Slashdot Mirror
How Nukes Were Almost Launched From Okinawa During Cuban Missile Crisis (thebulletin.org)
Lasrick writes: Aaron Tovish is calling on the U.S. government to release documents pertaining to one of the scarier incidents of the Cuban Missile Crisis. According to an Air Force airman, the system designed to prevent an accidental launch of nuclear weapons failed as the codes ordering a launch were given in each of the three transmissions required for a launch: "By Bordne's account, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Air Force crews on Okinawa were ordered to launch 32 missiles, each carrying a large nuclear warhead. Only caution and the common sense and decisive action of the line personnel receiving those orders prevented the launches -- and averted the nuclear war that most likely would have ensued."
Considering the number of incidents in the Cold War where a nuclear war was averted by cool heads, it makes me glad (as General Baringer would say) that our boys were in those silos, instead of a computer.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Nothing can replace the wisdom or common sense of a discerning and skeptical human being.
Is that the only thing evidence we have to go on here? He could be senile, crazy, or just making shit up.
"...averted the nuclear war that most likely would have ensued."
I should think firing 32 nuclear missiles is the very definition of nuclear war.
It is encouraging, the number of times we read about launch orders being given and the people manning the silos or submarines disobeying those orders, only to find out later that a mistake had happened to generate the order.
That is a bright spot in humanity's hope for survival.
http://www.amazon.com/Command-...
A fun history of one particularly disturbing incident where a single dropped tool almost caused a huge explosion and also some other fun anecdotes as well. When you think about how true the phrase "to err is human" is, you have wonder why they ever thought building these WMDs was ever a good idea in the first place. Scary stuff.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Nobody's saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but let's not throw around the term nuclear war so lightly.
That seems like a reasonable deterrent. How else would we stop the Cuban software?
-Dave
Sadly I have absolutely no faith in Dick and Shrub to remain cool if placed in the same situation, and these loops had their fingers on the button.
That is all.
Damn near WAS all...thank $DEITY CPT Bassett had a good head on his shoulders.
From the first Fallout game :
In 2077, the storm of world war had come again. In two brief hours, most of the planet was reduced to cinders. And from the ashes of nuclear devastation, a new civilization would struggle to arise.
A few were able to reach the relative safety of the large underground Vaults. Your family was part of that group that entered Vault Thirteen. Imprisoned safely behind the large Vault door, under a mountain of stone, a generation has lived without knowledge of the outside world.
So far, it have been mostly what I have imagine the world during a nuclear conflict, but how will it have turned out exactly? Is there a more thoughtful research on the subject? I've found a few text with a quick google search but none really catches my eyes so far.
Elok
As far as Japan and the end of WWII is concerned, we should have forgone the nukes, invaded and if it caused hundreds of thousands of deaths
You first.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Suddenly having a prime minister who'd at least hesitate at the height of a crisis before nuking a few million civilians doesn't sound like such a bad idea...
http://blogs.new.spectator.co....
there is a procedure to follow and it wasn't followed in this case. which is why the missiles weren't launched
NATO's military might dwarfs Russia's. Hell, NATO's military might dwarfs the rest of the world's combined military capability. Yes, Putin could do a helluva lot of damage to NATO's member states if he wanted, but if he ever did, we'd end up with a modern version of the Roman salting of the fields of Carthage would bring Russia so low it's hard to see how it would ever rise again.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Anecdotes like this practically answer the Fermi Paradox. We don't meet advanced civilizations because those civilizations destroy themselves fairly quickly. Once you have the technology to destroy your civilization, you only have to fuck up once to do it.
There have been several near-misses to nuclear Armageddon on both sides of the Atlantic. We got real lucky.
With that many near misses, we statistically should not be here*. Common sense is usually hit and miss during crisis.
Let's say common sense kicks in about half the time, which is typical of humans in crisis. We've had roughly 7 near misses. 0.5 to the 7th power is about 0.008, which is less than 1 percent. (Remember, it takes only one instance out of those 7 to finish us.)
