The National Interest

Peter Suciu

B-2 Stealth Bomber,

"It's really hard to communicate to the average American citizen the strategic security umbrella and blanket that the B-2 provides."

Here's What You Need to Remember: Since its introduction, the B-2 has gone through weapons upgrades, and in 2018, the bomber test-dropped an upgraded, multi-function B61-12 nuclear bomb, which was designed to improve accuracy, integrate various attack options into a single bomb and change the strategic landscape with regard to nuclear weapons mission possibilities.

There is no denying that the U.S. Air Force's B-2 Spirit bomber – the nation's only stealth bomber in service today – can do things other aircraft simply can't do. It has the ability to fly 6,000 nautical miles without refueling, travel at high subsonic speeds, and essentially reach any part of the world within hours. This is why during the opening stages of Operation Enduring Freedom it was called upon to deliver a mighty punch to Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

Since its introduction in 1997, the Northrop Grumman B-2 has often been the first to fight. It was designed to penetrate anti-aircraft defenses and can deploy both conventional and thermonuclear weapons. It is also the only acknowledged aircraft that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration.

The B-2 can carry up to sixteen B-61 or megaton-yield B-83 nuclear gravity bombs on the rotary launchers inside its two bomb bays. The aircraft's avionics are even hardened versus the electromagnetic pulses generated by nuclear blasts.

More Miles Ahead

Currently, there are twenty of the B-2s in service, and the Air Force plans to operate them until 2032 at least, when the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is expected to replace it. By that time the B-2 could have served a total of thirty-five years, which is barely middle age for an aircraft today.

In fact, the early Cold War-era B-52 Stratofortress is actually considerably older than the B-2 Spirit and could remain in service far longer – possibly into the 2050s.

So why might the B-2 have a shortened "dog years" of life left in it?

The main reason is that the B-2 was pushed hard during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and after two decades the Spirit requires intense effort to keep the aircraft flying and effective. However, the fact also remains that the Air Force needs the B-2 bomber at this point and must do everything it can to keep the airframes flying high.

This task of ensuring that the twenty B-2s in the Air Force's bomber fleet continue to dominate and remain operational falls to the Air Force's Life Cycle Management Center Program Office. It is leading a number of initiatives to upgrade and sustain the bomber.

"We are committed to keeping the B-2 flying and ensuring they remain effective for the crucial strategic defense, strategic deterrence mission set," said Col. Cory Brown, the B-2 Program Manager. "We are fielding new software [on the plane], developing classified networks, making sure the low observable [stealth] nature of the plane remains effective, and addressing unscheduled maintenance drivers."

Next Gen Programs

The B-2 Program Office has recently undertaken the Next Gen Zonal Radar Program, which will provide a handheld device to maintainers, which could more effectively evaluate low observable (LO) nature of materials on the aircraft. That could be vital to ensuring the plane's stealth capabilities aren't compromised. It will be available in fiscal year 2021 (FY21).

The program office also undertook a project to redesign a panel on the nose of the bomber, which improved the panel's LO signature but also saved the government more than $40 million.

Brown's team is now working to update the monitors on the aircraft that are used to allow pilots to plan missions. A request for proposal (RFP) was released to Northrop Grumman on Aug. 31, and the goal of the Program Office is to retrofit the entire fleet of twenty aircraft by no later than 2026.

Weapons of the Future

Since its introduction, the B-2 has gone through weapons upgrades, and in 2018, the bomber test-dropped an upgraded, multi-function B61-12 nuclear bomb, which was designed to improve accuracy, integrate various attack options into a single bomb and change the strategic landscape with regard to nuclear weapons mission possibilities.

The Program Office has continued to prepare the aircraft for future weapons.

"We are in the mist of fielding a current operational baseline that will bring B61-12 – next nuclear bomb – software capability to the platform," said Brown. "We will continue to modernize the software baseline to be able to carry future weapons on the aircraft."

The Positive Spirit

While the bomber may only have another decade or so left, Brown and his team are committed to ensuring that the bomber will be able to be relied upon until the B-21 Raider can take over.

"It's really hard to communicate to the average American citizen the strategic security umbrella and blanket that the B-2 provides," added Brown. "It's one leg of a nuclear triad that you would have a hard time arguing that it is not one of the reasons we've had many years of peace where two great nations haven't come together and collided, with a loss of life on a huge magnitude. It's because you have capabilities like the B-2 to ensure that nobody thinks that the United States doesn't have the will or the way to protect its interests."

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Kris Osborn

F-16 Fighter,

The Air Force tested whether air-dropped bombs were able to share target-sensitive data with each other in flight to adjust attack specifics, find GPS-jammers, and optimize the speed and precision with which attack operations can be conducted.

Air Force weapons developers see new opportunities with an emerging high-tech program intended to enable in-flight weapons networking or “collaboration” to optimize targeting and flight-path trajectory.

Earlier this year, the Air Force Test Center tested “Collaborative Small Diameter Bombs,” an innovation drawing upon computer algorithms to facilitate in-flight networking with weapons on route to targets. The program, according to an Air Force report, is called Golden Horde. It is built upon the technical concept of Networked, Collaborative and Autonomous, or NCA, weapons.

The test, flying an F-16 fighter jet armed with the bombs, was not a complete success, Air Force Research Lab Commander Brig. Gen. Heather Pringle sees new improvement opportunities with the program.

The Air Force tested whether air-dropped bombs were able to share target-sensitive data with each other in flight to adjust attack specifics, find GPS-jammers, and optimize the speed and precision with which attack operations can be conducted.

“It was another great learning opportunity, as you mentioned. So on the positive side, nine of 13 test objectives are met,” Pringle told The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies in an interesting video interview. 

An Air Force description of the Golden Horde technology describes it as a “new capability including a home-on-GPS-jam seeker that gathers information about the battlespace, a software defined radio for communication between weapons and a processor preloaded with collaborative algorithms.” 

While the assessments with the F-16 fighter test revealed certain shortcomings or glitches with some of the technology, something which the Air Force has now corrected, Pringle said. 

The technology is intended to work by loading pre-mission software onto the weapons to enable advanced autonomy such that in-flight weapons can detect, and even avert, enemy countermeasures to locate targets and, if needed, redirect munitions in flight.

The weapons used in the test, Pringle told Mitchell, “couldn’t accept updated flight profile information from the autonomous onboard processor. And so ultimately, the initial flight profile that was in it is where it ended up. So there were no updates. And the flight never changed. But we have done the forensics on it, we’ve corrected what needed to happen..”

The technical and tactical concept of the weapons collaboration, Air Force assessments explain, are designed to enable sensors integrated into the weapons themselves to discern new information, assess it in relation to front-loaded mission specifics, and perform the analytics needed to make in-flight course adjustments. While fully bringing this to fruition may require even more advanced AI-enabled autonomy, it represents the cusp of very significant breakthrough technology.

Pringle emphasized that additional testing is now underway to address and rectify some of the glitches, and build upon success. She mentioned assessments with as many as four collaborative small diameter bomb weapons and efforts to explore time on targets.

“This program is still progressing and we’re really excited about where it is going in 2021,” Pringle added.

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Flickr.

Peter Suciu

History, Europe

The room was part of the Catherine Palace near St, Petersburg and it was last seen in the Baltic port city of Königsberg in East Prussia.

Here's What You Need to Remember: A full reconstruction of the Amber Room was created at Tsarskyoye Selo based on eight-six black and white photographs taken of various fragments of the room. The construction process, which began in 1979, was finally completed in 2003 at a cost of $11 million.

It was dubbed the “Eighth Wonder of the World,” a golden-hued, jewel-encrusted chamber that was made of several tons of gemstones, gold and amber. The opulent “Amber Room” disappeared during the Second World War and was considered a casualty of the conflict, but now divers off the coast of Poland believe they may have found the lost Tsarist-era treasure.

The room was part of the Catherine Palace near St, Petersburg (Leningrad during the war), and it was last seen in the Baltic port city of Königsberg (modern Kaliningrad) in East Prussia. After that point its location was lost to time, and it was long assumed the panels that once graced the walls of the palace were destroyed.

However, it has been suggested that instead the Amber Room may have been loaded onto a ship, and now divers believe it could be on the steamer Karlsruhe, which set sail from Königsberg in early 1945 laden with cargo and subsequently sunk after being attacked by Soviet airplanes.

Divers from Baltictech Group have found the wreck after more than a year of searching.

“We have been looking for the wreckage since last year when we realized there could be the most interesting, undiscovered story lying at the bottom of the Baltic Sea,” said Tomasz Stachura, one of the team divers, according to the UK Guardian newspaper. “It is practically intact. In its holds, we discovered military vehicles, porcelain and many crates with contents still unknown.”

The steamer had been taking part in Operation Hannibal, which was one of the largest sea evacuations in history. The operation helped more than a million German troops and civilians escape from East Prussia as the Soviet’s Red Army advanced in the closing months of the war.

According to documentation the vessel left the port with a large cargo and 1,083 people on board.

“All this, put together, stimulates the human imagination,” added Tomasz Zwara, another of the divers on the team. “Finding the German steamer and the crates with contents as yet unknown resting on the bottom of the Baltic Sea may be significant for the whole story.”

Origin of the Amber Room

While the Amber Room has been closely associated with Imperial Russia, it was truly an international effort. It was first designed in the early 18th century by German baroque sculptor Andreas Schlüter and constructed by Danish amber craftsman Gottfried Wolfram for the Prussian Monarchy in 1701. It was first housed at Charlottenburg Palace, home to the first king in Prussia, Friedrich I.

Czar Peter the Great of Russia admired the room so much during a visit that in 1716, the Prussian ruler presented it as a gift to his Russian counterpart and it cemented a Prussian-Russian alliance against Sweden.

The Amber Room was shipped to Russia in some eighteen large boxes and installed in the Winter House in St. Petersburg as part of a larger European art collection. However, in 1755 Czarina Elizabeth had the room moved to the Catherine Palace in Pushkin, then named Tsarskoye Selo (Czar’s Village). Italian designer Bartolomeo Francesco Rastrelli was called upon to redesign the room to fit into its new, larger space and this included the installation of additional amber that was shipped from Berlin.

A Wonder of the World

When the room was expanded in the Catherine Palace it came to total more than 180 square feet, and it consisted of six tons of amber panels, backed with semi-precious stones and gold leaf. It was valued at approximately $176 million dollars in today’s money.

It was not a room for the Russian people in any way.

It was used as a private meditation chamber for Czarina Elizabeth, a gathering room for Empress Catherine the Great and later a trophy space for “amber connoisseur” Czar Alexander II.

While only few lucky visitors to court ever saw the room, its reputation spread across Europe. It even became associated with the decadence of Imperial Russia. Yet, the room survived the Russian Revolution and subsequent Civil War, and unlike with the later Chinese Cultural Revolution, which would have destroyed such a wonder, the new Soviet rulers saw the beauty in the room and apparently never considered destroying it.

The Amber Room and World War II

During the Second World War, with the German Army approaching the village, officials and curators of the Catherine Palace tried unsuccessfully to disassemble and hide the Amber Room, but the dry amber was too fragile and began to crumble. Instead an attempt was made to hide the room behind thin wallpaper.

However, the Germans who occupied the palace saw through the crude camouflage.

Under a pair of experts, once again the Amber Room was disassembled. The amber panels, mirrors, cherubs and nymphs were all carefully packed up. On October 14, 1941, Rittmeister Graf Solms-Laubach, who was in charge of the disassembly and packing, ordered the twenty-seven crates shipped to Königsberg and reinstalled in the castle museum on the Baltic Coast.

The museum’s director, Alfred Rohde, was also an amber aficionado of sorts, studied the room’s panel history while it was on display for the next two years.

When the tide of the war turned, Rohde was ordered to dismantle the Amber Room yet again, and he successfully had the contents crated up before the city and castle were bombed in August 1944. That is where the trail has ended, apart from one small panel that was found in western Germany in 1997 after an attempted sale. The Italian stone mosaic was known to have been part of the room. It had been owned by the family of a soldier who had helped pack the Amber Room at Königsberg in January 1945, and this “soldier’s souvenir” sheds some light on the fate of the Amber Room, confirming that it was packed up.

However, it has been suggested that the contents never actually left the castle courtyard and were destroyed during the bombing, while others suggested it was buried in a mine. The most common theory is that it was loaded onto a ship, and perhaps it will be found on the sunken steamer Karlsruhe.

A Modern Replica

A full reconstruction of the Amber Room was created at Tsarskyoye Selo based on eight-six black and white photographs taken of various fragments of the room. The construction process, which began in 1979, was finally completed in 2003 at a cost of $11 million. The new room was dedicated by Russian President Vladimir Putin and then-German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to mark the 300-year anniversary of St. Petersburg in a unifying ceremony that echoed the peaceful sentiment behind the original Amber Room.

It is on display to the public at the Tsarskoye Selo State Museum Reserve outside of St. Petersburg.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Kris Osborn

Submarines,

How to subs communicate with the rest of the fleet and overall military. While not an easy challenge to solve, the U.S. Navy has a few ideas. 

Sub-hunting spy planes armed with torpedoes, maritime drones armed with missiles, high-resolution, surface scanning cameras, and fast-moving surface ships dragging sonar sensors while conducting surface reconnaissance are all fast-growing threats to U.S. Navy submarines.

Part of the challenge is finding ways to minimize Navy submarine vulnerability to enemy detection and attack by simply remaining at safer depths, yet in order to achieve a high-degree of high-speed connectivity, submarines need to break the ocean surface by coming to “periscope depth,” which is closer to the surface.

The U.S. Navy is working with a number of industry partners such as Northrop Grumman to identify, evolve and refine new kinds of undersea communications technology.

“Today, the submarine comes to periscope depth and conducts the majority of its transmissions at this depth. Capabilities we’re developing at Northrop Grumman will allow the submarine to never have to come up to the surface, because it is at its most vulnerable when at periscope depth,” Alan Lytle, vice president of Strategy & Mission Solutions, Maritime/Land Systems & Sensors division, Northrop Grumman, told The National Interest in an interview.

Interestingly, while most people might immediately associate Northrop Grumman with high-profile programs such as its B-2 and B-21 stealth bombers, the company’s history with undersea warfare goes back nearly 100 years, including substantial World War II efforts. Years ago, Northrop Grumman was involved in adapting radio frequency (RF) technologies to undersea acoustic systems and developed the first electric torpedoes for Navy submarines.

“We have been working in the undersea domain for well over 50-years, and our support for the Navy stretches back even further,” said Jenny Roberts, director of strategy, investments & integration, Maritime/Land Systems & Sensors division, Northrop Grumman.

Roberts, who formerly worked as a director for undersea influence at the Navy’s Undersea Warfare Division, says Northrop Grumman innovators seek to align closely with the sense of mission and purpose now driving the U.S. Navy’s push to stay in front of undersea warfare technology.

“We bring together the power of the corporation’s continuous innovation to provide capabilities our Navy customers need for mission success,” Roberts explained to The National Interest. As part of the ongoing effort to synchronize efforts with the Navy, Northrop Grumman developers are placing a special premium on innovation in the areas of undersea warfare and cross-domain networking.

For instance, perhaps a surface drone, submarine, ship, or fighter jet can identify and share time-sensitive targeting data across domains in near real-time, integrating crucial threat information exponentially faster than ever before. The ultimate goal of this is to massively truncate sensor-to-shooter timelines. Perhaps an undersea drone could identify an enemy subsea target, pass the data back to an undersea-warfare commander who in turn instantly sends coordinates to a helicopter armed with Very Light Weight Torpedoes. This innovative kill-chain concept was demonstrated by Northrop Grumman in a Navy exercise.

