In the firearms world, there is a wide array of classifications for various types of weapons. These varying classes and “families” of weapons change over time, as buzzwords come and go; one of the current buzz terms, and one that generates a great deal of controversy, is the “PCC”, or the “Pistol-Caliber Carbine”.
A PCC is best defined as a firearm intended to be used like a rifle, but which fires a projectile and cartridge caliber commonly associated with a handgun. This is not really a “new thing” – the majority of the 19th Century Winchester family (YouTube) of level-action rifles all came in pistol cartridges, at first.
The first true “PCC’s” of the modern era, though, were the German submachine guns of the First World War, closely followed by the Thompson SMG, the famous “Tommy Gun” (a term that comes from WW2). These weapons – while not exactly “carbines”, as they were not “shortened rifles”, as such – showed armies that there was room in their doctrines for a lightweight and compact (comparatively speaking) type of “long-ish” weapon, that was cheaper and easier to produce than more conventional rifles and carbines.
In the United States this would eventually result, in 1942, with the introduction of the M1 Carbine. While using a cartridge considerably more powerful than most handgun cartridges, the .30 Carbine cartridge was far less powerful than a “full-power” cartridge, like the .30-06 used by the M1 Garand Rifle. The M1 Carbine was significantly lighter and handier than the larger and heavier M1 Rifle, and was only really usable out to about 150 yards/138 meters, but that was deemed to be perfectly sufficient for its intended use: giving troops who did not really need a “full-power” M1 Rifle something to defend themselves with that was more accurate and longer-ranged than a handgun.
M1 Garand rifle and M1 carbine. Public Domain.
The “carbine” field became somewhat muddied with the widespread adoption of the “intermediate” cartridge class after World War 2, but eventually settled back to the original idea of a “carbine”, that being a shortened version of a service rifle. One of the side effects of this adoption trend, meanwhile, led to fewer and fewer true “pistol-caliber” SMG’s being developed, as post-war battlefield developments made SMG’s largely redundant. Submachine guns were slowly pushed to the fringes, eventually used only by police or elite and highly specialized military units, primarily for hostage rescue and use in very crowded areas like airport concourses and large entertainment venues, where rifle cartridges – even coming from a shortened barrel – were not satisfactory, due to over-penetration at close-quarters’ range.
However, in areas that were friendly to private firearms ownership, the first PCC’s began to appear in the 1970’s. At first, these were weapons that mimicked the “look and feel” of SMG’s, but that fired only on semi-automatic. Soon, however, companies began to move away from the “military look”, as hysteria in certain quarters arose, and took on a more “civilian-friendly” look.
M105 Calico .22 carbine (Photo by Oleg Volk)
As the 21st Century dawned, companies in the United States began – after the 2004 sunset of the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” – to release PCC’s onto the civilian market. While little regard was given to these weapons at first, closer looks ensued as more an more people bought various types of PCC’s, for everything from recreational shooting to home defense. Inevitably, perhaps, highly raucous debate began as some quarters began to discuss the “tactical” uses of PCC’s…
…And, as in most debates about modern firearms, much hysterical screeching ensued.
The essential point of contention are that PCC’s are more or less useless against modern body armor – which is true…although the numbers of criminals staging “home invasions” at 2AM, while wearing high-grade body armor, is very low. As a result, the PCC is a good choice for home defense instead of a “full power” rifle or carbine, as its projectiles are less likely to leave your home and land a block or two away, in someone else’s home. As well, although there is a net savings on ammunition for practice, “training” (two different things) and recreational shooting, the savings are not that large, overall. One thing PCC’s are demonstrably good at, is acting as introductory weapon to ease new shooters into long-arm use.
Just Right Carbines (JC Carbine) 9mm. CCA/4.0
Do PCC’s have a “military” use? For an established national armies or police forces, the answer is “not really”. Although some arguments could be made that police forces would do better with a PCC than an actual “patrol rifle” (usually a military carbine), any real need for a pistol-caliber long-arm is usually better filled by a submachine gun.
Unlike more high-powered firearms, PCC’s are well suited to “guerrilla factories”, especially using “additive manufacturing” infrastructures, as the tolerances required are considerably less than those required for fully-automatic weapons. Likewise, additive manufacture requires few, if any, of the tools, equipment and supplies needed – and thus more-easily tracked – for more conventional weapons.
Anti-junta rebels in Myanmar, armed with FCG-9 carbines. 2021-2022. Author unknown.
In sum, then, if you are living in a “gun-friendly” location, a PCC is a good tool for both recreation and home defense, while also being a good choice for introducing new shooters to long-arms…and, if things really go sideways, they are a good choice for arming an insurgency or resistance movement, with the intention – as in Myanmar – of using them to capture more powerful enemy weapons.
The only “obsolete” weapon is the weapon that can no longer harm you. You have to work with what you have at hand. Thinking in advance is one of the keys to personal safety and survival.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Additive Manufacturing – better known as “3D Printing” – has been increasing in popularity and capability, while decreasing in price, for the last thirty years. Today, many very capable printers can be had for well under US$500. The products produced range from simple objects to complex and detailed models, both of mechanical parts, as well as people. As well, 3D printing has begun to expand into using metals, which can be heated after printing to make the printed items strong enough for working applications.
Naturally, as soon as the technology’s capabilities reached a certain, ill-defined threshold, minds in many quarters began studying the possibility of military applications. While many do see “potential”, is that potential actually useful “downrange”?
Military forces have – obviously – changed significantly over the millennia. A soldier of Sargon the Great didn’t really require a great deal in the way of supplies, weapons or equipment. Indeed, in many cases, a soldier of Sargon may likely have been able to make much of their needed weapons and equipment on the spot, if they had the time and resources. All that really needed to be supplied to the soldier was food and water (for both troops and animals), and perhaps some large parts for siege engines.
