencies quickly grasped that their agents could sit behind Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), in the comfort and security of their home nations. They could then “lurk,” monitoring boards silently, while not communicating very often, waiting to pounce on discussions where people who should know better would often drop bits – or entire files – of classified data…and those agents wouldn’t even have to hound the leaker, because the rest of the forum or chat group would do that for them, unwittingly.
This kind of thing came naturally to intelligence agencies, as it was a form of OSINT [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_intelligence]. OSINT, or “Open-Source Intelligence,” is a method, or discipline [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_gathering_disciplines] of intelligence collection where a person meticulously (some might say, “obsessively”) scours every publicly available source of information on a subject they can find, and attempt to collate and boil-down the resulting information into a general picture.
OSINT differs from more expensive, technological or hazardous methods of information collection – like finding human sources of information, satellite reconnaissance, radio signal interception, etc. – in that it simply requires an illegal agent to buy multiple piles of newspapers and magazines, and inhabit libraries relentlessly. While also not very flashy, OSINT analysis often leads to very clear pictures of a nation’s defense strategies. As well, it lends itself very well to crowdsourcing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing].
So…Where does this leave us, in mid-April of 2023?
Unfortunately, there are serious problems within the information security apparatus in the West, as a whole. With the need to bring in a new generation of intelligence workers, the West – as opposed to Russia and Communist China – is finding that the “Woke” agenda that has been allowed free rein over the last decade has badly polluted the potential recruiting pool, as people who have been raised in a culture where ephemeral “electronic cred” is as important, if not more important, than being a “quiet professional”.
And, as those who promoted that social context are discovering, there is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Anyone with even a passing familiarity with modern firearms knows about the AK-47. In fact, we discussed it here, as part of another series. The AK-47 is so well known because it is so widespread, having been handed out at no- or low-cost to so many rifles, that they now appear on national flags and crests.
Flag of Mozambique, showing an AK-47 in the canton. Public Domain.
But the AK-47 was not the first weapon to have this kind of impact. This article is the first part of a two-part series on the rifles that had a similar impact to the AK-47. One of those is still all over the world. This one, however, is nowhere near as well known today.
Gevär m/1867, from the Armémuseum (The Swedish Army Museum) collection. CCA-4.0
As the American Civil War raged, weapons using metallic cartridges began to appear, both in the hands of civilians and on the battlefield. While flashy weapons like the Henry and its descendant from Winchester Repeating Arms are better known, those weapons’ use in the military sphere was very limited. Early cartridge revolvers because popular with cavalry, but the Winchester remained almost solely a civilian weapon.
Armies are conservative by nature. The reason for this is understandable, given the stakes – when a business gambles on new technology, and the new tech fails, that is a very inconvenient; it might even be sad, if it causes the company to fail and costs workers their jobs. In contrast, if an army gambles on new tech and it fails, the consequences can be catastrophic out of all proportion to the technology. Case in point, the mitrailleuse.
Muzzle view of a Mitrailleuse, Les Invalides, Paris. CCA/3.0
The mitrailleuse was supposed to be France’s ultimate war-winning weapons system, able to sweep the Republic’s enemies from the battlefield like wheat before the scythe…The problem? It was kept so secret, no one ever trained the French artillery to handle it, and thus no one ever realized what it really was: a simple volley gun that could be loaded moderately quickly, and didn’t have much better range than the regular French rifles.
When it came to rifles in the post-American Civil War era, militaries around the world weren’t stupid – they knew that breech loading, metal-case cartridge rifles were the wave of the future…but which one was the best to use? Many countries tried various designs from their arsenals. Many other nations, unable to afford the infrastructure to mass-produce their own internal design, did what states have always done:
They went shopping.
The Remington Company of Ilion, New York, had been making firearms and ammunition since 1816. While it was legendary for its staggering levels of management incompetence (it finally folded permanently in 2020, broken into several pieces), it managed to produce a long and majestic line of firearms. And its first real “smash hit” was the Rolling Block.