“To deter future conflict or to ensure we win if future conflict arises, we need to provide capabilities which expand the influence of the undersea force, including connectivity across all domains,” Lytle added.

In light of this, Northrop Grumman developers discuss their efforts to link undersea and space domains in the context of the Pentagon’s fast-evolving Joint All Domain Command and Control initiative. JADC2, as it is called, seeks to engender a kind of multi-node connectivity between otherwise disparate pools of information across multiple domains.

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Reuters.

Sebastien Roblin

History, Americas

Following two decades of experimentation, Marine Corps tank units had their moment of truth at the Battle of Tarawa in November 1943.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Despite the heavy losses suffered by Marine tanks units, it was clear they had spared the lives of thousands of Marine riflemen, making them “the most effective supporting weapon” according to the commander of the 9th Marine Division.

After nearly eighty years of continuous service, in March 2020 the Marine Corps announced it planned to retire its three remaining tank battalions in a bid to re-model the force for a great-power conflict. This article is the second part of a series that looks at the unique history of the Marine armored branch.

Following two decades of experimentation, Marine Corps tank units had their moment of truth at the Battle of Tarawa in November 1943. As recounted in an earlier article, though most of the invasion force’s medium tanks were lost in the first few hours of a disastrous amphibious landing, three Sherman tanks survived and became the bulwark behind which hard-pressed Marines rallied and cleared out Japanese fortifications.

The tank had proven its value in supporting Marine amphibious landings, but its use clearly needed perfecting. The process by which the Marines modified their tanks and tactics to the realities of the Pacific is brilliantly detailed in Steven Zaloga’s U.S. Marine Corps Tanks of World War II.

Stuart light tanks, for example, lacked adequate armor and firepower, so Marine tank battalions—six of which with 46 tanks each saw action by the war’s end—converted to diesel-engine M4A2 Shermans, though some smaller support units still fielded M3 and M5 Stuart light tanks.

Tank-infantry cooperation in Guadalcanal and Tarawa had been crude, with several tanks lost attacking without infantry support. Problematically, grunts lacked reliable means of talking with tankers short of clambering on the hull and knocking on the hatch.

That changed with the installation of “tank telephones” on the hull. Some Marine tanks even began lugging SCR-300 infantry radios as well as spigoted water tanks on their backs to keep the grunts hydrated, as difficulties supplying freshwater infamously bedeviled landing operations. Shermans with hydraulic dozer blades also proved useful for burying fortified caverns, clearing roads and even pushing knocked-out tanks out of the way.

Japanese infantry and artillery could reap a terrible toll on attacking infantry—but their 37-millimeter anti-tank guns could not penetrate the Sherman’s three inches of armor. Even high-velocity Type 1 47-millimeter anti-tank guns introduced in 1943 (2,300 built) could only reliably pierce a Sherman’s side or rear armor. Some heavy anti-aircraft guns, like the 75-millimeter Type 88, could overmatch an M4’s armor, but these were not designed for field mobility and were mostly reserved for the defense of the home islands.

Great Tank Battles of the Pacific Theater

In June 1944 U.S troops began a series of amphibious assault on the Mariana Islands in order to secure bases from which B-29 strategic bombers could strike Japan. The 2nd and 4th Tank Battalion landed on Saipan June 15 with their turret tops painted red or yellow so they could be distinguished from Japanese tanks by U.S. Navy pilots. That proved a wise precaution, because little island became the site of the largest tank battle of the Pacific Theater.

First, on the evening of June 16, Shermans defeated a night attack by Japanese Special Naval Landing Force marines and their Type 2 amphibious tanks. Then at dawn, forty-four Type 97 and Type 95 tanks from the 9th Tank Regiment swarmed over a ridge and stormed the beachhead. In the hours-long brawl that followed 33 were knocked out by Marine Shermans, bazookas and anti-tank artillery including towed 37-millimeter guns and 75-millimeter-gun armed half-tracks. You can see footage of the aftermath here.

In July, the 4th tank battalion wiped out another company-sized tank unit on Tinian, while the 3rd destroyed the last two companies of the 9th Tank Regiment (29 tanks) as it engaged in another futile counterattack at Guam.

Despite their bravery, Japanese tankers faced impossible odds—with little over an inch of armor at best, the 18-ton Chi-Ha were effortlessly penetrated by Marine anti-tank weapons, but could only threaten a 30-ton Sherman’s side or rear armor. The 8-ton Type 95 Ha-Go lacked even that scant hope—and 75-millimeter armor-piercing shells from Shermans were known to punch clean through one side of a Ha-Go’s thin armor and out the other.

Turning up the Heat

But Japanese fortifications proved more resilient to 75-millimeter shells, so Marines increasingly turned to flamethrowers, horrifying weapons capable of flushing out the most fanatical defenders. However, infantry flamethrowers could not reach much further than 30 to 40 meters, limiting an operator’s life expectancy.

Initially, the Marines tried installing M1A1 infantry flamethrowers to fire out the ‘pistol ports’ in tanks, but this proved unwieldy when combat-tested in the battle of Arawe.

Later, mechanics in Hawaii swapped out the main guns on twenty-four M3A1 light tanks with Canadian-built Ronson Mark IV flamethrowers fed by 170-gallon fuel tanks. The projectors on these M3A1 Satan tanks had a range of 75 meters, but limited turret traverse to 180 degrees.

Two companies, each with twelve Satans and three gun-armed M5 escorts, saw action on Saipan and Tinian, where they were used with some success to evict defenders holed up in fortified caverns. But the Ronson’s bulk made the light tank’s interior impossibly cramped, so thereafter the Marines focused on two types of Sherman-mounted flamethrowers.

Roughly half the M4A2 tanks in each battalion ha their hull machineguns replaced with shorter range (65 meters) E4-5 “auxiliary” flamethrowers while retaining their 75-millimeter main gun. Mixed in were smaller numbers of more-effective Sherman POAs with Ronson flamethrowers fed by 290-gallon tanks installed in place of the main gun.

The Marines developed a “corkscrew and blowtorch” tactic, in which gun-armed Shermans cracked open bunkers with 75-millimeter shells before using flame-tanks to douse the insides with burning fluid.

Beefing Up Protection at Peleliu

In the ensuing Marine landing at Peleliu on September 15, 1944, Shermans of the 1st Tank Battalion easily eradicated another armored counterattack by fifteen Type 95 tanks threatening to overrun Marines attempting to secure an airstrip.

But Japanese infantry were well-fortified in the volcanic island and used a network of underground passages to attack from unexpected directions. While Marine riflemen took the worst of the ensuing grim battle of attrition, 45 of the 1st battalion’s 46 tanks were knocked out at some point (nine of them permanently) and two-thirds of the unit’s 31 officers were killed or wounded.

An even tougher fight lay ahead for the Marines on Iwo Jima, to which were committed the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Tank Battalions.  Confronting them were five battalions of anti-tank guns, the 26th Tank regiment with twenty-two dug-in Type 97 tanks, and scores of anti-tank mines with ceramic cases that didn’t trip metal detectors.

Though the Sherman’s frontal armor considerably over-matched Japanese anti-tank gun, they still needed protection from close assaults by Japanese infantry who, lacking portable ranged anti-tank weapons, resorted to suicidally lunging at tanks with grenade bundles, satchel charges or mines on the tip of a pole.

Type 99 magnetic mines designed to latch onto a tank’s metallic hull posed the greatest threat. As a countermeasure, Marine tankers bolted wooden planking onto their side hulls, and later sandwiched in a coating of concrete for additional protection. At Okinawa, units even girded their suspension bogies with wooden slats to protect against satchel charges.

As Japanese infantry often planted charges on the hatches, Marine mechanics welded-on wire ‘bird cages’ to prevent direct contact, and lined the hatches and turret top with spiky penny nails.

As more anti-tank artillery was encountered, Marine tankers piled on sandbags or welded on spare tracks onto the front, side and rear-decks of their tanks, placing additional inches of material between them and 47-millimeter shells racing towards them at two-and-a-half times the speed of sound.

Despite the heavy losses suffered by Marine tanks units, it was clear they had spared the lives of thousands of Marine riflemen, making them “the most effective supporting weapon” according to the commander of the 9th Marine Division. But the armor branch had one sharp fight ahead of it in Okinawa that April as recounted in the next article in this series.

Sébastien Roblin holds a Master’s Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. This first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

Tanks,

Tehran's domestically built Karrar Tank is bad news for Russian arms sales.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The Karrar is essentially a clone of the Russian-designed T-90S MBT and is reportedly far more advanced than the Zulfiqar, the MBT that was named after the sword of the first religious, spiritual and political Shia leader, Hazrat Ali. It was first conceived by Iranian Army Brigadier General Mir-Younes Masoumazadeh and based on the American M48 and M60 and Soviet T-72 tanks.

In 2016 Russia's Uralvagonzavod announced that it would allow Iran to license-build the T-90S main battle tank (MBT) domestically once restrictions on technical cooperation were lifted. In addition, the Russian military firm said it will also help the Islamic Republic's Army modernize its existing T-72 fleet.

However, even four years ago Tehran had other ideas – which included building its own tanks without help from Moscow. Now it looks as if that has finally occurred.

Last week the Commander of the Iranian Army Ground Forces, Brigadier General Kiomars Heidari, spoke on Iranian state TV and said that the Defense Ministry and the Armed Forces have jointly developed a domestically-built T-90 MBT. This new tank is undergoing final tests before being delivered to the Army Ground Force.

Heidari said the tank is equipped with a new gun stabilizer and chemical defense systems, and was conceived as a weapon for modern warfare. The Iranian Army Ground Force will reportedly take delivery of the first batch of the tanks in the Iranian month of Mehr – September 22 to October 21.

The efforts to build the tank domestically have been ongoing since Iran announced it would do so without Russian help. The Islamic Republic Ground Corps had announced it would receive at least 800 of the new tanks, which despite no assistance from Russia, do closely resemble the T-90S. The tank was dubbed the "Karrar" (Striker) when the program was announced in 2017 – but in the most recent announcements on state TV, that name wasn't used.

The Karra was stated to have a crew of three, would feature composite armor with Explosive-Reactive Armor (ERA) panels on both the turret and hull, just like the T-90. Its main armament is a 125mm 2A46M smoothbore gun with a stabilizer for its main armament. Given the fact that it is so similar visually, it is easy to see what it has been previously described as "Russian technology with a bad paint job."

The Karrar is essentially a clone of the Russian-designed T-90S MBT and is reportedly far more advanced than the Zulfiqar, the MBT that was named after the sword of the first religious, spiritual and political Shia leader, Hazrat Ali. It was first conceived by Iranian Army Brigadier General Mir-Younes Masoumazadeh and based on the American M48 and M60 and Soviet T-72 tanks. The Zulfiqar entered production in 1996 and there were two main variants produced. In May 2010 the Iranian Army announced that it produced a new and upgraded Zulfiqar III.

In building the Karrar – or whatever the tank is actually known as today – the Iranians have shown that they were, in fact, serious about moving away from its reliance on Russian imports to bolster its military arsenal. While it has shown that it can domestically-build a tank on par with the T-90, it is still essentially just a copy of a very solid design, not an original concept build from the ground up.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

This article first appeared last year and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia

More From The National Interest: 

Russia Has Missing Nuclear Weapons Sitting on the Ocean Floor 

How China Could Sink a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier 

Where World War III Could Start This Year

John Rossomando

Defense Budget,

Obama-era defense cuts crippled America’s ability to keep up with our adversaries. Further cuts will only further erode the U.S. military’s ability to deter increasing threats from China and Russia.

President Joe Biden’s 2022 likely budget proposal threatens to cut or flatline the defensive budget at a time when Beijing is ramping up military spending and production, Sen. Jim Inhofe warns.

Biden appears to be backing his party’s line.

The spending request seeks trillions for the domestic priorities of the Democratic Party’s constituencies but heeds the Center of American Progress’ call for “fiscal discipline” at the Pentagon.

Members of the House Progressive Caucus oppose nuclear modernization, missile defense, and support a no-first-use policy, which says the United States would not use nuclear weapons first in a war, thus abandoning strategic ambiguity aimed at keeping adversaries guessing. 

“As the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in a conflict, the United States must play a leading role in ensuring that the most destructive weapon ever created is never used again,” Democratic lawmakers said in a March 3 statement. 

“In making necessary changes to the U.S. nuclear posture and force structure, your Administration can best reflect the hard, cold reality that there is no such thing as a winnable nuclear war,” the statement continued.

The caucus also advocates eliminating the replacement for the fifty-year-old Minuteman III missile, which the military says has reached the end of its useful lifespan. President Biden signaled during the campaign that he shares many of these issues and might consider a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons.

The lawmakers called for diplomacy, but without the threat of overwhelming military force, totalitarians have no reason to make concessions. 

Both China and Russia are quickly modernizing their nuclear weapons, while America’s nuclear arsenal is so old—the newest weapons were built in the 1980s—there is no guarantee they will work. America’s allies depend on American nuclear deterrence for their security and as a hedge against nuclear blackmail.

“China gets it. Beijing also talked a big game at the first bilateral showdown in Anchorage two weeks ago—but has backed that talk up by increasing the PLA defense budget by 6.8 percent this year,” Inhofe wrote in Newsweek. “If the United States responds with a budget cut instead of a corresponding investment, it would send a terrible signal to Beijing.”

Beijing’s budget is significantly less on paper at $183.5 billion, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Estimates by other think tanks put defense spending around $261 billion. China’s buying power could be much higher because it relies on state enterprises. The U.S. Defense Department has significant contractor costs.

This has allowed the Chinese to churn out new planes, warships, and missiles at a cheaper comparative cost, and at a rate that can’t be matched by the eroded U.S. military-industrial base. Cost overruns at the Pentagon in projects like the F-35 fighter jet, the Ford-class aircraft carrier, and the Zumwalt-class destroyer have been a perpetual complaint from Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

Furthermore, many items including China’s spending on its militarized Coast Guard and its People’s Armed Police paramilitaries remain off-budget. It is difficult to accurately compare U.S. and Chinese defense spending.

Obama-era budget cuts left America unprepared for the return to great-power competition that will mark the 2020s and beyond. It could take an additional $400 billion in investments to play catch up to our adversaries, according to Inhofe. He noted that during the Obama years, Chinese defense spending exploded by 83 percent while the former president slashed defense spending by 20 percent.

Budget cuts were implicated in the disastrous collisions of the USS John S. McCain and USS Fitzgerald with merchant vessels in 2017. Sailors lacked adequate training and “bruising” deployments combined for the perfect storm.

The U.S. Navy’s cruiser fleet struggles with its fleet of aging 1980s vintage Ticonderoga-class cruisers, which face constant breakdowns. Funding to upgrade the fleet has been scarce, so it is unclear what might replace them.

Even if there was adequate funding, the Navy lacks adequate shipyard space to build new ships and maintain the ones it has. Meanwhile, China boasts the world’s largest shipbuilding capacity.

Biden is considering reducing the number of aircraft carriers, which will overtax the already overstretched U.S. fleet.  One proposal would result in the decommissioning of the Nimitz-class carrier USS Harry S. Truman, which was commissioned in 1998.  

Obama-era defense cuts crippled America’s ability to keep up with our adversaries. Further cuts will only further erode the U.S. military’s ability to deter increasing threats from China and Russia.

John Rossomando is a Senior Analyst for Defense Policy and served as Senior Analyst for Counterterrorism at The Investigative Project on Terrorism for eight years. His work has been featured in numerous publications such as The American Thinker, Daily Wire, Red Alert Politics, CNSNews.com, The Daily Caller, Human Events, Newsmax, The American Spectator, TownHall.com and Crisis Magazine. He also served as senior managing editor of The Bulletin, a 100,000-circulation daily newspaper in Philadelphia and received the Pennsylvania Associated Press Managing Editors first-place award in 2008 for his reporting.

