filename
stringclasses 1
value | title
stringlengths 3
66
| text
stringlengths 41
12.8k
⌀ |
|---|---|---|
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Ancient China | The Cultural Revolution, motivated by power struggles within the Party and a fear of the Soviet Union, led to a major upheaval in Chinese society.
Following the Sino-Soviet split and motivated by concerns of invasion by either the Soviet Union or the United States, China initiated the Third Front campaign to develop national defense and industrial infrastructure in its rugged interior.: 44 Through its distribution of infrastructure, industry, and human capital around the country, the Third Front created favorable conditions for subsequent market development and private enterprise.: 177
In 1972, at the peak of the Sino-Soviet split, Mao and Zhou Enlai met U.S. president Richard Nixon in Beijing to establish relations with the US. In the same year, the PRC was admitted to the United Nations in place of the Republic of China, with permanent membership of the Security Council.
A power struggle followed Mao's death in 1976. The Gang of Four were arrested and blamed for the excesses of the Cultural Revolution, marking the end of a turbulent political era in China. Deng Xiaoping outmaneuvered Mao's anointed successor chairman Hua Guofeng, and gradually emerged as the de facto leader over the next few years.
Deng Xiaoping was the Paramount Leader of China from 1978 to 1992, although he never became the head of the party or state, and his influence within the Party led the country to significant economic reforms. The CCP subsequently loosened governmental control over citizens' personal lives and the communes were disbanded with many peasants receiving multiple land leases, which greatly increased incentives and agricultural production. In addition, there were many free market areas opened. The most successful free market area was Shenzhen. It is located in Guangdong and the property tax free area still exists today. This turn of events marked China's transition from a planned economy to a mixed economy with an increasingly open market environment, a system termed by some as market socialism, and officially by the CCP as Socialism with Chinese characteristics. The PRC adopted its current constitution on 4 December 1982.
In 1989 the death of former general secretary Hu Yaobang helped to spark the Tiananmen Square protests of that year, during which students and others campaigned for several months, speaking out against corruption and in favour of greater political reform, including democratic rights and freedom of speech. However, they were eventually put down on 4 June when Army troops and vehicles entered and forcibly cleared the square, resulting in considerable numbers of fatalities. This event was widely reported, and brought worldwide condemnation and sanctions against the communist government.
CCP general secretary and PRC president Jiang Zemin and PRC premier Zhu Rongji, both former mayors of Shanghai, led post-Tiananmen PRC in the 1990s. Under Jiang and Zhu's ten years of administration, the PRC's economic performance pulled an estimated 150 million peasants out of poverty and sustained an average annual gross domestic product growth rate of 11.2%. The country formally joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. By 1997 and 1999, former European colonies of British Hong Kong and Portuguese Macau became the Hong Kong and Macau special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China, respectively.
Although the PRC needed economic growth to spur its development, the government began to worry that rapid economic growth was degrading the country's natural resources and environment. Another concern was that certain sectors of society were not sufficiently benefiting from the PRC's economic development; one example of this was the wide gap between urban and rural areas in terms of development and prevalence of updated infrastructure. As a result, under former CCP general secretary and President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, the PRC initiated policies to address issues of equitable distribution of resources, but the outcome was not known as of 2014. More than 40 million farmers were displaced from their land, usually for economic development, contributing to 87,000 demonstrations and riots across China in 2005. For much of the PRC's population, living standards improved very substantially and freedom increased, but political controls remained tight and rural areas poor.
According to the U.S. Department of Defense, as many as 3 million Uyghurs and members of other Muslim minority groups are being held in China's internment camps which are located in the Xinjiang region and which Western news reports often label as "concentration camps". The camps were established in late 2010s under Xi Jinping's administration. Human Rights Watch says that they have been used to indoctrinate Uyghurs and other Muslims since 2017 as part of a people's war on terror, a policy announced in 2014. The use of these centers appears to have ended in 2019 following international pressure. Academic Kerry Brown attributes their closures beginning in late 2019 to the expense required to operate them.: 138 China has repeatedly denied this, asserting that the West has never been able to produce reliably-sourced satellite footage of any such detainment or resulting detention of minority groups. Although no comprehensive independent surveys of such centres have been performed as of June 2024, spot checks by journalists have found such sites converted or abandoned. In 2022, a Washington Post reporter checked a dozen sites previously identified as reeducation centres and found "[m]ost of them appeared to be empty or converted, with several sites labeled as coronavirus quarantine facilities, teachers' schools and vocational schools." In 2023, Amnesty International said that they were "witnessing more and more arbitrary detention", but that detained individuals were being moved from the camps into the formal prison system.
The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease COVID-19, was first detected in Wuhan, Hubei in 2019 and led to a global pandemic, causing the majority of the world to enter a period of lockdown for at least a year following.
See also:
References:
Notes:
Citations:
Sources:
Further reading:
External links:
China Knowledge, a comprehensive online encyclopedia of China from Ulrich Theobald
The Berkshire Encyclopedia of China on Oxford Reference (subscription required)
China Rediscovers its Own History, a lengthy lecture on Chinese history given by Yu Ying-shih |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Ancient warfare | Chariots: As states grew in size, the speed of mobilization became crucial because central power could not hold if rebellions could not be suppressed rapidly. The first solution to this was the chariot, which was initially used in the Middle East from around 1800 BC. First pulled by oxen and donkeys, they allowed rapid traversing of the relatively flat lands of the Middle East. The chariots were light enough that they could easily be floated across rivers. Improvements in the ability to train horses soon allowed them to be used to pull chariots, possibly as early as 2100 BC, and their greater speed and power made chariots even more efficient. The major limitation of the use of chariots was terrain; while very mobile on flat, hard, open ground, it was very difficult to traverse more difficult terrain, such as rough ground, even sparse trees or bushes, small ravines or streams, or marsh. In such terrain, chariots were less maneuverable than common foot soldiers, and later cavalry.
The chariot was so powerful for transportation and warfare that it became the key weapon in the Ancient Near East in the 2nd millennium BC. The typical chariot was worked by two men: one would be a bowman who would fire at enemy forces, while the other would control the vehicle. Over time, chariots were developed to carry up to five warriors. In China, chariots became the central weapon of the Shang dynasty, allowing them to unify a great area.
Although chariots have been compared to modern-day tanks in the role they played on the battlefield, i.e. shock attacks, this is disputed, with scholars pointing out that chariots were vulnerable and fragile, and required a level terrain while tanks are all-terrain vehicles; thus chariots were unsuitable for use like modern tanks as a physical shock force. The chief advantage of the chariot was the tactical mobility they provided to bowmen. Tightly packed infantry was the formation of choice, in order for ancient generals to maintain command and control during the battle as well as for mutual protection. But a force of chariots could stand off at long range and rain arrows down on the infantrymen's heads. Because of their speed, any attempts to charge the chariots could be easily evaded. If, on the other hand, an infantry unit spread out to minimize the damage from arrows, they would lose the benefit of mutual protection and the charioteers could easily overrun them.
Thus any force facing chariots was in a tactical dilemma, making chariots indispensable to armies of those times. But they were complicated equipment that required specialized craftsmen to maintain them. This made chariots expensive to own. When chariots were owned by individuals within a society, it tended to give rise to a warrior class of specialists and a feudal system (an example of which can be seen in Homer's The Iliad). Where chariots were publicly owned, they helped in the maintenance and establishment of a strong central government, e.g. the New Egyptian Kingdom. Chariot usage peaked in the Battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC, which was probably the largest chariot battle ever fought, involving perhaps 5,000 chariots.
Naval warfare: Naval warfare in the ancient world can be traced back to the Mediterranean in the third millennium BC, from evidence of paintings in the Cyclades and models of ships which were made across the Aegean. Ships were used for civilian transport and trade, as well as for military purposes. They were propelled by both rowing and sailing, but since the Mediterranean is known for its inconsistent weather patterns, rowing was probably the primary means of propulsion.
The first documented, physical evidence of a naval battle is found in a relief painting located in the temple of Medinet Habu, near Luxor, Egypt. It shows the victory of Ramses III over the 'Sea-Peoples' in the Nile river delta in the early twelfth century BC. These 'Sea-Peoples' were originally believed to be of Philistine and Phoenician descent, while there is speculation that there could be some Greek influence in their seafaring. Even before this relief painting, there are earlier records of the practice of sea battles as early as 2550 BC under the Egyptian pharaoh Sahue, who reportedly used transport vessels to escort his armies to foreign shores. There is even further evidence from earlier sources that illustrate seafaring and military action around the Nile Delta during the early dynastic period in Egypt, following into the reign of Ramses II
Before that victory of Ramses III, the state of Egypt had no access to the kind of timber needed to build seafaring vessels and warships on a large scale. Instead of importing large quantities of timber to build warships, Egyptian naval architects and early engineers began to convert the common Egyptian riverboats. They reconfigured the size of the ship and added heavy trees for longitudinal support of the hull on the open sea. The warships constructed in this way contributed to that victory. The relief painting shows in great detail how fighting was conducted in a naval battle. It shows Egyptian warships with over twenty rows of oarsmen along with infantry troops and archers fighting in apparent hand-to-hand combat with the opposing naval force. This raises a question to the theory that there was no actual naval weaponry developed at this time but rather a reliance upon maneuvering tactics and strategy in order to engage with infantry troops.
The trireme: Among the great innovations of naval warfare in the ancient world there are few that can surpass the Trireme style warship in terms of efficiency, strategy, and overall effectiveness. The first depiction of this 'longship' style vessel can be found in Homer's The Iliad as a means of transport of armed men and supplies to areas of conflict across the seas. These ships were said to have consisted of two separate levels that could have held up to 60 men per level, all operating oars in unison to propel the ship. The upper level of oarsmen would sit in single-file fashion, pulling their oars through what is called a top wale or some sort of oar-port; while the men in the lower rows would sit in the ships' hold also rowing through lower oar-ports. It is also said that each oar throughout the ship would be made in length proportionate to the physique of an average Greek man.
Manned crews for these massive warships would have been quite impressive, but accounts vary in actual numbers of men from source to source. Herodotus of Halicarnassus was a Greek historian in the fourth century BC who, through his accounts, said that these Triremes would consist of at least two-hundred men manning all positions. With these massive crews, these ships were able to work at maximum capacity and efficiency in regards to speed, navigation, and transport. While these ships were built for maximum efficiency, there is room for debate about the conditions and space aboard the ship itself. It is estimated that out of the 200 man crew, around 170 of those men would have been oarsmen with respective positions below deck. These oarsmen below deck would sit on thwarts and kept their personal storage items beneath them, reassuring the theory that these ships would be very crowded with little room for anything other than operational functions.
What exactly these Greek triremes were capable of in battle is debated. There are various different accounts that lay down foundations of what equipment was used and how these ships engaged in combat. The main military applications of Greek Triremes, besides the transport of troops and supplies, would be the advantages of ramming tactics. Developments and innovations of the Greek Trireme evolved over time, especially in respect to ramming tactics. Naval architects during this time saw fit to bring about full effectiveness and damaging power to these ships. By doing this, the amount of manpower would stay consistent, i.e., keeping the same amount of rowing power but shortening the length of the ship to condense the ramming power while keeping speed and agility consistent. This new ideology of warfare and naval tactics would prove to be prudent to the overall military applications of the Trireme, and soon would become the principal combative strategy of the Greek navy and other navies alike.
The Greek Trireme, soon after its appearance in the Aegean, would become the standard warship throughout the Mediterranean as sovereign states such as Egypt and even the Persian Empire would adopt the design of these ships and apply them to their own military applications. One major attraction of the Greek design was not only its efficient ramming capability but also its ability to travel long distances at fair speeds. One account from the Athenian soldier and historian Xenophon describes the voyage of the Athenian fleet commander Iphicrates through unfriendly waters and the strategy he used combined with the sheer sailing power of the Trireme. "He proceeded with his journey and at the same time made all the necessary preparations for action, at the outset leaving his main sails behind as if he was expecting an engagement. In addition, even if there was a following wind he used his small [boat] sails little, but progressed by oar [instead, presumably, of using main sails and boat sails when the wind was favourable]. Thus he both improved the fitness of his men and achieved a higher speed for his ships".This primary source account can be interpreted as functional and efficient use of the Greek trireme. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Ancient warfare | One major attraction of the Greek design was not only its efficient ramming capability but also its ability to travel long distances at fair speeds. One account from the Athenian soldier and historian Xenophon describes the voyage of the Athenian fleet commander Iphicrates through unfriendly waters and the strategy he used combined with the sheer sailing power of the Trireme. "He proceeded with his journey and at the same time made all the necessary preparations for action, at the outset leaving his main sails behind as if he was expecting an engagement. In addition, even if there was a following wind he used his small [boat] sails little, but progressed by oar [instead, presumably, of using main sails and boat sails when the wind was favourable]. Thus he both improved the fitness of his men and achieved a higher speed for his ships".This primary source account can be interpreted as functional and efficient use of the Greek trireme. Maximizing its speed through rugged and unfriendly seas while also utilizing specific military strategy in order to ensure the most prudent and effective outcome was what led to the success of the trireme across all kinds of empires and civilizations throughout the Mediterranean. The trireme would later become a vital piece of naval weaponry throughout the Persian Wars, for both the Greeks and the Persian Empire, as well as the base standard for the formation of the Roman Navy.
The Persian Wars were the first to feature large-scale naval operations: not only sophisticated fleet engagements with dozens of triremes on each side, but also combined land-sea operations. Ships in the ancient world could operate only on the relatively quiet waters of seas and rivers; the oceans were off-limits. Navies were almost always used as auxiliaries to land forces, often essential to bringing them supplies. They would rarely strike out on their own. With only limited-range weapons, naval galleys would often attempt to ram their opponents with their reinforced bow to cause damage or sink the enemy warships which often caused the two ships to become joined, and initiated a boarding battle. Only occasionally was a decisive naval battle fought, such as the Battle of Lade in which a Persian navy destroyed the Greek navy.
Tactics and weapons:
Strategy: Ancient strategy focused broadly on the twin goals of convincing the enemy that continued war was more costly than submitting, and of making the most gain possible from war.
Forcing the enemy to submit generally consisted of defeating their army in the field. Once the enemy force was routed, the threat of siege, civilian deaths, and the like often forced the enemy to the bargaining table. However, this goal could be accomplished by other means. Burning enemy fields would force the choice of surrendering or fighting a pitched battle. Waiting an enemy out until their army had to disband due to the beginning of the harvest season or running out of payment for mercenaries presented an enemy with a similar choice. The exceptional conflicts of the ancient world were when these rules of warfare were violated. The Spartan and Athenian refusal to accept surrender after many years of war and near bankruptcy in the Peloponnesian War is one such exceptional example, as is the Roman refusal to surrender after the Battle of Cannae.
A more personal goal in war was simple profit. This profit was often monetary, as was the case with the raiding culture of the Gallic tribes. But the profit could be political, as great leaders in war were often rewarded with government office after their success. These strategies often contradict modern common sense as they conflict with what would be best for the states involved in the war.
Tactics: Effective tactics varied greatly, depending on:
The army's size
Unit types
Terrain
The weather
Positional advantage
Skill level
Individual battle experience
Individual morale
Armament (quantity and quality)
Weapons: Ancient weapons included the spear, the atlatl with light javelin or similar projectile, the bow and arrow, the sling; polearms such as the spear, falx and javelin; hand-to-hand weapons such as swords, spears, clubs, maces, axes, and knives. Catapults, siege towers, and battering rams were used during sieges.
The Ancient Greeks left behind many examples of their weapons through their burial practices. In Arms and Armour of the Greeks, the rapier-like swords found within Mycenean tombs tended to be brittle due to their length and slim designs. During the Bronze Age, two new types of swords made a debut: the horned and cruciform varieties. The horned sword was named after the horn-like appearance of the handguard and was the preferred weapon for cutting strikes. The cruciform sword was derived from the Minoan dagger's flanged hilt and rounded handguards set at right angles. Spears continued to remain the preferred means for thrusting attacks, but the Palace Period saw the addition of a socketed base to the weapon. This new period also saw a shift in the role of the bow and arrow from hunting implements to full-fledged weapons. As Greek civilization progressed, the need for weapons changed and by the Late Period of Mycenae, weapons had become shorter and more suited for use in work environments rather than battles.
Macedon was known more traditionally for having a strong cavalry rather than infantry. During Alexander's reign, the Sarissophori came into being and this was unique to Alexander's time in power. While the cavalry was more prominent, the Macedon infantry, made up of the poor and peasant classes, formed into a new and unique branch of the military that was different from the hoplite. These warriors were armed with a huge pike weapon called a sarissa as well as the army being equipped with slings, which used almond-shaped bronze bullets that were engraved with either Philip's or his generals' name. For siege warfare, the Macedonians used an arrow-firing catapult. For armor, they were equipped with a metal helmet, greaves, and a shield covered with bronze.
In The Archaeology of Weapons, a broader account of ancient weaponry is taken into account through the investigation of European weapons. Oakeshott believes that at some point between 1500 and 100 BC that the sword developed from the knife in both Minoan Crete and Celtic Britain and strongly resembles the rapiers. During the Bronze Age in the same general region, several other swords were developed: the Hallstatt first appeared during this Age but did not become widely used until the Iron Age, the Carps Tongues, and the Rhone Valley swords. The Hallstatt swords gained prominence during the Iron Age and were a long sword with a rather curious point that was one of three shapes: rounded, a square shape, or similar to a fishtail, and were the preferred weapon for use in a chariot. The Carps Tongues blade were also rather large swords with the edges running parallel for two-thirds of the blade before narrowing to the usually point. The last sword is that of the Rhone Valley and is generally considered more of small sword or an overly large dagger with each hilt uniquely cast in bronze. The pommel of this type of dagger has the ends drawn out into two thin points that curve in towards the blade. Along with Hallstatt swords, there were found to be spears, similar to the spearheads found in Mycenae they were quite large at fifteen inches and having a hollow socket however they were unique in that they had a small collar of bronze near where they attached to the shaft.
Within India's long history there are several different regimes that produced unique weapons. The list of weapons primarily used in India are the battle axe, the bow and arrow, spears, spike, barbed dart, the sword, iron club, javelin, iron arrow, and the scimitar. One sword type is the katar blade, these are equipped with sword breaking bars and both the shape and size would depend on whether the bearer was cavalry or an infantryman. A curved sword such as the talwar or shamsheer was ideal for a cutting motion delivered from horseback. There were three early iron sword types being the leaf-shaped, spoon-shaped and the parallel sword each ideal for thrusting and jabbing as opposed to a striking or cutting motion. The Rajputs, Gurkhas, Nagas, and Coorg and Malabar each developed a weapon unique to themselves. The Rajputs wielded the khanda which is a broad and straight sword with a wider point. The Gurkhas had two swords that they preferred to use the kukri, a short sword that angled towards a wide tip, and the kora, their historical war sword which was around 60 centimeters with a single edge that was rather narrow near the handler and curving towards the front. The daos had a blade equal to two feet in length that had a wide and square-like tip and the handle was made of either wood or ivory, these were the weapons that came to popularity for the Nagas. The Ayudha katti was a single-edged blade also near two feet long but with no handle and wield by the Coorg and Malabar. In Southern India, the Borobudur and the Veragal, either shaped like a hook or a wavy design, were the swords in use. A rather unique weapon used in India is the Baghnakh, which is similar to a knuckle duster and was used to slit the opponent's throat or belly.
Armor in India can be found dating back to 500 BC and Vedic literature; there are several different types: leather and fabric, scale, brigandine, lamellar, mail, plate, and a combination of mail and plate. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Ancient warfare | The daos had a blade equal to two feet in length that had a wide and square-like tip and the handle was made of either wood or ivory, these were the weapons that came to popularity for the Nagas. The Ayudha katti was a single-edged blade also near two feet long but with no handle and wield by the Coorg and Malabar. In Southern India, the Borobudur and the Veragal, either shaped like a hook or a wavy design, were the swords in use. A rather unique weapon used in India is the Baghnakh, which is similar to a knuckle duster and was used to slit the opponent's throat or belly.
Armor in India can be found dating back to 500 BC and Vedic literature; there are several different types: leather and fabric, scale, brigandine, lamellar, mail, plate, and a combination of mail and plate. In Arms and Armour: Traditional Weapons of India it is read that the wrastrana, a breastplate, has been in use since prehistoric times though the most popular is the char-aina meaning four mirrors is a coat of mail overlaid with four elaborately designed plates. The helmets consisted of a sliding nose guard with a piece of chainmail hanging from it designed to protect the neck and shoulders. Armor was not just limited to human soldiers but extended to their horses and elephants as well. The horse armor was made up of mail and plates or lamellae which covered the neck, chest, and hindquarters underneath which was some form of padding to keep it in place while a faceplate protected the animal's face. The elephants, used as a battering ram or to break and trample enemy lines, were also donned in armor for battle. The elephant's head was covered by a steel mask and covered half of the trunk while the throat and sides were protected by lamellae armor while the tusks were tipped with sharp metal.
Sieges: Siege warfare of the ancient Near East took place behind walls built of mud bricks, stone, wood or a combination of these materials depending on local availability. The earliest representations of siege warfare date to the Protodynastic Period of Egypt, c. 3000 BC, while the first siege equipment is known from Egyptian tomb reliefs of the 24th century BC showing wheeled siege ladders. Assyrian palace reliefs of the 9th to 7th centuries BC display sieges of several Near Eastern cities. Though a simple battering ram had come into use in the previous millennium, the Assyrians improved siege warfare. The most common practice of siege warfare was, however, to lay siege and wait for the surrender of the enemies inside. Due to the problem of logistics, long-lasting sieges involving anything but a minor force could seldom be maintained.
Ancient siege warfare varied from each civilization and how each city was defended differently and had to approach with different tactics. One way to ensure an army used all its troops in its siege is shown when its explained how a chariot can be used in a siege, saying that, "During the sieges, the chariots, and mostly in the Neo-Assyrian armies, were surely employed to patrol and protect the flanks and the rear of the besiegers' lines and camp." (UF 41 p. 5).
This shows that generals had to find new tactics to incorporate parts of their army that wouldn't work in the siege, as shown with the chariots on patrol duty and ensuring the army was safe from a flank attack from the enemy army. This strategy ensures that all forces are used and contributing to the battle effort and helping gain victory for them and all pulling their weight as well.
By culture:
Ancient Near East:
Mesopotamia:
Egypt: Throughout most of its history, ancient Egypt was unified under one government. The main military concern for the nation was to keep enemies out. The arid plains and deserts surrounding Egypt were inhabited by nomadic tribes who occasionally tried to raid or settle in the fertile Nile river valley. The Egyptians built fortresses and outposts along the borders east and west of the Nile Delta, in the Eastern Desert, and in Nubia to the south. Small garrisons could prevent minor incursions, but if a large force was detected a message was sent for the main army corps. Most Egyptian cities lacked city walls and other defenses.
The first Egyptian soldiers carried a simple armament consisting of a spear with a copper spearhead and a large wooden shield covered by leather hides. A stone mace was also carried in the Archaic period, though later this weapon was probably only in ceremonial use, and was replaced with the bronze battle axe. The spearmen were supported by archers carrying a composite bow and arrows with arrowheads made of flint or copper. No armour was used during the 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC. As the dynasties expanded and grew upon the last that fell to gain new territory and control new people for the empire of Egypt. One of the ways the dynasties were different were the new technologies used in the later dynasties against the enemy. One example is the armies of Ramesses' II faced off against the Hittites in the Battle of Qadesh. Both armies have cavalry units supporting their infantry and scouts to get updates on the movements. These advances differ from two groups attacking head-on for control of an area and facing losses on both sides
The major advance in weapons technology and warfare began around 1600 BC when the Egyptians fought and defeated the Hyksos people, who ruled Lower Egypt at the time. It was during this period the horse and chariot were introduced into Egypt. Other new technologies included the sickle sword, body armour and improved bronze casting. In the New Kingdom, the Egyptian military changed from levy troops into a firm organization of professional soldiers. Conquests of foreign territories, like Nubia, required a permanent force to be garrisoned abroad. The Egyptians were mostly used to slowly defeating a much weaker enemy, town-by-town until beaten into submission. The preferred tactic was to subdue a weaker city or kingdom one at a time resulting in the surrender of each fraction until complete domination was achieved. The encounter with other powerful Near Eastern kingdoms like Mitanni, the Hittites, and later the Assyrians and Babylonians, made it necessary for the Egyptians to conduct campaigns far from home. The next leap forwards came in the Late Period (712–332 BC), when mounted troops and weapons made of iron came into use. After the conquest by Alexander the Great, Egypt was heavily Hellenized and the main military force became the infantry phalanx. The ancient Egyptians were not great innovators in weapons technology, and most weapons technology innovation came from Western Asia and the Greek world.
These soldiers were paid with a plot of land for the provision of their families. After fulfillment of their service, the veterans were allowed retirement to these estates. Generals could become quite influential at the court, but unlike other feudal states, the Egyptian military was completely controlled by the king. Foreign mercenaries were also recruited; first Nubians (Medjay), and later also Libyans and Sherdens in the New Kingdom. By the Persian period, Greek mercenaries entered service into the armies of the rebellious pharaohs. The Jewish mercenaries at Elephantine served the Persian overlords of Egypt in the 5th century BC. Although, they might also have served the Egyptian pharaohs of the 6th century BC.
As far as had been seen from the royal propaganda of the time, the king or the crown prince personally headed the Egyptian troops into battle. The army could number tens of thousands of soldiers, so the smaller battalions consisting of 250 men, led by an officer, may have been the key of command. The tactics involved a massive strike by archery followed by infantry and/or chariotry attacking the broken enemy lines. The enemies could, however, try to surprise the large Egyptian force with ambushes and by blocking the road as the Egyptian campaign records informs us.
Within the Nile valley itself, ships and barges were important military elements. Ships were vital for providing supplies for the troops. The Nile river had no fords so barges had to be used for river crossings. Dominating the river often proved necessary for prosecuting sieges, like the Egyptian conquest of the Hyksos capital Avaris. Egypt had no navy to fight naval battles at sea before the Late Period. However, a battle involving ships took place at the Egyptian coast in the 12th century BC between Ramesses III and seafaring raiders.
Persia: Ancient Persia first emerged as a major military power under Cyrus the Great. Its form of warfare was based on massed infantry in light armor to pin the enemy force whilst cavalry dealt the killing blow. Cavalry was used in huge numbers but it is not known whether they were heavily armored or not. Most Greek sources claim the Persians wore no armor, but we do have an example from Herodotus which claims that an unhorsed cavalry Officer wore a gold cuirass under his red robes. Chariots were used in the early days but during the later days of the Persian Empire they were surpassed by horsemen. During the Persian Empire's height, they even possessed war elephants from North Africa and distant India. The elite of the Persian Army were the famous Persian Immortals, a 10,000 strong unit of professional soldiers armed with a spear, a sword and a bow. Archers also formed a major component of the Persian Army. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Ancient warfare | Its form of warfare was based on massed infantry in light armor to pin the enemy force whilst cavalry dealt the killing blow. Cavalry was used in huge numbers but it is not known whether they were heavily armored or not. Most Greek sources claim the Persians wore no armor, but we do have an example from Herodotus which claims that an unhorsed cavalry Officer wore a gold cuirass under his red robes. Chariots were used in the early days but during the later days of the Persian Empire they were surpassed by horsemen. During the Persian Empire's height, they even possessed war elephants from North Africa and distant India. The elite of the Persian Army were the famous Persian Immortals, a 10,000 strong unit of professional soldiers armed with a spear, a sword and a bow. Archers also formed a major component of the Persian Army.
Persian tactics primarily had four stages involving archers, infantry and cavalry. The archers, who wielded longbows, would fire waves of arrows before the battle, attempting to cut the enemy numbers down prior battle. The cavalry would then attempt to run into the enemy and sever communications between generals and soldiers. Infantry would then proceed to attack the disoriented soldiers, subsequently weakened from the previous attacks.
Nubia: The Kerma culture was the first Nubian kingdom to unify much of the region. The Classic Kerma Culture, named for its royal capital at Kerma, was one of the earliest urban centers in the Nile region
Kerma culture was militaristic. This is attested by the many bronze daggers or swords as well as archer burials found in their graves. The Kingdom of Kush began to emerge around 1000 BC, 500 years after the end of the Kingdom of Kerma.
The first period of the kingdom's history, the 'Napatan', was succeeded by the 'Meroitic period', when the royal cemeteries relocated to Meroë around 300 BC.
Bowmen were the most important force components throughout Kushite military history. Archaeology has also revealed the use of the crossbow in Kush. Siege engines were deployed in Kushite siege warfare; for instance, during Piye's invasion of Ashmunein in the 8th century BC. Other Kushite weapons included War Elephants, chariots, armor. At its peak, the kingdom of Kush stretched all the way from Nubia to the Near East.
Asia:
India: During the Vedic period (fl. 1500–500 BC), the Vedas and other associated texts contain references to warfare. The earliest allusions to a specific battle are those to the Battle of the Ten Kings in which extensive use of chariots between inter-tribal wars was found in Mandala 7 of the Rigveda.
The two great ancient epics of India, Ramayana and Mahabharata (c. 1000–500 BC) are centered on conflicts and refer to military formations, theories of warfare and esoteric weaponry. Valmiki's Ramayana describes Ayodhya's military as defensive rather than aggressive. The city, it says, was strongly fortified and was surrounded by a deep moat. Ramayana describes Ayodhya in the following words: "The city abounded in warriors undefeated in battle, fearless and chinskilled in the use of arms, resembling lions guarding their mountain caves". Mahabharata describes various military techniques, including the Chakravyuha.
The world's first recorded military application of war elephants is in the Mahabharatha. From India, war elephants were brought to the Persian Empire where they were used in several campaigns. The Persian king Darius III employed about 50 Indian elephants in the Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC) fought against Alexander the Great. In the Battle of the Hydaspes River, the Indian king Porus, who ruled in Punjab, with his smaller army of 200 war elephants, 2,000 cavalry and 20,000 infantry, presented great difficulty for Alexander the Great's larger army of 4,000 cavalry and 50,000 infantry, though Porus was eventually defeated. At this time, the Nanda Empire further east in northern and eastern India had an army of 6000 war elephants, 80,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry and 8,000 armed chariots.
Chanakya (c. 350–275 BC) was a professor of political science at Takshashila University, and later the prime minister of emperor Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya Empire. Chanakya wrote the Arthashastra, which covered various topics on ancient Indian warfare in great detail, including various techniques and strategies relating to war. These included the earliest uses of espionage and assassinations. These techniques and strategies were employed by Chandragupta Maurya, who was a student of Chanakya, and later by Ashoka (304–232 BC).
Chandragupta Maurya conquered the Magadha Empire and expanded to all of northern India, establishing the Maurya Empire, which extended from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal. In 305 BC, Chandragupta defeated Seleucus I Nicator, who ruled the Seleucid Empire and controlled most of the territories conquered by Alexander the Great. Seleucus eventually lost his territories in Southern Asia, including southern Afghanistan, to Chandragupta. Seleucus exchanged territory west of the Indus for 500 war elephants and offered his daughter to Chandragupta. In this matrimonial alliance, the enmity turned into friendship, and Seleucus' dispatched an ambassador, Megasthenes, to the Mauryan court at Pataliputra. As a result of this treaty, the Maurya Empire was recognized as a great power by the Hellenistic World, and the kings of Egypt and Syria sent their own ambassadors to his court. According to Megasthenes, Chandragupta Maurya built an army consisting of 30,000 cavalry, 10,000 war elephants, and 600,000 infantry, which was the largest army known in the ancient world. Ashoka went on to expand the Maurya Empire to almost all of South Asia, along with much of Afghanistan and parts of Persia. Ashoka eventually gave up on warfare after converting to Buddhism.
The Cholas were the first rulers of the Indian subcontinent to maintain a navy and use it to expand their dominion overseas. Vijayalaya Chola defeated the Pallavas and captured Thanjavur. In the early 10th century the Chola king Parantaka I defeated the Pandyan king Maravarman Rajasimha II and invaded Sri Lanka. The Rashtrakuta ruler Krishna III defeated and killed Parantaka I's son Rajaditya in about 949.
Uttama Chola reigned 970–85. Inscriptions tell that at least from his time, Chola warriors wore waist coats of armour. Hence, one regiment was called Niyayam-Uttama-Chola-tterinda-andalakattalar. Paluvettaraiyar Maravan Kandanar served as a general under Uttama and his predecessor, Sundara.
Rajaraja Chola began his military career with the conquest of the Cheras in the Kandalur War. He captured the Pandya ruler Amara Bhujanga, the town of Vizhinjam, and a part of Sri Lanka. In the 14th year of his reign (998–999) he conquered the Gangas of Mysore, the Nolambas of Bellary and Eastern Mysore, Tadigaipadi, Vengi, Coorg, the Pandyas and the Chalukyas of the Deccan. During the next three years, he subdued Quilon and the northern kingdom of Kalinga with the help of his son Rajendra Chola I. Rajendra later completed the conquest of Sri Lanka, crossed the Ganges, and marched across Kalinga to Bengal. He sent out a great naval expedition that occupied parts of Java, Malaya, and Sumatra. The Cholas were brought down by the Hoysalas from the west and Pandyas from the south.
China: Ancient China during the Shang dynasty was a Bronze Age society based on chariot armies. An archaeological study of Shang sites at Anyang have revealed extensive examples of chariots and bronze weapons. The overthrow of the Shang by the Zhou saw the creation of a feudal social order, resting militarily on a class of aristocratic chariot warriors (士).
In the Spring and Autumn period, warfare increased. Zuo zhuan describes the wars and battles among the feudal lords during the period. Warfare continued to be stylised and ceremonial even as it grew more violent and decisive. The concept of military hegemon (霸) and his "way of force" (霸道) came to dominate Chinese society. Sun Tzu created a book that still applies to today's modern armies, The Art of War.
Formations of the army can be clearly seen from the Terracotta Army of Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor in the history of China to be successful in the unification of different warring states. Light infantry acting as shock troops lead the army, followed by heavy infantry as the main body of the army. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Ancient warfare | The overthrow of the Shang by the Zhou saw the creation of a feudal social order, resting militarily on a class of aristocratic chariot warriors (士).
In the Spring and Autumn period, warfare increased. Zuo zhuan describes the wars and battles among the feudal lords during the period. Warfare continued to be stylised and ceremonial even as it grew more violent and decisive. The concept of military hegemon (霸) and his "way of force" (霸道) came to dominate Chinese society. Sun Tzu created a book that still applies to today's modern armies, The Art of War.
Formations of the army can be clearly seen from the Terracotta Army of Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor in the history of China to be successful in the unification of different warring states. Light infantry acting as shock troops lead the army, followed by heavy infantry as the main body of the army. Wide usage of cavalry and chariots behind the heavy infantry also gave the Qin army an edge in battles against the other warring states.
Warfare became more intense, ruthless and much more decisive during the Warring States period, in which great social and political change was accompanied by the end of the system of chariot warfare and the adoption of mass infantry armies. Cavalry was also introduced from the northern frontier, despite the cultural challenge it posed for robe-wearing Chinese men. Chinese river valley civilizations would adopt nomadic "pants" for their cavalry units and soldiers.
Japanese: Horses and bows were very important in Japan and were used in warfare from very early times, as shown in statues and artifacts found in tombs of early chieftains. Samurai eventually became very skilled in using the horse. Because their main weapon at this time was the bow and arrow, early samurai exploits were spoken of in Japanese war tales as the "Way of the Horse and Bow." Horse and bow combined was a battlefield advantage to the early samurai. A bunch of arrows made of mainly wood with poison-tipped points was worn on a warrior's right side so he could quickly knock and release an arrow mid-gallop.
Although they weren't as important as the bow, swords of various sizes and types were also part of an early samurai's armory. They were mostly for close-quarters engagements. Many different kinds of spears were also used. One, the naginata, was a curved blade fixed to the end of a pole several feet long. This was known as a 'woman's spear' because samurai girls were taught to use it from an early age. A device called the kumade, which resembled a long-handled garden rake, was used to catch the clothing or helmet of enemy horsemen and unseat them.
Common samurai archers had armor made of lamellae pieces laced together with colorful cords. The lightweight armor allowed for greater freedom of movement, faster speed, and reduced fatigue for horse and rider.
The early Yamato period had seen a continual engagement in the Korean Peninsula until Japan finally withdrew, along with the remaining forces of the Baekje Kingdom. Several battles occurred in these periods as the Emperor's succession gained importance. By the Nara period, Honshū was completely under the control of the Yamato clan. Near the end of the Heian period, samurai became a powerful political force, thus starting the feudal period.
Ancient Greece: In general, most features of the hoplite panoply of classical Greek antiquity, were already known during the Late Bronze Age by Mycenaean Greeks (c. 1600–1100 BC). Mycenaean Greek society invested in the development of military infrastructure, while military production and logistics were supervised directly from the palatial centers.
Infantry did almost all of the fighting in Greek battles. The Greeks did not have any notable cavalry tradition except the Thessalians. Hoplites, Greek infantry, fought with a long spear and a large shield, the aspis. Light infantry (psiloi) peltasts, served as skirmishers.
Despite the fact that most Greek cities were well fortified (with the notable exception of Sparta) and Greek siege technology was not up to the task of breaching these fortifications by force, most land battles were pitched ones fought on flat-open ground. This was because of the limited period of service Greek soldiers could offer before they needed to return to their farms; hence, a decisive battle was needed to settle matters at hand. To draw out a city's defenders, its fields would be threatened with destruction, threatening the defenders with starvation in the winter if they did not surrender or accept battle.
This pattern of warfare was broken during the Peloponnesian War, when Athens' command of the sea allowed the city to ignore the destruction of the Athenian crops by Sparta and her allies by shipping grain into the city from the Crimea. This led to a warfare style in which both sides were forced to engage in repeated raids over several years without reaching a settlement. It also made sea battle a vital part of warfare. Greek naval battles were fought between triremes – long and speedy rowing ships which engaged the enemy by ramming and boarding actions.
Hellenistic Era: During the time of Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great, the Macedonians were regarded as the most complete well co-ordinated military force in the known world. Although they are best known for the achievements of Alexander the Great, his father Philip II of Macedon created and designed the fighting force Alexander used in his conquests. Before this time and for centuries their military prowess was nowhere near that the sarissa phalanx offered.
However, prior to the improvements made by Philip II of Macedon armies fought in the traditional manner of the Greeks; that of the hoplite phalanx.
Philip provided his Macedonian soldiers in the phalanx with sarissa, a spear which was 4–6 meters in length. The sarissa, when held upright by the rear ranks of the phalanx (there were usually eight ranks), helped hide maneuvers behind the phalanx from the view of the enemy. When held horizontal by the front ranks of the phalanx, enemies could be run through from far away. The hoplite type troops were not abandoned, but were no longer the core of the army.
In 358 BC he met the Illyrians in battle with his reorganized Macedonian phalanx and utterly defeated them. The Illyrians fled in panic, leaving the majority of their 9,000-strong army dead. The Macedonian army invaded Illyria and conquered the southern Illyrian tribes.
After the defeat of the Illyrians, Macedon's policy became increasingly aggressive. Paeonia was already forcefully integrated into Macedon under Philip's rule. In 357 BC Philip broke the treaty with Athens and attacked Amphipolis which promised to surrender to the Athenians in exchange for the fortified town of Pydna, a promise he didn't keep. The city fell back in the hands of Macedonia after an intense siege. Then he secured possession over the gold mines of nearby Mount Pangaeus, which would enable him to finance his future wars.
In 356 the Macedonian army advanced further eastward and captured the town of Crenides (near modern Drama) which was in the hands of the Thracians, and which Philip renamed after himself to Philippi. The Macedonian eastern border with Thrace was now secured at the river Nestus (Mesta).
Philip next marched against his southern enemies. In Thessaly he defeated his enemies and by 352, he was firmly in control of this region. The Macedonian army advanced as far as the pass of Thermopylae which divides Greece in two parts, but it did not attempt to take it because it was strongly guarded by a joint force of Athenians, Spartans, and Achaeans.
Having secured the bordering regions of Macedon, Philip assembled a large Macedonian army and marched deep into Thrace for a long conquering campaign. By 339 after defeating the Thracians in series of battles, most of Thrace was firmly in Macedonian hands save the most eastern Greek coastal cities of Byzantium and Perinthus who successfully withstood the long and difficult sieges. But both Byzantium and Perinthus would have surely fallen had it not been for the help they received from the various Greek city-states, and the Persian king himself, who now viewed the rise of Macedonia and its eastern expansion with concern. Ironically, the Greeks invited and sided with the Persians against the Macedonians, although Persia had been the nation hated the most by Greece for more than a century. The memory of the Persian invasion of Greece some 150 years ago was still alive, but the current politics for the Macedonians had put it aside.
Much greater would be the conquests of his son, Alexander the Great, who would add to the phalanx a powerful cavalry, led by his elite Companions, and flexible, innovative formations and tactics. He advanced Greek style of combat, and was able to muster large bodies of men for long periods of time for his campaigns against Persia.
Iron Age Europe:
Roman Empire: The Roman army was the world's first professional army. It had its origins in the citizen army of the Republic, which was staffed by citizens serving mandatory duty for Rome. The reforms of Marius around 100 BC turned the army into a professional structure, still largely filled by citizens, but citizens who served continuously for 20 years before being discharged. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Ancient warfare | The memory of the Persian invasion of Greece some 150 years ago was still alive, but the current politics for the Macedonians had put it aside.
Much greater would be the conquests of his son, Alexander the Great, who would add to the phalanx a powerful cavalry, led by his elite Companions, and flexible, innovative formations and tactics. He advanced Greek style of combat, and was able to muster large bodies of men for long periods of time for his campaigns against Persia.
Iron Age Europe:
Roman Empire: The Roman army was the world's first professional army. It had its origins in the citizen army of the Republic, which was staffed by citizens serving mandatory duty for Rome. The reforms of Marius around 100 BC turned the army into a professional structure, still largely filled by citizens, but citizens who served continuously for 20 years before being discharged.
The Romans were also noted for making use of auxiliary troops, non-Romans who served with the legions and filled roles that the traditional Roman military could not fill effectively, such as light skirmish troops and heavy cavalry. Later in the Empire, these auxiliary troops, along with foreign mercenaries, became the core of the Roman military. By the late Empire, tribes such as the Visigoths were bribed to serve as mercenaries.
The Roman navy was traditionally considered less important, although it remained vital for the transportation of supplies and troops, also during the great purge of pirates from the Mediterranean sea by Pompey the Great in the 1st century BC. Most of Rome's battles occurred on land, especially when the Empire was at its height and all the land around the Mediterranean was controlled by Rome.
But there were notable exceptions. The First Punic War, a pivotal war between Rome and Carthage in the 3rd century BC, was largely a naval conflict. And the naval Battle of Actium established the Roman empire under Augustus.
Balkans: The Illyrian king Bardyllis turned part of south Illyria into a formidable local power in the 4th century BC. He managed to become king of the Dardanians and include other tribes under his rule. However, their power was weakened by bitter rivalries and jealousy. The army was composed by peltasts with a variety of weapons.
The Thracians fought as peltasts using javelins and crescent or round wicker shields. Missile weapons were favored but close combat weaponry was carried by the Thracians as well. These close combat weapons varied from the dreaded Rhomphaia & Falx
to spears and swords. Thracians shunned armor and greaves and fought as light as possible favoring mobility above all other traits and had excellent horsemen.
The Dacian tribes, located on modern-day Romania and Moldova were part of the greater Thracian family of peoples. They established a highly militarized society and, during the periods when the tribes were united under one king (82–44 BC, 86–106) posed a major threat to the Roman provinces of Lower Danube. Dacia was conquered and transformed into a Roman province in 106 after a long, hard war.
Celtic: Tribal warfare appears to have been a regular feature of Celtic societies. While epic literature depicts this as more of a sport focused on raids and hunting rather than organised territorial conquest, the historical record is more of tribes using warfare to exert political control and harass rivals, for economic advantage, and in some instances to conquer territory.
The Celts were described by classical writers such as Strabo, Livy, Pausanias, and Florus as fighting like "wild beasts", and as hordes. Dionysius said that their "manner of fighting, being in large measure that of wild beasts and frenzied, was an erratic procedure, quite lacking in military science. Thus, at one moment they would raise their swords aloft and smite after the manner of wild boars, throwing the whole weight of their bodies into the blow like hewers of wood or men digging with mattocks, and again they would deliver crosswise blows aimed at no target as if they intended to cut to pieces the entire bodies of their adversaries, protective armour and all". Such descriptions have been challenged by contemporary historians. Caesar himself describes the Gauls as forming phalanxes (likely similar to the medieval shieldwall) and testudos in battle, and using spears as their main weapon, as opposed to swords.
Germanic: Historical records of the Germanic tribes in Germania east of the Rhine and west of the Danube do not begin until quite late in the ancient period, so only the period after 100 BC can be examined. What is clear is that the Germanic idea of warfare was quite different from the pitched battles fought by Rome and Greece. Instead, the Germanic tribes focused on raids.
The purpose of these was generally not to gain territory, but rather to capture resources and secure prestige. These raids were conducted by irregular troops, often formed along family or village lines. Leaders of unusual personal magnetism could gather more soldiers for longer periods, but there was no systematic method of gathering and training men, so the death of a charismatic leader could mean the destruction of an army. Armies also often consisted of more than 50 percent noncombatants, as displaced people would travel with large groups of soldiers, the elderly, women, and children.
Though often defeated by the Romans, the Germanic tribes were remembered in Roman records as fierce combatants, whose main downfall was that they failed to unite successfully into one fighting force, under one command. After the three Roman legions were ambushed and destroyed by an alliance of Germanic tribes headed by Arminius at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD, the Roman Empire made no further concentrated attempts at conquering Germania beyond the Rhine. Prolonged warfare against the Romans accustomed the Germanic tribes to improved tactics such as the use of reserves, military discipline and centralised command. Germanic tribes would eventually overwhelm and conquer the ancient world, giving rise to modern Europe and medieval warfare. For an analysis of Germanic tactics versus the Roman empire see tactical problems in facing the Gauls and the Germanic tribes
Notable ancient wars: Medo-Babylonian war against Assyrian Empire
Ionian Revolt
The Ionian Revolt was a series of conflicts between the Ionia and the Persian Empire that began 499 BC and lasted until 493 BC. The revolt begins because of Athens's offensive attack to the city of Sardis and massacring the Persian citizens by burning down the city. This revolt had a major role in starting the Greco-Persian wars.
Greco-Persian Wars
The Greco-Persian Wars were a series of conflicts between the Greek City-States and the Persian Empire that began around 500 BC and lasted until 448 BC.
Peloponnesian War
The Peloponnesian War was begun in 431 BC between the Athenian Empire and the Peloponnesian League which included Sparta and Corinth. The war was documented by Thucydides, an Athenian general, in his work The History of The Peloponnesian War. The war lasted 27 years, with a brief truce in the middle.
Wars of Alexander the Great
King Alexander the III of Macedonia throughout his entire reign from 336 to 321 B.C embarked on a campaign of conquest of the Persian Empire. Starting from modern-day Western Turkey Alexander the Great conquered the entirety of Egypt, the Middle East, Iran and parts of India and Central Asia. Never losing a battle Alexander expanded the boundaries of the known world to the Greek World at the time. With an untimely death, his successors fought over the territories they had conquered. However, due to Alexander the Great Greek culture and technology spread into Asia for centuries to come.
Kalinga War (265–264 BC) was a war fought between the Mauryan Empire under Ashoka and the state of Kalinga, a feudal republic located on the coast of the present-day Indian state of Odisha. Ashoka's response to the Kalinga War is recorded in the Edicts of Ashoka. According to some of these (Rock Edict XIII and Minor Rock Edict I), the Kalinga War prompted Ashoka, already a non-engaged Buddhist, to devote the rest of his life to Ahimsa (non-violence) and to Dhamma-Vijaya (victory through Dhamma).
Qin's wars of unification
Qin's wars of unification were a series of military campaigns launched in the late 3rd century BC by the Qin state against the other six major states – Han, Zhao, Yan, Wei, Chu and Qi – within the territories that formed modern China. By the end of the wars in 221 BC, Qin had unified most of the states and occupied some lands south of the Yangtze River. The territories conquered by Qin served as the foundation of the Qin Empire.
Punic Wars
The Punic Wars were a series of three wars fought between Rome and the city of Carthage (a Phoenician descendant). They are known as the "Punic" Wars because Rome's name for Carthaginians was Punici (older Poeni, due to their Phoenician ancestry). They determined that the Romans would control the Mediterranean Sea and led to the eventual rise of the greater Roman Empire across Europe, Asia and Africa.
The First Punic War was primarily a naval war fought between 264 BC and 241 BC. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Ancient warfare | By the end of the wars in 221 BC, Qin had unified most of the states and occupied some lands south of the Yangtze River. The territories conquered by Qin served as the foundation of the Qin Empire.
Punic Wars
The Punic Wars were a series of three wars fought between Rome and the city of Carthage (a Phoenician descendant). They are known as the "Punic" Wars because Rome's name for Carthaginians was Punici (older Poeni, due to their Phoenician ancestry). They determined that the Romans would control the Mediterranean Sea and led to the eventual rise of the greater Roman Empire across Europe, Asia and Africa.
The First Punic War was primarily a naval war fought between 264 BC and 241 BC.
The Second Punic War is famous for Hannibal's crossing of the Alps and was fought between 218 BC and 202 BC.
The Third Punic War resulted in the destruction of Carthage and was fought between 149 BC and 146 BC.
Roman-Persian Wars
The Roman–Persian Wars were a series of conflicts between states of the Greco-Roman world and two successive Iranian empires: the Parthian and the Sassanid. Battles between the Parthian Empire and the Roman Republic began in 92 BC; wars began under the late Republic, and continued through the Roman and Sassanid empires. They were ended by the Arab Muslim invasions, which devastated the Sassanid and Byzantine East Roman empires shortly after the end of the last war between them.
Han–Xiongnu War
The Han–Xiongnu War, also known as the Sino-Xiongnu War, was a series of military battles fought between the Chinese Han empire and the Xiongnu confederated state located in modern day Mongolia from 133 BC to 89 AD. The final wars resulted in the final destruction of the Xiongnu as a political entity in Siberia. China would temporally enjoy peace on its northern frontier before new peoples such as the Xianbei took the role of the Xiongnu.
Roman-Germanic Wars
The Germanic Wars is a name given to a large series of military engagements between the Romans and various Germanic tribes between 113 BC and AD 596. The nature of these wars varied through time between Roman conquest, Germanic uprisings and later Germanic invasions in the Roman Empire that started in the late 2nd century. The series of conflicts which began in the 5th century, under the Western Roman Emperor Honorius, led (along with internal strife) to the ultimate downfall of the Western Roman Empire.
Unit types:
See also: Ancient Mediterranean piracy
History of physical training and fitness
Horses in warfare
Women in warfare
Siege (Roman history)
References:
Sources: Wu, Shu-hui (2013). "Debates and Decision-Making: The Battle of the Altai Mountains (Jinweishan 金微山) in AD 91". Debating War in Chinese History. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-22372-1.
Literature: Anglim, Simon, and Phyllis G. Jestice. Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World (3000 B.C. to 500 A.D.): Equipment, Combat Skills, and Tactics. Dunne Books: 2003. ISBN 0-312-30932-5.
Adams, William Y. (2013). Qasr Ibrim: The Ballana Phase. Egypt Exploration Society. ISBN 978-0856982163.
Bradford, Alfred S. With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Praeger Publishing: 2001. ISBN 0-275-95259-2.
Connolly, Peter. Greece and Rome at War. Greenhill Books: 1998. ISBN 1-85367-303-X.
Gabriel, Richard A. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger Publishing: 2002. ISBN 0-275-97809-5
Gichon, Mordechai, and Chaim Herzog. Battles of the Bible. Greenhill Books: 2002. ISBN 1-85367-477-X.
Goldsworthy, Adrian. The Complete Roman Army. Thames & Hudson: 2003. ISBN 0-500-05124-0.
Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. Vintage: 1993. ISBN 0-679-73082-6.
Kern, Paul Bentley. Ancient Siege Warfare. Indiana University Press: 1999. ISBN 0-253-33546-9.
Leblanc, Steven A. Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. University of Utah Press: 1999. ISBN 0-87480-581-3.
Mayor, Adrienne. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. Overlook Press: 2003. ISBN 1-58567-348-X.
Peers, Chris J. Ancient Chinese Armies 1500–200 BC. Osprey Publishing: 1990. ISBN 0-85045-942-7.
Peers, Chris J., and Michael Perry. Imperial Chinese Armies : 200 BC–589 AD. Osprey Publishing: 1995. ISBN 1-85532-514-4.
Sabin, Philip. Lost Battles: Reconstructing The Great Clashes of the Ancient World. Hambledon Continuum: 2007. ISBN 1-84725-187-0.
Van Creveld, Martin. "Technology and War: From 2000 B.C. to the Present". Free Press: 1991. ISBN 0-02-933153-6.
Warry, John Gibson, and John Warry. Warfare in the Classical World: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in the Ancient Civilisations of Greece and Rome. University of Oklahoma Press: 1999.
External links: Evolution of Sling Weapons
War in ancient Greece: a bibliography |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-access/area denial | Overview:
United States: A2/AD strategy is a significant concern of US policy, viewing it as a weapon of weaker forces that could be used against the US military. The US military considers that enemy adoption of anti-access/area denial strategies "may well be the most difficult operational challenge U.S. forces will face over the coming decades."The Department of Defense developed the "joint air-sea battle concept for defeating adversaries across the range of military operations, including adversaries equipped with sophisticated anti-access and area denial capabilities".
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson has commented on the vagueness of the term A2/AD, saying: "To some, A2AD is a code-word, suggesting an impenetrable “keep-out zone” that forces can enter only at extreme peril to themselves. To others, A2AD refers to a family of technologies. To still others, a strategy. In sum, A2AD is a term bandied about freely, with no precise definition, that sends a variety of vague or conflicting signals, depending on the context in which it is either transmitted or received. [...] The Navy will avoid using the term A2AD as a stand-alone acronym that can mean many things to different people or almost anything to anyone."
China: The People's Republic of China is employing a multi-faceted A2/AD strategy to exclude or deter as many adversary forces from acting within the waters it claims as its territorial waters as outlined by the nine-dash line. The initial impulse for this strategy is said to have been the deployment of two US carrier battle groups in the area, reacting to Chinese tests and exercises for a possible invasion of Taiwan in 1995, which went effectively uncontested by the Chinese navy. The Chinese A2/AD strategy's main focus lies on sea denial by missiles (see also paragraph Sea), but features submarines and airplanes as well. The Chinese denial capabilities are not sufficient to exclude Japanese and US troops from the South China Sea, but enough to inflict heavy casualties in case of a war for the occupation of Taiwan.
Sea: The concept of A2/AD has long been used by navies under names such as Command of the seas and controlling the sea lines of communication. Naval A2/AD typically takes advantage of geographical features that limit access such as chokepoints or the water surrounding an island. A blockade is an example of a naval anti-access operation.
Anti-ship missiles are a modern method of stopping a potential adversary from attacking by sea. China, Russia, North Korea, Syria and Iran all have developed or imported such weapons in an effort to develop a modern A2/AD strategy to counter United States' power projection from nearby waterways. In response to China's pursuit of such A2/AD capabilities, the United States has developed the AirSea Battle doctrine. Other methods of area denial at a strategic level include aircraft carriers, submarines, surface-to-air missiles, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, electronic warfare and interceptor aircraft. Mines, coastal submarines, and attack craft could be employed in littoral areas. Other area denial systems include cruise missiles, long-range strike aircraft, mines, and coastal defense artillery. The term A2/AD was created in 2003 to describe the threats posed by long-range missile systems, precision munitions, and satellite technology that will make military operations in the littoral areas challenging for modern naval forces.
Land: The anti-access threat for the Army includes "theater ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, long-range rockets and artillery, weapons of mass destruction and other unconventional means, and information operations." A2/AD strategies on land often take advantage of natural geographic features or bridges that can support anti-access operations. Land-based area denial operations degrade the adversary's ability with techniques such as harassing fires, deception, and guerrilla-warfare-like tactics that avoid direct confrontation. Land-based area denial techniques also include artillery, rocket, and missile strikes, mine fields, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents.
Air: A no-fly zone is an A2/AD strategy in the air, prohibiting access to part of the airspace. A2/AD can be supported by surface-to-air missiles such as the S-300 and S-400. The threat on forward air bases from cruise and ballistic missiles can also impose anti-access.
Cyberspace: Attacks in cyberspace are an increasingly important part of the A2/AD threat. Tactical cyber A2/AD operations block access to specific resources, while strategic A2/AD blocks access to cyberspace itself.
See also: Area denial weapon
== References == |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-aircraft warfare | Terminology: It may also be called counter-air, anti-air, AA, flak, layered air defence or air defence forces.
The term air defence was probably first used by the UK when Air Defence of Great Britain (ADGB) was created as a Royal Air Force command in 1925. However, arrangements in the UK were also called "anti-aircraft", abbreviated as AA, a term that remained in general use into the 1950s. After the First World War it was sometimes prefixed by "light" or "heavy" (LAA or HAA) to classify a type of gun or unit. Nicknames for anti-aircraft guns include "AA", "AAA" or "triple-A" (abbreviations of "anti-aircraft artillery"), "flak" (from the German Flugzeugabwehrkanone), "ack-ack" (from the spelling alphabet used by the British for voice transmission of "AA"); and "archie" (a World War I British term probably coined by Amyas Borton, and believed to derive via the Royal Flying Corps, from the music-hall comedian George Robey's line "Archibald, certainly not!").
NATO defines anti-aircraft warfare (AAW) as "measures taken to defend a maritime force against attacks by airborne weapons launched from aircraft, ships, submarines and land-based sites". In some armies the term all-arms air defence (AAAD) is used for air defence by nonspecialist troops. Other terms from the late 20th century include "ground based air defence" (GBAD) with related terms "short range air defense" (SHORAD) and man-portable air-defense system (MANPADS). Anti-aircraft missiles are variously called surface-to-air missiles, ("SAMs") and surface-to-air guided weapons (SAGWs). Examples are the RIM-66 Standard, Raytheon Standard Missile 6, or the MBDA Aster missile.
Non-English terms for air defence include the German Flak or FlaK (Fliegerabwehrkanone, 'aircraft defence cannon', also cited as Flugabwehrkanone), whence English flak, and the Russian term Protivovozdushnaya oborona (Cyrillic: Противовозду́шная оборо́на), a literal translation of 'anti-air defence', abbreviated as PVO. In Russian, the AA systems are called zenitnye (i.e., 'pointing to zenith') systems. In French, air defence is called Défense contre les aéronefs (DCA) , aéronef meaning 'aircraft'.
The maximum distance at which a gun or missile can engage an aircraft is an important figure. However, many different definitions are used and unless the same definition is used, performance of different guns or missiles cannot be compared. For AA guns only the ascending part of the trajectory can be usefully used. One term is "ceiling", the maximum ceiling being the height a projectile would reach if fired vertically, not practically useful in itself as few AA guns are able to fire vertically, and the maximum fuse duration may be too short, but potentially useful as a standard to compare different weapons.
The British adopted "effective ceiling", meaning the altitude at which a gun could deliver a series of shells against a moving target; this could be constrained by maximum fuse running time as well as the gun's capability. By the late 1930s the British definition was "that height at which a directly approaching target at 400 mph [640 km/h] can be engaged for 20 seconds before the gun reaches 70 degrees elevation".
General description: The essence of air defence is to detect hostile aircraft and destroy them. The critical issue is to hit a target moving in three-dimensional space; an attack must not only match these three coordinates, but must do so at the time the target is at that position. This means that projectiles either have to be guided to hit the target, or aimed at the predicted position of the target at the time the projectile reaches it, taking into account the speed and direction of both the target and the projectile.
Throughout the 20th century, air defence was one of the fastest-evolving areas of military technology, responding to the evolution of aircraft and exploiting technology such as radar, guided missiles and computing (initially electromechanical analogue computing from the 1930s on, as with equipment described below). Improvements were made to sensors, technical fire control, weapons, and command and control. At the start of the 20th century these were either very primitive or non-existent.
Initially sensors were optical and acoustic devices developed during World War I and continued into the 1930s, but were quickly superseded by radar, which in turn was supplemented by optoelectronics in the 1980s.
Command and control remained primitive until the late 1930s, when Britain created an integrated system for ADGB that linked the ground-based air defence of the British Army's Anti-Aircraft Command, although field-deployed air defence relied on less sophisticated arrangements. NATO later called these arrangements an "air defence ground environment", defined as "the network of ground radar sites and command and control centres within a specific theatre of operations which are used for the tactical control of air defence operations".
Rules of engagement are critical to prevent air defences engaging friendly or neutral aircraft. Their use is assisted but not governed by identification friend or foe (IFF) electronic devices originally introduced during the Second World War. While these rules originate at the highest authority, different rules can apply to different types of air defence covering the same area at the same time. AAAD usually operates under the tightest rules.
NATO calls these rules "weapon control orders" (WCO), they are:
Weapons free: weapons may be fired at any target not positively recognised as friendly.
Weapons tight: weapons may be fired only at targets recognised as hostile.
Weapons hold: weapons may only be fired in self-defence or in response to a formal order.
Until the 1950s, guns firing ballistic munitions were the standard weapon; guided missiles then became dominant, except at the very shortest ranges. However, the type of shell or warhead and its fuzing and, with missiles, the guidance arrangement were and are varied. Targets are not always easy to destroy; nonetheless, damaged aircraft may be forced to abort their mission and, even if they manage to return and land in friendly territory, may be out of action for days or permanently. Ignoring small arms and smaller machine-guns, ground-based air defence guns have varied in calibre from 20 mm to at least 152 mm.
Ground-based air defence is deployed in several ways:
Self-defence by ground forces using their organic weapons, AAAD.
Accompanying defence, specialist air defence elements accompanying armoured or infantry units.
Point defence around a key target, such as a bridge, critical government building or ship.
Area air defence, typically "belts" of air defence to provide a barrier, but sometimes an umbrella covering an area. Areas can vary widely in size. They may extend along a nation's border, e.g. the Cold War MIM-23 Hawk and Nike belts that ran north–south across Germany, across a military formation's manoeuvre area, or above a city or port. In ground operations air defence areas may be used offensively by rapid redeployment across current aircraft transit routes.
Air defence has included other elements, although after the Second World War most fell into disuse:
Tethered barrage balloons to deter and threaten aircraft flying below the height of the balloons, where they are susceptible to damaging collisions with steel tethers.
Cables strung across valleys, sometimes forming a "curtain" with vertical cables hanging from them.
Searchlights to illuminate aircraft at night for both gun-layers and optical instrument operators. During World War II searchlights became radar controlled.
Large smoke screens created by large smoke canisters on the ground to screen targets and prevent accurate weapon aiming by aircraft.
Passive air defence is defined by NATO as "Passive measures taken for the physical defence and protection of personnel, essential installations and equipment in order to minimise the effectiveness of air and/or missile attack". It remains a vital activity by ground forces and includes camouflage and concealment to avoid detection by reconnaissance and attacking aircraft. Measures such as camouflaging important buildings were common in the Second World War. During the Cold War the runways and taxiways of some airfields were painted green.
Organization: While navies are usually responsible for their own air defence—at least for ships at sea—organisational arrangements for land-based air defence vary between nations and over time.
The most extreme case was the Soviet Union and this model may still be followed in some countries: it was a separate service, on a par with the army, navy, or air force. In the Soviet Union, this was called Voyska PVO, and had both fighter aircraft, separate from the air force, and ground-based systems. This was divided into two arms, PVO Strany, the Strategic Air defence Service responsible for Air Defence of the Homeland, created in 1941 and becoming an independent service in 1954, and PVO SV, Air Defence of the Ground Forces. Subsequently, these became part of the air force and ground forces respectively.
At the other extreme, the United States Army has an Air Defense Artillery Branch that provides ground-based air defence for both homeland and the army in the field; however, it is operationally under the Joint Force Air Component Commander. Many other nations also deploy an air-defence branch in the army. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-aircraft warfare | In the Soviet Union, this was called Voyska PVO, and had both fighter aircraft, separate from the air force, and ground-based systems. This was divided into two arms, PVO Strany, the Strategic Air defence Service responsible for Air Defence of the Homeland, created in 1941 and becoming an independent service in 1954, and PVO SV, Air Defence of the Ground Forces. Subsequently, these became part of the air force and ground forces respectively.
At the other extreme, the United States Army has an Air Defense Artillery Branch that provides ground-based air defence for both homeland and the army in the field; however, it is operationally under the Joint Force Air Component Commander. Many other nations also deploy an air-defence branch in the army. Some, such as Japan or Israel, choose to integrate their ground based air defence systems into their air force.
In Britain and some other armies, the single artillery branch has been responsible for both home and overseas ground-based air defence, although there was divided responsibility with the Royal Navy for air defence of the British Isles in World War I. However, during the Second World War, the RAF Regiment was formed to protect airfields everywhere, and this included light air defences. In the later decades of the Cold War this included the United States Air Force's operating bases in the UK. All ground-based air defence was removed from Royal Air Force (RAF) jurisdiction in 2004. The British Army's Anti-Aircraft Command was disbanded in March 1955, but during the 1960s and 1970s the RAF's Fighter Command operated long-range air-defence missiles to protect key areas in the UK. During World War II, the Royal Marines also provided air defence units; formally part of the mobile naval base defence organisation, they were handled as an integral part of the army-commanded ground based air defences.
The basic air defence unit is typically a battery with 2 to 12 guns or missile launchers and fire control elements. These batteries, particularly with guns, usually deploy in a small area, although batteries may be split; this is usual for some missile systems. SHORAD missile batteries often deploy across an area with individual launchers several kilometres apart. When MANPADS is operated by specialists, batteries may have several dozen teams deploying separately in small sections; self-propelled air defence guns may deploy in pairs.
Batteries are usually grouped into battalions or equivalent. In the field army, a light gun or SHORAD battalion is often assigned to a manoeuvre division. Heavier guns and long-range missiles may be in air-defence brigades and come under corps or higher command. Homeland air defence may have a full military structure. For example, the UK's Anti-Aircraft Command, commanded by a full British Army general was part of ADGB. At its peak in 1941–42 it comprised three AA corps with 12 AA divisions between them.
History:
Earliest use: The use of balloons by the U.S. Army during the American Civil War compelled the Confederates to develop methods of combating them. These included the use of artillery, small arms, and saboteurs. They were unsuccessful, and internal politics led the United States Army's Balloon Corps to be disbanded mid-war. The Confederates experimented with balloons as well.
Turks carried out the first ever anti-airplane operation in history during the Italo-Turkish war. Although lacking anti-aircraft weapons, they were the first to shoot down an airplane by rifle fire. The first aircraft to crash in a war was the one of Lieutenant Piero Manzini, shot down on August 25, 1912.
The earliest known use of weapons specifically made for the anti-aircraft role occurred during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. After the disaster at Sedan, Paris was besieged and French troops outside the city started an attempt at communication via balloon. Gustav Krupp mounted a modified 1-pounder (37 mm) gun – the Ballonabwehrkanone (Balloon defence cannon) or BaK — on top of a horse-drawn carriage for the purpose of shooting down these balloons.
By the early 20th century balloon, or airship, guns, for land and naval use were attracting attention. Various types of ammunition were proposed, high explosive, incendiary, bullet-chains, rod bullets and shrapnel. The need for some form of tracer or smoke trail was articulated. Fuzing options were also examined, both impact and time types. Mountings were generally pedestal type but could be on field platforms. Trials were underway in most countries in Europe but only Krupp, Erhardt, Vickers Maxim, and Schneider had published any information by 1910. Krupp's designs included adaptations of their 65 mm 9-pounder, a 75 mm 12-pounder, and even a 105 mm gun. Erhardt also had a 12-pounder, while Vickers Maxim offered a 3-pounder and Schneider a 47 mm. The French balloon gun appeared in 1910, it was an 11-pounder but mounted on a vehicle, with a total uncrewed weight of two tons. However, since balloons were slow moving, sights were simple. But the challenges of faster moving aeroplanes were recognised.
By 1913 only France and Germany had developed field guns suitable for engaging balloons and aircraft and addressed issues of military organisation. Britain's Royal Navy would soon introduce the QF 3-inch and QF 4-inch AA guns and also had Vickers 1-pounder quick firing "pom-poms" that could be used in various mountings.
The first US anti-aircraft cannon was a 1-pounder concept design by Admiral Twining in 1911 to meet the perceived threat of airships, that eventually was used as the basis for the US Navy's first operational anti-aircraft cannon: the 3-inch/23 caliber gun.
First World War: On the 30th of September, 1915, troops of the Serbian Army observed three enemy aircraft approaching Kragujevac. Soldiers fired at them with shotguns and machine-guns but failed to prevent them from dropping 45 bombs over the city, hitting military installations, the railway station and many other, mostly civilian, targets in the city. During the bombing raid, private Radoje Ljutovac fired his cannon at the enemy aircraft and successfully shot one down. It crashed in the city and both pilots died from their injuries. The cannon Ljutovac used was not designed as an anti-aircraft gun; it was a slightly modified Turkish cannon captured during the First Balkan War in 1912. This was the first occasion in military history that a military aircraft was shot down with ground-to-air artillery fire.
The British recognised the need for anti-aircraft capability a few weeks before World War I broke out; on 8 July 1914, the New York Times reported that the British government had decided to "dot the coasts of the British Isles with a series of towers, each armed with two quick-firing guns of special design," while "a complete circle of towers" was to be built around "naval installations" and "at other especially vulnerable points". By December 1914 the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (RNVR) was manning AA guns and searchlights assembled from various sources at some nine ports. The Royal Garrison Artillery (RGA) was given responsibility for AA defence in the field, using motorised two-gun sections. The first were formally formed in November 1914. Initially they used QF 1-pounder "pom-pom"s (37 mm versions of the Maxim Gun).
All armies soon deployed AA guns often based on their smaller field pieces, notably the French 75 mm and Russian 76.2 mm, typically simply propped up on some sort of embankment to get the muzzle pointed skyward. The British Army adopted the 13-pounder quickly producing new mountings suitable for AA use, the 13-pdr QF 6 cwt Mk III was issued in 1915. It remained in service throughout the war but 18-pdr guns were lined down to take the 13-pdr shell with a larger cartridge producing the 13-pr QF 9 cwt and these proved much more satisfactory. However, in general, these ad hoc solutions proved largely useless. With little experience in the role, no means of measuring target, range, height or speed the difficulty of observing their shell bursts relative to the target gunners proved unable to get their fuse setting correct and most rounds burst well below their targets. The exception to this rule was the guns protecting spotting balloons, in which case the altitude could be accurately measured from the length of the cable holding the balloon.
The first issue was ammunition. Before the war it was recognised that ammunition needed to explode in the air. Both high explosive (HE) and shrapnel were used, mostly the former. Airburst fuses were either igniferious (based on a burning fuse) or mechanical (clockwork). Igniferious fuses were not well suited for anti-aircraft use. The fuse length was determined by time of flight, but the burning rate of the gunpowder was affected by altitude. The British pom-poms had only contact-fused ammunition. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-aircraft warfare | With little experience in the role, no means of measuring target, range, height or speed the difficulty of observing their shell bursts relative to the target gunners proved unable to get their fuse setting correct and most rounds burst well below their targets. The exception to this rule was the guns protecting spotting balloons, in which case the altitude could be accurately measured from the length of the cable holding the balloon.
The first issue was ammunition. Before the war it was recognised that ammunition needed to explode in the air. Both high explosive (HE) and shrapnel were used, mostly the former. Airburst fuses were either igniferious (based on a burning fuse) or mechanical (clockwork). Igniferious fuses were not well suited for anti-aircraft use. The fuse length was determined by time of flight, but the burning rate of the gunpowder was affected by altitude. The British pom-poms had only contact-fused ammunition. Zeppelins, being hydrogen-filled balloons, were targets for incendiary shells and the British introduced these with airburst fuses, both shrapnel type-forward projection of incendiary "pot" and base ejection of an incendiary stream. The British also fitted tracers to their shells for use at night. Smoke shells were also available for some AA guns, these bursts were used as targets during training.
German air attacks on the British Isles increased in 1915 and the AA efforts were deemed somewhat ineffective, so a Royal Navy gunnery expert, Admiral Sir Percy Scott, was appointed to make improvements, particularly an integrated AA defence for London. The air defences were expanded with more RNVR AA guns, 75 mm and 3-inch, the pom-poms being ineffective. The naval 3-inch was also adopted by the army, the QF 3-inch 20 cwt (76 mm), a new field mounting was introduced in 1916. Since most attacks were at night, searchlights were soon used, and acoustic methods of detection and locating were developed. By December 1916 there were 183 AA sections defending Britain (most with the 3-inch), 74 with the BEF in France and 10 in the Middle East.
AA gunnery was a difficult business. The problem was of successfully aiming a shell to burst close to its target's future position, with various factors affecting the shells' predicted trajectory. This was called deflection gun-laying, where "off-set" angles for range and elevation were set on the gunsight and updated as their target moved. In this method, when the sights were on the target, the barrel was pointed at the target's future position. Range and height of the target determined fuse length. The difficulties increased as aircraft performance improved.
The British dealt with range measurement first, when it was realised that range was the key to producing a better fuse setting. This led to the height/range finder (HRF), the first model being the Barr & Stroud UB2, a two-metre optical coincident rangefinder mounted on a tripod. It measured the distance to the target and the elevation angle, which together gave the height of the aircraft. These were complex instruments and various other methods were also used. The HRF was soon joined by the height/fuse indicator (HFI), this was marked with elevation angles and height lines overlaid with fuse length curves, using the height reported by the HRF operator, the necessary fuse length could be read off.
However, the problem of deflection settings — "aim-off" — required knowing the rate of change in the target's position. Both France and the UK introduced tachymetric devices to track targets and produce vertical and horizontal deflection angles. The French Brocq system was electrical; the operator entered the target range and had displays at guns; it was used with their 75 mm. The British Wilson-Dalby gun director used a pair of trackers and mechanical tachymetry; the operator entered the fuse length, and deflection angles were read from the instruments.
By the start of World War I, the 77 mm had become the standard German weapon, and came mounted on a large traverse that could be easily transported on a wagon. Krupp 75 mm guns were supplied with an optical sighting system that improved their capabilities. The German Army also adapted a revolving cannon that came to be known to Allied fliers as the "flaming onion" from the shells in flight. This gun had five barrels that quickly launched a series of 37 mm artillery shells.
As aircraft started to be used against ground targets on the battlefield, the AA guns could not be traversed quickly enough at close targets and, being relatively few, were not always in the right place (and were often unpopular with other troops), so changed positions frequently. Soon the forces were adding various machine-gun based weapons mounted on poles. These short-range weapons proved more deadly, and the "Red Baron" is believed to have been shot down by an anti-aircraft Vickers machine gun. When the war ended, it was clear that the increasing capabilities of aircraft would require better means of acquiring targets and aiming at them. Nevertheless, a pattern had been set: anti-aircraft warfare would employ heavy weapons to attack high-altitude targets and lighter weapons for use when aircraft came to lower altitudes.
Interwar years: World War I demonstrated that aircraft could be an important part of the battlefield, but in some nations it was the prospect of strategic air attack that was the main issue, presenting both a threat and an opportunity. The experience of four years of air attacks on London by Zeppelins and Gotha G.V bombers had particularly influenced the British and was one of if not the main driver for forming an independent air force. As the capabilities of aircraft and their engines improved it was clear that their role in future war would be even more critical as their range and weapon load grew. However, in the years immediately after World War I, the prospect of another major war seemed remote, particularly in Europe, where the most militarily capable nations were, and little financing was available.