I wonder if multi-verses are not at play: only "forked" realities in which we got "lucky" have us in it to ponder our luck. 99% of the forks got fried.
* At least not in large numbers. A few lucky stragglers perhaps could survive an all-out nuclear war. But most likely the vast majority of us would not be here reading this if launched.
Table-ized A.I.
Russia has Tzar Bomba. NATO should think twice before trying anything stupid.
So, we have: a single-sourced story from a news source that has in the past been an advocate of the removal of the U.S. base from Okinawa, an anonymous verification source (and thus unable to be contacted for independent verification), and a reprinting of the story by the BoAS, which has long changed its tune to keep itself as being seen as relevant.
I'm surprised that this story was even allowed to be printed, as single-sourced stories are usually laughed out of the editors' offices. Even in this case, if you allow 2 sources, usually you'd need hard evidence, not just hearsay.
How does the expression go? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? I don't see anything extraordinary here.
NATO couldn't find Serbia's armoured forces in Kosovo. If it comes to war with Russia, half of Europe will panic and desert the alliance anyway.
Is slashdot going to have a monthly column entitled one man vs the apocalypse? I mean do we need a near nuclear holocaust story every month?
Considering the number of incidents in the Cold War where a nuclear war was averted by cool heads, it makes me glad (as General Baringer would say) that our boys were in those silos, instead of a computer.
In a somewhat tangential note, the hotter heads frightened the cooler heads into making a deal. Castro basically told Khrushchev to go nuclear if Cuba is invaded by the US. Supposedly Castro's willingness to sacrifice his own country and millions around the globe to defend the global Communist movement frightened Khrushchev, convincing him Castro was nuts. Not so coincidentally Khrushchev and Kennedy reached a deal immediately after Khrushchev received Castro's letter.
Now sure the military has a great track record of screw ups and what could go wrong doing so.
But this one sounds like it has grown over time, like the stereotypical fish that got away story.
As far as Japan and the end of WWII is concerned, we should have forgone the nukes, invaded and if it caused hundreds of thousands of deaths on either side, then so be it.
Actually the invasion was expected to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths on the US side and millions of deaths on the Japanese side (weapons + disease + starvation + ...).
There weren't any nuclear missile silos in Okinawa
NATO couldn't find Serbia's armoured forces in Kosovo. If it comes to war with Russia, half of Europe will panic and desert the alliance anyway.
Oh please, they where not really looking. Everybody knew what the Rules of Engagement where, so Serbia just put their stuff where NATO wasn't going to look. Not to mention that it's likely *everybody* knew where the stuff was and that NATO wouldn't touch it where it sat. Everybody was just sitting on their hands telling themselves that it wasn't worth poking the bear and risking an all out conflict over Kosovo.
If the gloves come off and NATO actually *does* something more than give lip service to containing Russia's advance, very bad things will happen to Russia. Everybody knows that going nuclear in your own back yard is basically shooting your self in the foot, so NATO it is going to take something serious to make NATO take a stand, something serious enough to make the mess of a nuclear engagement with Russia the lessor of two evils. So shooting down civilian airliners and invading parts of NATO countries just don't cut it.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You mean 000-00000-0000-00000?
Pfft. Almost.
Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and atom bombs.
Oh wait.
No, not four. Childbearing is optimum around 17...18. And a lot of it happens around then (and some even earlier.) A family can build four generations in 60 years, or 70. The term "generations" isn't some fixed number. It's great grandparents, grandparents, parents, and kids. That's four generations on the face of the planet. 70 years is also, somewhat interestingly to me, about an average lifespan.
Not Kosovo, Bosnia. The the Serbs folded real quick once NATO decided to stop playing hit the weasel & destroy Serbia's means of supporting it's war.
Anyway, rules avoiding civilian casualties are abandoned in "Real Wars".
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Nuclear weapons are the most profoundly successful peacemaker in history.