Image: Wikipedia.

Mark Episkopos

Russian Navy, Europe

Initially projected to rejoin the Navy in 2018, the Nakhimov’s handoff was subsequently postponed to 2022. Now its been pushed back even more.

The post-refit handover of Russia’s Admiral Nakhimov battlecruiser has reportedly been postponed.

A defense industry source told Russian news outlet TASS earlier this week that the delivery of Admiral Nakhimov has been pushed back “due to problems with suppliers.” The source did not give a concrete timeline, but told TASS that the handover is “postponed until 2023 at best.”

One of the largest and heaviest surface combatant ships in the world, the Kirov-class nuclear-powered battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov was commissioned in 1988 under a different name: Kalinin. The Kirov class has its roots in a prominent strain of Soviet 1970’s military thinking. Initially conceived as a battlecruiser— that is, a lighter and faster variant of battleship— to counter the U.S. navy’s latest submarines with its large payload of SS-N-14 anti-submarine missiles, the Kirov line grew into another, no less important role: namely, containing the threat from U.S. carrier strike groups (CSG’s). Armed with twenty onboard P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles, Kirov-class vessels were meant to threaten U.S. aircraft carriers and other large surface ships. There was yet another, broader strategic goal: Kirov-class battlecruisers were intended to operate alongside a class of dedicated modern aircraft carriers, heralding a new era of Soviet global power projection.

The grand strategic visions driving the Kirov-class project collapsed alongside the Soviet Union. The ill-fated Admiral Kuznetsov became the only carrier of its line, and is now undergoing major repairs following a series of catastrophic incidents including an onboard fire and collapsed drydock. Meanwhile, the four Kirov-class cruisers—Admiral Ushakov, Admiral Lazarev, Kalinin, and Petr Velikiy— fell into disrepair over the 1990s. Two of these, Petr Velikiy and Kalinin, were deemed to be in a salvageable state. Kalinin was renamed to Admiral Nakhimov in 1992, and has been docked since 1999. Modernization work on Nakhimov began in earnest only in 2013. As part of its deep refit, Admiral Nakhimov will be upgraded to carry 3M22 Tsirkon winged, anti-ship hypersonic cruise missiles, Kalibr cruise missiles, and Otvet anti-submarine missiles, as well as the Fort-M (a naval S-300 variant) and Pantsir-M air defense systems. The Russian navy is likewise reportedly planning to outfit Admiral Nakhimov, as well as its counterpart Petr Velikiy, with a naval version of the S-400 missile system. These prodigious armament updates will be accompanied by a modernized radar and onboard electronics suite. If successful, this refit will place Admiral Nakhimov high among the ranks of Russia’s most capable large surface warships.

Initially projected to rejoin the Navy in 2018, the Nakhimov’s handoff was subsequently postponed to 2022. Sevmash CEO Mikhail Budnichenko repeated the 2022 projection at Russia’s ARMY 2020 military exhibition. That date was also reaffirmed by Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation (UAC) head Alexei Rakhmanov. “We are planning to complete the ship’s repairs in 2022,” said Rakhmanov during Shipbuilders’ Day celebrations in 2020. Russian officials have not formally confirmed this latest alleged delay to 2023 or later, nor has its cause been identified as of the time of writing.

Mark Episkopos is a national security reporter for the National Interest.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Peter Suciu

U.S. Air Force, Americas

Rumors are often ill-founded, especially when they start to mention alleged alien technology.

Key point: The Klingons may have had their Bird of Preys and the Romulans their Warbirds, but such technology does not yet exist. So no, you won't see a B1-B bomber suddenly dissappear from sight.

Although the point of a “cloaking device”—a hypothetical technology common to science fiction—is to make something invisible to the naked eye, even in movies and TV the technology isn’t exactly perfect. Instead of making an object, such as an aircraft, completely invisible there is often a faint but still noticeable shimmer or blur. 

At least that’s how it works in Star Trek, which was the first to conceptualize the technology in its 1966 episode “Balance of Terror” where the selective bending of light made a spacecraft essentially invisible to sensors and visual detection. Yet it wasn’t until the 1968 episode of the series “The Enterprise Incident” in which the technology was actually given a name, and since then the concept of cloaking devices has been seen in countless science fiction narratives in film, TV and video games.

Recently UFO conspiracy theorists offered visual “proof” that the technology exists, which is ironic considering that a cloaked craft shouldn’t be something you’d actually see. 

Look and You Shall Find It 

The UK’s Daily Express reported last year that UFO hunters widely shared an image from Google Earth that they believed clearly showed alien technology—and possibly even an alien craft—at Dyess Air Force Base (AFB), Texas. The image has caused a stir in the UFO community, the British tabloid reported.  

Next to a parked B-1B Lancer Bomber appears a visual anomaly, which “extraterrestrial expert” Scott Waring—who first apparently discovered the image—suggested was a cloaked U.S. Air Force aircraft or perhaps even a cloaked alien spaceship. He shared the images on the UFO Sightings Daily website. 

“I was looking for UFOs and alien bases using Google Earth today and came across something that just blew me away,” he told the tabloid.  

Waring, who also claimed that he “worked” on B-1 bombers at Ellsworth Air Force Base, said he determined the blur in the image wasn’t the result of photo manipulation but was, in his opinion, a cloaked B-1 bomber. Waring added that if you rotate the map 360 degrees viewers can even see a second B-1 that is also cloaked. 

“It makes sense, you see the black paint already on the B1 is cloaking technology that absorbs radar so it won’t reflect a signal back and be seen, thus it’s nearly invisible. It really makes sense to use alien technology on a B-1 and create the most perfect aircraft ever.”

The Truth is Far Simpler 

The fact that someone looking for a UFO would find one is a point we’ll leave aside, but skeptics were quick to address the UFO expert’s claims. The truth is out there, but it is far simpler than perhaps most UFO enthusiasts would like. 

The skeptics noted that “Google Earth image sometimes store old images in their cache,” so when a new image was taken it overlaps and creates a ghostly image. Such “ghosting” commonly occurs in film-based photography and such phenomena are also a regular occurrence with Google Maps. Thus it is likely—almost certain—that a B-1 was simply in different places on the tarmac when a second photo was taken and hence left a ghost image. 

But even beyond the obvious reasons for why the image shouldn’t be taken at face value; and there are other reasons that easily debunk the cloaking theory. The most obvious is that the B-1B is far from the most “perfect” aircraft, and despite its sleek profile it isn’t exactly what would be considered cutting edge either.

Development on the aircraft begin the late 1960s while Star Trek was still on the air, and while the bomber has been going through numerous updates and upgrades it seems difficult to believe a cloaking device would be among the first choices to put on such an old airframe. Moreover, Waring showed some ignorance as the B-1B isn’t technically a stealth aircraft—certainly not to the level of latter aircraft. 

That begs the question, why wouldn’t such “cloaking” technology be applied to more modern aircraft such as the B-2 Spirit, F-22 Raptor or certainly the F-35 Lightning II. For what the F-35 costs some might even question why it doesn’t have a cloaking device. It is also convenient that a UFO expert would suggest that the technology must be alien as well, instead of assuming that perhaps the military had developed a special camouflage to conceal aircraft on the ground.  

Since the beginning of the development of military aircraft, it was common to paint the airplanes to match the terrain to make them harder to see, but apparently, such thinking seemed lost on those who are certain the truth is out there.

The final consideration that UFO experts should ask is why would you keep the plane in a cloaked state on the runway? Such technology would likely require vast amounts of energy, and then there is always the fact that someone might walk into it—something that has been used as a joke in science fiction—or worse, not be able to find the plane. As then Admiral James T. Kirk said in the 1986 film Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, when exiting a cloaked spaceship, "Everybody remember where we parked." 

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Caleb Larson

Nuclear Weapons,

At nearly one and a half tons, the B83 is the largest nuclear bomb that the United States currently keeps.

Here's What You Need to Remember: In any case, the end of the line may be approaching for the B83. Its smaller and less-powerful little sibling, the B61 was recently upgraded. Though costly, the upgrades will keep the B61 in service for at least another twenty years.

The B83 is one of two so-called “dumb” or unguided nuclear bombs that the United States maintains as a part of its post-Cold War Enduring Stockpile arsenal. Along with intercontinental ballistic missiles and other smaller nuclear-capable bombs, stocks of the B83 are kept in case of emergency. It replaced a number of older American free-falling weapons, and is big.

At nearly one and a half tons, the B83 is the largest nuclear bomb that the United States currently keeps. Its nuclear tiled is 1.2 megatons—significantly more powerful than either of the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. It’s big, it’s powerful, and it’s had a colorful history.

Bombs Away

Though often thought of as a domain best left to Hollywood, asteroid impacts could pose a real danger to the United States. Like the blockbuster film Armageddon showed, a large enough interstellar object could end life on Earth as we known it. The threat of impact is great enough, that NASA designed a spacecraft with just one purpose—to deflect objects on a collision course with Earth.

The launch vehicles would be launched in a staggered succession, allowing NASA several “shots” at any Earth-bound projectile in case the first interceptors failed to detonate, went off course, or experienced any other operational hiccups.

The so-called nuclear interceptor would carry a total of six packages that would each carry the nuclear components from a B83. At a close enough distance, the hope was a large enough nuclear explosion would pummel the threatening interstellar body away from Earth—though this would be no guarantee of survival.

Bunker Buster

The B83 was also tentatively evaluated as a nuclear bunker-busting munition. Modifications were made to the projectile’s nose to allow it to survive impact with earth and reinforced concrete, though using nuclear weapons is fraught with political considerations. The design may have never been finalized. Either way, the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (aptly named considering its 30,000 pound, or over 13,500 kilogram weight) is the primary bunker busting bomb in the United States’ arsenal.

Postscript

In any case, the end of the line may be approaching for the B83. Its smaller and less-powerful little sibling, the B61 was recently upgraded. Though costly, the upgrades will keep the B61 in service for at least another twenty years. And the B83? It might be reserved in the future exclusively for use with the Space Force.

Caleb Larson is a defense writer for the National Interest. He holds a Master of Public Policy and covers U.S. and Russian security, European defense issues, and German politics and culture. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Peter Suciu

F-14 Tomcat,

The F-14, which made its first deployment in 1974, arrived as a supersonic, twin-engine, variable-sweep wing, two-place fighter.

Here's What You Need To Remember: Only a handful of the planes, which were purchased by the Imperial Iranian Air Force in the 1970s, remain in operation but according to reports these aircraft have flown escort missions in Syria proving that even after nearly 50 years the Tomcat still has sharp claws.

During its three decades in service with the United States Navy the Grumman F-14 Tomcat more than lived up to the role, it was designed for, drawing blood in combat and even getting its moment in the spotlight in the film Top Gun. Designed to incorporate the air combat experience learned during the Vietnam War, the F-14 was the first of the American "Teen Series" fighters that included the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon and the F/A-18 Hornet.

The two-seat carrier-based multi-role fighter was developed after the United States Congress halted the development of the F-111B along with the Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) program. While the goal of that program was to supply both the United States Air Force and the United States Navy with the planes to fit each of their respective needs, the Navy was opposed.

Instead, the Navy called for a request for proposals for its Naval Fighter Experimental (VFX) program, which required a tandem two-seat, twin-engine air-to-air fighter. Grumman was awarded the contract in January 1969. The result was the F-14 "Tomcat" – named so partially to honor Navy Admiral Thomas "Tomcat" Connelly who had called upon Congress for the Navy to develop a carrier-based fighter.

The F-14, which made its first deployment in 1974, arrived as a supersonic, twin-engine, variable-sweep wing, two-place fighter that was designed to engage enemy aircraft in all weather conditions as well as at night. It was designed to track up to 24 targets simultaneously. The plane featured an advanced weapons system that includes a powerful Hughes AWG-9 radar, which used in conjunction with the Phoenix AIM-54A missiles, can pick out and destroy a chosen target from a formation at a distance of over 100 miles. Additional armaments include a variety of other intercept missiles, rockets, bombs and an internal M61A1 Vulcan 20mm Gatling-style rotary cannon.

With its variable-sweep wing the F-14 could match the speeds of other aircraft as needed – and for takeoff and low-speed flight, the wings would shift to the front, while for supersonic speeds the wings could tuck backward. Because of its versatility, it served as an air superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor and even tactical reconnaissance platform.

The Tomcat drew its first blood in August 1981 during the "Gulf of Sidra incident," in which two F-14s were attacked by a pair of Libyan Su-22 Fitters. Both Fitters were shot down, but the events would be replayed nearly eight years later when in January 1989 another pair of F-14s shot down two Libyan MiG-23 "Floggers" again over the Gulf of Sidra.

The United States Navy continued to rely on the F-14 throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, where it was utilized in strike escort and reconnaissance roles in Operation Desert Storm as well in Operation Deliberate Force and Operation Allied Force in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. The F-14's final combat mission took place in February 2006 when two Tomcats were used in a bombing mission in Iraq.

While the F-14 was retired from service with the Navy, and supplanted by the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Tomcat remains in use with the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. Only a handful of the planes, which were purchased by the Imperial Iranian Air Force in the 1970s, remain in operation but according to reports these aircraft have flown escort missions in Syria proving that even after nearly 50 years the Tomcat still has sharp claws.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and website. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Caleb Larson

Nuclear Weapons, Americas

 Extreme weather conditions made the plan infeasible.

Here's What You Need to Know: In the middle of the Cold War, the U.S. Army developed a program to secretly deploy hundreds of nuclear-armed Minuteman ICBMs deep below Greenland’s ice cap.

One of the most well-known US military bases in the Arctic is Thule Air Base, in Greenland’s frigid northwest. Less well-known is the now-defunct Camp Century. Just 150 miles from Thule,  the area surrounding Camp Century is bitterly cold. Nighttime temperatures dip to -70°F and wind whips ice and snow through the air at 125 miles per hour.

Camp Century was opened in 1960 rather openly— the US Army released a short documentary film outlining the new construction techniques used to build the camp. Publicly at least, the camp was supposed to be used for conducting scientific research in the Arctic.

In reality, Camp Century was cover for a top-secret weapons project. The Danish government was opposed to housing nuclear weapons on their soil, and was thus not informed about Camp Century’s true purpose.

At Camp Century, engineers developed and improved subterranean Arctic building techniques. Modified tractors cut deep trenches nearly 30 feet into the ice. These trenches were then covered with steel semicylinders and topped with snow and ice that froze them firmly into place, providing shelter for the small underground city.

Transporting or airdropping diesel to fuel power generators would have been prohibitively expensive, and impossible during extreme weather conditions. The solution was to install a portable nuclear reactor that addressed all of Century’s electricity needs.

Heating Up:

Building upon lessons learned from Camp Century, Project Iceworm was to be built on a massive scale. Iceworm would have been the world’s largest ICBM launch site— over 52,000 miles of tunnels cut deep into the Greenland ice sheet. Iceworm’s footprint would cover an about the size of the state of Indiana, and a whopping three times the size of the host country, Denmark.

600 modified “Iceman” Minuteman missiles would be transported underground on large road-sized tunnels via railcar to launching sites cut even deeper into the ice. The Iceman missiles would be constantly shifting to other sites to keep their exact locations a secret. The subterranean placement and a mandatory 4-mile distance between launch sites would offer a degree of protection and increase survivability in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union.

Greenland’s proximity to the Soviet Union would have given American Minuteman missiles an enormous strategic advantage. Greenland is much closer to Russia than the continental United States, and the Iceman ICBMs would have been able to strike almost any target within the Soviet Union at a moment’s notice. The sheer size of the planned Iceworm complex and the missile’s relatively wide distribution would help to ensure the United States’ second-strike capability and to strengthen the land-based leg of the US nuclear triad.