As time and technology progressed, of course, weapons and equipment became increasingly specialized and difficult to manufacture. But, while troops could still forage for food and water, once the weapons were delivered, they were comparatively uncomplicated to both use and work on, should repairs be required in the field.
By the end of the 20th Century, of course, weapons, ammunition and much of the soldier’s equipment had advanced to the point where the vast majority of troops in all armies had only a nominal idea of how their weapons worked, let alone how to make or repair them.
These were all factors taken into account by those studying additive manufacturing for military purposes.
As is it possible, and relatively easy, to pack a “job shop” or three into shipping containers, along with some raw material stock and possibly parts blanks (although 2- and 3-D pictures, animations and mechanical drawings are far easier with digital reference libraries that can “live” on computers, or even on microfilm archives), making repair parts for many weapons and vehicles are not overly taxing for most units in the field. Plus, there are no questions concerning how strong or durable the field-manufactured parts are…after all, armies are some of the most conservative organizations in history. As a result, there are few specifically military applications, at present, where additive manufacturing can excel over conventional methods…
Mobile Machine Shop truck of the 741st Ord. Co., 41st Inf. Div., at Horanda, New Guinea, 1943. US Army Signal Corps Photo. Public Domain.
Inevitably, someone was going to make a firearm using additive manufacture. While the saga of Defense Distributed is too complicated to wade through here, the point is that – like Britain’s P.A. Luty before them – Defense Distributed proved that making firearms at home was not that complicated a process, if a person could obtain some very basic materials and tools.
Side-view of Defense Distributed ‘Liberator’ 3D-Printed hand-gun.
Now, both the “3-D Printed Gun” from Defense Distributed, as well as Luty’s 9mm submachine gun, were – being charitable – both crude, barely-usable weapons. While Luty’s design is occasionally manufactured by criminal gangs in parts of the world with very strict firearms laws, the fact of these weapons’ existence simply proves the points made by both Defense Distributed and P.A. Luty, that no matter how strictly a state tries to enforce restrictive gun control, people who want firearms will get them somehow, even if they have to make them. But, in the law enforcement and military spheres, 3-D firearms remained crude and barely usable, even if they were dangerous.
This all began to change in 2019, when the FCG-9 appeared, designed by a shadowy German-Kurdish anti-gun control activist known as “JStark1809” (who, incidentally, was tracked down in 2021, using financial transaction records; two days after a raid that found no weapons in his residence, the 28-year-old JStark1809 was found dead in his car of, according to the coroner, a “heart attack”).
Prototype of FGC-9 made by its designer, JStark1809. CCA/4.0
A photo of FGC-9 firearm unassembled components, included in original FGC-9 release files.
The FCG-9 is an altogether different 3-D animal, as it appeared in the hands of a dissident IRA splinter group in a parade during Easter of 2022 and – much more significantly – it is reportedly in use by anti-junta rebel groups in Myanmar, beginning in 2021. Being made of 3-D printed media, with a few steel parts for strength, the 9mm weapon is easy to mass-produce in guerrilla workshops, and is apparently far more reliable and useable than either Defense Distributed’s or Luty’s deisgns, further reinforcing the ridiculous nature of restrictive firearms laws.
Anti-junta rebels in Myanmar, armed with FCG-9 carbines. 2021-2022. Author unknown.
But…How useful is this technology to an army? Well, beyond the obvious utility for guerrilla forces, as mentioned above, the answer is ‘not much’. As also pointed out above, there are far cheaper and more conventional ways to manufacture spare parts for military-grade vehicles and weapons
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
There are very few machines in the world, today, that can claim to have been designed over a hundred years ago. There are some railroad engines, for example, that are still run as “living museums”, ferrying the curious around closed rail circuits, allowing modern riders to experience some of the feels and smells of bygone eras. In other places, there are hydroelectric dams that have changed little in the near-century since they were built; Hoover Dam comes to mind, as it nears its own century mark, with only minimal updates to its internal design.
Series of massive electrical generators beneath the Hoover Dam. CCA/4.0
This is equally true of firearms. The Browning Machine Gun, in both .30 and .50 calibers, and the Colt 1911 (also designed by John Moses Browning) all date from over a century ago, yet remain in both first- or second-line service around the world. The Mosin-Nagant rifle, and its 7.62x54mmR cartridge, in contrast, date all the way back to 1891, and while the Mosin rifle may no longer be in common service (aside from a few WW2-era examples turning up in Ukraine), the 7.62x54mmR remains the cartridge of choice for the PKMGPMG, one of the most widely deployed machine guns of the early 21st Century.
7.62 mm PKM machine gun used by Finnish military. 2012. Public Domain.
But one weapon stands apart from all of these: the Maxim Machine Gun.
Swiss Maxim Machine gun Model 1911, cal 7.5 mm. CCA/3.0
First invented in 1884 by an American inventory, Hiram Stevens Maxim, and first offered for sale in 1886, the Maxim Gun has been used in every part of the world, in virtually every conflict of note since that time. The Maxim was the first true “machine gun”, in the mechanical sense that we understand the term today. Unlike most machine guns of today, the Maxim is recoil-operated, meaning that it only uses the recoil impulse of the cartridge firing, to retract, extract, and eject spent cartridges, then chamber and fire a new cartridge. In contrast, most modern automatic weapons use some form of gas-operated piston – very similar to the piston in a car engine – to operate their cycle.
An Australian soldier manning a Vickers machine gun during the Korean War. Date Unknown. Public Domain.