The single-shot Remington Rolling Block began in 1863 as a slightly different design. Modified to strengthen the breech mechanism, by 1867, the rifle had matured into a solid weapon. It was rugged, reliable, and – most importantly for armies – was the last word in “soldier-proof”: it literally cannot misfire during loading, and cannot fire unless the breech is fully closed. The action was so strong, it needed virtually no modification when smokeless powder was developed in 1884. The only real danger was the chance of a misfired cartridge “cooking off” while it was being removed from the breech.
Remington Rolling Block breech mechanism. CCA/3.0
Remington’s rifle was made in a vast array of calibers and chambering’s. Remington would happily cut barrels for any cartridge provided by the customer. Mechanically much more simple than some thing like a British Martini-Henry and vastly more reliable than the Prussian needle-fired Dreyse rifle, the Rolling Block quickly took the military world by storm.
Although the Rolling Block was never adopted in any great numbers by the United States (due to a very parsimonious Congress), it was adopted by at least forty-seven nations over its lifespan, a staggering achievement for a time (~1880) when there were only about fifty-five “nations” in the world recognized as such.
From the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, to Peru, Qajar Persia and the Papal States (YouTube link), the Rolling Block fought wars, guarded walls and stood in parades for nearly fifty years. It was party to one of the oddities of the Spanish-American War (YouTube link), in 1898. Its last major war was actually World War One (YouTube link), where it served as a second-line rifle for rear area troops. It served countless hunters as far afield as Canada and the heart of Africa, and was “the other buffalo rifle,” next to the Sharps. The last version of the Rolling Block produced by Remington was the elegant “Number 7” target rifle (YouTube link), introduced in 1907.
But, as we will see next week, the Remington Rolling Block was buried in the public mind by a newly arrived competitor in the military rifle market, a rifle what would continue to serve for nearly a century in active military forces, a rifle so iconic, it will likely still be shooting when all the readers of this article will have passed beyond the Pale.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The dawn of the 19th Century heralded perhaps the greatest explosion of technological development in human history. While technologies in most areas had been advancing slowly for centuries, a little-understood combination of factors combined to radically reshape human societies, developing – for better or worse – faster in one hundred years, than at any other point in human history. Steam engines radically reshaped transport on land and sea, opening broad new ranges of products, both agricultural and manufactured; the telegraph radically altered patterns of human communication; medicine suddenly evolved from speculation and bloodletting to observable and testable practices, radically reshaping human mortality rates. The maturing of electrical power generation, transmission and use resulted not only in the telegraph and the light bulb, but of an early form of fax machine.
Caselli’s pantelegraph tinfoil mechanism, 1866. Public Domain.
In firearms technology, the developments were just as radical. In 1800, the only personal firearms out there were flintlock muskets (aside from some pretty radical one-offs). Less than thirty years later, the percussion cap significantly changed the calculus, by making the musket vastly more reliable. By the end of the 1860’s, self-contained rimfire and centerfirecartridges had begun to dominate the battlefield. Well before the end of the century, smokeless powder and functional machine guns had begun to fundamentally alter infantry warfare.
This steamroller of technological advancement held true in the world of artillery technology, as well. The muzzle-loading cannons of 1800 gave way to breech-loading guns by 1870…Which is where our story actually begins, when artillery met steam power, but off the railroad or warship.
Edmund Louis Gray Zalinski, (1849 – 1909) was a Polish-born American soldier, military engineer and inventor. Born to a Jewish family in Kórnik, Prussian Poland in 1849, he immigrated with his parents to the United States in 1853. Lying about his age to enlist, he joined the US Army and served during the Civil War. Commissioned a 2nd LT in an artillery regiment from the state of New York, Zalinski served on the staff of General Nelson Miles. While not much is known of the details of his exact service, it was apparently enough to see him offered a commission in the Regular Army after the war, which is a notable thing, given the drastic post-war cuts in manpower and budgets. During his career, he served as an artillery officer at the Fort Jefferson military prison in Florida (where he authored an appeal to President Andrew Johnson to pardon Dr. Samuel Mudd, who had been convicted as a conspirator in Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, for the doctor’s service during an outbreak of Yellow Fever at the prison), and as a professor of military science at MIT (the Massachusetts Institute of Technology). During this time, he patented a number of inventions, including an artillery sight.