Doomed to Die:

Alas, Project Iceworm was not practically feasible. Initial surveys had indicated that the Greenland ice sheet was rigid and ideal for tunneling. Later data gathered during the Camp Century experiment showed that the ice sheet was actually very elastic. Tunnels would have to be constantly maintained and be in danger of collapse every few years.

The extreme weather conditions also made steel building materials brittle and prone to cracking. Communications problems between the Pentagon and Camp Century were also an issue: sending or receiving messages during extreme weather events was problematic.

Ticking Time Bomb:

In the 1960s global warming was not a part of Pentagon strategic thinking. After shuttering Camp Century in 1967, The Army Corp of Engineers left behind thousands of gallons of radioactive water used to cool the portable reactor, and an unknown amount of sewage to be forever entombed in Greenland’s ice shelf.

In 1997, the Kingdom of Denmark conducted an inquiry into Camp Century, revealing the deceptive nature of the camp and the remaining hazardous waste enclosed in the ice.

Estimates from the scientific community predict that by 2090, the ice under Camp Century will begin to melt, releasing radioactive and human waste into the ocean. It remains to be decided if either the United States or Denmark, or perhaps even the now-autonomous Greenland will be responsible for cleanup.

Caleb Larson, a defense writer and journalist for the National Interest, holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy. He lives in Berlin and writes on US and Russian foreign and defense policy, German politics and culture.

This article first appeared in September 2019.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Edward Chang

Harriet Fighter Jet,

When the final chapter in the Harrier story is written, the Marines will bid farewell to an underappreciated aircraft that became much better over time and came through when it mattered most.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Unlike during Desert Storm, where Harriers expended only unguided ordnance, most of the expenditures during Iraqi Freedom were of the guided variety. As in Afghanistan, Harriers would provide CAS during the entire occupation, up until the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

Since the intervention by the United States and coalition partners began in 2014, the Middle East's skies have become crowded with the very best in modern air power. The air is full of flashy fourth-generation fighters (like the Air Force's F-15s and F-16s and the Navy's F/A-18E/Fs), and newer fifth-generation fighters (like the F-22). But also flying proudly with these other planes is a Marine Corps mainstay generally not considered a fourth-generation platform and unlikely to win any beauty contests—the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. That plane has, time and again, proven itself a highly effective multirole combat aircraft.

The Harrier II is unique among American military aircraft as one of few to have been adapted from a foreign design. The AV-8B's origin traces back to the British Hawker Siddeley Harrier, which was designed in the 1960s. Though not the first vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft built, it was the first fully operational and successful example. V/STOL capability was revolutionary because it created an aircraft that could operate from short or less-than-ideal runways, or from no runway at all.

Recommended: Air War: Stealth F-22 Raptor vs. F-14 Tomcat (That Iran Still Flies)

Recommended: A New Report Reveals Why There Won't Be Any 'New' F-22 Raptors

Recommended: How an ‘Old’ F-15 Might Kill Russia’s New Stealth Fighter

V/STOL caught the eye of the U.S. Marine Corps and, by 1971, the service was flying harriers. Designated the AV-8A, the American export model was similar in most respects to the British Harrier GR.1. A single-seater, the Marines intended for the Harrier to conduct ground attack, close air support (CAS), reconnaissance, and fighter missions. Despite giving the appearance of radical design, the AV-8A was quite unsophisticated on the inside, possessing bare-bones navigation and attack systems. Its armament was limited to AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared-guided air-to-air missiles and unguided air-to-ground ordnance such as rockets and general-purpose bombs.

Despite its drawbacks, the Marines were happy with the Harrier, and it continued to serve from both forward bases and aboard amphibious warfare ships. At the same, the Marines sought to improve deficiencies in payload and range and, in the mid-1970s, began development on what would become the Harrier II. By the end of the decade, the project had come entirely under the direction of American aircraft manufacturer McDonnell Douglas. Designated as AV-8B, the improved Harrier entered service in 1985 and, by 1987, all A and C-models (an upgrade of the A) were withdrawn from service.

Like its predecessor, the AV-8B was initially capable of day attack only but added the AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing System (ARBS), which was equipped with a laser spot-tracker and television, plus the AN/ALR-67 radar warning receiver (RWR). By 1991, a night attack version emerged, equipped with a nose-mounted Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR), night-vision goggle (NVG)-compatible cockpit, and a digital moving-map display.

The latest variant of the AV-8B in operation is the Harrier II+, first introduced in 1993. Like other fighters currently in U.S. service, such as the Air Force’s F-15E Strike Eagle or the Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Harrier II+ is a leaps-and-bounds improvement from the AV-8A and even the original “Day Attack-Only” AV-8B. In addition to the features on the “Night Attack,” the “Plus” added the AN/APG-65 radar, the same radar initially fielded on the F/A-18 Hornet. Along with the Sidewinder, it also fires the AIM-120 AMRAAM, giving the Harrier II beyond-visual-range (BVR) air-to-air capability.

The AV-8B is, of course, an attack aircraft, first and foremost. It is geared with a single GAU-12 Equalizer 25mm cannon and six hardpoints that can carry up to 9,200 pounds of ordnance—two hardpoints and over 4,000 pounds more than the original Harrier. In addition to rockets and unguided bombs, the Harrier II now employs the AGM-65E Maverick laser-guided ground-attack missile, GBU-12 and GBU-16 Paveway laser-guided and Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) satellite-guided bombs. Precision strike is conducted through the AN/AAQ-28(V)1 LITENING targeting pod, which offers high-resolution target imagery from altitudes up to 50,000 feet and a laser designator. This followed the evolutionary roadmap established by attack aircraft like the Air Force's A-10 Thunderbolt II. Like the A-10, the Harrier II was initially a dedicated CAS platform which eventually adopted precision-strike capabilities that tremendously expanded its mission set. More recent upgrades also include integration into the Link 16 data exchange network, which allows the AV-8B to transmit and share data with other platforms. The LITENING pod also permits Harrier pilots to transmit real-time imagery to troops on the ground via the ROVER system, allowing the latter to see what the former is seeing from the air.

Furthermore, the Harrier II is powered by the Rolls-Royce Pegasus F402-RR-408 thrust-vectoring turbofan, producing 23,500 lbs. of thrust, making it both more powerful and reliable than the original Pegasus powerplant. It is a subsonic aircraft, with an airspeed of less than Mach 1 (673 mph.) and has a combat radius of only 300 nautical miles. The limitation in range, however, is mitigated by V/STOL, which permits the Harrier to be deployed far forward without relying exclusively on air bases or carriers like other fixed-wing aircraft. Much like helicopters, it can instead utilize Forward Area Refueling/Rearming Points (FARPs).

The Harrier has earned the reputation of being a “widow-maker,” owing to the eyebrow-raising number of losses and fatalities incurred in both American and foreign service. A sizable percentage of these losses happened during take-off and landing, suggesting the Harrier’s V/STOL capability posed unique risks not present in conventional aircraft. But as Lon Nordeen, author of three books on the AV-8B, points out, airplanes like the A-4 Skyhawk and A-7 Corsair suffered even higher mishap rates, implying there was not anything inherently problematic with the Harrier. It also goes without saying take-off and landing are generally the most dangerous phases of flight for any aircraft, regardless of design. Still, the Harrier was statistically one of the most dangerous aircraft to fly in the military during its time in service.

The AV-8B made its combat debut in the 1991 Gulf War. Harriers were aboard the amphibious assault ships USS Tarawa and Nassau and airfields ashore. It was intended to play a backup role but was forced into the fight when it responded to an urgent call for CAS on the first day of the war. From then on, the five deployed AV-8B squadrons were at the forefront of the Coalition air war, due to both the competency of Marine pilots and the tactical flexibility V/STOL offered. It was not a bloodless conflict for the Harriers, however as five AV-8Bs were lost and two pilots killed. Still, it proved so useful that General H. Norman Schwarzkopf considered it one of the most important weapons of the war.

Of course, America's conflict with Iraq never ended, and Harriers would take part in patrolling the southern no-fly zone during the 1990s into the early-2000s. During that same timeframe, AV-8Bs participated in humanitarian and peace-keeping operations in Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda, the Central African Republic, Albania, Zaire, and Sierra Leone, flying air cover and armed reconnaissance sorties. It next saw combat over Kosovo in 1999, operating from amphibious assault ships as part of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). The Harrier offered deployed MEUs an immediate, integrated source of fixed-wing air power otherwise unavailable due to lack of access to land bases or the unavailability of an aircraft carrier.

But the Harrier's heaviest experience with combat was yet to come. They were among the first combat aircraft available in-theater during the invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks. Soon, AV-8Bs were operating from air bases in Afghanistan, providing CAS to troops on the ground as they purged the Taliban and continued to do so for over ten years. It was also during this war the Harrier suffered one of its most shocking losses. On September 14, 2012, the Taliban executed an attack on Camp Bastion in the Helmand Province, destroying six AV-8Bs belonging to Marine Attack Squadron 211 (VMA-211), killing two Marines (including VMA-211’s Commanding Officer), and rendered the squadron combat ineffective.

In 2003, Harriers based aboard four “Harrier carriers” and in Kuwait supported Marines in their advance toward Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The AV-8Bs exhibited significant lethality and, thanks to improvements like the LITENING pod, were able to provide around-the-clock air support for ground forces. Unlike during Desert Storm, where Harriers expended only unguided ordnance, most of the expenditures during Iraqi Freedom were of the guided variety. As in Afghanistan, Harriers would provide CAS during the entire occupation, up until the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

Earlier that same year, AV-8Bs embarked aboard USS Kearsarge attacked targets in Libya while enforcing the U.N. no-fly zone over the country. Attached to the 24th MEU, Harriers also successfully defended a downed Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle pilot from advancing hostile Libyans. Five years later, Harriers also formed the main effort of a small air campaign to roll back the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the same country.

In fact, the Harrier II is serving at the forefront in the war against ISIL. When the U.S-Coalition intervention, Operation Inherent Resolve, commenced in summer 2014, AV-8Bs were once again among the first air assets to participate, flying reconnaissance missions and eventually transitioning to striking ISIL targets in both Iraq and Syria. As in previous wars, they flew from both ships in the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf as well as land bases in the region. These missions continue today, as the U.S. maintains its presence in the region to defeat ISIL and ensure a favorable post-ISIL state of affairs. Harriers have also participated in less-visible operations in Yemen by bombing al-Qaeda in the country—again emphasizing its flexibility and adaptability to a wide range of operations in diverse environments and levels of warfare.

Currently, the Marine Corps flies ‘Night Attack’ and ‘Plus’ Harriers in five active-duty squadrons plus one training squadron. They are divided among two home bases; Marine Corps Air Stations Yuma, Arizona, and Cherry Point, North Carolina. The Harrier II is in the process of being replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II. Though mired in “development hell,” the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), as the F-35 was conceptually called, promises to be a monumental leap in sophistication, to say nothing of its stealth capability. With V/STOL having proved its worth, the Marines pushed for the development of the B-variant possessing this capability, while also planning to purchase a number of the carrier-capable C-variant as well. Superior in armament, speed, combat radius, and avionics, the Lightning is undoubtedly a far more capable platform. But given difficulties in fielding the F-35, the AV-8B is slated to serve at least several more years—a decade longer than intended.

When the final chapter in the Harrier story is written, the Marines will bid farewell to an underappreciated aircraft that became much better over time and came through when it mattered most.

Edward Chang is a freelance defense, military, and foreign policy writer. His writing has appeared in The National Interest and War Is Boring.

This first appeared last month. 

Caleb Larson

Tanks, Eurasia

Does Moscow have enough time to complete its ambitious plans?

Here's What You Need to Know: These platforms hold much promise and seem to be well designed, but are as of yet untested.

While the T-14 Armata MBT has been widely discussed, it’s parent platform, the Armata Universal Combat Platform has not. Initially lofty claims were made that these vehicles would replace much of Russia’s Soviet-inherited armor, but due to higher than expected production costs, these the number of units produced has remained low. Here are a few of the current or planned variants of the Armata Universal Combat Platform.

T-15 Heavy Infantry Fight Vehicle Armata

The T-15 is an infantry fighting vehicle, designed to keep up with Main Battle Tanks and bring infantry rapidly into the fight. Importantly, the T-15 is designed to be fast, and well protected— the T-15 is readily identified by its steeply sloped frontal and side armor. Unlike the T-14 MBT, the T-15’s engine in located in the front, further protecting its estimated payload of 9 troops.

The T-15 further benefits from the overlapping active and passive protection used on the T-14, making both the T-14 and T-15 tough nuts to crack.

The first and outermost protection is the Afghanit Active Protection System that uses radar to detect and track incoming projectiles. The APS system can pop smoke to create a smokescreen between itself and the incoming projectile, or attempt to shoot the projectile down. If something manages to get past the APS, it would have to contend with Malakhit explosive-reactive armor, essentially blocks of explosives on the outside of the hull that explode outwards to disrupted the path of the projectile or make it detonate before coming into contact with its hull. The hull too is well-protected, a blend of composite armor and steel that is estimated to be equivalent to between 1,200-1,400mm of Rolled Homogenous Armor.

The T-15 is no lightweight when it comes to firepower either, hence the HIFV— Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle designation. It appears there are several remote weapon station variations— one with a respectable 30mm autocannon, coaxial 7.62 PKT machine gun, and four improved Kornet-M antitank missiles. Alternatively, the T-15 can be equipped with a much larger 57mm autocannon  and several antitank guided missile and machine-gun variants. The current direction of IFV and APC development seems to favor the 57mm for its better penetration against light armored targets, better defense against drones, and higher rate of fire.

In keeping the the Soviet high power-to-weight ratio design philosophy, the T-15 is nimble and has a multifuel 1,500hp engine with two externally mounted rear fuel tanks, giving it an impressive 31+ horsepower per ton (by comparison, the M1 Abrams power-to-weight ratio is 24-27hp/ton depending on the variant).

Kurganets-25 IFV/APC

The Kurganets family comes in Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Armored Personnel Carrier variants. First seen during the 2015 Victory Day Parade in Moscow, the Kurganets-25 variants are likely intended to replace the wide variety of aging Soviet APCs and IFVs.

The Kurganets-25 has a much higher stance than its legacy Soviet predecessors it will eventually replace, which are typically much lower-profile. Outwardly, the Kurganets-25 more closely resembles the American M2 Bradley IFV or British Warrior, both of which feature higher up, more upright stances. The more upright Kurganets stance design would theoretically afford greater protection from IEDs due to higher ground clearance and may be a lesson taken from the American experience in the Middle East.

Despite its significantly less powerful 800hp engine— also located in the front of the vehicle— the Kurganets has a high 32hp/ton power-to-wieght ratio due to its lower weight.

It is amphibious as well, with a retractable wavebreaker and two waterjets that are located quite low on the rear of the hull. Although primarily a land power, amphibious capabilities would allow its crew of three plus 9 passengers to access a wider range of areas.

At least one of the Kurganets turret configurations is shared with the T-15, which simplifies manufacturing. The turret in question is an unmanned 30mm turret equipped with Kornet-M antitank missiles and would be used on the IFV variant, while the APC variant is more lightly armed with a 7.62mm remote weapons station, and does not appear to have the Afghanit Active Protection System.

2S35 Koalitsiya SPG

The 2S35 Koalitsiya, also showcased during the 2015 Victory Day Parade, is a Self Propelled Gun (i.e. a mobile artillery) that is designed to replace the  2S19 Msta currently in use with Russian ground forces.

Although the platform is planned to be based on the Armata Universal Combat Platform, the examples seen in 2015 appear to have used the same chassis as the 2S19 Msta it is slated to replace, although the turrets were a new design.