Similarly, the Maxim typically use a large, cylindrical water jacket to cool and protect the barrel from the heat of firing, unlike modern weapons which rely on the flow of air and “quick-change” barrels to accomplish the same task. While very good at cooling barrels, the water jackets were very cumbersome, and prone to damage, both in and out of combat, which could cause catastrophic damage to the weapon if no immediately repaired.
With a cyclic rate of about 600 rounds per minute, the Maxim is – by modern standards – heavy, clunky, and awkward. As well, it is certainly nowhere near to modern standards of reliability in the field…and yet, the gun refuses to quietly disappear into a museum, because it continues to soldier on in the 21st Century.
Twin-mounted Maxim Guns with a modern optical sight. Ukraine. Author Unknown.
The Maxim was tweaked and fiddled with by every state operator who bought copies. But Maxim wasn’t done with his design: in the early 1890’s, he released a much larger version of his machine gun (YouTube link) that fired 37mm explosive shells, at a rate of c.300 rounds per minute, to about 4,500 yards. Versions of this “pom-pom gun” (so-called, because the sound it made while firing) would be used as secondary and tertiary armament on ships, as well as early anti-aircraft weapons, until the end of WW1.
U.S.S. Vixen, Maxim machine gun and gunner Smith. The gun appears to be a Maxim-Nordenfelt 37-mm 1-pounder autocannon, known to the British as a “pom-pom”. Public Domain.
British QF 1 pounder Mk II 37 mm “pom-pom” gun, World War I era, on display at the Imperial War Museum, London. CCA/2.0
The Maxim would be used as a frontline weapon through the war in Korea. By then, though, it was showing its age, as better materials and designs produced lighter, more reliable and more portable weapons. The surviving weapons, around the world, were mostly placed in storage…but the Maxim’s legacy continued: the PKM and its successor, the Pecheneg GPMG, both use ammunition belts that are backwards-compatible with the PM1910, the Imperial Russian version of Maxim’s design, dating from before WW1.
Photo of a 1910 Maxim Machine gun. CCA/4.0
But again – Maxim’s design refuses to gently go into that good night.
As the world exploded in the aftermath of the so-called “Arab Spring”, many citizen rebels and resistance fighters overran government armories, and found Maxim’s old guns in storage crates. Those guns were broken out and cleaned, training and maintenance manuals were sourced from online repositories, and the century-old weapons went back into action. They may no longer be the best guns available, but old and creaky guns are better that harsh words and rocks.
Captured German Maxim machine gun. Malard Wood, 9 August 1918. Imperial War Museums. Public Domain
Firearms – of all categories – are very recent additions to Mankind’s arsenal, as they have been effective combat tools for considerably less than 1,000 years. They are one of the most – if not themost – decisive “force multiplers” in human history. Learning about firearms makes no one “evil”, nor is it “glorifying” weapons – it makes them well informed and productive members of the societies…who should REALLY be wondering just whose side they are really on.
Don’t go gently into the night – because it may not be as gentle of a night as you think it to be.
Central Europe lies in ruins, smoldering. Cities have been reduced to rubble. Entire urban populations have been massacred, displaced and raped; many survivors cower in hiding in forests, to avoid roving gangs of bandits. Famine and epidemics kill more of the survivors on a daily basis. Armed bands – the “armies” evaporated long ago – meander, too tired to loot and pillage, seeking to provide security in trade for food and shelter.
Thirty percent of the German population is dead. No one is sure how many others have met an untimely demise…
The preceding is not a work of post-apocalyptic fiction. And while it is history, it is neither the aftermath of either “world war”. This was the year 1645 A.D., the end of the Thirty Years War – a war that killed more people, both directly from physical attacks and from the side effects of war, than any event in Europe since the Black Death of the 14th Century. So ruinous and destructive was this war that the surviving rulers of Europe realized that something had to change.
The war had begun as just another petty squabble between even pettier aristocrats, claiming the sanctity of religion as their excuse. But those petty aristocrats had feudal overlords, and when they found themselves in far over their heads, they screamed to their somewhat exasperated overlords for help. And those overlords – who had to keep up appearances – moved to support their minions, the better to display their loyalty to their followers, and maybe grab some advantage over their churlish neighbors.
The reason they were in over their heads, was largely due to a democratization of technology: the first wisps of the Industrial Revolution had begun to waft through Europe, and allowed a resurgence of industrial-scale production of weapons and their accouterments, as well as systematized regimens of food production and storage, allowing a freedom of military action that had been rarely seen in Europe during the preceding five hundred years. This allowed small feudal aristocrats, and even many towns and cities, to equip small “pocket armies” with the latest military hardware.
All of that fed into an ever-increasing spiral of war, where most armies were more or less evenly matched, and the result of battles depended more on the character and skill of the commanders than anything else. Troops largely fought for whatever side paid them on time…and when promised cash was not forthcoming, looting, pillage, torture and murder were the order of the day.
The result was slaughter on a scale not seen again for nearly two hundred years, with the rise of the “popular army” of Revolutionary France, brought to its ultimate expression by Napoleon Bonaparte.
The Thirty Years War was ended by a treaty, signed at Westphalia, in modern-day Osnabrück and Münster, in 1648. One of the key aspects of the Treaty of Westphalia, was to establish what has come to be known as the concept of “Westphalian sovereignty”, or “state sovereignty”, the principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its declared territories, and the understanding that other states will not interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations, as outlined by the SwissjuristEmer de Vattel. It also formed the concept of ‘nation-state sovereignty‘ as being based on a defined physical territory.
While it is certainly true that nation-states since the Treaty have committed terrible crimes, it can be argued that Westphalia has tempered more war than it has encouraged.