Four years of war had seen the creation of a new and technically demanding branch of military activity. Air defence had made huge advances, albeit from a very low starting point. However, it was new and often lacked influential 'friends' in the competition for a share of limited defence budgets. Demobilisation meant that most AA guns were taken out of service, leaving only the most modern.
However, there were lessons to be learned. In particular the British, who had had AA guns in most theatres in action in daylight and used them against night attacks at home. Furthermore, they had also formed an Anti-Aircraft Experimental Section during the war and accumulated large amounts of data that was subjected to extensive analysis. As a result, they published the two-volume Textbook of Anti-Aircraft Gunnery in 1924–1925. It included five key recommendations for HAA equipment:
Shells of improved ballistic shape with HE fillings and mechanical time fuses
Higher rates of fire assisted by automation
Height finding by long-base optical instruments
Centralised control of fire on each gun position, directed by tachymetric instruments incorporating the facility to apply corrections of the moment for meteorological and wear factors
More accurate sound-location for the direction of searchlights and to provide plots for barrage fire
Two assumptions underpinned the British approach to HAA fire; first, aimed fire was the primary method and this was enabled by predicting gun data from visually tracking the target and having its height. Second, that the target would maintain a steady course, speed and height. This HAA was to engage targets up to 24,000 ft (7.3 km). Mechanical time fuses were required because the speed of powder burning varied with height, so fuse length was not a simple function of time of flight. Automated fire ensured a constant rate of fire that made it easier to predict where each shell should be individually aimed.
In 1925 the British adopted a new instrument developed by Vickers. It was a mechanical analogue computer - the Predictor AA No 1. Given the target height, its operators tracked the target and the predictor produced bearing, quadrant elevation and fuse setting. These were passed electrically to the guns, where they were displayed on repeater dials to the layers who "matched pointers" (target data and the gun's actual data) to lay the guns. This system of repeater electrical dials built on the arrangements introduced by British coast artillery in the 1880s, and coast artillery was the background of many AA officers. Similar systems were adopted in other countries and for example the later Sperry M3A3 in the US, was also used by Britain as the Predictor AA No 2. Height finders were also increasing in size; in Britain, the seven-foot optical base World War I Barr & Stroud UB 2 stereoscopic rangefinder was replaced by the nine-foot optical base UB 7 and the eighteen-foot optical base UB 10 (only used on static AA sites). Goertz in Germany and Levallois in France produced five m (16 ft) instruments. However, in most countries the main effort in HAA guns until the mid-1930s was improving existing ones, although various new designs were on drawing boards.
From the early 1930s eight countries developed radar; these developments were sufficiently advanced by the late 1930s for development work on sound-locating acoustic devices to be generally halted, although equipment was retained. Furthermore, in Britain the volunteer Observer Corps formed in 1925 provided a network of observation posts to report hostile aircraft flying over Britain. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-aircraft warfare | Height finders were also increasing in size; in Britain, the seven-foot optical base World War I Barr & Stroud UB 2 stereoscopic rangefinder was replaced by the nine-foot optical base UB 7 and the eighteen-foot optical base UB 10 (only used on static AA sites). Goertz in Germany and Levallois in France produced five m (16 ft) instruments. However, in most countries the main effort in HAA guns until the mid-1930s was improving existing ones, although various new designs were on drawing boards.
From the early 1930s eight countries developed radar; these developments were sufficiently advanced by the late 1930s for development work on sound-locating acoustic devices to be generally halted, although equipment was retained. Furthermore, in Britain the volunteer Observer Corps formed in 1925 provided a network of observation posts to report hostile aircraft flying over Britain. Initially radar was used for airspace surveillance to detect approaching hostile aircraft. However, the German Würzburg radar put into use in 1940 was capable of providing data suitable for controlling AA guns, and the British Radar, Gun Laying, Mark I, was designed to be used on AA gun positions and was in use by 1939.
The Treaty of Versailles prevented Germany having AA weapons, and for example, the Krupps designers joined Bofors in Sweden. Some World War I guns were retained and some covert AA training started in the late 1920s. Germany introduced the 8.8 cm FlaK 18 in 1933, the 36 and 37 models followed with various improvements, but ballistic performance was unchanged. In the late 1930s the 10.5 cm FlaK 38 appeared, soon followed by the 39; this was designed primarily for static sites but had a mobile mounting, and the unit had 220 V 24 kW generators. In 1938 design started on the 12.8 cm FlaK.
Britain had successfully tested a new 3.6-inch gun, in 1918. In 1928 a 3.7-inch (94 mm) gun became the preferred solution, but it took six years to gain funding. Production of the QF 3.7-inch gun began in 1937; this gun was used on mobile carriages with the field army and transportable guns on fixed mountings for static positions. At the same time the Royal Navy adopted a new 4.5-inch (113 mm) gun in a twin turret, which the army adopted in simplified single-gun mountings for static positions, mostly around ports where naval ammunition was available. The performance of the new guns was limited by their standard fuse No 199, with a 30-second running time, although a new mechanical time fuse giving 43 seconds was nearing readiness. In 1939 a machine fuse setter was introduced to eliminate manual fuse setting.
The US ended World War I with two 3-inch AA guns and improvements were developed throughout the inter-war period. However, in 1924 work started on a new 105 mm static mounting AA gun, but only a few were produced by the mid-1930s because by this time work had started on the 90 mm AA gun, with mobile carriages and static mountings able to engage air, sea and ground targets. The M1 version was approved in 1940. During the 1920s there was some work on a 4.7-inch which lapsed, but revived in 1937, leading to a new gun in 1944.
While HAA and its associated target acquisition and fire control was the primary focus of AA efforts, low-level close-range targets remained and by the mid-1930s were becoming an issue.
Until this time the British, at RAF insistence, continued their use of World War I machine guns, and introduced twin MG mountings for AAAD. The army was forbidden from considering anything larger than .50-inch. However, in 1935 their trials showed that the minimum effective round was an impact-fused 2 lb HE shell. The following year they decided to adopt the Bofors 40 mm and a twin barrel Vickers 2-pdr (40 mm) on a modified naval mount. The air-cooled Bofors was vastly superior for land use, being much lighter than the water-cooled "pom-pom", and UK production of the Bofors 40 mm was licensed. The Predictor AA No 3, as the Kerrison Predictor was officially known, was introduced with it.
The 40 mm Bofors had become available in 1931. In the late 1920s the Swedish Navy had ordered the development of a 40 mm naval anti-aircraft gun from the Bofors company. It was light, rapid-firing and reliable, and a mobile version on a four-wheel carriage was soon developed. Known simply as the 40 mm, it was adopted by some 17 different nations just before World War II and is still in use today in some applications such as on coastguard frigates.
Rheinmetall in Germany developed an automatic 20 mm in the 1920s and Oerlikon in Switzerland had acquired the patent to an automatic 20 mm gun designed in Germany during World War I. Germany introduced the rapid-fire 2 cm FlaK 30 and later in the decade it was redesigned by Mauser-Werke and became the 2 cm FlaK 38. Nevertheless, while 20 mm was better than a machine gun and mounted on a very small trailer made it easy to move, its effectiveness was limited. Germany therefore added a 3.7 cm. The first, the 3.7 cm FlaK 18 developed by Rheinmetall in the early 1930s, was basically an enlarged 2 cm FlaK 30. It was introduced in 1935 and production stopped the following year. A redesigned gun 3.7 cm FlaK 36 entered service in 1938, it too had a two-wheel carriage. However, by the mid-1930s the Luftwaffe realised that there was still a coverage gap between 3.7 cm and 8.8 cm guns. They started development of a 5 cm gun on a four-wheel carriage.
After World War I the US Army started developing a dual-role (AA/ground) automatic 37 mm cannon, designed by John M. Browning. It was standardised in 1927 as the T9 AA cannon, but trials quickly revealed that it was worthless in the ground role. However, while the shell was a bit light (well under 2 lbs) it had a good effective ceiling and fired 125 rounds per minute; an AA carriage was developed and it entered service in 1939 as the 37 mm gun M1. It proved prone to jamming, and was eventually replaced in AA units by the Bofors 40 mm. The Bofors had attracted attention from the US Navy, but none were acquired before 1939. Also, in 1931 the US Army worked on a mobile anti-aircraft machine mount on the back of a heavy truck having four .30 calibre water-cooled machine guns and an optical director. It proved unsuccessful and was abandoned.
The USSR introduced a new 76 mm M1931 in 1937, an 85 mm M1938 and developed the 37 mm M1939 (61-K), which appears to have been copied from the Bofors 40 mm. A Bofors 25 mm, essentially a scaled down 40 mm, was also copied as the 25 mm M1939.
During the 1930s solid-fuel rockets were under development in the Soviet Union and Britain. In Britain the interest was for anti-aircraft fire, it quickly became clear that guidance would be required for precision. However, rockets, or "unrotated projectiles" as they were called, could be used for anti-aircraft barrages. A two-inch rocket using HE or wire obstacle warheads - the Z battery - was introduced first to deal with low-level or dive bombing attacks on smaller targets such as airfields. The three-inch was in development at the end of the inter-war period.
Naval aspects: WWI had been a war in which air warfare blossomed, but had not matured to the point of being a real threat to naval forces. The prevailing assumption was that a few relatively small caliber naval guns could manage to keep enemy aircraft beyond a range where harm might be expected. In 1939 radio controlled target drones became available to the US Navy in quantity allowing a more realistic testing of existing anti-aircraft suites against actual flying and manoeuvring targets. The results were sobering to an unexpected degree.
The United States was still emerging from the effects of the Great Depression and funds for the military had been sparse to the degree that 50% of shells used were still powder fused. The US Navy found that a significant portion of its shells were duds or low order detonations (incomplete detonation of the explosive contained by the shell). Virtually every major country involved in combat in World War II invested in aircraft development. The cost of aircraft research and development was small and the results could be large. So rapid was the performance leaps of evolving aircraft that the British High Angle Control System (HACS) was obsolete and designing a successor very difficult for the British establishment. Electronics would prove to be an enabler for effective anti-aircraft systems and both the US and UK had a growing electronics industry. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-aircraft warfare | The results were sobering to an unexpected degree.
The United States was still emerging from the effects of the Great Depression and funds for the military had been sparse to the degree that 50% of shells used were still powder fused. The US Navy found that a significant portion of its shells were duds or low order detonations (incomplete detonation of the explosive contained by the shell). Virtually every major country involved in combat in World War II invested in aircraft development. The cost of aircraft research and development was small and the results could be large. So rapid was the performance leaps of evolving aircraft that the British High Angle Control System (HACS) was obsolete and designing a successor very difficult for the British establishment. Electronics would prove to be an enabler for effective anti-aircraft systems and both the US and UK had a growing electronics industry.
In 1939 radio controlled drones became available to actually test existing systems in British and American service. The results were disappointing by any measure. High-level manoeuvring drones were virtually immune to shipboard AA systems. The US drones could simulate dive bombing which showed the dire need for autocannons. Japan introduced powered gliders in 1940 as drones but apparently was unable to dive bomb. There is no evidence of other powers using drones in this application at all. It may have caused a major underestimation of the threat and an inflated view of their AA systems.
Second World War: Poland's AA defences were no match for the German attack, and the situation was similar in other European countries. Significant AAW (Anti-Air Warfare) started with the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940. QF 3.7-inch AA guns provided the backbone of the ground-based AA defences, although initially significant numbers of QF 3-inch 20 cwt were also used. The Army's Anti-aircraft command, which was under operational command of RAF Fighter Command within Air Defence GB, grew to 12 AA divisions in three AA corps. Bofors 40 mm guns entered service in increasing numbers. In addition, the RAF regiment was formed in 1941 with responsibility for airfield air defence, eventually with Bofors 40 mm as their main armament. Fixed AA defences, using HAA and LAA, were established by the Army in key overseas places, notably Malta, Suez Canal and Singapore.
While the 3.7-inch was the main HAA gun in fixed defences and the only mobile HAA gun with the field army, the QF 4.5-inch gun, manned by artillery, was used in the vicinity of naval ports and made use of the naval ammunition supply. The 4.5-inch at Singapore had the first success in shooting down Japanese bombers. Mid war QF 5.25-inch naval guns started being emplaced in some permanent sites around London. This gun was also deployed in dual-role coast defence/AA positions.
Germany's high-altitude needs were originally going to be filled by a 75 mm gun from Krupp, designed in collaboration with their Swedish counterpart Bofors, but the specifications were later amended to require much higher performance. In response Krupp's engineers presented a new 88 mm design, the FlaK 36. First used in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, the gun proved to be one of the best anti-aircraft guns in the world, as well as particularly deadly against light, medium, and even early heavy tanks.
After the Dambusters raid in 1943 an entirely new system was developed that was required to knock down any low-flying aircraft with a single hit. The first attempt to produce such a system used a 50 mm gun, but this proved inaccurate and a new 55 mm gun replaced it. The system used a centralised control system including both search and targeting radar, which calculated the aim point for the guns after considering windage and ballistics, and then sent electrical commands to the guns, which used hydraulics to point themselves at high speeds. Operators simply fed the guns and selected the targets. This system, modern even by today's standards, was in late development when the war ended.
The British had already arranged licence building of the Bofors 40 mm, and introduced these into service. These had the power to knock down aircraft of any size, yet were light enough to be mobile and easily swung. The gun became so important to the British war effort that they even produced a movie, The Gun, that encouraged workers on the assembly line to work harder. The Imperial measurement production drawings the British had developed were supplied to the Americans who produced their own (unlicensed) copy of the 40 mm at the start of the war, moving to licensed production in mid-1941.
Service trials demonstrated another problem however: that ranging and tracking the new high-speed targets was almost impossible. At short range, the apparent target area is relatively large, the trajectory is flat and the time of flight is short, allowing to correct lead by watching the tracers. At long range, the aircraft remains in firing range for a long time, so the necessary calculations can, in theory, be done by slide rules—though, because small errors in distance cause large errors in shell fall height and detonation time, exact ranging is crucial. For the ranges and speeds that the Bofors worked at, neither answer was good enough.
The solution was automation, in the form of a mechanical computer, the Kerrison Predictor. Operators kept it pointed at the target, and the Predictor then calculated the proper aim point automatically and displayed it as a pointer mounted on the gun. The gun operators simply followed the pointer and loaded the shells. The Kerrison was fairly simple, but it pointed the way to future generations that incorporated radar, first for ranging and later for tracking. Similar predictor systems were introduced by Germany during the war, also adding radar ranging as the war progressed.
A plethora of anti-aircraft gun systems of smaller calibre was available to the German Wehrmacht combined forces, and among them the 1940-origin Flakvierling quadruple-20 mm-autocannon-based anti-aircraft weapon system was one of the most often-seen weapons, seeing service on both land and sea. The similar Allied smaller-calibre air-defence weapons of the American forces were also quite capable. Their needs could cogently be met with smaller-calibre ordnance beyond using the usual singly-mounted M2 .50 caliber machine gun atop a tank's turret, as four of the ground-used "heavy barrel" (M2HB) guns were mounted together on the American Maxson M45 Quadmount weapon (as a direct answer to the Flakvierling), which were often mounted on the back of a half-track to form the M16 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage. Although of less power than Germany's 20 mm systems, the typical four or five combat batteries of an Army AAA battalion were often spread many kilometres apart from each other, rapidly attaching and detaching to larger ground combat units to provide welcome defence from enemy aircraft.
AAA battalions were also used to help suppress ground targets. Their larger 90 mm M3 gun would prove, as did the eighty-eight, to make an excellent anti-tank gun as well, and was widely used late in the war in this role. Also available to the Americans at the start of the war was the 120 mm M1 gun stratosphere gun, which was the most powerful AA gun with an impressive 60,000 ft (18 km) altitude capability, however no 120 M1 was ever fired at an enemy aircraft. The 90 mm and 120 mm guns continued to be used into the 1950s.
The United States Navy had also put some thought into the problem, When the US Navy began to rearm in 1939 in many ships the primary short ranged gun was the M2 .50 caliber machine gun. While effective in fighters at 300 to 400 yards this is point blank range in naval anti-aircraft ranges. Production of the Swiss Oerlikon 20 mm had already started to provide protection for the British and this was adopted in exchange for the M2 machine guns. From December 1941 to January 1942, production had risen to not only cover all British requirements but also allowed 812 units to be actually delivered to the US Navy. By the end of 1942 the 20 mm had accounted for 42% of all aircraft destroyed by the US Navy's shipboard AA. However, the King Board had noted that the balance was shifting towards the larger guns used by the fleet. The US Navy had intended to use the British pom-pom, however, the weapon required the use of cordite which BuOrd had found objectionable for US service. Further investigation revealed that US powders would not work in the pom-pom. Bureau of Ordnance was well aware of the Bofors 40 mm gun. The firm York Safe and Lock was negotiating with Bofors to attain the rights to the air-cooled version of the weapon. At the same time Henry Howard, an engineer, and businessman became aware of it and contacted RAMD W. R. Furlong, chief of the Bureau of Ordnance. He ordered the Bofors weapon system to be investigated. York Safe and Lock would be used as the contracting agent. The system had to be redesigned for both the English measurement system and mass production, as the original documents recommended hand fitting parts and drilling to shape. As early as 1928 the US Navy saw the need to replace the .50 caliber machine gun with something heavier. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-aircraft warfare | Further investigation revealed that US powders would not work in the pom-pom. Bureau of Ordnance was well aware of the Bofors 40 mm gun. The firm York Safe and Lock was negotiating with Bofors to attain the rights to the air-cooled version of the weapon. At the same time Henry Howard, an engineer, and businessman became aware of it and contacted RAMD W. R. Furlong, chief of the Bureau of Ordnance. He ordered the Bofors weapon system to be investigated. York Safe and Lock would be used as the contracting agent. The system had to be redesigned for both the English measurement system and mass production, as the original documents recommended hand fitting parts and drilling to shape. As early as 1928 the US Navy saw the need to replace the .50 caliber machine gun with something heavier. The 1.1"/75 (28 mm) Mark 1 was designed. Placed in quadruple mounts with a 500 rpm rate of fire it would have fit the requirements. However, the gun was suffering teething issues being prone to jamming. While this could have been solved the weight of the system was equal to that of the quad-mount Bofors 40 mm while lacking the range and power that the Bofors provided. The gun was relegated to smaller less vital ships by the end of the war. The 5"/38 naval gun rounded out the US Navy's AA suite. A dual purpose mount, it was used in both the surface and AA roles with great success.
Mated with the Mark 37 director and the proximity fuse it could routinely knock drones out of the sky at ranges as far as 13,000 yards.A 3"/50 MK 22 semiautomatic dual gun was produced but not employed before the end of the war and therefore beyond the scope of this article. However early marks of the 3"/50 were employed in destroyer escorts and on merchant ships. 3″/50 caliber guns (Marks 10, 17, 18, and 20) first entered service in 1915 as a refit to USS Texas (BB-35), and were subsequently mounted on many types of ships as the need for anti-aircraft protection was recognized. During World War II, they were the primary gun armament on destroyer escorts, patrol frigates, submarine chasers, minesweepers, some fleet submarines, and other auxiliary vessels, and were used as a secondary dual-purpose battery on some other types of ships, including some older battleships. They also replaced the original low-angle 4"/50 caliber guns (Mark 9) on "flush-deck" Wickes and Clemson-class destroyers to provide better anti-aircraft protection. The gun was also used on specialist destroyer conversions; the "AVD" seaplane tender conversions received two guns; the "APD" high-speed transports, "DM" minelayers, and "DMS" minesweeper conversions received three guns, and those retaining destroyer classification received six.
The Germans developed massive reinforced-concrete blockhouses, some more than six stories high, which were known as Hochbunker 'high bunkers' or "Flaktürme" flak towers, on which they placed anti-aircraft artillery. Those in cities attacked by the Allied land forces became fortresses. Several in Berlin were some of the last buildings to fall to the Soviets during the Battle of Berlin in 1945. The British built structures such as the Maunsell Forts in the North Sea, the Thames Estuary and other tidal areas upon which they based guns. After the war most were left to rot. Some were outside territorial waters, and had a second life in the 1960s as platforms for pirate radio stations, while another became the base of a micronation, the Principality of Sealand.
Some nations started rocket research before World War II, including for anti-aircraft use. Further research started during the war. The first step was unguided missile systems like the British 2-inch RP and 3-inch, which was fired in large numbers from Z batteries, and were also fitted to warships. The firing of one of these devices during an air raid is suspected to have caused the Bethnal Green disaster in 1943. Facing the threat of Japanese Kamikaze attacks the British and US developed surface-to-air rockets like British Fairey Stooge or the American Lark as counter measures, but none of them were ready at the end of the war. The Germans missile research was the most advanced of the war as the Germans put considerable effort in the research and development of rocket systems for all purposes. Among them were several guided and unguided systems. Unguided systems involved the Fliegerfaust (literally "aircraft fist") rocket launcher as the first MANPADS. Guided systems were several sophisticated radio, wire, or radar guided missiles like the Wasserfall ('waterfall') rocket. Owing to the severe war situation for Germany all of those systems were only produced in small numbers and most of them were only used by training or trial units.
Another aspect of anti-aircraft defence was the use of barrage balloons to act as physical obstacle initially to bomber aircraft over cities and later for ground attack aircraft over the Normandy invasion fleets. The balloon, a simple blimp tethered to the ground, worked in two ways. Firstly, it and the steel cable were a danger to any aircraft that tried to fly among them. Secondly, to avoid the balloons, bombers had to fly at a higher altitude, which was more favourable for the guns. Barrage balloons were limited in application, and had minimal success at bringing down aircraft, being largely immobile and passive defences.
The Allies' most advanced technologies were showcased by the anti-aircraft defence against the German V-1 cruise missiles (V stands for Vergeltungswaffe, 'retaliation weapon'). The 419th and 601st anti-aircraft gun battalions of the US Army were first allocated to the Folkestone-Dover coast to defend London, and then moved to Belgium to become part of the "Antwerp X" project coordinated from the Le Grand Veneur in Keerbergen. With the liberation of Antwerp, the port city immediately became the highest priority target, and received the largest number of V-1 and V-2 missiles of any city. The smallest tactical unit of the operation was a gun battery consisting of four 90 mm guns firing shells equipped with a radio proximity fuse. Incoming targets were acquired and automatically tracked by SCR-584 radar,. Output from the gun-laying radar was fed to the M9 gun director, an electronic analogue computer to calculate the lead and elevation corrections for the guns. With the help of these three technologies, close to 90% of the V-1 missiles, on track to the defence zone around the port, were destroyed.
Post-war: Post-war analysis demonstrated that even with newest anti-aircraft systems employed by both sides, the vast majority of bombers reached their targets successfully, on the order of 90%. While these figures were undesirable during the war, the advent of the nuclear bomb considerably altered the acceptability of even a single bomber reaching its target.
The developments during World War II continued for a short time into the post-war period as well. In particular the US Army set up a huge air defence network around its larger cities based on radar-guided 90 mm and 120 mm guns. US efforts continued into the 1950s with the 75 mm Skysweeper system, an almost fully automated system including the radar, computers, power, and auto-loading gun on a single powered platform. The Skysweeper replaced all smaller guns then in use in the Army, notably the 40 mm Bofors. By 1955, the US military deemed the 40 mm Bofors obsolete due to its reduced capability to shoot down jet powered aircraft, and turned to SAM development, with the Nike Ajax and the RSD-58. In Europe NATO's Allied Command Europe developed an integrated air defence system, NATO Air Defence Ground Environment (NADGE), that later became the NATO Integrated Air Defence System.
The introduction of the guided missile resulted in a significant shift in anti-aircraft strategy. Although Germany had been desperate to introduce anti-aircraft missile systems, none became operational during World War II. Following several years of post-war development, however, these systems began to mature into viable weapons. The US started an upgrade of their defences using the Nike Ajax missile, and soon the larger anti-aircraft guns disappeared. The same thing occurred in the USSR after the introduction of their SA-2 Guideline systems.
As this process continued, the missile found itself being used for more and more of the roles formerly filled by guns. First to go were the large weapons, replaced by equally large missile systems of much higher performance. Smaller missiles soon followed, eventually becoming small enough to be mounted on armoured cars and tank chassis. These started replacing, or at least supplanting, similar gun-based SPAAG systems in the 1960s, and by the 1990s had replaced almost all such systems in modern armies. Man-portable missiles, MANPADS, as they are known today, were introduced in the 1960s and have supplanted or replaced even the smallest guns in most advanced armies.
In the 1982 Falklands War, the Argentine armed forces deployed the newest west European weapons including the 35 mm Oerlikon GDF-002 twin cannon and Roland missile. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-aircraft warfare | As this process continued, the missile found itself being used for more and more of the roles formerly filled by guns. First to go were the large weapons, replaced by equally large missile systems of much higher performance. Smaller missiles soon followed, eventually becoming small enough to be mounted on armoured cars and tank chassis. These started replacing, or at least supplanting, similar gun-based SPAAG systems in the 1960s, and by the 1990s had replaced almost all such systems in modern armies. Man-portable missiles, MANPADS, as they are known today, were introduced in the 1960s and have supplanted or replaced even the smallest guns in most advanced armies.
In the 1982 Falklands War, the Argentine armed forces deployed the newest west European weapons including the 35 mm Oerlikon GDF-002 twin cannon and Roland missile. The Rapier missile system was the primary GBAD system, used by both British artillery and RAF regiment, a few brand-new FIM-92 Stinger were used by British special forces. Both sides also used the Blowpipe missile. British naval missiles used included Sea Dart and the older Sea Slug longer range systems, SeaCat and the new Sea Wolf short range systems. Machine guns in AA mountings were used both ashore and afloat.
During the 2008 South Ossetia war air power faced off against powerful SAM systems, like the 1980s Buk-M1.
In February 2018, an Israeli F-16 fighter was downed in the occupied Golan Heights province, after it had attacked an Iranian target in Syria. In 2006, Israel also lost a helicopter over Lebanon, shot down by a Hezbollah rocket.
AA warfare systems: Although the firearms used by the infantry, particularly machine guns, can be used to engage low altitude air targets, on occasion with notable success, their effectiveness is generally limited and the muzzle flashes reveal infantry positions. Speed and altitude of modern jet aircraft limit target opportunities, and critical systems may be armoured in aircraft designed for the ground attack role. Adaptations of the standard autocannon, originally intended for air-to-ground use, and heavier artillery systems were commonly used for most anti-aircraft gunnery, starting with standard pieces on new mountings, and evolving to specially designed guns with much higher performance prior to World War II.
The shells fired by these weapons are usually fitted with different types of fuses (barometric, time-delay, or proximity) to explode close to the airborne target, releasing a shower of fast metal fragments. For shorter-range work, a lighter weapon with a higher rate of fire is required, to increase a hit probability on a fast airborne target. Weapons between 20 mm and 40 mm calibre have been widely used in this role. Smaller weapons, typically .50 calibre or even 8 mm rifle calibre guns have been used in the smallest mounts.
Unlike the heavier guns, these smaller weapons are in widespread use due to their low cost and ability to quickly follow the target. Classic examples of autocannons and large calibre guns are the 40 mm autocannon from Bofors and the 8.8 cm FlaK 18, 36 gun designed by Krupp. Artillery weapons of this sort have for the most part been superseded by the effective surface-to-air missile systems that were introduced in the 1950s, although they were still retained by many nations. The development of surface-to-air missiles began in Nazi Germany during the late World War II with missiles such as the Wasserfall, though no working system was deployed before the war's end, and represented new attempts to increase effectiveness of the anti-aircraft systems faced with growing threat from bombers. Land-based SAMs can be deployed from fixed installations or mobile launchers, either wheeled or tracked. The tracked vehicles are usually armoured vehicles specifically designed to carry SAMs.
Larger SAMs may be deployed in fixed launchers, but can be towed/re-deployed at will. The SAMs launched by individuals are known in the United States as the Man-Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS). MANPADS of the former Soviet Union have been exported around the World, and can be found in use by many armed forces. Targets for non-ManPAD SAMs will usually be acquired by air-search radar, then tracked before/while a SAM is "locked-on" and then fired. Potential targets, if they are military aircraft, will be identified as friend or foe before being engaged. The developments in the latest and relatively cheap short-range missiles have begun to replace autocannons in this role.
The interceptor aircraft (or simply interceptor) is a type of fighter aircraft designed specifically to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft, particularly bombers, usually relying on high speed and altitude capabilities. A number of jet interceptors such as the F-102 Delta Dagger, the F-106 Delta Dart, and the MiG-25 were built in the period starting after the end of World War II and ending in the late 1960s, when they became less important due to the shifting of the strategic bombing role to ICBMs. Invariably the type is differentiated from other fighter aircraft designs by higher speeds and shorter operating ranges, as well as much reduced ordnance payloads.
The radar systems use electromagnetic waves to identify the range, altitude, direction, or speed of aircraft and weather formations to provide tactical and operational warning and direction, primarily during defensive operations. In their functional roles they provide target search, threat detection, guidance, reconnaissance, navigation, instrumentation, and weather reporting support to combat operations.
Anti-UAV defences: An anti-UAV defence system (AUDS) is a system for defence against military unmanned aerial vehicles. A variety of designs have been developed, using lasers, net-guns and air-to-air netting, signal jamming, and hi-jacking by means of in-flight hacking. Anti-UAV defence systems have been deployed against ISIL drones during the Battle of Mosul (2016–2017).
Alternative approaches for dealing with UAVs have included using a shotgun at close range, and for smaller drones, training eagles to snatch them from the air. This only works on relatively small UAVs and loitering munitions (also called "suicide drones"). Larger UCAVs such as the MQ-1 Predator can be (and frequently are) shot down like manned aircraft of similar sizes and flight profiles.
Future developments: Guns are being increasingly pushed into specialist roles, such as the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS, which uses the GAU-8 Avenger 30 mm seven-barrel Gatling gun for last ditch anti-missile and anti-aircraft defence. Even this formerly front-line weapon is currently being replaced by new missile systems, such as the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, which is smaller, faster, and allows for mid-flight course correction (guidance) to ensure a hit. To bridge the gap between guns and missiles, Russia in particular produces the Kashtan CIWS, which uses both guns and missiles for final defence with two six-barrelled 30 mm Gsh-6-30 rotary canon and eight 9M311 surface-to-air missiles provide for its defensive capabilities.
Upsetting this development to all-missile systems is the current move to stealth aircraft. Long range missiles depend on long-range detection to provide significant lead. Stealth designs cut detection ranges so much that the aircraft is often never even seen, and when it is, it is often too late for an intercept. Systems for detection and tracking of stealthy aircraft are a major problem for anti-aircraft development.
However, as stealth technology grows, so does anti-stealth technology. Multiple transmitter radars such as those from bistatic radars and low-frequency radars are said to have the capabilities to detect stealth aircraft. Advanced forms of thermographic cameras such as those that incorporate QWIPs would be able to optically see a stealth aircraft regardless of the aircraft's radar cross-section (RCS). In addition, side-looking radars, high-powered optical satellites, and sky-scanning, high-aperture, high sensitivity radars such as radio telescopes, would all be able to narrow down the location of a stealth aircraft under certain parameters. The newest SAMs have a claimed ability to be able to detect and engage stealth targets, with the most notable being the Russian S-400, which is claimed to be able to detect a target with a 0.05-square metre RCS from 90 km away.
Another potential weapon system for anti-aircraft use is the laser. Although air planners have imagined lasers in combat since the late 1960s, only the most modern laser systems are currently reaching what could be considered "experimental usefulness". In particular the Tactical High Energy Laser can be used in the anti-aircraft and anti-missile role. The ALKA directed-energy weapon (DEW) system is a Turkish dual electromagnetic/laser weapon developed by Roketsan allegedly used to destroy one of GNC's Wing Loong II UAVs; if true, this would represent the first known time a vehicle mounted combat laser was used to destroy another combat vehicle during genuine wartime conditions.
The future of projectile based weapons may be found in the railgun. Currently tests are underway on developing systems that could create as much damage as a Tomahawk, but at a fraction of the cost. In February 2008 the US Navy tested a railgun; it fired a shell at 5,600 miles (9,000 km) per hour using 10 megajoules of energy. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-aircraft warfare | In particular the Tactical High Energy Laser can be used in the anti-aircraft and anti-missile role. The ALKA directed-energy weapon (DEW) system is a Turkish dual electromagnetic/laser weapon developed by Roketsan allegedly used to destroy one of GNC's Wing Loong II UAVs; if true, this would represent the first known time a vehicle mounted combat laser was used to destroy another combat vehicle during genuine wartime conditions.
The future of projectile based weapons may be found in the railgun. Currently tests are underway on developing systems that could create as much damage as a Tomahawk, but at a fraction of the cost. In February 2008 the US Navy tested a railgun; it fired a shell at 5,600 miles (9,000 km) per hour using 10 megajoules of energy. Its expected performance is over 13,000 miles (21,000 km) per hour muzzle velocity, accurate enough to hit a 5-metre target from 200 nautical miles (370 km) away while shooting at 10 shots per minute. It is expected to be ready in 2020 to 2025. These systems, while currently designed for static targets, would only need the ability to be retargeted to become the next generation of AA system.
Force structures: Most Western and Commonwealth militaries integrate air defence purely with the traditional services of the military (i.e. army, navy and air force), as a separate arm or as part of artillery. In the British Army for instance, air defence is part of the artillery arm, while in the Pakistan Army, it was split off from the artillery to form a separate arm of its own in 1990. This is in contrast to some (largely communist or ex-communist) countries where not only are there provisions for air defence in the army, navy and air force but there are specific branches that deal only with the air defence of territory, for example, the Soviet PVO Strany. The USSR also had a separate strategic rocket force in charge of nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Navy: Smaller boats and ships typically have machine-guns or fast cannons, which can often be deadly to low-flying aircraft if linked to a radar-directed fire-control system radar-controlled cannon for point defence. Some vessels like Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers are as much a threat to aircraft as any land-based air defence system. In general, naval vessels should be treated with respect by aircraft, however the reverse is equally true. Carrier battle groups are especially well defended, as not only do they typically consist of many vessels with heavy air defence armament but they are also able to launch fighter jets for combat air patrol overhead to intercept incoming airborne threats.
Nations such as Japan use their SAM-equipped vessels to create an outer air defence perimeter and radar picket in the defence of its Home islands, and the United States also uses its Aegis-equipped ships as part of its Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System in the defence of the Continental United States.
Some modern submarines, such as the Type 212 submarines of the German Navy, are equipped with surface-to-air missile systems, since helicopters and anti-submarine warfare aircraft are significant threats. The subsurface launched anti-air missile was first purposed by US Navy Rear Admiral Charles B. Momsen, in a 1953 article.
Layered air defence: Layered air defence in naval tactics, especially within a carrier group, is often built around a system of concentric layers with the aircraft carrier at the centre. The outer layer will usually be provided by the carrier's aircraft, specifically its AEW&C aircraft combined with the CAP. If an attacker is able to penetrate this layer, then the next layers would come from the surface-to-air missiles carried by the carrier's escorts; the area-defence missiles, such as the RIM-67 Standard, with a range of up to 100 nmi, and the point-defence missiles, like the RIM-162 ESSM, with a range of up to 30 nmi. Finally, virtually every modern warship will be fitted with small-calibre guns, including a CIWS, which is usually a radar-controlled Gatling gun of between 20 mm and 30 mm calibre capable of firing several thousand rounds per minute.
Army: Armies typically have air defence in depth, from integral man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) such as the RBS 70, Stinger and Igla at smaller force levels up to army-level missile defence systems such as Angara and Patriot. Often, the high-altitude long-range missile systems force aircraft to fly at low level, where anti-aircraft guns can bring them down. As well as the small and large systems, for effective air defence there must be intermediate systems. These may be deployed at regiment-level and consist of platoons of self-propelled anti-aircraft platforms, whether they are self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAGs), integrated air-defence systems like 2K22 Tunguska or all-in-one surface-to-air missile platforms like Roland or SA-8 Gecko.
On a national level the United States Army was atypical in that it was primarily responsible for the missile air defences of the Continental United States with systems such as Project Nike.
Air force: Air defence by air forces is typically provided by fighter jets carrying air-to-air missiles. However, most air forces choose to augment airbase defence with surface-to-air missile systems as they are such valuable targets and subject to attack by enemy aircraft. In addition, some countries choose to put all air defence responsibilities under the air force.
Area air defence: Area air defence, the air defence of a specific area or location, (as opposed to point defence), have historically been operated by both armies (Anti-Aircraft Command in the British Army, for instance) and Air Forces (the United States Air Force's CIM-10 Bomarc). Area defence systems have medium to long range and can be made up of various other systems and networked into an area defence system (in which case it may be made up of several short range systems combined to effectively cover an area). An example of area defence is the defence of Saudi Arabia and Israel by MIM-104 Patriot missile batteries during the first Gulf War, where the objective was to cover populated areas.
Tactics:
Mobility: Most modern air defence systems are fairly mobile. Even the larger systems tend to be mounted on trailers and are designed to be fairly quickly broken down or set up. In the past, this was not always the case. Early missile systems were cumbersome and required much infrastructure; many could not be moved at all. With the diversification of air defence there has been much more emphasis on mobility. Most modern systems are usually either self-propelled (i.e. guns or missiles are mounted on a truck or tracked chassis) or towed. Even systems that consist of many components (transporter/erector/launchers, radars, command posts etc.) benefit from being mounted on a fleet of vehicles. In general, a fixed system can be identified, attacked and destroyed whereas a mobile system can show up in places where it is not expected. Soviet systems especially concentrate on mobility, after the lessons learnt in the Vietnam war between the US and Vietnam with the SA-2 Guideline.
Air defence versus air defence suppression: Israel and the US Air Force, in conjunction with the members of NATO, have developed significant tactics for air defence suppression. Dedicated weapons such as anti-radiation missiles and advanced electronics intelligence and electronic countermeasures platforms seek to suppress or negate the effectiveness of an opposing air-defence system. It is an arms race; as better jamming, countermeasures and anti-radiation weapons are developed, so are better SAM systems with ECCM capabilities and the ability to shoot down anti-radiation missiles and other munitions aimed at them or the targets they are defending.
Insurgent tactics: Stinger missiles supplied by the United States were used against the aircraft of the Soviet Union by the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the Cold War. Rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) can be—and often are—used against hovering helicopters (e.g., by Somali militiamen during the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu. Firing an RPG at steep angles poses a danger to the user, because the backblast from firing reflects off the ground. In Somalia, militia members sometimes welded a steel plate onto the exhaust end of an RPG's tube to deflect pressure away from the shooter when shooting up at US helicopters. RPGs are used in this role only when more effective weapons are not available.
Another example of using RPGs against helicopters is Operation Anaconda in March 2002 in Afghanistan. Taliban insurgents defending Shah-i-Kot Valley used RPGs in a direct fire role against landing helicopters. Four rangers were killed when their helicopter was shot down by an RPG, and SEAL team member Neil C. Roberts fell out of his helicopter when it was hit by two RPGs. In other instances helicopters have been shot down in Afghanistan during a mission in Wardak province. One feature that makes RPGs useful in air defence is that they are fused to automatically detonate at 920 m. If aimed into the air this causes the warhead to airburst which can release a limited but potentially damaging amount of shrapnel hitting a helicopter landing or taking off.
For insurgents the most effective method of countering aircraft is to attempt to destroy them on the ground, either by penetrating an airbase perimeter and destroying aircraft individually, e.g. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-aircraft warfare | Another example of using RPGs against helicopters is Operation Anaconda in March 2002 in Afghanistan. Taliban insurgents defending Shah-i-Kot Valley used RPGs in a direct fire role against landing helicopters. Four rangers were killed when their helicopter was shot down by an RPG, and SEAL team member Neil C. Roberts fell out of his helicopter when it was hit by two RPGs. In other instances helicopters have been shot down in Afghanistan during a mission in Wardak province. One feature that makes RPGs useful in air defence is that they are fused to automatically detonate at 920 m. If aimed into the air this causes the warhead to airburst which can release a limited but potentially damaging amount of shrapnel hitting a helicopter landing or taking off.
For insurgents the most effective method of countering aircraft is to attempt to destroy them on the ground, either by penetrating an airbase perimeter and destroying aircraft individually, e.g. the September 2012 Camp Bastion raid, or finding a position where aircraft can be engaged with indirect fire, such as mortars. A recent trend emerging during the Syrian Civil War is the use of ATGM against landing helicopters.
See also: Air defence forces
Air supremacy
Gun laying
List of anti-aircraft weapons
Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon
The bomber will always get through
References:
Citations:
Sources:
External links:
"Flak (1943)" on YouTube
1914 1918 war in Alsace – The Battle of Linge 1915 – The 63rd Anti Aircraft Regiment in 14 18 – The 96th poste semi-fixed in the Vosges
Archie to SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air Defense by Kenneth P. Werrell (book available for download)
Japanese Anti-aircraft land/vessel doctrines in 1943–44
2nd/3rd Australian Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-ballistic missile | Current counter-ICBM systems: There are a limited number of systems worldwide that can intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles:
The Russian A-135 anti-ballistic missile system (upgraded in 2017 to A-235) is used for the defense of Moscow. It became operational in 1995 and was preceded by the A-35 anti-ballistic missile system. The system uses Gorgon and Gazelle missiles previously armed with nuclear warheads. These missiles have been updated (2017) and use non-nuclear kinetic interceptors instead, to intercept any incoming ICBMs.
The Israeli Arrow 3 system entered operational service in 2017. It is designed for exo-atmosphere interception of ballistic missiles during the spaceflight portion of their trajectory, including those of ICBMs. It may also act as an anti-satellite weapon.
The Indian Prithvi Defence Vehicle Mark 2 has the capability to shoot down ICBMs. It has completed developmental trials and is awaiting the Indian government's clearance in order to be deployed.
The American Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, formerly known as National Missile Defense (NMD), was first tested in 1997 and had its first successful intercept test in 1999. Instead of using an explosive charge, it launches a hit-to-kill kinetic projectile to intercept an ICBM. The current GMD system is intended to shield the United States mainland against a limited nuclear attack by a rogue state such as North Korea. GMD does not have the ability to protect against an all-out nuclear attack from Russia, as there are currently only 44 ground-based interceptors available to counter projectiles headed towards the US. (This interceptor count does not include the THAAD, or Aegis, or Patriot defenses which provide shorter range defence against incoming projectiles.)
The Aegis ballistic missile defense-equipped SM-3 Block II-A missile demonstrated it can shoot down an ICBM target on 16 Nov 2020.
In a November 2020 test, the US launched a surrogate ICBM from Kwajalein Atoll toward Hawaii in the general direction of the continental US, which triggered a satellite warning to a Colorado Air Force base. In response, USS John Finn launched a missile which destroyed the surrogate ICBM, while still outside the atmosphere.
American plans for Central European site: During 1993, a symposium was held by western European nations to discuss potential future ballistic missile defence programs. In the end, the council recommended deployment of early warning and surveillance systems as well as regionally controlled defence systems.
During spring 2006 reports about negotiations between the United States, Poland, and the Czech Republic were published.
The plans propose the installation of a latest generation ABM system with a radar site in the Czech Republic and the launch site in Poland. The system was announced to be aimed against ICBMs from Iran and North Korea. This caused harsh comments by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) security conference during spring 2007 in Munich. Other European ministers commented that any change of strategic weapons should be negotiated on NATO level and not 'unilaterally' [sic, actually bilaterally] between the U.S. and other states (although most strategic arms reduction treaties were between the Soviet Union and U.S., not NATO). The German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, a Social Democrat, expressed severe concerns about the way in which the U.S. had conveyed its plans to its European partners and criticised the U.S. administration for not having consulted Russia prior to announcing its endeavours to deploy a new missile defence system in Central Europe. According to a July 2007 survey, a majority of Poles were opposed to hosting a component of the system in Poland.
By 28 July 2016 Missile Defense Agency planning and agreements had clarified enough to give more details about the Aegis Ashore sites in Romania (2014) and Poland (2018).
Current tactical systems:
People's Republic of China:
Historical Project 640: Project 640 had been the PRC's indigenous effort to develop ABM capability. The Academy of Anti-Ballistic Missile & Anti-Satellite was established from 1969 for the purpose of developing Project 640. The project was to involve at least three elements, including the necessary sensors and guidance/command system, the Fan Ji (FJ) missile interceptor, and the XianFeng missile-intercepting cannon. The FJ-1 had completed two successful flight tests during 1979, while the low-altitude interceptor FJ-2 completed some successful flight tests using scaled prototypes. A high altitude FJ-3 interceptor was also proposed. Despite the development of missiles, the programme was slowed down due to financial and political reasons. It was finally closed down during 1980 under a new leadership of Deng Xiaoping as it was seemingly deemed unnecessary after the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States and the closure of the US Safeguard ABM system.
Operational Chinese system: In March 2006, China tested an interceptor system comparable to the U.S. Patriot missiles.
China has acquired and is license-producing the S-300PMU-2/S-300PMU-1 series of terminal ABM-capable SAMs. China-produced HQ-9 SAM system may possess terminal ABM capabilities. PRC Navy's operating modern air-defense destroyers known as the Type 052C Destroyer and Type 051C Destroyer are armed with naval HQ-9 missiles.
The HQ-19, similar to the THAAD, was first tested in 2003, and subsequently a few more times, including in November 2015. The HQ-29, a counterpart to the MIM-104F PAC-3, was first tested in 2011.
Surface-to-air missiles that supposedly have some terminal ABM capability (as opposed to midcourse capability):
HQ-29
HQ-19
HQ-18
HQ-15
Development of midcourse ABM in China: The technology and experience from the successful anti-satellite test using a ground-launched interceptor during January 2007 was immediately applied to current ABM efforts and development.
China carried out a land-based anti-ballistic missile test on 11 January 2010. The test was exoatmospheric and done in midcourse phase and with a kinetic kill vehicle. China is the second country after US that demonstrated intercepting ballistic missile with a kinetic kill vehicle, the interceptor missile was a SC-19. The sources suggest the system is not operationally deployed as of 2010.
On 27 January 2013, China did another anti ballistic missile test. According to the Chinese Defence Ministry, the missile launch is defensive in character and is not aimed against any countries. Experts hailed China's technological breakthrough because it is difficult to intercept ballistic missiles that have reached the highest point and speed in the middle of their course. Only two countries, including the US, have successfully conducted such a test in the past decade.
On 4 February 2021, China successfully conducted mid-course intercept anti-ballistic missile test. Military analysts indicates that the test and dozens done before reflects China's improvement in the area.
Rumored midcourse missiles:
DN-3
DN-2
DN-1
HQ-26
France, Italy, and the United Kingdom: The Aster is a family of missiles jointly developed by France and Italy. The Aster 30 variants are capable of ballistic missile defense. An export customer, the United Kingdom also operates the Aster 30 Block 0.
On 18 October 2010, France announced a successful tactical ABM test of the Aster 30 missile and on 1 December 2011 a successful interception of a Black Sparrow ballistic target missile. The Horizon-class frigates in French and Italian service, the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyers, and the French and Italian FREMM-class frigates are all armed with PAAMS (or variants of it) integrating Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles. France and Italy are developing a new variant, the Aster 30 Block II, which can destroy ballistic missiles up to a maximum range of 3,000 km (1,900 mi). It will incorporate a kill vehicle warhead.
India: India has an active ABM development effort using indigenously developed and integrated radars, and indigenous missiles. In November 2006, India successfully conducted the PADE (Prithvi Air Defence Exercise) in which an anti-ballistic missile, called the Prithvi Air Defence (PAD), an exo-atmospheric (outside the atmosphere) interceptor system, intercepted a Prithvi-II ballistic missile. The PAD missile has the secondary stage of the Prithvi missile and can reach altitude of 80 km (50 mi). During the test, the target missile was intercepted at a 50 km (31 mi) altitude. On 6 December 2007, the Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile system was tested successfully. This missile is an endo-atmospheric interceptor with an altitude of 30 km (19 mi). First reported in 2009, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is developing a new Prithvi interceptor missile code-named PDV. The PDV is designed to take out the target missile at altitudes above 150 km (93 mi). The first PDV was successfully test fired on 27 April 2014. According to scientist V K Saraswat of the DRDO, the missiles will work in tandem to ensure a hit probability of 99.8 percent. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-ballistic missile | The PAD missile has the secondary stage of the Prithvi missile and can reach altitude of 80 km (50 mi). During the test, the target missile was intercepted at a 50 km (31 mi) altitude. On 6 December 2007, the Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile system was tested successfully. This missile is an endo-atmospheric interceptor with an altitude of 30 km (19 mi). First reported in 2009, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is developing a new Prithvi interceptor missile code-named PDV. The PDV is designed to take out the target missile at altitudes above 150 km (93 mi). The first PDV was successfully test fired on 27 April 2014. According to scientist V K Saraswat of the DRDO, the missiles will work in tandem to ensure a hit probability of 99.8 percent. On 15 May 2016, India successfully launched AAD renamed Ashwin from Abdul Kalam Island off the coast of Odisha.
As of 8 January 2020, the BMD programme has been completed and the Indian Air Force and the DRDO are awaiting government's final approval before the system is deployed to protect New Delhi and then Mumbai. After these two cities, it will be deployed in other major cities and regions. India has structured a five-layer missile shield for Delhi as of 9 June 2019:
PAD and PDV are designed for mid-course interception, while AAD is for terminal phase interception.
Outermost BMD layer at endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes (15–25 km, and 80–100 km) for 2,000 km ranges
Project Kusha and S-400 layer at ranges of 150, 250, 350 & 400 km
Akash-NG, Barak-8 layer at ranges of 70, 80, & 100 km
Akash layer at ranges of 25–30 km
Surface to air missiles and gun systems as the inner-most ring of defense. Previously planned to acquire NASAMS-II. But Indian Air Force deterred by high cost is now looking at domestic alternative (potentially land-based VL-SRSAM).
The current Phase-1 of the Indian ABM system can intercept ballistic missiles of range up to 2,000 km and the Phase-2 will increase it up to 5,000 km.
Israel:
Arrow 2: The Arrow project was begun after the U.S. and Israel agreed to co-fund it on 6 May 1986.
The Arrow ABM system was designed and constructed in Israel with financial support by the United States by a multibillion-dollar development program called "Minhelet Homa" (Wall Administration) with the participation of companies like Israel Military Industries, Tadiran and Israel Aerospace Industries.
During 1998 the Israeli military conducted a successful test of their Arrow missile. Designed to intercept incoming missiles travelling at up to 2-mile/s (3 km/s), the Arrow is expected to perform much better than the Patriot did in the Gulf War. On 29 July 2004 Israel and the United States carried out a joint experiment in the US, in which the Arrow was launched against a real Scud missile. The experiment was a success, as the Arrow destroyed the Scud with a direct hit. During December 2005 the system was deployed successfully in a test against a replicated Shahab-3 missile. This feat was repeated on 11 February 2007.
Arrow 3: The Arrow 3 system is capable of exo-atmosphere interception of ballistic missiles, including of ICBMs. It also acts as an anti-satellite weapon.
Lieutenant General Patrick J. O'Reilly, Director of the US Missile Defense Agency, said: "The design of Arrow 3 promises to be an extremely capable system, more advanced than what we have ever attempted in the U.S. with our programs."
On 10 December 2015 Arrow 3 scored its first intercept in a complex test designed to validate how the system can detect, identify, track and then discriminate real from decoy targets delivered into space by an improved Silver Sparrow target missile. According to officials, the milestone test paves the way toward low-rate initial production of the Arrow 3.
David’s sling: David's Sling (Hebrew: קלע דוד), also sometimes called Magic Wand (Hebrew: שרביט קסמים), is an Israel Defense Forces military system being jointly developed by the Israeli defense contractor Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and the American defense contractor Raytheon, designed to intercept tactical ballistic missiles, as well as medium- to long-range rockets and slower-flying cruise missiles, such as those possessed by Hezbollah, fired at ranges from 40 km to 300 km. It is designed with the aim of intercepting the newest generation of tactical ballistic missiles, such as Iskander.
Japan: Since 1998, when North Korea launched a Taepodong-1 missile over northern Japan, the Japanese have been jointly developing a new surface-to-air interceptor known as the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) with the US. Tests have been successful, and there are 11 locations that are planned for the PAC-3 to be installed. The approximate locations are near major air bases, like Kadena Air Base, and ammunition storage centers of the Japanese military. The exact location are not known to the public. A military spokesman said that tests had been done on two sites, one of them a business park in central Tokyo, and Ichigaya – a site not far from the Imperial Palace.
Along with the PAC-3, Japan has installed a US-developed ship-based anti-ballistic missile system, which was tested successfully on 18 December 2007. Japan has 4 destroyers of this type capable of carrying RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 and equipped with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. Japan is currently modifying another 4 destroyers so that they can take part of their defense force against ballistic missiles, bringing the total number to 8 ships.
Soviet Union/Russian Federation: The Moscow ABM defense system was designed with the aim of being able to intercept the ICBM warheads aimed at Moscow and other important industrial regions, and is based on:
A-35 Aldan
ABM-1 Galosh / 5V61 (decommissioned)
A-35M
ABM-1B (decommissioned)
A-135 Amur
ABM-3 Gazelle / 53T6
ABM-4 Gorgon / 51T6 (decommissioned)
A–235 Nudol (In development)
S-300P (SA-10)
S-300V/V4 (SA-12)
S-300PMU-1/2 (SA-20)
S-400 (SA-21)
S-300VM (SA-23)
S-500 Prometey (serial production began in 2021)
United States: In several tests, the U.S. military have demonstrated the feasibility of destroying long and short range ballistic missiles. Combat effectiveness of newer systems against 1950s tactical ballistic missiles seems very high, as the MIM-104 Patriot (PAC-1 and PAC-2) had a 100% success rate in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The U.S. Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (Aegis BMD) uses RIM-161 Standard Missile 3, which hit a target going faster than ICBM warheads. On 16 November 2020 an SM-3 Block IIA interceptor successfully destroyed an ICBM in mid-course, under Link-16 Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC).
The U.S. Army Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system began production in 2008. Its stated range as a short to intermediate ballistic missile interceptor means that it is not designed to hit midcourse ICBMs, which can reach terminal phase speeds of mach 8 or greater. The THAAD interceptor has a reported maximum speed of mach 8, and THAAD has repeatedly proven it can intercept descending exoatmospheric missiles in a ballistic trajectory.
The U.S. Army Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system was developed by the Missile Defense Agency. It combines ground-based AN/FPS-132 Upgraded Early Warning Radar installations and mobile AN/TPY-2 X-band radars with 44 exoatmospheric interceptors stationed in underground silos around California and Alaska, to protect against low-count ICBM attacks from rogue states. Each Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) rocket carries an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) kinetic kill interceptor, with 97% probability of intercept when four interceptors are launched at the target.
Since 2004, the United States Army plans to replace Raytheon's Patriot missile (SAM) engagement control station (ECS), along with seven other forms of ABM defense command systems, with Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) designed to shoot down short, medium, and intermediate range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase by intercepting with a hit-to-kill approach.
Northrop Grumman was selected as the prime contractor in 2010; the Army spent $2.7 billion on the program between 2009 and 2020. IBCS engagement stations will support identification and tracking of targets using sensor fusion from disparate data streams, and selection of appropriate kill vehicles from available launcher systems. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-ballistic missile | Each Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) rocket carries an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) kinetic kill interceptor, with 97% probability of intercept when four interceptors are launched at the target.
Since 2004, the United States Army plans to replace Raytheon's Patriot missile (SAM) engagement control station (ECS), along with seven other forms of ABM defense command systems, with Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) designed to shoot down short, medium, and intermediate range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase by intercepting with a hit-to-kill approach.
Northrop Grumman was selected as the prime contractor in 2010; the Army spent $2.7 billion on the program between 2009 and 2020. IBCS engagement stations will support identification and tracking of targets using sensor fusion from disparate data streams, and selection of appropriate kill vehicles from available launcher systems.
In February 2022 THAAD radar and TFCC (THAAD Fire Control & Communication) demonstrated their interoperability with Patriot PAC-3 MSE missile launchers, engaging targets using both THAAD and Patriot interceptors.
Republic of China: Procurement of MIM-104 Patriot and indigenous Tien-Kung anti-ballistic missile systems. With the tense situations with China, Taiwan developed the Sky Bow (or Tien-Kung), this surface-to-air missile can intercept and destroy enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles. These system was created in partnership with Raytheon Technologies, using Lockheed Martin ADAR-HP as inspiration to create the Chang Bai S-band radar system. The missiles have a range of 200 km and was designed to take on fast moving vehicles with low radar cross-section. The latest variant of this system is the Sky Bow III (TK-3).
South Korea: Since North Korea started developing its nuclear weapon program, South Korea has been under imminent danger. South Korea started its BDM program by acquiring 8 batteries of the MIM-104 Patriot (PAC-2) missiles from the United States. The PAC-2 was developed to destroy incoming aircraft and is now unreliable in defending a ballistic missile attack from North Korea, as they have developed further their nuclear program. As of 2018, South Korea decided to improve its defense system by upgrading to the PAC-3, which has a hit-to-kill capability against incoming missiles. The main reason that the South Korean anti-ballistic defense system is not very developed is because they have tried to developed their own, without help from other countries, since the beginning of the 1990s. The South Korean Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) has confirmed that it has test launched the L-SAM system in February 2022. This particular missile has been in development since 2019 and is South Korea's next anti-ballistic missile generation. It is expected to have a range of 150 km and be able to intercept targets between 40 km and 100 km of altitude, and it can also be used as an aircraft interceptor. The L-SAM system is expected to be complete and ready to use in 2024.
History:
1940s and 1950s: The idea of destroying rockets before they can hit their target dates from the first use of modern missiles in warfare, the German V-1 and V-2 program of World War II.
British fighters destroyed some V-1 "buzz bombs" in flight, although concentrated barrages of heavy anti-aircraft artillery had greater success. Under the lend-lease program, 200 US 90 mm AA guns with SCR-584 radars and Western Electric/Bell Labs computers were sent to the UK. These demonstrated a 95% success rate against V-1s that flew into their range.
The V-2, the first true ballistic missile, has no known record of being destroyed in the air. SCR-584's could be used to plot the trajectories of the missiles and provide some warning, but were more useful in backtracking their ballistic trajectory and determining the rough launch locations. The Allies launched Operation Crossbow to find and destroy V-2s before launch, but these operations were largely ineffective. In one instance a Spitfire happened upon a V-2 rising through the trees, and fired on it with no effect. This led to allied efforts to capture launching sites in Belgium and the Netherlands.
A wartime study by Bell Labs into the task of shooting down ballistic missiles in flight concluded it was not possible. In order to intercept a missile, one needs to be able to steer the attack onto the missile before it hits. A V-2's speed would require guns of effectively instantaneous reaction time, or some sort of weapon with ranges on the order of dozens of miles, neither of which appeared possible. This was, however, just before the emergence of high-speed computing systems. By the mid-1950s, things had changed considerably, and many forces worldwide were considering ABM systems.
The American armed forces began experimenting with anti-missile missiles soon after World War II, as the extent of German research into rocketry became clear. Project Wizard began in 1946, with the aim of creating a missile capable of intercepting the V-2.
But defences against Soviet long-range bombers took priority until 1957, when the Soviet Union demonstrated its advances in ICBM technology with the launch of Sputnik, the Earth's first artificial satellite. The US Army accelerated development of their LIM-49 Nike Zeus system in response. Zeus was criticized throughout its development program, especially from those within the US Air Force and nuclear weapons establishments who suggested it would be much simpler to build more nuclear warheads and guarantee mutually assured destruction. Zeus was eventually cancelled in 1963.
In 1958, the U.S. sought to explore whether airbursting nuclear weapons might be used to ward off ICBMs. It conducted several test explosions of low-yield nuclear weapons – 1.7kt boosted fission W25 warheads – launched from ships to very high altitudes over the southern Atlantic Ocean. Such an explosion releases a burst of X-rays in the Earth's atmosphere, causing secondary showers of charged particles over an area hundreds of miles across. These can become trapped in the Earth' magnetic field, creating an artificial radiation belt. It was believed that this might be strong enough to damage warheads traveling through the layer. This proved not to be the case, but Argus returned key data about a related effect, the nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NEMP).
Canada: Other countries were also involved in early ABM research. A more advanced project was at CARDE in Canada, which researched the main problems of ABM systems. A key problem with any radar system is that the signal is in the form of a cone, which spreads with distance from the transmitter. For long-distance interceptions like ABM systems, the inherent inaccuracy of the radar makes an interception difficult. CARDE considered using a terminal guidance system to address the accuracy concerns, and developed several advanced infrared detectors for this role. They also studied a number of missile airframe designs, a new and much more powerful solid rocket fuel, and numerous systems for testing it all. After a series of drastic budget reductions during the late 1950s the research ended. One offshoot of the project was Gerald Bull's system for inexpensive high-speed testing, consisting of missile airframes shot from a sabot round, which would later be the basis of Project HARP. Another was the CRV7 and Black Brant rockets, which used the new solid rocket fuel.
Soviet Union: The Soviet military had requested funding for ABM research as early as 1953, but were only given the go-ahead to begin deployment of such a system on 17 August 1956. Their test system, known simply as System A, was based on the V-1000 missile, which was similar to the early US efforts. The first successful test interception was carried out on 24 November 1960, and the first with a live warhead on 4 March 1961. In this test, a dummy warhead was released by a R-12 ballistic missile launched from the Kapustin Yar, and intercepted by a V-1000 launched from Sary-Shagan. The dummy warhead was destroyed by the impact of 16,000 tungsten-carbide spherical impactors 140 seconds after launch, at an altitude of 25 km (82,000 ft).
The V-1000 missile system was nonetheless considered not reliable enough and abandoned in favour of nuclear-armed ABMs. A much larger missile, the Fakel 5V61 (known in the west as Galosh), was developed to carry the larger warhead and carry it much further from the launch site. Further development continued, and the A-35 anti-ballistic missile system, designed to protect Moscow, became operational in 1971. A-35 was designed for exoatmospheric interceptions, and would have been highly susceptible to a well-arranged attack using multiple warheads and radar black-out techniques.
A-35 was upgraded during the 1980s to a two-layer system, the A-135. The Gorgon (SH-11/ABM-4) long-range missile was designed to handle intercepts outside the atmosphere, and the Gazelle (SH-08/ABM-3) short-range missile endoatmospheric intercepts that eluded Gorgon. The A-135 system is considered to be technologically equivalent to the United States Safeguard system of 1975. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-ballistic missile | Further development continued, and the A-35 anti-ballistic missile system, designed to protect Moscow, became operational in 1971. A-35 was designed for exoatmospheric interceptions, and would have been highly susceptible to a well-arranged attack using multiple warheads and radar black-out techniques.
A-35 was upgraded during the 1980s to a two-layer system, the A-135. The Gorgon (SH-11/ABM-4) long-range missile was designed to handle intercepts outside the atmosphere, and the Gazelle (SH-08/ABM-3) short-range missile endoatmospheric intercepts that eluded Gorgon. The A-135 system is considered to be technologically equivalent to the United States Safeguard system of 1975.
American Nike-X and Sentinel: Nike Zeus failed to be a credible defence in an era of rapidly increasing ICBM counts due to its ability to attack only one target at a time. Additionally, significant concerns about its ability to successfully intercept warheads in the presence of high-altitude nuclear explosions, including its own, lead to the conclusion that the system would simply be too costly for the very low amount of protection it could provide.
By the time it was cancelled in 1963, potential upgrades had been explored for some time. Among these were radars capable of scanning much greater volumes of space and able to track many warheads and launch several missiles at once. These, however, did not address the problems identified with radar blackouts caused by high-altitude explosions. To address this need, a new missile with extreme performance was designed to attack incoming warheads at much lower altitudes, as low as 20 km. The new project encompassing all of these upgrades was launched as Nike-X.
The main missile was LIM-49 Spartan—a Nike Zeus upgraded for longer range and a much larger 5 megaton warhead intended to destroy enemy's warheads with a burst of x-rays outside the atmosphere. A second shorter-range missile called Sprint with very high acceleration was added to handle warheads that evaded longer-ranged Spartan. Sprint was a very fast missile (some sources claimed it accelerated to 8,000 mph (13 000 km/h) within 4 seconds of flight—an average acceleration of 90 g) and had a smaller W66 enhanced radiation warhead in the 1–3 kiloton range for in-atmosphere interceptions.
The experimental success of Nike X persuaded the Lyndon B. Johnson administration to propose a thin ABM defense, that could provide almost complete coverage of the United States. In a September 1967 speech, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara referred to it as "Sentinel". McNamara, a private ABM opponent because of cost and feasibility (see cost-exchange ratio), claimed that Sentinel would be directed not against the Soviet Union's missiles (since the USSR had more than enough missiles to overwhelm any American defense), but rather against the potential nuclear threat of the People's Republic of China.
In the meantime, a public debate over the merit of ABMs began. Difficulties that had already made an ABM system questionable for defending against an all-out attack. One problem was the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) that would give little warning to the defense. Another problem was high altitude EMP (whether from offensive or defensive nuclear warheads) which could degrade defensive radar systems.
When this proved infeasible for economic reasons, a much smaller deployment using the same systems was proposed, namely Safeguard (described later).
Defense against MIRVs: ABM systems were developed initially to counter single warheads launched from large intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The economics seemed simple enough; since rocket costs increase rapidly with size, the price of the ICBM launching a large warhead should always be greater than the much smaller interceptor missile needed to destroy it. In an arms race the defense would always win.: 18
In addition to the blast effect, the detonation of nuclear devices against attacking intercontinental ballistic missiles produces a neutron kill effect from the strong radiation emitted, and this neutralizes the warhead, or warheads, of the attacking missile. Most A.B.M. devices depend on neutron kill for their effectiveness.
In practice, the price of the interceptor missile was considerable, due to its sophistication. The system had to be guided all the way to an interception, which demanded guidance and control systems that worked within and outside the atmosphere. Due to their relatively short ranges, an ABM missile would be needed to counter an ICBM wherever it might be aimed. That implies that dozens of interceptors are needed for every ICBM since warhead's targets couldn't be known in advance. This led to intense debates about the "cost-exchange ratio" between interceptors and warheads.
Conditions changed dramatically in 1970 with the introduction of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads. Suddenly, each launcher was throwing not one warhead, but several. These would spread out in space, ensuring that a single interceptor would be needed for each warhead. This simply added to the need to have several interceptors for each warhead in order to provide geographical coverage. Now it was clear that an ABM system would always be many times more expensive than the ICBMs they defended against.
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972: Technical, economic and political problems described resulted in the ABM treaty of 1972, which restricted the deployment of strategic (not tactical) anti-ballistic missiles.
By the ABM treaty and a 1974 revision, each country was allowed to deploy a mere 100 ABMs to protect a single, small area. The Soviets retained their Moscow defences. The U.S. designated their ICBM sites near Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, where Safeguard was already under advanced development. The radar systems and anti-ballistic missiles were approximately 90 miles north/northwest of Grand Forks AFB, near Concrete, North Dakota. The missiles were deactivated in 1975. The main radar site (PARCS) is still used as an early warning ICBM radar, facing relative north. It is located at Cavalier Air Force Station, North Dakota.
Brief use of Safeguard in 1975/1976: The U.S. Safeguard system, which utilized the nuclear-tipped LIM-49A Spartan and Sprint missiles, in the short operational period of 1975/1976, was the second counter-ICBMs system in the world. Safeguard protected only the main fields of US ICBMs from attack, theoretically ensuring that an attack could be responded to with a US launch, enforcing the mutually assured destruction principle.
SDI experiments in the 1980s: The Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative (often referred to as "Star Wars"), along with research into various energy-beam weaponry, brought new interest in the area of ABM technologies.
SDI was an extremely ambitious program to provide a total shield against a massive Soviet ICBM attack. The initial concept envisioned large sophisticated orbiting laser battle stations, space-based relay mirrors, and nuclear-pumped X-ray laser satellites. Later research indicated that some planned technologies such as X-ray lasers were not feasible with then-current technology. As research continued, SDI evolved through various concepts as designers struggled with the difficulty of such a large complex defense system. SDI remained a research program and was never deployed. Several post-SDI technologies are used by the present Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
Lasers originally developed for the SDI plan are in use for astronomical observations. Used to ionize gas in the upper atmosphere, they provide telescope operators with a target to calibrate their instruments.
Tactical ABMs deployed in 1990s: The Israeli Arrow missile system was tested initially during 1990, before the first Gulf War. The Arrow was supported by the United States throughout the 1990s.
The Patriot was the first deployed tactical ABM system, although it was not designed from the outset for that task and consequently had limitations. It was used during the 1991 Gulf War to attempt to intercept Iraqi Scud missiles. Post-war analyses show that the Patriot was much less effective than initially thought because of its radar and control system's inability to discriminate warheads from other objects when the Scud missiles broke up during reentry.
Testing ABM technology continued during the 1990s with mixed success. After the Gulf War, improvements were made to several U.S. air defense systems. A new Patriot, PAC-3, was developed and tested—a complete redesign of the PAC-2 deployed during the war, including a totally new missile. The improved guidance, radar and missile performance improves the probability of kill over the earlier PAC-2. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Patriot batteries engaged 100% of enemy TBMs within their engagement territory. Of these engagements, 8 of them were verified as kills by multiple independent sensors; the remaining was listed as a probable kill due to lack of independent verification. Patriot was involved in three friendly fire incidents: two incidents of Patriot shootings at coalition aircraft and one of U.S. aircraft shooting at a Patriot battery.
A new version of the Hawk missile was tested during the early to mid-1990s and by the end of 1998 the majority of US Marine Corps Hawk systems were modified to support basic theater anti-ballistic missile capabilities. The MIM-23 Hawk missile is not operational in U.S. service since 2002, but is used by many other countries. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-ballistic missile | The improved guidance, radar and missile performance improves the probability of kill over the earlier PAC-2. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Patriot batteries engaged 100% of enemy TBMs within their engagement territory. Of these engagements, 8 of them were verified as kills by multiple independent sensors; the remaining was listed as a probable kill due to lack of independent verification. Patriot was involved in three friendly fire incidents: two incidents of Patriot shootings at coalition aircraft and one of U.S. aircraft shooting at a Patriot battery.
A new version of the Hawk missile was tested during the early to mid-1990s and by the end of 1998 the majority of US Marine Corps Hawk systems were modified to support basic theater anti-ballistic missile capabilities. The MIM-23 Hawk missile is not operational in U.S. service since 2002, but is used by many other countries.
Soon after the Gulf War, the Aegis Combat System was expanded to include ABM capabilities. The Standard missile system was also enhanced and tested for ballistic missile interception. During the late 1990s, SM-2 block IVA missiles were tested in a theater ballistic missile defense function. Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) systems have also been tested for an ABM role. In 2008, an SM-3 missile launched from the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Lake Erie, successfully intercepted a non-functioning satellite.
Brilliant Pebbles concept: Approved for acquisition by the Pentagon during 1991 but never realized, Brilliant Pebbles was a proposed space-based anti-ballistic system that was meant to avoid some of the problems of the earlier SDI concepts. Rather than use sophisticated large laser battle stations and nuclear-pumped X-ray laser satellites, Brilliant Pebbles consisted of a thousand very small, intelligent orbiting satellites with kinetic warheads. The system relied on improvements of computer technology, avoided problems with overly centralized command and control and risky, expensive development of large, complicated space defense satellites.
It promised to be much less expensive to develop and have less technical development risk.
The name Brilliant Pebbles comes from the small size of the satellite interceptors and great computational power enabling more autonomous targeting. Rather than rely exclusively on ground-based control, the many small interceptors would cooperatively communicate among themselves and target a large swarm of ICBM warheads in space or in the late boost phase. Development was discontinued later in favor of a limited ground-based defense.
Transformation of SDI into MDA, development of NMD/GMD: While the Reagan era Strategic Defense Initiative was intended to shield against a massive Soviet attack, during the early 1990s, President George H. W. Bush called for a more limited version using rocket-launched interceptors based on the ground at a single site. Such system was developed since 1992, was expected to become operational in 2010 and capable of intercepting small number of incoming ICBMs. First called the National Missile Defense (NMD), since 2002 it was renamed Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD). It was planned to protect all 50 states from a rogue missile attack. The Alaska site provides more protection against North Korean missiles or accidental launches from Russia or China, but is likely less effective against missiles launched from the Middle East. The Alaska interceptors may be augmented later by the naval Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System or by ground-based missiles in other locations.
During 1998, Defense Secretary William Cohen proposed spending an additional $6.6 billion on intercontinental ballistic missile defense programs to build a system to protect against attacks from North Korea or accidental launches from Russia or China.
In terms of organization, during 1993 SDI was reorganized as the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. In 2002, it was renamed to Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
21st century: On 13 June 2002, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and recommenced developing missile defense systems that would have formerly been prohibited by the bilateral treaty. The action was stated as needed to defend against the possibility of a missile attack conducted by a rogue state. The next day, the Russian Federation dropped the START II agreement, intended to completely ban MIRVs.
The Lisbon Summit of 2010 saw the adoption of a NATO program that was formed in response to the threat of a rapid increase of ballistic missiles from potentially unfriendly regimes, though no specific region, state, or country was formally mentioned. This adoption came from the recognition of territorial missile defense as a core alliance objective. At this time, Iran was seen as the likely aggressor that eventually led to the adoption of this ABM system, as Iran has the largest missile arsenal of the Middle East, as well as a space program. From this summit, NATO's ABM system was potentially seen as a threat by Russia, who felt that their ability to retaliate any perceived nuclear threats would be degraded. To combat this, Russia proposed that any ABM system enacted by NATO must be universal to operate, cover the entirety of the European continent, and not upset any nuclear parity. The United States actively sought NATO involvement in the creation of an ABM system, and saw an Iranian threat as a sufficient reason to warrant its creation. The United States also had plans to create missile defense facilities, but NATO officials feared that it would have provided protection to Europe, it would have detracted from the responsibility of NATO for collective defense. The officials also argued the potential prospect of U.S-commanded operation system that would work in conjunction with the Article 5 defense of NATO.
On 15 December 2016, the US Army SMDC had a successful test of a U.S. Army Zombie Pathfinder rocket, to be used as a target for exercising various anti-ballistic missile scenarios. The rocket was launched as part of NASA's sounding rocket program, at White Sands Missile Range.
In November 2020, the US successfully destroyed a dummy ICBM. The ICBM was launched from Kwajalein Atoll in the general direction of Hawaii, triggering a satellite warning to a Colorado Air Force base, which then contacted the USS John Finn. The ship launched a SM-3 Block IIA missile to destroy the US dummy, still outside the atmosphere.
See also: 2010 Chinese anti-ballistic missile test
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System
Atmospheric entry
Command systems in the United States Army
Comparison of anti-ballistic missile systems
Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme
Kinetic kill vehicle
Missile defense
Anti-torpedo torpedoes
Multiple Kill Vehicle
National Missile Defense
Nuclear disarmament
Nuclear proliferation
Nuclear warfare
Safeguard/Sentinel ABM system
Spartan (missile)
Sprint (missile)
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
Notes:
Citations:
General sources: Murdock, Clark A. (1974), Defense Policy Formation: A Comparative Analysis of the McNamara Era. SUNY Press.
Further reading: Laura Grego and David Wright, "Broken Shield: Missiles designed to destroy incoming nuclear warheads fail frequently in tests and could increase global risk of mass destruction", Scientific American, vol. 320, no. no. 6 (June 2019), pp. 62–67. "Current U.S. missile defense plans are being driven largely by technology, politics and fear. Missile defenses will not allow us to escape our vulnerability to nuclear weapons. Instead large-scale developments will create barriers to taking real steps toward reducing nuclear risks—by blocking further cuts in nuclear arsenals and potentially spurring new deployments." (p. 67.)