Due to a great amount of automation, the crew has been reduced from 5 for the Msta to a minimal 3 for the Koalitsiya— just a commander, driver, and gunner. This is accomplished through the use of an autoloader, making the turret of the 2S35 longer than that of the Msta.

The main armament is a 152.4mm howitzer, similar the that of the Msta, but featuring a different style muzzle brake to reduce recoil, and internally inclosed recoil dampeners. An export version will apparently come equipped with a 155mm gun to accept more commonly available ammunition types.

As is the Koalitsiya can fire a wide variety of ammunition too, standard high explosive, antitank, jamming ammunition, as well as guided projectiles, such as the Krasnopol fin-stabilized, laser guided artillery shell which coasts to its target using its multiple control surfaces. Maximum range estimates outclass SPGs of both the UK and the United States, possibly a high as 70 kilometers, or just over forty-three miles.

The Koalitsiya is very similar in capabilities to its predecessor— so why bother? Automation. A crew of just three would, in theory, allow for the incredible sixteen+ rounds per minute rate of fire  that the manufacturer claims is possible. If true, this would perhaps be the highest RPM of any self-propelled gun in existence. By comparison, the current American M109 SPG variant has a sustained rate of fire of just 4 rounds per minute, although an upgrade now in the works aims to increase that number to 6-10 rounds per minute, also through the use of an autoloader. A longer barrel is also being considered to walk out the 155mm howitzer’s range, as are rocket assisted projectiles.

An a crew of just three sounds great, but there has been some speculation about what would happen in the case of a misfire, which would probably require opening the gun breech manually, was are there still-unanswered questions about reliability, especially on a such a fresh platform that has not yet proven itself in combat.

Time is Money

Ultimately, these platforms hold much promise and seem to be well designed, but are as of yet untested. Like the T-14 MBT, these Armata Universal Combat Platforms suffer most from significantly lower than planned production numbers. Until they can be produced in higher numbers, cost per unit will remain high, discouraging increased production.

Caleb Larson holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy. He lives in Berlin and writes on U.S. and Russian foreign and defense policy, German politics, and culture.

This article first appeared in October 2019.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

Russia,

From 2015 to 2019, Russia accounted for 21 percent of total arms exports.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Despite the ongoing pandemic, this year's Army 2020 event was not noticeably scaled down from its previous iterations. More than 1,316 exhibitors and just fewer than 12,000 total participants reportedly attended the event, suggesting roughly the same engagement as last year's ARMY 2019. All this suggests that Russia will likely maintain its second-place position in the global arms market and has nowhere to go but up.

The first two decades of the 21st century have been good ones for military contractors. The United States has remained the top arms seller, and in a five-year period from 2015 to 2019 exported military hardware to 96 countries, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The United States accounted for 36 percent of the total global arms exports in that period.

Following in second place was Russia, which accounted for 21 percent of arms exports.

This week, Tass reported that the Russian state arms seller Rosobornexport, which is part of the tech conglomerate Rostec, delivered military hardware worth $180 billion to its foreign customers over the past two decades.

"The company’s financial indicators - the order book and the delivery volume - have risen fivefold since 2000. Over these years, Rosoboronexport has concluded more than 26,000 contracts with partners and delivered products worth a total of over $180 billion to 122 countries of the world," said Rostec CEO Sergei Chemezov via the company's press office.

Rosoboronexport CEO Alexander Mikheyev added that the sales have allowed Russia to maintain its second place on the global arms market. "Our foreign partners have received hardware worth over $85 billion for their Air Forces," he noted. "The deliveries for our customers' air defense and land troops have topped $30 billion for each of these military branches and have amounted to over $28 billion for their Navies."

To drive the sales of its military hardware Russia has increasingly "upped its game" quite literally – and now holds its annual International Army Games. First staged in August 2015, it has involved close to 30 countries taking part in dozens of competitions over two weeks. Organized by the Russian Ministry of Defense, the games feature 31 competitions, most of which involve military hardware. These include a "Tank Biathlon," "Seaborne Assault" and multiple dog and equestrian events. The games are primarily held in Russia at the Alabino training ground and Kubinka airfield just outside Moscow.

Army-2020 International Trade Event

The International Army Games coincide with the annual Army-2020 International Military and Technical Forum, which is essentially a tradeshow for all things Russian military hardware. The most recent event was held this past August, where Russia's state arms sellers offered almost 50 new weapons systems to the world market.

This year's event included demonstrations of the T-14 "Armata" tank; the Su-57 fight-generation fighter jet, which was offered for export for the first time; and the entire family of Kalashnikov new-generation assault rifles.

Mikheyev told Tass in August that Rosoboronexport would also continue its deliveries of Mi-35M, Mi-171E, Mi-171Sh, and Mi-17V-5 helicopters, aircraft engines, Orlan-10 drones, T-90S and T-90SK tanks, BTR-82A armored personnel carriers, BMPT tank support fighting vehicles, Kornet anti-tank missile systems, Repellent anti-drone systems, Tor-M2E surface-to-air missile launchers, Pantsyr-S1 anti-aircraft missile/gun systems, Igla man-portable air defense systems, small arms, ammunition, and other items.

Despite the ongoing pandemic, this year's Army 2020 event was not noticeably scaled down from its previous iterations. More than 1,316 exhibitors and just fewer than 12,000 total participants reportedly attended the event, suggesting roughly the same engagement as last year's ARMY 2019. All this suggests that Russia will likely maintain its second-place position in the global arms market and has nowhere to go but up.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Caleb Larson

military, Americas

The service has a reputation as an efficient and professional fighting force, unhampered by corruption.

Here's What You Need to Know: The Navy enjoys a high degree of trust from the Mexican people.

Compared to their counterparts in the United States, the United States Navy and Marine Corps, the Mexican Navy is small— around sixty-six thousand. The Mexican Naval Infantry, their Marine Corps, is even smaller— numbering only about eighteen thousand.  

In contrast to the United States Marine Corps and the United States Navy, the Mexican Navy’s main missions have typically been coastal protection, which in the United States would fall to the U.S. Coast Guard. Assisting the civilian populace following earthquakes or other natural disasters, defending oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, intercepting boat-born migrants, and drug interdiction through boarding and seizing boats and semi-submersible narco submarines. 

Despite their small size, they are the go-to force when combating the Mexican criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking—widely trusted and seen as more reliable than the Army. They’ve also racked up a string of successes, despite being many times smaller than the Mexican Army. 

An Ossified Army:

For historical reasons, United States troops in Mexico are a taboo topic. An intensely nationalistic streak runs through the Mexican Army. Lingering resentment against the United States runs deep. For this reason, the Mexican Army conducts little training with the United States. 

The Mexican Navy was spared most of the humiliation experienced by the Army during the 1916–1917 American expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa, or during the 1914 American occupation of Mexican port city Veracruz. Being sea-based, the Mexican Navy also did not suffer nearly as many losses as the Army during the Mexican-American war, which was predominantly a land conflict. As a result, Mexico is one of the least connected of the Latin American countries to the United States, militarily speaking. 

Therein lies the reason for the Navy’s reputation as an efficient and professional fighting force, unhampered by deep-rooted corruption endemic in the Mexican government and military. “In the last 10 years, UIN [Mexican Naval Intelligence] has become the most trusted Mexican intelligence service for the DEA and DIA,” explained Dr. Raúl Benitez-Manaut, a professor at the National University of Mexico, and an expert on Mexican security and defense issues. “[The Navy’s] construction was based on a lot of training in the United States, UK, France, and Spain. It has civilian and military intelligence teams unlike the Army, which are only military.” 

Part of their success lies simply in being based at sea, rather than land. Unlike the Mexican Army, Mexican Naval Infantry does not have extensive inland bases, giving them a measure of insulation from cartels—and corruption opportunities. 

Since it is a significantly smaller branch than the Army, the Navy is much more tight-knit. Naval officers have a closer relationship with each other, as most are graduates of Mexico’s naval academy. Closer personal ties help to prevent secrets deals and backdoor cash—subjecting officers to random polygraph tests also helps. 

American Intel, Mexican Manpower:

Despite disagreements over tariffs and trade, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Defense Intelligence Agency have managed to cultivate close ties with Mexico. 

Beginning with the signing of the 2008 Mérida Initiative, a cross-border training and capacity-building cooperation agreement between the United States and Mexico, U.S.-Mexican cooperation increased, with a particular focus on the Mexican Navy and Naval Infantry. In a surprise 2009 statement, the Navy moved to keep all intelligence communications with the United States secret, in an effort to preserve secrecy and prevent potentially dangerous information leaks, further cementing ties, albeit quietly. 

Ties between U.S. intelligence and the Navy splashed across the news in 2012, when a U.S. diplomatic vehicle transporting two CIA officers and a Mexican Navy captain was shot at. The two CIA officers were wounded. Mexican Naval officials downplayed the incident, aware of the fact that cooperation with the United States could harm them at home, where they have much less domestic clout in government than their Army, with whom they compete for funding and resources. 

Fit to Fight:

Since the late 2000s, the Naval Infantry’s mandate has steadily expanded, from exclusively littoral or deep-water operations, to include land missions deep within Mexico, far removed from the blue. 

The Navy enjoys a high degree of trust from the Mexican people. According to a recent poll conducted by the Mexican newspaper El Financiero, the Navy, at 69 percent, is the most trusted organization in Mexico. This trust stems in large part from the steadily rising number of successful land operations they’ve conducted since their expanded responsibilities. 

“One of the Naval Infantry’s most important achievements was the dismantling of the criminal structure of the Los Zetas group, in the state of Veracruz, from 2008 to 2012,” said Dr. Benitez-Manaut. Unlike the Army, the Navy has sought out help from the United States and American Special Forces in honing their capabilities in order to improve the chances of mission success against various cartels and criminal groups. 

In addition to significantly damaging Los Zetas, Naval Infantry was responsible for killing the drug kingpin Arturo Beltrán Leyva in December 2009 in Cuernavaca, less than 50 miles from the capital. While 50 miles is not far removed from Mexico’s largest city, a large Army regional headquarters was even closer—mere blocks away. 

Two hundred Naval Infantry rappelled from helicopters to a luxury mansion where “El Muerte” had been having a party. There, they laid siege to the compound. In the ensuing firefight, six cartel members, along with Beltrán Leyva himself were killed. One Naval Infantry member also died. 

In Los Mochis, a city near the Pacific coast in Sinaloa, the Navy scored their biggest victory to date. The Navy and Naval Infantry’s most notable achievement has been Operation Black Swan in 2016, the operation that resulted in “El Chapo” Guzman’s third and final capture. Black Swan was reportedly conducted in tandem with American Special Forces, which would be evidence of a very high level of cooperation between the United States and Mexican Navy. 

The National Guard— A National Disaster?:

President López Obrador has made the creation of the National Guard, or Guardia Nacional, as it is known in Spanish, the centerpiece of his new security strategy, where pacification in some form, other than military force, is to be used to end the war on drugs. 

“The president decreed the end of the war on drugs on January 31, 2019,” emphasized Dr. Benitez-Manaut. “The Navy was excluded from the main efforts of the President in his new security strategy. Its most important members come from the Army.” Dr. Benitez-Manaut estimates that roughly 80 percent of the members of the National Guard came from the Army, most in leadership positions. Only 8 percent have a naval background. 

This raises serious questions about the future efficacy of the National Guard, especially considering the pervasive corruption question. When based on land, will the Mexican Navy, and Naval Infantry be able to preserve their reputation as a disciplined, effective quick-reaction force? Only time will tell. 

Caleb Larson holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy. He lives in Berlin and writes on U.S. and Russian foreign and defense policy, German politics, and culture.

This article first appeared December 2019.

Image: Reuters

Ali Boyle

Science,

Not just a one-trick pony. 

If you ask people to list the most intelligent animals, they’ll name a few usual suspects. Chimpanzees, dolphins and elephants are often mentioned, as are crows, dogs and occasionally pigs. Horses don’t usually get a look in.

So it might come as a surprise that horses possess an unusual skill, widely considered an indicator of self-awareness. In a recent study, researchers have found horses can recognise their reflections in mirrors.

Animals looking at a mirror for the first time often respond socially – they act as if their reflection is another animal. After a while, this social response tends to subside. Some animals lose interest at this point, but others will go on to explore the mirror and investigate how they can make the reflection move using their own body.

Once animals have stopped responding socially, scientists test their understanding using the “mark test”. The animal is marked in a location they’ll only be able to see in the mirror, perhaps on their forehead or ear. Then scientists watch to see if the animal spends more time touching this body part in front of the mirror when it’s marked than when it isn’t. If it does, this suggests the animal recognises its reflection.

This test was first used to demonstrate self-recognition in chimpanzees in 1970, and scientists have since used versions of the test to look for self-recognition in many other species. The results suggest that self-recognition is rare. Among non-primates, only a few individual animals have passed the mark test, including four Bottlenose dolphins, two Eurasian magpies and an Asian elephant.

But a new study by researchers in Italy has found evidence of self-recognition in horses. Interestingly, the results suggest the ability is not just limited to a few clever individuals. While we should be cautious about generalising from a single study, this suggests self-recognition might exist in horses as a species.

Horse marks

In the study, a large mirror was placed in a horse training arena. Once horses got used to the mirror and stopped responding socially, the researchers used the mark test to look for self-recognition, comparing the horses’ behaviour in two conditions. In one condition, researchers drew a cross shape on both of their cheeks using a colourless ultrasound gel. In the other, they were marked in the same way but with a coloured ultrasound gel.

The important question was whether the horses would be more interested in the visible marks than the invisible ones. And they were. The horses spent around five times longer scratching their faces in front of the mirror when they were visibly marked.

The researchers concluded that they saw the marks in the mirror, understood that those marks were on their own faces, and were trying to remove them. They recognised their reflections.

Self-awareness

The mark test is often described as a test for self-awareness. But whether that’s true is debatable, and depends on what we mean by self-awareness – a tricky philosophical question.

When we say that a person is self-aware, we often mean they have a special insight into their own mind. Perhaps they know what they really want, or they’re aware of their personality flaws.

A few researchers have argued that self-recognition involves having a concept of oneself as a psychological agent with a mind. But that’s not a popular view, because recognising your reflection doesn’t seem to involve thinking about your mental states.

 

Self-recognition seems to have more to do with being aware of our bodies. Of course, even very simple animals are aware of their own bodies, even ones that don’t pass the mark test. But, as I’ve argued in my own research, there are different ways of being aware of one’s body.

Some of our senses give us a special awareness of our bodies “from the inside”. For example, something called proprioception gives us information about the position of our bodies. When proprioception tells you you’re slouching, you don’t have to work out who is slouching – you just know immediately that it’s you.

But mirrors enable us to become aware of our bodies “from the outside”. When we see a body in the mirror, it’s not obvious that the body is ours – we have to work that out. I’ve argued that taking this external, objective perspective on ourselves and our bodies is another kind of self-awareness.

While this new study might not show that horses can reflect on their own minds, it does put them in the small group of animals who can think in an objective way about their own bodies. Perhaps it’s time to revisit our assumptions about horses. They may be much smarter than we think.

Ali Boyle, Research Fellow in Kinds of Intelligence (Philosophy), University of Cambridge

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image: Creative Commons

Steve Weintz

Security, Europe

By the 1950s, the British empire and its wealth were no more, and nuclear weapons were very costly.

Here's What You Need to Remember: An agreement was reached: The United States would sell the United Kingdom Polaris missiles, launch tubes, and fire-control systems, which the British would put aboard British submarines and arm with British warheads.

Mark Twain probably didn’t make the famous quip, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it rhymes,” but the phrase’s sentiment often feels right. In discussing British independence, U.S. nuclear policy, strategic weapons upgrades and a fraying “special relationship,” we could be discussing current events—or those of a half-century ago.