However, as they say, “The times, they are a-changin’“…
Contingent Sovereignty rationalizes (the idea is not codified in international law) the idea that a duty exists for other states to intervene in the internal/domestic affairs of an otherwise-sovereign state, if that state is “failing”, cannot protect its citizens, and/or is actively making war on its own citizens, thus invoking the principle of a responsibility to protect that nation’s citizens by external states.
While a seemingly noble idea on its surface, the opening for abuse should be plainly apparent: Contingent Sovereignty is a concept aimed at legitimizing neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism, imposed at bayonet-point by wealthy nations on countries too weak to resist, despite the widespread availability of affordable and equalizing armaments.
What the states of the Developed World have failed to realize, is that this sword cuts both ways: as many First World countries seem to be descending into political, economic and social chaos – at least, according to the popular press – as their internal blocs seem to be deliberately devouring their own economies and societies, less economically developed countries – but, countries with a surplus of manpower and cheap weapons – stare at them, remembering that their own states were created by colonial fiat, Contingent Sovereignty gives those “lesser” states all the authority they need to move en masse against the Developed World, making invasions “all nice and legal,” as the saying goes.
And, lest anyone think that this is not a possible fate for many “First World” nations, it must be pointed out that sufficient training and equipment has been provided to many Third World nations to allow them to at least ponder the idea.
All those states need, is a unifying figurehead, in effect, a 21st Century Napoleon Bonaparte.
And, as Napoleon himself is reported to have said, “A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.”
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
In previous articles, we have touched on the ideas for building “DIY” ground- and air-combat forces. Today, we will take a look at the naval aspect of this idea.
Water-based travel is not new. In fact, for the majority of human history, travel further than 100 miles in any direction was usually faster, cheaper and safer than overland travel, even if wide detours were necessary. Without getting into the physics of fluid dynamics, movement is a lot easier when nature is helping you along, especially when friction resistance is determined more by shape than by weight. It was not until the advent of railroads in the early 19th Century that land travel became faster and comparatively safer than travel by water.
River Landscape with Man in Rowing Boat and Tree-Lined Shore. Johannes Hermanus Koekkoek (1778–1851). 1800-1850. Public Domain.
However, when looking at the military dimensions of water travel, while there were early examples of purpose-built warships, such as the Greek and Roman “triremes”, the vast majority of ships were perfectly suitable for both military and commercial use. Mostly, this consisted for transporting troops, animals, equipment and other supplies. Because of the ships’ designs of these eras, most vessels were also capable of going fairly far upriver; this was the main tactic of Viking raiders, from the 8th-11th Centuries, whose “Karvis”, “Snekkjas” and “Drakkars” drew as little as 30in/762mm in draft.
Gokstad Ship, late 9th Century, Viking Ship Museum, Oslo. CCA/2.0 Generic.
As previously noted, however, after about 1860, a dramatic divergence began to open between purely military and purely civilian merchant vessels. Without restating those points here, by the end of World War 2, it seemed that the divide was complete and unbridgeable: “Warships” fought in wars, and civilian vessels supported the warships, while remaining mostly unarmed.
But, there lurked an exception: the PT Boat.
Patrol Torpedo Boat (PT) 658 transits past U.S. Navy ships at the Portland Rose Festival. US Navy photo. Public Domain.
Developed just as WW2 was starting, the “Patrol Torpedo Boat” quickly became famous as the heavily armed war vessel of WW2, on a weapon-to-tonnage basis. Not much larger than most commercial yachts, the PT’s were fully capable of sinking full-size warships – as long as their torpedoes worked. If there weren’t enough enemy warships around to sink, the PT’s could easily remove their torpedoes, and bolt on heavier cannons to destroy lightly armored barges and lighters, as well as extra machine guns, turning them into floating anti-aircraft batteries.
While the US Navy seemed to have forgotten the lessons of PT Boat warfare after the end of the war, that turned out to not be the case. While light-armed craft more or less vanished from the Navy’s inventory after WW2, that was due to the savage budget cuts and vicious organizational fights of the post-war years, more than because the Navy didn’t want the boats. Indeed, the Navy had to burn significant political clout just to help prevent the Marine Corps from being disbanded by an Army and Air Force that were battling for scarce funding.
As soon as the Vietnam War began to heat up, it was discovered that North Vietnam was supplying the Viet Cong and its own troops in the South by smuggling arms and supplies down the coast in civilian sampans. The solution to this were the “Swift Boats” – small, high-speed, aluminum-hulled boats, heavily armed with machine guns. With very shallow drafts, these fast craft were able to chase down almost any watercraft, and usually outgunned whatever they could catch. As well, they could land small parties of US and Vietnamese Marines or SEALs deep in enemy territory, doing great damage to areas the enemy had thought to be relatively safe.
Fast Patrol Craft (PCF, Swift boat) during riverine operation in Vietnam. US Navy photo. Public Domian.
After the war in Vietnam ended, the US Navy once again had to struggle for funding, and small combat craft went onto the back burner. But not completely. As funding improved in the 1980’s small combat craft came back to prominence, leading to the expansion of the Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen (SWCC) career field in the Navy, and the development of the SOC-R. NATO partners took note, at least to some extent.
Like naval warfare and transport in general, small craft-based warfare is not new. In the modern era, say from 1800 to today, military raids against pirates operating from swampland bases with open canoes and boats was far more common than fighting large ships, à la Hollywood pirate films. Indeed, in World War 1, the “Battle for Lake Tanganyika” was fought and decided by a handful of small boats that barely qualified as life rafts; the largest vessel, the SMS Graf von Goetzen, was barely 235ft long; that’s short for a warship.
German steamship Goetzen before its warship conversion in 1915. Public Domain.
Likewise, Filipino guerrillas fighting the Japanese in their archipelago after Japan’s conquest of the island group in early-1942 made good use of small-boat smuggling tactics to make amphibious raids throughout the islands for three years, until the war ended. The Philippine government continued this successful strategy in the Huk Rebellion that followed the war, and both government and anti-government forces continue to use boats for the same purposes to this day.