External links:
Article on Missile Threat Shift to the Black Sea region
Video of the Endo-Atmospheric Interceptor missile system test by India Archived 16 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine
Video of the Exo-Atmospheric interceptor missile system test by India
Center for Defense Information
Federation of American Scientists
MissileThreat.com
Stanley R. Mickelson Safeguard complex
History of U.S. Air Defense Systems |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-satellite weapon | History by country: The development and design of anti-satellite weapons has followed a number of paths. The initial efforts by the United States and the Soviet Union used ground-launched missiles from the 1950s; many more exotic proposals came afterwards.
United States: In the late 1950s, the US Air Force started a series of advanced strategic missile projects under the designation Weapon System WS-199A. One of the projects studied under the 199A umbrella was Martin's Bold Orion air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) for the B-47 Stratojet, based on the rocket motor from the Sergeant missile. Twelve test launches were carried out between 26 May 1958 and 13 October 1959, but these were generally unsuccessful and further work as an ALBM ended. The system was then modified with the addition of an Altair upper stage to create an anti-satellite weapon with a 1770-kilometre (1100 mi) range. Only one test flight of the anti-satellite mission was carried out, making a mock attack on the Explorer 6 at an altitude of 251 km (156 mi). To record its flight path, the Bold Orion transmitted telemetry to the ground, ejected flares to aid visual tracking, and was continuously tracked by radar. The missile successfully passed within 6.4 km (4 mi) of the satellite, which would be suitable for use with a nuclear weapon, but useless for conventional warheads.
A similar project carried out under 199A, Lockheed's High Virgo, was initially another ALBM for the B-58 Hustler, likewise based on the Sergeant. It too was adapted for the anti-satellite role, and made an attempted intercept on Explorer 5 on 22 September 1959. However, shortly after launch communications with the missile were lost and the camera packs could not be recovered to see if the test was successful. In any event, work on the WS-199 projects ended with the start of the GAM-87 Skybolt project. Simultaneous US Navy projects were also abandoned although smaller projects did continue until the early 1970s.
The use of high-altitude nuclear explosions to destroy satellites was considered after the tests of the first conventional missile systems in the 1960s. During the Hardtack Teak test in 1958 observers noted the damaging effects of the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) caused by the explosions on electronic equipment, and during the Starfish Prime test in 1962 the EMP from a 1.4-megaton-of-TNT (5.9 PJ) warhead detonated over the Pacific damaged three satellites and also disrupted power transmission and communications across the Pacific. Further testing of weapons effects was carried out under the DOMINIC I series. An adapted version of the nuclear armed Nike Zeus was used for an ASAT from 1962. Codenamed Mudflap, the missile was designated DM-15S and a single missile was deployed at the Kwajalein atoll until 1966 when the project was ended in favour of the USAF Thor-based Program 437 ASAT which was operational until 6 March 1975.
Another area of research was directed-energy weapons, including a nuclear-explosion powered X-ray laser proposal developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in 1968. Other research was based on more conventional lasers or masers and developed to include the idea of a satellite with a fixed laser and a deployable mirror for targeting. LLNL continued to consider more edgy technology but their X-ray laser system development was cancelled in 1977 (although research into X-ray lasers was resurrected during the 1980s as part of the SDI).
ASATs were generally given low priority until 1982, when information about a successful USSR program became widely known in the west. A "crash program" followed, which developed into the Vought ASM-135 ASAT, based on the AGM-69 SRAM with an Altair upper stage. The system was carried on a modified F-15 Eagle that carried the missile directly under the central line of the plane. The F-15's guidance system was modified for the mission and provided new directional cuing through the pilot's head-up display, and allowed for mid-course updates via a data link. The first launch of the new anti-satellite missile took place in January 1984. The first, and only, successful interception was on 13 September 1985. The F-15 took off from Edwards Air Force Base, climbed to 11613 m (38100 ft) and vertically launched the missile at the Solwind P78-1, a US gamma ray spectroscopy satellite orbiting at 555 km (345 mi), which was launched in 1979. The last piece of debris from the destruction of Solwind P78-1, catalogued as COSPAR 1979-017GX, SATCAT 16564, deorbited 9 May 2004. Although successful, the program was cancelled in 1988.
USA-193 was an American reconnaissance satellite, which was launched on 14 December 2006 by a Delta II rocket, from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It was reported about a month after launch that the satellite had failed. In January 2008, it was noted that the satellite was decaying from orbit at a rate of 500 m (1640 ft) per day. After publicly announcing its intention to do so a week earlier, on 21 February 2008, the US Navy destroyed USA-193 in Operation Burnt Frost, using a ship-fired RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 about 247 km (153 mi) above the Pacific Ocean. That test produced 174 pieces of orbital debris large enough to detect that were cataloged by the US military. While most of the debris re-entered the Earth's atmosphere within a few months, a few pieces lasted slightly longer because they were thrown into higher orbits. The final piece of detectable USA-193 debris re-entered on 28 October 2009.
According to the US government, the primary reason for destroying the satellite was the approximately 450 kg (1000 lb) of toxic hydrazine fuel contained on board, which could pose health risks to persons in the immediate vicinity of the crash site should any significant amount survive the re-entry. On 20 February 2008, it was announced that the launch was carried out successfully and an explosion was observed consistent with the destruction of the hydrazine fuel tank.
The United States has since ceased the testing of direct-ascent anti-satellite missiles, having outlawed the practice in 2022.
Soviet Union: The specter of bombardment satellites and the reality of ballistic missiles stimulated the Soviet Union to explore defensive space weapons. The Soviet Union first tested the Polyot interceptor in 1963 and successfully tested an orbital anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon in 1968. According to some accounts, Sergei Korolev started some work on the concept in 1956 at his OKB-1, while others attribute the work to Vladimir Chelomei's OKB-52 around 1959. What is certain is that at the beginning of April 1960, Nikita Khrushchev held a meeting at his summer residence in Crimea, discussing an array of defence industry issues. Here, Chelomei outlined his rocket and spacecraft program, and received a go-ahead to start development of the UR-200 rocket, one of its many roles being the launcher for his anti-satellite project. The decision to start work on the weapon, as part of the Istrebitel Sputnikov (IS) (lit. "destroyer of satellites") program, was made in March 1961.
The IS system was "co-orbital", approaching its target over time and then exploding a shrapnel warhead close enough to kill it. The missile was launched when a target satellite's ground track rises above the launch site. Once the satellite is detected, the missile is launched into orbit close to the targeted satellite. It takes 90 to 200 minutes (or one to two orbits) for the missile interceptor to get close enough to its target. The missile is guided by an on-board radar. The interceptor, which weighs 1400 kg (3086 lb), may be effective up to one kilometre from a target.
Delays in the UR-200 missile program prompted Chelomei to request R-7 rockets for prototype testing of the IS. Two such tests were carried out on 1 November 1963 and 12 April 1964. Later in the year Khrushchev cancelled the UR-200 in favour of the R-36, forcing the IS to switch to this launcher, whose space launcher version was developed as the Tsyklon-2. Delays in that program led to the introduction of a simpler version, the 2A, which launched its first IS test on 27 October 1967, and a second on 28 April 1968. Further tests carried out against a special target spacecraft, the DS-P1-M, which recorded hits by the IS warhead's shrapnel. A total of 23 launches have been identified as being part of the IS test series. The system was declared operational in February 1973.
The world's first successful intercept was completed in February 1970. The first successful test (the second overall) achieved 32 hits (each could penetrate 100 mm of armour). |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-satellite weapon | Later in the year Khrushchev cancelled the UR-200 in favour of the R-36, forcing the IS to switch to this launcher, whose space launcher version was developed as the Tsyklon-2. Delays in that program led to the introduction of a simpler version, the 2A, which launched its first IS test on 27 October 1967, and a second on 28 April 1968. Further tests carried out against a special target spacecraft, the DS-P1-M, which recorded hits by the IS warhead's shrapnel. A total of 23 launches have been identified as being part of the IS test series. The system was declared operational in February 1973.
The world's first successful intercept was completed in February 1970. The first successful test (the second overall) achieved 32 hits (each could penetrate 100 mm of armour).
Testing resumed in 1976 as a result of the US work on the Space Shuttle. Elements within the Soviet space industry convinced Leonid Brezhnev that the Shuttle was a single-orbit weapon that would be launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, manoeuvre to avoid existing anti-ballistic missile sites, bomb Moscow in a first strike, and then land. Although the Soviet military was aware these claims were false, Brezhnev believed them and ordered a resumption of IS testing along with a Shuttle of their own. As part of this work the IS system was expanded to allow attacks at higher altitudes and was declared operational in this new arrangement on 1 July 1979. However, in 1983, Yuri Andropov ended all IS testing and all attempts to resume it failed. Ironically, it was at about this point that the US started its own testing in response to the Soviet program.
In the early 1980s, the Soviet Union also started developing a counterpart to the US air-launched ASAT system, using modified MiG-31D 'Foxhounds' (at least six of which were completed) as the launch platform. The system was called 30P6 "Kontakt", the missile used is 79M6. The USSR also experimented with arming the Almaz space stations with Rikhter R-23 aircraft auto-cannons. Another Soviet design was the 11F19DM Skif-DM/Polyus, an orbital megawatt laser that failed on launch in 1987.
In 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev visited Baikonur Cosmodrome and was shown an anti-satellite system called "Naryad" (Sentry), also known as 14F11, launched by UR-100N rockets.
Strategic Defense Initiative and the Cold War: The era of the Strategic Defense Initiative (proposed in 1983) focused primarily on the development of systems to defend against nuclear warheads, however, some of the technologies developed may be useful also for anti-satellite use.
The Strategic Defense Initiative gave the US and Soviet ASAT programs a major boost; ASAT projects were adapted for ABM use and the reverse was also true. The initial US plan was to use the already-developed MHV as the basis for a space based constellation of about 40 platforms deploying up to 1,500 kinetic interceptors. By 1988 the US project had evolved into an extended four-stage development. The initial stage would consist of the Brilliant Pebbles defense system, a satellite constellation of 4,600 kinetic interceptors (KE ASAT) of 45 kg (100 lb) each in Low Earth orbit and their associated tracking systems. The next stage would deploy the larger platforms and the following phases would include the laser and charged particle beam weapons that would be developed by that time from existing projects such as MIRACL. The first stage was intended to be completed by 2000 at a cost of around $125 billion.
Research in the US and the Soviet Union was proving that the requirements, at least for orbital based energy weapon systems, were, with available technology, close to impossible. Nonetheless, the strategic implications of a possible unforeseen breakthrough in technology forced the USSR to initiate massive spending on research in the 12th Five Year Plan, drawing all the various parts of the project together under the control of GUKOS and matching the US proposed deployment date of 2000. Ultimately, the Soviet Union approached the point of experimental implementation of orbital laser platforms with the (failed) launch of Polyus.
Both countries began to reduce expenditure from 1989 and the Russian Federation unilaterally discontinued all SDI research in 1992. Research and Development (both of ASAT systems and other space based/deployed weapons) has, however, reported to have been resumed under the government of Vladimir Putin as a counter to renewed US Strategic Defense efforts post Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. However, the status of these efforts, or indeed how they are being funded through National Reconnaissance Office projects of record, remains unclear. The US has begun working on a number of programs which could be foundational for a space-based ASAT. These programs include the Experimental Spacecraft System (USA-165), the Near Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE), and the space-based interceptor (SBI).
Russia: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the MiG-31D project was put on hold due to reduced defence expenditures. However, in August 2009, Alexander Zelin announced that the Russian Air Force had resumed this program. The Sokol Eshelon is a prototype laser system based on an A-60 airplane which is reported to be restarting development in 2012.
Three more launches were reportedly held in December 2016, on 26 March 2018, and on 23 December 2018—the latter two from a TEL.
A new type of ASAT missile was seen carried by a MiG-31 in September 2018.
On 15 April 2020, US officials said Russia conducted a direct ascent anti-satellite missile test that could take out spacecraft or satellites in low Earth orbit. A new test launch took place on 16 December 2020.
In November 2021, Kosmos 1408 was successfully destroyed by a Russian anti-satellite missile in a test, causing a debris field that affected the International Space Station.
In 2024, U.S. intelligence sources hinted that Russia was working on an anti-satellite weapon with some sort of nuclear technology, though it was unclear if it was a nuclear weapon or merely a nuclear-powered device.
China: On 11 January 2007, the People's Republic of China successfully destroyed a defunct Chinese weather satellite, Fengyun-1C (FY-1C, COSPAR 1999-025A). The destruction was reportedly carried out by an SC-19 ASAT missile with a kinetic kill warhead similar in concept to the American Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle. FY-1C was a weather satellite orbiting Earth in polar orbit at an altitude of about 865 km (537 mi), with a mass of about 750 kg (1650 lb). Launched in 1999, it was the fourth satellite in the Fengyun series.
The missile was launched from a mobile Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) vehicle at Xichang (28.247°N 102.025°E / 28.247; 102.025 (Xichang Satellite Launch Center)) and the warhead destroyed the satellite in a head-on collision at an extremely high relative velocity. Evidence suggests that the same SC-19 system was also tested in 2005, 2006, 2010, and 2013. In January 2007 China demonstrated a satellite knock out whose detonation alone caused more than 40,000 new chunks of debris with a diameter larger than one centimeter and a sudden increase in the total amount of debris in orbit.
In May 2013, the Chinese government announced the launch of a suborbital rocket carrying a scientific payload to study the upper ionosphere. However, US government sources described it as the first test of a new ground-based ASAT system. An open source analysis by Secure World Foundation, based in part on commercial satellite imagery, found that it may indeed have been a test of a new ASAT system that could potentially threaten US satellites in geostationary Earth orbit. Similarly on 5 February 2018, China tested an exoatmospheric ballistic missile with the potential to be used as an ASAT weapon, the Dong Neng-3, with state media reporting that the test was purely defensive and it achieved its desired objectives.
India: In a televised press briefing during the 97th Indian Science Congress held in Thiruvananthapuram, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Director General Rupesh announced that India was developing the necessary technology that could be combined to produce a weapon to destroy enemy satellites in orbit. On 10 February 2010, DRDO Director-General and Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, Dr. Vijay Kumar Saraswat stated that India had "all the building blocks necessary" to integrate an anti-satellite weapon to neutralize hostile satellites in low earth and polar orbits.
In April 2012, DRDO's chairman V. K. Saraswat said that India possessed the critical technologies for an ASAT weapon from radars and interceptors developed for Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-satellite weapon | India: In a televised press briefing during the 97th Indian Science Congress held in Thiruvananthapuram, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Director General Rupesh announced that India was developing the necessary technology that could be combined to produce a weapon to destroy enemy satellites in orbit. On 10 February 2010, DRDO Director-General and Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, Dr. Vijay Kumar Saraswat stated that India had "all the building blocks necessary" to integrate an anti-satellite weapon to neutralize hostile satellites in low earth and polar orbits.
In April 2012, DRDO's chairman V. K. Saraswat said that India possessed the critical technologies for an ASAT weapon from radars and interceptors developed for Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme. In July 2012, Ajay Lele, an Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses fellow, wrote that an ASAT test would bolster India's position if an international regime to control the proliferation of ASATs similar to NPT were to be established. He suggested that a low-orbit test against a purpose-launched satellite would not be seen as irresponsible. The programme was sanctioned in 2017.
On 27 March 2019, India successfully conducted an ASAT test called Mission Shakti. The interceptor was able to strike a test satellite at a 300-kilometre (186 mi) altitude in low earth orbit (LEO), thus successfully testing its ASAT missile. The interceptor was launched at around 05:40 UTC at the Integrated Test Range (ITR) in Chandipur, Odisha and hit its target Microsat-R after 168 seconds. The operation was named Mission Shakti. The missile system was developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)—a research wing of the Indian defence services. With this test, India became the fourth nation with anti-satellite missile capabilities. India stated that this capability is a deterrent and is not directed against any nation.
In a statement released after the test, Indian Ministry of External Affairs said that the test was conducted at low altitude to ensure that the resulting debris would "decay and fall back onto the Earth within weeks". According to Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, some debris might persist for a year, but most should burn up in the atmosphere within several weeks. Brian Weeden of Secure World Foundation agreed, but warned about the possibility of some fragments getting boosted to higher orbits. US Air Force Space Command said that it was tracking 270 pieces of debris from the test.
Following the test, acting United States Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan warned about the risks of space debris caused by ASAT tests, but later added that he did not expect debris from the Indian test to last. The United States Department of State acknowledged Ministry of External Affairs' statement on space debris and reiterated its intention to pursue shared interests in space including on space security with India. Russia acknowledged India's statement on the test not being targeted against any nation and invited India to join the Russian–Chinese proposal for a treaty against weaponisation of space.
Israel: The Arrow 3 or Hetz 3 is an anti-ballistic missile, currently in service. It provides exo-atmospheric interception of ballistic missiles. It is also believed (by experts such as Prof. Yitzhak Ben Yisrael, chairman of the Israel Space Agency), that it will operate as an ASAT.
Limits of anti-satellite weapons: While it has been suggested that a country intercepting the satellites of another country in the event of a conflict could seriously hinder the latter's military operations, the ease of shooting down orbiting satellites has been questioned. Although satellites have been successfully intercepted at low orbiting altitudes, the tracking of military satellites for a length of time could be complicated by defensive measures like inclination changes. Depending on the level of tracking capabilities, the interceptor would have to pre-determine the point of impact while compensating for the satellite's lateral movement and the time for the interceptor to climb and move.
US intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) satellites orbit at about 800 km (500 mi) high and move at 7.5 km/s (4.7 mi/s), so if conflict was to break out between the United States and China, a Chinese Intermediate-range ballistic missile would need to compensate for 1350 km (840 mi) of movement in the three minutes it takes to boost to that altitude. However, even if the ISR satellite is knocked out, the US possesses an extensive array of crewed and uncrewed ISR aircraft that could perform missions at standoff ranges from Chinese land-based air defences.
Global Positioning System and communications satellites orbit at higher altitudes of 20000 km (12000 mi) and 36000 km (22000 mi) respectively, and this puts them out of range of solid-fuelled intercontinental ballistic missiles. Liquid-fuelled space launch vehicles could reach those altitudes, but they are more time-consuming to launch and could be attacked on the ground before being able to launch in rapid succession. The constellation of 30 GPS satellites provides redundancy where at least four satellites can be received in six orbital planes at any one time, so an attacker would need to disable at least six satellites to disrupt the network. However, even if the attack is successful, signal degradation only lasts for 95 minutes and backup inertial navigation systems (INS) would still be available for relatively accurate movement as well as laser guidance for weapons targeting. For communications, the Naval Telecommunications System (NTS) used by the US Navy uses three elements: tactical communications among a battle group; long-haul communications between shore-based forward Naval Communications Stations (NAVCOMSTAs) and deployed afloat units; and strategic communication connecting NAVCOMSTAs with National Command Authorities (NCA). The first two elements use line-of-sight (25–30 km (13–16 nmi; 16–19 mi)) and extended line-of-sight (300–500 km (160–270 nmi; 190–310 mi)) radios respectively, so only strategic communications are dependent on satellites. China would prefer to cut off deployed units from each other and then negotiate with the NCA to have the battle group withdraw or stand down, but ASATs could only achieve the opposite. Moreover, even if somehow a communications satellite were hit, a battle group could still perform its missions in the absence of direct guidance from the NCA.
See also: Anti-ballistic missile
Deep Black (1986 book)
High-altitude nuclear explosion
Kill vehicle
Militarisation of space
Multiple Kill Vehicle
Outer Space Treaty
Space gun
Space warfare
References:
External links: Media related to Anti-satellite missiles at Wikimedia Commons |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-ship missile | Etymology: Both "AShM" and “ASM” are utilized interchangeably as an acronym for "anti-ship missile." "AShM" may be the preferred acronym when confusion with "air-to-surface missile" (commonly abbreviated as "ASM") may occur.
History: Anti-ship missiles were among the first instances of short-range guided weapons during the Second World War in 1943–1944. The German Luftwaffe used the Hs 293, the Fritz X, as well as others missiles, launched from its bombers, with deadly effect against some Allied ships. The first ship sunk by a guided missile was HMS Egret on 27 August 1943, at the Bay of Biscay, other ships targeted were the British troop carrier HMT Rohna, sunk with heavy loss of life and the United States Navy light cruiser USS Savannah off Salerno, Italy, being seriously damaged. These all used radio command-guidance from the bombardiers of the warplanes that launched them. Some of these hit and either sank or damaged a number of ships, including warships offshore of amphibious landings on western Italy. These radio-controlled missiles were used successfully until the Allied navies developed missile countermeasures—principally radio jamming. The Allies also developed some of their own similar radio-guided AShMs, starting with the US Navy's SWOD-9 Bat – the first autonomously guided, radar-homing anti-ship weapon deployed worldwide, being deployed against the Japanese in April 1945 – but the Bat saw little use in combat, partly from its own late-war deployment date leaving few Axis ships remaining as targets.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union turned to a sea-denial strategy concentrating on submarines, naval mines and the AShM. One of the first products of the decision was the SS-N-2 Styx missile. Further products were to follow, and they were soon loaded onto the Soviet Air Force's Tu-95 Bear and Tu-22 Blinder bombers, in the case of the air-launched KS-1 Komet.
In 1967, the Israeli Navy's destroyer Eilat was the first ship to be sunk by a ship-launched missile—a number of Styx missiles launched by Egyptian Komar-class missile boats off the Sinai Peninsula.
In the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 the Indian Navy conducted two raids using Osa-class missile boats employing the Styx on the Pakistani naval base at Karachi. These raids resulted in the destruction or crippling of approximately two thirds of the Pakistani Navy. Major losses included two destroyers, a fleet oiler, an ammunition ship, approximately a dozen merchant ships, and numerous smaller craft. Major shore-based facilities, including fuel storage tanks and naval installations were also destroyed. The Osas returned to base without loss.
The Battle of Latakia in 1973 (during the Yom Kippur/Ramadan War) was the scene of the world's first combat between missile boats. In this battle, the Israeli Navy destroyed Syrian warships without suffering any damage, using electronic countermeasures and ruses for defense. After defeating the Syrian Navy the Israeli missile boats also sank a number of Egyptian warships, again without suffering any damage in return, thus achieving total naval supremacy for the rest of the war.
Anti-ship missiles were used in the 1982 Falklands War. The British warship HMS Sheffield, a Type 42 destroyer, was struck by a single air-launched Exocet and later sank as a result of the damage. The container ship Atlantic Conveyor was hit by two Exocets and burnt out and subsequently sank while under tow. HMS Glamorgan was damaged when she was struck by an MM38, a ship-launched version of the Exocet, fired from a launcher taken from the Argentine Navy destroyer ARA Comodoro Seguí and mounted on a trailer by Navy technicians, but she had taken evasive action that limited the damage.
In 1987, a US Navy guided-missile frigate, USS Stark, was hit by an Exocet anti-ship missile fired by an Iraqi Mirage F-1 fighter plane. Stark was damaged, but she was able to steam to a friendly port for temporary repairs.
In October 1987, Sungari, an American-owned tanker steaming under the Liberian flag, and Sea Isle City, a Kuwaiti tanker steaming under the American flag, were hit by Iranian HY-2 missiles.
In 1988 AShMs were fired by both American and Iranian forces in Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf. During this naval battle, several Iranian warships were hit by American AShMs (and by the US Navy's Standard missiles—surface-to-air missiles which were doing double-duty in the anti-ship role). The US Navy hit the Iranian Navy frigate Sahand with three Harpoon missiles, four AGM-123 Skipper rocket-propelled bombs, a Walleye TV-guided bomb, and several 1,000 lb (454 kg) "iron bombs". Despite the large number of munitions and successful hits, Sahand did not sink until fire reached her ammunition magazine, causing it to detonate, sinking the vessel. In the same engagement, American warships fired three Standard missiles at an Iranian Navy corvette. This corvette had such a low profile above the water that a Harpoon missile that arrived several minutes later could not lock onto it with its targeting radars.
In 2006, Lebanese Hezbollah fighters fired an AShM at the Israeli corvette INS Hanit, inflicting battle damage, but this warship managed to return to Israel in one piece and under its own power. A second missile in this same salvo struck and sank an Egyptian merchant ship.
On 13 April 2022, the Ukrainian government claimed to have hit the Russian cruiser Moskva with two R-360 Neptune missiles, resulting in the sinking of the Moskva. The Russian government did not confirm the attack, but admitted that the ship sank after a fire. If Ukrainian claims are true, Moskva might be the largest warship ever disabled or destroyed by a missile, according to Carl Schuster, a retired US Navy captain and former director of operations at the US Pacific Command's Joint Intelligence Center.
Threat posed: Anti-ship missiles are a significant threat to surface ships, which have large radar, radio, and thermal signatures that are difficult to suppress. Once acquired, a ship cannot outrun or out-turn a missile, the warhead of which can inflict significant damage. To counter the threat posed, the modern surface combatant has to either avoid being detected, destroy the missile launch platform before it fires its missiles, or decoy or destroy all of the incoming missiles.
Modern navies have spent much time and effort developing counters to the threat of anti-ship missiles since the Second World War. Anti-ship missiles have been the driving force behind many aspects of modern ship design, especially in navies that operate aircraft carriers.
The first layer of antimissile defense by a modern, fully equipped aircraft carrier task force is always the long-range missile-carrying fighter planes of the aircraft carrier itself. Several fighters are kept on combat air patrol (CAP) 24 hours a day, seven days a week when at sea, and many more are put aloft when the situation warrants, such as during wartime or when a threat to the task force is detected.
These fighters patrol up to hundreds of miles away from the task force and they are equipped with airborne radar systems. When spotting an approaching aircraft on a threatening flight profile, it is the responsibility of the CAP to intercept it before any missile is launched. If this cannot be achieved in time, the missiles themselves can be targeted by the fighters's own weapons systems, usually their air-to-air missiles, but in extremis, by their rapid-fire cannon.
However, some AShMs might "leak" past the task force's fighter defenses. In addition, many modern warships operate independently of carrier-based air protection and they must provide their own defenses against missiles and aircraft. Under these circumstances, the ships themselves must utilize multilayered defenses which have been built into them.
For example, some warships, such as the US Navy's Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers, the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, and the Royal Navy's Type 45 guided missile destroyer, use a combination of radar systems, integrated computer fire-control systems, and agile surface-to-air missiles (SAM) to simultaneously track, engage, and destroy several incoming anti-ship missiles or hostile warplanes at a time.
The primary American defensive system, called the Aegis Combat System, is also used by the navies of Japan, Spain, Norway, South Korea, and Australia. The Aegis system has been designed to defend against mass attacks by hostile anti-ship missiles or warplanes.
Any missiles that can elude the interception by medium-ranges SAM missiles can then be either deceived with electronic countermeasures or decoys; shot down by short-range missiles such as the Sea Sparrow or the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM); engaged by the warship's main gun armament (if present); or, as a last resort, destroyed by a close-in weapon system (CIWS), such as the American Phalanx CIWS, Russian Kashtan CIWS, or the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-ship missile | The primary American defensive system, called the Aegis Combat System, is also used by the navies of Japan, Spain, Norway, South Korea, and Australia. The Aegis system has been designed to defend against mass attacks by hostile anti-ship missiles or warplanes.
Any missiles that can elude the interception by medium-ranges SAM missiles can then be either deceived with electronic countermeasures or decoys; shot down by short-range missiles such as the Sea Sparrow or the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM); engaged by the warship's main gun armament (if present); or, as a last resort, destroyed by a close-in weapon system (CIWS), such as the American Phalanx CIWS, Russian Kashtan CIWS, or the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS.
Current threats and vulnerabilities: To counter these defense systems, countries such as Russia are developing or deploying missiles that slowly cruise at a very low level (about five meters above sea level) to within a short range of their target and then, at the point when radar detection becomes inevitable, initiate a supersonic, high-agility sprint (potentially with anti-aircraft missile detection and evasion) to close the terminal distance. Missiles, such as the SS-N-27 Sizzler, that incorporate this sort of threat modality are regarded by US Navy analysts as potentially being able to penetrate the US Navy's defensive systems.
Recent years have seen a growing amount of attention being paid to the possibility of ballistic missiles being re-purposed or designed for an anti-ship role. Speculation has focused on the development of such missiles for use by China's People's Liberation Army Navy. Such an anti-ship ballistic missile would approach its target extremely rapidly, making it very difficult to intercept.
Countermeasures: Countermeasures against anti-ship missiles include:
surface-to-air missiles such as the:
Russian Navy's:
Redut VLS based system,
9K33 Osa (SA-N-4 Gecko),
9M330 Tor (SA-N-9 Gauntlet),
9M311 (SA-N-11),
9M38 Buk (SA-N-12 Grizzly),
The US Navy's:
Standard missile,
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow,
RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile
The Royal Navy's:
Aster (Sea Viper system),
CAMM,
Sea Wolf
The People's Liberation Army Navy's:
HHQ-9
HHQ-10
On February 25, 1991, during the first Gulf War, the Phalanx-equipped USS Jarrett was a few miles from USS Missouri and the destroyer HMS Gloucester. The ships were attacked by an Iraqi Silkworm missile (often referred to as the Seersucker), at which Missouri fired its SRBOC chaff. The Phalanx system on Jarrett, operating in the automatic target-acquisition mode, fixed upon Missouri's chaff, releasing a burst of rounds. From this burst, four rounds hit Missouri which was two to three miles (3.2 to 4.8 km) from Jarrett at the time. There were no injuries. A Sea Dart missile was then launched from HMS Gloucester, which destroyed the Iraqi missile, achieving the first successful engagement of a missile by a missile during combat at sea.
Close-in weapon systems (CIWS), including the Soviet-or Russian-made AK-630 or Kashtan, Turkish Aselsan GOKDENIZ, German Millennium Gun or the Phalanx and Goalkeeper. These are automated gun systems mounted on the deck of a ship that use radar to track the approaching missile, and then attempt to shoot it down during its final approach to the target.
Anti-aircraft guns such as the Mk 45 5-inch (127 mm) naval gun or the AK-130
Electronic warfare equipment (such as AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare Suite)
Decoy systems (such as chaff, the US Navy's Mark 36 SRBOC system), and flares, or more active decoys such as the Nulka
Modern stealth ships – or ships that at least employ some stealth technology – to reduce the risk of detection and to make them a harder target for the missile itself. These passive countermeasures include:
reduction of their radar cross section (RCS) and hence radar signature.
limit a ship's infrared and acoustic signature.
Examples of these include the Norwegian Skjold-class patrol boat, the Swedish Visby-class corvette, the German Sachsen-class frigate, the US Navy's Zumwalt-class destroyer and Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, their Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force's close counterparts in Aegis warships, the Atago-class destroyer, and the Kongo-class destroyer, the Chinese Type 054A frigate and the Type 052D destroyer, Russian Navy's Admiral Gorshkov-class frigate and Steregushchiy-class corvette, the Indian Shivalik-class frigate, Kolkata-class destroyer and Visakhapatnam-class destroyer, the French La Fayette-class frigate, the FREMM multipurpose frigate and the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyer.
In response to China's development of anti-ship missiles and other anti-access/area denial capabilities, the United States has developed the AirSea Battle doctrine.
Comparison:
References:
External links:
Warship Vulnerability (tabulated shipping losses)
List of SSSR/Russian anti-ship missiles |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-tank missile | History:
World War II: Germany developed a design for a wire-guided anti tank missile derived from the Ruhrstahl X-4 air to air missile concept in the closing years of World War II. Known as the X-7, it was probably never used in combat and allegedly had serious guidance to target issues. It never entered service, though a few were produced.
Early Cold War: first generation ATGMs: First-generation ATGMs use a type of command guidance termed manual command to line of sight (MCLOS). This requires continuous input from an operator using a joystick or similar control system to steer the missile to a target. One disadvantage of this is that an operator must keep the sight's reticle cross hairs on a target and then steer the missile into the cross hairs, i.e., the line-of-sight. To do this, an operator must be well trained (spending many hours on a simulator) and must remain stationary and in view of a target during the flight time of the missile. Because of this, the operator is vulnerable while guiding the missile. In addition to the low kill probability, other problems with first generation ATGMs include slow missile speed, high minimum effective range, and an inability to use top attack missiles.
The first system to become operational and to see combat was the French Nord SS.10 during the early 1950s. It entered service in the French Army in 1955. It was also the first anti-tank missile used by the US Army and Israeli Defense Forces. The Malkara missile (named from an Australian Aborigine word for "shield") was another of the earliest ATGMs. It was jointly developed by Australia and the United Kingdom between 1951 and 1954, and was in service from 1958 until gradually replaced by the Vickers Vigilant missile in the late 1960s. It was intended to be light enough to deploy with airborne forces, yet powerful enough to knock out any tank then in service. It used a 26 kilograms (57 lb) high-explosive squash head (HESH) warhead. Other early first generation ATGMs include the West German Cobra and the Soviet 9M14 Malyutka.
In 2012, first-generation systems were described as obsolete due to low hit probability, a limited ability to penetrate modern armour, and other issues. Still, many countries maintain significant stockpiles. Approximately, first generation ATGMs have an effective range of 1500m and the ability to penetrate 500mm of rolled homogeneous armor.
Late Cold War: second generation ATGMs: Second-generation semi-automatically command guided to line-of-sight, or semi-automatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) missiles require an operator to only keep the sights on the target until impact. Automatic guidance commands are sent to the missile through wires or radio, or the missile relies on laser marking or a TV camera view from the nose of the missile. Examples are the Russian 9M133 Kornet, Israeli LAHAT, the NLOS version of Spike, and the American Hellfire I missiles. The operator must remain stationary during the missile's flight. The most widely used ATGM of all time, the American BGM-71 TOW, with hundreds of thousands of missiles built, is a second-generation system.
Second generation ATGMs are significantly easier to use than first generation systems, and accuracy rates may exceed 90%. Generally they have an effective range of between 2,500 and 5,500 meters and penetration of up to 900 mm of armor. Cost is around $10,000 USD per missile.
Post Cold War: third generation ATGMs and later: Third-generation "fire-and-forget" missiles rely on a laser, electro-optical imager (IIR) seeker or a W band radar seeker in the nose of the missile. Once the target is identified, the missile needs no further guidance during flight; it is "fire-and-forget", and the missile operator is free to retreat. However, fire-and-forget missiles are more subject to electronic countermeasures than MCLOS and SACLOS missiles. Examples include the German PARS 3 LR and the Israeli Spike.
Most modern ATGMs have shaped charge HEAT warheads, designed specifically for penetrating tank armor. Tandem-charge missiles attempt to defeat explosive reactive armour (ERA): the small initial charge sets off the ERA while the follow-up main charge attempts to penetrate the main armor. Top-attack weapons such as the US Javelin, the Swedish Bill and the Indian Nag and MPATGM are designed to strike vehicles from above, where their armor is usually much weaker. Third generation systems and beyond are generally much more expensive than second generation systems.
Fourth generation ATGMs: Fourth generation fire-and-forget anti tank guided missiles have larger range and rely on a combination of seeker for guidance. Examples include India's SANT, which has a stand-off range of 15 to 20 km (9 to 12 mi), uses dual seeker configuration of electro-optical thermal imager (EO/IR) and millimeter-wave active radar homing for control and guidance with lock-on before launch and lock-on after launch capabilities.
Fifth generation ATGMs: Some ATGMs, notably the French Akeron MP and the latest variants of the Israeli Spike (such as the Spike LR2 and ER2), have been called "5th generation" by their manufacturers and marketed as such. They appear to have the following additional or amplified attributes:
passive dual-band seeker (TV and uncooled IR);
multipurpose tandem warhead;
smokeless propellant;
less collateral damage;
possible counter-active protection system (CAPS) capability;
man in the loop technology;
emphasis on targets other than tanks;
other updates such as artificial intelligence for the missile.
Countermeasures: Countermeasures against ATGMs include newer armors such as spaced, perforated, composite or explosive reactive armor, jammers like the Russian Shtora, active protection systems (APS) like the Israeli Trophy and the Russian Arena, and other methods.
Newer armor: Armor systems have continued in development alongside ATGMs, and the most recent generations of armor are specifically tested to be effective against ATGM strikes, either by deforming the missile warhead or fusing to prevent proper detonation (such as in slat armor) or using some form of reactive armor to 'attack' the missile upon impact, disrupting the shaped charge that makes the warhead effective. Both come with the downside of significant weight and bulk. Reactive armor works best when a vehicle is specifically designed with the system integrated and while developments continue to make armor lighter, any vehicle that includes such a system necessitates a powerful engine and often will still be relatively slow. Inclusion of such armor in older vehicles as a part of a re-design is possible, as in the numerous types derived from the T-72. Slat armor is lighter and as such can be added to many vehicles after construction but still adds both bulk and weight. Particularly for vehicles that are designed to be transported by cargo aircraft, slat armor has to be fitted in the field after deployment. Either approach can never offer complete coverage over the vehicle, leaving tracks or wheels particularly vulnerable to attack.
Jamming: Jamming is potentially an effective countermeasure to specific missiles that are radar guided, however, as a general purpose defense, it is of no use against unguided anti-tank weapons, and as such it is almost never the only defense. If jamming is used continually, it can be extremely difficult for a missile to acquire the target, locking on to the much larger return from the jammer, with the operator unlikely noticing the difference without a radar screen to see the return. However, any missile that has a backup tracking system can defeat jamming.
Active: Active protection systems show a great deal of promise, both in counteracting ATGMs and unguided weapons. Compared to armor systems, they are very lightweight, can be fitted to almost any vehicle with the internal space for the control system and could, in the future, be a near-perfect defense against any missiles. The weaknesses of the systems include potential developments in missile design such as radar or IR decoys, which would drastically reduce their chance to intercept a missile, as well as technical challenges such as dealing with multiple missiles at once and designing a system that can cover a vehicle from any angle of attack. While these may be answered and allow for lightweight, highly maneuverable vehicles that are strongly defended against missiles and rockets that are extremely well suited for urban and guerrilla warfare, such a system is unlikely to be as effective against kinetic energy projectiles, making it a poor choice for fighting against tanks. As kinetic energy projectiles move faster than guided missiles, this often means that the sensors attached to an active protection system can not keep up.
Other: Traditionally, before "fire-and-forget" ATGMs were used, the most effective countermeasure was to open fire at the location where the missile was fired from, to either kill the operator or force them to take cover, thus sending the missile off course. Smoke screens can also be deployed from an MBT's smoke discharger, and used to obscure an ATGM operator's line of sight. Other improvised methods used by the Israel Defense Forces to defeat the Saggers involved firing in front of the tank to create dust. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-tank missile | While these may be answered and allow for lightweight, highly maneuverable vehicles that are strongly defended against missiles and rockets that are extremely well suited for urban and guerrilla warfare, such a system is unlikely to be as effective against kinetic energy projectiles, making it a poor choice for fighting against tanks. As kinetic energy projectiles move faster than guided missiles, this often means that the sensors attached to an active protection system can not keep up.
Other: Traditionally, before "fire-and-forget" ATGMs were used, the most effective countermeasure was to open fire at the location where the missile was fired from, to either kill the operator or force them to take cover, thus sending the missile off course. Smoke screens can also be deployed from an MBT's smoke discharger, and used to obscure an ATGM operator's line of sight. Other improvised methods used by the Israel Defense Forces to defeat the Saggers involved firing in front of the tank to create dust. While fire-and-forget missiles have definitive advantages in terms of guidance and operator safety, and include abilities such as top attack mode, older missiles continue in use, both in the front line armies of less developed countries, and in reserve service the world over, due to their lower cost or existing stockpiles of less advanced weapons.
See also: List of anti-tank missiles
List of gun-launched anti-tank guided missiles
List of man-portable anti-tank systems
List of missiles
List of grenade launchers
List of rocket launchers
References:
External links: Media related to Anti-tank missiles at Wikimedia Commons |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-war movement | History:
American Revolutionary War: Substantial opposition to British war intervention in America led the British House of Commons on 27 February 1783 to vote against further war in America, paving the way for the Second Rockingham ministry and the Peace of Paris.
Antebellum United States: Substantial antiwar sentiment developed in the United States roughly between the end of the War of 1812 and the commencement of the Civil War in what is called the Antebellum era. A similar movement developed in England during the same period. The movement reflected both strict pacifist and more moderate non-interventionist positions. Many prominent intellectuals of the time, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau (see Civil Disobedience) and William Ellery Channing contributed literary works against war. Other names associated with the movement include William Ladd, Noah Worcester, Thomas Cogswell Upham, and Asa Mahan. Many peace societies were formed throughout the United States, the most prominent of which being the American Peace Society. Numerous periodicals (such as The Advocate of Peace) and books were also produced. The Book of Peace, an anthology produced by the American Peace Society in 1845, must surely rank as one of the most remarkable works of antiwar literature ever produced.
A recurring theme in this movement was the call for the establishment of an international court to adjudicate disputes between nations. Another distinct feature of antebellum antiwar literature was the emphasis on how war contributed to a moral decline and brutalization of society in general.
American Civil War: A key event in the early history of the modern anti-war stance in literature and society was the American Civil War, where it culminated in the candidacy of George B. McClellan for US president as a Peace Democrat against incumbent President Abraham Lincoln. The outlines of the antiwar stance are seen: the argument of the costs of maintaining the present conflict not being worth the gains that can be made, the appeal to end the horrors of war, and the argument of war being waged for the profit of particular interests. During the war, the New York Draft Riots were started as violent protests against Lincoln's Enrollment Act of Conscription to draft men to fight in the war. The outrage over conscription was augmented by the ability to "buy" one's way out, which could be afforded only by the wealthy. After the war, The Red Badge of Courage described the chaos and sense of death which resulted from the changing style of combat: away from the set engagement, and towards two armies engaging in continuous battle over a wide area.
Second Boer War: William Thomas Stead formed an organization against the Second Boer War, the Stop the War Committee.
World War I: In Britain, in 1914, the Public Schools Officers' Training Corps annual camp was held at Tidworth Camp, near Salisbury Plain. Head of the British Army Lord Kitchener was to review the cadets, but the immenence of the war prevented him. General Horace Smith-Dorrien was sent instead. He surprised the two-or-three thousand cadets by declaring (in the words of Donald Christopher Smith, a Bermudian cadet who was present) "that war should be avoided at almost any cost, that war would solve nothing, that the whole of Europe and more besides would be reduced to ruin, and that the loss of life would be so large that whole populations would be decimated. In our ignorance I, and many of us, felt almost ashamed of a British General who uttered such depressing and unpatriotic sentiments, but during the next four years, those of us who survived the holocaust-probably not more than one-quarter of us – learned how right the General's prognosis was and how courageous he had been to utter it." Having voiced these sentiments did not hinder Smith-Dorrien's career, or prevent him from carrying out his duty in the First World War to the best of his abilities.
With the increasing mechanization of war, opposition to its horrors grew, particularly in the wake of the First World War. European avant-garde cultural movements such as Dada were explicitly anti-war.
The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 gave the American authorities the right to close newspapers and jailed individuals for having anti-war views.
On 16 June 1918, Eugene V. Debs made an anti-war speech and was arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was convicted, sentenced to serve ten years in prison, but President Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence on 25 December 1921.
Between the World Wars: In 1924, Ernst Friedrich published Krieg dem Krieg! (War Against War!): an album of photographs drawn from German military and medical archives from the first world war. In Regarding the Pain of Others Sontag describes the book as "photography as shock therapy" that was designed to "horrify and demoralize".
It was in the 1930s that the Western anti-war movement took shape, to which the political and organizational roots of most of the existing movement can be traced. Characteristics of the anti-war movement included opposition to the corporate interests perceived as benefiting from war, to the status quo which was trading the lives of the young for the comforts of those who are older, the concept that those who were drafted were from poor families and would be fighting a war in place of privileged individuals who were able to avoid the draft and military service, and to the lack of input in decision making that those who would die in the conflict would have in deciding to engage in it.
In 1933, the Oxford Union resolved in its Oxford Pledge, "That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country."
Many war veterans, including US General Smedley Butler, spoke out against wars and war profiteering on their return to civilian life.
Veterans were still extremely cynical about the motivations for entering World War I, but many were willing to fight later in the Spanish Civil War, indicating that pacifism was not always the motivation. These trends were depicted in novels such as All Quiet on the Western Front, For Whom the Bell Tolls and Johnny Got His Gun.
World War II: Opposition to World War II was most vocal during its early period, and stronger still before it started while appeasement and isolationism were considered viable diplomatic options. Communist-led organizations, including veterans of the Spanish Civil War, opposed the war during the period starting with the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact but then turned into hawks after Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
The war seemed, for a time, to set anti-war movements at a distinct social disadvantage; very few, mostly ardent pacifists, continued to argue against the war and its results at the time. However, the Cold War followed with the post-war realignment, and the opposition resumed. The grim realities of modern combat, and the nature of mechanized society ensured that the anti-war viewpoint found presentation in Catch-22, Slaughterhouse-Five and The Tin Drum. This sentiment grew in strength as the Cold War seemed to present the situation of an unending series of conflicts, which were fought at terrible cost to the younger generations.
Vietnam War: Organized opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War began slowly and in small numbers in 1964 on various college campuses in the United States and quickly as the war grew deadlier. In 1967 a coalition of antiwar activists formed the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam which organized several large anti-war demonstrations between the late 1960s and 1972. Counter-cultural songs, organizations, plays and other literary works encouraged a spirit of nonconformism, peace, and anti-establishmentarianism. This anti-war sentiment developed during a time of unprecedented student activism and right on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement, and was reinforced in numbers by the demographically significant baby boomers. It quickly grew to include a wide and varied cross-section of Americans from all walks of life. The anti-Vietnam war movement is often considered to have been a major factor affecting America's involvement in the war itself. Many Vietnam veterans, including future Secretary of State and U.S. Senator John Kerry and disabled veteran Ron Kovic, spoke out against the Vietnam War on their return to the United States.
Mrs. Ngo Ba Thanh, a Vietnamese peace activist, aligned her Vietnamese Women's Movement for the Right to Live with international activists of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and Women Strike for Peace. Her imprisonment and publications about the war brought international attention to the social and economic issues created by the war and fostered international opposition to it.: 109–110 : 85, 89–90 Her arrest and lack of a trial sparked Bella Abzug and WILPF members to write to the United States Congress and petition President Richard Nixon to appeal to South Vietnamese officials for her release,: 126 : 90 which was widely covered in the press. Campaigns opposing the war and conscription also took place in Australia.
South African Border War: Opposition to the South African Border War spread to a general resistance to the apartheid military. Organizations such as the End Conscription Campaign and Committee on South African War Resisters, were set up. Many opposed the war at this time.
Yugoslav Wars: Following the rise of nationalism and political tensions after Slobodan Milošević came to power, as well as the outbreaks of the Yugoslav Wars, numerous anti-war movements developed in Serbia. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-war movement | : 109–110 : 85, 89–90 Her arrest and lack of a trial sparked Bella Abzug and WILPF members to write to the United States Congress and petition President Richard Nixon to appeal to South Vietnamese officials for her release,: 126 : 90 which was widely covered in the press. Campaigns opposing the war and conscription also took place in Australia.
South African Border War: Opposition to the South African Border War spread to a general resistance to the apartheid military. Organizations such as the End Conscription Campaign and Committee on South African War Resisters, were set up. Many opposed the war at this time.
Yugoslav Wars: Following the rise of nationalism and political tensions after Slobodan Milošević came to power, as well as the outbreaks of the Yugoslav Wars, numerous anti-war movements developed in Serbia. The anti-war protests in Belgrade were held mostly because of opposition the Battle of Vukovar, Siege of Dubrovnik and Siege of Sarajevo, while protesters demanded the referendum on a declaration of war and disruption of military conscription.
More than 50,000 people participated in many protests, and more than 150,000 people took part in the most massive protest called "The Black Ribbon March" in solidarity with people in Sarajevo. It is estimated that between 50,000 and 200,000 people deserted from the Yugoslav People's Army, while between 100,000 and 150,000 people emigrated from Serbia refusing to participate in the war. According to professor Renaud De la Brosse, senior lecturer at the University of Reims and a witness called by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), it is surprising how great the resistance to Milošević's propaganda was among Serbs, given that and the lack of access to alternative news.
The most famous associations and NGOs who marked the anti-war ideas and movements in Serbia were the Center for Antiwar Action, Women in Black, Humanitarian Law Center and Belgrade Circle. The Rimtutituki was a rock supergroup featuring Ekatarina Velika, Električni Orgazam and Partibrejkers members, which was formed at the petition signing against mobilization in Belgrade.
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War triggered debates over the legitimacy of the intervention. About 2,000 Serbian Americans and anti-war activists protested in New York City against NATO airstrikes, while more than 7,000 people protested in Sydney. The most massive protests were held in Greece, and demonstrations were also held in Italian cities, London, Moscow, Toronto, Berlin, Stuttgart, Salzburg and Skopje.
2001 Afghanistan War: There was initially little opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War in the United States and the United Kingdom, which was seen as a response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks and was supported by most of the American public. Most vocal opposition came from pacifist groups and groups promoting a left-wing political agenda. Over time, opposition to the war in Afghanistan has grown more widespread, partly as a result of weariness with the length of the conflict and partly as a result of a conflating of the conflict with the unpopular war in Iraq.
Iraq War: The anti-war position gained renewed support and attention in the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and its allies. Millions of people staged mass protests across the world in the immediate prelude to the invasion, and demonstrations and other forms of anti-war activism have continued throughout the occupation. The primary opposition within the U.S. to the continued occupation of Iraq has come from the grassroots. Opposition to the conflict, how it had been fought, and complications during the aftermath period divided public sentiment in the U.S., resulting in majority public opinion turning against the war for the first time in the spring of 2004, a turn which has held since.
The American country music band Dixie Chicks opposition to the war caused many radio stations to stop playing their records, but who were supported in their anti-war stance by the equally anti-war country music legend Merle Haggard, who in the summer of 2003 released a song critical of US media coverage of the Iraq War. Anti-war groups protested during both the Democratic National Convention and 2008 Republican National Convention protests held in Saint Paul, Minnesota, in September 2008.
Possible war against Iran: Organised opposition to a possible future military attack against Iran by the United States is known to have started during 2005–2006. Beginning in early 2005, journalists, activists and academics such as Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter, Joseph Cirincione and Jorge E. Hirsch began publishing claims that United States' concerns over the alleged threat posed by the possibility that Iran may have a nuclear weapons program might lead the US government to take military action against that country in the future. These reports, and the concurrent escalation of tensions between Iran and some Western governments, prompted the formation of grassroots organisations, including Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran in the US and the United Kingdom, to oppose potential military strikes on Iran. Additionally, several individuals, grassroots organisations and international governmental organisations, including the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, Nobel Prize winners including Shirin Ebadi, Mairead Corrigan-Maguire and Betty Williams, Harold Pinter and Jody Williams, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Code Pink, the Non-Aligned Movement of 118 states, and the Arab League, have publicly stated their opposition to a would-be attack on Iran.
War in Donbass: Anti-war/Putin demonstrations took place in Moscow "opposing the War in Donbass", i.e., in Eastern Ukraine.
Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen:
2021 Israel–Palestine crisis: In May 2021, protests broke out following a flare-up of the Israel–Palestine conflict. In the U.S., thousands gathered in at least seven major cities across the country in solidarity with Palestinians. The 2021 conflict lasted from 6 May until 21 May when a ceasefire was signed. The following day, an estimated 180,000 protestors gathered in Hyde Park, England, in what may have been the largest pro-Palestine demonstration in British history. Speeches were made by anti-war campaigners and trade union members including demands that the UK government disinvest and sanction Israel. Messages such as "free Palestine" and "stop the war" were displayed on banners and placards and chanted by protesters. Despite the ceasefire, protests continued into June, with, for example, protestors in Oakland, California, attempting to block an Israeli cargo ship from entering the Port of Oakland on 4 June.
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Beginning in 2022, the anti-war movement was renewed following tensions between Russia and Ukraine. Protests escalated on 24 February 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine.
Russian President Vladimir Putin introduced prison sentences of up to 15 years for publishing "fake news" about Russian military operations. As of December 2022, more than 4,000 people, including Russian opposition politicians and journalists, had been prosecuted under Russia's "fake news" laws for criticizing the war in Ukraine.
2023 Israel–Hamas war: Multiple protests against the war took place around the world since the start of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, in support of Palestine mostly.
Arts and culture: English poet Robert Southey's 1796 poem After Blenheim is an early modern example of anti-war literature that was written generations after the Battle of Blenheim but while Britain was again at war against France.
World War I produced a generation of poets and writers influenced by their experiences in the war. The work of poets, including Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, exposed the contrast between the realities of life in the trenches and how the war was seen by the British public at the time and the earlier patriotic verse penned by Rupert Brooke. The German writer Erich Maria Remarque penned All Quiet on the Western Front, which has been adapted for several mediums and has become of the most often cited pieces of anti-war media.
Pablo Picasso's 1937 painting Guernica on the other hand, used abstraction, rather than realism, to generate an emotional response to the loss of life from the Condor Legion and Aviazione Legionaria's bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. The American author Kurt Vonnegut used science fiction themes in his 1969 novel Slaughterhouse-Five, depicting the bombing of Dresden in World War II, which Vonnegut witnessed.
The second half of the 20th century also witnessed a strong anti-war presence in other art forms, including anti-war music such as "Eve of Destruction", "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" and "One Tin Soldier", and films such as M*A*S*H and Die Brücke, opposing the Cold War in general or specific conflicts such as the Vietnam War. The war in Iraq has also generated significant artistic anti-war works, including the American filmmaker Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which holds the box-office record for documentary films, and the Canadian musician Neil Young's 2006 album Living with War.
Anti-war intellectual and scientist-activists and their work: Various people have discussed the philosophical question of whether war is inevitable, and how it can be avoided; in other words, what are the necessities of peace. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Anti-war movement | The second half of the 20th century also witnessed a strong anti-war presence in other art forms, including anti-war music such as "Eve of Destruction", "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" and "One Tin Soldier", and films such as M*A*S*H and Die Brücke, opposing the Cold War in general or specific conflicts such as the Vietnam War. The war in Iraq has also generated significant artistic anti-war works, including the American filmmaker Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which holds the box-office record for documentary films, and the Canadian musician Neil Young's 2006 album Living with War.
Anti-war intellectual and scientist-activists and their work: Various people have discussed the philosophical question of whether war is inevitable, and how it can be avoided; in other words, what are the necessities of peace. Various intellectuals and others have discussed it from an intellectual and philosophical point of view, not only in public, but participating or leading anti-war campaigns despite its differing from their main areas of expertise, leaving their professional comfort zones to warn against or fight against wars.
Philosophical possibility of avoiding war: Immanuel Kant: In (1795) "Perpetual Peace" ("Zum ewigen Frieden"). Immanuel Kant booklet on "Perpetual Peace" in 1795. Politically, Kant was one of the earliest exponents of the idea that perpetual peace could be secured through universal democracy and international cooperation.
Leading scientists and intellectuals: Here is a list of notable anti-war scientists and intellectuals:
Linus Pauling was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his peace activism (his second Nobel Prize). He circulated multiple petitions among scientists.
Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein had correspondences on violence, peace, and human nature.
Bertrand Russell mostly was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed anti-imperialism. Occasionally, he advocated preventive nuclear war, before the opportunity provided by the atomic monopoly is gone, and "welcomed with enthusiasm" world government. He went to prison for his pacifism during World War I. Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament. In 1950 Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought".
Manifestos and statements by scientist and intellectual activists: Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and eight other leading scientists and intellectuals signed the Russell-Einstein Manifesto issued July 9, 1955.
The Mainau Declaration of 15 July 1955 was signed by 52 Nobel Prize laureates.
The Dubrovnik-Philadelphia Statement of 1974/1976 was signed by Linus Pauling and others.
See also:
References:
Sources: Powers, Roger S. (1997). Protest, Power, and Change: An Encyclopedia of Nonviolent Action from ACT-UP to Women's Suffrage. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-76482-0.
Further reading:
External links:
Guide to anti-war websites by The Guardian
Essays and speeches from the Antebellum Era peace movement
1969 anti-war march in Berlin
Scates, Bob (2022). "The draftmen go free : a history of the anti-conscription movement in Australia". Book review and whole book. The Commons Social Change Library. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Appeasement | History:
Failure of collective security: Appeasement policy, the policy of appeasing Hitler and Mussolini, operating jointly at that time, during 1937 and 1938 by continuous concessions granted in the hope of reaching a point of saturation when the dictators would be willing to accede to international collaboration.... It came to an end when Hitler seized Czechoslovakia on March 15, 1939, in defiance of his promises given at Munich, and Prime Minister Chamberlain, who had championed appeasement before, decided on a policy of resistance to further German aggression.
Chamberlain's policy of appeasement emerged from the failure of the League of Nations and the failure of collective security. The League of Nations was set up in the aftermath of World War I in the hope that international co-operation and collective resistance to aggression might prevent another war. Members of the League were entitled to the assistance of other members if they came under attack. The policy of collective security ran in parallel with measures to achieve international disarmament and, if possible, was to be based on economic sanctions against an aggressor. The policy appeared to be ineffectual when confronted by the aggression of dictators, notably Germany's Remilitarization of the Rhineland and Italy's Benito Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia.
Invasion of Manchuria: In September 1931, the Empire of Japan, a member of the League of Nations, invaded Manchuria, in northeast China, by claiming that the regional population was not only Chinese but was multi-ethnic. The Republic of China appealed to the League of Nations and to the United States for assistance. The League of Nations Council asked the parties to withdraw to their original positions to permit a peaceful settlement. The United States reminded them of their duty under the Kellogg–Briand Pact to settle matters peacefully. Japan was undeterred and went on to occupy the whole of Manchuria. The League set up a commission of inquiry that condemned Japan, and the League duly adopted the report in February 1933. In response, Japan resigned from the League and continued its advance into China, with neither the League nor the United States taking any action. However, the U.S. issued the Stimson Doctrine and refused to recognize Japan's conquest, which played a role in shifting U.S. policy to favour China over Japan during the late 1930s. Some historians, such as David Thomson, assert that the League's "inactivity and ineffectualness in the Far East lent every encouragement to European aggressors who planned similar acts of defiance".
Anglo-German Payments Agreement: The 1934 Anglo-German Payments Agreement stabilised economic relations between Britain and Germany, guaranteeing German interest repayments on bonds arising from World War I reparations and deepening British economic ties to Germany, particularly in the area of trade. Herbert von Dirksen, the German ambassador to Britain, in 1938 characterised the agreement, alongside the 1935 naval agreement, as carrying "the swaying structure of foreign relations [between the UK and Germany] even in critical periods".
Anglo-German Naval Agreement: The 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement had Britain permit Germany to begin rebuilding the German Navy, including its U-boats, despite Germany having repeatedly violated the Treaty of Versailles.
Abyssinia crisis: Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini had imperial ambitions in Abyssinia. Italy was already in possession of the neighbouring Eritrea and Somalia. In December 1934, there was a clash between Royal Italian Army and Imperial Ethiopian Army troops at Walwal, near the border between British and Italian Somaliland, in which Italian troops took possession of the disputed territory, and about 150 Abyssinians and 50 Italians were killed. Italy demanded apologies and compensation from Abyssinia, which appealed to the League, with Emperor Haile Selassie famously appealing in person to the assembly in Geneva. The League persuaded both sides to seek a settlement under the Italo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1928, but Italy continued troop movements, and Abyssinia appealed to the League again. In October 1935 Mussolini launched an attack on Abyssinia. The League declared Italy to be the aggressor and imposed sanctions, but coal and oil were not included since blocking them, it was thought, would provoke war. Albania, Austria and Hungary refused to apply sanctions, and Germany and the United States were not in the League. Nevertheless, the Italian economy suffered. The League considered closing off the Suez Canal, which would have stopped arms to Abyssinia, but thinking that would be too harsh a measure, failed to do so.
Earlier, in April 1935, Italy had joined Britain and France in protest against German rearmament. France was anxious to placate Mussolini to keep him away from an alliance with Germany. Britain was less hostile to Germany and set the pace in imposing sanctions and moved a naval fleet into the Mediterranean, but in November 1935, British Foreign Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare and French Prime Minister, Pierre Laval had secret discussions in which they agreed to concede two thirds of Abyssinia to Italy. However, the press leaked the content of the discussions, and a public outcry forced Hoare and Laval to resign. In May 1936, undeterred by sanctions, Italy captured Addis Ababa, the Abyssinian capital, and proclaimed Victor Emmanuel III as Emperor of Ethiopia. In July the League abandoned sanctions. The episode, in which sanctions were incomplete and appeared to be easily given up, seriously discredited the League.
Remilitarisation of the Rhineland: Under the Versailles Settlement, the Rhineland was demilitarised. Germany accepted that arrangement under the Locarno Treaties of 1925. Hitler claimed that it threatened Germany and, on 7 March 1936, sent the Wehrmacht into the Rhineland. He gambled on Britain not getting involved but was unsure of how France would react. The action was opposed by many of his advisers. His officers had orders to withdraw if they met French resistance. France consulted Britain and lodged protests with the League but took no action. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin said that Britain lacked the forces to back its guarantees to France and that in any case, public opinion would not allow so. In Britain, it was thought that the Germans were merely walking into "their own backyard". Hugh Dalton, a Labour Party MP who usually advocated stiff resistance to Germany, said that neither the British people nor Labour would support military or economic sanctions. In the Council of the League, only the Soviet Union proposed sanctions against Germany. Hitler, who was invited to negotiate, proposed a non-aggression pact with the Western powers. When asked for details, he did not reply. Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland had persuaded him that the international community would not resist him, and it put Germany in a powerful strategic position.
Spanish Civil War: Many historians argue that the British policy of non-intervention was a product of the Establishment's anti-communist stance. Scott Ramsay (2019) instead argues that Britain demonstrated "benevolent neutrality" and was simply hedging its bets by avoiding the favouring of one side or the other. The goal was that in a European war Britain would enjoy the "benevolent neutrality" of whichever side won in Spain.
Conduct of appeasement, 1937–1939: In 1937, Stanley Baldwin resigned as Prime Minister. He was replaced by Neville Chamberlain, who pursued a policy of appeasement and rearmament. Chamberlain's reputation for appeasement rests in large measure on his negotiations with Hitler over Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Anschluss: When the German Empire and Austria-Hungary were broken up in 1918, Austria was left as a rump state with the temporary adopted name Deutschösterreich ("German-Austria"), with the vast majority of Austrians wanting to join Germany. However, the victors' agreements of World War I (the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Saint-Germain) strictly forbade union between Austria and Germany without League consent, as well as the name "German-Austria", which reverted to "Austria" after the emergence of the First Republic of Austria in September 1919. The constitutions of both the Weimar Republic and the First Republic of Austria, included the aim of unification, which was supported by democratic parties. However, the rise of Hitler dampened the enthusiasm of the Austrian government for such a plan. Hitler, an Austrian by birth, had been a pan-German from a very young age and had promoted a Pan-German vision of a Greater Germanic Reich from the beginning of his career in politics. He wrote in Mein Kampf (1924) that he would attempt a union of his birth country Austria with Germany by any means possible and by force if necessary. By early 1938, Hitler had consolidated his power in Germany and was ready to implement his long-held plan.
Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg wished to pursue ties with Italy but turned to Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania (the Little Entente). To that end, Hitler took violent exception. In January 1938, the Austrian Nazis attempted a putsch following which some were imprisoned. Hitler summoned Schuschnigg to Berchtesgaden in February and demanded, with the threat of military action, for him to release imprisoned Austrian Nazis and to allow them to participate in the government. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Appeasement | He wrote in Mein Kampf (1924) that he would attempt a union of his birth country Austria with Germany by any means possible and by force if necessary. By early 1938, Hitler had consolidated his power in Germany and was ready to implement his long-held plan.
Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg wished to pursue ties with Italy but turned to Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania (the Little Entente). To that end, Hitler took violent exception. In January 1938, the Austrian Nazis attempted a putsch following which some were imprisoned. Hitler summoned Schuschnigg to Berchtesgaden in February and demanded, with the threat of military action, for him to release imprisoned Austrian Nazis and to allow them to participate in the government. Schuschnigg complied and appointed Arthur Seyss-Inquart, a pro-Nazi lawyer, as interior minister. To forestall Hitler and to preserve Austria's independence, Schuschnigg scheduled a plebiscite on the issue for 13 March. Hitler demanded for the plebiscite to be cancelled. The German Propaganda Ministry issued press reports that riots had broken out in Austria and that large parts of the Austrian population were calling for German troops to restore order. On 11 March, Hitler sent an ultimatum to Schuschnigg that demanded him to hand over all power to the Austrian Nazis or face an invasion. The British Ambassador in Berlin, Nevile Henderson, registered a protest with the German government against the use of coercion against Austria. Schuschnigg, realising that neither France nor the United Kingdom would actively support him, resigned in favour of Seyss-Inquart, who then appealed to German troops to restore order. On 12 March, the German Wehrmacht crossed the Austrian border. They met no resistance and were greeted by cheering Austrians. The invasion was the first major test of the Wehrmacht's machinery. Austria became the German province of Ostmark, with Seyss-Inquart as governor. A plebiscite was held on 10 April and officially recorded the support of 99.73% of the voters for the Anschluss.
Although the Allies had prohibited the union of Austria and Germany, their reaction to the Anschluss was mild. Even the strongest voices against annexation, particularly those of Fascist Italy, France and Britain (the "Stresa Front"), were not backed by force. In the British House of Commons, Chamberlain said, "The hard fact is that nothing could have arrested what has actually happened [in Austria] unless this country and other countries had been prepared to use force". The American reaction was similar. The international reaction to the events of 12 March 1938 led Hitler to conclude that he could use even more aggressive tactics in his plan to expand the Third Reich. The Anschluss paved the way for Munich in September 1938 because it indicated the likely non-response of Britain and France to future German aggression.
Munich Agreement: How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.
Under the Versailles Settlement, Czechoslovakia was created with the territory of the Czech part more or less corresponding to the Czech Crown lands as they had existed within Austria-Hungary and earlier. The new country included Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia and had border areas with a majority-German population that was known as the Sudetenland and areas with significant numbers of other ethnic minorities (notably Hungarians, Poles and Ruthenians). In April 1938, the Sudeten German Party, led by Konrad Henlein, agitated for autonomy and then threatened, in Henlein's words, "direct action to bring the Sudeten Germans within the frontiers of the Reich". An international crisis ensued.
France and Britain advised Czechoslovak acceptance of Sudeten autonomy. The Czechoslovak government refused and ordered a partial mobilisation in expectation of German aggression. Lord Runciman was sent by Chamberlain to mediate in Prague and persuaded the Czechoslovak government to grant autonomy. Germany escalated the dispute, with the country's press carrying stories of alleged atrocities against Sudeten Germans, and Hitler ordering 750,000 troops to the Czechoslovak border. In August, Henlein broke off negotiations with the Czechoslovak authorities. At a Nazi party rally in Nuremberg on 12 September, Hitler made a speech attacking Czechoslovakia and there was an increase of violence by Sudeten Nazis against Czechoslovak and Jewish targets.
Chamberlain, faced with the prospect of a German invasion, flew to Berchtesgaden on 15 September to negotiate directly with Hitler, who now demanded that Chamberlain accept not Sudeten self-government within Czechoslovakia but the absorption of the Sudeten lands into Germany. Chamberlain became convinced that refusal would lead to war. The geography of Europe was such that Britain and France could forcibly prevent the German occupation of the Sudetenland only by the invasion of Germany. Chamberlain, therefore, returned to Britain and agreed to Hitler's demands. Britain and France told the Czechoslovak President Edvard Beneš to hand over to Germany all territory with a German majority. Hitler increased his aggression against Czechoslovakia and ordered the establishment of a Sudeten German paramilitary organisation, which proceeded to carry out terrorist attacks on Czechoslovak targets.
German annexation of Sudetenland: On 22 September, Chamberlain flew to Bad Godesberg for his second meeting with Hitler and said that he was willing to accept the cession of the Sudetenland to Germany. He was startled by the response of Hitler that the cession of the Sudetenland was not enough and that Czechoslovakia, which Hitler had described as a "fraudulent state", must be broken up completely. Later in the day, Hitler resiled by saying that he was willing to accept the cession of the Sudetenland by 1 October. On 24 September, Germany issued the Godesberg Memorandum, which demanded cession by 28 September or war. The Czechoslovak government rejected those demands, France ordered mobilisation and Britain mobilised the Royal Navy.
On 26 September, Hitler made a speech at the Sportpalast in Berlin in which he claimed that the Sudetenland was "the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe", and he gave Czechoslovakia an ultimatum of 28 September at 2:00pm to cede the territory to Germany or to face war.
In the atmosphere of growing conflict, Mussolini persuaded Hitler to put the dispute to a four-power conference. On 29 September 1938, Hitler, Chamberlain, French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier and Mussolini met in Munich. Czechoslovakia was not to be a party to these talks, nor was the Soviet Union. The four powers agreed that Germany would complete its occupation of the Sudetenland but that an international commission would consider other disputed areas. Czechoslovakia was told that if it did not submit, it would stand alone. At Chamberlain's request, Hitler readily signed an agreement for between the United Kingdom and Germany. Chamberlain returned to Britain and promised "peace for our time". Before Munich, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had sent a telegram to Chamberlain that said, "Good man" and he later told the American ambassador in Rome, William Phillips, "I am not a bit upset over the final result".
First Vienna Award and German annexation of Bohemia and Moravia: As a result of the annexation of the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia lost 800,000 citizens, much of its industry and its mountain defences in the west. The rest of Czechoslovakia was left weak and powerless to resist subsequent occupation. In the following months, Czechoslovakia was broken up and ceased to exist, as Germany occupied the Sudetenland; Hungary took part of Slovakia, including Carpathian Ruthenia; and Poland annexed Trans-Olza. On 15 March 1939, the German Wehrmacht moved into the remainder of Czechoslovakia, and from Prague Castle, Hitler proclaimed Bohemia and Moravia to be the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, completing the German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Slovakia separated and created under a puppet government of Germany.
In March 1939, Chamberlain foresaw a possible disarmament conference between himself, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. British Home Secretary, Samuel Hoare, said, "These five men, working together in Europe and blessed in their efforts by the President of the United States of America, might make themselves eternal benefactors of the human race".
In effect, the British and French had by the Munich negotiations pressured their ally of Czechoslovakia to cede part of its territory to a hostile neighbour in order to preserve peace. Churchill likened the negotiations at Berchtesgarten, Bad Godesberg and Munich to a man demanding £1, then, when it is offered, demanding £2, then when it is refused settling for £1.17s.6d. British leaders committed to the Munich Agreement in spite of their awareness of Hitler's vulnerability at the time. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Appeasement | Slovakia separated and created under a puppet government of Germany.
In March 1939, Chamberlain foresaw a possible disarmament conference between himself, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. British Home Secretary, Samuel Hoare, said, "These five men, working together in Europe and blessed in their efforts by the President of the United States of America, might make themselves eternal benefactors of the human race".
In effect, the British and French had by the Munich negotiations pressured their ally of Czechoslovakia to cede part of its territory to a hostile neighbour in order to preserve peace. Churchill likened the negotiations at Berchtesgarten, Bad Godesberg and Munich to a man demanding £1, then, when it is offered, demanding £2, then when it is refused settling for £1.17s.6d. British leaders committed to the Munich Agreement in spite of their awareness of Hitler's vulnerability at the time. In August 1938, General Ludwig Beck relayed a message to Lord Halifax to explain that most of the German General Staff had prepared a coup against the Fuhrer for if there was "proof that England will fight if Czechoslovakia is attacked". When Chamberlain received the news, he dismissed it out of hand. In September, the British received assurance that the General Staff's offer to launch the coup still stood with key private sector police and army support, even though Beck had resigned his post. Chamberlain ultimately ceded to all of Hitler's demands at Munich because he believed Britain and Nazi Germany were "the two pillars of European peace and buttresses against communism".
Czechoslovakia had a modern well-prepared military, and Hitler, on entering Prague, conceded that a war would have cost Germany much blood but the decision by France and Britain not to defend Czechoslovakia in the event of war and the exclusion from the equation of the Soviet Union, which Chamberlain distrusted, meant that the outcome would have been uncertain. The event forms the main part of what became known as Munich betrayal (Czech: Mnichovská zrada) in Czechoslovakia and the rest of Eastern Europe, as the Czechoslovak view was that Britain and France had pressured it to cede territory to prevent a major war, which would involve Western Europe. The Western view is that the pressure was done to save Czechoslovakia from total annihilation.
German annexation of Lithuania's Klaipėda Region: Rumours had reached the Lithuanian government to the effect that Germany had specific plans to take over Klaipėda. On 12 March 1939, Foreign Minister Juozas Urbšys represented Lithuania at the coronation of Pope Pius XII in Rome. On Urbšys's return to Lithuania, he stopped in Berlin with the hope of clarifying the growing rumours. On 20 March, just five days after the German occupation of Prague, German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop agreed to meet Urbšys but not the Lithuanian Ambassador to Berlin, Kazys Škirpa, who was asked to wait in another room. The conversation lasted for about 40 minutes. Ribbentrop demanded the return of Klaipėda to Germany and threatened military action. Urbšys relayed the verbal ultimatum to the Lithuanian government. Because the ultimatum was never set down in writing and did not include a formal deadline, some historians downplay its importance and describe it as a "set of demands", rather than as an ultimatum. However, it was made clear that force would be used should Lithuania resist, and Lithuania was warned not to seek help from other nations. A clear deadline was not given, but Lithuania was told to make a speedy decision and that any clashes or German casualties would inevitably provoke a response from the German military.
Lithuania secretly informed the signatories of the Klaipėda Convention about those demands since technically, Lithuania could not transfer Klaipėda without the signatories' approvals. Italy and Japan supported Germany in the matter, and the United Kingdom and France expressed sympathy for Lithuania but chose not to offer any material assistance and followed a well-publicized policy of appeasement. The British treated the issue in the same way as the earlier Sudeten Crisis and made no plans to assist Lithuania or the other Baltic States if they were attacked by Germany. The Soviets supported Lithuania in principle but did not wish to disrupt their relations with Germany since they were contemplating the German-Soviet Pact. Without any material international support, Lithuania had no choice but to accept the ultimatum. Lithuanian diplomacy characterized the concession as a "necessary evil" to enable Lithuania to preserve its independence, and it maintained the hope that it was merely a temporary retreat.
Outbreak of World War II and Phoney War: By August 1939, Hitler was convinced that the democratic nations would never put up any effective opposition to him. He expressed his contempt for them in a speech that he delivered to his Commanders in Chief: "Our enemies have leaders who are below the average. No personalities. No masters, no men of action.... Our enemies are small fry. I saw them in Munich".
On 1 September 1939, German forces started their invasion of Poland. Britain and France joined the war against Germany but initially averted serious military involvement during the period known as the Phoney War. After the German invasion of Norway, opinion turned against Chamberlain's conduct of the war. He resigned after the Norway Debate in the British House of Commons, and on 10 May 1940 Winston Churchill became Prime Minister. In July, after the Fall of France, when Britain stood almost alone against Germany, Hitler offered peace. Some politicians both inside and outside the government were willing to consider the offer, but Churchill refused to do so. Chamberlain died on 9 November the same year. Churchill delivered a tribute to him in which he said, "Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged".
Attitudes: As the policy of appeasement failed to prevent war, those who advocated it were quickly criticised. Appeasement came to be seen as something to be avoided by those with responsibility for the diplomacy of Britain or any other democratic country. By contrast, the few who stood out against appeasement were seen as "voices in the wilderness whose wise counsels were largely ignored, with almost catastrophic consequences for the nation in 1939–40". More recently, however, historians have questioned the accuracy of that simple distinction between appeasers and anti-appeasers. "Few appeasers were really prepared to seek peace at any price; few, if any, anti-appeasers were prepared for Britain to make a stand against aggression whatever the circumstances and wherever the location in which it occurred".