In the late 1950s, Britain’s defense establishment faced some grim realities. The empire and its wealth were no more, and nuclear weapons were very costly. Although UK scientists played major roles in the Manhattan Project, postwar espionage and U.S. mistrust of the British led to a chill in collaboration and to the UK’s drive for an independent nuclear deterrent.

By 1958 the UK possessed manned bombers like the Avro Vulcan and Handley-Page Victor capable of delivering British thermonuclear bombs to the Soviet Union. However, the development of successful surface-to-air missiles (SAM) rendered World War II–style manned bomber fleets vulnerable and eventually obsolete.

Ballistic missiles arrived in the late 1950s, their promise of extreme speed and invulnerability hampered by the challenges of rocket science and concerns about control. Once fired, a land-based missile slips the bonds of its handlers and cannot be recalled. A manned bomber can loiter for hours awaiting the outcome of diplomacy.

By 1958, American defense firms determined that launching a ballistic missile from an aircraft was possible. The concept combined the loiter ability of a manned aircraft with the Sunday punch of an H-bomb on an rocket. New guidance systems employing star tracking to update inertial-guidance modules promised accuracy close to that of land-based ICBMs.

At the same time, Britain’s defense firms struggled with their homegrown ballistic missile project, Blue Streak. (The heirs of Shakespeare adopted the most colorful naming scheme for their nuclear projects: Violet Club, Red Beard, Black Prince.) Blue Streak was behind schedule and over budget, but faced the more daunting problem of geography. The British Isles lack vast sparsely populated areas suitable for missile silos, and such silos would be easy to target.

In May 1959 the U.S. Air Force issued a formal request for Weapon System 138A and selected Douglas Aircraft as prime contractor. The Skybolt, as it was known, was a hefty two-stage solid rocket mounting a one-megaton W-59 warhead. Four Skybolts would fit aboard the wing pylons of a B-52, giving the bomber a tremendous punch.

During wartime, B-52s approaching Soviet airspace would launch their Skybolts hundreds of miles away. Upon release, the big missiles would drop their aerodynamic tail cones and ignite their first stages. After soaring to three hundred miles’ altitude and 1100 miles downrange, the hydrogen bombs would destroy airbases, command centers and radar installations ahead of the U.S. bomber waves.

For the British, the Skybolt seemed ideal: a ballistic missile deterrent that fit within the British Isles, was invulnerable to attack and compatible with existing aircraft. In February 1960 the British cabinet decided to cancel Blue Streak and go all in with the Skybolt. Henceforth the UK’s only nuclear weapons platform would be an American missile.

In March 1960, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan met with President Eisenhower on a state visit; Eisenhower agreed to sell the UK 144 Skybolts, which would be fitted with British warheads. In return, the U.S. Navy got access to Britain’s submarine base at Holy Loch, Scotland, a concession that even now causes heartburn. In May 1961 an RAF Vulcan flew to Santa Monica, California for tests and fitting at Douglas’s facilities.

But in Washington, dark geopolitical storms were brewing. In an eerie echo of today’s concerns about allied nuclear proliferation in Asia, the incoming Kennedy administration viewed the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent with serious misgivings.

Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in particular worried that, should another Suez Crisis occur and Britain face off against the Soviets, the UK’s nuclear forces would not be a credible deterrent. The United States might then be drawn into the conflict in order to back Britain.

Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson drove the point home in a famous speech at West Point: “Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role. The attempt to play a separate power role—that is, a role apart from Europe, a role based on a ‘special relationship’ with the United States . . . is about played out.”

Better, thought the Americans, if British nuclear forces were brought under a “multilateral-force” umbrella, with launch commands vetted by American commanders in “dual-key” authorizations. The British loathed the idea of joining a force that would allow the Germans to possess nuclear weapons.

And the United States now had an alternative to Skybolt, which failed all five of its first test launches. The remarkable success of the Navy’s Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) program ended the need for Skybolt in American eyes. Secretary McNamara informed Whitehall of Skybolt’s cancellation in December 1962, just a few weeks after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

McNamara’s announcement caused a firestorm in the House of Commons. The British felt betrayed and manipulated; the Conservative government took a shellacking. Liberal MP Jo Grimond cried, “Does not this mark the absolute failure of the policy of the independent deterrent? Is it not the case that everybody else in the world knew this, except the Conservative Party in this country?”

But, in one of those oddities that litter the pages of history, the United Kingdom eventually came out ahead. The turnaround began in the Bahamas, where Prime Minister Macmillan and President Kennedy held urgent talks just before Christmas 1962. With more than 30 percent of his own party’s members demanding an independent deterrent, Macmillan reminded Kennedy of the key role Britain played in the Manhattan Project, and refused to give up atomic arms. No multilateral “umbrella” was acceptable.

But out of those talks on the beach in Nassau came an extraordinary agreement—one that cemented the “special relationship” for decades. The United States would sell the United Kingdom Polaris missiles, launch tubes and fire-control systems, which the British would put aboard British submarines and arm with British warheads. Faced with a humiliating unraveling of its closest alliance at the height of the Cold War, the United States offered its crown jewels.

For Kennedy, it was one of the more distressing moments of his presidency. When Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker joined him and Macmillan in Nassau, Kennedy quipped, “There we sat, like three whores at a christening.”

For Britain, it was an almost unbelievable coup—“the bargain of the century,” as one observer called it. Polaris was a far more effective weapons system that Skybolt—its loiter time measured in months rather than hours, and its support needs sustaining the British shipbuilding industry for decades. The Royal Navy eclipsed the RAF and resumed its centuries-old role as the guarantor of the nation’s safety.

The Polaris Sales Agreement proved so successful that it became the model for its successor involving the Trident SLBMs developed in the 1970s. Its impact continues today: both the U.S. and Royal Navies are codeveloping the Common Missile Compartment for both the U.S. Columbia-class and the British Successor-class missile subs.

The Skybolt lives on in a conceptual sort of way, but as a civilian project. Billionaire Paul Allen’s Stratolaunch venture aims to fire Skybolt-sized space boosters from a gigantic aircraft—bigger than the B-52s and Vulcans of yore. Skybolt may yet return in darker guise, as military powers face the same needs that created the air-launched ballistic missile. Skybolt-like missiles would seriously complicate the defense of Guam, for example. . . .

Steve Weintz, a frequent contributor to many publications such as WarIsBoring, is a writer, filmmaker, artist, animator.

This article first appeared last year and is being republished due to reader interest.

Peter Suciu

History,

Take a look at America’s USS Olympia.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Interim efforts have the Olympia looking better than she has in years, while new monitors and sensors can alert the museum’s staff to potential dangers including breaches in the hull. A cofferdam was also instituted to help pump the water out from some particularly weak sections of the hull, and allow it to be dried and repaired.

The oldest steel warship afloat has survived wars, economic downturns and even the harsh passage of time, but there was one battle that the USS Olympia (C-6), flagship of the American Asiatic Fleet during the Spanish-American War (1898), almost was unable to win. The future of the ship remained very much in jeopardy for several years due to the rising costs of maintaining the protected cruiser.

Today the Olympia is at home at the Independence Seaport Museum on the Delaware River near downtown Philadelphia, where it has been since 1957. Interim repairs were made on the ship over the years but following some mismanagement at the museum, there hasn’t been the money for a much needed full restoration. As a result, for a while, it looked like the once majestic vessel would meet a fate that no great warship deserves. She would be sunk and converted to an artificial reef!

The Modernization of the U.S. Navy 

The USS Olympia was launched in 1892 as part of American efforts to modernize its navy and to have a military presence in the Pacific Ocean. The Olympia, under Commodore George Dewey steamed into Manila Bay on May 1, 1898, to engage the Spanish Navy at the start of the Spanish-American War. It was from Olympia’s bridge that Dewey made his famous command to the ship’s captain, “You may fire when you are ready, Gridely.”

Those words might have never have been said and the (now) apparent one-sidedness of the battle not been so had it not been for a sudden American interest in overseas trade—and to a lesser extent an overseas “empire.” William Henry Seward, who had been secretary of state during the American Civil War and early reconstruction, had made the proclamation that “the empire of the seas alone is real empire.”

This was not to be another “Seward’s folly” but rather a prophecy that would very soon come to pass, as America joined the European powers in looking to a newly opened Asia with trade opportunities in mind, while backing it with the very nineteenth-century notion of “gunboat diplomacy.” To pull that off, however, required real gunboats and American’s obsolescent Civil War-era fleet of the 1860s was certainly no match for the modern British or French naval squadrons.  

When President James A. Garfield took office in 1881, the new Secretary of the Navy William H. Hunt found that of the 140 vessels on the active list only fifty-two were actually in an operational state, and only seventeen of those were even iron-hulled ships. In fact, fourteen of those seventeen ships were aging Civil War-style ironclads. Most military historians agree that at the time the United States would have been incapable of fighting a naval war with a European power and probably would have faced difficulties with many of the Latin American powers such as Peru or Chile! If the United States was to be a player in world trade, it needed a world-class navy.

In March 1883, the United States Congress appropriated $1.3 million for the construction of four new vessels known as the “ABCDs”—Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, and Dolphin. Unlike the ironclad warships of the Civil War, these were to be fabricated not from wood and iron but steel. It would truly be a first-rate, modern navy.

The ABCD experiment was followed by the next step in naval modernization, which included the construction of the battleships Texas and Maine; as well as six-light, or so-called “protected,” cruisers. These cruisers would feature an armored deck but still be able to maintain an impressive speed faster than most warships of the day. Protected cruisers actually formed a new category that fell between the unprotected versions of the warships with no armor and those later stylized as “armored cruisers” that were almost as heavily armored as true battleships of the era.

These efforts to modernize the navy paid off. By 1889 the United States Navy ranked second only to Great Britain in terms of warships that could exceed 19-knot speeds while displacing 3,000 tons or more. The British had a total of ten ships and a total of 56,000 tons, while America’s eight ships displaced 32,010 tons. That exceeded the French Navy’s five ships and 24,630 tons and notably Spain’s three ships and 14,400 tons.

More importantly, this was a paradigm shift from the “commerce destroyer” type of ships that were used during the American Civil War to a fleet that had a true offensive spirit.

The Olympia actually began life as Cruiser Number 6, a 20-knot warship that was designed to cost no more than $1,800,000. The newly formed Board on the Design of Ships (originally the “Board on Construction”) first began the design process in 1889, and less than a year later the navy solicited bids for the construction of the ship. Yet it actually found only a single bidder, the Union Iron Works in San Francisco—where it remained the largest ship ever built on the western coast of the United States until it was surpassed by the construction of the battleship Oregon a few years later.

The keel of Cruiser Number 6 was laid in June 1891 and the ship was launched in November 1892. While the primary construction occurred in San Francisco, the heavy armor plate was constructed back east. The Bethlehem Steel Company of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, was tasked to provide the steel but ran into difficulties, so Andrew Carnegie’s Carnegie Steel Company was called in to help provide the material for the ship’s armor.

In December 1891 sea trials were conducted in the Santa Barbara Channel, and in February 1895 the ship was commissioned the USS Olympia and departed the Union Iron Works yard in San Francisco for the last time. It steamed to the U.S. Navy’s Mare Island Naval Shipyard at Vallejo for outfitting.

It was in April 1895 that the ship conducted its first gunnery practice, and sadly it was during this shakedown that a crew member was killed. Coxswain John Jonson lost his life in an accident while firing one of the 5-inch guns. Fortunately, it was not a portent of things to come.

In July 1895 the Olympia was assigned to replace the USS Baltimore as the flagship of the Asiatic Squadron, and it departed in August of that year for Chinese waters. However, due to an outbreak of cholera amongst the crew, the ship was forced to remain in Hawaii until October, and didn’t arrive in Shanghai until November.

She spent three mostly peaceful years in the Far Eastern waters, where Olympia made visits to British Hong Kong, Kobe and Nagasaki in Japan; performed humanitarian service at Woosung in China when two steamers collided and needed assistance; and even headed to Vladivostok in Russia for the coronation celebrations of Czar Nicholas II. During this time the crew’s baseball team even played against a Japanese team, with the Americans coming out on top in this unofficial “world series.”

On January 3, 1898, Commodore George Dewey raised his flag on Olympia and assumed command of the U.S. Navy’s Asiatic Squadron. Dewey, along with the newly assigned Captain Charles Vernon Gridley, was about to sail into history.

From Manila Bay to Philadelphia 

Tensions had been simmering between the United States and Spain for nearly a decade over the latter’s rule of Cuba, which sought independence from the mother country. The USS Maine, which had been sent to Havana, Cuba by President William McKinley to ensure the safety of American citizens and interests, suffered a sudden and massive explosion on February 15, 1898. While McKinley tried to preach patience—especially as the cause of the explosion was not known and there was no evidence of an attack—the news of the event stirred popular opinion, and by the end of April the United States was at war with Spain.

The Olympia had been in Hong Kong preparing for action, and following the declaration of war, the Asiatic Squadron was ordered to Manila. Dewey was given the order to sink or capture the Spanish fleet and open the way for a subsequent invasion by American forces.

Dewey, in command aboard the Olympia, steamed into Manila Bay on May 1, 1898, to face the Spanish flotilla commanded by Rear Admiral Patricio Montojo y Pasarón. Montojo had anchored his ships close to the shore and under the protection of coastal artillery. However, the shore batteries along with the fleet were to prove no match for Dewey’s squadron.

Dewey must have felt confident, for while desks and cabinets were ordered to be removed from the ship—as these could create splinters and endanger the crew should it take a direct hit—the Commodore opted not to have the fine wooden paneling inside the ship removed. The ornate panels were part of the ship’s opulence and thus were spared.

While largely considered a one-sided affair, especially as the Spanish gunners were unprepared for action, the shooting from both sides could best be considered rather poor. At one point Dewey withdrew when it was erroneously reported that the ship was running low on 5-pound shells. When it was discovered that the ship’s ordnance supplies were high the attack continued, and by early afternoon Dewey had virtually destroyed Montojo’s squadron along with the shore batteries, while the American ships took little damage. In total some 160 Spanish sailors died, while just a single American sailor lost his life during the battle—and that was reportedly due to sunstroke.

With Montojo’s fleet sunk or burning, Dewey anchored his squadron in the bay and accepted Manila’s surrender. The news of the successful attack soon spread around the world. Dewey and the Olympia would forever be linked to the attack, which was the first major victory for the American forces in the war and the first victory for the U.S. Navy against a foreign power in decades.

Olympia supported the U.S. Army’s subsequent invasion of the Philippines before it returned to China in May of 1899. Despite its success in battle, the ship was recalled to the United States soon after and headed home via the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea. The ship reached Boston in October 1899 and a month later the ship was decommissioned and placed in reserve. Her career had been colorful yet short-lived.

Olympia’s first “retirement” was also short-lived and the ship returned to duty in January 1902 where it was assigned to the North Atlantic Squadron and served as the flagship of the Caribbean Division. It took part in the intervention of Honduras in the spring of 1903, and in 1906 became a training ship for naval cadets from the United States Naval Academy, and later served as a barracks ship.

During the First World War, the USS Olympia served as the flagship of the U.S. Patrol Force, and later carried an expeditionary force bound for Russia during the Russian Civil War. The ship arrived in Murmansk, Russia and helped deploy the peace-keeping force and then assisted in the occupation of Archangel.

Despite her primary role as a warship, the USS Olympia carried out other duties. At the end of the First World War, the ship traveled to the Black Sea to aid in the return of refugees from the Balkans, and in 1921 brought home the remains of the Unknown Soldier for interment in Arlington National Cemetery.