After seeing movies like "War Games" and "Testament", I spent a good portion of my childhood in 1980's America trying to wrap my mind around such a profoundly "peaceful" situation. As a boy I somehow got ahold of an account of the horrors suffered by the civilians targeted by the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombs. I decided very early on that there was something profoundly & utterly insane about the M.A.D. status quo, and adults' tacit acceptance of it.
But people like you who hold up Mutually Assured Mass Murder as some sort of virtue...this goes beyond notions like peer pressure, consensus reality, or trying not to rock the boat and look like an anti-nuclear wingnut. Profound Stockholm Syndrome might describe it, perhaps the genes for capture bonding are strong in your lineage, or is there something more?
I prefer to think of it as the blackest, purest form of evil our species can practice. A technically & philosophically sophisticated evil, capable of profound ethical truths and great good, while simultaneously ignoring incredible contradictions and unanswered questions that are *easily* within its grasp...indeed, believing confident dismissal of such questions to be a virtue. A naïve, banal, dependable sort of evil perhaps within all of us, that allows a person to hug their children in the morning, got to work, and proudly spend the day building gas chambers for a well-spoken madman. A species-killing evil that has now built a planetary suicide device, and dutifully and unquestioningly handed the keys to a cadre of sociopaths, a power-mad gang of lawyers with nukes.
My God, what have we done?
That is what Napoleon thought when he burned Moscow. ... and as they have nukes too ...
That is what Hitler thought when he tried to conquer Stalingrad.
Without nukes you don't beat the Russians on their own territory
If the Russians would attack west Europe, they would get a bloody nose, likely by the sacrifice of Germany, Poland and the baltic nations. Perhaps even France and Denmark.
However underestimating the capabilities of the Russian Military is plain dumb. It is only american magazines where an american fighter is superior to a Russian one ... every one (and that includes all americans who write on the net about it) who ever flew a Su or a Mig prefers that greatly over an F16 or F18 or F15. Yeah, we have now the stealth fighters guided by AWACS etc. just wonder how long an AWACS actually will last if it is not over Iraq but over an close to first world power.
How long do you want to take the invasion and destruction of Russia? As soon as you have winter in the areas you have conquered, none of the american planes is flying anymore. I would not bet on your tanks either.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I wonder if multi-verses are not at play: only "forked" realities in which we got "lucky" have us in it to ponder our luck. 99% of the forks got fried.
That's an interesting application of the Anthropic Principle.
One of the near-misses I read about was the commissioning of the DEW Line over-the-horizon early-warning radar.
There was some concern that the Russians might stage a pre-emptive strike just before it went into service. So the US put it into service a few days ahead of the announced date, disguised as a late-stage test of the equipment. The military and administration were prepared to react to the expected possible strike.
Some hours after the system went live it started showing volleys of missiles rising. Oops! Was it the feared attack? Was it time to retaliate, before the soviet missiles could wipe out that capability, leaving Russia in charge of a half-charred planet?
There was only one fly in the ointment: The system did not identify expected impact locations for the missiles. Failure of the computation, or a sign that this might be an illusion? (Remember this was 1957. Cray's first mainframe computer for CDC, with substantially less than 1 megaflop, was still three years in the future.)
The commander in charge smelled a rat, and recommended that the US NOT stage a "before their missiles wipe out most of our stuff" retaliatory strike, at least until we had other confirmation. The Russians actually WEREN'T attacking, so war-by-mistake was averted.
It turns out that the radars had seen Moonrise. The moon was big enough to be visible by the sensitive over-the-horizon radars. But the round trip was long enough that several pulses had gone out meanwhile. The radar paired the returns with later pulses - and between that, the size of the moon, and other details came up with a fleet of targets. The imaginary targets were not on a ballistic trajectory (it looked like a "forced orbit" - orbiting with acceleration still occuring, rather than a ballistic trajectory - and even if you assume the "engine" would cut off right now and it went ballistic, the illusion wouldn't hit the planet). So the failure to identify expected impact locations was correct. Somehow, previous tests hadn't happened to occur at the right time of day for this effect to be noticed.