Avoiding mistakes of First World War: Chamberlain's policy in many respects continued the policies of MacDonald and Baldwin and was popular until the failure of the Munich Agreement to stop Hitler in Czechoslovakia. "Appeasement" had been a respectable term between 1919 and 1937 to signify the pursuit of peace. Many believed after the First World War that wars were started by mistake, in which case the League of Nations could prevent them; or that they were caused by large-scale armaments, in which case disarmament was the remedy; or that they were caused by national grievances, in which case the grievances should be redressed peacefully. Many thought that the Versailles Treaty had been unjust, that the German minorities were entitled to self-determination, and that Germany was entitled to equality in armaments.
Government views: Appeasement was accepted by most of those responsible for British foreign policy in the 1930s; by leading journalists and academics; and by members of the British royal family such as King Edward VIII and his successor, George VI. Anti-communism was sometimes acknowledged as a deciding factor, as mass labour unrest resurfaced in Britain, and news of Stalin's bloody purges disturbed the West. A common upper-class slogan was "better Hitlerism than Communism". In France, right-wingers were sometimes accused of believing "Better Hitler than Blum" in reference to the French Socialist Prime Minister Léon Blum at the time. Anti-communism was a motive of a close ally of Chamberlain, Lord Halifax, who said after he had visited Göring and met Hitler in Germany in 1936 and 1937: "Nationalism and Racialism is a powerful force but I can't feel that it's either unnatural or immoral! I cannot myself doubt that these fellows are genuine haters of Communism, etc.! And I daresay if we were in their position we might feel the same!"
Most Conservative MPs were also in favour, but Churchill said that their supporters were divided and in 1936 led a delegation of leading Conservative politicians to express to Baldwin their alarm about the speed of German rearmament and the fact that Britain was falling behind. Baldwin rejected their sense of urgency and declared that he would not get Britain to war with anybody "for the League of Nations or anybody else" and that if there were to be any fighting in Europe, "I should like to see the Bolshies and Nazis doing it". |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Appeasement | I cannot myself doubt that these fellows are genuine haters of Communism, etc.! And I daresay if we were in their position we might feel the same!"
Most Conservative MPs were also in favour, but Churchill said that their supporters were divided and in 1936 led a delegation of leading Conservative politicians to express to Baldwin their alarm about the speed of German rearmament and the fact that Britain was falling behind. Baldwin rejected their sense of urgency and declared that he would not get Britain to war with anybody "for the League of Nations or anybody else" and that if there were to be any fighting in Europe, "I should like to see the Bolshies and Nazis doing it". Amongst Conservatives, Churchill was unusual in believing that Germany menaced freedom and democracy, that British rearmament should proceed more rapidly and that Germany should be resisted over Czechoslovakia. His criticism of Hitler began from the start of the decade, but Churchill was slow to attack fascism overall because of his own vitriolic opposition to communists, "international Jews" and socialism generally. Churchill's sustained warnings about fascism commenced only in 1938 after Francisco Franco, who was receiving aid from Italy and Germany during the Spanish Civil War, decimated the left in Spain.
The week before Munich, Churchill warned, "The partition of Czechoslovakia under pressure from the UK and France amounts to the complete surrender of the Western Democracies to the Nazi threat of force. Such a collapse will bring peace or security neither to the UK nor to France". He and a few other Conservatives who refused to vote for the Munich settlement were attacked by their local constituency parties. However, Churchill's subsequent leadership of Britain during the war and his role in creating the post-war consensus against appeasement have tended to obscure the fact that "his contemporary criticism of totalitarian regimes other than Hitler's Germany was at best muted". It was not until May 1938 that he began "consistently to withhold his support from the National Government's conduct of foreign policy in the division lobbies of the House of Commons". He seems "to have been convinced by the Sudeten German leader, Henlein, in the spring of 1938, that a satisfactory settlement could be reached if Britain managed to persuade the Czech government to make concessions to the German minority".
Military views: In Britain, the Royal Navy generally favoured appeasement although it was during the Abyssinia Crisis of 1937 that it was confident it could easily defeat the Royal Italian Navy in open warfare. However, it favoured appeasement because it did not want to commit a large fraction of its naval power to the Mediterranean Sea, which would weaken its positions against Germany and Japan. In 1938, the Royal Navy approved appeasement regarding Munich because it calculated that Britain then lacked the political and military resources to intervene and to maintain an imperial defence capability simultaneously.
Public opinion in Britain throughout the 1930s was frightened by the prospect of German terror bombing of British cities, which had started during the First World War. The media emphasised the dangers, and the general consensus was that defence was impossible and, as Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin had said in 1932, "The bomber will always get through". However, the Royal Air Force had two major weapons systems in the works: better interceptors (Hurricanes and Spitfires) and especially radar. They promised to counter the German bombing offensive but were not yet ready and so appeasement was necessary to cause a delay. Specifically, regarding the fighters, the RAF warned the government in October 1938 that the German Luftwaffe bombers would probably get through: "the situation... will be definitely unsatisfactory throughout the next twelve months".
In France, the Armée de l'Air intelligence section closely examined the strength of the Luftwaffe and decided the German pursuit planes and bombers were the best in the world and that the Germans were producing 1000 warplanes a month. It perceived decisive German air superiority and so it was pessimistic about its ability to defend Czechoslovakia in 1938. Guy La Chambre, the civilian air minister, optimistically informed the government that the air force could stop the Luftwaffe. However, General Joseph Vuillemin, air force chief of staff, warned that it was far inferior and consistently opposed war against Germany.
Opposition parties: The Labour Party opposed the fascist dictators on principle but until the late 1930s also opposed rearmament and had a significant pacifist wing. In 1935, its pacifist leader, George Lansbury, resigned after a party resolution in favour of sanctions against Italy, which he opposed. He was replaced by Clement Attlee, who at first opposed rearmament by advocating the abolition of national armaments and a world peacekeeping force under the direction of the League of Nations. However, with the rising threat from Nazi Germany and the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations, that policy eventually lost credibility, and in 1937, Ernest Bevin and Hugh Dalton persuaded the party to support rearmament and oppose appeasement.
A few on the left said that Chamberlain looked forward to a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Attlee claimed in one political speech in 1937 that the National Government had connived at German rearmament "because of its hatred of Russia". British communists, following the party line defined by Joseph Stalin, argued that appeasement had been a pro-fascist policy and that the British ruling class preferred fascism to socialism. The Communist MP Willie Gallacher said that "many prominent representatives of the Conservative Party, speaking for powerful landed and financial interests in the country, would welcome Hitler and the German Army if they believed that such was the only alternative to the establishment of Socialism in this country".
Public opinion: British public opinion had been strongly opposed to war and rearmament in the early 1930s, but that began to shift by mid-decade. At a debate at the Oxford Union Society in 1933, a group of undergraduates passed a motion saying that they would not fight for King and country, which persuaded some in Germany that Britain would never go to war. Baldwin told the House of Commons that in 1933, he had been unable to pursue a policy of rearmament because of the strong pacifist sentiment in the country. In 1935, eleven million responded to the League of Nations "Peace Ballot" by pledging support for the reduction of armaments by international agreement. On the other hand, the same survey also found that 58.7% of British voters favoured "collective military sanctions" against aggressors, and public reaction to the Hoare-Laval Pact with Mussolini was extremely unfavorable. Even the left wing of the pacifist movement quickly began to turn with the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936, and many peace-balloters began signing up for the International Brigades to fight Franco. By the height of the Spanish conflict in 1937, the majority of young pacifists had modified their views to accept that war could be a legitimate response to aggression and fascism.
Czechoslovakia did not concern most people until mid-September 1938, when they began to object to a small democratic state being bullied. Nevertheless, the initial response of the British public to the Munich agreement was generally favourable. As Chamberlain left for Munich in 1938, the whole House of Commons cheered him noisily. On 30 September, on his return to Britain, Chamberlain delivered his famous "peace for our time" speech to delighted crowds. He was invited by the royal family onto the balcony at Buckingham Palace before he had reported to Parliament. The agreement was supported by most of the press, with only Reynold's News and the Daily Worker dissenting. In Parliament, the Labour Party opposed the agreement. Some Conservatives abstained in the vote, but the only MP to advocate war was the Conservative Duff Cooper, who had resigned from the government to protest the agreement.
Role of media: Positive opinion of appeasement was shaped partly by media manipulation. The German correspondent for The Times, Norman Ebbutt, charged that his persistent reports about Nazi militarism had been suppressed by his editor, Geoffrey Dawson. Historians such as Richard Cockett, William Shirer and Frank McDonough have confirmed the claim. The results of an October 1938 Gallup poll, which showed 86% of the public believed Hitler was lying about his future territorial ambitions, was censored from the News Chronicle at the last minute by the publisher, who was loyal to Chamberlain. For the few journalists who were asking challenging questions about appeasement, primarily members of the foreign press, Chamberlain often froze them out or intimidated them. When asked at press conferences about Hitler's abuse of Jews and other minority groups, he went so far as to denounce these reports as "Jewish-Communist propaganda".
Chamberlain's direct manipulation of the BBC was sustained and egregious. For example, Lord Halifax told radio producers not to offend Hitler and Mussolini, and they complied by censoring anti-fascist commentary made by Labour and Popular Front MPs. The BBC also suppressed the fact that 15,000 people protested the prime minister in Trafalgar Square as he returned from Munich in 1938 (10,000 more than welcomed him at 10 Downing Street). The BBC radio producers continued to censor news of persecution of Jews even after the war broken out, as Chamberlain still held out hopes of a quick armistice and did not want to inflame the atmosphere. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Appeasement | When asked at press conferences about Hitler's abuse of Jews and other minority groups, he went so far as to denounce these reports as "Jewish-Communist propaganda".
Chamberlain's direct manipulation of the BBC was sustained and egregious. For example, Lord Halifax told radio producers not to offend Hitler and Mussolini, and they complied by censoring anti-fascist commentary made by Labour and Popular Front MPs. The BBC also suppressed the fact that 15,000 people protested the prime minister in Trafalgar Square as he returned from Munich in 1938 (10,000 more than welcomed him at 10 Downing Street). The BBC radio producers continued to censor news of persecution of Jews even after the war broken out, as Chamberlain still held out hopes of a quick armistice and did not want to inflame the atmosphere. As Richard Cockett noted:
[Chamberlain] had successfully demonstrated how a government in a democracy could influence and control the press to a remarkable degree. The danger in this for Chamberlain was that he preferred to forget that he exercised such influence, and so increasingly mistook his pliant press for real public opinion... the truth of the matter was that by controlling the press he was merely ensuring that the press was unable to reflect public opinion.
The journalist Shiela Grant Duff's Penguin Special, Europe and the Czechs, was published and distributed to every MP on the day that Chamberlain returned from Munich. Her book was a spirited defence of the Czech nation and a detailed criticism of British policy and confronted the need for war if necessary. It was influential and widely read. Although she argued against the policy of "peace at almost any price", she did not take a personal tone, unlike Guilty Men two years later.
At start of World War II: Once Germany invaded Poland and so ignited World War II, consensus was that appeasement was responsible. The Labour MP Hugh Dalton identified the policy with wealthy people in the City of London, Conservatives and members of the peerage who were soft on Hitler. The appointment of Churchill as Prime Minister after the Norway Debate hardened opinion against appeasement and encouraged the search for those responsible. Three British journalists, Michael Foot, Frank Owen and Peter Howard, writing under the name of "Cato" in their book Guilty Men, called for the removal from office of 15 public figures they held accountable, including Chamberlain. The book defined appeasement as the "deliberate surrender of small nations in the face of Hitler's blatant bullying". It was hastily written and has few claims to historical scholarship, but Guilty Men shaped subsequent thinking about appeasement, and it is said that it contributed to the defeat of the Conservatives in the 1945 general election.
The change in the meaning of "appeasement" after Munich was summarised later by the historian David Dilks: "The word in its normal meaning connotes the pacific settlement of disputes; in the meaning usually applied to the period of Neville Chamberlain['s] premiership, it has come to indicate something sinister, the granting from fear or cowardice of unwarranted concessions in order to buy temporary peace at someone else's expense."
Postwar historians: Churchill's book The Gathering Storm, published in 1948, made a similar judgment to Guilty Men though in moderate tones. The book and Churchill's authority confirmed the orthodox view.
Historians have subsequently explained Chamberlain's policies in various ways. It could be said that he believed sincerely that the objectives of Hitler and Mussolini were limited, and that the settlement of their grievances would protect the world from war since for safety, military and air power should be strengthened.
One of the first dissents to the prevailing criticism of appeasement was made by John F. Kennedy in his 1940 Harvard College thesis, Why England Slept, in which he argued that appeasement had been necessary because the United Kingdom and France were unprepared for a world war.
In 1961, the view of appeasement as avoidable error and cowardice was similarly set on its head by A.J.P. Taylor in his book The Origins of the Second World War. Taylor argued that Hitler did not have a blueprint for war and behaved much as any other German leader might have. Appeasement was an active policy, not a passive one, and allowing Hitler to consolidate was a policy implemented by "men confronted with real problems, doing their best in the circumstances of their time". Taylor said that appeasement ought to be seen as a rational response to an unpredictable leader that was both diplomatically and politically appropriate to the time.
His view has been shared by other historians. For example, Paul Kennedy, who says of the choices facing politicians at the time, "Each course brought its share of disadvantages: there was only a choice of evils. The crisis in the British global position by this time was such that it was, in the last resort, insoluble, in the sense that there was no good or proper solution". Martin Gilbert expressed a similar view: "At bottom, the old appeasement was a mood of hope, Victorian in its optimism, Burkean in its belief that societies evolved from bad to good and that progress could only be for the better. The new appeasement was a mood of fear, Hobbesian in its insistence upon swallowing the bad in order to preserve some remnant of the good, pessimistic in its belief that Nazism was there to stay and, however horrible it might be, should be accepted as a way of life with which Britain ought to deal".
The arguments in Taylor's Origins of the Second World War, which have sometimes been described as "revisionist", were rejected by many historians at the time, and reviews of his book in Britain and the United States were generally critical. Nevertheless, he was praised for some of his insights. By showing that appeasement was a popular policy and that there was a continuity in British foreign policy after 1933, he shattered the common view of the appeasers as a small degenerate clique that had mysteriously hijacked the British government sometime in the 1930s that had carried out their policies in the face of massive public resistance. Also, by portraying the leaders of the 1930s as real people attempting to deal with real problems, he made the first strides towards explaining the actions of the appeasers, rather than merely condemning them.
In the early 1990s a new theory of appeasement, sometimes called "counter-revisionist", emerged as historians argued that appeasement was probably the only choice for the British government in the 1930s but that it was poorly implemented, carried out too late and not enforced strongly enough to constrain Hitler. Appeasement was considered a viable policy because of the strains that the British Empire faced in recuperating from World War I, and Chamberlain was said to have adopted a policy suitable to Britain's cultural and political needs. Frank McDonough is a leading proponent of that view of appeasement, which was described his book Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement and the British Road to War as a "post revisionist" study. Appeasement was a crisis management strategy seeking a peaceful settlement of Hitler's grievances. "Chamberlain's worst error", says McDonough, "was to believe that he could march Hitler on the yellow brick road to peace when in reality Hitler was marching very firmly on the road to war". He criticised revisionist historians for concentrating on Chamberlain's motivations, rather than how appeasement worked in practice, as a "usable policy" to deal with Hitler. James P. Levy argues against the outright condemnation of appeasement. "Knowing what Hitler did later", he writes, "the critics of Appeasement condemn the men who tried to keep the peace in the 1930s, men who could not know what would come later.... The political leaders responsible for Appeasement made many errors. They were not blameless. But what they attempted was logical, rational, and humane".
The view of Chamberlain colluding with Hitler to attack the Soviet Union has persisted, however, particularly on the far left. In 1999, Christopher Hitchens wrote that Chamberlain "had made a cold calculation that Hitler should be re-armed... partly to encourage his 'tough-minded' solution to the Bolshevik problem in the East". Consciously encouraging war with Stalin is not widely accepted to be a motive of the Downing Street appeasers, but there is a historical consensus that anti-communism was central to appeasement's appeal for the conservative elite. As Antony Beevor writes, "The policy of appeasement was not Neville Chamberlin's invention. Its roots lay in a fear of bolshevism. The general strike of 1926 and the depression made the possibility of revolution a very real concern to conservative politicians. As a result, they had mixed feelings towards the German and Italian regimes which had crushed the communists and socialists in their own countries".
Postwar politicians: Statesmen in the postwar years have often referred to their opposition to appeasement as a justification for firm, sometimes armed, action in international relations.
United States: U.S. President Harry S. Truman thus explained his decision to enter the Korean War in 1950, British Prime Minister Anthony Eden in his confrontation of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the Suez Crisis of 1956, U.S. President John F. Kennedy his "quarantine" of Cuba in 1962, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson in his resistance to communism in Indochina in the 1960s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan in his air strike on Libya in 1986, and U.S. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Appeasement | As a result, they had mixed feelings towards the German and Italian regimes which had crushed the communists and socialists in their own countries".
Postwar politicians: Statesmen in the postwar years have often referred to their opposition to appeasement as a justification for firm, sometimes armed, action in international relations.
United States: U.S. President Harry S. Truman thus explained his decision to enter the Korean War in 1950, British Prime Minister Anthony Eden in his confrontation of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the Suez Crisis of 1956, U.S. President John F. Kennedy his "quarantine" of Cuba in 1962, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson in his resistance to communism in Indochina in the 1960s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan in his air strike on Libya in 1986, and U.S. President Donald Trump in the drone strike that led to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani in 2020.
Vietnam: After the Viet Minh won the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in a letter to British Prime Minister Churchill, "We failed to halt Hirohito, Mussolini and Hitler by not acting in unity and in time. That marked the beginning of many years of stark tragedy and desperate peril. May it not be that our nations have learned something from that lesson?" Similarly, President Lyndon Johnson said to defend the Vietnam War, "Everything I knew about history told me that if I got out of Vietnam and let Ho Chi Minh run through the streets of Saigon, then I'd be doing exactly what Chamberlain did in World War II. I'd be giving a big fat reward to aggression".
Cuba: During the Cuban Missile Crisis, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay and various hawks within the Kennedy administration for an air strike on Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba compared Kennedy's hesitance to do so to appeasement. That was partially a jab at Kennedy's father Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., who had supported appeasement while he was U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom and later supported a negotiated surrender to Germany during the May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis and the Battle of Britain.
Soviet Union: During the Cold War, the "lessons" of appeasement were cited by prominent conservative allies of Reagan, who urged him to be assertive in "rolling back" Soviet-backed regimes throughout the world. The Heritage Foundation's Michael Johns, for instance, wrote in 1987 that "seven years after Ronald Reagan's arrival in Washington, the United States government and its allies are still dominated by the culture of appeasement that drove Neville Chamberlain to Munich in 1938." Some conservatives even compared Reagan to Chamberlain after his withdrawal of the Multinational Force in Lebanon because of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.
Argentina: British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher invoked the example of Churchill during the Falklands War of 1982: "When the American Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, urged her to reach a compromise with the Argentines she rapped sharply on the table and told him, pointedly, 'that this was the table at which Neville Chamberlain sat in 1938 and spoke of the Czechs as a faraway people about whom we know so little'". Thatcher, along with U.S. National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, made similar arguments after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the planning for the Gulf War. The spectre of appeasement was raised in discussions of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.
Iraq: U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair also cited Churchill's warnings about German rearmament to justify their action in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War.
Syria: In 2013, Obama administration officials such as Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel claimed that a failure of the United States to intervene in the Syrian Civil War after the Ghouta chemical attack would be an act of appeasement towards Bashar al-Assad.
Iran: In May 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush cautioned against "the false comfort of appeasement" when dealing with Iran and
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Opponents of President Barack Obama later criticized the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as an act of appeasement with Iran. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later stated that the Trump administration's foreign policy was "trying to correct for what was the Obama administration's appeasement of Iran."
Islamism: The Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali demands a confrontational policy at the European level to meet the threat of radical Islam and compares policies of non-confrontation to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.
China: Tibetan separatists consider the policy of the West towards the People's Republic of China with regard to Tibet as appeasement.
Russia: The minimal international reactions to the invasion of Chechnya, the invasion of Georgia and the 2014 annexation of Crimea, as well as the conflict in the Donbas, which all stand in violation of international law, is seen by some as the cause that encouraged Russian president Vladimir Putin to conduct a full-scale invasion of the rest of Ukraine in 2022.
Some commentators have suggested that some NATO countries are following the policy of appeasement towards Vladimir Putin's Russia by rejecting the support of Ukrainian democracy through military operations and aid during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
North Korea:
Afghanistan: The 2020 Doha Agreement between the United States and the Taliban without involvement of the then Afghan government was criticized as the American appeasement of the Taliban. Over the American war in Afghanistan, the United States and its NATO allies (ISAF and RSM periods) along with the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and its national defense and security forces warred against the Taliban and its allied militant groups and later the Islamic State – Khorasan Province. After Donald Trump become the president, he decided to wrap up all military operations in Afghanistan and to begin negotiation with the Taliban, which culminated with the Doha Agreement on 29 February 2020. After President Joe Biden decided to withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan on 31 August 2021, the Taliban launched their final offensive of the war, which brought the fall of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, during which Kabul was taken over by the Taliban on 15 August 2021. The United States completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan and the evacuation of American citizens and residents and at-risk Afghans from Kabul International Airport on 30 August 2021.
Criticism: In the mid-20th century, appeasement was seen as discredited in the United Kingdom due to its role in contributing to World War II.
Scholar Aaron McKeil pointed out that appeasement restraint against liberal interventionism would lead to more proxy wars, and fail to offer institutions and norms for mitigating great power conflict. Alternative strategies to avoid conflict include deterrence, where threats or limited force dissuades an actor from escalating conflict, typically because the prospective attacker believes that the probability of success is low and the costs of attack are high.
Appeasement can be seen as promoting frozen conflicts and rewarding aggression.
Appeasement might be more difficult to achieve if the source of conflict is indivisible and can be held by only one party, preventing small concessions.
The case of peacebuilding in Timor-Leste can be seen as appeasement to avoid conflict without addressing underlying conflict grievances.
The Minsk agreements have been called by some as appeasement, which subsequently failed to prevent the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Appeasement can face the dilemma where appeasing a group of former rebels can increase grievances with new groups.
See also:
Notes:
References:
Sources: Grant Duff, Sheila (1938). Europe and the Czechs. London: Penguin.
Further reading:
Historiography: Barros, Andrew, Talbot C. Imlay, Evan Resnick, Norrin M. Ripsman, and Jack S. Levy. "Debating British Decision-making toward Nazi Germany in the 1930s." International Security 34#1 (2009): 173–98. online.
Cole, Robert A. "Appeasing Hitler: The Munich Crisis of 1938: A Teaching and Learning Resource," New England Journal of History (2010) 66#2 pp. 1–30.
Dimuccio, Ralph BA. "The study of appeasement in international relations: Polemics, paradigms, and problems." Journal of peace research 35.2 (1998): 245–259.
Finney, Patrick. "The romance Of decline: The historiography of appeasement and British national identity." Electronic Journal of International History 1 (2000). online; comprehensive evaluation of the scholarship
Hughes, R. Gerald. "The Ghosts of Appeasement: Britain and the Legacy of the Munich Agreement." Journal of Contemporary History (2013) 48#4 pp. 688–716.
Record, Jeffrey. "Appeasement Reconsidered – Investigating the Mythology of the 1930s" (Strategic Studies Institute, 2005) online
Roi, Michael. "Introduction: Appeasement: Rethinking the Policy and the Policy-Makers." Diplomacy and Statecraft 19.3 (2008): 383–390.
Strang, G. Bruce. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Appeasement | Journal of peace research 35.2 (1998): 245–259.
Finney, Patrick. "The romance Of decline: The historiography of appeasement and British national identity." Electronic Journal of International History 1 (2000). online; comprehensive evaluation of the scholarship
Hughes, R. Gerald. "The Ghosts of Appeasement: Britain and the Legacy of the Munich Agreement." Journal of Contemporary History (2013) 48#4 pp. 688–716.
Record, Jeffrey. "Appeasement Reconsidered – Investigating the Mythology of the 1930s" (Strategic Studies Institute, 2005) online
Roi, Michael. "Introduction: Appeasement: Rethinking the Policy and the Policy-Makers." Diplomacy and Statecraft 19.3 (2008): 383–390.
Strang, G. Bruce. "The spirit of Ulysses? Ideology and British appeasement in the 1930s." Diplomacy and Statecraft 19.3 (2008): 481–526.
Van Tol, David. "History extension 2019: Constructing history case study: Appeasement." Teaching History 51.3 (2017): 35+.
Walker, Stephen G. "Solving the Appeasement Puzzle: Contending Historical Interpretations of British Diplomacy during the 1930s." British Journal of International Studies 6#3 (1980): 219–46. online.
Watt, D. C. "The Historiography of Appeasement", in Crisis and Controversy: Essays in Honour of A. J. P. Taylor, ed. A. Sked and C. Cook (London, 1976)
External links: Media related to Appeasement at Wikimedia Commons |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Area denial weapon | Historical methods:
Anti-cavalry: In medieval warfare, sturdy stakes were stuck into the ground at the bottom of long lines of ditches, positioned with a sharp end pointing up diagonally, in order to prevent cavalry charges in a given area. Even if the stakes were spotted, horsemen would be forced to dismount and effectively give up their advantage as cavalry, and become easier targets. The correct layout of these extensive lines of ditches and the control of stake size, form and placement were part of the craft of war.
An alternative cavalry deterrent, allowing quicker dispersal and providing the advantage of being hidden more easily, was the deployment of, for example, small balls with spikes, used during most of antiquity. Many variants were used, such as boards with metal hooks, as described as used by Julius Caesar. A more modern version of this are caltrops.
Passive fortification—ditches and obstacles such as dragon's teeth and Czech hedgehogs—were used as anti-tank measures during World War II.
Anti-infantry: Simple rows or clusters of sharpened sticks (nowadays also known as punji sticks), and small caltrops have been used in anti-infantry warfare since antiquity. However, due to the difficulty of mass-producing them in the pre-modern age, they were rarely used except in the defense of limited areas or chokepoints, especially during sieges, where they were used to help seal breaches. Increasing ease of production still did not prevent these methods from slowly falling out of favor from the late Middle Ages onward.
Caltrops are still sometimes used in modern conflicts, such as during the Korean War, where Chinese troops, often wearing only light shoes, were particularly vulnerable. In modern times, special caltrops are also sometimes used against wheeled vehicles with pneumatic tires. Some South American urban guerrillas such as the Tupamaros and Montoneros, who called them "miguelitos," have used caltrops to avoid pursuit after ambushes.
Modern methods:
Explosives: The most common area denial weapons are land mines of various types, planted by hand or dispersed by artillery. Some modern prototypes experiment with automatic guns or artillery-delivered ammunitions that are fired only after remote sensing detects enemies.
Booby traps or improvised explosive devices in sufficient concentration also qualify as area denial weapons, though they are much easier to clear and usually pose less long-term danger. Temporary area denial can be achieved on a tactical level by artillery barrage.
During an armed conflict there are several methods of countering land mines. These include using armored vehicles to negate the effects of anti-personnel land mines. Land mines can also be cleared either by hand, or by using specialised equipment such as tanks equipped with flails. Explosives can also be used to clear mine fields, either by artillery bombardment, or with specialised charges such as Bangalore torpedoes, the Antipersonnel Obstacle Breaching System and the Python Minefield Breaching System.
156 states are parties to the Ottawa Treaty under which they have agreed not to use, stockpile, produce or transfer anti-personnel mines.
CBRNE agents: Various CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive) weapons can be used for area denial, as long as the agent is long-lasting. Fallout from nuclear weapons might be used in such a role. While never actually employed in this form, its use had been suggested by Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War, who proposed spreading radioactive waste across transportation corridors to inhibit the movement of Chinese and North Korean forces.
Anthrax spores can contaminate the ground for long periods of time, thus providing a form of area denial. However, the short-term (tactical) effects are likely to be low - the psychological effects on an opponent would likely be more significant.
The massive use of defoliants such as Agent Orange can be used as an interdiction measure because they leave areas empty of any form of vegetation cover. In the desert-like terrain that ensues, it is impossible for the enemy to travel without being seen, and there is little cover in case of an attack, especially from the air.
Many chemical weapons also produce toxic effects on any personnel in an affected area. However, this usually has no tactical value, as the effects of indirect exposure do not develop fast or substantially enough - though again, the psychological effect upon an enemy aware of the chemical usage may be considerable. There are however some chemical agents that are by design non-degrading, such as the nerve agent VX. Sulfur mustard (mustard gas) was extensively used by both German and allied forces on the west front in World War I as an effective area-denial weapon, usually through contaminating large land stripes by extensive shelling with HD/Gelbkreuz ordnance. Since sulfur mustard is very persistent, involatile, hard-to-decontaminate and highly effective in inflicting debilitating casualties at even low doses, this tactic proved to be very effective.
Targeted: To address some of the problems with land-mines (see § Drawbacks), weapons manufacturers are now experimenting with area-denial weapons which need human command to operate. Such systems are usually envisioned as a combination of either explosives, pre-targeted artillery shelling or smartguns with remote sensing equipment (sound, vibration, sight/thermal). By not posing a long-term risk, and by having some level of IFF capability (automatic or human-decision-based), these systems aim to achieve compliance with the Ottawa Treaty, as for example the Metal Storm ADWS (Area Denial Weapons System).
Drawbacks: As area denial weapons do not discriminate between friend, foe, or civilian, they make the affected zone hazardous for all trying to enter. Concepts for area denial weapons which do discriminate (by active sensing) have often been proposed, but have not yet reached a stage of general usefulness, due to their high complexity (and cost) and the risk of misidentification.
Explosive-based area-denial weapons (mines) may be intentionally equipped with detonators which degrade over time, either exploding them or rendering them relatively harmless. Even in these cases, unexploded munitions often pose significant risk.
See also: Active Denial System
Anti-access/area denial
Area Denial Artillery Munition
Decontamination foam
Denied area
Scorched earth
Sea denial
Sentry gun
Suppressive fire
References:
External links: Media related to Area denial weapons at Wikimedia Commons |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Area of responsibility | Area of operation: The Areas of Operation, or AOs, are areas that component and force commanders define as their tactical operability. It is also known as close battlespace. The commanders focus on establishing command and control in this area; which encompasses all aspects of fire support—naval gunfire, air and artillery superiority—in order to provide his ground forces the support they need. Also, the commander sets up force protection and supportive arms, such as logistics or reinforcements.
The term "area of operations" has long been used in the United States Army, for the geographic areas of interest to much smaller units than the combatant commands. It has especially been used among U.S. Army Special Forces.
The commander can choose to organize his AO so that his subordinates have contiguous or noncontiguous AOs:
Contiguous AO—In a contiguous AO, all the subordinate commands' share one or more common boundary within supporting distance of one another in the battlespace. A commander may establish their battlespace in a reflection of linear operations, where there is a continuity and contiguous array of units across the area of operation (AO).
Noncontiguous—A noncontiguous Area of Operation is one where one or more subordinate AOs do not share a common boundary. The commander establishes noncontiguous AOs when a more likely situation is one where the task force conducts non-linear operations within a noncontiguous battlespace and within an operational framework with noncontiguous deep, close, and rear areas.
Operation Restore Hope in Somalia during 1992–1993, is an example of a battlefield framework with noncontiguous areas. The United States' Marine Air-Ground Task Forces' (MAGTF) rear area was centered around the separate sites of the embassy compound, port, and airfield in the city of Mogadishu, while its close area was widely scattered around the towns and villages of the interior that were occupied by the MAGTF. The MAGTF's deep area included the rest of the country and particularly those population and relief centers not under the joint force commander's supervision.
Areas of influence: In an area of influence, the component or force commander assigns subordinate units to conduct missions in and out of this area. Communication is key, either for reconnaissance to report intelligence or fire support for ground forces.
Sometimes known as distant battlespace, it is useful to the force commander as a tool in assigning subordinate areas of operations and in focusing intelligence collection and information operations to shape the battlespace to facilitate future operations. Today's area of influence may be tomorrow's AO.
Area of interest: The key term area of interest specifies areas of interest to the component or force commander; the location of friendly and enemy forces, and the capabilities that may be an advantage, the infrastructure, and key terrain that concern the commander.
The size of the area of interest normally exceeds the commander's operational reach, which mainly focuses within the scope of deep operations.
While the area of interest includes the AO and area of influence, the area of interest may stretch far beyond the other parts of a commander's battlespace.
A commander may also have areas of interest around airbases in other countries neighboring the task force's AO.
See also: List of U.S. government and military acronyms
== References == |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armistice | International law: Under international law, an armistice is a legal agreement (often in a document) that ends fighting between the "belligerent parties" of a war or conflict. At the Hague Convention of 1899, three treaties were agreed and three declarations made. The Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land stated, "If [the armistice's] duration is not fixed," the parties may resume fighting (Article 36) as they choose but with proper notifications. That is in comparison to a "fixed duration" armistice in which the parties may renew fighting only at the end of the particular fixed duration. When the belligerent parties say in effect that "this armistice completely ends the fighting" without any end date for the armistice, the duration of the armistice is fixed in the sense that no resumption of the fighting is allowed at any time. For example, the Korean Armistice Agreement calls for a "ceasefire and armistice" and has the "objective of establishing an armistice which will ensure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved."
Armistice Day: Armistice Day (which coincides with Remembrance Day and Veterans Day, public holidays) is commemorated every year on 11 November to mark the Armistice of 11 November 1918 signed between the Allies of World War I and the German Empire at Compiègne, France, for the cessation of hostilities on the Western Front of World War I, which took effect at eleven o'clock in the morning, the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month" of 1918.
Most countries changed the name of the holiday after World War II to honor veterans of that and subsequent conflicts. Most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations adopted the name Remembrance Day, and the United States chose Veterans Day.
Early modern history: Armistice of Copenhagen of 1537 ended the Danish war known as the Count's Feud
Armistice of Stuhmsdorf of 1635 between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden
Peace of Westphalia of 1648 that ended the Thirty Years' War and Eighty Years' War
20th century:
References:
External links:
"Allied Armistice Terms, 11 November 1918". The War to End All Wars. FirstWorldWar.com. Archived from the original on 2 February 2007. Retrieved 2007-01-04.
The Expanded Cease-Fires Data Set Code Book (Emory University) |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured fighting vehicle | Evolution: The concept of a highly mobile and protected fighting unit has been around for centuries; from Hannibal's war elephants to Leonardo's contraptions, military strategists endeavoured to maximize the mobility and survivability of their soldiers.
Armoured fighting vehicles were not possible until internal combustion engines of sufficient power became available at the start of the 20th century.
History:
Pre-modern: Modern armoured fighting vehicles represent the realization of an ancient concept – that of providing troops with mobile protection and firepower. Armies have deployed war machines and cavalries with rudimentary armour in battle for millennia. Use of these animals and engineering designs sought to achieve a balance between the conflicting paradoxical needs of mobility, firepower and protection.
Siege machine: Siege engines, such as battering rams and siege towers, would often be armoured in order to protect their crews from enemy action. Polyidus of Thessaly developed a very large movable siege tower, the helepolis, as early as 340 BC, and Greek forces used such structures in the Siege of Rhodes (305 BC).
The idea of a protected fighting vehicle has been known since antiquity. Frequently cited is Leonardo da Vinci's 15th-century sketch of a mobile, protected gun-platform; the drawings show a conical, wooden shelter with apertures for cannons around the circumference. The machine was to be mounted on four wheels which would be turned by the crew through a system of hand cranks and cage (or "lantern") gears. Leonardo claimed: "I will build armoured wagons which will be safe and invulnerable to enemy attacks. There will be no obstacle which it cannot overcome." Modern replicas have demonstrated that the human crew would have been able to move it over only short distances.
War wagon: Hussite forces in Bohemia developed war wagons – medieval horse-drawn wagons that doubled as wagon forts – around 1420 during the Hussite Wars. These heavy wagons were given protective sides with firing slits; their heavy firepower came from either a cannon or from a force of hand-gunners and crossbowmen, supported by light cavalry and infantry using pikes and flails. Heavy arquebuses mounted on wagons were called arquebus à croc. These carried a ball of about 3.5 ounces (100 g).
Modern: By the end of World War II, most modern armies had vehicles to carry infantry, artillery and anti-aircraft weaponry. Most modern AFVs are superficially similar in design to their World War II counterparts, but with significantly better armour, weapons, engines, electronics, and suspension. The increase in the capacity of transport aircraft makes possible and practicable the transport of AFVs by air. Many armies are replacing some or all of their traditional heavy vehicles with lighter airmobile versions, often with wheels instead of tracks.
Armed and armoured car: The first modern AFVs were armed cars, dating back virtually to the invention of the motor car. The British inventor F. R. Simms designed and built the Motor Scout in 1898. It was the first armed, petrol-engine powered vehicle ever built. It consisted of a De Dion-Bouton quadracycle with a Maxim machine gun mounted on the front bar. An iron shield offered some protection for the driver from the front, but it lacked all-around protective armour.
The armoured car was the first modern fully armoured fighting vehicle. The first of these was the Simms's Motor War Car, also designed by Simms and built by Vickers, Sons & Maxim in 1899. The vehicle had Vickers armour 6 mm thick and was powered by a four-cylinder 3.3-litre 16 hp Cannstatt Daimler engine giving it a maximum speed of around 9 miles per hour (14 kilometres per hour). The armament, consisting of two Maxim guns, was carried in two turrets with 360° traverse.
Another early armoured car of the period was the French Charron, Girardot et Voigt 1902, presented at the Salon de l'Automobile et du cycle in Brussels, on 8 March 1902. The vehicle was equipped with a Hotchkiss machine gun, and with 7 mm armour for the gunner. Armoured cars were first used in large numbers on both sides during World War I as scouting vehicles.
Tank: In 1903, H. G. Wells published the short story "The Land Ironclads," positing indomitable war machines that would bring a new age of land warfare, the way steam-powered ironclad warships had ended the age of sail.
Wells's literary vision was realized in 1916, when, amidst the pyrrhic standstill of the Great War, the British Landship Committee deployed revolutionary armoured vehicles to break the stalemate. The tank was envisioned as an armoured machine that could cross ground under fire from machine guns and reply with its own mounted machine guns and naval artillery. These first British tanks of World War I moved on caterpillar tracks that had substantially lower ground pressure than wheeled vehicles, enabling them to pass the muddy, pocked terrain and slit trenches of the Battle of the Somme.
Troop transport: The tank eventually proved highly successful and, as technology improved, it became a weapon that could cross large distances at much higher speeds than supporting infantry and artillery. The need to provide the units that would fight alongside the tank led to the development of a wide range of specialised AFVs, especially during the Second World War (1939–1945).
The armoured personnel carrier, designed to transport infantry troops to the frontline, emerged towards the end of World War I. During the first actions with tanks, it had become clear that close contact with infantry was essential in order to secure ground won by the tanks. Troops on foot were vulnerable to enemy fire, but they could not be transported in the tank because of the intense heat and noxious atmosphere. In 1917, Lieutenant G. J. Rackham was ordered to design an armoured vehicle that could fight and carry troops or supplies. The Mark IX tank was built by Armstrong, Whitworth & Co., although just three vehicles had been finished at the time of the Armistice in November 1918, and only 34 were built in total.
Tankette: Different tank classifications emerged in the interwar period. The tankette was conceived as a mobile, two-man model, mainly intended for reconnaissance. In 1925, Sir John Carden and Vivian Loyd produced the first such design to be adopted – the Carden Loyd tankette. Tankettes saw use in the Royal Italian Army during the Italian invasion of Ethiopia (1935–1936), the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), and almost everywhere Italian soldiers fought during World War II. The Imperial Japanese Army used tankettes for jungle warfare.
Self-propelled artillery: The British Gun Carrier Mark I, the first Self-propelled artillery, was fielded in 1917. It was based on the first tank, the British Mark I, and carried a heavy field-gun. The next major advance was the Birch gun (1925), developed for the British motorised warfare experimental brigade (the Experimental Mechanized Force). This mounted a field gun, capable of the usual artillery trajectories and even anti-aircraft use, on a tank chassis.
During World War II, most major military powers developed self-propelled artillery vehicles. These had guns mounted on a tracked chassis (often that of an obsolete or superseded tank) and provided an armoured superstructure to protect the gun and its crew. The first British design, "Bishop", carried the 25 pdr gun-howitzer in an extemporised mounting on a tank chassis that severely limited the gun's performance. It was replaced by the more effective Sexton. The Germans built many lightly armoured self-propelled anti-tank guns using captured French equipment (for example Marder I), their own obsolete light tank chassis (Marder II), or ex-Czech chassis (Marder III). These led to better-protected tank destroyers, built on a medium-tank chassis such as the Jagdpanzer IV or the Jagdpanther.
Anti-aircraft vehicle: The Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon debuted in WWI. The German 88 mm anti-aircraft gun was truck-mounted and used to great effect against British tanks, and the British QF 3-inch 20 cwt was mounted on trucks for use on the Western Front. Although the Birch gun was a general purpose artillery piece on an armoured tracked chassis, it was capable of elevation for anti-aircraft use. Vickers Armstrong developed one of the first SPAAGs based on the chassis of the Mk.E 6-ton light tank/Dragon Medium Mark IV tractor, mounting a Vickers QF-1 "Pom-Pom" gun of 40 mm. The Germans fielded the Sd.Kfz. 10/4 and 6/2, cargo halftracks mounting single 20 mm or 37 mm AA guns (respectively) by the start of the war.
Self-propelled multiple rocket-launcher: Rocket launchers such as the Soviet Katyusha originated in the late 1930s. The Wehrmacht fielded self-propelled rocket artillery in World War II – the Panzerwerfer and Wurfrahmen 40 equipped half-track armoured fighting vehicles. Many modern multiple rocket launchers are self propelled by either truck or tank chassis. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured fighting vehicle | Vickers Armstrong developed one of the first SPAAGs based on the chassis of the Mk.E 6-ton light tank/Dragon Medium Mark IV tractor, mounting a Vickers QF-1 "Pom-Pom" gun of 40 mm. The Germans fielded the Sd.Kfz. 10/4 and 6/2, cargo halftracks mounting single 20 mm or 37 mm AA guns (respectively) by the start of the war.
Self-propelled multiple rocket-launcher: Rocket launchers such as the Soviet Katyusha originated in the late 1930s. The Wehrmacht fielded self-propelled rocket artillery in World War II – the Panzerwerfer and Wurfrahmen 40 equipped half-track armoured fighting vehicles. Many modern multiple rocket launchers are self propelled by either truck or tank chassis.
Design:
Survivability: The level of armour protection between AFVs varies greatly – a main battle tank will normally be designed to take hits from other tank guns and anti-tank missiles, whilst light reconnaissance vehicles are often only armoured "just in case". Whilst heavier armour provides better protection, it makes vehicles less mobile (for a given engine power), limits its air-transportability, increases cost, uses more fuel and may limit the places it can go – for example, many bridges may be unable to support the weight of a main battle tank. A trend toward composite armour is taking the place of steel – composites are stronger for a given weight, allowing the tank to be lighter for the same protection as steel armour, or better protected for the same weight. Armour is being supplemented with active protection systems on a number of vehicles, allowing the AFV to protect itself from incoming projectiles.
The level of protection also usually varies considerably throughout the individual vehicle too, depending on the role of the vehicle and the likely direction of attack. For example, a main battle tank will usually have the heaviest armour on the hull front and the turret, lighter armour on the sides of the hull and the thinnest armour on the top and bottom of the tank. Other vehicles – such as the MRAP family – may be primarily armoured against the threat from IEDs and so will have heavy, sloped armour on the bottom of the hull.
Firepower: Weaponry varies by a very wide degree between AFVs – lighter vehicles for infantry carrying, reconnaissance or specialist roles may have only a autocannon or machine gun (or no armament at all), whereas heavy self-propelled artillery will carry howitzers, mortars or rocket launchers. These weapons may be mounted on a pintle, affixed directly to the vehicle or placed in a turret or cupola.
The greater the recoil of the weapon on an AFV, the larger the turret ring needs to be. A larger turret ring necessitates a larger vehicle. To avoid listing to the side, turrets on amphibious vehicles are usually located at the centre of the vehicle.
Grenade launchers provide a versatile launch platform for a plethora of munitions including, smoke, phosphorus, tear gas, illumination, anti-personnel, infrared and radar-jamming rounds.
Turret stabilization is an important capability because it enables firing on the move and prevents crew fatigue.
Maneuverability: Modern AFVs have primarily used either petrol (gasoline) or diesel piston engines. More recently, gas turbines have been used. Most early AFVs used petrol engines, as they offer a good power-to-weight ratio. However, they fell out of favour during World War II due to the flammability of the fuel.
Most current AFVs are powered by a diesel engine; modern technology, including the use of turbo-charging, helps to overcome the lower power-to-weight ratio of diesel engines compared to petrol.
Gas turbine (turboshaft) engines offer a very high power-to-weight ratio and were starting to find favour in the late 20th century – however, they offer very poor fuel consumption and as such some armies are switching from gas turbines back to diesel engines (i.e. the Russian T-80 used a gas turbine engine, whereas the later T-90 does not). The US M1 Abrams is a notable example of a gas turbine powered tank.
Modern classification by type and role: Notable armoured fighting vehicles extending from post-World War I to today.
Tank: The tank is an all terrain AFV incorporating artillery which is designed to fill almost all battlefield roles and to engage enemy forces by the use of direct fire in the frontal assault role. Though several configurations have been tried, particularly in the early experimental "golden days" of tank development, a standard, mature design configuration has since emerged to a generally accepted pattern. This features a main tank gun or artillery gun, mounted in a fully rotating turret atop a tracked automotive hull, with various additional secondary weapon systems throughout.
Philosophically, the tank is, by its very nature, an offensive weapon. Being a protective encasement with at least one gun position, it is essentially a pillbox or small fortress (though these are static fortifications of a purely defensive nature) that can move toward the enemy – hence its offensive utility. Psychologically, the tank is a force multiplier that has a positive morale effect on the infantry it accompanies. It also instills fear in the opposing force who can often hear and even feel their arrival.
Tank classifications: Tanks were classified either by size or by role.
Classification by relative size was common, as this also tended to influence the tanks' role.
Light tanks are smaller tanks with thinner armour and lower-powered guns, allowing for better tactical mobility and ease of strategic transport. These are intended for armoured reconnaissance, skirmishing, artillery observation, expeditionary warfare and supplementing airborne or naval landings. Light tanks are typically cheaper to build and maintain, but fare poorly against heavier tanks. They may be held in reserve for exploiting any breakthroughs in enemy lines, with the goal of disrupting communications and supply lines.
Medium tanks are mid-sized tanks with adequate armour and guns, and fair mobility, allowing for a balance of fighting abilities, mobility, cost-effectiveness, and transportability. Medium tanks are effective in groups when used against enemy tanks.
Heavy tanks are larger tanks with thick armour and more powerful guns, but less mobile and more difficult to transport. They were intended to be more than a match for typical enemy medium tanks, easily penetrating their armour while being much less susceptible to their attacks. Heavy tanks cost more to both build and maintain, and their heavy armour proved most effective when deployed in support infantry assaulting entrenched fortifications.
Over time, tanks tended to be designed with heavier armour and weapons, increasing the weight of all tanks, so these classifications are relative to the average for the nation's tanks for any given period. An older tank design might be reclassified over time, such as a tank being first deployed as a medium tank, but in later years relegated to light tank roles.
Tanks were also classified by roles that were independent of size, such as cavalry tank, cruiser tank, fast tank, infantry tank, "assault" tank, or "breakthrough" tank. Military theorists initially tended to assign tanks to traditional military infantry, cavalry, and artillery roles, but later developed more specialized roles unique to tanks.
In modern use, the heavy tank has fallen out of favour, being supplanted by more heavily armed and armoured descendant of the medium tanks – the universal main battle tank. The light tank has, in many armies, lost favour to cheaper, faster, lighter armoured cars; however, light tanks (or similar vehicles with other names) are still in service with a number of forces as reconnaissance vehicles, most notably the Russian Marines with the PT-76, the British Army with the Scimitar, and the Chinese Army with the Type 63.
Main battle tank: Modern main battle tanks or "universal tanks" incorporate recent advances in automotive, artillery, armour, and electronic technology to combine the best characteristics of the historic medium and heavy tanks into a single, all-around type. They are also the most expensive to mass-produce. A main battle tank is distinguished by its high level of firepower, mobility and armour protection relative to other vehicles of its era. It can cross comparatively rough terrain at high speeds, but its heavy dependency on fuel, maintenance, and ammunition makes it logistically demanding. It has the heaviest armour of any AFVs on the battlefield, and carries a powerful precision-guided munition weapon systems that may be able to engage a wide variety of both ground targets and air targets. Despite significant advances in anti-tank warfare, it still remains the most versatile and fearsome land-based weapon-systems of the 21st-century, valued for its shock action and high survivability.
Tankette: A tankette is a tracked armed and armoured vehicle resembling a small "ultra-light tank" or "super-light tank" roughly the size of a car, mainly intended for light infantry support or scouting. Tankettes were introduced in the mid-1920s as a reconnaissance vehicle and a mobile machine gun position They were one or two-man vehicles armed with a machine gun. Colloquially it may also simply mean a "small tank".
Tankettes were designed and built by several nations between the 1920s and 1940s following the British Carden Loyd tankette which was a successful implementation of "one man tank" ideas from Giffard Le Quesne Martel, a British Army engineer. They were very popular with smaller countries. Some saw some combat (with limited success) in World War II. However, the vulnerability of their light armour eventually caused the concept to be abandoned. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured fighting vehicle | Tankette: A tankette is a tracked armed and armoured vehicle resembling a small "ultra-light tank" or "super-light tank" roughly the size of a car, mainly intended for light infantry support or scouting. Tankettes were introduced in the mid-1920s as a reconnaissance vehicle and a mobile machine gun position They were one or two-man vehicles armed with a machine gun. Colloquially it may also simply mean a "small tank".
Tankettes were designed and built by several nations between the 1920s and 1940s following the British Carden Loyd tankette which was a successful implementation of "one man tank" ideas from Giffard Le Quesne Martel, a British Army engineer. They were very popular with smaller countries. Some saw some combat (with limited success) in World War II. However, the vulnerability of their light armour eventually caused the concept to be abandoned. However, the German Army uses a modern design of air-transportable armoured weapons carriers, the Wiesel AWC, which resembles the concept of a tankette.
Super-heavy tank: The term "super-heavy tank" has been used to describe armoured fighting vehicles of extreme size, generally over 75 tonnes. Programs have been initiated on several occasions with the aim of creating an invincible siegeworks/breakthrough vehicle for penetrating enemy formations and fortifications without fear of being destroyed in combat. Examples were designed in World War I and World War II (such as the Panzer VIII Maus), along with a few in the Cold War. However, few working prototypes were built and there is no clear evidence any of these vehicles saw combat, as their immense size would have made most designs impractical.
Missile tank: A missile tank is a tank fulfilling the role of a main battle tank, but using only anti-tank surface-to-surface missiles for main armament. Several nations have experimented with prototypes, notably the Soviet Union during the tenure of Nikita Khrushchev (projects Object 167, Object 137Ml, Object 155Ml, Object 287, Object 775),
Flame tank: A flame tank is an otherwise-standard tank equipped with a flamethrower, most commonly used to supplement combined arms attacks against fortifications, confined spaces, or other obstacles. The type only reached significant use in the Second World War, during which the United States, Soviet Union, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom (including members of the British Commonwealth) all produced flamethrower-equipped tanks. Usually, the flame projector replaced one of the tank's machineguns, however, some flame projectors replaced the tank's main gun. Fuel for the flame weapon was generally carried inside the tank, although a few designs mounted the fuel externally, such as the armoured trailer used on the Churchill Crocodile.
Flame tanks have been superseded by thermobaric weapons such as the Russian TOS-1.
Infantry tank: The idea for this tank was developed during World War I by British and French. The infantry tank was designed to work in concert with infantry in the assault, moving mostly at a walking pace, and carrying heavy armour to survive defensive fire. Its main purpose was to suppress enemy fire, crush obstacles such as barbed-wire entanglements, and protect the infantry on their advance into and through enemy lines by giving mobile overwatch and cover. The French Renault FT was the first iteration of this concept.
The British and French retained the concept between the wars and into the Second World War era. Because infantry tanks did not need to be fast, they could carry heavy armour. One of the best-known infantry tanks was the Matilda II of World War II. Other examples include the French R-35, the British Valentine, and the British Churchill.
Cruiser tank: A cruiser tank, or cavalry tank, was designed to move fast and exploit penetrations of the enemy front. The idea originated in "Plan 1919", a British plan to break the trench deadlock of World War I in part via the use of high-speed tanks. The first cruiser tank was the British Whippet.
Between the wars, this concept was implemented in the "fast tanks" pioneered by J. Walter Christie. These led to the Soviet BT tank series and the British cruiser tank series.
During World War II, British cruiser tanks were designed to complement infantry tanks, exploiting gains made by the latter to attack and disrupt the enemy rear areas. In order to give them the required speed, cruiser designs sacrificed armour and armament compared to the infantry tanks. Pure British cruisers were generally replaced by more capable medium tanks such as the US Sherman and, to a lesser extent, the Cromwell by 1943.
The Soviet fast tank (bistrokhodniy tank, or BT tank) classification also came out of the infantry/cavalry concept of armoured warfare and formed the basis for the British cruisers after 1936. The T-34 was a development of this line of tanks as well, though their armament, armour, and all-round capability places them firmly in the medium tank category.
Armoured car: The armoured car is a wheeled, often lightly armoured, vehicle adapted as a fighting machine. Its earliest form consisted of a motorised ironside chassis fitted with firing ports. By World War I, this had evolved into a mobile fortress equipped with command equipment, searchlights, and machine guns for self-defence. It was soon proposed that the requirements for the armament and layout of armoured cars be somewhat similar to those on naval craft, resulting in turreted vehicles. The first example carried a single revolving cupola with a Vickers gun; modern armoured cars may boast heavier armament – ranging from twin machine guns to large calibre cannon.
Some multi-axled wheeled fighting vehicles can be quite heavy, and superior to older or smaller tanks in terms of armour and armament. Others are often used in military marches and processions, or for the escorting of important figures. Under peacetime conditions, they form an essential part of most standing armies. Armoured car units can move without the assistance of transporters and cover great distances with fewer logistical problems than tracked vehicles.
During World War II, armoured cars were used for reconnaissance alongside scout cars. Their guns were suitable for some defence if they encountered enemy armoured fighting vehicles, but they were not intended to engage enemy tanks. Armoured cars have since been used in the offensive role against tanks with varying degrees of success, most notably during the South African Border War, Toyota War, the Invasion of Kuwait, and other lower-intensity conflicts.
Aerosledge: An aerosledge is a type of propeller-driven snowmobile, running on skis, used for communications, mail deliveries, medical aid, emergency recovery and border patrolling in northern Russia, as well as for recreation. Aerosledges were used by the Soviet Red Army during the Winter War and World War II.
Some early aerosledges were built by young Igor Sikorsky in 1909–10, before he built multi-engine airplanes and helicopters. They were very light plywood vehicles on skis, propelled by old airplane engines and propellers.
Scout car: A scout car is a military armoured reconnaissance vehicle, capable of off-road mobility and often carrying mounted weapons such as machine guns for offensive capabilities and crew protection. They often only carry an operational crew aboard, which differentiates them from wheeled armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and infantry mobility vehicles (IMVs), but early scout cars, such as the open-topped US M3 scout car could carry a crew of seven. The term is often used synonymously with the more general term armoured car, which also includes armoured civilian vehicles. They are also differentiated by being designed and built for purpose, as opposed to improvised "technicals" which might serve in the same role.
Reconnaissance vehicle: A reconnaissance vehicle, also known as a scout vehicle, is a military vehicle used for forward reconnaissance. Both tracked and wheeled reconnaissance vehicles are in service. In some countries, light tanks such as the M551 Sheridan and AMX-13 are also used by scout platoons. Reconnaissance vehicles are usually designed with a low profile or small size and are lightly armoured, relying on speed and cover to escape detection. Their armament ranges from a medium machine gun to an autocannon. Modern examples are often fitted with ATGMs and a wide range of sensors.
Some armoured personnel carriers and infantry mobility vehicle, such as the M113, TPz Fuchs, and Cadillac Gage Commando double in the reconnaissance role.
Internal security vehicle: An internal security vehicle (ISV), also known as an armoured security vehicle (ASV), is a combat vehicle used for suppressing civilian unrest. Security vehicles are typically armed with a turreted heavy machine gun and auxiliary medium machine gun. The vehicle is designed to minimize firepower dead space. Non-lethal water cannons and tear gas cannons can provide suppressive fire in lieu of unnecessary deadly fire.
The vehicle must be protected against weapons typical of riots. Protection from improvised incendiary devices is achieved though coverage of the air intake and exhaust ports as well as a strong locking mechanism on the fuel opening. Turret and door locks prevent access to the interior of the vehicle by rioters. Vision blocks, ballistic glass and window shutters and outside surveillance cameras allow protected observation from within the vehicle. Wheeled 4x4 and 6x6 configurations are typical of security vehicles. Tracked security vehicles are often cumbersome and leave negative political connotations for being perceived as an imperial invading force. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured fighting vehicle | Security vehicles are typically armed with a turreted heavy machine gun and auxiliary medium machine gun. The vehicle is designed to minimize firepower dead space. Non-lethal water cannons and tear gas cannons can provide suppressive fire in lieu of unnecessary deadly fire.
The vehicle must be protected against weapons typical of riots. Protection from improvised incendiary devices is achieved though coverage of the air intake and exhaust ports as well as a strong locking mechanism on the fuel opening. Turret and door locks prevent access to the interior of the vehicle by rioters. Vision blocks, ballistic glass and window shutters and outside surveillance cameras allow protected observation from within the vehicle. Wheeled 4x4 and 6x6 configurations are typical of security vehicles. Tracked security vehicles are often cumbersome and leave negative political connotations for being perceived as an imperial invading force.
Military light utility vehicle: Military light utility vehicles are the lightest weight class of military vehicles. It refers to light 4x4 military vehicles with light or no armour and all-terrain mobility. This type of vehicle originated in the first half of the 20th century when horses and other draft animals were replaced with mechanization. Light utility vehicles such as the Willys Jeep were frequently mounted with .50-calibre machineguns and other small weapons for hit-and-run tactics in WWII, especially by the British Special Air Service who used Jeeps to raid Axis airfields during the North Africa campaign. After WWII, vehicles like the Toyota Mega Cruiser and Humvee filled this role. In the 21st century, improvised explosive devices continue to pose threat to mobile infantry resulting in light utility vehicles being made heavier and with more armour.
Improvised fighting vehicle: An improvised fighting vehicle is a combat vehicle resulting from modifications to a civilian or military non-combat vehicle in order to give it a fighting capability. Such modifications usually consist of the grafting of armour plating and weapon systems. Various militaries have procured such vehicles, ever since the introduction of the first automobiles into military service.
During the early days, the absence of a doctrine for the military use of automobiles or of an industry dedicated to producing them, lead to much improvisation in the creation of early armoured cars, and other such vehicles. Later, despite the advent of arms industries in many countries, several armies still resorted to using ad hoc contraptions, often in response to unexpected military situations, or as a result of the development of new tactics for which no available vehicle was suitable. The construction of improvised fighting vehicles may also reflect a lack of means for the force that uses them. This is especially true in underdeveloped countries and even in developing countries, where various armies and guerrilla forces have used them, as they are more affordable than military-grade combat vehicles.
Modern examples include military gun truck used by units of regular armies or other official government armed forces, based on a conventional military cargo truck, that is able to carry a large weight of weapons and armour. They have mainly been used by regular armies to escort military convoys in regions subject to ambush by guerrilla forces. "Narco tanks", used by Mexican drug cartels in the Mexican drug war, are built from such trucks, which combines operational mobility, tactical offensive, and defensive capabilities.
Troop carriers: Troop-carrying AFVs are divided into three main types – armoured personnel carriers (APCs), infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) and infantry mobility vehicles (IMV). The main difference between the three is their intended role – the APC is designed purely to transport troops and is armed for self-defence only – whereas the IFV is designed to provide close-quarters and anti-armour fire support to the infantry it carries. IMV is a wheeled armoured personnel carrier serving as a military patrol, reconnaissance or security vehicle.
Armoured personnel carrier: Armoured personnel carriers (APCs) are intended to carry infantry quickly and relatively safely to the point where they are deployed. In the Battle of Amiens, 8 August 1918, the British Mk V* tank (a lengthened Mark V) carried a small number of machine gunners as an experiment, but the men were debilitated by the conditions inside the vehicle. Later that year the first purpose-built APC, the British Mk IX tank (Mark Nine), appeared. In 1944, the Canadian general Guy Simonds ordered the conversion of redundant armoured vehicles to carry troops (generically named "Kangaroos"). This proved highly successful, even without training, and the concept was widely used in the 21st Army Group. Post-war, specialised designs were built, such as the Soviet BTR-60 and US M113.
Infantry fighting vehicle: An infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), also known as a mechanized infantry combat vehicle (MICV), is a type of armoured fighting vehicle used to carry infantry into battle and provide direct fire support. The first example of an IFV was the West German Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 which served in the Bundeswehr from 1958 until the early 1980s.
IFVs are similar to armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and infantry carrier vehicles (ICVs), designed to transport a section or squad of infantry (generally between five and ten men) and their equipment. They are differentiated from APCs – which are purely "troop-transport" vehicles armed only for self-defence – because they are designed to give direct fire support to the dismounted infantry and so usually have significantly enhanced armament. IFVs also often have improved armour and some have firing ports (allowing the infantry to fire personal weapons while mounted).
They are typically armed with an autocannon of 20 to 57 mm calibre, 7.62mm machine guns, anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and/or surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). IFVs are usually tracked, but some wheeled vehicles fall into this category. IFVs are generally less heavily armed and armoured than main battle tanks. They sometimes carry anti-tank missiles to protect and support infantry against armoured threats, such as the NATO TOW missile and Soviet Bastion, which offer a significant threat to tanks. Specially equipped IFVs have taken on some of the roles of light tanks; they are used by reconnaissance organizations, and light IFVs are used by airborne units which must be able to fight without the heavy firepower of tanks.
Infantry mobility vehicle: An infantry mobility vehicle (IMV) or protected patrol vehicle (PPV) is a wheeled armoured personnel carrier (APC) serving as a military patrol, reconnaissance or security vehicle. Examples include the ATF Dingo, AMZ Dzik, AMZ Tur, Mungo ESK, and Bushmaster IMV. This term also applies to the vehicles currently being fielded as part of the MRAP program.
IMVs were developed in response to the threats of modern counterinsurgency warfare, with an emphasis on Ambush Protection and Mine-Resistance. Similar vehicles existed long before the term IMV was coined, such as the French VAB and South African Buffel. The term is coming more into use to differentiate light 4x4 wheeled APCs from the traditional 8x8 wheeled APCs. It is a neologism for what might have been classified in the past as an armoured scout car, such as the BRDM, but the IMV is distinguished by having a requirement to carry dismountable infantry. The up-armoured M1114 Humvee variant can be seen as an adaptation of the unarmoured Humvee to serve in the IMV role.
Amphibious vehicles: Many modern military vehicles, ranging from light wheeled command and reconnaissance, through armoured personnel carriers and tanks, are manufactured with amphibious capabilities. Contemporary wheeled armoured amphibians include the French Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé and Véhicule Blindé Léger. The latter is a small, lightly armoured 4×4 all-terrain vehicle that is fully amphibious and can swim at 5.4 km/h. The VAB (Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé – 'armoured vanguard vehicle') is a fully amphibious armoured personnel carrier powered in the water by two water jets, that entered service in 1976 and produced in numerous configurations, ranging from basic personnel carrier, anti-tank missile platform.
During the Cold War the Soviet bloc states developed a number of amphibious APCs, fighting vehicles and tanks, both wheeled and tracked. Most of the vehicles the Soviets designed were amphibious, or could ford deep water. Wheeled examples are the BRDM-1 and BRDM-2 4x4 armoured scout cars, as well as the BTR-60, BTR-70, BTR-80, BTR-94 and BTR-90 8x8 armoured personnel carriers.
The United States started developing a long line of Landing Vehicle Tracked (LVT) designs from c. 1940. The US Marine Corps currently uses the AAV7-A1 Assault Amphibious Vehicle, which was to be succeeded by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, which was capable of planing on water and can achieve water speeds of 37–46 km/h. The EFV project has been cancelled.
A significant number of tracked armoured vehicles that are primarily intended for land-use, have some amphibious capability, tactically useful inland, reducing dependence on bridges. They use their tracks, sometimes with added propeller or water jets for propulsion. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured fighting vehicle | Wheeled examples are the BRDM-1 and BRDM-2 4x4 armoured scout cars, as well as the BTR-60, BTR-70, BTR-80, BTR-94 and BTR-90 8x8 armoured personnel carriers.
The United States started developing a long line of Landing Vehicle Tracked (LVT) designs from c. 1940. The US Marine Corps currently uses the AAV7-A1 Assault Amphibious Vehicle, which was to be succeeded by the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, which was capable of planing on water and can achieve water speeds of 37–46 km/h. The EFV project has been cancelled.
A significant number of tracked armoured vehicles that are primarily intended for land-use, have some amphibious capability, tactically useful inland, reducing dependence on bridges. They use their tracks, sometimes with added propeller or water jets for propulsion. As long as the banks have a shallow enough slopes to enter or leave the water they can cross rivers and water obstacles.
Some heavy tanks can operate amphibiously with a fabric skirt to add buoyancy. The Sherman DD tank used in the Normandy landings had this setup. When in water the waterproof float screen was raised and propellers deployed. Some modern vehicles use a similar skirt.
Airborne vehicles: Lightweight armoured fighting vehicles designed or modified to be carried by aircraft and delivered by air drop, helicopter lift, glider, or air landing with infantry to provide heavier tactical firepower and mobility. The air-equivalent to amphibious vehicles, the main advantage of airborne forces is their ability to be deployed into combat zones without land passage, as long as the airspace is accessible. Airborne vehicles are limited only by the tonnage capacity of their transport aircraft. Airborne vehicles typically lack the armour and supplies necessary for prolonged combat, so they are utilized for establishing an airhead to bring in larger forces before carrying out other combat objectives. One modern example is the German Wiesel AWC. The USA also created the M22 Locust as a way to aid paratroopers/ being paradropped in as it was very lightly armoured and very small.
Armoured engineering vehicle: Modern engineering AFV's utilize chassis based on main battle tank platforms: these vehicles are as well armoured and protected as tanks, designed to keep up with tanks, breach obstacles to help tanks get to wherever it needs to be, perform utility functions necessary to expedite mission objectives of tanks, and to conduct other earth-moving and engineering work on the battlefield. These vehicles go by different names depending upon the country of use or manufacture. In the United States the term "combat engineer vehicle (CEV)" is used, in the United Kingdom the term "Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers (AVRE)" is used, while in Canada and other commonwealth nations the term "armoured engineer vehicle (AEV)" is used. There is no set template for what such a vehicle will look like, yet likely features include a large dozer blade or mine ploughs, a large calibre demolition cannon, augers, winches, excavator arms and cranes, or lifting booms.
Although the term "armoured engineer vehicle" is used specifically to describe these multi-purpose tank-based engineering vehicles, that term is also used more generically in British and Commonwealth militaries to describe all heavy tank-based engineering vehicles used in the support of mechanized forces. Thus, "armoured engineer vehicle" used generically would refer to AEV, AVLB, Assault Breachers, and so on. Good examples of this type of vehicle include the UK Trojan AVRE, the Russian IMR, and the US M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle.
Breaching vehicle: A breaching vehicle is especially designed to clear pathways for troops and other vehicles through minefields and along roadside bombs and other improvised explosive devices. These vehicles are equipped with mechanical or other means for the breaching of man-made obstacles. Common types of breaching vehicles include mechanical flails, mine plough vehicles, and mine roller vehicles.
Armoured bulldozer: The armoured bulldozer is a basic tool of combat engineering. These combat engineering vehicles combine the earth moving capabilities of the bulldozer with armour which protects the vehicle and its operator in or near combat. Most are civilian bulldozers modified by addition of vehicle armour/military equipment, but some are tanks stripped of armament and fitted with a dozer blade. Some tanks have bulldozer blades while retaining their armament, but this does not make them armoured bulldozers as such, because combat remains the primary role – earth moving is a secondary task.
Armoured recovery vehicle: An armoured recovery vehicle (ARV) is a type of vehicle recovery armoured fighting vehicle used to repair battle- or mine-damaged as well as broken-down armoured vehicles during combat, or to tow them out of the danger zone for more extensive repairs. To this end the term armoured repair and recovery vehicle (ARRV) is also used.
ARVs are normally built on the chassis of a main battle tank (MBT), but some are also constructed on the basis of other armoured fighting vehicles, mostly armoured personnel carriers (APCs). ARVs are usually built on the basis of a vehicle in the same class as they are supposed to recover; a tank-based ARV is used to recover tanks, while an APC-based one recovers APCs, but does not have the power to tow a much heavier tank.
Armoured vehicle-launched bridge: An armoured vehicle-launched bridge (AVLB) is a combat support vehicle, sometimes regarded as a subtype of combat engineering vehicle, designed to assist militaries in rapidly deploying tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles across rivers. The AVLB is usually a tracked vehicle converted from a tank chassis to carry a folding metal bridge instead of weapons. The AVLB's job is to allow armoured or infantry units to cross water, when a river too deep for vehicles to wade through is reached, and no bridge is conveniently located (or sufficiently sturdy, a substantial concern when moving 60-ton tanks).
The bridge layer unfolds and launches its cargo, providing a ready-made bridge across the obstacle in only minutes. Once the span has been put in place, the AVLB vehicle detaches from the bridge, and moves aside to allow traffic to pass. Once all of the vehicles have crossed, it crosses the bridge itself and reattaches to the bridge on the other side. It then retracts the span ready to move off again. A similar procedure can be employed to allow crossings of small chasms or similar obstructions. AVLBs can carry bridges of 60 feet (18 metres) or greater in length. By using a tank chassis, the bridge layer is able to cover the same terrain as main battle tanks, and the provision of armour allows them to operate even in the face of enemy fire. However, this is not a universal attribute: some exceptionally sturdy 6x6 or 8x8 truck chassis have lent themselves to bridge-layer applications.
Combat engineer section carriers: Combat engineer section carriers are used to transport sappers (combat engineers) and can be fitted with bulldozers' blades and other mine-breaching devices. They are often used as APCs because of their carrying ability and heavy protection. They are usually armed with machine guns and grenade launchers and usually tracked to provide enough tractive force to push blades and rakes. Some examples are the U.S. M113 APC, IDF Puma, Nagmachon, Husky, and U.S. M1132 ESV (a Stryker variant).
Air defence vehicles: An anti-aircraft vehicle, also known as a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun (SPAAG) or self-propelled air defense system (SPAD), is a mobile vehicle with a dedicated anti-aircraft capability.
Specific weapon systems used include machine guns, anti-aircraft autocannons, larger anti-air guns, or surface-to-air-missiles, and some mount both guns and longer-ranged missiles (e.g. the Pantsir-S1). Platforms used include both trucks and heavier combat vehicles such as armored personnel carriers and tanks, which add protection from aircraft, artillery, and small arms fire for front line deployment.
Anti-aircraft guns are usually mounted in a quickly-traversing turret with a high rate of elevation, for tracking fast-moving aircraft. They are often in dual or quadruple mounts, allowing a high rate of fire. In addition, most anti-aircraft guns can be used in a direct-fire role against surface targets to great effect. In the early 21st century, missiles (generally mounted on similar turrets) largely supplanted anti-aircraft guns, though guns have recently shown revived utility against slow, low-flying drones.
Self-propelled artillery: Self-propelled artillery vehicles give mobility to artillery. Within the term are covered self-propelled guns (or howitzers) and rocket artillery. They are highly mobile, usually based on tracked chassis carrying either a large howitzer or other field gun or alternatively a mortar or some form of rocket or missile launcher. They are usually used for long-range indirect bombardment support on the battlefield.
In the past, self-propelled artillery has included direct-fire "Gun Motor Carriage" vehicles, such as assault guns and tank destroyers (also known as self-propelled anti-tank guns). These have been heavily armoured vehicles, the former providing danger-close fire-support for infantry and the latter acting as specialized anti-tank vehicles.
Modern self-propelled artillery vehicles may superficially resemble tanks, but they are generally lightly armoured, too lightly to survive in direct-fire combat. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured fighting vehicle | Self-propelled artillery: Self-propelled artillery vehicles give mobility to artillery. Within the term are covered self-propelled guns (or howitzers) and rocket artillery. They are highly mobile, usually based on tracked chassis carrying either a large howitzer or other field gun or alternatively a mortar or some form of rocket or missile launcher. They are usually used for long-range indirect bombardment support on the battlefield.
In the past, self-propelled artillery has included direct-fire "Gun Motor Carriage" vehicles, such as assault guns and tank destroyers (also known as self-propelled anti-tank guns). These have been heavily armoured vehicles, the former providing danger-close fire-support for infantry and the latter acting as specialized anti-tank vehicles.
Modern self-propelled artillery vehicles may superficially resemble tanks, but they are generally lightly armoured, too lightly to survive in direct-fire combat. However, they protect their crews against shrapnel and small arms and are therefore usually included as armoured fighting vehicles. Many are equipped with machine guns for defence against enemy infantry.
The key advantage of self-propelled over towed artillery is that it can be brought into action much faster. Before towed artillery can be used, it has to stop, unlimber and the guns set up. To move position, the guns must be limbered up again and brought – usually towed – to the new location. By comparison, self-propelled artillery in combination with modern communications, can stop at a chosen location and begin firing almost immediately, then quickly move on to a new position. This ability is very useful in a mobile conflict and particularly on the advance.
Conversely, towed artillery was and remains cheaper to build and maintain. It is also lighter and can be taken to places that self-propelled guns cannot reach, so despite the advantages of the self-propelled artillery, towed guns remain in the arsenals of many modern armies.
Assault gun: An assault gun is a gun or howitzer mounted on a motor vehicle or armoured chassis, designed for use in the direct fire role in support of infantry when attacking other infantry or fortified positions.
Historically, the custom-built fully armoured assault guns usually mounted the gun or howitzer in a fully enclosed casemate on a tank chassis. The use of a casemate instead of a gun turret limited these weapons' field of fire, but allowed a larger gun to be fitted relative to the chassis, more armour to be fitted for the same weight, and provided a cheaper construction. In most cases, these turretless vehicles also presented a lower profile as a target for the enemy.
Self-propelled siege mortar: A siege mortar is a form of self-propelled gun that holds a siege mortar. The only siege mortar ever built was the Karl-Gerät. It could be argued that these could be classified as a Mortar carrier.
Mortar carrier: A mortar carrier is a self-propelled artillery vehicle carrying a mortar as its primary weapon. Mortar carriers cannot be fired while on the move and some must be dismounted to fire. In U.S. Army doctrine, mortar carriers provide close and immediate indirect fire support for maneuver units while allowing for rapid displacement and quick reaction to the tactical situation. The ability to relocate not only allows fire support to be provided where it is needed faster, but also allows these units to avoid counter-battery fire. Mortar carriers have traditionally avoided direct contact with the enemy. Many units report never using secondary weapons in combat.
Prior to the Iraq War, American 120 mm mortar platoons reorganized from six M1064 mortar carriers and two M577 fire direction centres (FDC) to four M1064 and one FDC. The urban environment of Iraq made it difficult to utilize mortars. New technologies such as mortar ballistic computers and communication equipment and are being integrated. Modern era combat is becoming more reliant on direct fire support from mortar carrier machine guns.