Starting from essentially scratch in 1976, the LTTE quickly showed – much as the Islamic State would do, decades later – that all that was required for an insurgency to grow exponentially, was intelligent, cunning and quick-witted leadership…Even if they end up using straight-out terror tactics.
In its 25-year history, the LTTE’s “Sea Tigers”, with no more than 3,000 personnel at any given time, not only fought the Sri Lankan Navy to a standstill, sinking nearly 30 vessels, while also conducting amphibious raids, it conducted widespread “strategic support operations”, until the Sri Lankan military got serious, got its collective act together, and ground the LTTE down by mid-2009.
Slovenian fast patrol boat HPL-21 Ankaran (Super Dvora MK II class), 2009, of a type used by the Sri Lankan Navy. CCA-3.0
But – what about other groups?
While the LTTE managed to create a ferociously effective “commando navy,” the “Navy of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps”, has taken the direction of using masses of small “Boghammer”-type speedboats. Based on a design from the Swedish company Boghammar Marin AB developed in the 1980’s, the modern “Boghammer” has taken on the moniker to describe any improvised naval fighting vessel.
A speed boat (used in a terror attack attempt on 5 May 1990) in the Clandestine Immigration and Naval Museum, Haifa, Israel. CCA/3.0
As used by the IRGC-N, the Boghammer is armed with a variety of weapons, including RPG-7 type rocket launchers, as many as three 12.7mm heavy machine guns, recoilless rifles and 107mm multiple rocket launchers based on the Type 63 MRL. And these craft do pose a threat to major-nation warships, when used in swarms. After nearly ten years of study, it remains a problem that major-state navies – including those of the United States and Great Britain – don’t talk about in public.
That’s all well and good…but, what about “modern guerrillas”? The above examples, including the LTTE, were all either formally organized navies, or were at least funded on a regular basis. What about a small guerrilla force? What can they do on the water?
Quite a bit, actually.
While large, ocean going vessels are going to be mostly out of a small group’s reach, at least initially, acquiring civilian pleasure craft (through theft or “under the table” deals) that can be modified to carry weapons is not at all difficult. While craft as large as Boghammers are uncommon, they are not so unusual that they would be noticed.
There is, however, another class of vessel normally associated with major states that most people would not associated with guerrilla warfare: long-range submersibles – i.e., submarines…Specifically, drug-running “narco-subs”.
Narco-submarine captured by the Peruvian Navy in December 2019. Ministerio de Defensa del Perú. CCA/2.0.
While “combat submersibles” in the modern era begin with David Bushnell’s Turtle in 1775-1776, submarines have only played a pivotal role in naval warfare since WW1, and the first “Battle of the Atlantic”. Submarines have always been complicated and dangerous craft – there is always a solid chance that something will go catastrophically wrong while submerged. Survival rates when things like that happen at sea are never good.
Submarines are also expensive, in the extreme. As a result, few people imagine a threadbare guerrilla army being able to operate something as technically complex and ridiculously expensive as a submarine. Sure, there are “vanity” submarines out there, used to excursions by cash-rich vacationers, but surely no one is actually building submarines intended for combat.
Established navies, however, beg to differ – which is why they are spending significant amounts of money designing advanced harbor-protection systems…specifically to counter small combat submarines.
But, for our purposes, narco-subs are not that. Narco-subs are generally thought of as “semi-submersible”, in that they cannot “deep dive,” like a conventional submarine. Instead, they are designed to run at or just below the surface. And these craft are not small – narco-subs with cargo capacities of up to 17,000lbs have been captured. That’s a significant capacity for a “guerrilla shipyard”.
And, as hard as the militaries of North and South America try, they cannot catch them all; at best, one in ten are estimated to be intercepted. Worse, the drug subs are being much more sophisticated, diving deeper, becoming less detectable, carrying more, and extending their range, with some now being able to cross the Atlantic, to bring drugs into the waters of Spain and Portugal.
This is a serious concern, and not from the narcotics angle. While infiltrating “operators” into a nation (even the United States) is relatively easy, importing weapons and explosives is not. And 10-17,000lbs of weapons, ammunition and explosives at a time provides significant capacity for an attacker.
Indeed, since 2000, abandoned narco-subs – true deep-diving models – have been discovered in South America that have cargo capacities in the range of 20,000lbs or more, and with ranges of c.3,700km, more than enough to reach New Orleans from most of the South American Caribbean coast.
A fully-operational submarine built for the primary purpose of transporting multi-ton quantities of cocaine located near a tributary close to the Ecuador/Colombia border that was seized by the Ecuador Anti-Narcotics Police Forces and Ecuador Military authorities with the assistance of the DEA in 2010. Public Domain.
Making matters much worse, these craft are very difficult to detect at sea, because their hulls are made mostly of fiberglass and Kevlar; are painted sea-blue; and vent their engine exhaust along the bottom of their hulls before releasing it to the atmosphere, cooling it to the point of being indistinguishable from the surrounding water. Coupled to them running just below – or well under – the surface, this makes them virtually invisible to radar and sonar. In fact, the vast majority of the narco-subs captured were spotted by aircraft, running on the surface.
So – why is this important? It’s “just” drugs, right?
Well, “cargo” covers a very broad scope. Narco-subs don’t have to carry drugs, after all. Coupled to this, is the fact the fact that the South American and Mexican cartels operate these subs in alliance with guerrilla groups such as the FARC, among others. It requires no great leap of imagination to picture a scenario of a group like Revolutionary Iran or the I.S. infiltrating two- to four-hundred trigger-pullers into the US, hidden among the masses of illegal immigrants being allowed into the country by a criminally – if not deliberately – incompetent political establishment so arrogant, that they believe that the Rules of War do not apply to them.