The system was modified to reject moonrise, went into service, and the Cold War stayed cold until it ended.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The summary should probably mention the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists since that's where the link goes and that's who is making the claim.
*had*
Expected by those who wanted to test the bombs. Japan was on the brink of surrender, and it's people were beginning to starve. Despite the propaganda, no country fights to the last man.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You all realize this is from a commits anti-america hate group. The stories a mix of half truths to convince the dolts.
The Green Peace FOIA's that I worked on for release while in the Air Force stationed at ACC during the 90's are a better source of information.
Yee haw
Napoleon can be chalked up as a failure of logistics. The doctrine of the time was that your armies relied heavily on plundered resources for their sustenance. That doctrine was especially important given the distances involved in invading Russia. The Russians denied Napoleon that strategy and it all went south from there.
Hitler was stopped in Russia because Stalin basically decided to just poor conscripts into the fight as long as it took to choke the German offensive. If Hitler had actually been able to bring all of his might to that fight he might have won anyways, as it was his armies were split fighting and holding conquered ground all over Europe and Africa.
If NATO went after Russia, instead of having the army of any one single nation to fight, they'd have several major nations and many smaller ones to fend off. Those nations would likely not have large portions of their military busy elsewhere. And they'd have the support of modern logistics where you don't have to worry about salting the earth strategies.
Air power would likely be a huge factor, and I don't know who would win on that front initially. But I'm pretty sure that NATO would have the better ability to sustain that kind of war and eventually win through attrition in the same way the Russians won at Stalingrad. Stealth fighters from my understanding are essentially a dead end though. Drones in an Anti Aircraft role would probably be more important.
I'm not sure how affected by cold temperatures tanks and other ground level stuff would be, the USA has been building and testing equipment for that purpose in Alaska for decades though. Aircraft would likely not be affected at all though, they are designed to function at such an altitude that the ground temps aren't really important. And it's not like those aircraft would be based out of conquered Russian territory anyways, they'd be flying sorties in from well behind any lines of battle.
Anyways, it's not like this is a situation unique to Russia, they just have a history of resisting invasion. The USA would face and ultimately crumble under the same kind of situation where it to face a significant portion of the industrialized world coming after it with torches and pitchforks. That is after all why the USA went all out in WW2 once the realization was made that we couldn't hope to win/survive by being isolationists.
Why you don't follow orders blindly. Thanks buddy
They thought it was a good idea because Hitler, and because Tojo. Read your history. I know it's all cool and stuff to be completely ignorant of history and cry in your soymilk about anything nuclear, but there actually were some very good reasons to develop these, followed by very good reasons to drop them on the Japanese, followed by very good reasons to build up an arsenal of them.
Would the world be, have been, better off without war and the various weapons of war? Sure. But see, that's not an option unless everyone is willing to play that way. We're nowhere near that yet, nor have we ever been near that.
how is it a failure of the failsafe for accidental launch? Sounds like they really did want to launch, and those clowns at Okinawa defied them and should have been courtmarshalled.
Expected by those who wanted to test the bombs. Japan was on the brink of surrender, and it's people were beginning to starve. Despite the propaganda, no country fights to the last man.
The massive civilian suicides on Okinawa in the face of defeat, and the repeated suicidal attacks by the military in the face of defeat and throughout the war, indicate that things were not that simple.
Surrender was only a consideration by *some* diplomats and politicians, and they kept their opinions very close and lived in fear of assassination by the militarists. Even the emperor's surrender announcement, which was an absolute game changer, was nearly prevented as military units mutinied and attacked the imperial palace in an attempt to remove the emperor from the corrupting influence of "cowards and traitors" that were misleading him. They nearly found and would have destroyed the emperor's surrender recording. The vast majority of the military was ready to face US landings and to oppose them and to have massive assistance from civilians to resists US forces as they moved inland. Even the atomic bombings did little to change this. The military was telling civilians how wearing white sheets helped protect them from the flash of the new atomic bombs. I believe some Japanese war plans called for the use of chemical weapons on US landing forces.
