What are you reading?

[Max the Mad Russian]

Check the link below for more Mk13 nerdery:

Well, thanks again, but it doesn't shed the light for what was the reason to make it so short, wide-body and slow - I mean then, in 1931-32. Maybe it was initially designed for VP squadrons and contemporary flying boats, with their primary targets being Japanese merchant vessels rather than combat ships, and only later it was adopted for carrier-borne VTs? Douglas TBD could carry either old aerial Mk-7 or Mk-13, while Grumman TBF's bomb bay was too short to put there anything except Mk-13, that is why Brits didn't use the Lend-Leased Avengers as torpedo-bombers - their own main aerial torpedo MkXII was too long to be put there...
Maybe you know where I can read more detailed story of Mk-13?

 

[Gatordev]

Don't forget about the Mk 6 torpedo, which was capable of atmospheric reentry with apparently absolutely no damage.

 

[Pags]

Well, thanks again, but it doesn't shed the light for what was the reason to make it so short, wide-body and slow - I mean then, in 1931-32. Maybe it was initially designed for VP squadrons and contemporary flying boats, with their primary targets being Japanese merchant vessels rather than combat ships, and only later it was adopted for carrier-borne VTs? Douglas TBD could carry either old aerial Mk-7 or Mk-13, while Grumman TBF's bomb bay was too short to put there anything except Mk-13, that is why Brits didn't use the Lend-Leased Avengers as torpedo-bombers - their own main aerial torpedo MkXII was too long to be put there...
Maybe you know where I can read more detailed story of Mk-13?

I have no idea why the Mk13 was made the way it was. I had happened across the article I linked to before and thought the engineering process used to make a terrible weapon into a good one were interesting. I don't know why BuOrd used the form factor they did. Maybe it had to do with available clearance on aircraft at the time of design. The Wikipedia article (never wrong!) says the initial design work was started in 1925; aircraft of that period were two generations behind the TBF of WWII. Same thought for the speed; it might have been a limit of the state of the art at the time, a compromise to meet other requirements, or a different power plant then other torpedoes. Other torps used oxygen propulsion (long lance) or hydrogen peroxide (German) that provided great performance but with increased safety risks due to the volatility of the fuel. Also not familiar enough with the the tactics to know if a faster torpedo would have been better. Multi axis attacks (anvil) were used to negate maneuvering targets and different geometries were used to shorten run times (don't shoot abaft the beam).

 

[Pags]

Don't forget about the Mk 6 torpedo, which was capable of atmospheric reentry with apparently absolutely no damage.

?

 

[Recovering LSO]

Don't forget about the Mk 6 torpedo, which was capable of atmospheric reentry with apparently absolutely no damage.

These?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Other torps used oxygen propulsion (long lance) or hydrogen peroxide (German) that provided great performance but with increased safety risks due to the volatility of the fuel

Yes but others and more successful aerial torpedoes - noted Brit MkXII and Japanese Type 91 (which looks like a clone of MkXII) - were of the same type of engine and fuel, though notably faster (40-42 knots). The common German aerial torpedo, F5b, also with wet heater, had moderate performance (also 33-35 knots) but being used an mass (simultaneous drop of 12-40 torpedoes, so-called Das Golden Zange attack) against slow and hulky convoys sometimes had very good outcomes (13th Nov 1942, attacking PQ-18 convoy - 36 torpedoes were dropped within a single minute, and eight cargo ships received hits). Mk-13 had slow speed but, uncommon for aerial torpedoes family, considerably greater range. Why? Soviet aerial torpedo 45-36AN, while able to run on 40 knots, had almost the same range, too - about 5 nm. But this Russian device is a derivative from Italian 18F design of a general torpedo for surface ships. Could we consider Mk-13 had dual platforms from the scratch - aircraft and PT-boats, for example?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

They gave me a Seafire, a story of typical "hostilities only" RNVR British pilot, who was appointed with permanent commission in Royal Navy after the war to become the test pilot.
A lot of details about British carrier aviation and a lot of fun, not least in a kind of British humor:

 

[Uncle Fester]

These?

Multiple realities
(covers information from several alternate timelines)

I feel this should be the standard Internet disclaimer.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Flying Low, from one of the first degree-less NAVCADs, retired as a full Captain. While it contains the memories about Panthers, Fury Bravos and Skyhawks, this is essentially another Intruder-related book - seems there isn't a single guy from medium attack community who doesn't love this airplane. Yet pretty good Vietnam pictures and out-f**king-standing, true leadership from author as an attack squadron's CO on a meeting in ready room. Quote:
-----
“Gents, you have a job and a half to do in the air. You don’t have enough time to plan and fly one or two missions a day and still run your shop. Let the warrant officers and the chiefs run it.”

“You mean you don’t want us to do our jobs?”

“Not exactly. I want you to do the administrative bullshit that you always handle, but leave the hour-by-hour details to the warrants. If they want to change work assignments, let them. If they want to repair 403 before they start on 407, let them. Let them pick the priorities.”

“That seems like you want us to turn the warrant officers and the chiefs loose and get out of their way.”

“Damn good idea,” I said. “Wish I’d thought of it.”

“Sounds like we’re about to place a hell of a load on our warrants.”

“They’ll love it,” I said.

And they did. We broke all prior records for full-system A-6 availability on a cruise."
-----
So how many warrant officers were there in average A-6 squadron in 1970s?

 

[Flash]

Pretty good article about the USAF's push to decorate an airman with the Medal of Honor for actions in Afghansitan back in March 2002. He received the Air Force Cross but the USAF has used new technology to analyze footage of the fight to back up the upgrade of the medal to the Medal of Honor.

While I think it is admirable they are going so far to get him the Medal of Honor from what little they describe in the article I am not sure the new analysis is reliable enough to sustain the upgrade of the medal.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Ah... Anaconda... Wonder how Army approved SEALs as well as USAF special ops people to participate at all - it was, AFAIK, the purely ARMY planning of the suppression of that fighters (not less than 20% of those fucking monkeys there were Chechens, the Russian citizens, who were on regrouping in Afghan).
Interesting passage about "direct landing vs hiking up" to the observation point, though. Could enlisted man, even the most respected and battle-hardened senior chief SEAL, have been ordered to make the full planning of that part of operation by himself, without supervision of some SpecOps officer?

 

[nittany03]

We are not having a conversation of US SOF TTPs here. On any level. It will be deleted. Period.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Ok, sorry. Not familiar with US security terms, my apologies.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Any recommendations for a book on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal? I've looked around Amazon but many look like superficial "tabloid-esque" pieces of voyeurism. If you know of anything that dives a little deeper into training, leadership, investigation(s), etc, please let me know.

I just finished this book last night - tragically/disgustingly fascinating. There's a lot to unpack and a lot that one could take away from this one.

 

[danpass]

Assignment Pentagon: How to Excel in a Bureaucracy, Fourth Edition, Revised

When General Smith wrote the first version of this book, he hoped to produce a volume that would help the newcomer to "the Building." His secondary goal was to assist those who would work with, but not in, the Pentagon. As a tertiary goal, he hoped this book would help those who studied national security issue in war and staff colleges as well as those taking courses in defense policy and national security affairs at the undergraduate and graduate levels in colleges and universities.