Why is the author so vehement about this?
In 1974, R&D Associates – a think tank in Santa Monica, California – working under contract for the Department of Defense, produced a document titled A Soviet Paramilitary Attack on U.S. Nuclear Forces – A Concept (PDF link). The paper sketched out a threat concept to US strategic nuclear forces, wherein Soviet Spetznatz special forces could potentially infiltrate sabotage teams into the US to attack ICBM, bomber and nuclear submarine bases, simply by walking in over the borders from Mexico and/or Canada. It goes into detail of then-current estimated numbers of illegal aliens crossing the US border, who were not intercepted by the Border Patrol, and pointed out that enough four- to six-man teams could be infiltrated and housed by ‘illegal’ KGB agents just long enough to sabotage US nuclear forces in preparation for a Soviet first strike.
Very James Bond, yes?
This paper remained classified until 1995.
ISIS fighters execute Taliban fighter In the city of Jalalabad, December 2021. CCA/4.0
A threat – a clear and present one – exists against the United States, and its citizens. While some would argue that this author is “letting the cat out of the bag” by speculating on this in public, none of the information in this article is classified; there is no “whistle-blower” information here. If this author can find it, anyone can. You, the Reader, simply aren’t being told any of this. I will let you speculate as to why that is the case. The author, here alone, is unable to take corrective measures against this threat – it is the job of the Reader to do so.
All I can do, is warn you.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Previously, we have talked about ersatz combat vehicles at length. While 300 angry people, armed with 200 machetes, 100 rifles and 50 rounds of ammunition made a respectable revolution as late as the mid-1990’s, the proliferation cheap, reliable and effect modern combat rifles around the world have shifted insurgent capabilities and tactics, there has been little movement in the other realms of physical combat, outside of the land environment.
Where any group armed with modern automatic weapons can turn themselves into “motorized cavalry” by seizing a used car and truck dealership and a tanker truck of fuel, there have been few examples of groups organizing actual combat ships on water, using what are essentially armed civilian pleasure craft – it happens, but infrequently.
Likewise, the use of equally ersatz militarized drones has been on the rise, for surveillance, assassination and combat. This theater of use has been accelerated in recent years, as many drones with significant capabilities, from a military perspective, are available “off the shelf” for well under US$200, with many retailing at under US$100. Expanding the capabilities of such devices requires little investment for a group able to recruit young and tech-savvy teens and early-20’s with an interest in gaming and computer mods.
Far more rare, are instances of “guerrilla air forces.” Appearing in significant numbers only twice since WW2, civilian aircraft being used as “armed combatant craft” usually appear in one’s and two’s, used by small states and groups who can only afford (or receive through donations) the kind of small, single-engine aircraft that are normally used for leisure flying or primary flight instruction for trainee pilots.
The question at hand, then, is this: Can an insurgent force create their own air force? That is what we will examine in this article.
The first questions to answer are, Where is the insurgent force getting its aircraft?, and What kind of aircraft can they easily acquire?
The first thing to understand, is that our hypothetical guerrilla force is not (probably) going to be buying craft like the AT-6B Wolverine, A-29 Super Tucano, AT-802L Longsword. These aircraft are being developed by defense contractors for established governments; for an insurgent group to obtain dedicated craft like this would require major-nation support. What we are discussing here, is the insurgent force acquiring specifically civilian craft, and using them as an “air force.”
An Afghan Air Force A-29 Super Tucano soars over Kabul, Afghanistan, Aug. 14, 2015. USAF Photo. Public Domain.
The insurgent force will be limited, first, by its financial levels – aircraft, even small craft like a Piper or an immortal Cessna 172 (go ahead – reflect on the irony…Moving on…) or 208 Caravan are expensive, for a small group, with a Cessna 172 coming in at around US$40-50,000 for a used model, each. Obviously, this is a major impediment, unless a group is very well funded.
On the other hand, these small aircraft can be effectively armed; can land on almost any flat patch of ground or blacktop road long enough; require no overly complicated tools or equipment to maintain, and have cheap and readily available spare parts and maintenance manuals available on the open market. These aircraft can – and are – be hidden in rural barns and warehouses very effectively, only requiring a door large enough for their wings.
Given the above, then, the next question is, Where can the prospective insurgent air force get its pilot?
The one major downside to an insurgent force using aircraft is the need for competent training. While learning to fly a basic aircraft such as a Piper or a Cessna is not actually difficult for most people with a decent high school education to learn, teaching one to fly requires a pilot with at least 250 flight hours to begin training for such a rating as an Instructor Pilot (IP). However, there are plenty of IP’s out there who could be recruited to train pilots for an insurgent force.
Ground maintenance on these common civilian airframes, as previously stated, is not difficult, and spares are common enough to not present major issues. That brings us to weapons: what can you arm these airplanes with?
Simply placing one or two people armed with rifles in the back seats of these kinds of aircraft, and having them shoot at enemies on the ground is not complicated. Likewise, hanging machine guns out of a side door is also relatively uncomplicated to set up.
Afghan Air Force Sgt. Razeg, a Gunner, fires an M-240 weapon from an Mi-17 Helicopter during a mission from Kabul, Afghanistan, Nov., 2012. USAF Photo. Public Domain.
Salvage and theft of opposition government aircraft – as well as weapons bought on the black market – is another important source of ground-to-air capability. In like manner to recovered helicopter rocket pods being used as ground-to-ground multiple rocket launchers since the civil wars in Libya, the same pods could be mounted to civilian airframes.