Surrender was an option to a fearful minority in government. Only a fluke of history, the emperor's decision saw their path adopted. Given the actual evidence available to the US, invasion or blockade were the only two likely non-atomic paths, either risking millions of civilians. Note that the firebombing would have continued during a blockade and such firebombing inflicted far more casualties than the atomic bombings.
Your basic premise fails due to its assumption of rational actors. The militarists of imperial japan were inherently irrational. As navy minister Yamamoto tried to argue against the militarists (primary from the army) with respect to war with the US. He tried to argue manpower and industrial production. He told his subordinates that all his facts and figures were dismissed by the militarists as irrelevant, that the "superior fighting spirit" of the japanese soldier will assure ultimate victory. Various assassination attempts were made on Yamamoto for his opposition to alliance with Germany and war with the US. He was actually forced to move his office from town to a battleship. Given the eventual attack on the imperial palace when surrender rumors began to spread it seems little had changed, rational thinking was still not being used. Except for one single person that even the militarists would not oppose, the emperor. Again, surrender was more a lucky fluke of history than any rational working of a government.
1) He made us stupid 2) We have nukes 3) We're still there ERGO God exists ... Frankly, I almost wish I believed in that.
But the reason of 3) is most probably that the redesigning of Hell's gates is still not finished. Still not wide enough for a massive influx.
Truman already had knowledge of intercepted messages indicating that the Japanese were prepared to surrender. Dropping the bombs on two civilian populations was wholly unnecessary.
Japan was **not** prepared to surrender. The militarists thought that by inflicting severe casualties upon the US they could force negotiations, an armistice - a cease fire, not a surrender. They wanted to remain in power, have no limitations on their military size and capability, have no occupation and possibly hold on to some of their conquered territory.
When surrender rumors began military units mutinied and attacked the imperial palace in an attempt to remove the emperor from the corrupting influence of "cowards and traitors" that were misleading him. They nearly found and would have destroyed the emperor's surrender recording. The vast majority of the military was ready to face US landings and to oppose them and to have massive assistance from civilians to resists US forces as they moved inland. Even the atomic bombings did little to change this. The military was telling civilians how wearing white sheets helped protect them from the flash of the new atomic bombs. I believe some Japanese war plans called for the use of chemical weapons on US landing forces.
Surrender was an option to a fearful minority in government, diplomats and politicians who kept their opinions very close and lived in fear of assassination by the militarists. Only a fluke of history, the emperor's decision saw their path adopted. Given the actual evidence available to the US, invasion or blockade were the only two likely non-atomic paths, either risking millions of civilians. Note that the firebombing would have continued during a blockade and such firebombing inflicted far more casualties than the atomic bombings.
Aircraft would likely not be affected at all though, they are designed to function at such an altitude that the ground temps aren't really important.
How do you start an F15 that was parkd on an air field at -35degrees centigrade over night and is covered by 50cm snow?
Simple answer: you don't park it on an airfield but in a heated hall.
Complex answer: you cant start it. More complex answer: you have a special truck heating it and powering it, so you an "probably" start it.
And it's not like those aircraft would be based out of conquered Russian territory anyways, they'd be flying sorties in from well behind any lines of battle.
The strike range of a modern fighter is how far? 2000km? Not likely. Ah, I just found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... so the strike range is indeed close to 2000km.
How far is Moscow from Warschau? Roughly 1300km.
Most certainly, if you want to "destroy" Russia in a conventional war you are building up new bases or use conquered bases while you move east ... or if you attack via Japan/Alaska, while you move west.
The USA would face and ultimately crumble under the same kind of situation where it to face a significant portion of the industrialized world coming after it with torches and pitchforks.