Multiple rocket launcher: A multiple rocket launcher is a type of unguided rocket artillery system. Like other rocket artillery, multiple rocket launchers are less accurate and have a much lower (sustained) rate of fire than batteries of traditional artillery guns. However, they have the capability of simultaneously dropping many hundreds of kilograms of explosive, with devastating effect.
The Korean Hwacha is an example of an early weapon system with a resemblance to the modern-day multiple rocket launcher. The first self-propelled multiple rocket launchers – and arguably the most famous – were the Soviet BM-13 Katyushas, first used during World War II and exported to Soviet allies afterwards. They were simple systems in which a rack of launch rails was mounted on the back of a truck. This set the template for modern multiple rocket launchers. The first modern multiple rocket launcher was the German 15 cm Nebelwerfer 41 of the 1930s, a small towed artillery piece. Only later in World War II did the British deploy similar weapons in the form of the Land Mattress.The Americans mounted tubular launchers atop M4 Sherman tanks to create the T34 Calliope rocket launching tank, only used in small numbers, as their closest equivalent to the Katyusha.
Missile vehicle: Missile vehicles are trucks or tractor units designed to carry rockets or missiles. The missile vehicle may be a self-propelled unit, or the missile holder/launcher may be on a trailer towed by a prime mover. They are used in the military forces of a number of countries in the world. Long missiles are commonly transported parallel to the ground on these vehicles, but elevated into an inclined or vertical position for launching.
A Transporter erector launcher (TEL) is a missile vehicle with an integrated prime mover (tractor unit) that can carry, elevate to firing position and launch one or more missiles. Such vehicles exist for both surface-to-air missiles and surface-to-surface missiles.
Tank destroyer: Tank destroyers and tank hunters are armed with an anti-tank gun or anti-tank missile launcher, and are designed specifically to engage enemy armoured vehicles. Many have been based on a tracked tank chassis, while others are wheeled. Since World War II, main battle tanks have largely replaced gun-armed tank destroyers; although lightly armoured anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) carriers are commonly used for supplementary long-range anti-tank engagements.
In post-Cold War conflict, the resurgence of expeditionary warfare has seen the emergence of gun-armed wheeled vehicles, sometimes called "protected gun systems", which may bear a superficial resemblance to tank destroyers, but are employed as direct fire support units typically providing support in low intensity operations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These have the advantage of easier deployment, as only the largest air transports can carry a main battle tank, and their smaller size makes them more effective in urban combat.
Many forces' IFVs carry anti-tank missiles in every infantry platoon, and attack helicopters have also added anti-tank capability to the modern battlefield. But there are still dedicated anti-tank vehicles with very heavy long-range missiles, or intended for airborne use. There have also been dedicated anti-tank vehicles built on ordinary armoured personnel carrier or armoured car chassis. Examples include the U.S. M901 ITV (Improved TOW Vehicle) and the Norwegian NM142, both on an M113 chassis, several Soviet ATGM launchers based on the BRDM scout car, the British FV438 Swingfire and FV102 Striker and the German Raketenjagdpanzer series built on the chassis of the HS 30 and Mardar IFVs.
Armoured train: An armoured train is a railway train protected with armour. They are usually equipped with rail cars armed with artillery, autocannons, machine guns, tank turrets and anti-aircraft guns. They were mostly used during the late 19th to mid-20th century, when they offered an innovative way to quickly move large amounts of firepower. Their use was discontinued in most countries when road vehicles became much more powerful and offered more flexibility, and because armoured trains were too vulnerable to track sabotage and attacks from the air. However, the Russian Federation used improvised armoured trains in the Second Chechen War in the late 1990s and 2000s. Armoured trains carrying ballistic missiles have also been used.
The rail cars on an armoured train were designed for many tasks, such as carrying artillery and machine guns, infantry units, anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns. During World War II, the Germans would sometimes put a Fremdgerät (captured AFVs such as the French Somua S-35 or Czech PzKpfw 38(t)), or obsolescent Panzer II light tanks on a flatbed rail car, which could quickly be offloaded by means of a ramp and used away from the railway line to chase down enemy partisans.
Different types of armour were used to protect armoured trains from attack. In addition to various metal plates, concrete and sandbags were used in some cases on armoured trains.
Armoured trains were sometimes escorted by a kind of rail-tank called a draisine. One such example was the Italian 'Littorina' armoured trolley, which had a cab in the front and rear, each with a control set so it could be driven down the tracks in either direction. Littorina mounted two dual 7.92mm MG13 machine gun turrets from Panzer I light tanks.
See also:
References:
Sources: Gougaud, Alain (1987). |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured fighting vehicle | Different types of armour were used to protect armoured trains from attack. In addition to various metal plates, concrete and sandbags were used in some cases on armoured trains.
Armoured trains were sometimes escorted by a kind of rail-tank called a draisine. One such example was the Italian 'Littorina' armoured trolley, which had a cab in the front and rear, each with a control set so it could be driven down the tracks in either direction. Littorina mounted two dual 7.92mm MG13 machine gun turrets from Panzer I light tanks.
See also:
References:
Sources: Gougaud, Alain (1987). L'aube de la gloire: les autos mitrailleuses et les chars français pendant la Grande Guerre, histoire technique et militaire, arme blindée, cavalerie, chars, Musée des blindés (in French). Issy-les-Moulineaux: Société OCEBUR. ISBN 978-2-904255-02-1.
Macksey, Kenneth (1980). The Guinness Book of Tank Facts and Feats. Guinness Superlatives Limited. ISBN 0-85112-204-3.
Margiotta, Franklin D., ed. (1996). Brassey's encyclopedia of land forces and warfare. Brassey's. ISBN 1-57488-087-X. Retrieved 19 February 2011.
External links:
US Wheeled armoured fighting vehicles |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured warfare | World War I: Modern armored warfare began during the First World War of 1914–1918. Strategists wanted to break the tactical, operational and strategic stalemates forced on commanders on the Western Front by the effectiveness of entrenched defensive infantry armed with machine guns – known as trench warfare. Under these conditions, attacks usually advanced very slowly and incurred massive casualties. The developers of tanks aimed to return manoeuvre to warfare, and found a practical way to do so: providing caterpillar traction to machine guns allowing them to overcome trenches, while at the same time offering them armour protection against small arms as they were moving.
Britain and France first developed tanks in 1915 as a way of navigating the barbed wire and other obstacles of no-man's land while remaining protected from machine-gun fire. British Mark I tanks first went into action at the Somme on 15 September 1916, but did not manage to break the deadlock of trench warfare. The first French employment of tanks, on 16 April 1917, using the Schneider CA, also failed to live up to expectations. In the Battle of Cambrai (November to December 1917) British tanks were more successful, and broke a German trenchline system, the Hindenburg Line.
Despite the generally unpromising beginnings, the military and political leadership in both Britain and France during 1917 backed large investment into armoured-vehicle production. This led to a sharp increase in the number of available tanks for 1918. The German Empire, on the contrary, produced only a few tanks, late in the war. Twenty German A7V tanks were produced during the entire conflict, compared to over 4,400 French and over 2,500 British tanks of various kinds. Nonetheless, World War I saw the first tank-versus-tank battle, during the Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux in April 1918, when a group of three German A7V tanks engaged a group of three British Mark IV tanks which they met accidentally.
After the final German spring offensives of 21 March to 18 July 1918, the Entente deployed tanks en masse at the Battle of Soissons (18 to 22 July 1918) and Battle of Amiens (August 1918), which ended the stalemate imposed by trench warfare on the Western Front, and thus effectively ended the war.
Tactically, deployment plans for armour during the war typically placed a strong emphasis on direct support for infantry. The tank's main tasks were seen as crushing barbed-wire and destroying machine-gun nests, facilitating the advance of foot soldiers. Theoretical debate largely focused on the question of whether to use a "swarm" of light tanks for this, or a limited number of potent heavy vehicles. Though in the Battle of Cambrai a large concentration of British heavy tanks effected a breakthrough, it was not exploited by armour. The manoeuvrability of the tank should at least in theory regain armies the ability to flank enemy lines. In practice, tank warfare during most of World War I was hampered by the technical immaturity of the new weapon system, limiting speed, operational range, and reliability, and a lack of effective armoured tactics.
Strategic use of tanks developed only slowly during and immediately after World War I, partly due to these technical limits but also due to the prestige role traditionally accorded to horse-mounted cavalry. An exception, on paper, was the Plan 1919 of the British Army's Colonel J. F. C. Fuller, who envisaged using the expected vast increase in armour production during 1919 to execute deep strategic penetrations by mechanised forces consisting of tanks and infantry carried by trucks, supported by aeroplanes, to paralyse the enemy command-structure.
Following the First World War, the technical and doctrinal aspects of armoured warfare became more sophisticated and diverged into multiple schools of doctrinal thought.
Interwar period:
1920s: During the 1920s, a very limited number of tanks were produced. There were however, important theoretical and technical developments. Various British and French commanders who had contributed to the origin of the tank, such as Jean Baptiste Eugène Estienne, B. H. Liddell Hart and J. F. C. Fuller, theorised about a possible future use of independent armoured forces, containing a large concentration of tanks, to execute deep strategic penetrations. Especially Liddell Hart wrote many books about the subject, partly propagating Fuller's theories. Such doctrines were faced with the reality that during the 1920s the armoured vehicles, as early road transport in general, were extremely unreliable, and could not be used in sustained operations. Mainstream thought on the subject was more conservative and tried to integrate armoured vehicles into the existing infantry and cavalry organisation and tactics.
Technical development initially focussed on the improvement of the suspension system, transmission and engine, to create vehicles that were faster, more reliable and had a better range than their WW I predecessors. To save weight, such designs had thin armour plating and this inspired fitting small-calibre high-velocity guns in turrets, giving tanks a good antitank capacity. Both France and Britain eventually built specialised infantry tanks, more heavily armoured to provide infantry support, and cavalry tanks that were faster and could exploit a breakthrough, seeking to bring about defeat of the enemy by severing his lines of communication and supply, as cavalry had done during the previous century.
The British were the first to create a larger fully mechanised unit when the War Office sanctioned the creation of the Experimental Mechanized Force, which was formed on 1 May 1927, under infantry Colonel R. J. Collins, after Fuller (was) refused the function. Its sub-units were entirely mobile and consisted of reconnaissance tankettes and armoured cars, a battalion of forty-eight Vickers Medium Mark I tanks, a motorised machine-gun battalion, a mechanised artillery regiment, which had one battery of fully tracked self-propelled Birch guns capable of acting as conventional or anti-aircraft artillery, and a motorised company of field engineers. The unit carried out operations on Salisbury Plain and was observed by the other major nations, the United States, Germany, and the Soviet Union. Although its performance was recognised, it was disbanded in 1928.
In 2022, Kendrick Kuo, assistant professor at the U.S. Naval War College, argued that the British army, under budget and over-stretched during the interwar period, pursued innovation recklessly by betting on the combat effectiveness of armoured units operating with little infantry or artillery support. Doing so led to its initial setbacks in North Africa during the Second World War.
All major European states (with the exception of Germany that was forbidden to possess armoured vehicles under the Treaty of Versailles), the US, and Japan, would create their own experimental mechanised forces during the late 1920s, many using either French or British vehicle designs or even directly purchased vehicles, but largely borrowing from both to develop their own doctrines.
1930s: During the 1930s, political tensions between the world powers quickly increased. The Soviet Union and France began to rearm in the early thirties. In the Soviet Union, the mechanisation of the armed forces was part of a massive general industrialisation programme, the successive Five Years Plans, and the country soon had more tanks than the rest of the world combined, thousands of them being produced per year. In this period, before the rise to power of the Nazi Party in Germany, German officers were sent to observe and participate in development of armoured doctrine in the USSR. Red Army and German experts collaborated in developing the use of tanks based on second generation vehicles with turreted main weapons, and experimenting to design different chassis configurations and drive trains. One important acquisition for the Red Army turned out to be the purchase of a T3 chassis, using the Christie suspension, from US designer John Walter Christie, which served as the basis of the Soviet BT series of fast tanks. The Red Army tactics were influenced by the theoretical works of Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky who advocated "large scale tank warfare" as part of the deep battle doctrine.
In France, the second largest tank producer, mechanisation was motivated by a need to compensate for severe manpower shortages due to a collapsed birth rate during World War I. This led to the development of a vast range of specialised armoured vehicles, not just tanks but also armoured cars, self-propelled guns, mechanised artillery, armoured tractors, armoured supply vehicles, armoured artillery observation vehicles, armoured command vehicles, half-tracks, and fully tracked armoured personnel carriers. As the mechanisation progressed, slowly the French armour doctrine began to reflect the increased capacity, evolving from direct infantry support, to independent breakthrough and eventually envelopment with the Infantry, and to deep strategic exploitation with the Cavalry.
Despite the increase in tank numbers, in all countries financial constraints prohibited a full mechanisation of the entire armed ground forces. Necessarily, most of the divisions still consisted of infantry that was not even motorised. As a result, tanks tended to be allotted to special armoured units, where the limited and expensive expert maintenance and training capacity could be concentrated. Only the Soviet Union had enough tanks to equip an organic tank battalion in each infantry division. Nevertheless, France was the first to create large armoured units: in 1934 two Mechanised Corps were formed of 430 tanks each. In July 1935, in France the 4th Cavalry Division was transformed into the 1e Division Légère Mécanique, the first French armoured division of the Cavalry. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured warfare | Despite the increase in tank numbers, in all countries financial constraints prohibited a full mechanisation of the entire armed ground forces. Necessarily, most of the divisions still consisted of infantry that was not even motorised. As a result, tanks tended to be allotted to special armoured units, where the limited and expensive expert maintenance and training capacity could be concentrated. Only the Soviet Union had enough tanks to equip an organic tank battalion in each infantry division. Nevertheless, France was the first to create large armoured units: in 1934 two Mechanised Corps were formed of 430 tanks each. In July 1935, in France the 4th Cavalry Division was transformed into the 1e Division Légère Mécanique, the first French armoured division of the Cavalry. In Germany, after the Nazi Regime started open rearmament in March 1935, on 15 October 1935 three Panzerdivisionen were formed. Though some tank brigades were part of the Cavalry or Infantry arm, most German tanks were concentrated into a special branch, from 1936 called the Panzerwaffe. The precise interpretation of this phenomenon has proven controversial among military historians. Traditionally, it has been seen as part of a "Blitzkrieg strategy" of swift world conquest by means of armoured forces. Later it has been argued, among others by Karl-Heinz Frieser, that the German army in the 1930s did not even possess an explicit Blitzkrieg tactical doctrine, let alone strategy. This would have been reflected by the relatively unimpressive rate of tank production and development. During the 1930s the United Kingdom gave priority to the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. The British Army began the conversion of its cavalry from horse to tanks and all but a few regiments were fully converted by 1939. The British 1st Armoured Division was formed, as the "Mobile Division", in November 1937.
Before the Second World War actual use of armoured fighting vehicles was limited. Both sides used Italian, German and Soviet tanks during the Spanish Civil War but these proved to be vulnerable to antitank guns due to their thin armour. Traditionalist elements within the Red Army used this to diminish the influence of proponents of mechanisation. Tukhachevsky himself was executed in 1937. Nevertheless, during the Soviet-Japanese Border Wars of 1938 and 1939, the Soviet forces tested modern armoured warfare tactics. General Georgy Zhukov in the summer of 1939 combined mass tank manoeuvres with artillery and air attacks, to defeat the Japanese Imperial Army at the Battles of Khalkhin Gol at Nomonhan in Mongolia. Partly as a result of the experiences in Spain, the Soviet Union began the development of a new generation of medium and heavy tanks, sporting much stronger armour and armament.
World War II:
Poland: In their Invasion of Poland during September 1939, German forces applied a narrow cooperation between large armoured units – of the Panzerwaffe and the Cavalry – and "active" infantry divisions to break the Polish defensive lines and pursue the defeated enemy forces. The more limited and dispersed Polish armoured units were quickly destroyed. The Red Army, invading the east of Poland, also deployed armoured divisions. At the time, the swift collapse of the Polish army was seen as the result of an armoured Blitzkrieg. However, later it has been argued that the campaign was largely an instance of the classical nineteenth century German concept of the "Annihilation Battle", in which the role of deep strategic armoured penetrations was limited.
France: In the wake of the Polish campaign, during the Phoney War French, British and German tank production sharply increased, with both western allies out-producing Germany. However, the Anglo-French coalition proved unable to match the Germans in the number of armoured divisions, as it was impossible to quickly raise such large units. Though the French possessed a superior number of tanks, often better armoured and armed, half of these were allotted at army-level to independent Bataillons de Chars de Combat ("battle tank battalions") for infantry support. In early 1940, the German command had concluded that it could not win a war of attrition and embarked on a high-risk strategy. They approved the Manstein Plan, envisaging an advance through the Ardennes by the main mass of German infantry divisions, spearheaded by seven armoured divisions, while the main mobile French reserve consisting of three Cavalry armoured divisions (Divisions Légères Mécaniques or Mechanised Light Divisions) – the only armoured units organised on the lines of the German armoured divisions – would be lured into the Low Countries by a feint attack with a lesser force, including three armoured divisions. In May 1940, during the Battle of France, the German feint resulted in a number of undecided armour engagements, among them the Battle of Hannut, the largest tank battle fought until that date. At the same time, German motorised infantry west of the Ardennes forced the crossings over the river Meuse, assisted by massive carpet bombing of the crossing points. In the original plan, the armoured divisions were again supposed to closely cooperate with the infantry divisions. In reality, armour commanders like Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian immediately broke out of the bridgeheads, initiating a drive towards the English Channel, which was reached within a week. The French reserve of four Infantry armoured divisions, the Divisions cuirassées, lacked sufficient strategic mobility to prevent this. The strategic envelopment surrounded the Belgian army, the British Expeditionary Force and the best French troops. It led to the Evacuation of Dunkirk and the ultimate fall of France in operation Fall Rot.
The spectacular and unexpected success not only caused a sudden change in the global geostrategic situation, gaining Germany a position of hegemony on the European continent, but also seemed to vindicate the theories of Fuller and Liddell-Hart. Confronted with the undeniable potential of armoured manoeuvre warfare, from the summer of 1940 onwards the armed forces of all surviving major powers adapted their tactical doctrine, unit organisation, strategic planning and tank production plans. According to Frieser, this was even true for Germany itself, that only now officially adopted Blitzkrieg tactics.
North African theatre: In the deserts of North Africa, the British developed the alternative approach of combining the armoured, infantry and artillery together to form a 'balanced, combined arms team'. The 10th Italian Army of Maresciallo (Marshal) Rodolfo Graziani, being ill-armed and inadequately led, soon gave way to this approach by the Commonwealth troops of the British Western Desert Force.
The arrival of the German Afrika Korps under command of General der Panzertruppe Erwin Rommel highlighted the weaknesses of the British approach: the small number of infantry and artillery in each armoured division was sufficient when attacking the immobile and uncoordinated Italian troops, but against the highly mobile, well-coordinated German units, the undermanned Commonwealth formations were proving inadequate.
Between 1941 and 1942, the Allies struggled in armoured battles in the North African desert due to improper tactics; in particular, running armoured formations into opposing anti-tank positions; however, they achieved some notable successes at Crusader, 1st Alamein and under Montgomery finally achieved decisive victories, in particular at the Second Battle of El Alamein.
In 2022, Kendrick Kuo, assistant professor at the U.S. Naval War College, wrote that due to factors emanating from the interwar period, the British army in North Africa initially operated their armoured units with little infantry or artillery support. Meanwhile, the Germans had integrated their armour with mechanised infantry and artillery. Only after undoing their misplaced emphasis on armour were the British able to restore their combat effectiveness.
Soviet Union:
Pre-war: Much of the Red Army development in tank use was based on the theoretical work carried out by such officers as Tukhachevsky and Triandafillov in the mid to late 1930s. This was as part of the two-directioned concepts, one being infantry-centred "broad front" and the other being a "shock army".
While the infantry based part of the doctrine demanded "powerful tanks" (heavy tanks armed with infantry guns and machineguns) and "tankettes" (light, often amphibious tanks with machineguns), the shock army demanded "manoeuvre tanks" (fast tanks with medium guns) used in conjunction with motorised forces and "mechanised cavalry" that would operate in depth as "strategic cavalry" combined with nascent airborne troops.
These ideas culminated in the "PU-36" or the 1936 Field Service Regulations.
Wartime: At the start of the Second World War much of the Red Army, including its armoured forces, was in transition and recovering from the 1937 repression of the officer corps. The Red Army ignored the lessons from Nomonhan, which had been successfully conducted by General Zhukov, and relied instead on lessons from politically selected officers who were veterans of the Spanish Civil War. The result was a poor showing during the Winter War. The Red Army tank fleet was extremely large, consisting of some 24,000 vehicles, but many were obsolete or unfit for service due to difficulties with supplying spare parts and lack of qualified support staff. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured warfare | These ideas culminated in the "PU-36" or the 1936 Field Service Regulations.
Wartime: At the start of the Second World War much of the Red Army, including its armoured forces, was in transition and recovering from the 1937 repression of the officer corps. The Red Army ignored the lessons from Nomonhan, which had been successfully conducted by General Zhukov, and relied instead on lessons from politically selected officers who were veterans of the Spanish Civil War. The result was a poor showing during the Winter War. The Red Army tank fleet was extremely large, consisting of some 24,000 vehicles, but many were obsolete or unfit for service due to difficulties with supplying spare parts and lack of qualified support staff.
One important development took place shortly before the war, which influenced Soviet armoured doctrine and tank design for a decade: the creation of the T-34. Developed on the Christie suspension chassis and using sloped armour for the first time, the T-34 proved a shock to the German forces in the first German encounter of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks. The T-34 had an excellent combination of mobility, protection and firepower. Using wide tracks, the T-34 was also able to negotiate terrain in difficult weather conditions, something that persistently dogged the German designs.
Assessing the success of the German Blitzkrieg strategy, operational methods and tactics, the Red Army concluded that it should return to the use of operational methods developed before the war, so the Tank Armies were eventually created. To complement the T-34, heavy tanks, self-propelled artillery, and tank destroyers were also designed. The Red Army's armoured forces were used in concentrations during all strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II, initiated under strict secrecy and using the Principle of Surprise.
Germany: In Germany, in-depth research through theoretical approaches, wargaming and exercises developed a confidence within the Panzertruppe itself (and political support by Hitler) in the armoured formation as the key battlefield formation – although this view was before 1940 not shared by the other Arms of Service. A key part of this doctrine was improved communications by having radios in all tanks, although this ideal suffered from technical limits as most tanks had receiver sets only.
At the outbreak of World War II, the German armoured forces benefited from a much more profound and more flexible training than that of the Allies on the tactical and operational level. German tanks operated while directed by radio communication, which allowed tank commanders to take greater advantage of the manoeuvrability of their vehicles.
Even after the conquest of Poland, "Blitzkrieg" was not defined on the strategic level. Guderian and von Manstein devised a strategy that entailed what later would be seen as the essence of Blitzkrieg: concentrated panzer divisions performing swift deep penetrations. This strategy was not initially accepted by German High Command. Nevertheless, the final plans for the invasion of France in 1940 hinged on the element of a Schwerpunkt at Sedan, and was assigned to such forces. The great success of this operation led to Blitzkrieg being integrated with strategic planning for the rest of the war.
German tanks could carry with them enough fuel and supplies to go almost two hundred kilometers, and enough food to last three to nine days. This relative independence from supply lines proved effective, and allowed them to advance on critical targets much faster and without hesitation. Another factor was the ability of commanders to make strategic decisions in the field and without much consultation with their headquarters, the orders of which were often simply ignored. A prime example is Erwin Rommel's lead-from-the-front approach while commanding 7.Panzer-Division which allowed him a flexible response to the battlefield situation, an instance of the Auftragstaktik (reliance on subordinates to make their own decisions).
The effect of German Panzer's speed, mobility, and communication shocked the French, and ultimately were the deciding factors in the battle. It overcame their inferiority in armour and armament relative to the main French materiel such as the Char B1 bis. The superior tactical and operational praxis, combined with an appropriate strategic implementation, enabled the Germans to defeat forces superior in armour (both quantitatively and qualitatively) in the battles of 1940, but just as Blitzkrieg became a deliberate military doctrine, in 1941, it ultimately failed on the eastern front, though initially attaining spectacular successes.
Before the war, Heinz Guderian had in his Achtung–Panzer! propounded a thorough mechanisation of the German forces. By 1942, increased AFV-production allowed a fuller implementation of this ideal. Now extensive armoured combined arms team could be formed, distinct from a purely infantry or cavalry formation. The panzer divisions integrated tanks with mechanised infantry (riding in halftracks to be protected from small-arms fire while being transported) and self-propelled artillery (howitzers fitted on a tank chassis). This allowed the panzer division to become an independent combat force, in principle able to overcome the problems of attaining a breakthrough against entrenched enemy infantry, equipped with large numbers of antitank-guns, with the potential to completely halt tank assaults inflicting devastating losses to armoured units without infantry support. However, much of the AFV production was increasingly diverted away from the Panzertruppe. The Artillery formed its own Sturmgeschütz units and infantry divisions were given their own Panzerjäger companies. Despite lowering their formal organic strength, from the summer of 1943 onwards, the armoured divisions were structurally short of tanks.
United States: Though the U.S. had established the Tank Corps in World War I using French Renault FT light tanks and British Mark V and Mark V* heavy tanks, and some officers like Dwight D. Eisenhower and George S. Patton, Jr. emerged from that war initially as avid proponents of continuing and developing an American armoured force, the rapid reduction of the forces and apathy and even antipathy towards funding and maintaining armed forces in the inter-war years led to relative stagnation of armoured doctrine in the United States. Adna R. Chaffee, Jr., virtually alone, advocated for the future of armoured warfare and the development of appropriate training, equipment and doctrine during the late 1920s through the 1930s.
The United States Army regarded the French Army as the best army in Europe, and consequently the U.S. Army frequently copied French uniforms (the American Civil War) and aeroplanes. Only when France was rapidly overrun in 1940 did the U.S. Army become "shocked" into re-thinking the influences by the perceived actions of German tanks in the 1939 Polish Campaign. Its Armored Combat Arm was not created until 1940 when the Armored Force was born on 10 July 1940, with the Headquarters, Armor Force and the Headquarters, I Armored Corps established at Fort Knox. On July 15, 1940, the 7th Cavalry Brigade (Mechanised) became the 1st Armored Division; the 7th Provisional Tank Brigade, an infantry tank unit at Fort Benning, became the 2nd Armored Division". The Tank Battalion was established at Fort Meade, Md., and a small Armored Force School was also established.
Under this doctrine, U.S. tank crews of both armoured divisions and GHQ tank battalions were taught to fight tanks in tank on tank engagements. Armoured force personnel during and after the war criticised the infantry for using the GHQ tank battalions assigned to infantry divisions strictly as infantry support.
Tank destroyers: The U.S. combined arms team included air support, artillery, engineers, and a tank component supplemented by tank destroyers formed into independent tank destroyer battalions. The latter is most closely identified with the Chief of Army Ground Forces, Lesley J. McNair. Having studied the early German successes McNair came under the belief that U.S. forces would be faced with fast moving enemy forces who would seek to bypass, isolate and reduce U.S. forces in a replay of the Fall of France. To stem the flood of marauding panzers, fast moving powerfully armed tank destroyer battalions were created to be held back and used in the counter-attack.
It was also calculated that U.S. interests would be better served by large numbers of reliable (battle-worthiness) medium tanks rather than a smaller number of unreliable heavy tanks. It was decided therefore to slow the production of the U.S. heavy tank designs such as the M26 Pershing and concentrate resources on mass-producing the M4 Sherman and tank destroyers such as the M18 Hellcat.
To be able get into position to counter-attack, the tank destroyers had to be fast. To achieve the desired mobility and agility from the engines available the armour protection was sacrificed, a measure of protection coming from being nimble and hopefully from being able to knock out the enemy before they could get a shot in. Although they usually had guns of either 75 mm or 76 mm calibre (the M36 used a 90mm calibre gun), the tank destroyer units were issued with the ancestor of the modern armour-piercing discarding sabot, rounds which made their guns much more powerful than a simple comparison of calibres would suggest.
Japan: The Japanese doctrine was mainly French in concept but with some purely Japanese elements. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured warfare | It was decided therefore to slow the production of the U.S. heavy tank designs such as the M26 Pershing and concentrate resources on mass-producing the M4 Sherman and tank destroyers such as the M18 Hellcat.
To be able get into position to counter-attack, the tank destroyers had to be fast. To achieve the desired mobility and agility from the engines available the armour protection was sacrificed, a measure of protection coming from being nimble and hopefully from being able to knock out the enemy before they could get a shot in. Although they usually had guns of either 75 mm or 76 mm calibre (the M36 used a 90mm calibre gun), the tank destroyer units were issued with the ancestor of the modern armour-piercing discarding sabot, rounds which made their guns much more powerful than a simple comparison of calibres would suggest.
Japan: The Japanese doctrine was mainly French in concept but with some purely Japanese elements. Due to Japan's naval priorities in warship construction and inter-service feuds (the marine branch of the IJN favoured all-around protective armour) IJA tanks were lightly armoured. As with most armour during the 1930s, the main guns were small in calibre: 37 mm for their Type 95 light tanks and 47 mm for the Type 97 medium tank, but this was sometimes compensated by a high muzzle velocity. The IJA's use of tanks in China exemplifies its doctrine: light tanks were used for scouting or acted as mobile infantry support, while medium tanks supported the infantry and assaulted deeper objectives, but did not fight en masse.
In 1939, the Japanese Army engaged Soviet armour at Nomonhan. During the three-month-long war, Japanese armour had shown their weakness against Soviet tanks; and the resulting Japanese defeat prompted a series of complaints by the Imperial Army to incorporate improvements in future Japanese armour. This is the primary reason IJA tanks were not as successful while being used with IJA tactics. The tank forces of the U.S. Army consisted of the M2A4 and M3 Stuart light tanks up until 1941, although these vehicles were five years newer than the 1935 built Type 95's, the IJA and U.S. light tanks were comparable to each other, and seemingly performed well for their respective forces during jungle combat operations; during their phase of World War II.
As with all armour, maintenance was a continuous challenge; especially in tropical environments. When IJA and SNLF (Imperial marines) tanks did clash with the enemy they were quickly destroyed by concealed anti-tank guns or overwhelming numbers of hostile tanks. Japan was a naval power, and concentrated its production on warships, thus placing a low priority on armoured vehicle development, its tanks becoming quickly obsolete during the later years of the war. A number of designs that were equal to heavier foreign types were on the drawing board at the beginning of the war, but would only be built in small numbers towards the end, being placed in reserve, to be deployed for the defence of Japan itself.
China: The Republic of China's National Revolutionary Army's 200th Division was the country's only mechanised division during the war. The 200th used pre-war tanks acquired from Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union.
After 1945:
Indo-Pakistani wars:
Arab–Israeli wars: The conflict between Arab nations in the East Mediterranean region and Israel in particular would serve to become a testing ground for development in armoured warfare during the decades of the Cold War. Both sides in the Arab–Israeli series of conflicts made heavy use of tanks and other armoured vehicles due to the practicality of tanks in the desert environment these conflicts largely took place in.
During the 1956 Suez War and Six-Day War (1967), Israeli armoured units typically had the advantage, mainly due to good tactics and unit cohesion.
Conversely, the Yom Kippur War (1973) illustrated the problems that can arise if armoured and infantry units do not work closely together. Israeli tanks, operating independently in large numbers, were decimated by Egyptian anti-tank teams, well-distributed amongst regular infantry, and often equipped with new, first-generation portable anti-tank guided missiles. This is an extreme example but exemplifies what has been fairly thoroughly documented since the Second World War: tanks and infantry work best by taking advantage of each other's strengths and combining to minimise the weaknesses.
In many conflicts, it was usual to see infantry riding on the back of tanks, ready to jump off and provide support when necessary. Unfortunately, the design of many modern tanks makes this a dangerous practice. The turboshaft-powered M1 Abrams, for example, has such hot exhaust gas that nearby infantry have to be careful where they stand. Tanks can also be very vulnerable to well aimed artillery; well-coordinated air support and counter-battery artillery units can help overcome this.
Emergence of guided missiles: While attempts to defeat the tank were made before and during the Second World War, through the use of conventional high velocity anti-tank artillery, this proved increasingly difficult in the post-war period due to increased armour protection and mobility of tanks.
In response, the Soviet Union, the country with the largest armoured fleet in the world, strove to incorporate some anti-tank capability into almost every infantry weapon. By the 1960s, Soviet defense scientists were designing portable anti-tank guided missiles. These new weapons were to be either carried by infantry, or fired from the newly developed BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle. They were in use with Soviet forces before the end of the decade.
In 1973, the Israeli Army failed to anticipate the importance of these new weapon systems. Hundreds of AT-3 Sagger man-portable anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), supplied to Egypt by the Soviet Union and could be operated by infantry without having extensive training, inflicted heavy losses on the Israeli armoured formations. Since then, ATGMs have played an important role within the Israeli Army, having developed advanced domestic-made versions (see Spike/Gil missile), which have been widely exported throughout the world.
In the recent 2006 conflict with Hezbollah, while Israeli infantry were able to easily defeat opposing ATGM teams, tanks operating on their own suffered several hits from the latest advanced Russian tandem-warhead types (such as the Kornet). This highlighted that tanks operating solely, in the era of ATGMs, are extremely vulnerable.
Responding to the serious tank losses suffered against Hezbollah, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems in cooperation with Israel Aircraft Industries developed a missile defence system for tanks, called Trophy, to intercept and destroy anti tank missiles. The system was successfully deployed in combat on March 1, 2011, when it intercepted an anti tank missile during an engagement on the Gaza border.
NATO: During the Cold War, NATO assumed armoured warfare to be a dominant aspect of conventional ground warfare in Europe. Although the use of light tanks was largely discontinued, and heavy tanks were also mostly abandoned, the medium tank design evolved into heavier models due to increase in armour and larger sized main weapon resulting in the main battle tank (MBT) which came into existence, combining most of the different types of tanks during World War II.
For the most part the NATO armoured doctrine remained defensive, and dominated by use of nuclear weapons as deterrence. Although most NATO nations began the Cold War period with a large number of U.S.-designed tanks in their fleets, there was a considerable degree of disagreement on the design of future MBTs among the NATO major nations. Both the U.S. and Germany experimented with, but abandoned the missile-armed MBT-70. The M26 Pershing basic design of the United States would evolve until the M60 main battle tank was replaced with the gas-turbine powered M1 Abrams in the 1980s. The British Army also retained a World War II tank design, the Centurion, which proved to be highly successful and was not fully replaced until the 1970s.
The West German Bundeswehr decided to develop their own tank in the 1960s, and in the 1970s produced the Leopard I, which was a somewhat lighter design, conforming to German doctrine that emphasised speed over protection. From the same initial collaborative project as the Leopard I, the French series of AMX tanks also emphasised manoeuvre over protection. By the 21st century, most advanced western main battle tanks were built around powerful engines, large 120 mm guns and composite armour.
Warsaw Pact: The Warsaw Pact armoured doctrine was substantially influenced by the developments in the Soviet Army which sought to adopt its existing doctrine evolved during World War II to the nuclear battlefield. In the early 1960s this led to a number of important developments in the armoured forces and their supporting Arms. One important development was the transition of the Second World War use of Cavalry-Mechanised Group (CMG) into the Cold War Operational Manoeuvre Group (OMG) that was designed to exploit breakthroughs to penetrate NATO's defences in depth. This was a culmination of the Deep Battle theory dating to the 1930s.
In 1964 a significant breakthrough in tank design was achieved in the Soviet Union when the T-64 was produced which for the first time used an automatic loader, reducing the crew of the tank to three crewmen. Subsequently, this model, and the later T-72 and T-80 tanks introduced further innovations that influenced armoured warfare by introducing guided missiles into the tank ammunition mix, allowing ATGW fire from standard tank guns. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured warfare | In the early 1960s this led to a number of important developments in the armoured forces and their supporting Arms. One important development was the transition of the Second World War use of Cavalry-Mechanised Group (CMG) into the Cold War Operational Manoeuvre Group (OMG) that was designed to exploit breakthroughs to penetrate NATO's defences in depth. This was a culmination of the Deep Battle theory dating to the 1930s.
In 1964 a significant breakthrough in tank design was achieved in the Soviet Union when the T-64 was produced which for the first time used an automatic loader, reducing the crew of the tank to three crewmen. Subsequently, this model, and the later T-72 and T-80 tanks introduced further innovations that influenced armoured warfare by introducing guided missiles into the tank ammunition mix, allowing ATGW fire from standard tank guns. The Soviet Union was also one of the countries that used two Main Battle Tanks: The high-quality T-80s and lower quality T-72s. Modern Soviet tanks, like the ones mentioned, are typically armed with 125 mm (5 in) smooth bore guns. Advancements in Soviet tanks include improved Fire Control Systems, strong armour protected by ERA, and defensive countermeasures (such as Shtora-1 and Arena). The most advanced Soviet tank, up until the end of the Cold War, was the T-80U, which shared similar characteristics with the M1A1(Turbine engine, advanced Fire Control Systems, strong armour, and firepower)
Infantry fighting vehicles were first developed in the 1960s with the Soviet Union's BMP-1, for the first time allowing supporting infantry to accompany tanks on a battlefield when nuclear weapon use was expected.
The T-64s and BMP-1s were also joined by the self-propelled guns and more importantly Mi-24 Rotary-wing aircraft capable of firing anti-tank missiles entering production in 1970 which were built and theorised as "flying tanks".
The Soviet tank troops, as they were known in the USSR, included armoured units, armoured training regiments and other formations and units.
Vietnam War: M113 armoured personnel carriers proved effective in the terrain of Vietnam against enemy forces which, until 1968, rarely deployed their armour. Though they were soon countered with mines and RPGs, M-113's continued service during the war, primarily evolving into infantry fighting vehicles, known as the ACAV (Armoured Cavalry Assault Vehicle); and functioning as a "light tank."
More heavily armed infantry fighting vehicles such as the M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle would be based on experience with the M113. Gun trucks were also introduced as M35 trucks fitted with armour and guns to protect convoys. In 1968, Communist forces primarily deployed the Soviet built PT-76 light tank.
By 1971, the larger T-54 medium tanks were fielded, proving themselves susceptible to the M-72 LAW rocket, ARVN M41 Walker Bulldog light tanks, as well as the larger M48A3 Pattons. In January 1969, U.S. armoured cavalry units began exchanging their M48A3 Patton tanks for the M551 Sheridan Armoured Airborne Reconnaissance Assault Vehicles; by 1970 over 200 Sheridan tanks were operating in Vietnam.
21st century: Tanks rarely work alone; the usual minimum unit size is a platoon (a platoon is the smallest U.S. Army/Marine unit led by an officer, and a component of a company or troop) of three to five tanks. The tanks of the platoon work together providing mutual support: two might advance while covered by the others then stop and provide cover for the remainder to move ahead.
Normally, multiple platoons coordinate with mechanised infantry and use their mobility and firepower to penetrate weak points in enemy lines. This is where the powerful engines, tracks and turrets come into play. The ability to rotate the turret by a full 360° allows coordinated movement within and between platoons, while defending against attacks from multiple directions and engaging troops and vehicles without stopping or slowing down.
When on the defensive, they wait in prepared positions or use any natural terrain elements (such as small hills) for cover. A tank sitting just behind a hill crest ("hull-down") exposes only the top of its turret, with the gun and sensors, to the enemy, leaving the smallest possible target while allowing it to engage the enemy on the other side of the hill. Tanks are usually able to depress the main gun below the horizontal since modern kinetic energy (KE) rounds have nearly flat trajectories. Without this they would be unable to exploit such positions. However, upon cresting a hill, the tank may expose its thinly armoured underside to enemy weapons.
The disposition of armour around a tank is not uniform; the front is typically better armoured than the sides or rear. Accordingly, normal practice is to keep the front towards the enemy at all times; the tank retreats by reversing instead of turning around. Driving backwards away from an enemy is even safer than driving forwards towards them since driving forwards over a bump can throw the front of the tank up in the air, exposing the thin armour of the underside and taking the gun off the target due to its limited angle of depression.
The tracks, wheels and suspension of a tank are outside the armoured hull and are some of the most vulnerable spots. The easiest way to disable a tank (other than a direct hit in a vulnerable area with a full-power anti-tank weapon) is to target the tracks for a "mobility kill" (m-kill), or target all external visual aids with rubbery cohesive substances such as melted rubber or blackened high viscosity epoxy resins. Once a tank is disabled it is easier to destroy. This is why side-skirts are an important feature; they can deflect heavy machine-gun bullets and trigger the detonation of high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds before they strike the running gear. Other vulnerable parts of a typical tank include the engine deck (with air intakes, radiators, etc.) and the turret ring, where the turret joins the hull.
When used defensively, tanks are often sunk into trenches or placed behind earth berms for increased protection. The tanks can fire off a few shots from their defensive position, then retreat (reversing) to another prepared position further back and drive behind the berms or into the trenches there. These positions can be constructed by the tank crews, but preparations are better and quicker if carried out by combat engineers with bulldozers. Overhead protection, even if it is fairly thin, can also be very useful since it can help pre-detonate artillery shells and avoid direct hits from above which can be deadly to tanks, by striking them at their thinnest armour. In short, tank crews find as many ways as possible to augment the armour on their vehicles.
Tanks usually go into battle with a round in the gun, ready to fire, to minimise reaction time when encountering an enemy. The US doctrine calls for this round to be a kinetic energy (KE) round, as the reaction time is most important when meeting enemy tanks, to get the first shot (and possibly the first kill). If troops or light vehicles are encountered, the usual response is to fire this round at them, despite it not being ideal—it is difficult and time-consuming to remove a round which is already in the breech. In this case, after the KE round is fired, a HEAT round would normally be loaded next to continue the engagement.
Tanks can be decisive in city fighting, with the ability to demolish walls and fire medium and heavy machine guns in several directions simultaneously. However, tanks are especially vulnerable in urban combat. It is much easier for enemy infantry to sneak up behind a tank or fire at its sides, where it is most vulnerable. In addition, firing down from multi-story buildings allows shots at the thin upper turret armour and even basic weapons like Molotov cocktails, if aimed at the engine air intakes, can disable a tank. Because of these limits, tanks are difficult to use in city conflicts where civilians or friendly forces might be nearby, since their firepower can't be used effectively.
Some analysts argue that recent conflicts, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, highlight the growing vulnerability of tanks. Estimates from early 2024 indicate that Russia has lost around 3,000 tanks in the first two years of the conflict, with the actual number likely being higher. In contrast, during the Israel-Hamas war, Israeli tanks equipped with active protection systems (APS) showed improved survivability against anti-tank missiles. Additionally, using tanks in pairs with overlapping APS provided extra defense and enhanced their overall effectiveness.
Airborne threats: Tanks and other armoured vehicles are vulnerable to attack from the air for several reasons. One is that they are easily detectable—the metal they are made of shows up well on radar, and is especially obvious if they are moving in formation. A moving tank also produces a lot of heat, noise and dust. The heat makes seeing them on a forward-looking infra-red system easy and the dust is a good visual cue during the day.
The other major reason is that most armoured vehicles have thinner armour on the roof of the turret and on the engine deck, so an anti-tank guided missile or bomb (from an attack helicopter, unmanned combat aerial vehicle, ground-attack jet or small drone) hitting them from the top can be deadly even if it has a small warhead. Even a small automatic cannon is powerful enough to penetrate the rear and top sections of the engine compartment of a tank. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Armoured warfare | Airborne threats: Tanks and other armoured vehicles are vulnerable to attack from the air for several reasons. One is that they are easily detectable—the metal they are made of shows up well on radar, and is especially obvious if they are moving in formation. A moving tank also produces a lot of heat, noise and dust. The heat makes seeing them on a forward-looking infra-red system easy and the dust is a good visual cue during the day.
The other major reason is that most armoured vehicles have thinner armour on the roof of the turret and on the engine deck, so an anti-tank guided missile or bomb (from an attack helicopter, unmanned combat aerial vehicle, ground-attack jet or small drone) hitting them from the top can be deadly even if it has a small warhead. Even a small automatic cannon is powerful enough to penetrate the rear and top sections of the engine compartment of a tank. Loitering munition (suicide drone) is also used to attack tanks in modern warfare.
Certain aircraft have been developed to attack armoured vehicles. Most notable is the purpose-built Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, also known as the "Warthog". Although able to carry a number of different missiles and bombs (including anti-tank ordnance such as the AGM-65 Maverick), the A-10's main weapon is a 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun which is capable of firing 3,900 depleted uranium armour-piercing rounds per minute. The Russian equivalent is the SU-25.
Similarly, a number of helicopter gunships have been designed mainly to engage enemy armoured vehicles. The AH-1Z Viper, AH-64 Apache, HAL Light Combat Helicopter, Denel Rooivalk, Eurocopter Tiger, Ka-50 Black Shark, Mi-28 Havoc, A129 Mangusta and Westland Lynx are examples. Helicopters are very effective against armoured vehicles for many reasons. The AH-64D Longbow Apache, for example, is equipped with an improved sensor suite and weapon systems and the AN/APG-78 Longbow Fire Control Radar dome installed over the main rotor.
Airborne threats can be countered in several ways. One is air supremacy. This is what the United States relies on most, which is demonstrated by their distinct lack of effective short-range, mobile air defence vehicles to accompany armoured units. Most other countries accompany their armoured forces with highly mobile self-propelled anti-aircraft guns such as the German Gepard or the Soviet 9K22 Tunguska, short and medium-range surface-to-air missile systems such as the SA-6, SA-8 and SA-11, or combine both on the same vehicle (the Tunguska for example can also host SA-19 SAM missiles). The usage of anti-aircraft rounds fired from the main gun of a tank has been increasing over the years. An example is the HE-FRAG round from the T-90 which can be detonated at a set distance as determined by its laser range finder.
Engineering support: Armoured warfare is mechanically and logistically intensive and requires extensive support mechanisms. Armoured fighting vehicles require armoured vehicles capable of working in the same terrain to support them. These are operated by the appropriate branches of the army, e.g. recovery and maintenance vehicles by the REME and combat engineering vehicles by the RE in the British Army. These include:
Armoured recovery vehicles (ARV)—many of these are based on the chassis for the vehicle they support. E.g. the ARV for the UK Challenger tank is a Challenger hull onto which a winch is added.
Armoured supply vehicles
Combat engineering vehicles (CEV), e.g. bulldozers
For transporting tracked AFVs over highways, heavy transporters are used, since AFVs are prone to malfunction and their tracks also ruin the highways.
Light tanks and tank destroyers: While tanks are integral to armoured warfare, when power projection is required, the inability to perform rapid deployment has always been a limit of heavy main battle tanks.
It takes a few weeks to transfer tanks and their supporting equipment by air or sea. Some tanks and armoured vehicles can be dropped by parachute, or carried by cargo airplanes or helicopters. The largest transports can only carry one or two main battle tanks. Smaller transports can only carry or air drop light tanks and APCs such as the M113.
The desire to create air-portable armoured vehicles that can still take on conventional MBTs has usually resulted in ATGM-armed light vehicles or in self-propelled gun style vehicles. The lack of armour protection is offset by the provision of a first-look/first-hit/first-kill capability through the mating of a powerful gun to superior targeting electronics, a concept similar to that of the US tank destroyers of World War II.
Vehicles which have put such considerations into practice include the Stingray light tank, AMX 10 RC and B1 Centauro. Most such US projects to create such vehicles have been abortive, e.g. the M8 Armored Gun System. The most common was the flawed M551 Sheridan light tank. This was an air-portable tank capable of destroying heavier tanks using the revolutionary (for the time) 152 mm CLGP launcher. The combat effectiveness of this tank was limited by the unreliable MGM-51 missile. The latest iteration of the mobile anti-tank gun platform in American service is the M1134 anti-tank guided missile vehicle, a Stryker variant equipped with TOW missiles; most modern militaries operate comparable vehicles.
Though limited conflicts (such as the insurgency in Iraq) rarely involve direct combat between armoured vehicles, the need to defend against insurgent attacks and IEDs has resulted in the application of armour to light vehicles and the continued use of armoured transports, fighting vehicles and tanks.
See also:
Theorists and practitioners:
Notes:
References:
External links: Tanks Encyclopedia
Japanese Tanks and Tank Tactics Chapter II: Tactics
Historic films showing tank warfare during the First World War at europeanfilmgateway.eu
Educational video of how armored vehicles are used on the battlefield. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Arms control | Enactment: Arms control treaties and agreements are often seen as a way to avoid costly arms races which could prove counter-productive to national aims and future peace. Some are used as ways to stop the spread of certain military technologies (such as nuclear weaponry or missile technology) in return for assurances to potential developers that they will not be victims of those technologies. Additionally, some arms control agreements are entered to limit the damage done by warfare, especially to civilians and the environment, which is seen as bad for all participants regardless of who wins a war.
While arms control treaties are seen by many peace proponents as a key tool against war, by the participants, they are often seen simply as ways to limit the high costs of the development and building of weapons, and even reduce the costs associated with war itself. Arms control can even be a way of maintaining the viability of military action by limiting those weapons that would make war so costly and destructive as to make it no longer a viable tool for national policy.
Enforcement: Enforcement of arms control agreements has proven difficult over time. Most agreements rely on the continued desire of the participants to abide by the terms to remain effective. Usually, when a nation no longer desires to abide by the terms, they usually will seek to either covertly circumvent the terms or to end their participation in the treaty. This was seen with the Washington Naval Treaty (and the subsequent London Naval Treaty), where most participants sought to work around the limitations, some more legitimately than others. The United States developed better technology to get better performance from their ships while still working within the weight limits, the United Kingdom exploited a loop-hole in the terms, the Italians misrepresented the weight of their vessels, and when up against the limits, Japan left the treaty. The nations which violated the terms of the treaty did not suffer great consequences for their actions. Within little more than a decade, the treaty was abandoned. The Geneva Protocol has lasted longer and been more successful at being respected, but still nations have violated it at will when they have felt the need. Enforcement has been haphazard, with measures more a matter of politics than adherence to the terms. This meant sanctions and other measures tended to be advocated against violators primarily by their natural political enemies, while violations have been ignored or given only token measures by their political allies.
More recent arms control treaties have included more stringent terms on enforcement of violations as well as verification. This last has been a major obstacle to effective enforcement, as violators often attempt to covertly circumvent the terms of the agreements. Verification is the process of determining whether or not a nation is complying with the terms of an agreement, and involves a combination of release of such information by participants as well as some way to allow participants to examine each other to verify that information. This often involves as much negotiation as the limits themselves, and in some cases questions of verification have led to the breakdown of treaty negotiations (for example, verification was cited as a major concern by opponents of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, ultimately not ratified by the United States).
States may remain in a treaty while seeking to break the limits of that treaty as opposed to withdrawing from it. This is for two major reasons. To openly defy an agreement, even if one withdraws from it, often is seen in a bad light politically and can carry diplomatic repercussions. Additionally, if one remains in an agreement, competitors who are also participatory may be held to the limitations of the terms, while withdrawal releases your opponents to make the same developments you are making, limiting the advantage of that development.
Theory of arms control: Scholars and practitioners such as John D. Steinbruner, Thomas Schelling, Morton Halperin, Jonathan Dean or Stuart Croft worked extensively on the theoretical backing of arms control. Arms control is meant to break the security dilemma. It aims at mutual security between partners and overall stability (be it in a crisis situation, a grand strategy, or stability to put an end to an arms race). Other than stability, arms control comes with cost reduction and damage limitation. It is different from disarmament since the maintenance of stability might allow for mutually controlled armament and does not take a peace-without-weapons-stance. Nevertheless, arms control is a defensive strategy in principle, since transparency, equality, and stability do not fit into an offensive strategy.
According to a 2020 study in the American Political Science Review, arms control is rare because successful arms control agreements involve a difficult trade-off between transparency and security. For arms control agreements to be effective, there needs to be a way to thoroughly verify that a state is following the agreement, such as through intrusive inspections. However, states are often reluctant to submit to such inspections when they have reasons to fear that the inspectors will use the inspections to gather information about the capabilities of the state, which could be used in a future conflict.
History:
Pre-19th century: One of the first recorded attempts in arms control was a set of rules laid down in ancient Greece by the Amphictyonic Leagues. Rulings specified how war could be waged, and breaches of this could be punished by fines or by war.
In the 8th and 9th centuries AD, swords and chain mail armor manufactured in the Frankish empire were highly sought after for their quality, and Charlemagne (r. 768–814), made their sale or export to foreigners illegal, punishable by forfeiture of property or even death. This was an attempt to limit the possession and use of this equipment by the Franks' enemies, including the Moors, the Vikings and the Slavs.
The church used its position as a trans-national organization to limit the means of warfare. The 989 Peace of God (extended in 1033) ruling protected noncombatants, agrarian and economic facilities, and the property of the church from war. The 1027 Truce of God also tried to prevent violence between Christians. The Second Lateran Council in 1139 prohibited the use of crossbows against other Christians, although it did not prevent its use against non-Christians.
The development of firearms led to an increase in the devastation of war. The brutality of wars during this period led to efforts to formalize the rules of war, with humane treatment for prisoners of war or wounded, as well as rules to protect non-combatants and the pillaging of their property. However, during the period until the beginning of the 19th century few formal arms control agreements were recorded, except theoretical proposals and those imposed on defeated armies.
One treaty which was concluded was the Strasbourg Agreement of 1675. This is the first international agreement limiting the use of chemical weapons, in this case, poison bullets. The treaty was signed between France and The Holy Roman Empire
19th century: The 1817 Rush–Bagot Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom was the first arms control treaty of what can be considered the modern industrial era, leading to the demilitarization of the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain region of North America. This was followed by the 1871 Treaty of Washington which led to total demilitarization.
The industrial revolution led to the increasing mechanization of warfare, as well as rapid advances in the development of firearms; the increased potential of devastation (which was later seen in the battlefields of World War I) led to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia calling together the leaders of 26 nations for the First Hague Conference in 1899. The Conference led to the signing of the Hague Convention of 1899 that led to rules of declaring and conducting warfare as well as the use of modern weaponry, and also led to the setting up of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
1900 to 1945: A Second Hague Conference was called in 1907 leading to additions and amendments to the original 1899 agreement. A Third Hague Conference was called for 1915, but this was abandoned due to the First World War.
After the World War I, the League of Nations was set up which attempted to limit and reduce arms. However the enforcement of this policy was not effective. Various naval conferences, such as the Washington Naval Conference, were held during the period between the First and Second World Wars to limit the number and size of major warships of the five great naval powers.
The 1925 Geneva Conference led to the banning of chemical weapons being deployed against enemy nationals in international armed conflict as part of the Geneva Protocol. The 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, whilst ineffective, attempted for "providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy".
Since 1945: After World War II, the United Nations was set up as a body to promote and to maintain international peace and security. The United States proposed the Baruch Plan in 1946 as a way to impose stringent international control over the nuclear fuel cycle and thereby avert a global nuclear arms race, but the Soviet Union rejected the proposal and negotiations failed. Following President Eisenhower's 1953 Atoms for Peace speech to the UN General Assembly, the International Atomic Energy Agency was set up in 1957 to promote peaceful uses of nuclear technology and apply safeguards against the diversion of nuclear material from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons.
Under the auspices of the United Nations, the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which aimed to end nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, underwater and in outer-space, was established in 1963. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed to prevent further spread of nuclear weapons technology to countries outside the five that already possessed them: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Arms control | The United States proposed the Baruch Plan in 1946 as a way to impose stringent international control over the nuclear fuel cycle and thereby avert a global nuclear arms race, but the Soviet Union rejected the proposal and negotiations failed. Following President Eisenhower's 1953 Atoms for Peace speech to the UN General Assembly, the International Atomic Energy Agency was set up in 1957 to promote peaceful uses of nuclear technology and apply safeguards against the diversion of nuclear material from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons.
Under the auspices of the United Nations, the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which aimed to end nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, underwater and in outer-space, was established in 1963. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed to prevent further spread of nuclear weapons technology to countries outside the five that already possessed them: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China. With the three main goals of establishing nonproliferation with inspections, nuclear arms reduction, and the right to use nuclear energy peacefully, this treaty initially met some reluctance from countries developing their own nuclear programs such as Brazil, Argentina and South Africa. Still, all countries with the exception of India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan decided to sign or ratify the document.
The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) between the United States and Soviet Union in the late 1960s/early 1970s led to further weapons control agreements. The SALT I talks led to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and an Interim Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement (see SALT I), both in 1972. The SALT II talks started in 1972 leading to agreement in 1979. Due to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan the United States never ratified the treaty, but the agreement was honoured by both sides.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed between the United States and Soviet Union in 1987 and ratified in 1988, leading to an agreement to destroy all missiles with ranges from 500 to 5,500 kilometers. This came in the context of a revitalised peace movement during the previous decade which included huge demonstrations around the world for nuclear disarmament.
The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention was signed banning the manufacture and use of chemical weapons.
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties were signed, as START I and START II, by the US and Soviet Union, further restricting weapons. This was further moved on by the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, which was in turn superseded by the New START Treaty.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1996 banning all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or civilian purposes, but it has not entered into force due to the non-ratification of eight specific states.
In 1998 the United Nations founded the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA). Its goal is to promote nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and the strengthening of the disarmament regimes in respect to other weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons. It also promotes disarmament efforts in the area of conventional weapons, especially landmines and small arms, which are often the weapons of choice in contemporary conflicts.
In addition to treaties focused primarily on stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, there has been a recent movement to regulate the sale and trading of conventional weapons. As of December 2014, the United Nations is preparing for entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty, which has been ratified by 89 nations. However, it is currently missing ratification by key arms producers such as Russia and China, and while the United States has signed the treaty it has not yet ratified it. The Treaty regulates the international trade in almost all categories of conventional weapons – from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. Ammunition, as well as parts and components, are also covered.
More recently, the United Nations announced the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 2020, following the 50th ratification or accession by member states.
List of treaties and conventions related to arms control: Some of the more important international arms control agreements follow:
Treaty of Versailles, 1919 – limited the size of the Germany's military after World War I
Washington Naval Treaty, 1922–1939 (as part of the naval conferences) – set limitations on construction of battleships, battlecruisers, and aircraft carriers as well as tonnage quotas on cruisers, destroyers, and submarines between the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, and Italy
Geneva Protocol, 1925 – prohibited the use of biological and chemical weapons against enemy nationals in international armed conflict
Antarctic Treaty, signed 1959, entered into force 1961 – prohibited military conflict in Antarctica
Partial Test Ban Treaty, signed and entered into force 1963 – prohibited nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere
Outer Space Treaty, signed and entered into force 1967 – prohibited deployment of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, in space
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed 1968, entered into force 1970 – prohibited countries without nuclear weapons from acquiring them while committing nuclear-armed states to eventual disarmament
Seabed Arms Control Treaty, signed 1971, entered into force 1972 – prohibited underwater nuclear tests
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I), signed and ratified 1972, in force 1972–1977 – limited introduction of new intercontinental ballistic missile launchers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, signed and entered into force 1972, terminated following U.S. withdrawal 2002 – restricted anti-ballistic missiles
Biological Weapons Convention, signed 1972, entered into force 1975 – prohibited production of biological weapons
Threshold Test Ban Treaty, signed 1974, entered into force 1990 – limited nuclear weapons tests to 150 kilotons
SALT II signed 1979, never entered into force – limited production of long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles
Environmental Modification Convention, signed 1977, entered into force 1978 – prohibited military use of environmental modification techniques
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, signed 1980, entered into force 1983 – restricted certain conventional weapons such as landmines, incendiary weapons, and laser weapons as well as requiring clearance of unexploded ordnances.
Moon Treaty, signed 1979, entered into force 1984 – prohibits militarization of the Moon
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), signed 1987, entered into force 1988, United States and Russia announced withdrawal 2019 – limited short-range and intermediate-range ballistic missiles
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, (CFE Treaty) signed 1990, entered into force 1992 – established limits on deployment of conventional military forces in Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact
Vienna Document, adopted 1990, updated 1992, 1994, 1999, 2011 – European agreement on confidence- and security-building measures such as prior notification of military force activities and inspections of military activities
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I (START I), signed 1991, entered into force 1994, expired 2009 (START I was a successor to the expired SALT agreements.) – provided limitations on strategic offensive arms
Chemical Weapons Convention, signed 1993, entered into force 1997 – prohibited production and stockpiling of chemical weapons
START II, signed 1993, ratified 1996 (United States) and 2000 (Russia), terminated following Russian withdrawal 2002 – prohibited intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles
Open Skies Treaty, signed 1992, entered into force 2002 – allowed unarmed reconnaissance flights between NATO and Russia
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, signed 1996, has not entered into force. – prohibited nuclear weapons testing
Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel landmines, signed 1997, entered into force 1999
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), signed 2002, entered into force 2003, expires 2012 – limited nuclear warheads
International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, signed 2002 – limited proliferation of ballistic missiles
Convention on Cluster Munitions, signed 2008, entered into force 2010 – prohibits deployment, production, and stockpiling of cluster bombs
New START Treaty, signed by Russia and the United States April 2010, entered into force February 2011 – reduced strategic nuclear missiles by half
Arms Trade Treaty, concluded 2013, entered into force 24 December 2014 – regulates trade of conventional weapons
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed 2017, entered into force January 2021 – prohibits nuclear weapons
Nuclear weapon-free zone treaties: Treaty of Tlatelolco (Latin America and the Caribbean), signed 1967, entered into force 1972
Treaty of Rarotonga (South Pacific), signed 1985, entered into force 1986
Treaty of Bangkok (Southeast Asia), signed 1995, entered into force 1997
Treaty of Pelindaba (Africa), signed 1996, entered into force 2009
Treaty of Semipalatinsk (Central Asia), signed 2006, entered into force 2008
Other treaties also envision the creation of NWFZ, among other objectives. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Arms control | These are the following:
Antarctic Treaty, signed 1959, entered into force 1961
Outer Space Treaty, signed and entered into force 1967
Seabed Arms Control Treaty, signed 1971, entered into force 1972
Treaties not entered into force: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, signed 1996 – prohibits nuclear weapons testing
Proposed treaties: Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty – would prohibit all further production of fissile material
Nuclear weapons convention – would prohibit nuclear weapons
Export control regimes: Zangger Committee since 1971
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) since 1974
Australia Group since 1985
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), since 1987
Wassenaar Arrangement, since 1996
Nonbinding declarations: Ayacucho Declaration 1974
Arms control organizations: The intergovernmental organizations for arms control are the following:
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) which has other functions besides arms control
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom)
Conference on Disarmament (CD)
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA)
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)
the now disbanded United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), the successor to United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM)
failed proposal for Organisation for the Prohibition of Biological Weapons
There are also numerous non-governmental organizations that promote a global reduction in nuclear arms and offer research and analysis about U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Pre-eminent among these organizations is the Arms Control Association, founded in 1971 to promote public understanding of and support for arms control. Others include:
Federation of American Scientists (FAS)—founded in 1945 as the Federation of Atomic Scientists by veterans of the Manhattan Project.
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—a leading disarmament organization in the United Kingdom, founded in 1957.
Peace Action—formerly SANE (the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy), founded in 1957
Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)—founded by Bernard Lown in 1961.
Council for a Livable World—founded in 1962 by physicist Leó Szilárd and other scientists who believed that nuclear weapons should be controlled and eventually eliminated.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)—founded in 1966.
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)—founded in 1969 by faculty and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Arms Control Association—founded in 1971.
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation—founded in 1980 as a sister organization to the Council for a Livable World.
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)—founded in 1981.
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability—a national network of organizations working to address issues of nuclear weapons production and waste cleanup, founded in 1987 as the Military Production Network.
Global Zero—founded in 2008.
T.M.C. Asser Instituut—founded in 1965.
See also:
References:
Further reading: Adelman, Kenneth L. (1986). "Arms control and human rights". World Affairs. 149 (3): 157–162. JSTOR 20672104.
Amnesty International (2014). "Arms control and human rights". amnesty.org. Amnesty International.
Bailes, Alyson J. K. "The changing role of arms control in historical perspective." in Arms Control in the 21st Century (2013): 15-38.
Coe, Andrew J. and Jane Waynman. 2019. "Why Arms Control Is So Rare." American Political Science Review. doi:10.1017/S000305541900073X|
Croft, Stuart. Strategies of arms control: a history and typology (Manchester University Press, 1996).
Foradori, Paolo, et al. eds. Arms Control and Disarmament: 50 Years of Experience in Nuclear Education (2017) excerpt
Forsberg, Randall, ed., Arms Control Reporter 1995–2005. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995–2004.
Gillespie, Alexander. A History of the Laws of War: Volume 3: The Customs and Laws of War with Regards to Arms Control (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011).
Glynn, Patrick. Closing Pandora's Box: Arms Races, Arms Control, and the History of the Cold War (1992) online
Graham Jr, Thomas. Disarmament sketches: Three decades of arms control and international law (University of Washington Press, 2012).
Kaufman, Robert Gordon. Arms Control During the Pre-Nuclear Era (Columbia University Press, 1990).
Larsen, Jeffrey A. Historical dictionary of arms control and disarmament (2005) online
Mutschlerm, Max M. Arms Control in Space: Exploring Conditions for Preventive Arms Control (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).
Reinhold, Thomas, and Christian Reuter. "Arms control and its applicability to cyberspace." in Information Technology for Peace and Security: IT Applications and Infrastructures in Conflicts, Crises, War, and Peace (2019): 207-231.
Smith, James M. and Gwendolyn Hall, eds. Milestones in strategic arms control, 1945–2000: United States Air Force roles and outcomes (2002) online
Thompson, Kenneth W., ed. Presidents and Arms Control: Process, Procedures, and Problems (University Press of America, 1997).
Williams Jr, Robert E., and Paul R. Viotti. Arms Control: History, Theory, and Policy (2 vol. ABC-CLIO, 2012).
Young, Nigel J. ed. The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace (4 vol. 2010) 1:89–122.
Primary sources: U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Arms Control and Disarmament Agreements: Texts and Histories of the Negotiations (1996) ISBN 9780160486890
External links: online books on arms control (on Internet Archive)
Arms Control and Nonproliferation: A Catalog of Treaties and Agreements Congressional Research Service, May 8, 2018.
"The Arms Trade Treaty at a Glance". armscontrol.org. Arms Control Association. July 2013.
National Counterproliferation Center – Office of the Director of National Intelligence (archived 28 April 2015)
UN – Disarmament Affairs
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Council for a Livable World (archived 11 July 2007)
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's Research on Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (archived 17 February 2011)
Lecture by Masahiko Asada entitled Nuclear Weapons and International Law in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
Disarmament insight website |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Arms industry | History: During the early modern period, England, France, Sweden and the Netherlands became self-sufficient in arms production, with diffusion and migration of skilled workers to more peripheral countries such as Portugal and Russia.
The modern arms industry emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century as a product of the creation and expansion of the first large military–industrial companies. As smaller countries (and even newly industrializing countries like Russia and Japan) could no longer produce cutting-edge military equipment with their indigenous resources and capacity, they increasingly began to contract the manufacture of military equipment, such as battleships, artillery pieces and rifles to foreign firms.
In 1854, the British government awarded a contract to the Elswick Ordnance Company to supply the latest breech loading rifled artillery pieces. This galvanized the private sector into weapons production, with the surplus increasingly exported to foreign countries. William Armstrong became one of the first international arms dealers, selling his systems to governments across the world from Brazil to Japan. In 1884, he opened a shipyard at Elswick to specialize in warship production – at the time, it was the only factory in the world that could build a battleship and arm it completely. The factory produced warships for many navies, including the Imperial Japanese Navy. Several Armstrong cruisers played an important role in defeating the Russian fleet at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905.
In the American Civil War in 1861 the North had about ten times the manufacturing capacity of the economy of the Confederate States of America. This advantage over the South included the ability to produce (in relatively small numbers) breech-loading rifles for use against the muzzle-loading rifled muskets of the South. This began the transition to industrially produced mechanized weapons such as the Gatling gun.
This industrial innovation in the defense industry was adopted by Prussia in its 1864, 1866 and 1870–71 defeats of Denmark, Austria and France respectively. By this time the machine gun had begun entering arsenals. The first examples of its effectiveness were in 1899 during the Boer War and in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese War. However, Germany led the innovation of weapons and this advantage in the weapons of World War I nearly defeated the allies. In 1885, France decided to capitalize on this increasingly lucrative trade and repealed its ban on weapon exports. The regulatory framework for the period up to the First World War was characterized by a laissez-faire policy that placed little obstruction in the way of weapons exports. Due to the carnage of World War I, arms traders began to be regarded with odium as "merchants of death" and were accused of having instigated and perpetuated the war in order to maximize their profits from arms sales. An inquiry into these allegations in Britain failed to find evidence to support them. However, the sea change in attitude about war more generally meant that governments began to control and regulate the trade themselves.
The volume of the arms trade greatly increased during the 20th century, and it began to be used as a political tool, especially during the Cold War where the United States and the USSR supplied weapons to their proxies across the world, particularly third world countries (see Nixon Doctrine).
Sectors:
Land-based weapon: This category includes everything from light arms to heavy artillery, and the majority of producers are small. Many are located in third world countries. International trade in handguns, machine guns, tanks, armored personnel carriers, and other relatively inexpensive weapons is substantial. There is relatively little regulation at the international level, and as a result, many weapons fall into the hands of organized crime, rebel forces, terrorists, or regimes under sanctions.
Small arms: The Control Arms Campaign, founded by Amnesty International, Oxfam, and the International Action Network on Small Arms, estimated in 2003 that there are over 639 million small arms in circulation, and that over 1,135 companies based in more than 98 countries manufacture small arms as well as their various components and ammunition.
Aerospace systems: Encompassing military aircraft (both land-based and naval aviation), conventional missiles, and military satellites, this is the most technologically advanced sector of the market. It is also the least competitive from an economic standpoint, with a handful of companies dominating the entire market. The top clients and major producers are virtually all located in the western world and Russia, with the United States easily in the first place. Prominent aerospace firms include Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems, Saab AB, Dassault Aviation, Sukhoi, Mikoyan, EADS, Leonardo, Thales Group, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX Corporation, and Boeing. There are also several multinational consortia mostly involved in the manufacturing of fighter jets, such as the Eurofighter. The largest military contract in history, signed in October 2001, involved the development of the Joint Strike Fighter.
Naval systems: Several of the world's great powers maintain substantial naval forces to provide a global presence, with the largest nations possessing aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and advanced anti-air defense systems. The vast majority of military ships are conventionally powered, but some are nuclear-powered. There is also a large global market in second-hand naval vessels, generally purchased by developing countries from Western governments.
Cybersecurity: The cybersecurity industry is expected to be of increasing importance to defense, intelligence and homeland security agencies.
International arms transfers:
Over time:
2010–2014: According to research institute SIPRI, the volume of international transfers of major weapons in 2010–14 was 16 percent higher than in 2005–2009. The five biggest exporters in 2010–2014 were the United States, Russia, China, Germany and France, and the five biggest importers were India, Saudi Arabia, China, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. The flow of arms to the Middle East increased by 87 percent between 2009–13 and 2014–18, while there was a decrease in flows to all other regions: Africa, the Americas, Asia and Oceania, and Europe.
2014–2018: SIPRI has identified 67 countries as exporters of major weapons in 2014–18. The top 5 exporters during the period were responsible for 75 percent of all arms exports. The composition of the five largest exporters of arms changed between 2014 and 2018 remained unchanged compared to 2009–13, although their combined total exports of major arms were 10 percent higher. In 2014–18, significant increases in arms exports from the US, France and Germany were seen, while Chinese exports rose marginally and Russian exports decreased.
In 2014–18, 155 countries (about three-quarters of all countries) imported major weapons. The top 5 recipients accounted for 33 percent of the total arms imports during the period. The top five arms importers – Saudi Arabia, India, Egypt, Australia and Algeria – accounted for 35 percent of total arms imports in 2014–18. Of these, Saudi Arabia and India were among the top five importers in both 2009–13 and 2014–18.
In 2014–18, the volume of major arms international transfers was 7.8 percent higher than in 2009–13 and 23 percent than that in 2004–08. The largest arms importer was Saudi Arabia, importing arms primarily from the United States, United Kingdom and France. Between 2009–13 and 2014–18, the flow of arms to the Middle East increased by 87 percent. Also including India, Egypt, Australia and Algeria, the top five importers received 35 percent of the total arms imports, during 2014–18. The five largest exporters were the United States, Russia, France, Germany and China.
Post-2018: The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine changed the National Shooting Sports Foundation members ability to obtain an export license from taking a month to taking just four days. This was due to the United States Department of Commerce and agencies associated with ITAR expediting weapons shipments to Ukraine. In addition, the time it took to obtain a permit to buy a firearm in Ukraine also decreased from a few months to a few days.
World's largest arms exporters: Figures are SIPRI Trend Indicator Values (TIVs) expressed in millions. These numbers may not represent real financial flows as prices for the underlying arms can be as low as zero in the case of military aid. The following are estimates from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Overall global arms exports rose of about 6 per-cent in the last 5 years compared to the period 2010–2014 and increased by 20 per-cent since 2005–2009.
Rankings for exporters below a billion dollars are less meaningful, as they can be swayed by single contracts. A much more accurate picture of export volume, free from yearly fluctuations, is presented by 5-year moving averages.
Next to SIPRI, there are several other sources that provide data on international transfers of arms. These include national reports by national governments about arms exports, the UN register on conventional arms, and an annual publication by the U.S. Congressional Research Service that includes data on arms exports to developing countries as compiled by U.S. intelligence agencies. Due to the different methodologies and definitions used different sources often provide significantly different data.
World's largest arms exporters since 1950: SIPRI uses the "trend-indicator values" (TIV). These are based on the known unit production costs of weapons and represent the transfer of military resources rather than the financial value of the transfer. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Arms industry | Rankings for exporters below a billion dollars are less meaningful, as they can be swayed by single contracts. A much more accurate picture of export volume, free from yearly fluctuations, is presented by 5-year moving averages.
Next to SIPRI, there are several other sources that provide data on international transfers of arms. These include national reports by national governments about arms exports, the UN register on conventional arms, and an annual publication by the U.S. Congressional Research Service that includes data on arms exports to developing countries as compiled by U.S. intelligence agencies. Due to the different methodologies and definitions used different sources often provide significantly different data.
World's largest arms exporters since 1950: SIPRI uses the "trend-indicator values" (TIV). These are based on the known unit production costs of weapons and represent the transfer of military resources rather than the financial value of the transfer.
World's largest arms importers: Units are in Trend Indicator Values expressed as millions of U.S. dollars at 1990s prices. These numbers may not represent real financial flows as prices for the underlying arms can be as low as zero in the case of military aid.
Arms import rankings fluctuate heavily as countries enter and exit wars. Export data tend to be less volatile as exporters tend to be more technologically advanced and have stable production flows. 5-year moving averages present a much more accurate picture of import volume, free from yearly fluctuations.
List of major weapon manufacturers: This is a list of the world's largest arms manufacturers and other military service companies who profit the most from the war economy, their origin is shown as well. The information is based on a list published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute for 2022.
Arms control: Arms control refers to international restrictions upon the development, production, stockpiling, proliferation and usage of small arms, conventional weapons, and weapons of mass destruction. It is typically exercised through the use of diplomacy, which seeks to persuade governments to accept such limitations through agreements and treaties, although it may also be forced upon non-consenting governments.
Notable international arms control treaties: Geneva Protocol on chemical and biological weapons, 1925
Outer Space Treaty, signed and entered into force 1967
Biological Weapons Convention, signed 1972, entered into force 1975
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), 1987
Chemical Weapons Convention, signed 1993, entered into force 1997
Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel land mines, signed 1997, entered into force 1999
New START Treaty, signed by Russia and the United States in April 2010, entered into force in February 2011
Arms Trade Treaty, concluded in 2013, entered into force on 24 December 2014.