This is especially true for smaller pods, such as the venerable Hydra-70 rocket pods. In fact, the prevalence of mounting the ex-Soviet SA-5 rocket system, fired by UB-16 and UB-32 launchers to “technical vehicles” in both Libya and Syria have begun to inspire Western firms to begin cashing on the market, with such “drop-in kits” as the new V.A.M.P.I.R.E. system, which is a drop-in kit for a conventional civilian pickup truck, giving it the ability to fire four Hydra-70 rockets at a time in the ground-to-ground role.
Hydra 70 rockets in two M261 launch pods, mounted to an AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter, unknown date. US Army Photo. Public Domain.
As well, should the guerrilla force come into possession of anti-aircraft weapons such as the Stinger missile, that force could conceivably mount such weapons to a civilian airframe, which would be a very nasty surprise to any opposing aircraft that did not know about them.
Note that the foregoing applies to helicopters, as well, although rotary-wing craft are generally more expensive than their comparable brethren.
So…Is it possible for a guerrilla/insurgent force to create and operate an actual “air force” on the cheap? The answer, clearly, is a solid Yes, albeit with caveats concerning the perennial problem of money. Such a force would clearly be no match against a First World air force, but it likely won’t need to, at least initially.
Never become complacent inside your box…because someone is always outside, thinking about how to get in.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
CHINA RECRUITING WESTERN PILOTS TO HELP THEIR PILOTS LEARN TO DEFEAT THEM – The Chinese Communist Party is offering foreigners from the West to come fly their military fighter jets. They’re offering “large sums of money” to previous fighter pilots from the West with the hope they can learn from these pilots how to defeat the West.
So far, no nation has moved to criminalize this overt act of sedition by their own citizens, though Americans have not, so far, answered the “call.”
With all the recent talk of nuclear war, catastrophic shortages of vital fuels, Europe in complete economic meltdown and Communist China’s stock markets tanking as a dictator is “reelected“, a person could be forgiven for thinking that “The End” really might be nigh. However, there is one thing that most people have forgotten about in all the tumult…and Joe Biden’s Democrat Party is directly responsible for it:
Terrorism inside the United States.
Now, again, the Reader could be forgiven for thinking that this is hyperbole, or some desperate attempt at cashing in on some “counter terrorism” degree, but no – this is quite serious. There is a clear and present terrorist threat to the home territories of the United States, one that was set up (whether by intent or incompetence is irrelevant, now) by the Democrat Party, and that has been exacerbated and accelerated by the Biden Administration since January of 2021. What is the source of this, you might ask?
Illegal immigration.
I can hear the groans in the back rows, already…You would do well to keep reading.
Back in the “good old days,” illegal immigration was tolerated by both parties, because it scored points for the Democrats with the Hispanic Community, and it provided a source of cheap labor for agribusiness and later, for construction, making certain GOP interests happy. While there were occasional scandals, followed by roundups by “La Migra”, it was still tolerated, even though it was beginning to erode the viability of “entry-level” work in the United States.
Over time, however, the Democrats began to change the game: it was no longer about simply scoring fractional points with minority communities, but about actually using illegal aliens as “straw voters”, who could be shuttled to polling stations, posing as dead people to vote…for a certain party, of course. Like most things, it didn’t start out big, but it began to grow unchecked, in the late-1990’s. After 9/11 there was some concern about terrorists infiltrating over the border, but since nothing happened, the Democrats quickly spun the notion as unhinged paranoia, that verged on racism. Meanwhile, the economy – for many reasons – continued to sag.
In the chaos of 2016-2022, however, illegal immigration began to skyrocket out of control, as the US descended into a low-key civil war. Inside the US Government, loyalists of President Donald J. Trump and bureaucrats trying to simply do their jobs, attempted to carry out the directives of the President, as they are legally obligated to do, while others actively worked to undermine the President, sometimes verging close to sedition, if not treason. While the Trump Administration accomplished many things, those within the government structure who decided that their personal political beliefs were more important than their oaths deliberately hindered many more. Dangerously, this rose to the point of Democrat loyalists declining to comment on open support for waves of illegal immigration openly being supported by the United Nations, even given the extreme dangers faced by migrants, themselves, on the journey north
Once President Trump’s reelection bid failed – again, whether legitimately or by malfeasance no longer matters – and Joe Biden entered office, the proverbial floodgates were opened: the numbers of illegal aliens being detained by the Border Patrol are the highest ever recorded in the 97 year history of the agency, with nearly 2 million being reported by the agency in the first nine months of the Biden presidency. As of the end of October 2022, the cross-border flood continues.
While this is clearly a massive problem on many levels, for security professionals, this is particularly worrying, because a very large percentage of the border-crossers fall into the dangerous category of “military-age males”, or, those males between the late-teens and mid-30’s, who are suitable for military service. Further, increasing numbers of border crossers are from African countries.
Why is this important?
Simply put, while the mainstream media decided that terrorism was passé, the actual terror groups out there have very much ignored that pronouncement. As well, while many people, and especially many in the under-30 year old demographic within the United States, have been fed a steady media diet of the concept that “terrorist” equates only to “Middle Easterners” and “straight, white males,” the truth is that many of the radical Islamist groups since 2000 have recruited far and wide, and are just as diverse as either the US military – or the Leftist protestors of North America and Europe who lack the education or worldly experience to understand what is happening.
So – is this just hysterical paranoia? After all, there have been no major terror attacks inside the United States since 9/11, right? (We’re not going to talk about Las Vegas today, because you’re not ready for that conversation.) So why marginalize ‘migrants’?
Because, as the second President Bush said: They hate us. And they will not stop.
Assuming – for the sake of argument, to placate the naysayers – that the last sentence is true, how does that relate to immigration/migration?