The ship was decommissioned for the last time in Philadelphia in 1922 and placed on reserve. This time she would never be called back to duty.

Preserving the Olympia

Despite the fact that the Olympia was never to sail again as a warship, she survived the passage of time, and was released to the Cruiser Olympia Association in 1957, which saw her returned to her original 1898 configuration, complete with beautiful wood paneling that had not been removed prior to the Battle of Manila Bay despite the standing orders of the time that the wood splinters could have posed a hazard to the crew inside the ship.

Since 1957 the ship has been part of the Independence Seaport Museum at Penn’s Landing in Philadelphia, and with this transfer, Olympia became the sole survivor of the U.S. naval shipbuilding program from the 1880s and 1890s and the only surviving pre-Dreadnought protected cruiser in the world.  

While the move to Independence Seaport Museum was in part because of the close proximity to the Philadelphia Naval Yard, it should be noted that Olympia also had a connection to Pennsylvania as that is where its armor plating was produced.  

Over the years members of the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps from Villanova University and the University of Pennsylvania acted as a maintenance crew, but the passage of time has not been kind to the once proud warship. It needed more than the Midshipmen could provide. The last of the U.S. Navy’s Spanish-American War fleet, the ship had been in serious need of much more major repairs in recent years. She is a steel-hulled ship and yet has been in the water continuously since 1945. During the time there have been leaks in the hull, many of which have put the future of the ship in jeopardy.

In February 2010, museum officials announced that the cruiser Olympia needed $10 to $20 million for repairs to the hull to prevent her from sinking. When it was determined that the museum might not be able to support the efforts to save her, plans were even considered to scuttle the ship and make her into an artificial reef. However, public outcry helped save the Olympia.

The Seaport Museum held a preservation summit in March 2011 and announced that qualified interested organizations could apply for stewardship of Olympia through a transfer application process vetted by a review panel of historic ship and preservation experts. By 2014, however, the museum did an about-face and decided it would retain the ship and look to efforts to have her restored.

Various groups have stepped up to help raise the money, and interim efforts have been made to keep the ship open to the public while long-term plans are discussed.

Thanks to an outpouring of support the ship was saved. 

In 2014, the museum began a series of interim steps to preserve the ship while efforts for a major refit could be determined. Of course, Mother Nature hasn’t helped matters in recent years including the 2012 “Super Storm Sandy” and the brutal winter of 2013-2014.  

Yet, the interim efforts have the Olympia looking better than she has in years, while new monitors and sensors can alert the museum’s staff to potential dangers including breaches in the hull. A cofferdam was also instituted to help pump the water out from some particularly weak sections of the hull, and allow it to be dried and repaired.

In 2017, the Museum announced that it will embark on a major national fundraising campaign to raise $20 million to drydock the vessel so that the hull can finally be fully repaired.  

USS Olympia Facts: 

Length: 344 Feet  

Beam: 53 feet  

Displacement: 5,870 tons  

Crew: 33 Officers, 396 enlisted men  

Top Speed: 22 knots (25mph)  

Coal Consumption at Top Speed: 633 lbs./minute 

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. This article is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Wikipedia.

Warfare History Network

History, Europe

While Germany was able to defeat Yugoslavia, the opportunity cost of attacking them instead of the Soviets proved devastating. 

Here's What You Need to Remember: The last Yugoslavian casualty of the invasion did not die until 1970. He was the sad, boozebloated shell of the trim young man who, for a brief moment, had been the hope and idol of at least part of his country, King Peter II.

It was the most exciting scene Associated Press correspondent Robert St. John had yet witnessed in the career he had abandoned for five years to farm in New Hampshire then returned to when he sensed that war was coming.

It was March 27, 1941, and Terrazia, the Times Square of Belgrade, capital of what was then Yugoslavia, was packed with crowds jubilant at their country’s sudden stunning, defiance of Adolf Hitler. The mood quickly turned to anger, though, directed at St. John when he began to get down to his job of reporting.

“If I wanted to photograph these scenes I must be a Nazi agent gathering evidence, trying to get onto film the faces of those responsible, so they could be punished in true Nazi style when and if Hitler got this country under his thumb again,” he recalled. “That was the way they seemed to figure it.”

Early in his journalism career in notorious Cicero, Illinois, the town owned by Al Capone, St. John had been set upon by thugs and left for dead in a ditch. Understandably anxious to avoid a repetition, he waved his passport and a small American flag; the fickle crowd turned to ransacking the tourist agency of Hitler’s ally Italy while he took the opportunity to hotfoot it from the square.

Just 10 days later St. John would be back in Terrazia Square to witness a very different, tragic scene before running again—this time right out of the country before one of World War II’s briefest but most brutal blitzkriegs, the effects of which would be felt to the end of the 20th century. Yet another American, a female member of a distinguished political-military family, would also be on the run—not from danger but deliberately heading straight into it with near fatal results.

Yugoslavia was the makeshift attempt after World War I to bring the lands and people of the southeastern Balkans, formerly part of the Austro-Hungarian empire of the Hapsburgs, under the rule of the royal house of Serbia. But, it turned out, union did not mean unity. Almost a dozen nationalities and ethnic groups seethed with resentment, none more so than the largest among them, the Croats.

The political powder keg finally exploded in 1929 when a member of a different national group gunned down three Croatian deputies during a riotous session of Parliament. Arguing he needed to act to prevent civil war and secession, Serbian King Alexander I moved swiftly to establish a dictatorship.

The response by Croatian extremists out for independence was to found a terrorist group, the Ustachi, which engineered the king’s assassination in France in October 1934.

With his heir Peter II just 11, a cousin, Prince Paul, assumed a regency. The result was power without leadership. The prince, a cultured figure with little interest in or much aptitude for politics, made no secret he was just marking time until he could hand responsibility to the king on his 18th birthday in September, 1941.

Unhappily for the prince and tragically for Yugoslavia, Adolf Hitler would not wait. Preparing for his invasion of Greece, Hitler put relentless pressure on the nations of the Balkans to sign his de facto alliance, the Tri-Partite Pact. Robert St. John found himself rushing from capital to capital: “Weeks of ‘Will they? Won’t they?’ Weeks of dope stories based on the slimmest of chancellery gossip. Weeks of writing two or three long dispatches a day trying to keep the story alive while we waited for the inevitable to happen.”

Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania fell into line, and St. John found himself waiting in Belgrade for Yugoslavia’s turn to fold. Also observing events anxiously there was the other American, the woman of distinguished family, determined to do more about events than merely report on them.

Ruth Mitchell was the daughter of a one-time United States Senator from Wisconsin and the sister of General Billy Mitchell. A journalist herself, she accepted the fateful assignment of covering the comic-opera wedding of Albania’s outlandish King Zog I in 1938. “If I had known then what was coming,” she would reflect after the end of her ordeal, “would I have turned back? The answer is a completely certain No!”

Intending to stay just a few days for her story, she instead became so intrigued by Albania that she gave up her career to stay and study it. Driven out by the Italian invasion in early 1939, she then moved to Yugoslavia. There she became enthralled by Serbian history and culture. “The Serbs,” she was to write, “are a very small race; there were before the war not more than eight million of them. But it is a race of strikingly individual character, of extraordinary tenacity of purpose and ideal. That ideal can be expressed in a single word: Freedom.”

With the same uncompromising intensity for a cause and personal flamboyance that had cost brother Billy his military career due to his vocal advocacy of military aviation in the United States, she went so far as to enlist in the legendary Serbian Chetnik militia, complete with fur hat, skull and crossbones emblem, uniform, boots, dagger, and poison pill in case of capture.

“The soul of Serbia on the march! I was a Chetnik—until death,” she exulted.

For his part, though, Robert St. John was skeptical. “It seemed to me that Miss Mitchell was just looking for some Hollywood adventure. Well, I thought, she’ll probably get all she wants before long.”

Foreign Minister Aleksander Cincar-Markovic, then Prime Minister Dragisa Cvetkovic, and finally Prince Paul himself got the feared summons to meet Hitler at Berchtesgaden. “Fear reigned,” Churchill would record. “The Ministers and the leading politicians did not dare to speak their minds. There was one exception. An Air Force general named Simovic represented the nationalist elements among the officer corps of the armed forces. Since December his office had become a clandestine center of opposition to German penetration into the Balkans and to the inertia of the Yugoslav government.”

Serbian public opinion, remembering their support during World War I and afterward for independence, was overwhelmingly pro-British. “I am out of my head!” Prince Paul bewailed under the strain. After a second visit to Hitler and the assurance—for what it was worth— that all that was wanted was his signature, the prince finally sent Prime Minister Cvetkovic and Foreign Minister Cincar-Markovic to sign the Tri-Partite Pact in Vienna on March 25, 1941. To the protesting minister from the United States, Prince Paul replied bitterly, “You big nations are hard. You talk of honor, but you are far away.”

Ruth Mitchell’s Serbian friends visited, anguished and humiliated at what they considered the betrayal of a friend. “We had written our capitulation stories, packed our bags, and argued over where the next crisis was likely to break out,” St. John later wrote. “But then something happened that forced us to unlimber our typewriters, dig copy paper out of our suitcases, and get to work in Belgrade again.”

Prince Paul had warned Hitler that if he signed the pact he would not last another six months in power. He would be off in his calculations by five months and 28 days.

The day after the signing, demonstrations, started by students, erupted on the streets of Belgrade. As he watched, a secret policeman next to St. John remarked, “You newspaper boys better keep your pencils sharp. Things are going to happen in Yugoslavia yet!”

At 2:30 the next morning, St. John was awakened by a phone call from a colleague who informed him that troops and tanks were in the streets. Rushing out, he was soon led under guard to a park to join prostitutes, cleaning women, and other night-crawlers.

“We were watching the unfolding of a first class, full-dress coup d’etat,” he recognized.

Without a shot, government buildings were occupied and ministers arrested at their homes. At the palace, the guards opened the gates to the rebels without resistance while young King Peter II climbed down a drainpipe to join them. Soon, General Simovic, the leader of the revolt, arrived to announce, “Your Majesty, I salute you as King of Yugoslavia. From this moment you will exercise your full sovereign power.”

Prince Paul had been heading to his country estate for a badly needed rest. He would get a longer one. His train was intercepted and rerouted back to Belgrade. Under guard, he was then trooped into the office of the new prime minister, General Simovic, to sign his resignation. He finally reboarded his train with many of his ministers for a new destination, Greece. They were luckier than they knew. Ruth Mitchell had been tipped that the Chetniks were launching their own coup, which intended to leave none of them alive. Foreign Minister Cincar-Markovic was one the few kept on in the new regime, with a personally tragic consequence.

“Few revolutions have gone more smoothly,” Churchill would comment. The king, who had just learned to drive, without guards creeped and beeped his way through the packed, wild, streets.

The euphoria soon wore off as the grim reality of their position began to set in on the Serbs. Just three days after the coup, the new government timidly announced it would abide by the Tri-Partite Pact after all.

It was already too late. Hitler had reacted to the news of the coup with an awesome, eardrum-bursting blast of blind fury, then issued Directive 25 not merely to invade but to completely destroy Yugoslavia. “The tornado is going to burst upon Yugoslavia with breathtaking suddenness,” he vowed.

At the main planning session with high-ranking henchmen, Hitler made another statement that was to doom a country. The officer taking down the minutes felt compelled to underline it: “The beginning of Operation Barbarossa will have to be postponed up to four weeks.”

“Belgrade those last two days of peace was a weird place,” Robert St. John would remember. “A heavy, depressing atmosphere hung over the city.” He went to the train station to see the German legation depart but noticed the military attaché was not there. One of the officials made a remark that left him pondering the meaning. “We’ll be back soon. Probably very soon. And when we come we’ll bring a few souvenirs for you boys.”

St. John would not be there to see them when they returned. He was ordered to report the next day, Palm Sunday, April 6, 1941, at 3 pm for an immediate expulsion order. Back in his hotel for his last night in Yugoslavia, he got a new head scratcher, a call from the Associated Press office in Berlin cryptically suggesting he not go to bed. “We think up here it would be an excellent night for you [to be] listening to the music from the Berlin broadcasting station.”

St. John dutifully kept vigil all night. Finally, at 4 am German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop suddenly came on the air. St. John could not make out what he was shouting about, but Ruth Mitchell, at home, did. “The bombs fall and already now this instant Belgrade is in flames.”

St. John phoned a Yugoslav colleague. “War! War! War is here, St. John,” the Yugoslav responded.

With another American reporter, St. John rushed to the balcony of his hotel room. “We heard the planes before we saw them,” he would later describe. “At first it was just a faint drone. Like a swarm of bees a long way off. Then louder, louder! LOUDER!”

The Yugoslav military attaché in Berlin learned of the sledgehammer blow about to fall but had been, foolishly and fatally, disbelieved in Belgrade. Now more than 300 Luftwaffe aircraft—dive bombers, medium bombers, fighters— were heading in to commence one of the war’s worst terror bombings, codenamed bluntly and brutally Operation Punishment.

St. John and his colleague quickly tore down the stairs as explosions shook the hotel to wait it out in the crowded, panic-filled lobby. At home, Ruth Mitchell was sheltering under the stairwell while bombs were falling scarcely 20 yards away. “The effect was almost inconceivable,” she would write. “It wasn’t the noise or even so much the concussion. It was the perfectly appalling wind that was most terrifying. It drove like something solid through the house: every door that was latched simply burst off its hinges, every pane of glass flew into splinters, the curtains stood straight out into the room and fell back into ribbons.”

The only Yugoslav aircraft to get airborne were, ironically, Messerschmitt Me-109 fighters supplied earlier by Germany. Those not brought down by the far more experienced Luftwaffe sometimes were by mistaken antiaircraft fire from the ground. The Luftwaffe struck around the clock in waves every two to four hours. St. John used one lull to pick his way through the rubble for the U.S. Legation.

He passed a truck stacked with dead, the ramp down with legs sticking out. He went through Terrazia Square, scene of the celebrations he had witnessed then had run from just 10 days before. “Pieces of peoples’ bodies,” he saw. “Jewelry and groceries and clothing out of shop windows. Glass and stone. Chunks of bombs and jagged pieces of tin roofing.”

St. John was certain the Germans had dive bombed the square in revenge for the celebrations there. One body riveted his attention, that of a young woman in an evening dress. “I looked down on her,” he recalled, “and wondered where she had been last night, to still have on an evening dress at five o’clock in the morning. Then I noticed her right leg. Half of it was gone. Sawdust trickled out of the stump. My lovely brunette had been blown out of a shop window.”

St. John finally reached the Legation followed soon after by Ruth Mitchell in her Chetnik uniform. “Where’s your horse? I asked her,” St. John later wrote. “She didn’t laugh.”

She had good reason. Along her own way through the devastation she had come upon a scene “which will haunt me while I live—a gaping hole where an air raid shelter had been and in the trees around legs and arms, many of them so pathetically, tragically, small, dangling from the branches.”

At the time he was to have been expelled, St. John was driving out of Belgrade during another air raid. At his side was a young Serbian girl who asked for his help and proved invaluable in hunting for food and lodging in the days ahead. King Peter was again at the wheel amid the motorized mob. He would never see his capital again.

“The vehicles on that road leading out of Belgrade were a strange sight,” St. John later recorded. “There was everything in the parade that man had ever invented to run on wheels, from the crudest kind of oxcart you ever saw, up to some diplomatic limousines fancy enough for an Indian Maharajah …

“The people we felt really sorry for were those who had everything they owned tied in bundles on the end of sticks they carried over their shoulders. Instead of following the winding highway, these footloose people trudged across the fields because that way was shorter, even though they did have to struggle down through little valleys and then up steep hills. That ribbon of people is still one of the most vivid pictures of the whole war.”