See also:
== References == |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Army | Structure: Armies are always divided into various specialties, according to the mission, role, and training of individual units, and sometimes individual soldiers within a unit.
Some of the groupings common to all armies include the following:
Infantry
Armoured corps
Artillery corps
Signal corps
Special forces
Military police
Medical corps
History:
India: The Battle of the Ten Kings, a Hindu Aryan king named Sudas defeated an alliance of ten kings and their supportive chieftains. During the Iron Age, the Maurya and Nanda Empires had one of the largest armies in the world, the peak being approximately over 600,000 Infantry, 30,000 Cavalry, 8,000 War-Chariots and 9,000 War Elephants not including tributary state allies. In the Gupta age, large armies of longbowmen were recruited to fight off invading horse archer armies. Elephants, pikemen and cavalry were other featured troops.
China: The states of China raised armies for at least 1000 years before the Spring and Autumn Annals. By the Warring States period, the crossbow had been perfected enough to become a military secret, with bronze bolts that could pierce any armor. Thus any political power of a state rested on the armies and their organization. China underwent political consolidation of the states of Han (韓), Wei (魏), Chu (楚), Yan (燕), Zhao (趙) and Qi (齊), until by 221 BCE, Qin Shi Huang (秦始皇帝), the first emperor of the Qin dynasty, attained absolute power. This first emperor of China could command the creation of a Terracotta Army to guard his tomb in the city of Xi'an (西安), as well as a realignment of the Great Wall of China to strengthen his empire against insurrection, invasion and incursion.
Sun Tzu's The Art of War remains one of China's Seven Military Classics, even though it is two thousand years old. Since no political figure could exist without an army, measures were taken to ensure only the most capable leaders could control the armies. Civil bureaucracies (士大夫) arose to control the productive power of the states, and their military power.
Sparta: The Spartan Army was one of the earliest known professional armies. Boys were sent to a barracks at the age of seven or eight to train for becoming a soldier. At the age of thirty, they were released from the barracks and allowed to marry and have a family. After that, men devoted their lives to war until their retirement at the age of 60. The Spartan Army was largely composed of hoplites, equipped with arms and armor nearly identical to each other. Each hoplite bore the Spartan emblem and a scarlet uniform. The main pieces of this armor were a round shield, a spear and a helmet.
Ancient Rome: The Roman Army had its origins in the citizen army of the Republic, which was staffed by citizens serving mandatory duty for Rome. Conscription remained the main method through which Rome mustered forces until the end of the Republic. The army eventually became a professional organization largely of citizens, who would served continuously for 25 years before being discharged.
The Romans were also noted for making use of auxiliary troops, non-Romans who served with the legions and filled roles that the traditional Roman military could not fill effectively, such as light skirmish troops and heavy cavalry. After their service in the army they were made citizens of Rome and then their children were citizens also. They were also given land and money to settle in Rome. In the Late Roman Empire, these auxiliary troops, along with foreign mercenaries, became the core of the Roman Army; moreover, by the time of the Late Roman Empire tribes such as the Visigoths were paid to serve as mercenaries.
Medieval Europe: In the earliest Middle Ages it was the obligation of every aristocrat to respond to the call to battle with his own equipment, archers, and infantry. This decentralized system was necessary due to the social order of the time, but could lead to motley forces with variable training, equipment and abilities. The more resources the noble had access to, the better his troops would be.
Initially, the words "knight" and "noble" were used interchangeably as there was not generally a distinction between them. While the nobility did fight upon horseback, they were also supported by lower class citizens – and mercenaries and criminals – whose only purpose was participating in warfare because, most often than not, they held brief employment during their lord's engagement. As the Middle Ages progressed and feudalism developed in a legitimate social and economic system, knights started to develop into their own class with a minor caveat: they were still in debt to their lord. No longer primarily driven by economic need, the newly established vassal class were, instead, driven by fealty and chivalry.
As central governments grew in power, a return to the citizen armies of the classical period also began, as central levies of the peasantry began to be the central recruiting tool. England was one of the most centralized states in the Middle Ages, and the armies that fought in the Hundred Years' War were, predominantly, composed of paid professionals.
In theory, every Englishman had an obligation to serve for forty days. Forty days was not long enough for a campaign, especially one on the continent.
Thus the scutage was introduced, whereby most Englishmen paid to escape their service and this money was used to create a permanent army. However, almost all high medieval armies in Europe were composed of a great deal of paid core troops, and there was a large mercenary market in Europe from at least the early 12th century.
As the Middle Ages progressed in Italy, Italian cities began to rely mostly on mercenaries to do their fighting rather than the militias that had dominated the early and high medieval period in this region. These would be groups of career soldiers who would be paid a set rate. Mercenaries tended to be effective soldiers, especially in combination with standing forces, but in Italy they came to dominate the armies of the city states. This made them considerably less reliable than a standing army. Mercenary-on-mercenary warfare in Italy also led to relatively bloodless campaigns which relied as much on maneuver as on battles.
In 1439 the French legislature, known as the Estates General (French: états généraux), passed laws that restricted military recruitment and training to the king alone. There was a new tax to be raised known as the taille that was to provide funding for a new Royal army. The mercenary companies were given a choice of either joining the Royal army as compagnies d'ordonnance on a permanent basis, or being hunted down and destroyed if they refused. France gained a total standing army of around 6,000 men, which was sent out to gradually eliminate the remaining mercenaries who insisted on operating on their own. The new standing army had a more disciplined and professional approach to warfare than its predecessors. The reforms of the 1440s, eventually led to the French victory at Castillon in 1453, and the conclusion of the Hundred Years' War. By 1450 the companies were divided into the field army, known as the grande ordonnance and the garrison force known as the petite ordonnance.
Early modern: First nation states lacked the funds needed to maintain standing forces, so they tended to hire mercenaries to serve in their armies during wartime. Such mercenaries typically formed at the ends of periods of conflict, when men-at-arms were no longer needed by their respective governments.
The veteran soldiers thus looked for other forms of employment, often becoming mercenaries. Free Companies would often specialize in forms of combat that required longer periods of training that was not available in the form of a mobilized militia.
As late as the 1650s, most troops were mercenaries. However, after the 17th century, most states invested in better disciplined and more politically reliable permanent troops. For a time mercenaries became important as trainers and administrators, but soon these tasks were also taken by the state. The massive size of these armies required a large supporting force of administrators.
The newly centralized states were forced to set up vast organized bureaucracies to manage these armies, which some historians argue is the basis of the modern bureaucratic state. The combination of increased taxes and increased centralization of government functions caused a series of revolts across Europe such as the Fronde in France and the English Civil War.
In many countries, the resolution of this conflict was the rise of absolute monarchy. Only in England and the Netherlands did representative government evolve as an alternative. From the late 17th century, states learned how to finance wars through long term low interest loans from national banking institutions. The first state to master this process was the Dutch Republic. This transformation in the armies of Europe had great social impact. The defense of the state now rested on the commoners, not on the aristocrats. However, aristocrats continued to monopolize the officer corps of almost all early modern armies, including their high command. Moreover, popular revolts almost always failed unless they had the support and patronage of the noble or gentry classes. The new armies, because of their vast expense, were also dependent on taxation and the commercial classes who also began to demand a greater role in society. The great commercial powers of the Dutch and English matched much larger states in military might.
As any man could be quickly trained in the use of a musket, it became far easier to form massive armies. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Army | From the late 17th century, states learned how to finance wars through long term low interest loans from national banking institutions. The first state to master this process was the Dutch Republic. This transformation in the armies of Europe had great social impact. The defense of the state now rested on the commoners, not on the aristocrats. However, aristocrats continued to monopolize the officer corps of almost all early modern armies, including their high command. Moreover, popular revolts almost always failed unless they had the support and patronage of the noble or gentry classes. The new armies, because of their vast expense, were also dependent on taxation and the commercial classes who also began to demand a greater role in society. The great commercial powers of the Dutch and English matched much larger states in military might.
As any man could be quickly trained in the use of a musket, it became far easier to form massive armies. The inaccuracy of the weapons necessitated large groups of massed soldiers. This led to a rapid swelling of the size of armies. For the first time huge masses of the population could enter combat, rather than just the highly skilled professionals.
It has been argued that the drawing of men from across the nation into an organized corps helped breed national unity and patriotism, and during this period the modern notion of the nation state was born. However, this would only become apparent after the French Revolutionary Wars. At this time, the levée en masse and conscription would become the defining paradigm of modern warfare.
Before then, however, most national armies were in fact composed of many nationalities. In Spain armies were recruited from all the Spanish European territories including Spain, Italy, Wallonia (Walloon Guards) and Germany. The French recruited some soldiers from Germany, Switzerland as well as from Piedmont. Britain recruited Hessian and Hanovrian troops until the late 18th century. Irish Catholics made careers for themselves in the armies of many Catholic European states.
Prior to the English Civil War in England, the monarch maintained a personal bodyguard of Yeomen of the Guard and the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms, or "gentlemen pensioners", and a few locally raised companies to garrison important places such as Berwick on Tweed or Portsmouth (or Calais before it was recaptured by France in 1558).
Troops for foreign expeditions were raised upon an ad hoc basis. Noblemen and professional regular soldiers were commissioned by the monarch to supply troops, raising their quotas by indenture from a variety of sources. On January 26, 1661 Charles II issued the Royal Warrant that created the genesis of what would become the British Army, although the Scottish and English Armies would remain two separate organizations until the unification of England and Scotland in 1707. The small force was represented by only a few regiments.
After the American Revolutionary War the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the sole ground army of the United States, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. Then First American Regiment was established in 1784. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791.
Until 1733 the common soldiers of Prussian Army consisted largely of peasantry recruited or impressed from Brandenburg–Prussia, leading many to flee to neighboring countries. To halt this trend, Frederick William I divided Prussia into regimental cantons. Every youth was required to serve as a soldier in these recruitment districts for three months each year; this met agrarian needs and added extra troops to bolster the regular ranks.
Russian tsars before Peter I of Russia maintained professional hereditary musketeer corps (streltsy in Russian) that were highly unreliable and undisciplined. In times of war the armed forces were augmented by peasants. Peter I introduced a modern regular army built on German model, but with a new aspect: officers not necessarily from nobility, as talented commoners were given promotions that eventually included a noble title at the attainment of an officer's rank. Conscription of peasants and townspeople was based on quota system, per settlement. Initially it was based on the number of households, later it was based on the population numbers. The term of service in the 18th century was for life. In 1793 it was reduced to 25 years. In 1834 it was reduced to 20 years plus 5 years in reserve and in 1855 to 12 years plus 3 years of reserve.
The first Ottoman standing army were Janissaries. They replaced forces that mostly comprised tribal warriors (ghazis) whose loyalty and morale could not always be trusted. The first Janissary units were formed from prisoners of war and slaves, probably as a result of the sultan taking his traditional one-fifth share of his army's treasure they looted in kind rather than cash.
From the 1380s onwards, their ranks were filled under the devşirme system, where feudal dues were paid by service to the sultan. The "recruits" were mostly Christian youths, reminiscent of mamluks.
China organized the Manchu people into the Eight Banner system in the early 17th century. Defected Ming armies formed the Green Standard Army. These troops enlisted voluntarily and for long terms of service.
Late modern: Conscription allowed the French Republic to form the Grande Armée, what Napoleon Bonaparte called "the nation in arms", which successfully battled European professional armies.
Conscription, particularly when the conscripts are being sent to foreign wars that do not directly affect the security of the nation, has historically been highly politically contentious in democracies.
In developed nations, the increasing emphasis on technological firepower and better-trained fighting forces, make mass conscription unlikely in the foreseeable future.
Russia, as well as many other nations, retains mainly a conscript army. There is also a very rare citizen army as used in Switzerland (see Military of Switzerland).
Field army: A particular army can be named or numbered to distinguish it from military land forces in general. For example, the First United States Army and the Army of Northern Virginia. In the British Army it is normal to spell out the ordinal number of an army (e.g. First Army), whereas lower formations use figures (e.g. 1st Division).
Armies (as well as army groups and theaters) are large formations which vary significantly between armed forces in size, composition, and scope of responsibility.
In the Soviet Red Army and the Soviet Air Force, "Armies" could vary in size, but were subordinate to an Army Group-sized "front" in wartime. In peacetime, a Soviet army was usually subordinate to a military district. Viktor Suvorov's Inside the Soviet Army describes how Cold War era Soviet military districts were actually composed of a front headquarters and a military district headquarters co-located for administration and deception ('maskirovika') reasons.
Formations: In many countries, especially in Europe or North America, armies are often subdivided as follows:
See also: Lists of armies
List of armies by country
List of army units called Guards
List of numbered armies
List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel
Military organization
Paramilitary
References:
External links: Media related to army at Wikimedia Commons |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery | Artillery piece: Although not called by that name, siege engines performing the role recognizable as artillery have been employed in warfare since antiquity. The first known catapult was developed in Syracuse in 399 BC. Until the introduction of gunpowder into western warfare, artillery was dependent upon mechanical energy which not only severely limited the kinetic energy of the projectiles, it also required the construction of very large engines to accumulate sufficient energy. A 1st-century BC Roman catapult launching 6.55 kg (14.4 lb) stones achieved a kinetic energy of 16 kilojoules, compared to a mid-19th-century 12-pounder gun, which fired a 4.1 kg (9.0 lb) round, with a kinetic energy of 240 kilojoules, or a 20th-century US battleship that fired a 1,225 kg (2,701 lb) projectile from its main battery with an energy level surpassing 350 megajoules.
From the Middle Ages through most of the modern era, artillery pieces on land were moved by horse-drawn gun carriages. In the contemporary era, artillery pieces and their crew relied on wheeled or tracked vehicles as transportation. These land versions of artillery were dwarfed by railway guns; the largest of these large-calibre guns ever conceived – Project Babylon of the Supergun affair – was theoretically capable of putting a satellite into orbit. Artillery used by naval forces has also changed significantly, with missiles generally replacing guns in surface warfare.
Over the course of military history, projectiles were manufactured from a wide variety of materials, into a wide variety of shapes, using many different methods in which to target structural/defensive works and inflict enemy casualties. The engineering applications for ordnance delivery have likewise changed significantly over time, encompassing some of the most complex and advanced technologies in use today.
In some armies, the weapon of artillery is the projectile, not the equipment that fires it. The process of delivering fire onto the target is called gunnery. The actions involved in operating an artillery piece are collectively called "serving the gun" by the "detachment" or gun crew, constituting either direct or indirect artillery fire. The manner in which gunnery crews (or formations) are employed is called artillery support. At different periods in history, this may refer to weapons designed to be fired from ground-, sea-, and even air-based weapons platforms.
Crew: Some armed forces use the term "gunners" for the soldiers and sailors with the primary function of using artillery.
The gunners and their guns are usually grouped in teams called either "crews" or "detachments". Several such crews and teams with other functions are combined into a unit of artillery, usually called a battery, although sometimes called a company. In gun detachments, each role is numbered, starting with "1" the Detachment Commander, and the highest number being the Coverer, the second-in-command. "Gunner" is also the lowest rank, and junior non-commissioned officers are "Bombardiers" in some artillery arms.
Batteries are roughly equivalent to a company in the infantry, and are combined into larger military organizations for administrative and operational purposes, either battalions or regiments, depending on the army. These may be grouped into brigades; the Russian army also groups some brigades into artillery divisions, and the People's Liberation Army has artillery corps.
The term "artillery" also designates a combat arm of most military services when used organizationally to describe units and formations of the national armed forces that operate the weapons.
Tactics: During military operations, field artillery has the role of providing support to other arms in combat or of attacking targets, particularly in-depth. Broadly, these effects fall into two categories, aiming either to suppress or neutralize the enemy, or to cause casualties, damage, and destruction. This is mostly achieved by delivering high-explosive munitions to suppress, or inflict casualties on the enemy from casing fragments and other debris and from blast, or by destroying enemy positions, equipment, and vehicles. Non-lethal munitions, notably smoke, can also suppress or neutralize the enemy by obscuring their view.
Fire may be directed by an artillery observer or another observer, including crewed and uncrewed aircraft, or called onto map coordinates.
Military doctrine has had a significant influence on the core engineering design considerations of artillery ordnance through its history, in seeking to achieve a balance between the delivered volume of fire with ordnance mobility. However, during the modern period, the consideration of protecting the gunners also arose due to the late-19th-century introduction of the new generation of infantry weapons using conoidal bullet, better known as the Minié ball, with a range almost as long as that of field artillery.
The gunners' increasing proximity to and participation in direct combat against other combat arms and attacks by aircraft made the introduction of a gun shield necessary. The problems of how to employ a fixed or horse-towed gun in mobile warfare necessitated the development of new methods of transporting the artillery into combat. Two distinct forms of artillery were developed: the towed gun, used primarily to attack or defend a fixed-line; and the self-propelled gun, intended to accompany a mobile force and to provide continuous fire support and/or suppression. These influences have guided the development of artillery ordnance, systems, organizations, and operations until the present, with artillery systems capable of providing support at ranges from as little as 100 m to the intercontinental ranges of ballistic missiles. The only combat in which artillery is unable to take part is close-quarters combat, with the possible exception of artillery reconnaissance teams.
Etymology: The word as used in the current context originated in the Middle Ages. One suggestion is that it comes from French atelier, meaning the place where manual work is done.
Another suggestion is that it originates from the 13th century and the Old French artillier, designating craftsmen and manufacturers of all materials and warfare equipments (spears, swords, armor, war machines); and, for the next 250 years, the sense of the word "artillery" covered all forms of military weapons. Hence, the naming of the Honourable Artillery Company, which was essentially an infantry unit until the 19th century.
Another suggestion is that it comes from the Italian arte de tirare (art of shooting), coined by one of the first theorists on the use of artillery, Niccolò Tartaglia.
History: Mechanical systems used for throwing ammunition in ancient warfare, also known as "engines of war", like the catapult, onager, trebuchet, and ballista, are also referred to by military historians as artillery.
Medieval: During medieval times, more types of artillery were developed, most notably the counterweight trebuchet. Traction trebuchets, using manpower to launch projectiles, have been used in ancient China since the 4th century as anti-personnel weapons. The much more powerful counterweight trebuchet was invented in the eastern Mediterranean region in the 12th century, with the earliest definite attestation in 1187.
Invention of gunpowder: Early Chinese artillery had vase-like shapes. This includes the "long range awe inspiring" cannon dated from 1350 and found in the 14th century Ming dynasty treatise Huolongjing. With the development of better metallurgy techniques, later cannons abandoned the vase shape of early Chinese artillery. This change can be seen in the bronze "thousand ball thunder cannon", an early example of field artillery. These small, crude weapons diffused into the Middle East (the madfaa) and reached Europe in the 13th century, in a very limited manner.
In Asia, Mongols adopted the Chinese artillery and used it effectively in the great conquest. By the late 14th century, Chinese rebels used organized artillery and cavalry to push Mongols out.
As small smooth-bore barrels, these were initially cast in iron or bronze around a core, with the first drilled bore ordnance recorded in operation near Seville in 1247. They fired lead, iron, or stone balls, sometimes large arrows and on occasions simply handfuls of whatever scrap came to hand. During the Hundred Years' War, these weapons became more common, initially as the bombard and later the cannon. Cannon were always muzzle-loaders. While there were many early attempts at breech-loading designs, a lack of engineering knowledge rendered these even more dangerous to use than muzzle-loaders.
Expansion of use: In 1415, the Portuguese invaded the Mediterranean port town of Ceuta. While it is difficult to confirm the use of firearms in the siege of the city, it is known the Portuguese defended it thereafter with firearms, namely bombardas, colebratas, and falconetes. In 1419, Sultan Abu Sa'id led an army to reconquer the fallen city, and Marinids brought cannons and used them in the assault on Ceuta. Finally, hand-held firearms and riflemen appear in Morocco, in 1437, in an expedition against the people of Tangiers. It is clear these weapons had developed into several different forms, from small guns to large artillery pieces.
The artillery revolution in Europe caught on during the Hundred Years' War and changed the way that battles were fought. In the preceding decades, the English had even used a gunpowder-like weapon in military campaigns against the Scottish. However, at this time, the cannons used in battle were very small and not particularly powerful. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery | While it is difficult to confirm the use of firearms in the siege of the city, it is known the Portuguese defended it thereafter with firearms, namely bombardas, colebratas, and falconetes. In 1419, Sultan Abu Sa'id led an army to reconquer the fallen city, and Marinids brought cannons and used them in the assault on Ceuta. Finally, hand-held firearms and riflemen appear in Morocco, in 1437, in an expedition against the people of Tangiers. It is clear these weapons had developed into several different forms, from small guns to large artillery pieces.
The artillery revolution in Europe caught on during the Hundred Years' War and changed the way that battles were fought. In the preceding decades, the English had even used a gunpowder-like weapon in military campaigns against the Scottish. However, at this time, the cannons used in battle were very small and not particularly powerful. Cannons were only useful for the defense of a castle, as demonstrated at Breteuil in 1356, when the besieged English used a cannon to destroy an attacking French assault tower. By the end of the 14th century, cannon were only powerful enough to knock in roofs, and could not penetrate castle walls.
However, a major change occurred between 1420 and 1430, when artillery became much more powerful and could now batter strongholds and fortresses quite efficiently. The English, French, and Burgundians all advanced in military technology, and as a result the traditional advantage that went to the defense in a siege was lost. The cannon during this period were elongated, and the recipe for gunpowder was improved to make it three times as powerful as before. These changes led to the increased power in the artillery weapons of the time.
Joan of Arc encountered gunpowder weaponry several times. When she led the French against the English at the Battle of Tourelles, in 1430, she faced heavy gunpowder fortifications, and yet her troops prevailed in that battle. In addition, she led assaults against the English-held towns of Jargeau, Meung, and Beaugency, all with the support of large artillery units. When she led the assault on Paris, Joan faced stiff artillery fire, especially from the suburb of St. Denis, which ultimately led to her defeat in this battle. In April 1430, she went to battle against the Burgundians, whose support was purchased by the English. At this time, the Burgundians had the strongest and largest gunpowder arsenal among the European powers, and yet the French, under Joan of Arc's leadership, were able to beat back the Burgundians and defend themselves. As a result, most of the battles of the Hundred Years' War that Joan of Arc participated in were fought with gunpowder artillery.
The army of Mehmet the Conqueror, which conquered Constantinople in 1453, included both artillery and foot soldiers armed with gunpowder weapons. The Ottomans brought to the siege sixty-nine guns in fifteen separate batteries and trained them at the walls of the city. The barrage of Ottoman cannon fire lasted forty days, and they are estimated to have fired 19,320 times. Artillery also played a decisive role in the Battle of St. Jakob an der Birs of 1444. Early cannon were not always reliable; King James II of Scotland was killed by the accidental explosion of one of his own cannon, imported from Flanders, at the siege of Roxburgh Castle in 1460.
The able use of artillery supported to a large measure the expansion and defense of the Portuguese Empire, as it was a necessary tool that allowed the Portuguese to face overwhelming odds both on land and sea from Morocco to Asia. In great sieges and in sea battles, the Portuguese demonstrated a level of proficiency in the use of artillery after the beginning of the 16th century unequalled by contemporary European neighbours, in part due to the experience gained in intense fighting in Morocco, which served as a proving ground for artillery and its practical application, and made Portugal a forerunner in gunnery for decades. During the reign of King Manuel (1495–1521) at least 2017 cannon were sent to Morocco for garrison defense, with more than 3000 cannon estimated to have been required during that 26-year period. An especially noticeable division between siege guns and anti-personnel guns enhanced the use and effectiveness of Portuguese firearms above contemporary powers, making cannon the most essential element in the Portuguese arsenal.
The three major classes of Portuguese artillery were anti-personnel guns with a high borelength (including: rebrodequim, berço, falconete, falcão, sacre, áspide, cão, serpentina and passavolante); bastion guns which could batter fortifications (camelete, leão, pelicano, basilisco, águia, camelo, roqueira, urso); and howitzers that fired large stone cannonballs in an elevated arch, weighted up to 4000 pounds and could fire incendiary devices, such as a hollow iron ball filled with pitch and fuse, designed to be fired at close range and burst on contact. The most popular in Portuguese arsenals was the berço, a 5 cm, one pounder bronze breech-loading cannon that weighted 150 kg with an effective range of 600 meters.
A tactical innovation the Portuguese introduced in fort defense was the use of combinations of projectiles against massed assaults. Although canister shot had been developed in the early 15th century, the Portuguese were the first to employ it extensively, and Portuguese engineers invented a canister round which consisted of a thin lead case filled with iron pellets, that broke up at the muzzle and scattered its contents in a narrow pattern. An innovation which Portugal adopted in advance of other European powers was fuse-delayed action shells, and were commonly used in 1505. Although dangerous, their effectiveness meant a sixth of all rounds used by the Portuguese in Morocco were of the fused-shell variety.
The new Ming Dynasty established the "Divine Engine Battalion" (神机营), which specialized in various types of artillery. Light cannons and cannons with multiple volleys were developed. In a campaign to suppress a local minority rebellion near today's Burmese border, "the Ming army used a 3-line method of arquebuses/muskets to destroy an elephant formation".
When the Portuguese and Spanish arrived at Southeast Asia, they found that the local kingdoms were already using cannons. Portuguese and Spanish invaders were unpleasantly surprised and even outgunned on occasion. Duarte Barbosa ca. 1514 said that the inhabitants of Java were great masters in casting artillery and very good artillerymen. They made many one-pounder cannons (cetbang or rentaka), long muskets, spingarde (arquebus), schioppi (hand cannon), Greek fire, guns (cannons), and other fire-works. In all aspects the Javanese were considered excellent in casting artillery, and in the knowledge of using it.: 254 : 198 : 224 In 1513, the Javanese fleet led by Pati Unus sailed to attack Portuguese Malacca "with much artillery made in Java, for the Javanese are skilled in founding and casting, and in all works in iron, over and above what they have in India".: 162 : 23 By the early 16th century, the Javanese already locally-producing large guns, some of them still survived until the present day and dubbed as "sacred cannon" or "holy cannon". These cannons varied between 180 and 260 pounders, weighing anywhere between 3–8 tons, measuring between 3–6 m.
Between 1593 and 1597, about 200,000 Korean and Chinese troops which fought against Japan in Korea actively used heavy artillery in both siege and field combat. Korean forces mounted artillery in ships as naval guns, providing an advantage against Japanese navy which used Kunikuzushi (国崩し – Japanese breech-loading swivel gun) and Ōzutsu (大筒 – large size Tanegashima) as their largest firearms.
Smoothbores: Bombards were of value mainly in sieges. A famous Turkish example used at the siege of Constantinople in 1453 weighed 19 tons, took 200 men and sixty oxen to emplace, and could fire just seven times a day. The Fall of Constantinople was perhaps "the first event of supreme importance whose result was determined by the use of artillery" when the huge bronze cannons of Mehmed II breached the city's walls, ending the Byzantine Empire, according to Sir Charles Oman.
Bombards developed in Europe were massive smoothbore weapons distinguished by their lack of a field carriage, immobility once emplaced, highly individual design, and noted unreliability (in 1460 James II, King of Scots, was killed when one exploded at the siege of Roxburgh). Their large size precluded the barrels being cast and they were constructed out of metal staves or rods bound together with hoops like a barrel, giving their name to the gun barrel.
The use of the word "cannon" marks the introduction in the 15th century of a dedicated field carriage with axle, trail and animal-drawn limber—this produced mobile field pieces that could move and support an army in action, rather than being found only in the siege and static defenses. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery | Bombards developed in Europe were massive smoothbore weapons distinguished by their lack of a field carriage, immobility once emplaced, highly individual design, and noted unreliability (in 1460 James II, King of Scots, was killed when one exploded at the siege of Roxburgh). Their large size precluded the barrels being cast and they were constructed out of metal staves or rods bound together with hoops like a barrel, giving their name to the gun barrel.
The use of the word "cannon" marks the introduction in the 15th century of a dedicated field carriage with axle, trail and animal-drawn limber—this produced mobile field pieces that could move and support an army in action, rather than being found only in the siege and static defenses. The reduction in the size of the barrel was due to improvements in both iron technology and gunpowder manufacture, while the development of trunnions—projections at the side of the cannon as an integral part of the cast—allowed the barrel to be fixed to a more movable base, and also made raising or lowering the barrel much easier.
The first land-based mobile weapon is usually credited to Jan Žižka, who deployed his oxen-hauled cannon during the Hussite Wars of Bohemia (1418–1424). However, cannons were still large and cumbersome. With the rise of musketry in the 16th century, cannon were largely (though not entirely) displaced from the battlefield—the cannon were too slow and cumbersome to be used and too easily lost to a rapid enemy advance.
The combining of shot and powder into a single unit, a cartridge, occurred in the 1620s with a simple fabric bag, and was quickly adopted by all nations. It speeded loading and made it safer, but unexpelled bag fragments were an additional fouling in the gun barrel and a new tool—a worm—was introduced to remove them. Gustavus Adolphus is identified as the general who made cannon an effective force on the battlefield—pushing the development of much lighter and smaller weapons and deploying them in far greater numbers than previously. The outcome of battles was still determined by the clash of infantry.
Shells, explosive-filled fused projectiles, were in use by the 15th century. The development of specialized pieces—shipboard artillery, howitzers and mortars—was also begun in this period. More esoteric designs, like the multi-barrel ribauldequin (known as "organ guns"), were also produced.
The 1650 book by Kazimierz Siemienowicz Artis Magnae Artilleriae pars prima was one of the most important contemporary publications on the subject of artillery. For over two centuries this work was used in Europe as a basic artillery manual.
One of the most significant effects of artillery during this period was however somewhat more indirect—by easily reducing to rubble any medieval-type fortification or city wall (some which had stood since Roman times), it abolished millennia of siege-warfare strategies and styles of fortification building. This led, among other things, to a frenzy of new bastion-style fortifications to be built all over Europe and in its colonies, but also had a strong integrating effect on emerging nation-states, as kings were able to use their newfound artillery superiority to force any local dukes or lords to submit to their will, setting the stage for the absolutist kingdoms to come.
Modern rocket artillery can trace its heritage back to the Mysorean rockets of Mysore. Their first recorded use was in 1780 during the battles of the Second, Third and Fourth Mysore Wars. The wars fought between the British East India Company and the Kingdom of Mysore in India made use of the rockets as a weapon. In the Battle of Pollilur, the Siege of Seringapatam (1792) and in Battle of Seringapatam in 1799, these rockets were used with considerable effect against the British. After the wars, several Mysore rockets were sent to England, but experiments with heavier payloads were unsuccessful. In 1804 William Congreve, considering the Mysorian rockets to have too short a range (less than 1,000 yards) developed rockets in numerous sizes with ranges up to 3,000 yards and eventually utilizing iron casing as the Congreve rocket which were used effectively during the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812.
Napoleonic: With the Napoleonic Wars, artillery experienced changes in both physical design and operation. Rather than being overseen by "mechanics", artillery was viewed as its own service branch with the capability of dominating the battlefield. The success of the French artillery companies was at least in part due to the presence of specially trained artillery officers leading and coordinating during the chaos of battle. Napoleon, himself a former artillery officer, perfected the tactic of massed artillery batteries unleashed upon a critical point in his enemies' line as a prelude to a decisive infantry and cavalry assault.
Physically, cannons continued to become smaller and lighter. During the Seven Years War, King Frederick II of Prussia used these advances to deploy horse artillery that could move throughout the battlefield. Frederick also introduced the reversible iron ramrod, which was much more resistant to breakage than older wooden designs. The reversibility aspect also helped increase the rate of fire, since a soldier would no longer have to worry about what end of the ramrod they were using.
Jean-Baptiste de Gribeauval, a French artillery engineer, introduced the standardization of cannon design in the mid-18th century. He developed a 6-inch (150 mm) field howitzer whose gun barrel, carriage assembly and ammunition specifications were made uniform for all French cannons. The standardized interchangeable parts of these cannons down to the nuts, bolts and screws made their mass production and repair much easier. While the Gribeauval system made for more efficient production and assembly, the carriages used were heavy and the gunners were forced to march on foot (instead of riding on the limber and gun as in the British system). Each cannon was named for the weight of its projectiles, giving us variants such as 4, 8, and 12, indicating the weight in pounds. The projectiles themselves included solid balls or canister containing lead bullets or other material. These canister shots acted as massive shotguns, peppering the target with hundreds of projectiles at close range. The solid balls, known as round shot, was most effective when fired at shoulder-height across a flat, open area. The ball would tear through the ranks of the enemy or bounce along the ground breaking legs and ankles.
Modern: The development of modern artillery occurred in the mid to late 19th century as a result of the convergence of various improvements in the underlying technology. Advances in metallurgy allowed for the construction of breech-loading rifled guns that could fire at a much greater muzzle velocity.
After the British artillery was shown up in the Crimean War as having barely changed since the Napoleonic Wars, the industrialist William Armstrong was awarded a contract by the government to design a new piece of artillery. Production started in 1855 at the Elswick Ordnance Company and the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, and the outcome was the revolutionary Armstrong Gun, which marked the birth of modern artillery. Three of its features particularly stand out.
First, the piece was rifled, which allowed for a much more accurate and powerful action. Although rifling had been tried on small arms since the 15th century, the necessary machinery to accurately rifle artillery was not available until the mid-19th century. Martin von Wahrendorff, and Joseph Whitworth independently produced rifled cannon in the 1840s, but it was Armstrong's gun that was first to see widespread use during the Crimean War. The cast iron shell of the Armstrong gun was similar in shape to a Minié ball and had a thin lead coating which made it fractionally larger than the gun's bore and which engaged with the gun's rifling grooves to impart spin to the shell. This spin, together with the elimination of windage as a result of the tight fit, enabled the gun to achieve greater range and accuracy than existing smooth-bore muzzle-loaders with a smaller powder charge.
His gun was also a breech-loader. Although attempts at breech-loading mechanisms had been made since medieval times, the essential engineering problem was that the mechanism could not withstand the explosive charge. It was only with the advances in metallurgy and precision engineering capabilities during the Industrial Revolution that Armstrong was able to construct a viable solution. The gun combined all the properties that make up an effective artillery piece. The gun was mounted on a carriage in such a way as to return the gun to firing position after the recoil.
What made the gun really revolutionary lay in the technique of the construction of the gun barrel that allowed it to withstand much more powerful explosive forces. The "built-up" method involved assembling the barrel with wrought-iron (later mild steel was used) tubes of successively smaller diameter. The tube would then be heated to allow it to expand and fit over the previous tube. When it cooled the gun would contract although not back to its original size, which allowed an even pressure along the walls of the gun which was directed inward against the outward forces that the gun's firing exerted on the barrel. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery | It was only with the advances in metallurgy and precision engineering capabilities during the Industrial Revolution that Armstrong was able to construct a viable solution. The gun combined all the properties that make up an effective artillery piece. The gun was mounted on a carriage in such a way as to return the gun to firing position after the recoil.
What made the gun really revolutionary lay in the technique of the construction of the gun barrel that allowed it to withstand much more powerful explosive forces. The "built-up" method involved assembling the barrel with wrought-iron (later mild steel was used) tubes of successively smaller diameter. The tube would then be heated to allow it to expand and fit over the previous tube. When it cooled the gun would contract although not back to its original size, which allowed an even pressure along the walls of the gun which was directed inward against the outward forces that the gun's firing exerted on the barrel.
Another innovative feature, more usually associated with 20th-century guns, was what Armstrong called its "grip", which was essentially a squeeze bore; the 6 inches of the bore at the muzzle end was of slightly smaller diameter, which centered the shell before it left the barrel and at the same time slightly swaged down its lead coating, reducing its diameter and slightly improving its ballistic qualities.
Armstrong's system was adopted in 1858, initially for "special service in the field" and initially he produced only smaller artillery pieces, 6-pounder (2.5 in/64 mm) mountain or light field guns, 9-pounder (3 in/76 mm) guns for horse artillery, and 12-pounder (3 inches /76 mm) field guns.
The first cannon to contain all 'modern' features is generally considered to be the French 75 of 1897. The gun used cased ammunition, was breech-loading, had modern sights, and a self-contained firing mechanism. It was the first field gun to include a hydro-pneumatic recoil mechanism, which kept the gun's trail and wheels perfectly still during the firing sequence. Since it did not need to be re-aimed after each shot, the crew could fire as soon as the barrel returned to its resting position. In typical use, the French 75 could deliver fifteen rounds per minute on its target, either shrapnel or melinite high-explosive, up to about 5 miles (8,500 m) away. Its firing rate could even reach close to 30 rounds per minute, albeit only for a very short time and with a highly experienced crew. These were rates that contemporary bolt action rifles could not match.
Indirect fire: Indirect fire, the firing of a projectile without relying on direct line of sight between the gun and the target, possibly dates back to the 16th century. Early battlefield use of indirect fire may have occurred at Paltzig in July 1759, when the Russian artillery fired over the tops of trees, and at the Battle of Waterloo, where a battery of the Royal Horse Artillery fired shrapnel indirectly against advancing French troops.
In 1882, Russian Lieutenant Colonel KG Guk published Indirect Fire for Field Artillery, which provided a practical method of using aiming points for indirect fire by describing, "all the essentials of aiming points, crest clearance, and corrections to fire by an observer".
A few years later, the Richtfläche (lining-plane) sight was invented in Germany and provided a means of indirect laying in azimuth, complementing the clinometers for indirect laying in elevation which already existed. Despite conservative opposition within the German army, indirect fire was adopted as doctrine by the 1890s. In the early 1900s, Goertz in Germany developed an optical sight for azimuth laying. It quickly replaced the lining-plane; in English, it became the 'Dial Sight' (UK) or 'Panoramic Telescope' (US).
The British halfheartedly experimented with indirect fire techniques since the 1890s, but with the onset of the Boer War, they were the first to apply the theory in practice in 1899, although they had to improvise without a lining-plane sight.
In the next 15 years leading up to World War I, the techniques of indirect fire became available for all types of artillery. Indirect fire was the defining characteristic of 20th-century artillery and led to undreamt of changes in the amount of artillery, its tactics, organisation, and techniques, most of which occurred during World War I.
An implication of indirect fire and improving guns was increasing range between gun and target, this increased the time of flight and the vertex of the trajectory. The result was decreasing accuracy (the increasing distance between the target and the mean point of impact of the shells aimed at it) caused by the increasing effects of non-standard conditions. Indirect firing data was based on standard conditions including a specific muzzle velocity, zero wind, air temperature and density, and propellant temperature. In practice, this standard combination of conditions almost never existed, they varied throughout the day and day to day, and the greater the time of flight, the greater the inaccuracy. An added complication was the need for survey to accurately fix the coordinates of the gun position and provide accurate orientation for the guns. Of course, targets had to be accurately located, but by 1916, air photo interpretation techniques enabled this, and ground survey techniques could sometimes be used.
In 1914, the methods of correcting firing data for the actual conditions were often convoluted, and the availability of data about actual conditions was rudimentary or non-existent, the assumption was that fire would always be ranged (adjusted). British heavy artillery worked energetically to progressively solve all these problems from late 1914 onwards, and by early 1918, had effective processes in place for both field and heavy artillery. These processes enabled 'map-shooting', later called 'predicted fire'; it meant that effective fire could be delivered against an accurately located target without ranging. Nevertheless, the mean point of impact was still some tens of yards from the target-centre aiming point. It was not precision fire, but it was good enough for concentrations and barrages. These processes remain in use into the 21st century with refinements to calculations enabled by computers and improved data capture about non-standard conditions.
The British Major General Henry Hugh Tudor pioneered armour and artillery cooperation at the breakthrough Battle of Cambrai. The improvements in providing and using data for non-standard conditions (propellant temperature, muzzle velocity, wind, air temperature, and barometric pressure) were developed by the major combatants throughout the war and enabled effective predicted fire. The effectiveness of this was demonstrated by the British in 1917 (at Cambrai) and by Germany the following year (Operation Michael).
Major General J.B.A. Bailey, British Army (retired) wrote:
From the middle of the eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth, artillery is judged to have accounted for perhaps 50% of battlefield casualties. In the sixty years preceding 1914, this figure was probably as low as 10 percent. The remaining 90 percent fell to small arms, whose range and accuracy had come to rival those of artillery. ... [By WWI] The British Royal Artillery, at over one million men, grew to be larger than the Royal Navy. Bellamy (1986), pp. 1–7, cites the percentage of casualties caused by artillery in various theaters since 1914: in the First World War, 45 percent of Russian casualties and 58 percent of British casualties on the Western Front; in the Second World War, 75 percent of British casualties in North Africa and 51 percent of Soviet casualties (61 percent in 1945) and 70 percent of German casualties on the Eastern Front; and in the Korean War, 60 percent of US casualties, including those inflicted by mortars.
An estimated 75,000 French soldiers were casualties of friendly artillery fire in the four years of World War I.
Precision-guidance: Modern artillery is most obviously distinguished by its long range, firing an explosive shell or rocket and a mobile carriage for firing and transport. However, its most important characteristic is the use of indirect fire, whereby the firing equipment is aimed without seeing the target through its sights. Indirect fire emerged at the beginning of the 20th century and was greatly enhanced by the development of predicted fire methods in World War I. However, indirect fire was area fire; it was and is not suitable for destroying point targets; its primary purpose is area suppression. Nevertheless, by the late 1970s precision-guided munitions started to appear, notably the US 155 mm Copperhead and its Soviet 152 mm Krasnopol equivalent that had success in Indian service. These relied on laser designation to 'illuminate' the target that the shell homed onto. However, in the early 21st century, the Global Positioning System (GPS) enabled relatively cheap and accurate guidance for shells and missiles, notably the US 155 mm Excalibur and the 227 mm GMLRS rocket. The introduction of these led to a new issue, the need for very accurate three dimensional target coordinates—the mensuration process.
Weapons covered by the term 'modern artillery' include "cannon" artillery (such as howitzer, mortar, and field gun) and rocket artillery. Certain smaller-caliber mortars are more properly designated small arms rather than artillery, albeit indirect-fire small arms. This term also came to include coastal artillery which traditionally defended coastal areas against seaborne attack and controlled the passage of ships. With the advent of powered flight at the start of the 20th century, artillery also included ground-based anti-aircraft batteries. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery | However, in the early 21st century, the Global Positioning System (GPS) enabled relatively cheap and accurate guidance for shells and missiles, notably the US 155 mm Excalibur and the 227 mm GMLRS rocket. The introduction of these led to a new issue, the need for very accurate three dimensional target coordinates—the mensuration process.
Weapons covered by the term 'modern artillery' include "cannon" artillery (such as howitzer, mortar, and field gun) and rocket artillery. Certain smaller-caliber mortars are more properly designated small arms rather than artillery, albeit indirect-fire small arms. This term also came to include coastal artillery which traditionally defended coastal areas against seaborne attack and controlled the passage of ships. With the advent of powered flight at the start of the 20th century, artillery also included ground-based anti-aircraft batteries.
The term "artillery" has traditionally not been used for projectiles with internal guidance systems, preferring the term "missilery", though some modern artillery units employ surface-to-surface missiles. Advances in terminal guidance systems for small munitions has allowed large-caliber guided projectiles to be developed, blurring this distinction. See Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF), Joint terminal attack controller
Ammunition: One of the most important roles of logistics is the supply of munitions as a primary type of artillery consumable, their storage (ammunition dump, arsenal, magazine
) and the provision of fuzes, detonators and warheads at the point where artillery troops will assemble the charge, projectile, bomb or shell.
A round of artillery ammunition comprises four components:
Fuze
Projectile
Propellant
Primer
Fuzes: Fuzes are the devices that initiate an artillery projectile, either to detonate its High Explosive (HE) filling or eject its cargo (illuminating flare or smoke canisters being examples). The official military spelling is "fuze". Broadly there are four main types:
impact (including graze and delay)
mechanical time including airburst
proximity sensor including airburst
programmable electronic detonation including airburst
Most artillery fuzes are nose fuzes. However, base fuzes have been used with armor-piercing shells and for squash head (High-Explosive Squash Head (HESH) or High Explosive, Plastic (HEP) anti-tank shells). At least one nuclear shell and its non-nuclear spotting version also used a multi-deck mechanical time fuze fitted into its base.
Impact fuzes were, and in some armies remain, the standard fuze for HE projectiles. Their default action is normally 'superquick', some have had a 'graze' action which allows them to penetrate light cover and others have 'delay'. Delay fuzes allow the shell to penetrate the ground before exploding. Armor or Concrete-Piercing (AP or CP) fuzes are specially hardened. During World War I and later, ricochet fire with delay or graze fuzed HE shells, fired with a flat angle of descent, was used to achieve airburst.
HE shells can be fitted with other fuzes. Airburst fuzes usually have a combined airburst and impact function. However, until the introduction of proximity fuzes, the airburst function was mostly used with cargo munitions—for example, shrapnel, illumination, and smoke. The larger calibers of anti-aircraft artillery are almost always used airburst. Airburst fuzes have to have the fuze length (running time) set on them. This is done just before firing using either a wrench or a fuze setter pre-set to the required fuze length.
Early airburst fuzes used igniferous timers which lasted into the second half of the 20th century. Mechanical time fuzes appeared in the early part of the century. These required a means of powering them. The Thiel mechanism used a spring and escapement (i.e. 'clockwork'), Junghans used centrifugal force and gears, and Dixi used centrifugal force and balls. From about 1980, electronic time fuzes started replacing mechanical ones for use with cargo munitions.
Proximity fuzes have been of two types: photo-electric or radar. The former was not very successful and seems only to have been used with British anti-aircraft artillery 'unrotated projectiles' (rockets) in World War II. Radar proximity fuzes were a big improvement over the mechanical (time) fuzes which they replaced. Mechanical time fuzes required an accurate calculation of their running time, which was affected by non-standard conditions. With HE (requiring a burst 20 to 30 feet (9.1 m) above the ground), if this was very slightly wrong the rounds would either hit the ground or burst too high. Accurate running time was less important with cargo munitions that burst much higher.
The first radar proximity fuzes (perhaps originally codenamed 'VT' and later called Variable Time (VT)) were invented by the British and developed by the US and initially used against aircraft in World War II. Their ground use was delayed for fear of the enemy recovering 'blinds' (artillery shells which failed to detonate) and copying the fuze. The first proximity fuzes were designed to detonate about 30 feet (9.1 m) above the ground. These air-bursts are much more lethal against personnel than ground bursts because they deliver a greater proportion of useful fragments and deliver them into terrain where a prone soldier would be protected from ground bursts.
However, proximity fuzes can suffer premature detonation because of the moisture in heavy rain clouds. This led to 'Controlled Variable Time' (CVT) after World War II. These fuzes have a mechanical timer that switched on the radar about 5 seconds before expected impact, they also detonated on impact.
The proximity fuze emerged on the battlefields of Europe in late December 1944. They have become known as the U.S. Artillery's "Christmas present", and were much appreciated when they arrived during the Battle of the Bulge. They were also used to great effect in anti-aircraft projectiles in the Pacific against kamikaze as well as in Britain against V-1 flying bombs.
Electronic multi-function fuzes started to appear around 1980. Using solid-state electronics they were relatively cheap and reliable, and became the standard fitted fuze in operational ammunition stocks in some western armies. The early versions were often limited to proximity airburst, albeit with height of burst options, and impact. Some offered a go/no-go functional test through the fuze setter.
Later versions introduced induction fuze setting and testing instead of physically placing a fuze setter on the fuze. The latest, such as Junghan's DM84U provide options giving, superquick, delay, a choice of proximity heights of burst, time and a choice of foliage penetration depths.
Projectiles: The projectile is the munition or "bullet" fired downrange. This may be an explosive device. Projectiles have traditionally been classified as "shot" or "shell", the former being solid and the latter having some form of "payload".
Shells can be divided into three configurations: bursting, base ejection or nose ejection. The latter is sometimes called the shrapnel configuration. The most modern is base ejection, which was introduced in World War I. Base and nose ejection are almost always used with airburst fuzes. Bursting shells use various types of fuze depending on the nature of the payload and the tactical need at the time.
Payloads have included:
Bursting: high-explosive, white phosphorus, coloured marker, chemical, nuclear devices; high-explosive anti-tank and canister may be considered special types of bursting shell.
Nose ejection: shrapnel, star, incendiary and flechette (a more modern version of shrapnel).
Base ejection: Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition bomblets, which arm themselves and function after a set number of rotations after having been ejected from the projectile (this produces unexploded sub-munitions, or "duds", which remain dangerous), scatterable mines, illuminating, coloured flare, smoke, incendiary, propaganda, chaff (foil to jam radars) and modern exotics such as electronic payloads and sensor-fuzed munitions.
Stabilization: Rifled: Artillery projectiles have traditionally been spin-stabilised, meaning that they spin in flight so that gyroscopic forces prevent them from tumbling. Spin is induced by gun barrels having rifling, which engages a soft metal band around the projectile, called a "driving band" (UK) or "rotating band" (U.S.). The driving band is usually made of copper, but synthetic materials have been used.
Smoothbore/fin-stabilized: In modern artillery, smoothbore barrels have been used mostly by mortars. These projectiles use fins in the airflow at their rear to maintain correct orientation. The primary benefits over rifled barrels is reduced barrel wear, longer ranges that can be achieved (due to the reduced loss of energy to friction and gas escaping around the projectile via the rifling) and larger explosive cores for a given caliber artillery due to less metal needing to be used to form the case of the projectile because of less force applied to the shell from the non-rifled sides of the barrel of smooth bore guns. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery | Spin is induced by gun barrels having rifling, which engages a soft metal band around the projectile, called a "driving band" (UK) or "rotating band" (U.S.). The driving band is usually made of copper, but synthetic materials have been used.
Smoothbore/fin-stabilized: In modern artillery, smoothbore barrels have been used mostly by mortars. These projectiles use fins in the airflow at their rear to maintain correct orientation. The primary benefits over rifled barrels is reduced barrel wear, longer ranges that can be achieved (due to the reduced loss of energy to friction and gas escaping around the projectile via the rifling) and larger explosive cores for a given caliber artillery due to less metal needing to be used to form the case of the projectile because of less force applied to the shell from the non-rifled sides of the barrel of smooth bore guns.
Rifled/fin-stabilized: A combination of the above can be used, where the barrel is rifled, but the projectile also has deployable fins for stabilization, guidance or gliding.
Propellant: Most forms of artillery require a propellant to propel the projectile to the target. Propellant is always a low explosive, which means it deflagrates, rather than detonating like high explosives. The shell is accelerated to a high velocity in a very short time by the rapid generation of gas from the burning propellant. This high pressure is achieved by burning the propellant in a contained area, either the chamber of a gun barrel or the combustion chamber of a rocket motor.
Until the late 19th century, the only available propellant was black powder. It had many disadvantages as a propellant; it has relatively low power, requiring large amounts of powder to fire projectiles, and created thick clouds of white smoke that would obscure the targets, betray the positions of guns, and make aiming impossible. In 1846, nitrocellulose (also known as guncotton) was discovered, and the high explosive nitroglycerin was discovered at nearly the same time. Nitrocellulose was significantly more powerful than black powder, and was smokeless. Early guncotton was unstable, however, and burned very fast and hot, leading to greatly increased barrel wear. Widespread introduction of smokeless powder would wait until the advent of the double-base powders, which combine nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin to produce powerful, smokeless, stable propellant.
Many other formulations were developed in the following decades, generally trying to find the optimum characteristics of a good artillery propellant – low temperature, high energy, non-corrosive, highly stable, cheap, and easy to manufacture in large quantities. Modern gun propellants are broadly divided into three classes: single-base propellants that are mainly or entirely nitrocellulose based, double-base propellants consisting of a combination of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin, and triple base composed of a combination of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin and nitroguanidine.
Artillery shells fired from a barrel can be assisted to greater range in three ways:
Rocket-assisted projectiles enhance and sustain the projectile's velocity by providing additional 'push' from a small rocket motor that is part of the projectile's base.
Base bleed uses a small pyrotechnic charge at the base of the projectile to introduce sufficient combustion products into the low-pressure region behind the base of the projectile responsible for a large proportion of the drag.
Ramjet-assisted, similar to rocket-assisted, but using a ramjet instead of a rocket motor; it is anticipated that a ramjet-assisted 120-mm mortar shell could reach a range of 22 mi (35 km).
Propelling charges for barrel artillery can be provided either as cartridge bags or in metal cartridge cases. Generally, anti-aircraft artillery and smaller-caliber (up to 3" or 76.2 mm) guns use metal cartridge cases that include the round and propellant, similar to a modern rifle cartridge. This simplifies loading and is necessary for very high rates of fire. Bagged propellant allows the amount of powder to be raised or lowered, depending on the range to the target. It also makes handling of larger shells easier. Cases and bags require totally different types of breech. A metal case holds an integral primer to initiate the propellant and provides the gas seal to prevent the gases leaking out of the breech; this is called obturation. With bagged charges, the breech itself provides obturation and holds the primer. In either case, the primer is usually percussion, but electrical is also used, and laser ignition is emerging. Modern 155 mm guns have a primer magazine fitted to their breech.
Artillery ammunition has four classifications according to use:
Service: ammunition used in live fire training or for wartime use in a combat zone. Also known as "warshot" ammunition.
Practice: Ammunition with a non- or minimally-explosive projectile that mimics the characteristics (range, accuracy) of live rounds for use under training conditions. Practice artillery ammunition often utilizes a colored-smoke-generating bursting charge for marking purposes in place of the normal high-explosive charge.
Dummy: Ammunition with an inert warhead, inert primer, and no propellant; used for training or display.
Blank: Ammunition with live primer, greatly reduced propellant charge (typically black powder), and no projectile; used for training, demonstration or ceremonial use.
Field artillery system: Because modern field artillery mostly uses indirect fire, the guns have to be part of a system that enables them to attack targets invisible to them, in accordance with the combined arms plan.
The main functions in the field artillery system are:
Communications
Command: authority to allocate resources;
Target acquisition: detect, identify and deduce the location of targets;
Control: authority to decide which targets to attack and allot fire units to the attack;
Computation of firing data – to deliver fire from a fire unit onto its target;
Fire units: guns, launchers or mortars grouped together;
Specialist services: produce data to support the production of accurate firing data;
Logistic services: to provide combat supplies, particularly ammunition, and equipment support.
All these calculations to produce a quadrant elevation (or range) and azimuth were done manually using instruments, tabulated, data of the moment, and approximations until battlefield computers started appearing in the 1960s and 1970s. While some early calculators copied the manual method (typically substituting polynomials for tabulated data), computers use a different approach. They simulate a shell's trajectory by 'flying' it in short steps and applying data about the conditions affecting the trajectory at each step. This simulation is repeated until it produces a quadrant elevation and azimuth that lands the shell within the required 'closing' distance of the target coordinates.
NATO has a standard ballistic model for computer calculations and has expanded the scope of this into the NATO Armaments Ballistic Kernel (NABK) within the SG2 Shareable (Fire Control) Software Suite (S4).
Logistics: Supply of artillery ammunition has always been a major component of military logistics. Up until World War I some armies made artillery responsible for all forward ammunition supply because the load of small arms ammunition was trivial compared to artillery. Different armies use different approaches to ammunition supply, which can vary with the nature of operations. Differences include where the logistic service transfers artillery ammunition to artillery, the amount of ammunition carried in units and extent to which stocks are held at unit or battery level. A key difference is whether supply is 'push' or 'pull'. In the former the 'pipeline' keeps pushing ammunition into formations or units at a defined rate. In the latter units fire as tactically necessary and replenish to maintain or reach their authorised holding (which can vary), so the logistic system has to be able to cope with surge and slack.
Classification: Artillery types can be categorised in several ways, for example by type or size of weapon or ordnance, by role or by organizational arrangements.
Types of ordnance: The types of cannon artillery are generally distinguished by the velocity at which they fire projectiles.
Types of artillery:
Cannon: The oldest type of artillery with direct firing trajectory.
Bombard: A type of a large calibre, muzzle-loading artillery piece, a cannon or mortar used during sieges to shoot round stone projectiles at the walls of enemy fortifications.
Falconet was a type of light cannon developed in the late 15th century that fired a smaller shot than the similar falcon.
Swivel gun is a type of small cannon mounted on a swiveling stand or fork which allows a very wide arc of movement. Camel mounted swivel guns called zamburak were used by the Gunpowder Empires as self-propelled artillery.
Volley gun is a gun with multiple single-shot barrels that volley fired simultaneously or sequentially in quick succession. Although capable of unleashing intense firepower, volley guns differ from modern machine guns in that they lack autoloading and automatic fire mechanisms
Siege artillery: Large-caliber artillery that have limited mobility with indirect firing trajectory, which was used to bombard targets at long distances.
Large-calibre artillery.
Field artillery: Mobile weapons used to support armies in the field. Subcategories include:
Infantry support guns: Directly support infantry units.
Mountain guns: Lightweight guns that can be disassembled and transported through difficult terrain.
Field guns: Capable of long-range direct fires.
Howitzers: Capable of high-angle fire, they are most often employed for indirect-fire.
Gun-howitzers: Capable of high or low-angle fire with a longer barrel. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery | Volley gun is a gun with multiple single-shot barrels that volley fired simultaneously or sequentially in quick succession. Although capable of unleashing intense firepower, volley guns differ from modern machine guns in that they lack autoloading and automatic fire mechanisms
Siege artillery: Large-caliber artillery that have limited mobility with indirect firing trajectory, which was used to bombard targets at long distances.
Large-calibre artillery.
Field artillery: Mobile weapons used to support armies in the field. Subcategories include:
Infantry support guns: Directly support infantry units.
Mountain guns: Lightweight guns that can be disassembled and transported through difficult terrain.
Field guns: Capable of long-range direct fires.
Howitzers: Capable of high-angle fire, they are most often employed for indirect-fire.
Gun-howitzers: Capable of high or low-angle fire with a longer barrel.
Mortars: Typically muzzle-loaded, short-barreled, high-trajectory weapons designed primarily for an indirect-fire role.
Gun-mortars: Typically breech-loaded, capable of high or low-angle fire with a longer barrel.
Tank guns: Large-caliber guns mounted on tanks to provide mobile direct fire.
Anti-tank artillery: Guns, usually mobile, designed primarily for direct fire to destroy armored fighting vehicles with heavy armor.
Anti-tank gun: Guns designed for direct fire to destroy tanks and other armored fighting vehicles.
Anti-aircraft artillery: Guns, usually mobile, designed for attacking aircraft by land and/or at sea. Some guns were suitable for the dual roles of anti-aircraft and anti-tank warfare.
Rocket artillery: Launches rockets or missiles, instead of shot or shell.
Railway gun: Large-caliber weapons that are mounted on, transported by and fired from specially-designed railway wagons.
Naval artillery: Guns mounted on warships to be used either against other naval vessels or to bombard coastal targets in support of ground forces. The crowning achievement of naval artillery was the battleship, but the advent of air power and missiles have rendered this type of artillery largely obsolete. They are typically longer-barreled, low-trajectory, high-velocity weapons designed primarily for a direct-fire role.
Coastal artillery: Fixed-position weapons dedicated to defense of a particular location, usually a coast (for example, the Atlantic Wall in World War II) or harbor. Not needing to be mobile, coastal artillery used to be much larger than equivalent field artillery pieces, giving them longer range and more destructive power. Modern coastal artillery (for example, Russia's "Bereg" system) is often self-propelled, (allowing it to avoid counter-battery fire) and fully integrated, meaning that each battery has all of the support systems that it requires (maintenance, targeting radar, etc.) organic to its unit.
Aircraft artillery: Large-caliber guns mounted on attack aircraft, this is typically found on slow-flying gunships.
Nuclear artillery: Artillery which fires nuclear shells.
Modern field artillery can also be split into two other subcategories: towed and self-propelled. As the name suggests, towed artillery has a prime mover, usually an artillery tractor or truck, to move the piece, crew, and ammunition around. Towed artillery is in some cases equipped with an APU for small displacements. Self-propelled artillery is permanently mounted on a carriage or vehicle with room for the crew and ammunition and is thus capable of moving quickly from one firing position to another, both to support the fluid nature of modern combat and to avoid counter-battery fire. It includes mortar carrier vehicles, many of which allow the mortar to be removed from the vehicle and be used dismounted, potentially in terrain in which the vehicle cannot navigate, or in order to avoid detection.
Organizational types: At the beginning of the modern artillery period, the late 19th century, many armies had three main types of artillery, in some case they were sub-branches within the artillery branch in others they were separate branches or corps. There were also other types excluding the armament fitted to warships:
Horse artillery, first formed as regular units in the late 18th century, with the role of supporting cavalry, they were distinguished by the entire crew being mounted.
Field or "foot" artillery, the main artillery arm of the field army, using either guns, howitzers, or mortars. In World War II this branch again started using rockets and later surface to surface missiles.
Fortress or garrison artillery, operated a nation's fixed defences using guns, howitzers or mortars, either on land or coastal frontiers. Some had deployable elements to provide heavy artillery to the field army. In some nations coast defence artillery was a naval responsibility.
Mountain artillery, a few nations treated mountain artillery as a separate branch, in others it was a speciality in another artillery branch. They used light guns or howitzers, usually designed for pack animal transport and easily broken down into small easily handled loads
Naval artillery, some nations carried pack artillery on some warships, these were used and manhandled by naval (or marine) landing parties. At times, part of a ship's armament would be unshipped and mated to makeshift carriages and limbers for actions ashore, for example during the Second Boer War, during the First World War the guns from the stricken SMS Königsberg formed the main artillery strength of the German forces in East Africa.
After World War I many nations merged these different artillery branches, in some cases keeping some as sub-branches. Naval artillery disappeared apart from that belonging to marines. However, two new branches of artillery emerged during that war and its aftermath, both used specialised guns (and a few rockets) and used direct not indirect fire, in the 1950s and 1960s both started to make extensive use of missiles:
Anti-tank artillery, also under various organisational arrangements but typically either field artillery or a specialist branch and additional elements integral to infantry, etc., units. However, in most armies field and anti-aircraft artillery also had at least a secondary anti-tank role. After World War II anti-tank in Western armies became mostly the responsibility of infantry and armoured branches and ceased to be an artillery matter, with some exceptions.
Anti-aircraft artillery, under various organisational arrangements including being part of artillery, a separate corps, even a separate service or being split between army for the field and air force for home defence. In some cases infantry and the new armoured corps also operated their own integral light anti-aircraft artillery. Home defence anti-aircraft artillery often used fixed as well as mobile mountings. Some anti-aircraft guns could also be used as field or anti-tank artillery, providing they had suitable sights.
However, the general switch by artillery to indirect fire before and during World War I led to a reaction in some armies. The result was accompanying or infantry guns. These were usually small, short range guns, that could be easily man-handled and used mostly for direct fire but some could use indirect fire. Some were operated by the artillery branch but under command of the supported unit. In World War II they were joined by self-propelled assault guns, although other armies adopted infantry or close support tanks in armoured branch units for the same purpose, subsequently tanks generally took on the accompanying role.
Equipment types: The three main types of artillery "gun" are field guns, howitzers, and mortars. During the 20th century, guns and howitzers have steadily merged in artillery use, making a distinction between the terms somewhat meaningless. By the end of the 20th century, true guns with calibers larger than about 60 mm have become very rare in artillery use, the main users being tanks, ships, and a few residual anti-aircraft and coastal guns. The term "cannon" is a United States generic term that includes guns, howitzers, and mortars; it is not used in other English speaking armies.
The traditional definitions differentiated between guns and howitzers in terms of maximum elevation (well less than 45° as opposed to close to or greater than 45°), number of charges (one or more than one charge), and having higher or lower muzzle velocity, sometimes indicated by barrel length. These three criteria give eight possible combinations, of which guns and howitzers are but two. However, modern "howitzers" have higher velocities and longer barrels than the equivalent "guns" of the first half of the 20th century.
True guns are characterized by long range, having a maximum elevation significantly less than 45°, a high muzzle velocity and hence a relatively long barrel, smooth bore (no rifling) and a single charge. The latter often led to fixed ammunition where the projectile is locked to the cartridge case. There is no generally accepted minimum muzzle velocity or barrel length associated with a gun.
Howitzers can fire at maximum elevations at least close to 45°; elevations up to about 70° are normal for modern howitzers. Howitzers also have a choice of charges, meaning that the same elevation angle of fire will achieve a different range depending on the charge used. They have rifled bores, lower muzzle velocities and shorter barrels than equivalent guns. All this means they can deliver fire with a steep angle of descent. Because of their multi-charge capability, their ammunition is mostly separate loading (the projectile and propellant are loaded separately).
That leaves six combinations of the three criteria, some of which have been termed gun howitzers. A term first used in the 1930s when howitzers with a relatively high maximum muzzle velocities were introduced, it never became widely accepted, most armies electing to widen the definition of "gun" or "howitzer". |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery | Howitzers can fire at maximum elevations at least close to 45°; elevations up to about 70° are normal for modern howitzers. Howitzers also have a choice of charges, meaning that the same elevation angle of fire will achieve a different range depending on the charge used. They have rifled bores, lower muzzle velocities and shorter barrels than equivalent guns. All this means they can deliver fire with a steep angle of descent. Because of their multi-charge capability, their ammunition is mostly separate loading (the projectile and propellant are loaded separately).
That leaves six combinations of the three criteria, some of which have been termed gun howitzers. A term first used in the 1930s when howitzers with a relatively high maximum muzzle velocities were introduced, it never became widely accepted, most armies electing to widen the definition of "gun" or "howitzer". By the 1960s, most equipment had maximum elevations up to about 70°, were multi-charge, had quite high maximum muzzle velocities and relatively long barrels.
Mortars are simpler. The modern mortar originated in World War I and there were several patterns. After that war, most mortars settled on the Stokes pattern, characterized by a short barrel, smooth bore, low muzzle velocity, elevation angle of firing generally greater than 45°, and a very simple and light mounting using a "baseplate" on the ground. The projectile with its integral propelling charge was dropped down the barrel from the muzzle to hit a fixed firing pin. Since that time, a few mortars have become rifled and adopted breech loading.
There are other recognized typifying characteristics for artillery. One such characteristic is the type of obturation used to seal the chamber and prevent gases escaping through the breech. This may use a metal cartridge case that also holds the propelling charge, a configuration called "QF" or "quickfiring" by some nations. The alternative does not use a metal cartridge case, the propellant being merely bagged or in combustible cases with the breech itself providing all the sealing. This is called "BL" or "breech loading" by some nations.
A second characteristic is the form of propulsion. Modern equipment can either be towed or self-propelled (SP). A towed gun fires from the ground and any inherent protection is limited to a gun shield. Towing by horse teams lasted throughout World War II in some armies, but others were fully mechanized with wheeled or tracked gun towing vehicles by the outbreak of that war. The size of a towing vehicle depends on the weight of the equipment and the amount of ammunition it has to carry.
A variation of towed is portee, where the vehicle carries the gun which is dismounted for firing. Mortars are often carried this way. A mortar is sometimes carried in an armored vehicle and can either fire from it or be dismounted to fire from the ground. Since the early 1960s it has been possible to carry lighter towed guns and most mortars by helicopter. Even before that, they were parachuted or landed by glider from the time of the first airborne trials in the USSR in the 1930s.
In SP equipment, the gun is an integral part of the vehicle that carries it. SPs first appeared during World War I, but did not really develop until World War II. They are mostly tracked vehicles, but wheeled SPs started to appear in the 1970s. Some SPs have no armor and carry few or no other weapons and ammunition. Armored SPs usually carry a useful ammunition load. Early armored SPs were mostly a "casemate" configuration, in essence an open top armored box offering only limited traverse. However, most modern armored SPs have a full enclosed armored turret, usually giving full traverse for the gun. Many SPs cannot fire without deploying stabilizers or spades, sometimes hydraulic. A few SPs are designed so that the recoil forces of the gun are transferred directly onto the ground through a baseplate. A few towed guns have been given limited self-propulsion by means of an auxiliary engine.
Two other forms of tactical propulsion were used in the first half of the 20th century: Railways or transporting the equipment by road, as two or three separate loads, with disassembly and re-assembly at the beginning and end of the journey. Railway artillery took two forms, railway mountings for heavy and super-heavy guns and howitzers and armored trains as "fighting vehicles" armed with light artillery in a direct fire role. Disassembled transport was also used with heavy and super heavy weapons and lasted into the 1950s.
Caliber categories: A third form of artillery typing is to classify it as "light", "medium", "heavy" and various other terms. It appears to have been introduced in World War I, which spawned a very wide array of artillery in all sorts of sizes so a simple categorical system was needed. Some armies defined these categories by bands of calibers. Different bands were used for different types of weapons—field guns, mortars, anti-aircraft guns and coastal guns.
Modern operations: List of countries in order of amount of artillery (only conventional barrel ordnance is given, in use with land forces):
Artillery is used in a variety of roles depending on its type and caliber. The general role of artillery is to provide fire support—"the application of fire, coordinated with the manoeuvre of forces to destroy, neutralize or suppress the enemy". This NATO definition makes artillery a supporting arm although not all NATO armies agree with this logic. The italicised terms are NATO's.
Unlike rockets, guns (or howitzers as some armies still call them) and mortars are suitable for delivering close supporting fire. However, they are all suitable for providing deep supporting fire although the limited range of many mortars tends to exclude them from the role. Their control arrangements and limited range also mean that mortars are most suited to direct supporting fire. Guns are used either for this or general supporting fire while rockets are mostly used for the latter. However, lighter rockets may be used for direct fire support. These rules of thumb apply to NATO armies.
Modern mortars, because of their lighter weight and simpler, more transportable design, are usually an integral part of infantry and, in some armies, armour units. This means they generally do not have to concentrate their fire so their shorter range is not a disadvantage. Some armies also consider infantry operated mortars to be more responsive than artillery, but this is a function of the control arrangements and not the case in all armies. However, mortars have always been used by artillery units and remain with them in many armies, including a few in NATO.
In NATO armies artillery is usually assigned a tactical mission that establishes its relationship and responsibilities to the formation or units it is assigned to. It seems that not all NATO nations use the terms and outside NATO others are probably used. The standard terms are: direct support, general support, general support reinforcing and reinforcing. These tactical missions are in the context of the command authority: operational command, operational control, tactical command or tactical control.
In NATO direct support generally means that the directly supporting artillery unit provides observers and liaison to the manoeuvre troops being supported, typically an artillery battalion or equivalent is assigned to a brigade and its batteries to the brigade's battalions. However, some armies achieve this by placing the assigned artillery units under command of the directly supported formation. Nevertheless, the batteries' fire can be concentrated onto a single target, as can the fire of units in range and with the other tactical missions.
Application of fire: There are several dimensions to this subject. The first is the notion that fire may be against an opportunity target or may be arranged. If it is the latter it may be either on-call or scheduled. Arranged targets may be part of a fire plan. Fire may be either observed or unobserved, if the former it may be adjusted, if the latter then it has to be predicted. Observation of adjusted fire may be directly by a forward observer or indirectly via some other target acquisition system.
NATO also recognises several different types of fire support for tactical purposes:
Counterbattery fire: delivered for the purpose of destroying or neutralizing the enemy's fire support system.
Counterpreparation fire: intensive prearranged fire delivered when the imminence of the enemy attack is discovered.
Covering fire: used to protect troops when they are within range of enemy small arms.
Defensive fire: delivered by supporting units to assist and protect a unit engaged in a defensive action.
Final Protective Fire: an immediately available prearranged barrier of fire designed to impede enemy movement across defensive lines or areas.
Harassing fire: a random number of shells are fired at random intervals, without any pattern to it that the enemy can predict. This process is designed to hinder enemy forces' movement, and, by the constantly imposed stress, threat of losses and inability of enemy forces to relax or sleep, lowers their morale.
Interdiction fire: placed on an area or point to prevent the enemy from using the area or point.
Preparation fire: delivered before an attack to weaken the enemy position.
These purposes have existed for most of the 20th century, although their definitions have evolved and will continue to do so, lack of suppression in counterbattery is an omission. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery | Covering fire: used to protect troops when they are within range of enemy small arms.
Defensive fire: delivered by supporting units to assist and protect a unit engaged in a defensive action.
Final Protective Fire: an immediately available prearranged barrier of fire designed to impede enemy movement across defensive lines or areas.
Harassing fire: a random number of shells are fired at random intervals, without any pattern to it that the enemy can predict. This process is designed to hinder enemy forces' movement, and, by the constantly imposed stress, threat of losses and inability of enemy forces to relax or sleep, lowers their morale.
Interdiction fire: placed on an area or point to prevent the enemy from using the area or point.
Preparation fire: delivered before an attack to weaken the enemy position.
These purposes have existed for most of the 20th century, although their definitions have evolved and will continue to do so, lack of suppression in counterbattery is an omission. Broadly they can be defined as either:
Deep supporting fire: directed at objectives not in the immediate vicinity of own force, for neutralizing or destroying enemy reserves and weapons, and interfering with enemy command, supply, communications and observation; or
Close supporting fire: placed on enemy troops, weapons or positions which, because of their proximity present the most immediate and serious threat to the supported unit.
Two other NATO terms also need definition:
Neutralization fire: delivered to render a target temporarily ineffective or unusable; and
Suppression fire: that degrades the performance of a target below the level needed to fulfill its mission. Suppression is usually only effective for the duration of the fire.
The tactical purposes also include various "mission verbs", a rapidly expanding subject with the modern concept of "effects based operations".
Targeting is the process of selecting target and matching the appropriate response to them taking account of operational requirements and capabilities. It requires consideration of the type of fire support required and the extent of coordination with the supported arm. It involves decisions about:
what effects are required, for example, neutralization or suppression;
the proximity of and risks to own troops or non-combatants;
what types of munitions, including their fuzing, are to be used and in what quantities;
when the targets should be attacked and possibly for how long;
what methods should be used, for example, converged or distributed, whether adjustment is permissible or surprise essential, the need for special procedures such as precision or danger close
how many fire units are needed and which ones they should be from those that are available (in range, with the required munitions type and quantity, not allotted to another target, have the most suitable line of fire if there is a risk to own troops or non-combatants);
The targeting process is the key aspect of tactical fire control. Depending on the circumstances and national procedures it may all be undertaken in one place or may be distributed. In armies practicing control from the front, most of the process may be undertaken by a forward observer or other target acquirer. This is particularly the case for a smaller target requiring only a few fire units. The extent to which the process is formal or informal and makes use of computer based systems, documented norms or experience and judgement also varies widely armies and other circumstances.
Surprise may be essential or irrelevant. It depends on what effects are required and whether or not the target is likely to move or quickly improve its protective posture. During World War II UK researchers concluded that for impact fuzed munitions the relative risk were as follows:
men standing – 1
men lying – 1/3
men firing from trenches – 1/15–1/50
men crouching in trenches – 1/25–1/100
Airburst munitions significantly increase the relative risk for lying men, etc. Historically most casualties occur in the first 10–15 seconds of fire, i.e. the time needed to react and improve protective posture, however, this is less relevant if airburst is used.
There are several ways of making best use of this brief window of maximum vulnerability:
ordering the guns to fire together, either by executive order or by a "fire at" time. The disadvantage is that if the fire is concentrated from many dispersed fire units then there will be different times of flight and the first rounds will be spread in time. To some extent a large concentration offsets the problem because it may mean that only one round is required from each gun and most of these could arrive in the 15 second window.
burst fire, a rate of fire to deliver three rounds from each gun within 10 or 15 seconds, this reduces the number of guns and hence fire units needed, which means they may be less dispersed and have less variation in their times of flight. Smaller caliber guns, such as 105 mm, have always been able to deliver three rounds in 15 seconds, larger calibers firing fixed rounds could also do it but it was not until the 1970s that a multi-charge 155 mm howitzer, FH-70 first gained the capability.
multiple round simultaneous impact (MRSI), where a single weapon or multiple individual weapons fire multiple rounds at differing trajectories so that all rounds arrive on target at the same time.
time on target, fire units fire at the time less their time of flight, this works well with prearranged scheduled fire but is less satisfactory for opportunity targets because it means delaying the delivery of fire by selecting a 'safe' time that all or most fire units can achieve. It can be used with both the previous two methods.