In 1974, R&D Associates – a think tank in Santa Monica, California – working under contract for the Department of Defense, produced a document titled A Soviet Paramilitary Attack on U.S. Nuclear Forces – A Concept (PDF link). The paper sketched out a threat concept to US strategic nuclear forces, wherein Soviet Spetznatz special forces could potentially infiltrate sabotage teams into the US to attack ICBM, bomber and nuclear submarine bases, simply by walking in over the borders from Mexico and/or Canada. It goes into detail of then-current estimated numbers of illegal aliens crossing the US border, who were not intercepted by the Border Patrol, and pointed out that enough four- to six-man teams could be infiltrated and housed by ‘illegal’ KGB agents just long enough to sabotage US nuclear forces in preparation for a Soviet first strike.
A group of about ten terrorists (it may have been a smaller team) slipped into the seaside megacity, and launched a brutal assault on the city’s tourist district, killing at least 166, and wounding over 300 over the course of a 3-day battle, doggedly holding out against elite Indian Army commandoforces and troops from the crack Jat Regiment to the bitter end.
Those are the facts that most people who know anything at all about this incident know.
Much less well known, is how the terrorists got to Mumbai.
The terrorists were given advanced military training by elements of the Pakistani army and intelligence services, including boat training. The terrorist team headed out into the Indian Ocean on November 21, 2008, and motored along for two days, until they hijacked the Indian fishing trawler Kuber, killed four of the crew, and forced the captain to sail for Mumbai. Arriving off Mumbai at dusk on November 26, the terrorists dropped anchor, killed the captain, and headed into Mumbai Harbor in three inflatable boats. Shortly after, the terrorists begin attacking civilians, and took up positions in various locations.
And, to top it all off, the terrorists were in constant communication – via cell phone – with an internet-capable “tactical operations center” (TOC) that had been set up on the fly in an apartment in Pakistan.
Very James Bond, yes?
So, how do illegal immigration, a moldy study from the 1970’s, and a terrorist attack in 2008 track with each other?
Mumbai was not a “hardened” target; quite the opposite – it was a treasure trove of “soft” targets: train stations, hotels, nightclubs, hospitals and a religious school.
Just like American cities.
For a well-financed terror group, slipping 200 to 300 ‘actors’ into the United States by simply hiking over the border is not a difficult challenge. Potentially, they could slip in as a single group. It’s not as if anyone would notice, amid the throngs moving over the border. Arming them? Also not hard – they don’t need to actually try and purchase weapons legally; AKM’s and M16 and M4 carbines abandoned in Afghanistan are light enough to fit into a backpack, and making homemade hand grenades can be done by a simple shopping trip to a hardware store (no, we will not discuss “how to”).
And all of this, if before we start talking about attacks on the power grid, as winter arrives.
Now, am I implying that the Democrat Party set this up deliberately? Certainly not – I don’t think they are smart enough, to be perfectly frank. I am, however, absolutely certain that there are plenty of terror groups out there who are smart enough to figure this out. Nothing talked about above is “classified”, and really doesn’t take much to figure out.
Security professionals – the real ones – rarely sleep well, knowing that these threats are out there…much less, when they know that significant elements in Washington, DC are actively creating the permissive environment necessary for all of this to happen.
Stock up now. Arm up now. Talk to your neighbors now. If you don’t – you will be very much on your own.
Good luck.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
RUSSIA’S IRAN-MADE SUICIDE DRONES INVADE UKRAINE – The Russian military is deploying hundreds, even thousands of suicide drones made in Iran called Shahed drones. The drones are relatively cheap to make and even if only a few get through they are still most cost efficient, and target efficient, than artillery or missiles. The Ukraine war is accelerating the rise of drones as the pre-eminent battle platform.
….In Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, drones have cemented their reputation as a potent, hard-to-stop and cost-effective weapon to seek out and destroy targets while simultaneously spreading the kind of terror that can fray the resolve of soldiers and civilians alike.
They’re also quickly surpassing missiles as the remote weapon of choice because they can be put into any combat theater in greater numbers much more cheaply.
Russia’s unleashing of successive waves of the Iranian-made Shahed drones over Ukraine has multiple aims — take out key targets, crush morale and ultimately drain the enemy’s war chest and weapons trying to defend against them as the conflict evolves into a longer war of attrition.
CHINA UNVEILS DRONE AIRCRAFT CARRIER – A Chinese State Television Program shows plans to develop a massive drone carrier that can launch missiles and drones. The program also suggests that human-piloted carriers could also deliver drones to the battlefield.
A Chinese state television program has provided a look at possible future People’s Liberation Army crewed-uncrewed teaming and swarming capabilities, including the employment of H-6K large missile carrier aircraft as launch platforms for LJ-1 drones. The LJ-1 is ostensibly intended for use as an aerial target and for other training purposes. However, Chinese state media reports, as well as independent experts and observers, have noted that its modular design and various features inherently found on aerial targets might allow it to be readily configured as a lower-end tactical uncrewed air vehicle that could operate together with crewed combat aircraft like the J-20 stealth fighter or even the H-6.
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
.jpg%2F640px-Chinese_Air_Force_Fighter_Jet%252C_beijing_Aviation_Museum_(26408343121).jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=a4a4a80731bdfd8faadfe1b61d736fff997e0e7304782a92a9f35a683c2f0830&ipo=images "China Wants Western Pilots to Help them Defeat the West")
.jpg%2F1200px-M214_%25D0%2593%25D0%2595PA%25D0%259D%25D0%25AC-2_drone_remnants_near_Kupiansk%252C_Kharkiv_region_(1).jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=469b302c22afb737e97e49aa8089217aaab2218e3a34dd06723e2c483c921224&ipo=images "Ukraine Skies Become Proving Ground for Drone Warfare")