In 1883, Zalinski witnessed a demonstration of a pneumatic artillery weapon, designed by D. M. Medford of Chicago, Illinois. Zalinski began working on the idea, and eventually designed his own pneumatic gun. While the Army was not initially interested, the US Navy was intrigued. As chemistry had advanced, it had started to create high explosives, that were far more powerful than the older black powder; however, these new explosives were very unstable, and were liable to detonate when fired in a conventional gun. The Navy, wanting to find a way to use the new tool, thought that Zalinski’s new system might be the answer.
USS VESUVIUS Dynamite Cruiser, 1888-1922. Photo: H.C. Peabody. Public Domain.
In late 1887, the USS Vesuvius was laid down at the William Cramp & Sons yard in Philadelphia, PA; she would be commissioned some six months later. As fitted out, the Vesuvius (named for the Italian volcano) carried three 15-inch “dynamite guns” (a term coined by the press), that could each throw a 500-lbs shell (called a “torpedo”, because – Navy) out to about one-and-a-half miles, adjusting the range by varying the air pressure. Without a war to fight, however, the ship was mostly relegated to the dreaded “dog & pony” circuit, visiting port towns to help them celebrate various holidays. In South America, the Brazilian Navy also fitted a 15-inch model to an auxiliary cruiser named the Nichteroy, which was later sold to the US Navy, which named that ship the USS Buffalo.
15inch ‘Dynamite Gun’, mounted on the Brazilian Navy ship Nitheroy, 1892. Photo by Marc Ferrez, 1982. Public Domain.
Wanting to stay as far ahead of the game as possible, the Navy also commissioned the USS Holland in 1900, to see if an 8-inch version of Zalinski’s gun could be used on a submarine.
USS Holland (SS-1), the first submarine of the U.S. Navy, showing the 8-inch dynamite gun muzzle open at the bow. Taken in 1898. US Navy Photo.
Following a two-year stint in the yards for repairs, Vesuvius returned to the fleet in 1897, as relations with Spain worsened. These tensions would soon lead to the Spanish-American War, in 1898. While the Vesuviusperformed well in nighttime raids on the Cuban city of Santiago, the ship was saddled with a number of flaws, not least of which was the fact that it was very difficult to aim her main guns, as they were set deep into her hull, instead of being mounted in more conventional turrets. This led the Navy to convert the Vesuvius into a torpedo test vessel in 1904, stripping her of her ”dynamite guns” and replacing them with a variety of torpedo tubes.
U.S.S. Vesuvius, c. 1890-1901, showing its main gun barrels protruding from its deck. Library of Congress. Public Domain.
As well, the US Army would abandon their experiments with Zalinski’s guns. The Army, which was responsible for coast artillery defense, had installed a number of 8- and 15-inch guns at various forts around the country. But, by 1900, the “dynamite guns” had all been dismounted and sold for scrap.
“Battery Dynamite” at Fort Winfield Scott, San Francisco, CA. Photo c.1900. Public Domain.
The reasons for the abandonment of Zalinski’s design are simple: the development of stable high explosives and the limited range of the guns made the “soft-launch” of the pneumatic guns irrelevant, as both issues were easily overcome by conventional artillery. As well, the low velocity of the shells forced them to fire at a high angle, limiting both their accuracy and impact force against armored targets.
While it is neat to speculate on “what if,” the fact remains that pneumatic artillery, although playing an interesting and important role in late-19th Century artillery, has had its day: the support infrastructure to operate pneumatic guns, even using modern technology, is not sufficient for use in combat, even using rocket assist to increase their range.
There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!
Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here
.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=6f7428fad737ce182fcc9ceabc9e3e2c11cdbbc85c591ab11505891d54d0c2ac&ipo=images "Musk Hires WEF Operative to Run Twitter")