Not sure if that was on /. or somewhere else, but the days after 9/11 it was argued that the USA had just 8 fighter planes ready to defend the air space. More likely 8 wings, but well ... thinking that a country like the USA as big as it is only has a couple of dozens fighters over their own territory because the rest is (pun intended) terrorizing the rest of the world ...
Bottom line discussions like this are mood anyway. Don't remember why I entered it :D it is like the stupid stuff on youtube: who would win a fight if Jet Lee and Jackie Chan would enter the ring. Funnily most posters believe Jet Lee ... and most posters indeed think that Jackie Chan is just a talented actor ... albeit it is so easy to google up his martial arts history ...
My best bet is: they are both Chinese, they would stage it and bet accordingly, haha. And then they would repeat that in a revenge fight.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
FTFY.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Amazing we didn't kill ourselves
I wish it were appropriate to use past tense here. Unfortunately, the risk of a launch that is accidental or based on misinterpreted data, and sparks a major nuclear exchange, is about as high today as it ever was.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
As soon as you have winter in the areas you have conquered, none of the american planes is flying anymore. I would not bet on your tanks either.
Well, you can always plan for the winter, and use to your advantage.
I remember a quote from a WWII German general that went something like this:
You know those four Russian tank divisions we were facing? So far we have destroyed twelve of them.
If that was true, then why did Japan refuse to surrender between the first bomb and the second bomb? Those were 3 days apart and Truman explicitly asked for surrender between the two.
I hate to say it, but this kind of thing happening with our strategic forces is hardly new. There is a book by a hardened anti-nuclear weapon activist named Eric Schloss that goes into a lot of similar incidences over the years. He's obviously got an anti-nuclear agenda so read the book with a grain of salt, but the stories he talks about are true and verifiable.
One such gem: At one point in time, we had a default signal that got broadcast out to all of the strategic warning centers to make sure the emergency alert systems were functioning normally. The test message was the exact same message that got sent out in event of a real nuclear emergency, with one difference. The "test" Message said the equivalent of the following:
000 Nuclear Weapons have been launched at us.
Unfortunately, due to a faulty computer chip on the sending end, one of these 0's computer errored and became a 2. Instead of the regular "test" message that was periodically sent saying "000 Nuclear weapons have been launched at us", a fault with a $.40c chip turned a 0 into a 2 and made it say this:
"200 Nuclear weapons have been launched at us."
Once the error was discovered and the cause of the fault detected, the "test" message was promptly changed afterwards.
This is one example of hundreds of similar incidences, some far more concerning then others, and most of them we don't hear about until decades after the fact. Who knows how many more are out there that have yet to be declassified.
One of these days i'm going to find this 'peer' guy and reset HIS connection!
Of all the countries that shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons, the United States should be top of the list. This is the only country ever to use nuclear weapons against a civilian population, and the only country that routinely de-stabilises and terrorises other countries across the world. It doesn't surprise me at all, that this type of incident would happen within the US military - which appears hopelessly unprofessional. It should be remembered that the Cuban missile crisis was caused by the United States putting missiles around Russian borders, provoking Russia. This is just like what they are doing today, with NATO expansionism.
are you sure no country fights to the last man?
look at afghanisatan, they kept fighting and first the french then the sovjets left, they're still fighting and sooner or later the us will leave to
Yeah, the german tanks where better *then*.
That does not say much about today. And who won in the end? It was the Russians. At what price? A high price, yes.
So did the americans. The Germans where tactical so superior when ever they met in a battle tank versus tank they wiped the opposition away. And many tricks are so simple. I saw a documentation, tried to google for it but don't find anything: one of the final tank battles in the west, germans against US tanks. The Germans where just a few dozens, they killed roughly 1000 US tanks over a course of a few days. The main difference was the US tanks mainly shot while standing and the Germans while driving.
The main problem was "range finding". So the germans drove over the intended battle area and used landmarks like trees and did test shots like: 10 yards to the left of the tree. Then when a tank crossed or reached that imagnary line through the tree they only needed to use the "recorded" elevation and could fire while passing by.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
They disobeyed orders.