Counter-battery fire: Modern counter-battery fire developed in World War I, with the objective of defeating the enemy's artillery. Typically such fire was used to suppress enemy batteries when they were or were about to interfere with the activities of friendly forces (such as to prevent enemy defensive artillery fire against an impending attack) or to systematically destroy enemy guns. In World War I the latter required air observation. The first indirect counter-battery fire was in May 1900 by an observer in a balloon.
Enemy artillery can be detected in two ways, either by direct observation of the guns from the air or by ground observers (including specialist reconnaissance), or from their firing signatures. This includes radars tracking the shells in flight to determine their place of origin, sound ranging detecting guns firing and resecting their position from pairs of microphones or cross-observation of gun flashes using observation by human observers or opto-electronic devices, although the widespread adoption of 'flashless' propellant limited the effectiveness of the latter.
Once hostile batteries have been detected they may be engaged immediately by friendly artillery or later at an optimum time, depending on the tactical situation and the counter-battery policy. Air strike is another option. In some situations the task is to locate all active enemy batteries for attack using a counter-battery fire at the appropriate moment in accordance with a plan developed by artillery intelligence staff. In other situations counter-battery fire may occur whenever a battery is located with sufficient accuracy.
Modern counter-battery target acquisition uses unmanned aircraft, counter-battery radar, ground reconnaissance and sound-ranging. Counter-battery fire may be adjusted by some of the systems, for example the operator of an unmanned aircraft can 'follow' a battery if it moves. Defensive measures by batteries include frequently changing position or constructing defensive earthworks, the tunnels used by North Korea being an extreme example. Counter-measures include air defence against aircraft and attacking counter-battery radars physically and electronically.
Field artillery team: 'Field Artillery Team' is a US term and the following description and terminology applies to the US, other armies are broadly similar but differ in significant details. Modern field artillery (post–World War I) has three distinct parts: the Forward Observer (FO), the Fire Direction Center (FDC) and the actual guns themselves. The forward observer observes the target using tools such as binoculars, laser rangefinders, designators and call back fire missions on his radio, or relays the data through a portable computer via an encrypted digital radio connection protected from jamming by computerized frequency hopping. A lesser known part of the team is the FAS or Field Artillery Survey team which sets up the "Gun Line" for the cannons. Today most artillery battalions use an "Aiming Circle" which allows for faster setup and more mobility. FAS teams are still used for checks and balances purposes and if a gun battery has issues with the "Aiming Circle" a FAS team will do it for them.
The FO can communicate directly with the battery FDC, of which there is one per each battery of 4–8 guns. Otherwise the several FOs communicate with a higher FDC such as at a Battalion level, and the higher FDC prioritizes the targets and allocates fires to individual batteries as needed to engage the targets that are spotted by the FOs or to perform preplanned fires.
The Battery FDC computes firing data—ammunition to be used, powder charge, fuse settings, the direction to the target, and the quadrant elevation to be fired at to reach the target, what gun will fire any rounds needed for adjusting on the target, and the number of rounds to be fired on the target by each gun once the target has been accurately located—to the guns. Traditionally this data is relayed via radio or wire communications as a warning order to the guns, followed by orders specifying the type of ammunition and fuse setting, direction, and the elevation needed to reach the target, and the method of adjustment or orders for fire for effect (FFE). However, in more advanced artillery units, this data is relayed through a digital radio link. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery | The Battery FDC computes firing data—ammunition to be used, powder charge, fuse settings, the direction to the target, and the quadrant elevation to be fired at to reach the target, what gun will fire any rounds needed for adjusting on the target, and the number of rounds to be fired on the target by each gun once the target has been accurately located—to the guns. Traditionally this data is relayed via radio or wire communications as a warning order to the guns, followed by orders specifying the type of ammunition and fuse setting, direction, and the elevation needed to reach the target, and the method of adjustment or orders for fire for effect (FFE). However, in more advanced artillery units, this data is relayed through a digital radio link.
Other parts of the field artillery team include meteorological analysis to determine the temperature, humidity and pressure of the air and wind direction and speed at different altitudes. Also radar is used both for determining the location of enemy artillery and mortar batteries and to determine the precise actual strike points of rounds fired by battery and comparing that location with what was expected to compute a registration allowing future rounds to be fired with much greater accuracy.
Time on target: A technique called time on target (TOT) was developed by the British Army in North Africa at the end of 1941 and early 1942 particularly for counter-battery fire and other concentrations, it proved very popular. It relied on BBC time signals to enable officers to synchronize their watches to the second because this avoided the need to use military radio networks and the possibility of losing surprise, and the need for field telephone networks in the desert. With this technique the time of flight from each fire unit (battery or troop) to the target is taken from the range or firing tables, or the computer and each engaging fire unit subtracts its time of flight from the TOT to determine the time to fire. An executive order to fire is given to all guns in the fire unit at the correct moment to fire. When each fire unit fires their rounds at their individual firing time all the opening rounds will reach the target area almost simultaneously. This is especially effective when combined with techniques that allow fires for effect to be made without preliminary adjusting fires.
Multiple round simultaneous impact: Multiple round simultaneous impact (MRSI) is a modern version of the earlier time on target concept. MRSI is when a single gun fires multiple shells so all arrive at the same target simultaneously. This is possible because there is more than one trajectory for a round to fly to any given target. Typically one is below 45 degrees from horizontal and the other is above it, and by using different sized propellant charges with each shell, it is possible to utilize more than two trajectories. Because the higher trajectories cause the shells to arc higher into the air, they take longer to reach the target. If shells are fired on higher trajectories for initial volleys (starting with the shell with the most propellant and working down) and later volleys are fired on the lower trajectories, with the correct timing the shells will all arrive at the same target simultaneously. This is useful because many more shells can land on the target with no warning. With traditional methods of firing, the target area may have time (however long it takes to reload and re-fire the guns) to take cover between volleys. However, guns capable of burst fire can deliver multiple rounds in a few seconds if they use the same firing data for each, and if guns in more than one location are firing on one target they can use Time on Target procedures so that all their shells arrive at the same time and target.
MRSI has a few prerequisites. The first is guns with a high rate of fire. The second is the ability to use different sized propellant charges. Third is a fire control computer that has the ability to compute MRSI volleys and the capability to produce firing data, sent to each gun, and then presented to the gun commander in the correct order. The number of rounds that can be delivered in MRSI depends primarily on the range to the target and the rate of fire. To allow the most shells to reach the target, the target has to be in range of the lowest propellant charge.
Examples of guns with a rate of fire that makes them suitable for MRSI includes UK's AS-90, South Africa's Denel G6-52 (which can land six rounds simultaneously at targets at least 25 km (16 mi) away), Germany's Panzerhaubitze 2000 (which can land five rounds simultaneously at targets at least 17 km (11 mi) away), Slovakia's 155 mm SpGH ZUZANA model 2000, and K9 Thunder.
The Archer project (developed by BAE-Systems Bofors in Sweden) is a 155 mm howitzer on a wheeled chassis which is claimed to be able to deliver up to six shells on target simultaneously from the same gun. The 120 mm twin barrel AMOS mortar system, joint developed by Hägglunds (Sweden) and Patria (Finland), is capable of 7 + 7 shells MRSI. The United States Crusader program (now cancelled) was slated to have MRSI capability. It is unclear how many fire control computers have the necessary capabilities.
Two-round MRSI firings were a popular artillery demonstration in the 1960s, where well trained detachments could show off their skills for spectators.
Air burst: The destructiveness of artillery bombardments can be enhanced when some or all of the shells are set for airburst, meaning that they explode in the air above the target instead of upon impact. This can be accomplished either through time fuzes or proximity fuzes. Time fuzes use a precise timer to detonate the shell after a preset delay. This technique is tricky and slight variations in the functioning of the fuze can cause it to explode too high and be ineffective, or to strike the ground instead of exploding above it. Since December 1944 (Battle of the Bulge), proximity fuzed artillery shells have been available that take the guesswork out of this process. These employ a miniature, low powered radar transmitter in the fuze to detect the ground and explode them at a predetermined height above it. The return of the weak radar signal completes an electrical circuit in the fuze which explodes the shell. The proximity fuze itself was developed by the British to increase the effectiveness of anti-aircraft warfare.
This is a very effective tactic against infantry and light vehicles, because it scatters the fragmentation of the shell over a larger area and prevents it from being blocked by terrain or entrenchments that do not include some form of robust overhead cover. Combined with TOT or MRSI tactics that give no warning of the incoming rounds, these rounds are especially devastating because many enemy soldiers are likely to be caught in the open; even more so if the attack is launched against an assembly area or troops moving in the open rather than a unit in an entrenched tactical position.
Use in monuments: Numerous war memorials around the world incorporate an artillery piece that was used in the war or battle commemorated.
See also:
References:
Notes:
Bibliography: Browne, J.P.R.; Thurbon, M T (1998). Electronic Warfare. Brassey's air power, v. 4. London: Brassey's. ISBN 978-1-85753-133-6. OCLC 38292289.
Hackett, James, ed. (2010), The Military Balance, The International Institute for Strategic Studies
Holmes, Richard (1988). The World Atlas of Warfare: Military Innovations that Changed the Course of History. New York: Viking Studio Books. ISBN 978-0-670-81967-6. OCLC 17840438.
McCamley, N.J. (2004). Disasters Underground. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 978-1-84415-022-9. OCLC 53241739.
McNaughton, Andrew (January 1929). "The Development of Artillery in the Great War". Canadian Defence Quarterly. 6 (2).
Ordway, Frederick I (July 1970). "History of Astronautics Symposium: Mar Del Plata, Argentina, October 1969". Technology and Culture. 11 (3): 407–416. doi:10.2307/3102202. ISSN 0040-165X. JSTOR 3102202. S2CID 113141625.
Schmidtchen, Volker (1977). "Riesengeschütze des 15. Jahrhunderts. Technische Höchstleistungen ihrer Zeit" [Giant cannon of the 15th century: technical masterpieces of their era]. Technikgeschichte (in German). 44 (2): 153–73 (162–64). OCLC 85351643.
Interavia. 32. International Aeronautic Federation: 262. January–June 1977. ISSN 0020-5168. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Further reading: Hogg, Oliver Frederick Gillilan (1970). Artillery: Its Origin, Heyday and Decline. London: C. Hurst. ISBN 978-0-900966-43-9. OCLC 99454.
Bailey, J.B.A. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery | "Riesengeschütze des 15. Jahrhunderts. Technische Höchstleistungen ihrer Zeit" [Giant cannon of the 15th century: technical masterpieces of their era]. Technikgeschichte (in German). 44 (2): 153–73 (162–64). OCLC 85351643.
Interavia. 32. International Aeronautic Federation: 262. January–June 1977. ISSN 0020-5168. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Further reading: Hogg, Oliver Frederick Gillilan (1970). Artillery: Its Origin, Heyday and Decline. London: C. Hurst. ISBN 978-0-900966-43-9. OCLC 99454.
Bailey, J.B.A. (2004). Field Artillery and Firepower. AUSA Institute of Land Warfare book. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-59114-029-0. OCLC 51931033.
External links:
Naval Weapons of the World
Cannon Artillery – The Voice of Freedom's Thunder
Modern Artillery Archived May 4, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
What sort of forensic information can be derived from the analysis of shell fragments Archived August 9, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
Evans, Nigel F. (2001–2007) "British Artillery in World War 2"
Artillery Tactics and Combat during the Napoleonic Wars
Artillery of Napoleon's Imperial Guard
French artillery and its ammunition. 14th to the end of the 19th century
Historic films showing artillery in World War I at europeanfilmgateway.eu
Video: Inside shrieking shrapnel. Hear the great sound of shrapnel's – Finnish field artillery fire video year 2013
Video: Forensic and archaeological interpretation of artillery shell fragments and shrapnel
"Ordnance" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 20 (11th ed.). 1911. pp. 189–235. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery observer | History: Historically, the range of artillery steadily increased over the centuries. In the era of bombards or Steinbüchse, the gunner could usually still fire directly on the target by line-of-sight. As ranges increased, methods of employing indirect fire were developed. This made a forward observer essential in order to be able to use artillery effectively. The proximity of the observer to the target depended on the terrain and battlefield situation. Elevated observation posts could be used as an aid to facilitate communication between the guns and the observers. The development of optical and communication aids for observation advanced significantly in the First and Second World Wars. In the 21st century, Joint Tactical Fire Support observers emerged usually using sophisticated communications engineering systems.
Description: Because artillery is an indirect fire weapon system, the guns are rarely in line-of-sight of their target, often located miles away. The observer serves as the eyes of the guns, by sending target locations and if necessary corrections to the fall of shot, usually by radio. Equipment used in the observer role ranges from binoculars to laser rangefinders to unmanned aerial vehicles. When attached to a special forces unit, an artillery observer is often tasked with coordinating fire from long-range artillery guns against high-value targets such as enemy headquarters. This is in contrast to an artillery observer's typical work with field/line artillery, which works in support of its own combat group. Such patrols may also form into 'stay behind' parties which deliberately hide in special observation hides as the main force fights a withdrawal.
Broadly, there are two very different approaches to artillery observation. Either the observer has command authority and orders fire, including the type and amount of ammunition to be fired, to batteries. Or the observer requests fire from an artillery headquarters at some level, which decides if fire will be provided, by which batteries, and the type and amount of ammunition to be provided. The first is characterized by the British, the second by the United States. In World War II both Germany and the Soviet Union tended towards the British method. In the British system, the observer sends a fire order to their own and any other batteries authorized to them, and may request fire from additional batteries. Each battery command post converts the fire orders into firing data for its own guns. Until post-World War II the observer would usually order actual firing data to the guns of their own troop, this was enabled by the use of calibrating sights on the guns.
In the U.S. system, the observer sends a request for fire, usually to their battalion or battery Fire Direction Center (FDC). The FDC then decides how much fire to permit and may request additional fire from a higher artillery headquarters. FDC(s) convert the observer's target information into firing data for the battery's weapons. The equivalent of an artillery observer for close air support is a forward air controller, while for the equivalent for naval gunfire support is a spotter. For general fire support, the position is known as a fire support specialist (FiSTer) or simply an observer.
U.S. Army / U.S. Marine Corps: In the U.S. Army, a Light, Heavy, or Stryker Infantry company Fire Support Team (FIST) consists of a Fire Support Officer (FSO), a Fire Support Sergeant, three Forward Observers (FO), two Fire Support Specialists and three Radio Telephone Operators (RTO). Armored/Cavalry FIST teams usually consist of just one FSO and three enlisted personnel. Brigade COLT teams operate in groups of two individuals, a Fire support specialist in the grade of E-1 to E-4 and a Fire Support Sergeant in the grade of E-5. Currently in unit training is beginning to incorporate more close air support and close combat attack missions into the field artillery team's mission.
In the U.S. Marine Corps, scout observers also act as naval gunfire spotters and call for, observe and adjust artillery and naval gunfire support, and coordinate fire support assets to include mortars, rockets, artillery, NSFS and CAS/CIFS. A rifle company Fire Support Team typically consists of a Fire Support Officer (FSO), Forward Air Controller (FAC) or Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC), two scout observers (FO), and two radio operators (RO). In Weapons Company, the Fire Support Coordination Center (FSCC) determines fire support asset allocation to each rifle company FiST, and supervises the planning and execution of each FiST's fire support plan. Key players in the FSCC include the Fire Support Coordinator (FSC), Battalion Fire Support Officer (FSO), and Battalion Air Officer (Air-O).
British Forward Observation Officer: For centuries the Battery Commander had been responsible for controlling the fire of their battery. This continued with the introduction of indirect fire in the early years of the 20th Century. However, the First World War introduced 24 hour, seven days a week fighting. Furthermore, indirect fire had increased the distance between the guns and their targets, and between the observers and their guns. This led to the use of observing officers to act on behalf of the battery commander. In the 1938 re-organization of the Royal Artillery batteries were divided into troops, with the troop commanders (Captains) as observing officers at an (OP). These officers and their parties could operate as either as an Observation Post (OP) or accompany the supported arm (infantry or armour) as Forward Observation Officers (FOOs). During World War II it became the practice for close support battery commanders to become part of the tank regiment or infantry battalion headquarters they were supporting. They also started using 'quick fireplans' usually limited to their own regiment, to support fast moving limited battalion actions.
Generally FOOs were assigned to a company or squadron of a battalion or regiment that their battery was supporting. In the British artillery system FOOs were always authorized to order fire commands to their own troop or battery, based on their assessment of the tactical situation and if necessary liaison with the supported arm commander.
From mid World War II some artillery observers were authorized to order fire to all batteries of their regiment, it also became the practice for some observers to be designated 'Commander's Representative' able to order fire to a divisional or corps artillery. Unauthorized officers could request fire from more than their own battery. During that war it also became the practice that FOOs arranged quick fireplans comprising several coordinated targets engaged by guns and mortars to support short offensive actions by the squadron or company they were with.
In World War II OP/FOO parties were normally mounted in an armored carrier, although those assigned to support armored brigades usually had a tank – initially a Stuart but in NW Europe usually a Sherman. Tanks continued to be used by some observers until about 1975. In 2002 the British Army adopted the term Fire Support Team (FST) for its observation parties, including FACs under control of the artillery officer commanding the FST.
A functionally similar title is a mortar fire controller (MFC). An MFC is an infantry NCO who is part of their battalion's mortar platoon. He controls platoon's fire in the same way as an FOO. The introduction of FSTs places MFCs under tactical control of the FST commander.
Training, enabled by simulators, allows most soldiers to observe artillery fire, which has long been possible via a FOO.
Air observation post: The Royal Flying Corps and Royal Air Force had been responsible reporting targets and observation of fire in World War I, this role was subsequently called 'Arty/R, but proved difficult from high performance aircraft over hostile territory in World War II. In 1940 it was agreed that RAF AOP squadrons equipped with light aircraft, operating at low altitude over friendly territory and flown by Royal Artillery officers would be formed. These squadrons existed until the formation of the Army Air Corps in 1957.
Use of unmanned aerial vehicles: Since the development of small unmanned aerial vehicles, they have been used for identifying targets, spotting fall of shot, and correcting aim. Operators are usually relatively close to the target, behind enemy lines, and subject to attack.
See also: Field artillery team
Fire support team
Forward air control
Observation balloon
References:
U.S. Army FM 6-30
U.S. Army FM 22-100
U.S. Army FM 3-09.30 |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Artillery spotting | History: Historically, the range of artillery steadily increased over the centuries. In the era of bombards or Steinbüchse, the gunner could usually still fire directly on the target by line-of-sight. As ranges increased, methods of employing indirect fire were developed. This made a forward observer essential in order to be able to use artillery effectively. The proximity of the observer to the target depended on the terrain and battlefield situation. Elevated observation posts could be used as an aid to facilitate communication between the guns and the observers. The development of optical and communication aids for observation advanced significantly in the First and Second World Wars. In the 21st century, Joint Tactical Fire Support observers emerged usually using sophisticated communications engineering systems.
Description: Because artillery is an indirect fire weapon system, the guns are rarely in line-of-sight of their target, often located miles away. The observer serves as the eyes of the guns, by sending target locations and if necessary corrections to the fall of shot, usually by radio. Equipment used in the observer role ranges from binoculars to laser rangefinders to unmanned aerial vehicles. When attached to a special forces unit, an artillery observer is often tasked with coordinating fire from long-range artillery guns against high-value targets such as enemy headquarters. This is in contrast to an artillery observer's typical work with field/line artillery, which works in support of its own combat group. Such patrols may also form into 'stay behind' parties which deliberately hide in special observation hides as the main force fights a withdrawal.
Broadly, there are two very different approaches to artillery observation. Either the observer has command authority and orders fire, including the type and amount of ammunition to be fired, to batteries. Or the observer requests fire from an artillery headquarters at some level, which decides if fire will be provided, by which batteries, and the type and amount of ammunition to be provided. The first is characterized by the British, the second by the United States. In World War II both Germany and the Soviet Union tended towards the British method. In the British system, the observer sends a fire order to their own and any other batteries authorized to them, and may request fire from additional batteries. Each battery command post converts the fire orders into firing data for its own guns. Until post-World War II the observer would usually order actual firing data to the guns of their own troop, this was enabled by the use of calibrating sights on the guns.
In the U.S. system, the observer sends a request for fire, usually to their battalion or battery Fire Direction Center (FDC). The FDC then decides how much fire to permit and may request additional fire from a higher artillery headquarters. FDC(s) convert the observer's target information into firing data for the battery's weapons. The equivalent of an artillery observer for close air support is a forward air controller, while for the equivalent for naval gunfire support is a spotter. For general fire support, the position is known as a fire support specialist (FiSTer) or simply an observer.
U.S. Army / U.S. Marine Corps: In the U.S. Army, a Light, Heavy, or Stryker Infantry company Fire Support Team (FIST) consists of a Fire Support Officer (FSO), a Fire Support Sergeant, three Forward Observers (FO), two Fire Support Specialists and three Radio Telephone Operators (RTO). Armored/Cavalry FIST teams usually consist of just one FSO and three enlisted personnel. Brigade COLT teams operate in groups of two individuals, a Fire support specialist in the grade of E-1 to E-4 and a Fire Support Sergeant in the grade of E-5. Currently in unit training is beginning to incorporate more close air support and close combat attack missions into the field artillery team's mission.
In the U.S. Marine Corps, scout observers also act as naval gunfire spotters and call for, observe and adjust artillery and naval gunfire support, and coordinate fire support assets to include mortars, rockets, artillery, NSFS and CAS/CIFS. A rifle company Fire Support Team typically consists of a Fire Support Officer (FSO), Forward Air Controller (FAC) or Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC), two scout observers (FO), and two radio operators (RO). In Weapons Company, the Fire Support Coordination Center (FSCC) determines fire support asset allocation to each rifle company FiST, and supervises the planning and execution of each FiST's fire support plan. Key players in the FSCC include the Fire Support Coordinator (FSC), Battalion Fire Support Officer (FSO), and Battalion Air Officer (Air-O).
British Forward Observation Officer: For centuries the Battery Commander had been responsible for controlling the fire of their battery. This continued with the introduction of indirect fire in the early years of the 20th Century. However, the First World War introduced 24 hour, seven days a week fighting. Furthermore, indirect fire had increased the distance between the guns and their targets, and between the observers and their guns. This led to the use of observing officers to act on behalf of the battery commander. In the 1938 re-organization of the Royal Artillery batteries were divided into troops, with the troop commanders (Captains) as observing officers at an (OP). These officers and their parties could operate as either as an Observation Post (OP) or accompany the supported arm (infantry or armour) as Forward Observation Officers (FOOs). During World War II it became the practice for close support battery commanders to become part of the tank regiment or infantry battalion headquarters they were supporting. They also started using 'quick fireplans' usually limited to their own regiment, to support fast moving limited battalion actions.
Generally FOOs were assigned to a company or squadron of a battalion or regiment that their battery was supporting. In the British artillery system FOOs were always authorized to order fire commands to their own troop or battery, based on their assessment of the tactical situation and if necessary liaison with the supported arm commander.
From mid World War II some artillery observers were authorized to order fire to all batteries of their regiment, it also became the practice for some observers to be designated 'Commander's Representative' able to order fire to a divisional or corps artillery. Unauthorized officers could request fire from more than their own battery. During that war it also became the practice that FOOs arranged quick fireplans comprising several coordinated targets engaged by guns and mortars to support short offensive actions by the squadron or company they were with.
In World War II OP/FOO parties were normally mounted in an armored carrier, although those assigned to support armored brigades usually had a tank – initially a Stuart but in NW Europe usually a Sherman. Tanks continued to be used by some observers until about 1975. In 2002 the British Army adopted the term Fire Support Team (FST) for its observation parties, including FACs under control of the artillery officer commanding the FST.
A functionally similar title is a mortar fire controller (MFC). An MFC is an infantry NCO who is part of their battalion's mortar platoon. He controls platoon's fire in the same way as an FOO. The introduction of FSTs places MFCs under tactical control of the FST commander.
Training, enabled by simulators, allows most soldiers to observe artillery fire, which has long been possible via a FOO.
Air observation post: The Royal Flying Corps and Royal Air Force had been responsible reporting targets and observation of fire in World War I, this role was subsequently called 'Arty/R, but proved difficult from high performance aircraft over hostile territory in World War II. In 1940 it was agreed that RAF AOP squadrons equipped with light aircraft, operating at low altitude over friendly territory and flown by Royal Artillery officers would be formed. These squadrons existed until the formation of the Army Air Corps in 1957.
Use of unmanned aerial vehicles: Since the development of small unmanned aerial vehicles, they have been used for identifying targets, spotting fall of shot, and correcting aim. Operators are usually relatively close to the target, behind enemy lines, and subject to attack.
See also: Field artillery team
Fire support team
Forward air control
Observation balloon
References:
U.S. Army FM 6-30
U.S. Army FM 22-100
U.S. Army FM 3-09.30 |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Asymmetric warfare | Definition and differences: The popularity of the term dates from Andrew J. R. Mack's 1975 article "Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars" in World Politics, in which "asymmetric" referred simply to a significant disparity in power between opposing actors in a conflict. "Power," in this sense, is broadly understood to mean material power, such as a large army, sophisticated weapons, an advanced economy, and so on. Mack's analysis was largely ignored in its day, but the end of the Cold War sparked renewed interest among academics. By the late 1990s, new research building off Mack's works was beginning to mature; after 9/11, the U.S. military began once again to grapple with asymmetric warfare strategy.
Since 2004, the discussion of asymmetric warfare has been complicated by the tendency of academic and military officials to use the term in different ways, as well as by its close association with guerrilla warfare, insurgency, terrorism, counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism.
Academic authors tend to focus on explaining two puzzles in asymmetric conflict. First, if "power" determines victory, there must be reasons why weaker actors decide to fight more powerful actors. Key explanations include:
Weaker actors may have secret weapons.
Weaker actors may have powerful allies.
Stronger actors are unable to make threats credible.
The demands of a stronger actor are extreme.
The weaker actor must consider its regional rivals when responding to threats from powerful actors.
Second, if "power," as generally understood, leads to victory in war, then there must be an explanation for why the "weak" can defeat the "strong." Key explanations include:
Strategic interaction.
Willingness of the weak to suffer more or bear higher costs.
External support of weak actors.
Reluctance to escalating violence on the part of strong actors.
Internal group dynamics.
Inflated strong actor war aims.
Evolution of asymmetric rivals' attitudes towards time.
Asymmetric conflicts include interstate and civil wars, and over the past two hundred years, have generally been won by strong actors. Since 1950, however, weak actors have won the majority of asymmetric conflicts. In asymmetric conflicts conflict escalation can be rational for one side.
Strategic basis: In most conventional warfare, the belligerents deploy forces of a similar type, and the outcome can be predicted by the quantity or quality of the opposing forces, for example, better command and control of theirs (c2). There are times when this is the case, and conventional forces are not easily compared, making it difficult for opposing sides to engage. An example of this is the standoff between the continental land forces of the French Army and the maritime forces of the United Kingdom's Royal Navy during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. In the words of Admiral Jervis during the campaigns of 1801, "I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea", and a confrontation that Napoleon Bonaparte described as that between the elephant and the whale.
Tactical basis: The tactical success of asymmetric warfare is dependent on at least some of the following assumptions:
One side can have a technological advantage that outweighs the numerical advantage of the enemy; the English longbow at the Battle of Crécy is an example.
Technological superiority usually is cancelled by the more vulnerable infrastructure, which can be targeted with devastating results. Destruction of multiple electric lines, roads, or water supply systems in highly populated areas could devastate the economy and morale. In contrast, the weaker side may not have these structures at all.
Training, tactics, and technology can prove decisive and allow a smaller force to overcome a much larger one. For example, for several centuries, the Greek hoplite's (heavy infantry) use of phalanx made them far superior to their enemies. The Battle of Thermopylae, which also involved good use of terrain, is a well-known example.
If the inferior power is in a position of self-defense, i.e., under attack or occupation, it may be possible to use unconventional tactics, such as hit-and-run and selective battles in which the superior power is weaker, as an effective means of harassment without violating the laws of war. Perhaps the classic historical examples of this doctrine may be found in the American Revolutionary War, movements in World War II, such as the French Resistance and Soviet and Yugoslav partisans. Against democratic aggressor nations, this strategy can be used to play on the electorate's patience with the conflict (as in the Vietnam War, and others since), provoking protests, and consequent disputes among elected legislators.
However, if the weaker power is in an aggressive position or turns to tactics prohibited by the laws of war (jus in bello), its success depends on the superior power's refraining from like tactics. For example, the law of land warfare prohibits the use of a flag of truce or marked medical vehicles as cover for an attack or ambush. Still, an asymmetric combatant using this prohibited tactic to its advantage depends on the superior power's obedience to the corresponding law. Similarly, warfare laws prohibit combatants from using civilian settlements, populations or facilities as military bases, but when an inferior force uses this tactic, it depends on the premise that the superior one will respect the law that the other is violating, and will not attack that civilian target, or if they do the propaganda advantage will outweigh the material loss.
Terrorism: There are two opposing viewpoints on the relationship between asymmetric warfare and terrorism. In the modern context, asymmetric warfare is increasingly considered a component of fourth generation warfare. When practiced outside the laws of war, it is often defined as terrorism, though rarely by its practitioners or their supporters. The other view is that asymmetric warfare does not coincide with terrorism.
Use of terrain: Terrain that limits mobility, such as forests and mountains, can be used as a force multiplier by the smaller force and as a force inhibitor against the larger one, especially one operating far from its logistical base. Such terrain is called difficult terrain. Urban areas, though generally having good transport access, provide innumerable ready-made defensible positions with simple escape routes and can also become rough terrain if prolonged combat fills the streets with rubble:
The contour of the land is an aid to the army, sizing up opponents to determine victory and assessing dangers and distance. "Those who do battle without knowing these will lose."
The guerrillas must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.
In the 12th century, irregulars known as the Assassins were successful in the Nizari Ismaili state. The "state" consisted of fortresses (such as the Alamut Castle) built on strategic mountaintops and highlands with difficult access, surrounded by hostile lands. The Assassins developed tactics to eliminate high-value targets, threatening their security, including the Crusaders.
In the American Revolutionary War, Patriot Lieutenant Colonel Francis Marion, known as the "Swamp Fox," took advantage of irregular tactics, interior lines, and the wilderness of colonial South Carolina to hinder larger British regular forces.
Yugoslav Partisans, starting as small detachments around mountain villages in 1941, fought the German and other Axis occupation forces, successfully taking advantage of the rough terrain to survive despite their small numbers. Over the next four years, they slowly forced their enemies back, recovering population centers and resources, eventually growing into the regular Yugoslav Army.
Role of civilians: Civilians can play a vital role in determining the outcome of an asymmetric war. In such conflicts, when it is easy for insurgents to assimilate into the population quickly after an attack, tips on the timing or location of insurgent activity can severely undermine the resistance. An information-central framework, in which civilians are seen primarily as sources of strategic information rather than resources, provides a paradigm to understand better the dynamics of such conflicts where civilian information-sharing is vital. The framework assumes that:
The consequential action of non-combatants (civilians) is information sharing rather than supplying resources, recruits, or shelter to combatants.
Information can be shared anonymously without endangering the civilian who relays it.
Given the additional assumption that the larger or dominant force is the government, the framework suggests the following implications:
Civilians receive services from government and rebel forces as an incentive to share valuable information.
Rebel violence can be reduced if the government provides services.
Provision of security and services are complementary in reducing violence.
Civilian casualties reduce civilian support to the perpetrating group.
Provision of information is strongly correlated with the level of anonymity that can be ensured.
A survey of the empirical literature on conflict, does not provide conclusive evidence on the claims. But the framework gives a starting point to explore the role of civilian information sharing in asymmetric warfare.
War by proxy: Where asymmetric warfare is carried out (generally covertly) by allegedly non-governmental actors who are connected to or sympathetic to a particular nation's (the "state actor's") interest, it may be deemed war by proxy. This is typically done to give the state actor deniability. The deniability can be crucial to keep the state actor from being tainted by the actions, to allow the state actor to negotiate in apparent good faith by claiming they are not responsible for the actions of parties who are merely sympathizers, or to avoid being accused of belligerent actions or war crimes. If proof emerges of the true extent of the state actor's involvement, this strategy can backfire; for example, see Iran-contra and Philip Agee.
Examples:
American Indian Wars: Benjamin Church designed his force primarily to emulate Native American patterns of war. Toward this end, Church endeavored to learn to fight like Native Americans from Native Americans. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Asymmetric warfare | War by proxy: Where asymmetric warfare is carried out (generally covertly) by allegedly non-governmental actors who are connected to or sympathetic to a particular nation's (the "state actor's") interest, it may be deemed war by proxy. This is typically done to give the state actor deniability. The deniability can be crucial to keep the state actor from being tainted by the actions, to allow the state actor to negotiate in apparent good faith by claiming they are not responsible for the actions of parties who are merely sympathizers, or to avoid being accused of belligerent actions or war crimes. If proof emerges of the true extent of the state actor's involvement, this strategy can backfire; for example, see Iran-contra and Philip Agee.
Examples:
American Indian Wars: Benjamin Church designed his force primarily to emulate Native American patterns of war. Toward this end, Church endeavored to learn to fight like Native Americans from Native Americans. Americans became rangers exclusively under the tutelage of the Native American allies. (Until the end of the colonial period, rangers depended on Native Americans as both allies and teachers.)
Church developed a special full-time unit mixing white colonists selected for frontier skills with friendly Native Americans to carry out offensive strikes against hostile Native Americans in terrain where normal militia units were ineffective. Church paid special care to outfitting, supplying and instructing his troops in ways inspired by indigenous methods of warfare and ways of living. He emphasized the adoption of indigenous techniques, which prioritized small, mobile and flexible units which used the countryside for cover, in lieu of massed frontal assaults by large formations. Benjamin Church is sometimes referred to as the father of Unconventional warfare.
American Revolutionary War: From its initiation, the American Revolutionary War was, necessarily, a showcase for asymmetric techniques. In the 1920s, Harold Murdock of Boston attempted to solve the puzzle of the first shots fired on Lexington Green and came to the suspicion that the few score militiamen who gathered before sunrise to await the arrival of hundreds of well-prepared British soldiers were sent to provoke an incident which could be used for Patriot propaganda purposes. The return of the British force to Boston following the search operations at Concord was subject to constant skirmishing by Patriot forces gathered from communities all along the route, making maximum use of the terrain (particularly, trees and stone field walls) to overcome the limitations of their weapons – muskets with an effective range of only about 50–70 meters. Throughout the war, skirmishing tactics against British troops on the move continued to be a key factor in the Patriots' success; particularly in the Western theater of the American Revolutionary War.
Another feature of the long march from Concord was the urban warfare technique of using buildings along the route as additional cover for snipers. When revolutionary forces forced their way into Norfolk, Virginia and used waterfront buildings as cover for shots at British vessels out in the river, the response of destruction of those buildings was ingeniously used to the advantage of the rebels, who encouraged the spread of fire throughout the largely Loyalist town and spread propaganda blaming it on the British. Shortly afterwards, they destroyed the remaining houses because they might provide cover for British soldiers.
The rebels also adopted a form of asymmetric sea warfare by using small, fast vessels to avoid the Royal Navy and capturing or sinking large numbers of merchant ships; however the Crown responded by issuing letters of marque permitting private armed vessels to undertake similar attacks on Patriot shipping. John Paul Jones became notorious in Britain for his expedition from France in the sloop of war Ranger in April 1778, during which, in addition to his attacks on merchant shipping, he made two landings on British soil. The effect of these raids, particularly when coupled with his capture of the Royal Navy's HMS Drake – the first such success in British waters, but not Jones' last – was to force the British government to increase resources for coastal defense, and to create a climate of fear among the British public which was subsequently fed by press reports of his preparations for the 1779 Bonhomme Richard mission.
From 1776, the conflict turned increasingly into a proxy war on behalf of France, following a strategy proposed in the 1760s but initially resisted by the idealistic young King Louis XVI, who came to the throne at the age of 19 a few months before Lexington. France ultimately drove Great Britain to the brink of defeat by entering the war(s) directly on several fronts throughout the world.
American Civil War: The American Civil War saw the rise of asymmetric warfare in the Border States, and in particular on the US Western Territorial Border after the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 opened the territories to vote on the expansion of slavery beyond the Missouri Compromise lines. Political implications of this broken 1820's compromise were nothing less than the potential expansion of slavery all across the North American continent, including the northern reaches of the annexed Mexican territories to California and Oregon. So the stakes were high, and it caused a flood of immigration to the border: some to grab land and expand slavery west, others to grab land and vote down the expansion of slavery. The pro-slavery land grabbers began asymmetric, violent attacks against the more pacifist abolitionists who had settled Lawrence and other territorial towns to suppress slavery. John Brown, the abolitionist, travelled to Osawatomie in the Kansas Territory expressly to foment retaliatory attacks back against the pro-slavery guerrillas who, by 1858, had twice ransacked both Lawrence and Osawatomie (where one of Brown's sons was shot dead).
The abolitionists would not return the attacks and Brown theorized that a violent spark set off on "the Border" would be a way to finally ignite his long hoped-for slave rebellion. Brown had broad-sworded slave owners at Potawatomi Creek, so the bloody civilian violence was initially symmetrical; however, once the American Civil War ignited in 1861, and when the state of Missouri voted overwhelmingly not to secede from the Union, the pro-slavers on the MO-KS border were driven either south to Arkansas and Texas, or underground—where they became guerrilla fighters and "Bushwhackers" living in the bushy ravines throughout northwest Missouri across the (now) state line from Kansas. The bloody "Border War" lasted all during the Civil War (and long after with guerrilla partisans like the James brothers cynically robbing and murdering, aided and abetted by lingering lost causers). Tragically the Western Border War was an asymmetric war: pro-slavery guerrillas and paramilitary partisans on the pro-Confederate side attacked pro-Union townspeople and commissioned Union military units, with the Union army trying to keep both in check: blocking Kansans and pro-Union Missourians from organizing militarily against the marauding Bushwhackers.
The worst act of domestic terror in U.S. history came in August 1863 when paramilitary guerrillas amassed 350 strong and rode all night 50 miles across eastern Kansas to the abolitionist stronghold of Lawrence (a political target) and destroyed the town, gunning down 150 civilians. The Confederate officer whose company had joined Quantrill's Raiders that day witnessed the civilian slaughter and forbade his soldiers from participating in the carnage. The commissioned officer refused to participate in Quantrill's asymmetric warfare on civilians.
Philippine–American War: The Philippine–American War (1899–1902) was an armed conflict between the United States and Filipino revolutionaries. Estimates of the Filipino forces vary between 100,000 and 1,000,000, with tens of thousands of auxiliaries. Lack of weapons and ammunition was a significant impediment to the Filipinos, so most of the forces were only armed with bolo knives, bows and arrows, spears and other primitive weapons that, in practice, proved vastly inferior to U.S. firepower.
The goal, or end-state, sought by the First Philippine Republic was a sovereign, independent, socially stable Philippines led by the ilustrado (intellectual) oligarchy. Local chieftains, landowners, and businessmen were the principales who controlled local politics. The war was strongest when illustrados, principales, and peasants were unified in opposition to annexation. The peasants, who provided the bulk of guerrilla forces, had interests different from their illustrado leaders and the principales of their villages. Coupled with the ethnic and geographic fragmentation, unity was a daunting task. The challenge for Aguinaldo and his generals was to sustain unified Filipino public opposition; this was the revolutionaries' strategic centre of gravity. The Filipino operational center of gravity was the ability to sustain its force of 100,000 irregulars in the field. The Filipino General Francisco Macabulos described the Filipinos' war aim as "not to vanquish the U.S. Army but to inflict on them constant losses." They initially sought to use conventional tactics and an increasing toll of U.S. casualties to contribute to McKinley's defeat in the 1900 presidential election. Their hope was that as president the avowedly anti-imperialist future Secretary of state William Jennings Bryan would withdraw from the Philippines. They pursued this short-term goal with guerrilla tactics better suited to a protracted struggle. While targeting McKinley motivated the revolutionaries in the short term, his victory demoralized them and convinced many undecided Filipinos that the United States would not depart precipitously. For most of 1899, the revolutionary leadership had viewed guerrilla warfare strategically only as a tactical option of final recourse, not as a means of operation which better suited their disadvantaged situation. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Asymmetric warfare | The Filipino General Francisco Macabulos described the Filipinos' war aim as "not to vanquish the U.S. Army but to inflict on them constant losses." They initially sought to use conventional tactics and an increasing toll of U.S. casualties to contribute to McKinley's defeat in the 1900 presidential election. Their hope was that as president the avowedly anti-imperialist future Secretary of state William Jennings Bryan would withdraw from the Philippines. They pursued this short-term goal with guerrilla tactics better suited to a protracted struggle. While targeting McKinley motivated the revolutionaries in the short term, his victory demoralized them and convinced many undecided Filipinos that the United States would not depart precipitously. For most of 1899, the revolutionary leadership had viewed guerrilla warfare strategically only as a tactical option of final recourse, not as a means of operation which better suited their disadvantaged situation. On 13 November 1899, Emilio Aguinaldo decreed that guerrilla war would henceforth be the strategy. This made the American occupation of the Philippine archipelago more difficult over the next few years. In fact, during just the first four months of the guerrilla war, the Americans had nearly 500 casualties. The Philippine Revolutionary Army began staging bloody ambushes and raids, such as the guerrilla victories at Paye, Catubig, Makahambus, Pulang Lupa, Balangiga and Mabitac. At first, it seemed like the Filipinos would fight the Americans to a stalemate and force them to withdraw. President McKinley even considered this at the beginning of the phase. The shift to guerrilla warfare drove the U.S. Army to adopt counterinsurgency tactics.
20th century:
Second Boer War: Asymmetric warfare featured prominently during the Second Boer War. After an initial phase, which was fought by both sides as a conventional war, the British captured Johannesburg, the Boers' largest city, and captured the capitals of the two Boer Republics. The British then expected the Boers to accept peace as dictated in the traditional European manner. However, the Boers fought a protracted guerrilla war instead of capitulating. 20,000-30,000 Boer guerrillas were only defeated after the British brought to bear 450,000 imperial troops, about ten times as many as were used in the conventional phase of the war. The British began constructing blockhouses built within machine gun range of one another and flanked by barbed wire to slow the Boers' movement across the countryside and block paths to valuable targets. Such tactics eventually evolved into today's counterinsurgency tactics.
The Boer commando raids deep into the Cape Colony, which were organized and commanded by Jan Smuts, resonated throughout the century as the British adopted and adapted the tactics first used against them by the Boers.
World War I: T.E. Lawrence and British support for the Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were the stronger power, and the Arab coalition were the weaker.
Austria-Hungary's invasion of Serbia, August 1914. Austria-Hungary was the stronger power, and Serbia was the weaker.
Germany's invasion of Belgium, August 1914. Germany was the stronger power, Belgium the weaker.
Between the World Wars: Abd el-Krim led resistance in Morocco from 1920 to 1924 against French and Spanish colonial armies ten times as strong as the guerrilla force, led by General Philippe Pétain.
TIGR, the first anti-fascist national-defensive organization in Europe, fought against Benito Mussolini's regime in Northeast Italy.
Anglo-Irish War (Irish War of Independence) fought between the Irish Republican Army and the Black and Tans/Auxiliaries. Though Lloyd George (Prime Minister at the time) attempted to persuade other nations that it was not a war by refusing to use the army and using the Black and Tans instead, the conflict was conducted as an asymmetric guerrilla war and was registered as a war with the League of Nations by the Irish Free State.
World War II: Philippine resistance against Japan – During the Japanese occupation in World War II, there was an extensive Philippine resistance movement, which opposed the Japanese with an active underground and guerrilla activity that increased over the years.
Winter War – Finland was invaded by the much larger mechanized military units of the Soviet Union. Although the Soviets captured 8% of Finland, they suffered enormous casualties versus much lower losses for the Finns. Soviet vehicles were confined to narrow forest roads by terrain and snow, while the Finns used ski tactics around them unseen through the trees. They cut the advancing Soviet column into what they called motti (a cubic metre of firewood) and then destroyed the cut-off sections one by one. Many Soviets were shot, had their throats cut from behind, or froze to death due to inadequate clothing and lack of camouflage and shelter. The Finns also devised a petrol bomb they called the Molotov cocktail to destroy Soviet tanks.
Soviet partisans – resistance movement which fought in the German occupied parts of the Soviet Union.
Warsaw Uprising – Poland (Home Army, Armia Krajowa) rose up against the German occupation.
Germany's occupation of Yugoslavia, 1941–45 (Germany vs. Tito's Partisans and Mihailović's Chetniks).
Britain: British Commandos and European coastal raids. German countermeasures and the notorious Commando Order.
Long Range Desert Group and the Special Air Service in Africa and later in Europe.
South East Asian Theater: Wingate, Chindits, Force 136, V Force
Special Operations Executive (SOE)
Provisional Irish Republican Army against British security forces in the Northern Campaign.
United States: Office of Strategic Services (OSS)
China Burma India Theater: Merrill's Marauders and OSS Detachment 101.
After World War II: First Indochina War (1946-1954) and Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962); both against France
The Cuban Revolution of 1953-1958 became a template of asymmetric warfare.
The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (or "Russo-Hungarian" war) saw makeshift forces improvising lopsided tactics against Soviet tanks.
Libyan support to the Provisional Irish Republican Army during the Troubles (1960s to 1998) and collusion between British security forces and Ulster loyalist paramilitaries.
United States Military Assistance Command Studies and Observations Group (US MAC-V SOG) (1964-1972) and Viet Cong in Vietnam.
The South African Border War, otherwise known as the Namibian War of Independence (1966-1990) between the South African Defense Force and People's Liberation Army of Namibia.
United States support of the Nicaraguan Contras (1979-1990).
Cold War (1945–1992): The end of World War II established the two strongest victors, the United States of America (the United States, or just the U.S.) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, or just the Soviet Union) as the two dominant global superpowers.
Cold War examples of proxy wars: In Southeast Asia, specifically Vietnam, the Viet Minh, NLF and other insurgencies engaged in asymmetrical guerrilla warfare with France. The war between the Mujahideen and the Soviet Armed Forces during the Soviet–Afghan War of 1979 to 1989, though claimed as a source of the term "asymmetric warfare," occurred years after Mack wrote of "asymmetric conflict." (Note that the term "asymmetric warfare" became well-known in the West only in the 1990s.) The aid given by the U.S. to the Mujahideen during the war was only covert at the tactical level; the Reagan Administration told the world that it was helping the "freedom-loving people of Afghanistan." Many countries, including the U.S., participated in this proxy war against the USSR during the Cold War.
Post-Cold War: The Kosovo War, which pitted Yugoslav security forces (Serbian police and Yugoslav army) against Albanian separatists of the guerrilla Kosovo Liberation Army, is an example of asymmetric warfare, due to Yugoslav forces' superior firepower and manpower, and due to the nature of insurgency/counter-insurgency operations. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (1999), which pitted NATO air power against the Yugoslav armed forces during the Kosovo war, can also be classified as asymmetric, exemplifying international conflict with asymmetry in weapons and strategy/tactics.
21st century:
Israel/Palestine: The ongoing conflict between Israel and some Palestinian organizations (such as Hamas and PIJ) is a classic case of asymmetric warfare. Israel has a powerful army, air force and navy, while the Palestinian organizations have no access to large-scale military equipment with which to conduct operations; instead, they utilize asymmetric tactics, such as paragliding, small gunfights, cross-border sniping, mortar/rocket attacks, and others.
Sri Lanka: The Sri Lankan Civil War, which raged on and off from 1983 to 2009, between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) saw large-scale asymmetric warfare. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Asymmetric warfare | The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (1999), which pitted NATO air power against the Yugoslav armed forces during the Kosovo war, can also be classified as asymmetric, exemplifying international conflict with asymmetry in weapons and strategy/tactics.
21st century:
Israel/Palestine: The ongoing conflict between Israel and some Palestinian organizations (such as Hamas and PIJ) is a classic case of asymmetric warfare. Israel has a powerful army, air force and navy, while the Palestinian organizations have no access to large-scale military equipment with which to conduct operations; instead, they utilize asymmetric tactics, such as paragliding, small gunfights, cross-border sniping, mortar/rocket attacks, and others.
Sri Lanka: The Sri Lankan Civil War, which raged on and off from 1983 to 2009, between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) saw large-scale asymmetric warfare. The war started as an insurgency and progressed to a large-scale conflict with the mixture of guerrilla and conventional warfare, seeing the LTTE use suicide bombing (male/female suicide bombers) both on and off the battlefield use of explosive-filled boats for suicide attacks on military shipping; and use of light aircraft targeting military installations.
Iraq: The victory by the US-led coalition forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq demonstrated that training, tactics and technology could provide overwhelming victories in the field of battle during modern conventional warfare. After Saddam Hussein's regime was removed from power, the Iraq campaign moved into a different type of asymmetric warfare where the coalition's use of superior conventional warfare training, tactics and technology was of much less use against continued opposition from the various partisan groups operating inside Iraq.
Syria: Much of the 2012–present Syrian Civil War has been asymmetrical. The Syrian National Coalition, Mujahideen, and Kurdish Democratic Union Party have been engaging with the forces of the Syrian government through asymmetric means. The conflict has seen large-scale asymmetric warfare across the country, with the forces opposed to the government unable to engage symmetrically with the Syrian government and resorting instead to other asymmetric tactics such as suicide bombings and targeted assassinations.
Ukraine: The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has resulted in a classical asymmetrical warfare scenario. Russia's superior military might, including its vast nuclear arsenal, larger economy and population, and seemingly superior armored forces have not helped Russia surmount fierce opposition from the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which has inflicted severe blows against the Russian Armed Forces by relying on technologically advanced weaponry supplied by the outside Ukraine supporting parties. The use of MAGURA V5 unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) to attack Russian Black Sea Fleet ships such as the Tsezar Kunikov has been cited as example of asymmetrical warfare by analysts.
Semi-symmetric warfare: A new understanding of warfare has emerged amidst the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Although this type of warfare does not oppose an insurgency to a counter-insurgency force, it does involve two actors with substantially asymmetrical means of waging war. Notably, as technology has improved war-fighting capabilities, it has also made them more complex, thus requiring greater expertise, training, flexibility and decentralization. The nominally weaker military can exploit those complexities and seek to eliminate the asymmetry. This has been observed in Ukraine, as defending forces used a rich arsenal of anti-tank and anti-air missiles to negate the invading forces' apparent mechanized and aerial superiority, thus denying their ability to conduct combined arms operations. The success of this strategy will be compounded by access to real-time intelligence and the adversary's inability to utilize its forces to the maximum of their potential due to factors such as the inability to plan, brief and execute complex, full-spectrum operations.
See also:
References:
Further reading:
Bibliographies: Compiled by Joan T. Phillips Bibliographer at Air University Library: A Bibliography of Asymmetric Warfare, August 2005.
Asymmetric Warfare and the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) Debate sponsored by the Project on Defense Alternatives
Books: Arreguin-Toft, Ivan (2005). How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. New York & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-54869-4.
Beckett, I. F. W. (15 September 2009). Encyclopedia of Guerrilla Warfare (Hardcover). Santa Barbara, California: Abc-Clio Inc. ISBN 978-0-874-36929-8.
Barnett, Roger W. (2003). Asymmetrical Warfare: Today's Challenge to U.S. Military Power. Washington, D.C.: Brassey's. ISBN 978-1-574-88562-0.
Friedman, George (2004). America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle between the United States and Its Enemies. London: Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0-316-72862-1.
Paul, T. V. (1994). Asymmetric Conflicts: War Initiation by Weaker Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-45117-8.
Schröfl, Josef (2007). Political Asymmetries in the Era of Globalization. Lang. ISBN 978-3-631-56820-0.
Kaplan, Robert D. (2003). Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos. New York: Vintage. ISBN 978-0-375-72627-9.
Levy, Bert "Yank"; Wintringham, Tom (Foreword) (1964). Guerrilla Warfare (PDF). Paladin Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-04-12. Retrieved 2014-04-15.
Merom, Gil (2003). How Democracies Lose Small Wars. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80403-5.
Metz, Steven; Johnson II, Douglas V. (2001). Asymmetry and U.S. Military Strategy: Definition, Background, and Strategic Concepts (PDF). Carlisle Barracks: Strategic Studies Institute/U.S. Army War College. ISBN 978-1-58487-041-8.
Schröfl, Josef; Cox, Sean M.; Pankratz, Thomas (2009). Winning the Asymmetric War: Political, Social and Military Responses. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-631-57249-8.
Record, Jeffrey (2007). Beating Goliath: Why Insurgencies Win. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books. ISBN 978-1-59797-090-7.
Giuseppe, Gagliano (2007). Introduzione alla conflittualita' non convenzionale. Edizioni New Press. ISBN 978-8-895-38302-6.
Resnick, Uri (July 12, 2013). Dynamics of Asymmetric Territorial Conflict: the evolution of patience. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave-Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-137-30398-1.
Sobelman, Daniel (2004). New Rules of the Game: Israel and Hizbollah after the Withdrawal from Lebanon (PDF). Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel-Aviv University. ISBN 978-9-654-59057-0. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-11-02.
Sobelman, Daniel (2009). "Hizbollah – from Terror to Resistance: Towards a National Defence Strategy". In Jones, Clive; Catignani, Sergio (eds.). Israel and Hizbollah An Asymmetric Conflict in Historical and Comparative Perspective. Routledge. pp. 49–66. ISBN 9781135229207.
Sobelman, Daniel (Winter 2017). "Learning to Deter: Deterrence Failure and Success in the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict, 2006–2016". International Security. 41 (3): 151–196. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00259. JSTOR 26777793. S2CID 57571128.
Articles and papers: Bryant, G. J. (2004). "Asymmetric Warfare: The British Experience in Eighteenth-Century India". Journal of Military History. 68 (2): 431–469. doi:10.1353/jmh.2004.0019. S2CID 144222473 – via Project Muse(subscription required).
Arreguin-Toft, Ivan (Summer 2001). "How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict". International Security. 26 (1): 93–128. doi:10.1162/016228801753212868. S2CID 51776546.
Dunne, J. Paul; García-Alonso, María D.C.; Levine, Paul; Smith, Ron P. (April 2006). "Managing Asymmetric Conflict". Oxford Economic Papers. 58 (2): 183–208. doi:10.1093/oep/gpi056. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Asymmetric warfare | "Asymmetric Warfare: The British Experience in Eighteenth-Century India". Journal of Military History. 68 (2): 431–469. doi:10.1353/jmh.2004.0019. S2CID 144222473 – via Project Muse(subscription required).
Arreguin-Toft, Ivan (Summer 2001). "How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict". International Security. 26 (1): 93–128. doi:10.1162/016228801753212868. S2CID 51776546.
Dunne, J. Paul; García-Alonso, María D.C.; Levine, Paul; Smith, Ron P. (April 2006). "Managing Asymmetric Conflict". Oxford Economic Papers. 58 (2): 183–208. doi:10.1093/oep/gpi056. hdl:10419/68097. JSTOR 3876996.
Fowler, C. A. "Bert" (March 2006). "Asymmetric Warfare: A Primer". IEEE Spectrum. Archived from the original on 2008-01-04. Retrieved 2006-03-05. A mathematical approach to the concept.
Corbin, Marcus (October 5, 2001). "Reshaping the Military for Asymmetric Warfare". CDI. Archived from the original on 2012-04-10.
Deady, Timothy K. (2005). "Lessons from a Successful Counterinsurgency: The Philippines, 1899–1902" (PDF). Parameters. 35 (1): 53–68. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-12-10. Retrieved 2018-01-13.
Goulding Jr., Vincent J. "Back to the Future with Asymmetric Warfare". Parameters. 30 (4) 7: 21–30. Archived from the original on 2004-02-10. Retrieved 2006-06-12.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
Mack, Andrew (January 1975). "Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict". World Politics. 27 (2): 175–200. doi:10.2307/2009880. JSTOR 2009880. S2CID 154410180.
Meigs, Montgomery C. "Unorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfare" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2003-10-02.
Norton-Taylor, Richard (October 3, 2001). "Asymmetric Warfare: Military Planners Are Only Beginning to Grasp the Implications of September 11 for Future Deterrence Strategy". The Guardian.
Novak, Michael (February 10, 2003). ""Asymmetrical Warfare" & Just War: A Moral Obligation". NRO.
Pfanner, Toni (March 2005). "Asymmetrical Warfare from the Perspective of Humanitarian Law and Humanitarian Action". International Review of the Red Cross. 87 (857): 149–174. doi:10.1017/S1816383100181238. S2CID 145126086.
Sullivan, Patricia (2007). "War Aims and War Outcomes: Why Powerful States Lose Limited Wars". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 51 (3): 496–524. doi:10.1177/0022002707300187. S2CID 37158560.
Tucker, Jonathan B. (Summer 1999). "Asymmetric Warfare". Archived from the original on 2006-05-15.
"Asymmetry and other fables". Jane's Defence Weekly. 18 August 2006. Archived from the original on 26 January 2013. Retrieved 6 May 2021.
Buffaloe, David (September 2006). "Defining Asymmetric Warfare" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-03-22.
White, Josh; Branigin, William (April 22, 2008). "Gates Assails Pentagon on Resources for Battlefields". The Washington Post.
Mandel, Robert (July 2007). "Reassessing Victory in Warfare". Armed Forces & Society. 33 (4). Sage Publications: 461–495. doi:10.1177/0095327X06295515. S2CID 145246391.
Mandel, Robert (January 2004). "The Wartime Utility of Precision Versus Brute Force in Weaponry". Armed Forces & Society. 30 (2). Sage Publications: 171–201. doi:10.1177/0095327X0403000203. S2CID 110384704. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Attack aircraft | Definition and designations:
United States definition and designations: U.S. attack aircraft are currently identified by the prefix A-, as in "A-6 Intruder" and "A-10 Thunderbolt II". However, until the end of World War II the A- designation was shared between attack planes and light bombers for USAAF aircraft (as opposed to B- prefix for medium or heavy bombers). The US Navy used a separate designation system and at the time preferred to call similar aircraft scout bombers (SB) or torpedo bombers (TB or BT). For example, Douglas SBD Dauntless scout bomber was designated A-24 when used by the USAAF. It was not until 1946, when the US Navy and US Marine Corps started using the "attack" (A) designation, when it renamed BT2D Skyraider and BTM Mauler to, respectively, AD Skyraider and AM Mauler.
As with many aircraft classifications, the definition of attack aircraft is somewhat vague and has tended to change over time. Current U.S. military doctrine defines it as an aircraft which most likely performs an attack mission, more than any other kind of mission. Attack mission means, in turn, specifically tactical air-to-ground action—in other words, neither air-to-air action nor strategic bombing is considered an attack mission. In United States Navy vocabulary, the alternative designation for the same activity is a strike mission. Attack missions are principally divided into two categories: air interdiction and close air support. In the last several decades, the rise of the ubiquitous multi-role fighter has created some confusion about the difference between attack and fighter aircraft. According to the current U.S. designation system, an attack aircraft (A) is designed primarily for air-to-surface (Attack: Aircraft designed to find, attack, and destroy land or sea targets) missions (also known as "attack missions"), while a fighter category F incorporates not only aircraft designed primarily for air-to-air combat, but additionally multipurpose aircraft designed also for ground-attack missions. "F" - Fighter Aircraft were designed to intercept and destroy other aircraft or missiles. This includes multipurpose aircraft also designed for ground support missions such as interdiction and close air support. Just to mention one example amongst many, the F-111 "Aardvark" was designated F despite having only minimal air-to-air capabilities. Only a single aircraft in the USAF's current inventory bears a simple, unmixed "A" designation: the A-10 Thunderbolt II.
Other designations: British designations have included FB for fighter-bomber and more recently "G" for "Ground-attack" as in Harrier GR1 (meaning "Ground-attack/Reconnaissance, Mark 1").
Imperial Japanese Navy designation use "B" to designate carrier attack bomber such as the Nakajima B5N Type-97 bomber although these aircraft are mostly used for torpedo attack and level bombing. They also use "D" to specifically designate carrier dive bomber like the Yokosuka D4Y Suisei. However by the end of the world war II, the IJN introduced the Aichi B7A Ryusei which could performed both torpedo bombing and dive bombing rendering the "D" designation redundant.
The NATO reporting names for Soviet/Russian ground-attack aircraft at first started with "B" categorizing them as bombers, as in case of Il-10 'Beast'. But later they were usually classified as fighters ("F")—possibly because (since Sukhoi Su-7) they were similar in size and visual appearance to Soviet fighters, or were simply derivatives of such.
History:
World War I: The attack aircraft as a role was defined by its use during World War I, in support of ground forces on battlefields. Battlefield support is generally divided into close air support and battlefield air interdiction, the first requiring strict and the latter only general cooperation with friendly surface forces. Such aircraft also attacked targets in rear areas. Such missions required flying where light anti-aircraft fire was expected and operating at low altitudes to precisely identify targets. Other roles, including those of light bombers, medium bombers, dive bombers, reconnaissance, fighters, fighter-bombers, could and did perform air strikes on battlefields. All these types could significantly damage ground targets from a low level flight, either by bombing, machine guns, or both.
Attack aircraft came to diverge from bombers and fighters. While bombers could be used on a battlefield, their slower speeds made them extremely vulnerable to ground fire, as did the lighter construction of fighters. The survivability of attack aircraft was guaranteed by their speed/power, protection (i.e. armor panels) and strength of construction;
Germany was the first country to produce dedicated ground-attack aircraft (designated CL-class and J-class). They were put into use in autumn 1917, during World War I. Most notable was the Junkers J.I, which pioneered the idea of an armored "bathtub", that was both fuselage structure and protection for engine and crew. The British experimented with the Sopwith TF series (termed "trench fighters"), although these did not see combat.
The last battles of 1918 on the Western Front demonstrated that ground-attacking aircraft were a valuable component of all-arms tactics. Close support ground strafing (machine-gunning) and tactical bombing of infantry (especially when moving between trenches and along roads), machine gun posts, artillery, and supply formations was a part of the Allied armies' strength in holding German attacks and supporting Allied counter-attacks and offensives. Admittedly, the cost to the Allies was high, with the Royal Flying Corps sustaining a loss rate approaching 30% among ground-attack aircraft.
1919–1939: After World War I, it was widely believed that using aircraft against tactical targets was of little use other than in harassing and undermining enemy morale; attacking combatants was generally much more dangerous to aircrews than their targets, a problem that was continually becoming more acute with the ongoing refinement of anti-aircraft weapons. Within the range of types serving attack roles, dive bombers were increasingly being seen as more effective than aircraft designed for strafing with machine guns or cannons.
Nevertheless, during the 1920s, the US military, in particular, procured specialized "Attack" aircraft and formed dedicated units, that were trained primarily for that role. The US Army Engineering Division became involved in designing ground attack aircraft. The 1920 Boeing GA-1 was an armored twin-engine triplane for ground strafing with eight machine guns and about a ton of armor plate, and the 1922 Aeromarine PG-1 was a combined pursuit (fighter) and ground attack design with a 37mm gun. The United States Marine Corps Aviation applied close air support tactics in the Banana Wars. While they did not pioneer dive bombing tactics, Marine aviators were the first to include it in their doctrine during the United States occupation of Haiti and Nicaragua. The United States Army Air Corps was notable for its creation of a separate "A-" designation for attack types, distinct from and alongside "B-" for bomber types and "P-" for pursuit (later replaced by "F-" for fighter) aircraft. The first designated attack type to be operational with the USAAC was the Curtiss A-2 Falcon. Nevertheless, such aircraft, including the A-2's replacement, the Curtiss A-12 Shrike, were unarmored and highly vulnerable to AA fire.
The British Royal Air Force focused primarily on strategic bombing, rather than ground attack. However, like most air arms of the period it did operate attack aircraft, named Army Cooperation in RAF parlance, which included the Hawker Hector, Westland Lysander and others.
Aviation played a role in the Brazilian Constitutionalist Revolution of 1932, although both sides had few aircraft. The federal government had approximately 58 aircraft divided between the Navy and the Army, as the Air Force at this time did not constitute an independent branch. In contrast, the rebels had only two Potez 25 planes and two Waco CSO, plus a small number of private aircraft.
During the 1930s, Nazi Germany had begun to field a class of Schlacht ("battle") aircraft, such as the Henschel Hs 123. Moreover, the experiences of German Condor Legion during the Spanish Civil War, against an enemy with few fighter aircraft, changed ideas about ground attack. Though equipped with generally unsuitable designs such as the Henschel Hs 123 and cannon-armed versions of the Heinkel He 112, their armament and pilots proved that aircraft were a very effective weapon, even without bombs. This led to some support within the Luftwaffe for the creation of an aircraft dedicated to this role, resulting in tenders for a new "attack aircraft". This led to the introduction (in 1942) of a unique single-seat, twin-engine attack aircraft, the slow-moving but heavily armored and formidably armed Henschel Hs 129 Panzerknacker ("Safecracker" /"Tank Cracker").
In Japan, the Imperial Japanese Navy had developed the Aichi D3A dive bomber (based on the Heinkel He 70) and the Mitsubishi B5M light attack bomber. Both, like their US counterparts, were lightly armored types, and were critically reliant on surprise attacks and the absence of significant fighter or AA opposition.
During the Winter War, the Soviet Air Forces used the Polikarpov R-5SSS, and Polikarpov R-ZSh, as attack aircraft. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Attack aircraft | This led to some support within the Luftwaffe for the creation of an aircraft dedicated to this role, resulting in tenders for a new "attack aircraft". This led to the introduction (in 1942) of a unique single-seat, twin-engine attack aircraft, the slow-moving but heavily armored and formidably armed Henschel Hs 129 Panzerknacker ("Safecracker" /"Tank Cracker").
In Japan, the Imperial Japanese Navy had developed the Aichi D3A dive bomber (based on the Heinkel He 70) and the Mitsubishi B5M light attack bomber. Both, like their US counterparts, were lightly armored types, and were critically reliant on surprise attacks and the absence of significant fighter or AA opposition.
During the Winter War, the Soviet Air Forces used the Polikarpov R-5SSS, and Polikarpov R-ZSh, as attack aircraft.
Perhaps the most notable attack type to emerge during the late 1930s was the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik, which became the most-produced military aircraft type in history.
As World War II approached, the concept of an attack aircraft was not well defined, and various air services used many different names for widely differing types, all performing similar roles (sometimes in tandem with non-attack roles of bombers, fighters, reconnaissance and other roles.
Army co-operation
The British concept of a light aircraft mixing all the roles that required extensive communication with land forces: reconnaissance, liaison, artillery spotting, aerial supply, and, last but not least, occasional strikes on the battlefield. The concept was similar to front-line aircraft used in the World War I, which was called the CL class in the German Empire. Eventually the RAF's experience showed types such as Westland Lysander to be unacceptably vulnerable and it was replaced by faster fighter types for photoreconnaissance, and light aircraft for artillery spotting.
Light bomber
During the inter-war period, the British considered that in a future war it would be France that would be the enemy. For the light day bomber they had the Fairey Battle which originated in a 1932 specification. Designs in 1938 for a replacement were adapted as a target tug. The last British specification issued for a light bomber was B.20/40 described as a "Close Army Support Bomber" capable of dive bombing and photoreconnaissance. However, the specification was dropped before an aircraft went into production.
Dive bomber
In some air services, dive bombers did not equip ground-attack units, but were treated as a separate class. In Nazi Germany, the Luftwaffe distinguished between the Stuka (Sturzkampf-, "dive bombing") units, equipped with Junkers Ju 87 from Schlacht ("battle") units, using strafing/low-level bombing types such as the Henschel Hs 123).
Fighter-bomber
Although not a synonymous class with ground-attack aircraft, fighter-bombers were usually used for the role, and proved to excel at it, even when they were only lightly armored. The Royal Air Force and United States Army Air Forces relegated obsolescent fighters to this role, while cutting-edge fighters would serve as interceptors and establish air superiority.
The United States Navy, in distinction to the USAAF, preferred the older term "Scout-Bomber", under a "SB-" designation, such as the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver.
World War II: The Junkers Ju 87s of the German Luftwaffe became virtually synonymous with close air support during the early months of World War II. The British Commonwealth's Desert Air Force, led by Arthur Tedder, became the first Allied tactical formation to emphasize the attack role, usually in the form of single-engine Hawker Hurricane and Curtiss P-40 fighter-bombers or specialized "tank-busters", such as the Hurricane Mk IID, armed with two 40 mm Vickers S guns (notably No. 6 Squadron RAF).
At around the same time, a massive invasion by Axis forces had forced the Soviet air forces to quickly expand their army support capacity, such as the Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik. The women pilots known as the "Night Witches" utilised an obsolescent, wooden light trainer biplane type, the Polikarpov Po-2 and small anti-personnel bombs in "harassment bombing" attacks that proved difficult to counter.
Wartime experience showed that poorly armored and/or lightly built, pre-war types were unacceptably vulnerable, especially to fighters. Nevertheless, skilled crews could be highly successful in those types, such as the leading Stuka ace, Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who claimed 500 tanks, a battleship, a cruiser, and two destroyers in 2,300 combat missions.
The Bristol Beaufighter, based on an obsolescent RAF bomber, became a versatile twin-engine attack aircraft and served in almost every theatre of the war, in the maritime strike and ground attack roles as well as that of night fighter.
Conversely, some mid-war attack types emerged as adaptations of fighters, including several versions of the German Focke-Wulf Fw 190, the British Hawker Typhoon and the US Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. The Typhoon, which was disappointing as a fighter, due to poor high altitude performance, was very fast at low altitudes and thus became the RAF's premier ground attack fighter. It was armed with four 20mm cannon, augmented first with bombs, then rockets. Likewise the P-47 was designed and intended for use as a high altitude bomber escort, but gradually found that role filled by the North American P-51 Mustang (because of its much longer range and greater maneuverability). The P-47 was also heavier and more robust than the P-51 and regarded therefore, as an "energy fighter": ideal for high-speed dive-and-climb tactics, including strafing attacks. Its armament of eight 0.50 caliber machine guns was effective against Axis infantry and light vehicles in both Europe and the Pacific.
While machine guns and cannon were initially sufficient, the evolution of well-armored tanks required heavier weapons. To augment bombs, high explosive rockets were introduced, although these unguided projectiles were still "barely adequate" because of their inaccuracy. For the British RP3, one hit per sortie was considered acceptable. However, even a near miss with rockets could cause damage or injuries to "soft targets," and patrols by Allied rocket-armed aircraft over Normandy disrupted or even completely paralyzed German road traffic. They also affected morale, because even the prospect of a rocket attack was unnerving.
The ultimate development of the cannon-armed light attack aircraft was the small production run in 1944 of the Henschel Hs 129B-3, armed with a modified PAK 40 75 mm anti-tank gun. This weapon, the Bordkanone BK 7,5, was the most powerful forward-firing weapon fitted to a production military aircraft during World War II. The only other aircraft to be factory-equipped with similar guns were the 1,420 maritime strike variants of the North American B-25 MitchellG/H, which mounted either a M4 cannon, or light-weight T13E1 or M5 versions of the same gun. These weapons, however, were hand-loaded, had shorter barrels and/or a lower muzzle velocity than the BK 7,5 and, therefore, poorer armor penetration, accuracy and rate of fire. (Except for versions of the Piaggio P.108 armed with a 102mm anti-ship cannon, The BK 7,5 was unsurpassed as an aircraft-fitted gun until 1971, when the four-engine Lockheed AC-130E Spectre; equipped with a 105 mm M102 howitzer, entered service with the US Air Force.)
Post-World War II: In the immediate post war era the piston-engined ground-attack aircraft remained useful since all of the early jets lacked endurance due to the fuel consumption rates of the jet engines. The higher powered piston engine types that had been too late for World War II were still capable of holding their own against the jets as they were able to both out accelerate and out maneuver the jets. The Royal Navy Hawker Sea Fury fighters and the U.S. Vought F4U Corsair and Douglas A-1 Skyraider were operated during the Korean War while the latter continued to be used throughout the Vietnam War.
Many post-World War II era air forces have been reluctant to adopt fixed-wing jet aircraft developed specifically for ground attack. Although close air support and interdiction remain crucial to the modern battlefield, attack aircraft are less glamorous than fighters, while air force pilots and military planners have a certain well-cultivated contempt for "mud-movers". More practically, the cost of operating a specialized ground-attack aircraft is harder to justify when compared with multirole combat aircraft. Jet attack aircraft were designed and employed during the Cold War era, such as the carrier-based nuclear strike Douglas A-3 Skywarrior and North American A-5 Vigilante, while the Grumman A-6 Intruder, F-105 Thunderchief, F-111, F-117 Nighthawk, LTV A-7 Corsair II, Sukhoi Su-25, A-10 Thunderbolt II, Panavia Tornado, AMX, Dassault Étendard, Super Étendard and others were designed specifically for ground-attack, strike, close support and anti-armor work, with little or no air-to-air capability. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Attack aircraft | More practically, the cost of operating a specialized ground-attack aircraft is harder to justify when compared with multirole combat aircraft. Jet attack aircraft were designed and employed during the Cold War era, such as the carrier-based nuclear strike Douglas A-3 Skywarrior and North American A-5 Vigilante, while the Grumman A-6 Intruder, F-105 Thunderchief, F-111, F-117 Nighthawk, LTV A-7 Corsair II, Sukhoi Su-25, A-10 Thunderbolt II, Panavia Tornado, AMX, Dassault Étendard, Super Étendard and others were designed specifically for ground-attack, strike, close support and anti-armor work, with little or no air-to-air capability.
Ground attack has increasingly become a task of converted trainers, like the BAE Systems Hawk or Aero L-39 Albatros, and many trainers are built with this task in mind, like the CASA C-101 or the Aermacchi MB-339. Such counter-insurgency aircraft are popular with air forces which cannot afford to purchase more expensive multirole aircraft, or do not wish to risk the few such aircraft they have on light ground attack missions. A proliferation of low intensity conflicts in the post-World War II era has also expanded need for these types of aircraft to conduct counter-insurgency and light ground attack operations.
A primary distinction of post-World War II aviation between the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force was that latter had generally been allocated all fixed-wing aircraft, while helicopters were under control of the former; this was governed by the 1948 Key West Agreement. The Army, wishing to have its own resources to support its troops in combat and faced with a lack of Air Force enthusiasm for the ground-attack role, developed the dedicated attack helicopter.
Recent history: On 17 January 1991, Task Force Normandy began its attack on two Iraqi anti-aircraft missile sites. TF Normandy, under the command of LTC Richard A. "Dick" Cody, consisted of nine AH-64 Apaches, one UH-60 Black Hawk and four Air Force MH-53J Pave Low helicopters. The purpose of this mission was to create a safe corridor through the Iraqi air defense system. The attack was a huge success and cleared the way for the beginning of the Allied bombing campaign of Operation Desert Storm.
One concern involving the Apache arose when a unit of these helicopters was very slow to deploy during U.S. military involvement in Kosovo. According to the Army Times, the Army is shifting its doctrine to favor ground-attack aircraft over attack helicopters for deep strike attack missions because ground-attack helicopters have proved to be highly vulnerable to small-arms fire; the U.S. Marine Corps has noted similar problems.