The absence of panic made St. John wonder if Americans would react the same way. He doubted it. “The difference, I suppose,” he reflected, “is that those poor Europeans, and especially people like the Serbs, are so used to war and destruction that they have got resignation in their bones. They just take it. There isn’t much else they can do.”

Ten miles out of the city St. John stopped on a hilltop for a final look. “We could see Belgrade,” he recalled. “Burning Belgrade. Belgrade already well on the way to becoming a city of silent people. Except that a lot of these men and women lying around in the streets were probably still moaning for help and a drink and something to stop the pain.

“We could see the smoke from dozens of fires. And up through the smoke the red flames. It looked as if there was another air raid going on. We were too far away to hear sounds distinctly, but what we did hear was a dull noise that was probably a brew of all the miseries of war mixed together. The noises of planes and guns and sirens and falling buildings.

“But what made us think the raid was going on in earnest again were the little dark dots in the sky and the puffs of white smoke, which we knew came from the shrapnel set up by the ack-ack guns as they tried so hard and generally so futilely to pin one on the bombers.”

In the late afternoon the Germans had been dropping incendiaries to light up the city for the night attacks. Ruth Mitchell had been among those fleeing on foot and from a village had the same, grim, view as St. John. “The great city on the Danube seemed to be one blazing bonfire. Great tongues of fire would burst suddenly, glare fiercely for a while and slowly sink away. Suddenly heavy clouds of smoke coiled upwards, billowing, writhing, twisting into the sky, reflecting on their black bellies the angry glare that must have been visible for hundreds of miles across the huge river and the limitless flat plain.”

When the air assault and slaughter ended after two horrific days, the city of Belgrade was in ruins and an estimated 17,000 were dead. Robert St. John, who had just come for a story, quickly decided it was hopeless to continue reporting so he had to get out of Yugoslavia.

Ruth Mitchell, who had found a cause, elected to stay. “I was full to the brim and running over with fury,” were her feelings. “I swore to myself that while there was breath in my body I would fight to save what those monsters of cruelty would leave of a people whose dream they could never understand.” But her personal crusade was to end before it could get started—and her real ordeal would begin.

Less than an hour after the bombing of Belgrade had commenced, the ground invasion got underway. “It is vital for the blow to fall on Yugoslavia without mercy. There must never again be a Yugoslavia,” Hitler had decreed. Yugoslavia’s neighbors had been bullied under the Tri-Partite Pact to join in or permit passage of German troops. Hungary’s foreign minister, who not long before signed a friendship treaty with Belgrade, alone made an honorable, if futile, protest—he shot himself.

The invasion had been so hastily ordered that some Wehrmacht units were still en route from as far as Germany, or just getting orders. Fully eight divisions would not get there in time, but those that were there proved enough to overwhelm the hapless Yugoslavs.

The German Twelfth Army and 1st Panzer Group attacked from Bulgaria, the German Second Army and Hungarian 3rd Army from Austria, Hungary, and Romania, and finally the Italian 2nd Army from occupied Albania. To meet the multisided onslaught, the Yugoslav Army had almost a million men. It was an army, though, with antiquated weapons, a transport system based on the sluggish oxcart (a Yugoslavian unit required a whole day to cover the distance an equally sized but motorized German one could speed across in an hour), and a defense plan stubbornly based on holding the entire 1,900-mile border instead of withdrawing to more defensible positions as the British had urged.

And just how weak these border defenses turned out to be was glaringly exposed as a German bicycle company jumped the gun and pedaled more than 10 miles before having to fire a shot! However, the greatest weakness of all for the Yugoslavian Army was its other, equally deadly, enemy—the one from within.

“It is a sad fact,” Ruth Mitchell was to bitterly comment, “that Yugoslavia, of all the small nations of Europe, is the only one in which a large portion of her army with its regular officers turned traitor to their oaths.” That portion she was referring to was the Croats, who saw the invasion as an opportunity to throw off Serbian rule and eagerly took with a long-simmering vengeance.

One Croatian officer had defected to the Germans three days before the invasion with Yugoslavia’s air defense plans, enabling the Germans to pinpoint targets, particularly government buildings, in bombing Belgrade, then to locate local airfields to catch and destroy the obsolete Yugoslav air force on the ground. More than 1,600 others, 95 percent of the Croatian officers in the army, also deserted to the Germans while Serbian officers by the hundreds were murdered by their Croatian troops.

Equipment was disabled, communications disrupted, transport diverted. Croatian soldiers would wave on or outright cheer passing German formations. One was notoriously filmed handing over his rifle and, with a stupid grin on his face, offering to shake hands as the German smashed the weapon on the ground and, with obvious disdain, walked away.

From her train window Ruth Mitchell watched Croatians celebrating, with the royal Yugoslav flag hung with contempt upside down. The train repeatedly came under fire from mutineers. “Suddenly a sharp burst of firing. The train jerked to a stop. Our soldiers, yelling raucous curses at the Croats, tramped down the corridor, jumped out and down the embankment. Violent firing continued for 10 or 15 minutes. I could watch the flashes of the guns as our Serbs hunted the traitors among the trees and shrubs along the embankment.”

She got a further glimpse of the hopelessness of Yugoslavia’s position when she met on the train a Montenegrin peasant, gaunt, clothes in tatters, rags around his feet instead of shoes, who told her how he had rushed off from home to fight armed with just a knife. “There were only big iron monsters—tanks in long rows coming down on us. And what use—what use are knives against tanks?” he kept repeating.

The terrain at times was a more stubborn adversary. German armor so rutted the dirt roads that oxen were seized from the Yugoslavs to pull supply vehicles. Skopje fell to the German Twelfth Army on the second day, sealing off the border with Greece. When the news hit Sarajevo, which he had reached, St. John knew what that meant. “Poor Yugoslavia was hemmed in on three sides. The necklace of steel was tightening…. And it meant that all those thousands of people in Sarajevo had only one way out now. The Adriatic!”

Good Friday in Sarajevo was anything but as the city was repeatedly bombed—St. John sadly watching soldiers shoot at the aircraft, then dance around thinking they had driven them off—and diamonds were being offered for gasoline. “It was a battle of wits, with no tricks barred,” St. John would say about the relentless hunting for gas. “Whenever we parked the Chevrolet anywhere, one of us had to stand guard to make sure some unscrupulous or hysterical refugee wouldn’t break the lock on the gas tank and siphon out our last drop of fuel.”

With panic full on, the scenes in Sarajevo’s cafes reminded him “of the New York Stock Exchange on a two-million trading day.” Luckily, St. John remembered an army depot outside of town; the officer in charge, resigned to the Germans coming, let him have all the gasoline he needed.

With the Yugoslav command structure destroyed by design in the bombing of Belgrade and the king and government on the run, Yugoslav forces in the field were leaderless. On his flight for the coast St.John met general staff officers who took their time dining and chatting with him. “Members of the Yugoslav General Staff, on the eve of a great military debacle, were spreading butter on salted biscuits and talking about things that didn’t matter and never had mattered and never would matter,” he would recall with dismay.

The Germans often simply bypassed what pockets of resistance there were. One Yugoslav unit made a desperate nighttime charge out of the woods against a village Germans were billeted in. Grabbing their boots, helmets, and weapons, the Germans, still in their underwear, soon drove off the attackers.

Racing 100 miles a day, the German Second Army rolled into the Croatian capital, Zagreb, on April 11, to be cheered for the first time in the war by a non-German population. The Ustachi declared independence and set up the most crazed, murderous, quisling regime of the war. “In the north of Yugoslavia the front is breaking up with increasing rapidity,” General Franz Halder of the German General Staff, who knew what they were doing, recorded in his diary. “Units are laying down their arms or taking the road to captivity. One cycle company captures a whole [unit] with its staff. An enemy divisional commander radios his superior officer that his men are throwing down their arms and going home.”

The German Twelfth Army had broken through a strong defense line of bunkers and antitank batteries then driven northwest 213 miles through the Morava Valley in seven days toward Belgrade. Other Wehrmacht units were closing in from the southeast, through Serbia where resistance had been the stiffest, and from the west, but all were beaten to the prize by a tiny unit of the hated rival, the Waffen SS.

A motorcycle assault company of the SS Das Reich Divison led by Captain Fritz Klingenberg and attached to the German Second Army reached the opposite, north bank of the Danube on the morning of April 12, 1941. Though the river was flooded, Klingenberg located a motorboat and with a lieutenant, a pair of sergeants, and five privates grandly set off to conquer a capital.

They were nearly swamped, but crossed successfully. On shore they surprised a score of Yugoslav soldiers who, at the sight of them, just dropped their weapons and threw up their hands. When Yugoslav military vehicles arrived shortly afterward, Klingenberg fired on them, boarded, and then headed into the ruined city.

With no one to stop him, he made his way to the wreck that had been the Ministry of War, then drove on, weaving through the rubble, to the German Legation. It was untouched. The Luftwaffe had spared the blocks around it.

The military attaché, Robert St. John noticed, had not left, and Klingenberg ran up the Swastika at 5 pm to proclaim Belgrade’s fall. The mayor appeared two hours later with what little authority he had left to make it official, and the next morning German armor crunched the debris to make it final.

The last major city left, Sarajevo, fell two days later. Cruelly fitting, the Yugoslav government official who surrendered the country had signed Yugoslavia’s first capitulation to Hitler in Vienna just a month before—Foreign Minister Aleksander Cincar-Markovich.

King Peter and Prime Minister Simovic had flown out from one of the few remaining operational airstrips incongruously aboard another German aircraft purchased during better days with Berlin, a Junkers Ju-88. Along the way they ran short on fuel and had to put down at a makeshift British airfield in Greece, with airmen rushing it with pistols in hand.

“And I’m Father Christmas!” an irate British pilot responded when the young king identified himself. “Now come on, get out.”

After the king convinced the British of his identity, Simovic passed out on gin and had to be carried back on board for the flight to Athens. Aboard British aircraft now, this was the beginning for King Peter II of a long, sad road leading to Jerusalem, Cairo, London—and ending on a barstool in Los Angeles.

Robert St. John would make his own perilous escape from Yugoslavia. On a winding mountain road he passed troops building tank traps and reflected on the futility. More hopefully, he saw others, rifles on their shoulders, heading up into the forests to launch what became one of World War II’s epic guerrilla resistance movements.

He delivered his Serbian companion to her family, and his last memory of Yugoslavia was the sight of her in his rear view mirror waving proudly. At the coast he and three other journalists boarded a 24-foot sardine boat to sail down along the coast for Greece.

The only one with any experience at sea, however, was St. John, who had swabbed the deck of a Navy transport during World War I. The voyage soon turned into a desperate struggle against pelting rain and stiff wind, requiring bobbing and constantly bailing.

“Several times the combined force of the wind and waves tore the oars from our hands, and we had to risk drowning to grab them as they flew through the air and landed on the water,” St. John would be lucky to write later. The most dangerous moment came when an Italian warship spotted them and trained its guns. St. John and the others held up an American flag and, after several tense minutes, they were waved on.

After four days they reached the island of Corfu on April 20, 1941. From there St. John reached the Greek mainland only to be caught up in the German blitzkrieg there. After surviving more bombings he squeezed aboard what turned out to be the last British evacuation ship. From there it passed through Crete just before the German invasion, then went on to Alexandria, Cairo, Cape Town, and finally reached New York.

Back home he was advised to go easy on his remarks at an after-dinner lecture and rest in the country to forget and find perspective. “I didn’t make pleasant remarks in that lecture,” he concluded in his account of his experiences in Yugoslavia and Greece, From the Land of Silent People (1942).

“I didn’t go to the country to try to forget. Maybe I don’t have any perspective,” he wrote.

Ruth Mitchell also made her way to the coast, reaching Dubrovnik. Along the way she met British diplomats who offered to evacuate her. “I did think about it all that night…. But, of course, my choice had been made a long time ago, when I became a Chetnik,” she was, like St. John, fortunate to write later.

Italian forces arrived, and she gamely mapped their positions while preparing to rejoin the Chetniks. But the day before she was set to flee, on May 22, 1941, she was arrested by the Gestapo. Sentenced to death as a spy she was imprisoned in Belgrade, then in Germany. In the end she would sail from Lisbon aboard the last shipload of repatriated Americans, to reach New York on June 30, 1942, and later tell of her own eventual time in The Serbs Choose War (1943).

Ruth Mitchell proved luckier than the 6,028 officers and 337,684 soldiers of the Yugoslavian Army who also went, but stayed, in captivity. The poisonous ethnic hatreds that doomed Yugoslavia to swift, ignominious defeat and the decades of suffering that lay ahead were reflected in how fewer than two percent of those prisoners were Croats who refused the Nazis’ offer of release.

The last Yugoslavian casualty of the invasion did not die until 1970. He was the sad, boozebloated shell of the trim young man who, for a brief moment, had been the hope and idol of at least part of his country, King Peter II.

Driven out by Hitler then kept out by Tito, he could never adjust to exile or abandon the fantasy of one day returning to his throne. Fed up with his maudlin self-pity, his wife, a Greek princess, finally gave up on him and left. He ended his days in Los Angeles, destitute, despondent, drinking (the author’s late father, a used car dealer in Long Beach, had a repossessor working for him who knew the king in LA’s dingier establishments). When liver failure finally put him out of his misery at just 47, the King–for-ten-days made a final bit of royal history. He was the only king ever to die in the United States.

To borrow from Churchill, Yugoslavia’s swift surrender proved only the end of the beginning for what lay ahead. As brutal as they were, the German and Italian occupations paled in comparison to the reign of terror the Ustachi in Croatia launched against Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies. When the Communists defeated the Chetniks and took over, a Croat would finally be leader of all of Yugoslavia, but Tito’s rule proved more iron fisted, not least against his own people, than any Serb king could have imagined.

When Communism and the Cold War ended, so did Yugoslavia finally. The breakup, though, soon turned into a nightmare of war, ethnic cleansing, wholesale massacre, and systematic rape culminating in the 1999 NATO bombing campaign.

It would not be until 2000, when the Serbian strongman at the bottom of the turmoil, Slobodan Milosevic, was voted from office by his war-weary people and died in United Nations custody while being tried as a war criminal, did the ordeal that started that Palm Sunday finally come to an end. Ironically, separated, the parts of what became generically referred to as the former Yugoslavia became what they could never be as a whole—prosperous and democratic.

Ironically, in his furious determination to obliterate Yugoslavia, Hitler very likely brought about his own self-destruction. The cost of the invasion did, at the moment, seem cheap—151 dead, 392 wounded, 15 missing, but, as the well-known chronicler of the Third Reich’s rise and fall, William L. Shirer, noted, the real price was paid later. “The postponement of the attack on Russia in order that the Nazi warlord might vent his personal spite against a small Balkan country which had dared to defy him was probably the most single catastrophic decision in Hitler’s career.

“It is hardly saying too much to say that in making it that March afternoon in the Chancellery in Berlin during a moment of convulsive rage he tossed away his golden opportunity to win the war and to make the Third Reich, which he had created with such stunning if barbarous genius, the greatest empire in German history and himself the master of Europe.

“Field Marshal von Brauchitsch, the Commander of the German Army, and General Halder, the gifted Chief of the General Staff, were to recall it with deep bitterness but also with more understanding of the consequences than they showed at the moment of its making, when later the deep snow and subzero temperatures of Russia hit them three or four weeks short of what they thought they needed for final victory. Forever afterward they and their fellow generals would blame that hasty, ill-advised decision of a vain and infuriated man for all the disasters that ensued.”

Author John W. Osborn, Jr. is a resident of Laguna Niguel, California. He has previously written for WWII History on numerous topics such as the British Long Range Desert Group and Polish General Wladislaw Anders.

This article first appeared on the Warfare History Network.

Image: Reuters