You can call them heroes if you like. I call them traitors.
Keep telling yourself that. Truth is, *nobody* in Europe wants to see the work of entire generations destroyed and all of our countries - which are already in the grip of a deep economic crisis - reduced to poverty with our capital cities in ruin. If NATO decides to take on Russia, the EU nation will *desert*. Immediately. The stupid sanctions already did enough damage - to Europe. Of course you stupid warmongering yanks knew it and planned it. Nobody in Europe wants NATO. Nobody wants the US presence. We should kick out every fucking yank in Europe.
I think I phrased it badly and misrembered the quote. The situation was apparently that one force found itself facing several times more Russian tanks than were thought to exist in total and then more just kept coming.
Your documentary was very short of the truth. In fact, US tank forces were very effective at the time, and were supported by artillery and aircraft of a quality only Britain could match. At the time, the Germans had no way to fire effectively while moving. The US had gyrostabilizers, to allow fire on the move, but they were generally disliked and usually turned off (or broken - after some practice with them, they weren't generally repaired when they went).
The big problem for US tanks was not German tanks but German anti-tank guns, which were very effective. The premeasured ranging you mention was done when possible, but could only be done in a prepared defense. The major factor in US tank losses was that they were almost always on the offensive.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
At the time, the Germans had no way to fire effectively while moving.
That is wrong. In basically every battle the germans, won because they had the better guns and shot while driving. Or _all_ documentaries are wrong, which I find hard to believe.
The major factor in US tank losses was that they were almost always on the offensive.
The battle was an open field battle with mainly tanks alone on both sides. It was pretty dumb by the americans to go into that battle without air support (which actually was used very scarcely during WWII) and no heavy infantry or artillery support.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I guess your phrasing was good enugh ... the kill ratio tank wise was far above 10 : 1.
Especially when you consider the first battles mainly the less good german crews got weeded out and later those met the young freshly educated Russian tank crews.
However the germans liked the conquered Russian tanks, they where overall more robust.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
With respect, US tank forces did not even exist early in the war and they did not go from zero to very good in a single step.
Tanks were not a separate arm in 1939, being divided into tanks used by the infantry and "combat cars" used by the cavalry. However, the US Army learned very quickly during WWII. They sometimes learned the wrong things (like what to do about enemy tanks), but at the end of the war were quite effective.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Exactly what do the documentaries show? The Germans may have been very good at firing from a short halt, but they had no automatic stabilization for their guns, and hence could not fire effectively while moving. With the exception of the not-particularly-successful US gyrostabilizer, gun stabilization for firing on the move was a post-WWII thing. I haven't watched those documentaries, but if they portray the Germans as firing on the move and hitting their targets, they're wrong.
I don't know the battle you're referring to. I particularly don't know of any tank battle where the US lost anywhere near a thousand tanks in a few days. You'd think that would have made the history books. The US Army generally did not go into serious battle without artillery, and they used a lot of air support in the last year of the war.
It's sounding more and more like you're watching the wrong documentaries.
Strategically, the main reason for US losses was that they were on the offensive, and hence tended to run into anti-tank guns.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I haven't watched those documentaries, but if they portray the Germans as firing on the move and hitting their targets, they're wrong. ... the fact that germans fired while moving id not relevant. Relevant was that a few dozen german tanks killed with their remaining ammunition about 1000 US tanks. ...
I don't know the technology behind it, but german Tigers did fire while moving. Not like a Leopard in any terrain, though. But plenty of terrain in the east where tank battles happened was level enough to fire while moving.
Everybody knows that, no documentary needed for that.
The documentary I mentioned was about the last/one of the last tank battles in the WEST germans against US
Actually only wrote that in the hope one remembers the place and can remind me
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Have you considered that the above poster may not have been discussing the end of the war, just as the comment about Russian tanks around 1940 was not at the end of the war. The big clue is the line "Yeah, the german tanks where better *then*".