In the late 1960s the United States Air Force requested a dedicated close air support (CAS) plane that became the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. The A-10 was originally conceived as an anti-armor weapon (the A-X program requirements specifically called for an aircraft mounting a large rotary cannon to destroy massed Warsaw Pact armored forces) with limited secondary capability in the interdiction and tactical bombing roles. Today it remains the only dedicated fixed-wing ground-attack aircraft in any U.S. military service. Overall U.S. experience in the Gulf War, Kosovo War, Afghanistan War, and Iraq War has resulted in renewed interest in such aircraft. The U.S. Air Force is currently researching a replacement for the A-10 and started the OA-X program to procure a light attack aircraft.
The Soviets' similar Sukhoi Su-25 (Frogfoot) found success in the "flying artillery" role with many air forces.
The UK has completely retired the BAE Harrier II in 2011, and the Panavia Tornado dedicated attack-reconnaissance aircraft in 2019. It obtained the F-35 in 2018 and it retains its fleet of Eurofighter Typhoon multirole fighters.
See also: Air-to-ground weaponry
Gunship
Interdictor
List of attack aircraft
Pace-Finletter MOU 1952
References:
Citations:
Sources:
External links: Media related to Attack aircraft at Wikimedia Commons |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Attack helicopter | Development:
Background: Low-speed, fixed wing Allied aircraft like the Soviet Polikarpov Po-2 training and utility biplane had been used as early as 1942 to provide night harassment attack capability against the Wehrmacht Heer on the Eastern Front, most effectively in the Battle of the Caucasus as exemplified by the Night Witches all-female Soviet air unit. Following Operation Overlord in 1944, the military version of the similarly slow-flying Piper J-3 Cub high-wing civilian monoplane, the L-4 Grasshopper, begun to be used in a light anti-armor role by a few U.S. Army artillery spotter units over France; these aircraft were field-outfitted with either two or four bazooka rocket launchers attached to the lift struts, against German armored fighting vehicles. During the summer of 1944, U.S. Army Major Charles Carpenter managed to successfully take on an anti-armor role with his rocket-armed Piper L-4. His L-4, bearing US Army serial number 43-30426 and named Rosie the Rocketer, armed with six bazookas, had notable success in an engagement during the Battle of Arracourt on September 20, 1944, employing top attack tactics in knocking out at least four German armored vehicles, as a pioneering example of taking on heavy enemy armor from a slow-flying aircraft.
The Germans were also engaged in such ad hoc low-speed light aircraft platforms for ground attack very late in the war, with one subtype of the Bücker Bestmann trainer—the Bü 181C-3—armed with four Panzerfaust 100 anti-tank grenade launchers, two under each of the low-winged monoplane's wing panels, for the concluding two months of the war in Europe. This sort of role, being undertaken by low-speed fixed-wing light aircraft was something that was also likely to be achievable after World War II, from the increasing numbers of post-war military helicopter designs. The only American helicopter in use during the war years, the Sikorsky R-4, was only being used for rescue and were still very much experimental in nature.
In the early 1950s, various countries around the world started to make increased use of helicopters in their operations in transport and liaison roles. Later on it was realised that these helicopters, successors to the World War II-era Sikorsky R-4, could be armed with weapons in order to provide them with limited combat capability. Early examples include armed Sikorsky H-34s in service with the US Air Force and armed Mil Mi-4 in service with the Soviet Air Forces. This "experimental" trend towards the development of dedicated attack helicopters continued into the 1960s with the deployment of armed Bell UH-1s and Mil Mi-8s during the Vietnam War, to this day the pair of most produced helicopter designs in aviation history. These helicopters proved to be moderately successful in these configurations, but due to a lack of armor protection and speed, they were ultimately ineffective platforms for mounting weapons in higher-threat ground combat environments.
Since the 1960s, various countries around the world started to design and develop various types of helicopters with the purpose of providing a heavily armed and protected aerial vehicle that can perform a variety of combat roles, from reconnaissance to aerial assault missions. By the 1990s, the missile-armed attack helicopter evolved into a primary anti-tank weapon. Able to quickly move about the battlefield and launch fleeting "pop-up attacks", helicopters presented a major threat even with the presence of organic air defenses. The helicopter gunship became a major tool against tank warfare, and most attack helicopters became more and more optimized for the antitank mission.
United States: Amid the opening months of the Korean War era, during August 1950, a joint US Navy and Marine Corps test used a newly acquired Bell HTL-4 helicopter to test if a bazooka could be fired from a helicopter in flight. One of the larger 3.5 inch (90mm calibre) models of the bazooka was chosen, and was mounted ahead and to the right of the helicopter to allow the door to remain clear. The bazooka was successfully tested, although it was discovered that it would require shielding for the engine compartment, which was exposed in the model 47 and other early helicopters. The helicopter itself belonged to HMX-1, a Marine experimental helicopter squadron.
In the mid-1960s, the U.S. Army concluded that a purpose-built attack helicopter with more speed and firepower than current armed helicopters was required in the face of increasingly intense ground fire (often using heavy machine guns and anti-tank rockets) from Viet Cong and NVA troops. Based on this realization, and with the growing involvement in Vietnam, the U.S. Army developed the requirements for a dedicated attack helicopter, the Advanced Aerial Fire Support System (AAFSS). The aircraft design selected for this program in 1965, was Lockheed's AH-56 Cheyenne.
As the Army began its acquisition of a dedicated attack helicopter, it sought options to improve performance over the continued use of improvised interim aircraft (such as the UH-1B/C). In late 1965, a panel of high-level officers was selected to evaluate several prototype versions of armed and attack helicopters to determine which provided the most significant increase in capability to the UH-1B. The three highest-ranked aircraft, the Sikorsky S-61, Kaman H-2 "Tomahawk", and the Bell AH-1 Cobra, were selected to compete in flight trials conducted by the Army's Aviation Test Activity. Upon completion of the flight evaluations, the Test Activity recommended Bell's Huey Cobra to be an interim armed helicopter until the Cheyenne was fielded. On 13 April 1966, the U.S. Army awarded Bell Helicopter Company a production contract for 110 AH-1G Cobras. The Cobra had a tandem cockpit seating arrangement (vs UH-1 side-by-side) to make the aircraft a smaller frontal target, increased armor protection, and greater speed.
In 1967, the first AH-1Gs were deployed to Vietnam, around the same time that the Cheyenne successfully completed its first flight and initial flight evaluations. And while the Cheyenne program suffered setbacks over the next few years due to technical problems, the Cobra was establishing itself as an effective aerial weapons platform, despite its performance shortcomings compared to the AH-56 and design issues of its own. The cost estimates of the AH-56 increased substantially. By 1972, when the Cheyenne program was eventually cancelled to make way for the Advanced Attack Helicopter (AAH), the interim AH-1 "Snake" had built a solid reputation as an attack helicopter. In June 1972 the USMC began deploying AH-1J SeaCobra Attack Helicopters for combat operations in South Vietnam.
During the late 1970s, the U.S. Army saw the need of more sophistication within the attack helicopter corps, allowing them to operate in all weather conditions. Although AH-1Gs served well, they proved vulnerable even in a mid-intensity environment. With that the Advanced Attack Helicopter (AAH) program started, aiming for a more durable, more advanced, longer range, stronger close air support helicopter, capable of destroying armored formations. It would be capable of carrying the new AGM-114 Hellfire and night fighting capabilities. From this program the Hughes YAH-64 came out as the winner. The prototype YAH-64 was first flown on 30 September 1975. The U.S. Army selected the YAH-64 over the Bell YAH-63 in 1976, and later approved full production in 1982. After purchasing Hughes Helicopters in 1984, McDonnell Douglas continued and turned it into the AH-64 Apache production and development. The helicopter was introduced to U.S. Army service in April 1986.
Today, the US attack helicopter has been further refined, and the AH-64D Apache Longbow demonstrates many of the advanced technologies being considered for deployment on future gunships. The US Marine Corps also continued to employ attack helicopters in the direct fire support role, in the form of the AH-1 Super Cobra. While helicopters were effective tank-killers in the Middle East, attack helicopters are being seen more in a multipurpose role. Tactics, such as tank plinking, showed that fixed-wing aircraft could be effective against tanks, but helicopters retained a unique low-altitude, low-speed capability for close air support. Other purpose-built helicopters were developed for special operations missions, including the MH-6 for extremely close support.
Soviet Union and its successor states: During the early 1960s, Soviet engineers started experimenting with various designs aimed at producing an aerial vehicle that could provide battlefield mobility for infantry and provide fire support to army forces on the ground. The first of these concepts was a mock-up unveiled in 1966 in the experimental shop of the Ministry of Aircraft's factory number 329, where Mikhail Leont'yevich Mil was head designer. The mock-up, which was designated V-24, was based on another project, the V-22 utility helicopter, which itself never entered production. The V-24 had an infantry transport compartment that could hold eight troops sitting back to back, and a set of small wings positioned to the top rear of the passenger cabin, capable of holding up to six missiles or rocket pods, along with a twin-barrel GSh-23L cannon fixed to the landing skid. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Attack helicopter | Soviet Union and its successor states: During the early 1960s, Soviet engineers started experimenting with various designs aimed at producing an aerial vehicle that could provide battlefield mobility for infantry and provide fire support to army forces on the ground. The first of these concepts was a mock-up unveiled in 1966 in the experimental shop of the Ministry of Aircraft's factory number 329, where Mikhail Leont'yevich Mil was head designer. The mock-up, which was designated V-24, was based on another project, the V-22 utility helicopter, which itself never entered production. The V-24 had an infantry transport compartment that could hold eight troops sitting back to back, and a set of small wings positioned to the top rear of the passenger cabin, capable of holding up to six missiles or rocket pods, along with a twin-barrel GSh-23L cannon fixed to the landing skid.
These designs were proposed by Mil to the Soviet armed forces, and while he had the support of a number of strategists, he was opposed by several more senior members of the armed forces who believed that conventional weapons were a better use of resources. Despite the opposition, Mil managed to persuade the defence minister's first deputy, Marshal Andrey A. Grechko, to convene an expert panel to look into the matter. While the panel's opinions were mixed, supporters of the project eventually held sway and a request for design proposals for a battlefield support helicopter was issued.
The development of gunships and attack helicopters by the US Army during the Vietnam War convinced the Soviets of the advantages of armed helicopter ground support doctrine, which had a positive influence on moving forward with the development of the Mil Mi-24. After several mock-ups were produced, a directive was issued on 6 May 1968 to proceed with development of a twin-engine design of the helicopter. Work proceeded under Mil until his death in 1970. Detailed design work began in August 1968 under the codename Yellow 24. A full-scale mock-up of the design was reviewed and approved in February 1969. Flight tests with a prototype began on 15 September 1969 with a tethered hover, and four days later the first free flight was conducted. A second prototype was built, followed by a test batch of ten helicopters. A number of other design changes were made until the production version Mi-24A entered production in 1970, obtaining its initial operating capability in 1971 and was officially accepted into the state arsenal in 1972. Numerous versions have been developed to this day.
In 1972, following completion of the Mi-24, development began on a unique attack helicopter with transport capability. The new design had a reduced transport capability (3 troops instead of 8) and was called the Mil Mi-28.
In 1977, a preliminary design of the Mil Mi-28 was chosen, in a classic single-rotor layout. Its transport capability was removed and it lost its similarity to the Mi-24. Design work on the Mi-28 began under Marat Tishchenko in 1980. In 1981, a design and a mock-up were accepted. The prototype (no. 012) was first flown on 10 November 1982. In this same time frame, Kamov was also attempting to submit its own designs for a new helicopter to the military, which they had designed throughout the early and mid 1980s. In 1984, the Mi-28 completed the first stage of state trials, but in October 1984 the Soviet Air Force chose the more advanced Kamov Ka-50 as the new anti-tank helicopter. The Mi-28 development was continued, but given lower priority. In December 1987 Mi-28 production in Rosvertol in Rostov-on-Don was approved. After several prototypes were built, production ceased in 1993 with additional development continuing into the 21st century. Changes in the military situation after the Cold War made specialized anti-tank helicopters less useful. The advantages of the Mi-28N, like all-weather action ability, lower cost, and similarity to the Mi-24, have become more important. In 2003, the head of Russian Air Force stated that the Mi-28N and Ka-50 attack helicopters will become the standard Russian attack helicopter. The first serial Mi-28N was delivered to the Army on 5 June 2006.
China: In 1979, the Chinese military studied the problem of countering large armor formations. It concluded that the best conventional solution was to use attack helicopters. Eight Aérospatiale Gazelle armed with Euromissile HOT were procured for evaluation. By the mid-1980s, the Chinese decided a dedicated attack helicopter was required. At the time, they used civilian helicopters converted for the military; these were no longer adequate in the attack role, and suitable only as scouts. Following this, China evaluated the Agusta A129 Mangusta, and in 1988 secured an agreement with the US to purchase AH-1 Cobras and a license to produce BGM-71 TOW missiles; the latter was cancelled following the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and the resulting arms embargo. The color revolutions prevented the purchase of attack helicopters from Eastern Europe in 1990 and 1991; Bulgaria and Russia rejected Chinese offers to purchase the Mil Mi-24.
While attempting to import foreign designs failed, war games determined that attack helicopters had to be commanded by the army, rather than the air force. This led to the formation of the People's Liberation Army Ground Force Aircraft (PLAGFAF), with an initial strength of 9 Harbin Z-9s. The PLAGFAF conducted tactical experiments that would help define the future Z-10's requirements. Research also decided that anti-tank missiles like the BGM-71 TOW were inadequate, and favored an analogue to the AGM-114 Hellfire.
The Gulf War highlighted the urgent need for attack helicopters, and revalidated the assessment that a purpose-built design was needed. (At the time, the Chinese military depended on armed utility helicopters such as the Changhe Z-11 and Harbin Z-9.) Also, it demonstrated that the new attack helicopter would need to be able to defend itself against other helicopters and aircraft. The military perceived that once the new attack helicopter entered service, the existing helicopters would be used as scouts.
The Armed Helicopter Developmental Work Team (武装直升机开发工作小组) was formed to develop a new medium helicopter design, as opposed to basing the new design on the light helicopters then in service. The 602nd and 608th Research Institutes started development of the 6-ton class China Medium Helicopter (CHM) program in 1994. The program was promoted as a civilian project, and was able to secure significant Western technical assistance, such as from Eurocopter (rotor installation design consultancy), Pratt & Whitney Canada (PT6C turboshaft engine) and Agusta Westland (transmission). The Chinese concentrated on areas where it could not obtain foreign help. The 602nd Research Institute's called its proposed armed helicopter design the Z-10 (Chinese: 直-10; lit. 'helicopter-10').
The 602nd Research Institute was assigned as the chief designer, while Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation (HAMC) of China Aviation Industry Corporation II (AVIC II) was assigned as the primary manufacturer. Nearly four dozen other establishments participated in the program. According to Chinese sources, the initial test flights were concluded on December 17, 2003, whereas according to other sources they were completed nine months earlier in March 2003. According to Jane's Information Group, a total of 3 prototypes had completed over 400 hours of test flights by this time. By 2004, 3 more prototypes were built, for a total of 6, and a second stage of test flights were concluded on December 15, 2004. In one of the test flights the future commander-in-chief of the People's Liberation Army Ground Force Air Force (PLAGAF), Song Xiangsheng (宋湘生), was on board the prototype. A third stage of intensive test flights followed, taking place during both day and night. By January 2006 weaponry and sensor tests, including firing of live ammunition, had taken place. The helicopter was introduced to the general public in December 2010 and subsequently entered service with the People's Liberation Army.
Italy: In 1972, the Italian Army began forming a requirement for a light observation and anti-tank helicopter. Agusta had initially studied the development of a combat-orientated derivative of their existing A109 helicopter, however they decided to proceed with the development of a more ambitious helicopter design. In 1978, Agusta formally began the design process on what would become the Agusta A129 Mangusta. On 11 September 1983, the first of five A129 prototypes made the type's maiden flight; the fifth prototype would first fly in March 1986. The Italian Army placed an order for 60 A129s.
The A129 was the first European attack helicopter; as such it has several original aspects to its design, such as being the first helicopter to make use of a fully computerised integrated management system to reduce crew workload. It was decided that much of the helicopter's functionality was to be automated; as such, parts of the flight and armament systems are monitored and directly controlled by onboard computers. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Attack helicopter | Agusta had initially studied the development of a combat-orientated derivative of their existing A109 helicopter, however they decided to proceed with the development of a more ambitious helicopter design. In 1978, Agusta formally began the design process on what would become the Agusta A129 Mangusta. On 11 September 1983, the first of five A129 prototypes made the type's maiden flight; the fifth prototype would first fly in March 1986. The Italian Army placed an order for 60 A129s.
The A129 was the first European attack helicopter; as such it has several original aspects to its design, such as being the first helicopter to make use of a fully computerised integrated management system to reduce crew workload. It was decided that much of the helicopter's functionality was to be automated; as such, parts of the flight and armament systems are monitored and directly controlled by onboard computers. The A129 shares considerable design similarities to Agusta's earlier A109 utility helicopter; the rear section of the A129 was derived from the A109 and incorporated to an entirely new forward section. The A129's fuselage is highly angular and armoured for ballistic protection; the composite rotor blades are also able to withstand hits from 23mm cannon fire. The two man crew, comprising a pilot and gunner, sit in a conventional tandem cockpit.
During the 1980s, Agusta sought to partner with Westland Helicopters to develop a common light attack helicopter, other prospective manufacturing participants in the joint initiative included Fokker and Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA. In 1986, the governments of Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding to investigate an improved version of the A129, alternatively called the Joint European Helicopter Tonal or Light Attack Helicopter (LAH). By 1988, feasibility studies for four different options had been conducted for the LAH, these would have between 80 per cent and 20 per cent growth over the initial A129; both single-engine and twin-engine configurations were examined using various new powerplants, as well as a new rotor system, retractable landing gear, improved sensors and more powerful armament. However, the LAH project collapsed in 1990 following Britain and the Netherlands independently deciding to withdraw from the program and eventually procure the AH-64 Apache instead.
Turkey had sought a new attack helicopter since the 1990s to replace their diminished Bell AH-1 Cobra and Bell AH-1 SuperCobra fleets. Following a highly protracted selection process, in September 2007, an order was issued for 51 TAI/AgustaWestland T129 ATAK helicopters, a variant of the A129 International. As a part of the deal with AgustaWestland, Turkish defense firm TAI acquired the rights for future manufacturing of the T129; TAI intends to produce the T129 for export customers. Various components and avionics systems are intended to be replaced with indigenously-produced systems as they are developed.
France, Germany and Spain: In 1984, the French and West German governments issued a requirement for an advanced multirole battlefield helicopter. A joint venture consisting of Aérospatiale and MBB was subsequently chosen as the preferred supplier. According to statements by the French Defence Minister André Giraud in April 1986, the collaborative effort had become more expensive than an individual national programme and was forecast to take longer to complete as well. In July 1986, a government report into the project alleged that the development had become distanced from the requirements and preferences of the military customers the Tiger was being developed for.
Both France and Germany reorganised the programme. Thomson-CSF also took over the majority of the Tiger's electronic development work, such as the visual systems and sensors. Despite the early development problems and the political uncertainty between 1984 and 1986, the program was formally relaunched in November 1987; it was at this point that a greater emphasis on the attack helicopter's anti-tank capabilities came about. Much of the project's organisational framework was rapidly redeveloped between 1987 and 1989; such as the installation of a Franco-German Helicopter Office to act as a program executive agency in May 1989.
Due to the end of the Cold War and subsequent defence budgets decreases in the 1990s, financial pressures led to further questions regarding the necessity for the entire program. In 1992, Aérospatiale and MBB, among other companies, merged to form the Eurocopter Group; this led to considerable consolidation of the aerospace industry and the Tiger project itself. A major agreement was struck in December 1996 between France and Germany that cemented the Tiger's prospects and committed the development of supporting elements, such as a series of new generation missile designs for use by the new combat helicopter.
On 18 June 1999, both Germany and France publicly placed orders for an initial batch of 160 Tiger helicopters, 80 for each nation, valued at €3.3 billion. On 22 March 2002, the first production Tiger was rolled out in a large ceremony held at Eurocopter's Donauworth factory; although production models began initial acceptance trials in 2003, the first official delivery to the French Army took place on 18 March 2005; the first official Tiger delivery to the Germany followed on 6 April 2005. Germany reduced its order to 57 in March 2013. In 2008 OCCAR estimated the project cost at €7,300,000,000. France's FY2012 budget put their share of the project at €6.3bn (~US$8.5bn), implying a programme cost of €14.5bn (~US$19.5bn) to the three main partners. At FY2012 prices, their 40 HAP cost €27m/unit (~US$36m) and their 40 HAD €35.6m/unit (~US$48m), including development costs the French Tigers cost €78.8m (~US$106m) each.
South Africa: The Rooivalk project began in early 1984 under the auspices of the Atlas Aircraft Corporation, a predecessor of Denel Aviation. Faced with the increasingly conventional nature of the South African Border War, the South African Defence Force recognised the need for a dedicated attack helicopter and accordingly set along the process of developing a suitable aircraft.
The Atlas XH-1 Alpha was the first prototype to emerge from the program. It was developed from an Aérospatiale Alouette III airframe, retaining that helicopter's engine and dynamic components, but replacing the original cockpit with a stepped tandem one, adding a 20 mm cannon on the nose and converting the undercarriage to tail-dragger configuration. The XH-1 first flew on 3 February 1985. The results were ultimately good enough to convince Atlas and the SAAF that the concept was feasible, opening the door for the development of the Rooivalk. During the Rooivalk's development, it was decided to base the aircraft on the dynamic components of the Aérospatiale Super Puma, a larger and more powerful helicopter. These components were already used on the Atlas Oryx, a local upgrade and modification of the Aérospatiale Puma.
Unfortunately, the development of the Rooivalk continued until after the conclusion of the South African Border War and defence budgets were slashed due to parliamentary changes to the requirements of the national air force. This resulted in an extensive development and production period beginning in 1990 until 2007, during which 12 aircraft were produced for use by the South African Air Force. These aircraft were subsequently upgraded to the Block 1F standard by 2011. The upgrade involves improved targeting systems and other avionics which enable the helicopter to use guided missiles for the first time. The Mokopa ATGM was qualified as part of the upgrade process. Gearbox components were improved and cooling problems with the F2 20 mm cannon were also addressed.
On 1 April 2011, the South African Air Force received the first five of eleven (one of the twelve aircraft originally delivered to the SAAF was written off after an accident) Block 1F upgraded Rooivalk. The ninth and tenth Rooivalk attack helicopters were delivered in September 2012 following their upgrade to the Block 1F initial operating standard. The eleventh and final Rooivalk was delivered on 13 March 2013.
India: The Indian Army deploys the Mil Mi-35 (export variant of Mi-24V) and HAL Rudra as of 2014. During the Kargil War in 1999, the Indian Air Force and the Indian Army found that there was a need for helicopters that can operate at such high-altitude conditions with ease. Limitations in terms of both high payloads and maneuverability of the existing Mi-35 fleet reportedly contributed to India developing indigenous rotorcraft, such as the HAL Prachand and HAL Rudra, to perform multi-role high-altitude combat operations. The HAL Rudra was a modified version of HAL Dhruv, free of any major modifications to the airframe to quickly create an armed variant for the Indian Army.
The HAL Prachand is a purpose-built attack helicopter, expressly designed to overcome several operational shortcomings of prior attack rotorcraft. By 2010, the Indian Air Force was reportedly set to acquire 65 LCHs while the Indian Army's Aviation Corps was to also procure 114 LCHs for its own purposes. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Attack helicopter | During the Kargil War in 1999, the Indian Air Force and the Indian Army found that there was a need for helicopters that can operate at such high-altitude conditions with ease. Limitations in terms of both high payloads and maneuverability of the existing Mi-35 fleet reportedly contributed to India developing indigenous rotorcraft, such as the HAL Prachand and HAL Rudra, to perform multi-role high-altitude combat operations. The HAL Rudra was a modified version of HAL Dhruv, free of any major modifications to the airframe to quickly create an armed variant for the Indian Army.
The HAL Prachand is a purpose-built attack helicopter, expressly designed to overcome several operational shortcomings of prior attack rotorcraft. By 2010, the Indian Air Force was reportedly set to acquire 65 LCHs while the Indian Army's Aviation Corps was to also procure 114 LCHs for its own purposes. During February 2020, the LCH was declared ready for production, the final assembly line has been established at HAL's Helicopter Division in Bangalore. Prime minister Narendra Modi conducted the handover ceremony of HAL Prachand to the Indian Armed forces in Jhansi.
Operations: The Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s saw "the most intensive use of the helicopters" in a conventional war ever, as well as the only confirmed helicopter dogfights in history; in particular, Iranian Army Aviation AH-1J SeaCobras engaged with Mi-24 Hind and Mi-8 Hip helicopters of the Iraqi Army Air Corps. The Iranian Cobras also attacked advancing Iraqi divisions in conjunction with fixed-wing F-4 Phantoms armed with Maverick missiles, destroying numerous armoured vehicles and impeded the Iraqi advance, albeit not completely halting it.
The 1990s could be seen as the coming-of-age for the U.S. attack helicopter. The AH-64 Apache was used extensively during Operation Desert Storm with great success, being used to fire the first shots of the conflict, destroying Iraqi early warning radar and surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites with their Hellfire missiles. They were later used successfully in both of their operational roles, to direct attack against enemy armor and as aerial artillery in support of ground troops; both Hellfire missile and cannon attacks by Apaches destroyed numerous enemy tanks and armored cars. General Carl Stiner claimed that: "You could fire that Hellfire missile through a window from four miles [6.4 km] away at night." However, serious logistical problems limited operations, Apaches in the Iraqi theater flew only one-fifth of planned flight-hours.
The "deep attack" role of independently operating attack helicopters came into question after a failed mission, during the 2003 Gulf War attack on the Karbala Gap. A second mission in the same area, four days later, but coordinated with artillery and fixed-wing aircraft, was more successful with minimal losses. In October 2014, U.S. Army AH-64s and Air Force fighters participated in four air strikes on Islamic State units northeast of Fallujah. In June 2016, Apaches were used in support of the Iraqi Army's Mosul offensive and provided support during the Battle of Mosul, sometimes flying night missions supporting Iraqi operations.
In 2011, France and Britain sent Eurocopter Tiger and AgustaWestland Apache attack helicopters to Libya. The primary objective of the 2011 military intervention was to protect civilians in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Within days of the Apaches deployment, it had completed a variety of tasks such as destroying tanks, checkpoints held by pro-Gaddafi forces and vehicles carrying ammunitions loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. Apache operations over Libya have been heavily influenced and supported by NATO reconnaissance flights and intelligence missions; information was continually relayed to update target information, assess the threat of Surface to Air missiles (SAM), and the presence of civilians, enabling real time changes to missions.
In 2013, the South African National Defence Force announced that it would deploy Denel Rooivalk attack helicopters to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to support the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This was the first combat deployment for the helicopter. Three helicopters from 16 Squadron SAAF were deployed to the region and since November 2013 it was involved in heavy fighting alongside the United Nations Force Intervention Brigade, against rebels operating in North Kivu, in particular the M23 militia, which consisted of hardened former government troops equipped with relatively heavy weaponry such as main battle tanks and anti-aircraft weaponry. During its first ever combat mission it proved to be instrumental in routing the rebels from their hilltop strongholds during an offensive by the United Nations Force Intervention Brigade and the Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
See also: Army aviation
References:
Citations:
Bibliography:
Further reading: Duke, R.A., Helicopter Operations in Algeria [Trans. French], Dept. of the Army (1959)
France, Operations Research Group, Report of the Operations Research Mission on H-21 Helicopter (1957)
Leuliette, Pierre, St. Michael and the Dragon: Memoirs of a Paratrooper, New York:Houghton Mifflin (1964)
Riley, David, French Helicopter Operations in Algeria Marine Corps Gazette, February 1958, pp. 21–26.
Shrader, Charles R. The First Helicopter War: Logistics and Mobility in Algeria, 1954-1962 Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers (1999)
Spenser, Jay P., Whirlybirds: A History of the U.S. Helicopter Pioneers, Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press (1998) |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Attrition warfare | Strategic considerations: Attrition warfare represents an attempt to grind down an opponent's ability to make war by destroying their military resources by any means including guerrilla warfare, people's war, scorched earth and all types of battles apart from a decisive battle. Attrition warfare does not include Blitzkrieg or using concentration of force and a decisive battle to win. The side that reinforces their army at a higher speed will normally win the war. Clausewitz called it the exhaustion of the adversary.
A side that perceives itself to be at a marked disadvantage may deliberately seek out attrition warfare to neutralize its opponent's advantages over time. Sun Tzu has stated that there is no country that has benefitted from prolonged warfare, but Russia in 1812 won the war with attrition warfare against Napoleon. When attritional methods have worn down the enemy sufficiently to make other methods feasible, attritional methods are often complemented or even abandoned by other strategies. World War I military commanders on both sides ineffectively relied on attrition warfare, which resulted in casualties without a strategic result.
The difference between war of attrition and other forms of war is somewhat artificial since even a single battle normally contains an element of attrition. A strategy of attrition is pursba9ucnolncosr;bn; an attempt to cause the enemy great losses in a single stroke (such as by encirclement and capture). Attrition warfare also tries to increase the friction in a war for the opponent.
While attrition warfare might appear to be a strategic option for combatants possessing greater resources or asymmetric advantages over their adversaries, it also carries considerable drawbacks. Perhaps the most common reason for failure of attrition warfare is related to the time required to fulfill one's war goals. The geopolitical and strategic situation may shift dramatically over long periods of time, potentially giving the opponent an edge if victory is not achieved soon enough. Additionally, the attrition strategies gives opponents time to adjust tactics and strategy. Although the strategy is typically victorious for the more well-resourced nation, it may eventually fail due to operational and geopolitical mishaps, such as Athens during the Peloponnesian War, or due to strategic miscalculations, such as Germany during the Battle of Britain.
Examples in history:
Most typical: The French invasion of Russia is a textbook example of attrition warfare, where Russia interfered with Napoleon's military logistics and won the war without a decisive battle. One of the best visual representations of the Russian attrition warfare strategies was created by Charles Joseph Minard. It shows the steady decrease of the number of soldiers of the French Grande Armée during the course of the war.
Best known: One commonly known example of attrition warfare might be on the Western Front during World War I. Both military forces found themselves in static defensive positions in trenches running from Switzerland to the English Channel. For years, without any opportunity for maneuvers, the only way the commanders thought that they could defeat the enemy was to repeatedly attack head on and grind the other down.
One of the most enduring examples of attrition warfare on the Western Front is the Battle of Verdun, which took place throughout most of 1916. Erich von Falkenhayn later claimed that his tactics at Verdun were designed not to take the city but rather to destroy the French Army in its defense. Falkenhayn is described as wanting to "bleed France white" and thus the attrition tactics were employed in the battle.
Soldiers on the Italian Front fought a series of battles of attrition along the Isonzo River between June 1915 and November 1917.
Attritional warfare in World War I has been shown by historians such as Hew Strachan to have been used as a post hoc ergo propter hoc excuse for failed offensives. Contemporary sources disagree with Strachan's view on this. While the Christmas Memorandum is a post-war invention, the strategy of attritional warfare was the original strategy for the battle.
List of wars: Scythian tactics during the European Scythian campaign of Darius I of 513 BC, which was in deep steppes retreat, avoiding a direct confrontation with Darius I's army, while spoiling the wells and pastures.
The Athenians, who were weaker in land warfare during the Peloponnesian War, employed attrition warfare using their navy.
The "delaying" tactics of Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (surnamed "Cunctator", the delayer) against Hannibal during the Second Punic War.
Muhammad Tapar's campaign against the Nizaris of Alamut in 1109–1118
Second Mongol invasion of Hungary in 1285 and 1286
Fall of Tenochtitlan by Hernán Cortés in 1521
Swedish invasion of Russia in 1708
The American strategy during the American Revolutionary War
The latter portion of the American Civil War, notably the siege of Vicksburg, the overland campaign, and the siege of Petersburg
The Attrition warfare against Napoleon in the French invasion of Russia by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1812
The later battles of the Philippine–American War
The latter stages of the Spanish Civil War (1938–1939)
The Chinese strategy during the Second Sino-Japanese War
Tonnage war in the Atlantic and Pacific during World War II
The Air battle for Great Britain in World War II after the bombing of London
Static battles in World War II, including Soviet urban defense during the Battle of Stalingrad
Battle of Tabu-dong, and the final two years of the Korean War
The Vietnam War
The "Long War" during the Provisional IRA's armed campaign against the British Army during the Troubles.
The Israeli–Egyptian War of Attrition from 1967 to 1970.
The Soviet–Afghan War and later the Afghan Civil War (1989–1992)
The later phases of the Iran–Iraq War
The Yugoslav Wars (1991–2001): especially the Bosnian War (1992–1995), the Croatian War (1991–1992 and 1995), and the Kosovo War (1998–1999).
The War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)
The Sri Lankan Civil War after 2005
The 2011 Libyan civil war
Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)
The Syrian civil war (2011–present), in particular the Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016).
The fight of the Polisario Front in Western Sahara against the Moroccan Army (2020–present).
The Tigray War between the Ethiopian government and Tigray rebels (2020–2022).
During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian military adopted a strategy of attrition.
The Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)
See also: Asymmetric warfare
Demoralization (warfare)
Guerrilla warfare
Human wave attack
Mexican standoff
No-win situation
Pyrrhic victory
Winner's curse
Win-win game
Military theory: Fabian strategy
Flypaper theory (strategy)
Ivan Bloch
Lanchester's laws
Loss Exchange Ratio
Maneuver warfare
New generation warfare
Notes:
References: Clausewitz, Carl von (1873). On War. Retrieved 3 April 2021.
DiGiovanni, Janine (2012). "Bleary-Eyed Troops Fight a Building at a Time in Syria". New York Times. Retrieved 4 April 2021.
firstworldwar (1916). "Erich von Falkenhayn on the Battle of Verdun". Retrieved 3 April 2021.
Foley, Robert (1916). "A New Form of Warfare? Erich von Falkenhayn's Plan for Victory, 1916". Retrieved 16 March 2018.
Handel, Michael I. (2003). Strategic Logic and Political Rationality: Essays in Honor of Michael I. Handel. Psychology Press. p. 80. ISBN 9780714654843. Retrieved 4 April 2018.
idlocgov (2022). "Attrition (Military science)". Retrieved 27 August 2022.
Kaye, C.A. (1957). "Military Geology in the United States Sector of the European Theater of Operations during World War II". Geological Society of America Bulletin. 68 (1): 47. Bibcode:1957GSAB...68...47K. doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1957)68[47:MGITUS]2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 3 April 2021.
McPherson, James (1988). Battle Cry of Freedom. Oxford University Press. p. 734. ISBN 1442097515. Retrieved 20 June 2022.
Merriam Webster Dictionary (2021). "attrition". Retrieved 3 April 2021.
Murray, Nicholas (2021). "Attrition Warfare". Retrieved 3 April 2021.
nctimes (2012). "Airstrikes turn Libya conflict into battle of attrition". Archived from the original on 4 September 2012. Retrieved 3 April 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
Sun Tzu (2004). The Art of War. Retrieved 3 April 2021. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Auxiliary ship | Roles:
Replenishment: One of the most direct ways that auxiliary ships support the fleet is by providing underway replenishment (also known as "replenishment at sea") to major fleet units. This allows the fleet to remain in the same location, with the replenishment vessels bringing up fuel, ammunition, food, and supplies from shore to the fleet wherever it is operating.
Oilers ("replenishment tankers") are vessels specifically designed to bring fuel oil to the fleet, while the earlier Colliers supplied coal-burning steamships. Specific role replenishment vessels include combat stores ships, depot ships, general stores issue ships, and ammunition ships.
Tenders are specifically designed to support a type of smaller naval unit, like submarines, destroyers, and seaplanes, providing a mobile base of operations for these units: specifically destroyer tenders, submarine tenders, seaplane tenders, torpedo boat tenders.
Transport: Supporting front-line operating bases requires immense transportation capacity. Transport ships are often converted merchant ships simply commissioned (APA, APD, APH, APV) into naval service. Tankers are transports specifically designed to ship fuel to forward locations. Transport ships are often employed not only carrying cargo for naval support but are in support of all forces of a nation's military (AK, AKA, AKN, AKR, AKS). In particular, troopships and attack transports are used to carry a large number of soldiers to operational theatres. Some transport ships are highly specialized, like the ammunition ships employed by the US Navy. Large ocean tugs (AT, ATO, ATF, ATA, ATR) are used to tow large auxiliary ships, like barges, floating repair docks, and floating cranes in the open sea, also disabled ships.
Repair: Repairing ships at sea or in conflict areas is important as it allows these vessels to return to service more quickly, while also increasing the chance of survival for ships critically damaged in battle. Repair vessels (US Navy: AR, ARB, ARC, ARG, ARH, ARL, ARV) range from small equipment ships known as Auxiliary repair docks, to the larger Auxiliary floating drydocks, there are also Aircraft repair ships that specialize in repair of naval aircraft.
Harbor: Harbor support is a critical support role, with various types of vessels including tugboats, barges, lighter barges, derrick-crane vessels, and others used to move ships and equipment around the port facilities, and depot ships and tends to service ships currently in the harbor. These vessels also help maintain the harbor by dredging channels, maintaining jetties and buoys, and even providing floating platforms for port defenses.
In US Navy, tugboats are type YT, YTB, YTM, YTL or a Type V ship. and barges are classified as a Type B ship or YF, YFN, YFR, or YFRN.
Support: Radar picket to increase the radar detection range around a force. Communications Relay Ships (AGMR) are floating communications stations. Tracking ships or Range Instrumentation Ships (AGM) are equipped with antennas and electronics to support the launching and tracking of missiles and rockets. Command ship (AGF) are flagships of the commander of a fleet. Wind-class icebreaker (AGB WAGB) are support ships. Rescue and salvage ship and Submarine rescue ship (ASR) for surface support ship for ship and submarine rescue. Barracks ships or Auxiliary Personal Living ships, (APL) are vessels-barges for service men to live on.
Research: A wide variety of vessels are employed as Technical Research Ships(AGTR), Tracking Ships(AGM), Environmental Research Ships (AGER), Hydrofoil Research Ships (AGEH), and Survey Vessels, primarily to provide a navy with a better understanding of its operating environment or to assist in testing new technologies for employment in other vessels.
Hospital: Hospital ships are able to provide medical care in remote locations to personnel.
Unclassified auxiliary ship: The US Navy also used an unclassified miscellaneous auxiliary ship classification in which the unclassified miscellaneous auxiliary ship classification is IX. An unclassified miscellaneous auxiliary ship can be a new ship without a classified role or a ship that does not fit into a standard category or a ship that had been removed from its classification.
See also: List of auxiliaries of the United States Navy
List of auxiliary ship classes in service
Service Squadron
US Naval Advance Bases
References:
Notes:
Bibliography: Cutler, Deborah W.; Cutler, Thomas J. (2005). Dictionary of Naval Terms (6 ed.). Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1591141501.
Morris, Christopher G. (1992). Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (1 ed.). Academic Press. p. 192. ISBN 978-0127356327. role of auxiliary vessels.
External links: Media related to Auxiliary ships at Wikimedia Commons |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Aviation in World War I | The early years of war: At the 1911 meeting of the Institute of International Law in Madrid, legislation was proposed to limit the use of aeroplanes to reconnaissance missions and banning them from being used as platforms for weapons. This legislation was rooted in a fear that aeroplanes would be used to attack undefended cities, violating Article 25 of the Den Hague Reglement (the set of international laws governing warfare).
At the start of the war, there was some debate over the usefulness of aircraft in warfare. Many senior officers, in particular, remained skeptical. However the initial campaigns of 1914 proved that cavalry could no longer provide the reconnaissance expected by their generals, in the face of the greatly increased firepower of twentieth century armies, and it was quickly realised that aircraft could at least locate the enemy, even if early air reconnaissance was hampered by the newness of the techniques involved. Early skepticism and low expectations quickly turned to unrealistic demands beyond the capabilities of the primitive aircraft available.
Even so, air reconnaissance played a critical role in the "war of movement" of 1914, especially in helping the Allies halt the German invasion of France. Aircraft were first used in Alexander von Kluck's German First Army during the Battle of Mons to target its guns on British II Corps positions. On 22 August 1914, British Captain L.E.O. Charlton and Lieutenant V.H.N. Wadham of the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) reported von Kluck's forces were preparing to surround the British Expeditionary Force, contradicting all other intelligence. The British High Command took note of the report and started to withdraw from Mons, saving the lives of 100,000 soldiers. Later, during the First Battle of the Marne, observation aircraft discovered weak points and exposed flanks in the German lines, allowing the allies to take advantage of them.
In Germany the great successes of the early Zeppelin airships had largely overshadowed the importance of heavier-than-air aircraft. Out of a paper strength of about 230 aircraft belonging to the army in August 1914 only 180 or so were of any use. The French military aviation exercises of 1911, 1912, and 1913 had pioneered cooperation with the cavalry (reconnaissance) and artillery (spotting), but the momentum was, if anything, slacking.
The United Kingdom had "started late" and initially relied largely on the French aircraft industry, especially for aircraft engines. The initial British contribution to the total allied airwar effort in August 1914 (of about 184 aircraft) was three squadrons with about 30 serviceable machines. By the end of the war, the British Armed Forces had formed the world's first air force to be independent of either army or naval control, the Royal Air Force. The United States Armed Forces air services were far behind; even in 1917, when the United States entered the war, they were to be almost totally dependent on the French and British aircraft industries for combat aircraft.
The Germans' great air "coup" of 1914 was at the Battle of Tannenberg in East Prussia, where an unexpected Imperial Russian Army attack was reported by Leutnants Canter and Mertens, resulting in the Russians being forced to withdraw.
Early Western Front reconnaissance duties: By the end of 1914 the line between the Imperial German Army and the Allied powers stretched from the North Sea to the Alps. The initial "war of movement" largely ceased, and the front became static. Three main functions of short range reconnaissance squadrons had emerged by March 1915.
The first was photographic reconnaissance: building up a complete mosaic map of the enemy trench system. The first air cameras used glass plates. (Photographic film had been invented by Kodak, but did not at this stage have sufficient resolution).
Artillery "spotting" enabled the ranging of artillery on targets invisible to the gunners. Radio telephony was not yet practical from an aircraft, so communication was a problem. By March 1915, a two-seater on "artillery observation" duties was typically equipped with a primitive radio transmitter transmitting using Morse code, but had no receiver. The artillery battery signalled to the aircraft by laying strips of white cloth on the ground in prearranged patterns. Observation duties were shared with the tethered balloons, which could communicate directly with their batteries by field telephone, but were far less flexible in locating targets and reporting the fall of shot.
"Contact patrol" work attempted to follow the course of a battle by communicating with advancing infantry while flying over the battlefield. The technology of the period did not permit radio contact, while methods of signalling were necessarily crude, including dropping messages from the aircraft. Soldiers were initially reluctant to reveal their positions to aircraft, as they (the soldiers) found distinguishing between friend and foe problematic.
Reconnaissance flying, like all kinds, was a hazardous business. In April 1917, the worst month for the entire war for the RFC, the average life expectancy of a British pilot on the Western Front was 93 flying hours.
Early bombing efforts: Typical 1914 aircraft could carry only very small bomb loads – the bombs themselves, and their storage, were still very elementary, and effective bomb sights were still to be developed. Nonetheless the beginnings of strategic and tactical bombing date from the earliest days of the war. Notable are the raids by the RNAS on the German airship sheds at Düsseldorf, Cologne and Friedrichshafen in September, October and November 1914, as well as the formation of the Brieftauben Abteilung Ostende.
The dawn of air combat: As Dickson had predicted, initially air combat was extremely rare, and definitely subordinate to reconnaissance. There are even stories of the crew of rival reconnaissance aircraft exchanging nothing more belligerent than smiles and waves. This soon progressed to throwing grenades, and other objects—even grappling hooks. The first aircraft brought down by another was an Austrian reconnaissance aircraft rammed on 8 September 1914 by a Russian pilot Pyotr Nesterov in Galicia in the Eastern Front. Both planes crashed as the result of the attack, killing all occupants. Eventually, pilots began firing handheld firearms at enemy aircraft; however, pistols were too inaccurate and the single-shot rifles too unlikely to score a hit. On August 23, 1914, no 5 Squadron British observer Lt Leslie da Costa Penn Gaskell opened fire on a German aircraft with a machine gun for the first time and the era of air combat was underway as more and more aircraft were fitted with machine guns.
Evolution of fighter aircraft:
The pusher solution: As early as 1912, designers at the British firm Vickers were experimenting with machine gun carrying aircraft. The first concrete result was the Vickers Experimental Fighting Biplane 1, which featured at the 1913 Aero Show in London. and appeared in developed form as the FB.5 in February 1915. This pioneering fighter, like the Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2b and the Airco DH.1, was a pusher type. These had the engine and propeller behind the pilot, facing backward, rather than at the front of the aircraft, as in a tractor configuration design. This provided an optimal machine gun position, from which the gun could be fired directly forward without an obstructing propeller, and reloaded and cleared in flight. An important drawback was that pusher designs tended to have an inferior performance to tractor types with the same engine power because of the extra drag created by the struts and rigging necessary to carry the tail unit. The F.E.2d, a more powerful version of the F.E.2b, remained a formidable opponent well into 1917, when pusher fighters were already obsolete. They were simply too slow to catch their quarry.
Machine gun synchronisation: The forward firing gun of a pusher "gun carrier" provided some offensive capability—the mounting of a machine gun firing to the rear from a two-seater tractor aircraft gave defensive capability. There was an obvious need for some means to fire a machine gun forward from a tractor aircraft, especially from one of the small, light, "scout" aircraft, adapted from pre-war racers, that were to perform most air combat duties for the rest of the war. It would seem most natural to place the gun between the pilot and the propeller, firing in the direct line of flight so that the gun could be aimed by "aiming the aircraft". It was also important that the breech of the weapon be readily accessible to the pilot so that he could clear the jams and stoppages to which early machine guns were prone. However, this presented an obvious problem: a percentage of bullets fired "free" through a revolving propeller will strike the blades, with predictably destructive results.
Early experiments with synchronised machine guns had been carried out in several countries before the war. Franz Schneider, then working for Nieuport in France but later working for L.V.G. in Germany, patented a synchronisation gear on 15 July 1913. Early Russian gear was designed by a Lieutenant Poplavko: the Edwards brothers in England designed the first British example, and the Morane-Saulnier company were also working on the problem in 1914. All these early experiments failed to attract official attention, partly due to official inertia and partly due to the failures of early synchronising gears, which included dangerously ricocheting bullets and disintegrating propellers.
The Lewis gun used on many Allied aircraft was almost impossible to synchronise due to the erratic rate of fire resulting from its open bolt firing cycle. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Aviation in World War I | Early experiments with synchronised machine guns had been carried out in several countries before the war. Franz Schneider, then working for Nieuport in France but later working for L.V.G. in Germany, patented a synchronisation gear on 15 July 1913. Early Russian gear was designed by a Lieutenant Poplavko: the Edwards brothers in England designed the first British example, and the Morane-Saulnier company were also working on the problem in 1914. All these early experiments failed to attract official attention, partly due to official inertia and partly due to the failures of early synchronising gears, which included dangerously ricocheting bullets and disintegrating propellers.
The Lewis gun used on many Allied aircraft was almost impossible to synchronise due to the erratic rate of fire resulting from its open bolt firing cycle.
Some RNAS aircraft, including Bristol Scouts, had an unsynchronised fuselage-mounted Lewis gun positioned to fire directly through the propeller disk. The propeller blades were reinforced with tape to hold the wood together if hit, and it relied on the fact that the odds of any single round hitting a blade below 5%, so if short bursts were used, it offered a temporary expedient even if it was not an ideal solution.
The Maxim guns used by both the Allies (as the Vickers) and Germany (as the Parabellum MG 14 and Spandau lMG 08) had a closed bolt firing cycle that started with a bullet already in the breech and the breech closed, so the firing of the bullet was the next step in the cycle. This meant that the exact instant the round would be fired could be more readily predicted, making these weapons considerably easier to synchronise.
The standard French light machine gun, the Hotchkiss, was, like the Lewis, also unamenable to synchronisation. Poor quality control also hampered efforts, resulting in frequent "hang fire" rounds that didn't go off. The Morane-Saulnier company designed a "safety backup" in the form of "deflector blades" (metal wedges), fitted to the rear surfaces of a propeller at the radial point where they could be struck by a bullet. Roland Garros used this system in a Morane-Saulnier L in April 1915. He managed to score several kills, although the deflectors fell short of an ideal solution as the deflected rounds could still cause damage. Engine failure eventually forced Garros to land behind enemy lines, and he and his secret weapon were captured by the Germans.
Famously, the German High Command passed Garros' captured Morane to the Fokker company—which already produced Morane type monoplanes for the German Air Service—with orders to copy the design. The deflector system was totally unsuitable for the steel-jacketed German ammunition so that the Fokker engineers were forced to revisit the synchronisation idea (perhaps infringing Schneider's patent), crafting the Stangensteuerung system by the spring of 1915, used on the examples of their pioneering Eindecker fighter. Crude as these little monoplanes were, they produced a period of German air superiority, known as the "Fokker Scourge" by the Allies. The psychological effect exceeded the material: The Allies had up to now been more or less unchallenged in the air, and the vulnerability of their older reconnaissance aircraft, especially the British B.E.2 and French Farman pushers, came as a very nasty shock.
Other methods: Another method used at this time to fire a machine gun forward from a tractor design was to mount the gun to fire above the propeller arc. This required the gun to be mounted on the top wing of biplanes and be mounted on complicated drag-inducing structures in monoplanes. Reaching the gun so that drums or belts could be changed, or jams cleared, presented problems even when the gun could be mounted relatively close to the pilot. Eventually, Foster mounting became more or less the standard way of mounting a Lewis gun in this position in the R.F.C.: this allowed the gun to slide backward for drum changing, and also to be fired at an upward angle, a very effective way of attacking an enemy from the "blind spot" under its tail. This type of mounting was still only possible for a biplane with a top wing positioned near the apex of the propeller's arc: It put considerable strain on the fragile wing structures of the period, and it was less rigid than a gun mounting on the fuselage, producing a greater "scatter" of bullets, especially at anything but very short range.
The earliest versions of the Bristol Scout to see aerial combat duty in 1915, the Scout C, had Lewis gun mounts in RNAS service that sometimes were elevated above the propeller arc, and sometimes (in an apparently reckless manner) firing directly through the propeller arc without synchronisation. During the spring and summer of 1915, Captain Lanoe Hawker of the Royal Flying Corps, however, had mounted his Lewis gun just forward of the cockpit to fire forwards and outwards, on the left side of his aircraft's fuselage at about a 30° horizontal angle. On 25 July 1915 Captain Hawker flew his Scout C, bearing RFC serial number 1611 against several two-seat German observation aircraft of the Fliegertruppe, and managed to defeat three of them in aerial engagements to earn the first Victoria Cross awarded to a British fighter pilot, while engaged against enemy fixed-wing aircraft.
1915: The Fokker Scourge: The first purpose-designed fighter aircraft included the British Vickers F.B.5, and machine guns were also fitted to several French types, such as the Morane-Saulnier L and N. Initially the German Air Service lagged behind the Allies in this respect, but this was soon to change dramatically.
In July 1915 the Fokker E.I, the first aircraft to enter service with a "synchronisation gear" which enabled a machine gun to fire through the arc of the propeller without striking its blades, became operational. This gave an important advantage over other contemporary fighter aircraft. This aircraft and its immediate successors, collectively known as the Eindecker (German for "monoplane") – for the first time supplied an effective equivalent to Allied fighters. Two German military aviators, Leutnants Otto Parschau and Kurt Wintgens, worked for the Fokker firm during the spring of 1915, demonstrating the revolutionary feature of the forward-firing synchronised machine gun to the embryonic force of Fliegertruppe pilots of the German Empire.
The first successful engagement involving a synchronised-gun-armed aircraft occurred on the afternoon of July 1, 1915, to the east of Lunéville, France when Leutnant Kurt Wintgens, one of the pilots selected by Fokker to demonstrate the small series of five special Eindecker service-test prototype aircraft, forced down a French Morane-Saulnier "Parasol" two seat observation monoplane behind Allied lines with his Fokker M.5K/MG Eindecker production prototype/service-test aircraft, carrying the IdFlieg military serial number "E.5/15". Some 200 shots from the synchronised Parabellum MG14 machine gun on Wintgens' aircraft had hit the Gnome Lambda rotary engine of the Morane Parasol, forcing it to land safely in Allied territory.
By late 1915 the Germans had achieved air superiority, rendering Allied acquisition of vital intelligence derived from continual aerial reconnaissance more dangerous. In particular the defencelessness of Allied reconnaissance types was exposed. The first German "ace" pilots, notably Max Immelmann, had begun their careers.
The number of actual Allied casualties involved was for various reasons very small compared with the intensive air fighting of 1917–18. The deployment of the Eindeckers was less than overwhelming: the new type was issued in ones and twos to existing reconnaissance squadrons, and it was to be nearly a year before the Germans were to follow the British in establishing specialist fighter squadrons. The Eindecker was also, in spite of its advanced armament, by no means an outstanding aircraft, being closely based on the pre-war Morane-Saulnier H, although it did feature a steel tubing fuselage framework (a characteristic of all Fokker wartime aircraft designs) instead of the wooden fuselage components of the French aircraft.
Nonetheless, the impact on morale of the fact that the Germans were effectively fighting back in the air created a major scandal in the British parliament and press. The ascendancy of the Eindecker also contributed to the surprise the Germans were able to achieve at the start of the Battle of Verdun because the French reconnaissance aircraft failed to provide their usual cover of the German positions.
Fortunately for the Allies, two new British fighters that were a match for the Fokker, the two-seat F.E.2b and the single-seat D.H.2, were already in production. These were both pushers, and could fire forwards without gun synchronisation. The F.E.2b reached the front in September 1915, and the D.H.2 in the following February. On the French front, the tiny Nieuport 11, a tractor biplane with a forward firing gun mounted on the top wing outside the arc of the propeller, also proved more than a match for the German fighter when it entered service in January 1916. With these new types the Allies re-established air superiority in time for the Battle of the Somme, and the "Fokker Scourge" was over. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Aviation in World War I | Fortunately for the Allies, two new British fighters that were a match for the Fokker, the two-seat F.E.2b and the single-seat D.H.2, were already in production. These were both pushers, and could fire forwards without gun synchronisation. The F.E.2b reached the front in September 1915, and the D.H.2 in the following February. On the French front, the tiny Nieuport 11, a tractor biplane with a forward firing gun mounted on the top wing outside the arc of the propeller, also proved more than a match for the German fighter when it entered service in January 1916. With these new types the Allies re-established air superiority in time for the Battle of the Somme, and the "Fokker Scourge" was over.
The Fokker E.III, Airco DH-2 and Nieuport 11 were the very first in a long line of single seat fighter aircraft used by both sides during the war. Very quickly it became clear the primary role of fighters would be attacking enemy two-seaters, which were becoming increasingly important as sources of reconnaissance and artillery observation, while also escorting and defending friendly two-seaters from enemy fighters. Fighters were also used to attack enemy observation balloons, strafe enemy ground targets, and defend friendly airspace from enemy bombers.
Almost all the fighters in service with both sides, with the exception of the Fokkers' steel-tube fuselaged airframes, continued to use wood as the basic structural material, with fabric-covered wings relying on external wire bracing. However, the first practical all-metal aircraft was produced by Hugo Junkers, who also used a cantilever wing structure with a metal covering. The first flight tests of the initial flight demonstrator of this technology, the Junkers J 1 monoplane, took place at the end of 1915 heralding the future of aircraft structural design.
1916: Verdun and the Somme: Creating new units was easier than producing aircraft to equip them, and training pilots to man them. When the Battle of the Somme started in July 1916, most ordinary RFC squadrons were still equipped with planes that proved easy targets for the Fokker. New types such as the Sopwith 1½ Strutter had to be transferred from production intended for the RNAS. Even more seriously, replacement pilots were being sent to France with pitifully few flying hours.
Nonetheless, air superiority and an "offensive" strategy facilitated the greatly increased involvement of the RFC in the battle itself, in what was known at the time as "trench strafing" – in modern terms, close support. For the rest of the war, this became a regular routine, with both attacking and defending infantry in a land battle being constantly liable to attack by machine guns and light bombs from the air. At this time, counter fire from the ground was far less effective than it became later, when the necessary techniques of deflection shooting had been mastered.
The first step towards specialist fighter-only aviation units within the German military was the establishment of the so-called Kampfeinsitzer Kommando (single-seat battle unit, abbreviated as "KEK") formations by Inspektor-Major Friedrich Stempel in February 1916. These were based around Eindeckers and other new fighter designs emerging, like the Pfalz E-series monoplanes, that were being detached from their former Feldflieger Abteilung units during the winter of 1915–16 and brought together in pairs and quartets at particularly strategic locations, as "KEK" units were formed at Habsheim, Vaux, Avillers, Jametz, and Cunel, as well as other strategic locations along the Western Front to act as Luftwachtdienst (aerial guard force) units, consisting only of fighters. In a pioneering move in March 1916, German master aerial tactician Oswald Boelcke came up with the idea of having "forward observers" located close to the front lines to spot Allied aircraft approaching the front, to avoid wear and tear on the trio of Fokker Eindecker scout aircraft he had based with his own "KEK" unit based at Sivry-sur-Meuse, just north of Verdun. By April 1916, the air superiority established by the Eindecker pilots and maintained by their use within the KEK formations had long evaporated as the Halberstadt D.II began to be phased in as Germany's first biplane fighter design, with the first Fokker D-series biplane fighters joining the Halberstadts, and a target was set to establish 37 new squadrons in the next 12 months – entirely equipped with single seat fighters, and manned by specially selected and trained pilots, to counter the Allied fighter squadrons already experiencing considerable success, as operated by the Royal Flying Corps and the French Aéronautique Militaire. The small numbers of questionably built Fokker D.IIIs posted to the Front pioneered the mounting of twin lMG 08s before 1916's end, as the building numbers of the similarly armed, and much more formidable new twin-gun Albatros D.Is were well on the way to establishing the German air superiority marking the first half of 1917.
Allied air superiority was maintained during the height of both battles, and the increased effectiveness of Allied air activity proved disturbing to the German Army's top-level Oberste Heeresleitung command staff. A complete reorganisation of the Fliegertruppen des deutschen Kaiserreiches into what became officially known as the Luftstreitkräfte followed and had generally been completed by October 1916. This reorganisation eventually produced the German strategic bombing squadrons that were to produce such consternation in England in 1917 and 1918, and the specialist close support squadrons (Schlachtstaffeln) that gave the British infantry such trouble at Cambrai and during the German spring offensive of 1918. Its most famous and dramatic effect, however, involved the raising of specialist fighter squadrons or Jagdstaffeln – a full year after similar units had become part of the RFC and the French Aéronautique Militaire. Initially these units were equipped with the Halberstadt D.II (Germany's first biplane fighter), the Fokker D.I and D.II, along with the last few surviving Eindeckers, all three biplane design types using a single lMG 08, before the Fokker D.III and Albatros D.I twin-gun types arrived at the Front.
1917: Bloody April: The first half of 1917 was a successful period for the jagdstaffeln and the much larger RFC suffered significantly higher casualties than their opponents. While new Allied fighters such as the Sopwith Pup, Sopwith Triplane, and SPAD S.VII were coming into service, at this stage their numbers were small, and suffered from inferior firepower: all three were armed with just a single synchronised Vickers machine gun. On the other hand, the jagdstaffeln were in the process of replacing their early motley array of equipment with Albatros D-series aircraft, armed with twin synchronised MG08s. The D.I and D.II of late 1916 were succeeded by the new Albatros D.III, which was, in spite of structural difficulties, "the best fighting scout on the Western Front" at the time. Meanwhile, most RFC two-seater squadrons still flew the BE.2e, a very minor improvement on the BE.2c, and still fundamentally unsuited to air-to-air combat.
This culminated in the rout of April 1917, known as "Bloody April". The RFC suffered particularly severe losses, although Trenchard's policy of "offensive patrol", which placed most combat flying on the German side of the lines, was maintained.
During the last half of 1917, the British Sopwith Camel and S.E.5a and the French SPAD S.XIII, all fitted with two forward firing machine guns, became available in numbers. The ordinary two seater squadrons in the RFC received the R.E.8 or the F.K.8, not outstanding warplanes, but far less vulnerable than the BE.2e they replaced. The F.E.2d at last received a worthy replacement in the Bristol F.2b. On the other hand, the latest Albatros, the D.V, proved to be a disappointment, as was the Pfalz D.III. The exotic Fokker Dr.I was plagued, like the Albatros, with structural problems. By the end of the year the air superiority pendulum had swung once more in the Allies' favour.
1918: The Spring Offensive: The surrender of the Russians and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, and the resulting release of troops from the Eastern Front gave the Germans a "last chance" of winning the war before the Americans could become effectively involved. This resulted in the last great German offensive of the war, the "Spring Offensive", which opened on 21 March. The main attack fell on the British front on the assumption that defeat of the British army would result in the surrender of the mutiny-weakened French. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Aviation in World War I | On the other hand, the latest Albatros, the D.V, proved to be a disappointment, as was the Pfalz D.III. The exotic Fokker Dr.I was plagued, like the Albatros, with structural problems. By the end of the year the air superiority pendulum had swung once more in the Allies' favour.
1918: The Spring Offensive: The surrender of the Russians and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, and the resulting release of troops from the Eastern Front gave the Germans a "last chance" of winning the war before the Americans could become effectively involved. This resulted in the last great German offensive of the war, the "Spring Offensive", which opened on 21 March. The main attack fell on the British front on the assumption that defeat of the British army would result in the surrender of the mutiny-weakened French.
In the air, the battle was marked by the carefully coordinated use of the Schlachtstaffeln or "battle flights", equipped with the light CL class two seaters built by the Halberstadt and Hannover firms, that had proved so effective in the German counter-attack in early October's Battle of Cambrai. The new German fighter aircraft, notably the Fokker D.VII, that might have revived German air superiority in time for this battle had not however reached the Jagdstaffeln in sufficient numbers, despite its own premier on the Western Front in the mid-Spring of 1918. As with several offensives on both sides, thorough planning and preparation led to initial success, and in fact to deeper penetration than had been achieved by either side since 1914. Many British airfields had to be abandoned to the advancing Germans in a new war of movement. Losses of aircraft and their crew were very heavy on both sides – especially to light anti-aircraft fire. However, by the time of the death of Manfred von Richthofen, the famed Red Baron, on 21 April, the great offensive had largely stalled. The new German fighters had still not arrived, and the British still held general air superiority.
The month of April 1918 began with the consolidation of the separate British RFC and RNAS air services into the Royal Air Force, the first independent air arm not subordinate to its national army or navy. By the end of April, the new Fokker, Pfalz and Roland fighters had finally begun to replace the obsolescent equipment of the Jagdstaffeln, but this did not proceed with as much dispatch as it might have, due to increasing shortages of supplies on the side of the Central Powers, and many of the Jastas still flew Albatros D types at the time of the armistice. The rotary engined Fokker D.VIII and Siemens-Schuckert D.IV, as well as surviving Fokker Triplanes, suffered from poor reliability and shortened engine life due to the Voltol-based oil that was used to replace scarce castor oil – captured and salvaged Allied aircraft (especially Sopwith Camels) were scrounged, not only for engines and equipment, but even for their lubricants. Nonetheless, by September, casualties in the RFC had reached the highest level since "Bloody April" – and the Allies were maintaining air superiority by weight of numbers rather than technical superiority.
Readying for battle: 1918, especially the second half of the year, also saw the United States increasingly involved with the allied aerial efforts. While American volunteers had been flying in Allied squadrons since the early years of the war, not until 1918 did all-American squadrons begin active operations. Technically America had fallen well behind the European powers in aviation, and no American designed types saw action, with the exception of the Curtiss flying boats. At first, the Americans were supplied with second-rate and obsolete aircraft, such as the Sopwith 1½ Strutter, Dorand AR and Sopwith Camel, and inexperienced American airmen stood little chance against their seasoned opponents.
General John J. Pershing assigned Major General Mason Patrick as Chief of the United States Army Air Service to remedy these issues in May 1918. As numbers grew and equipment improved with the introduction of the twin-gun Nieuport 28, and later, SPAD XIII as well as the S.E.5a into American service near the war's end, the Americans came to hold their own in the air; although casualties were heavy, as indeed were those of the French and British, in the last desperate fighting of the war. One of the French twin-seat reconnaissance aircraft used by both the French and the USAAS, was the radial powered Salmson 2 A.2.
Leading up to the Battle of Saint-Mihiel, The US Air Service under Maj. Gen. Patrick oversaw the organization of 28 air squadrons for the battle, with the French, British, and Italians contributing additional units to bring the total force numbers to 701 pursuit planes, 366 observation planes, 323 day bombers, and 91 night bombers. The 1,481 total aircraft made it the largest air operation of the war.
Impact: The day has passed when armies on the ground or navies on the sea can be the arbiter of a nation's destiny in war. The main power of defense and the power of initiative against an enemy has passed to the air.
By war's end, the impact of aerial missions on the ground war was in retrospect mainly tactical; strategic bombing, in particular, was still very rudimentary indeed. This was partly due to its restricted funding and use, as it was, after all, a new technology. On the other hand, the artillery, which had perhaps the greatest effect of any military arm in this war, was in very large part as devastating as it was due to the availability of aerial photography and aerial "spotting" by balloon and aircraft. By 1917 weather bad enough to restrict flying was considered as good as "putting the gunner's eyes out".
Some, such as then-Brigadier General Billy Mitchell, commander of all American air combat units in France, claimed, "[T]he only damage that has come to [Germany] has been through the air". Mitchell was famously controversial in his view that the future of war was not on the ground or at sea, but in the air.
During the course of the War, the exact number of German, British and French planes destroyed is unknown. However, the Luftstreitkräfte suffered enormous losses, so much so that seeing a German plane was considered rare towards the end of the war.
Anti-aircraft weaponry: Though aircraft still functioned as vehicles of observation, increasingly they were used as a weapon in themselves. Dog fights erupted in the skies over the front lines, and aircraft went down in flames. From this air-to-air combat, the need grew for better aircraft and gun armament. Aside from machine guns, air-to-air rockets were also used, such as the Le Prieur rocket against balloons and airships. Recoilless rifles and autocannons were also attempted, but they pushed early fighters to unsafe limits while bringing negligible returns, with the German Becker 20mm autocannon being fitted to a few twin-engined Luftstreitkräfte G-series medium bombers for offensive needs, and at least one late-war Kaiserliche Marine zeppelin for defense – the uniquely armed SPAD S.XII single-seat fighter carried one Vickers machine gun and a special, hand-operated semi-automatic 37mm gun firing through a hollow propeller shaft. Another innovation was air-to-air bombing. If a fighter had been fortunate enough to climb higher than an airship the Ranken dart was designed just for this opportunity.
This need for improvement was not limited to air-to-air combat. On the ground, methods developed before the war were being used to deter enemy aircraft from observation and bombing. Anti-aircraft artillery rounds were fired into the air and exploded into clouds of smoke and fragmentation, called archie by the British.
Anti-aircraft artillery defenses were increasingly used around observation balloons, which became frequent targets of enemy fighters equipped with special incendiary bullets. Because balloons were so flammable, due to the hydrogen used to inflate them, observers were given parachutes, enabling them to jump to safety. Ironically, only a few aircrew had this option, due in part to a mistaken belief they inhibited aggressiveness, and in part to their significant weight.
First shooting-down of an aeroplane by anti-aircraft artillery: During a bombing raid over Kragujevac on 30 September 1915, private Radoje Ljutovac of the Serbian Army successfully shot down one of the three aircraft. Ljutovac used a slightly modified Turkish cannon captured some years previously. This was the first time that a military aeroplane was shot down with ground-to-air artillery fire, and thus a crucial moment in anti-aircraft warfare.
Bombing and reconnaissance: As the stalemate developed on the ground, with both sides unable to advance even a few hundred yards without a major battle and thousands of casualties, aircraft became greatly valued for their role gathering intelligence on enemy positions and bombing the enemy's supplies behind the trench lines. Large aircraft with a pilot and an observer were used to scout enemy positions and bomb their supply bases. Because they were large and slow, these aircraft made easy targets for enemy fighter aircraft. As a result, both sides used fighter aircraft to both attack the enemy's two-seat aircraft and protect their own while carrying out their missions. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Aviation in World War I | Ljutovac used a slightly modified Turkish cannon captured some years previously. This was the first time that a military aeroplane was shot down with ground-to-air artillery fire, and thus a crucial moment in anti-aircraft warfare.
Bombing and reconnaissance: As the stalemate developed on the ground, with both sides unable to advance even a few hundred yards without a major battle and thousands of casualties, aircraft became greatly valued for their role gathering intelligence on enemy positions and bombing the enemy's supplies behind the trench lines. Large aircraft with a pilot and an observer were used to scout enemy positions and bomb their supply bases. Because they were large and slow, these aircraft made easy targets for enemy fighter aircraft. As a result, both sides used fighter aircraft to both attack the enemy's two-seat aircraft and protect their own while carrying out their missions.
While the two-seat bombers and reconnaissance aircraft were slow and vulnerable, they were not defenseless. Two-seaters had the advantage of both forward- and rearward-firing guns. Typically, the pilot controlled fixed guns behind the propeller, similar to guns in a fighter aircraft, while the observer controlled one with which he could cover the arc behind the aircraft. A tactic used by enemy fighter aircraft to avoid fire from the rear gunner was to attack from slightly below the rear of two-seaters, as the tail gunner was unable to fire below the aircraft. However, two-seaters could counter this tactic by going into a dive at high speeds. Pursuing a diving two-seater was hazardous for a fighter pilot, as it would place the fighter directly in the rear gunner's line of fire; several high scoring aces of the war were shot down by "lowly" two-seaters, including Raoul Lufbery, Erwin Böhme, and Robert Little. Even Manfred von Richthofen, the highest scoring ace of WWI, was once wounded and forced to crash land from the bullets of a two-seater, though he did survive the encounter and continued flying after he recovered.
Strategic bombing: The first aerial bombardment of civilians occurred during World War I. In the opening weeks of the war, zeppelins bombed Liège, Antwerp, and Warsaw, and other cities, including Paris and Bucharest, were targeted, In January 1915 the Germans began a bombing campaign against England that was to last until 1918, initially using airships. There were 19 raids in 1915, in which 37 tons of bombs were dropped, killing 181 people and injuring 455. Raids continued in 1916. London was accidentally bombed in May, and in July, the Kaiser allowed directed raids against urban centres. There were 23 airship raids in 1916 in which 125 tons of ordnance were dropped, killing 293 people and injuring 691. Gradually British air defenses improved. In 1917 and 1918 there were only eleven Zeppelin raids against England, and the final raid occurred on 5 August 1918, resulting in the death of Peter Strasser, commander of the German Naval Airship Department. By the end of the war, 54 airship raids had been undertaken, in which 557 people were killed and 1,358 injured. Of the 80 airships used by the Germans in World War I, 34 were shot down and further 33 were destroyed by accidents. 389 crewmen died.
The Zeppelin raids were complemented by the Gotha G bombers from 1917, which were the first heavier than air bombers to be used for strategic bombing, and by a small force of five Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI "giant" four engined bombers from late September 1917 through to mid-May 1918. Twenty-four Gotha twin-engined bombers were shot down on the raids over England, with no losses for the Zeppelin-Staaken giants. Further 37 Gotha bombers crashed in accidents. They dropped 73 tons of bombs, killing 857 people and wounding 2058.
It has been argued that the raids were effective far beyond material damage in diverting and hampering wartime production, and diverting twelve squadrons and over 17,000 men to air defenses. Calculations performed on the number of dead to the weight of bombs dropped had a profound effect on attitudes of the British government and population in the interwar years, who believed that "The bomber will always get through".
Observation balloons: Manned observation balloons floating high above the trenches were used as stationary reconnaissance points on the front lines, reporting enemy troop positions and directing artillery fire. Balloons commonly had a crew of two equipped with parachutes: upon an enemy air attack on the flammable balloon, the crew would parachute to safety. Recognized for their value as observer platforms, observation balloons were important targets of enemy aircraft. To defend against air attack, they were heavily protected by large concentrations of antiaircraft guns and patrolled by friendly aircraft. Blimps and balloons helped contribute to the stalemate of the trench warfare of World War I, and contributed to air-to-air combat for air superiority because of their significant reconnaissance value.
To encourage pilots to attack enemy balloons, both sides counted downing an enemy balloon as an "air-to-air" kill, with the same value as shooting down an enemy aircraft. Some pilots, known as balloon busters, became particularly distinguished by their prowess at shooting down enemy balloons. The premier balloon busting ace was Willy Coppens: 35 of his 37 victories were enemy balloons.
Leading aces: As pioneer aviators invented air-to-air combat, the contending sides developed various methods of tracking aerial casualties and victories. Aviators with five or more aerial victories confirmed by their parent air service were dubbed "aces". Their numbers would burgeon, until by war's end, there were over 1,800 aces.
The following aces scored the most victories for their respective air services.
Pioneers of aerial warfare: The following aviators were the first to reach important milestones in the development of aerial combat during World War I:
Aircraft: Aircraft of the Entente Powers
Aircraft of the Central Powers
See also: Biggles a fictional WWI aviator
Biplane
Dogfight
Flying ace § World War I
History of aerial warfare
History of aviation
List of American aero squadrons
List of Royal Air Force aircraft squadrons
List of Royal Flying Corps squadrons
Lists of World War I flying aces
Notes:
References: Editors of American Heritage. History of WW1. Simon & Schuster, 1964.
Cheesman, E.F. (ed.) Fighter Aircraft of the 1914–1918 War. Letchworth, UK: Harleyford, 1960
The Great War, television documentary by the BBC.
Gray, Peter & Thetford, Owen German Aircraft of the First World War. London, Putnam, 1962.
Guttman, Jon. Pusher Aces of World War 1: Volume 88 of Osprey Aircraft of the Aces: Volume 88 of Aircraft of the Aces. Osprey Publishing, 2009. ISBN 1-84603-417-5, ISBN 978-1-84603-417-6
Herris, Jack & Pearson, Bob Aircraft of World War I. London, Amber Books, 2010. ISBN 978-1-906626-65-5.
Jackson, Peter The Guinness Book of Air Warfare. London, Guinness Publishing, 1993. ISBN 0-85112-701-0
Morrow, John. German Air Power in World War I. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982. Contains design and production figures, as well as economic influences.
Pearson, George, Aces: A Story of the First Air War, historical advice by Brereton Greenhous and Philip Markham, NFB, 1993. Contains assertion aircraft created trench stalemate.
Terraine, John White Heat: the new warfare 1914–18. London, Guild Publishing, 1982
VanWyngarden, Greg. Early German Aces of World War I: Volume 73 of Aircraft of the Aces. Osprey Publishing, 2006. ISBN 1-84176-997-5, ISBN 978-1-84176-997-4.
Winter, Denis. First of the Few. London: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1982. Coverage of the British air war, with extensive bibliographical notes.
External links:
Wells, Mark: Aircraft, Fighter and Pursuit, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
Morris, Craig: Aircraft, Reconnaissance and Bomber, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
Mahoney, Ross & Pugh, James: Air Warfare, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
Bombing during World War I at centennialofflight.gov
Boris Rustam-Bek-Tageev (1916). Aerial Russia: The Romance of the Giant Aeroplane. Рипол Классик. ISBN 978-5-87787-214-1. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Aviation in World War I | Winter, Denis. First of the Few. London: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1982. Coverage of the British air war, with extensive bibliographical notes.
External links:
Wells, Mark: Aircraft, Fighter and Pursuit, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
Morris, Craig: Aircraft, Reconnaissance and Bomber, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
Mahoney, Ross & Pugh, James: Air Warfare, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
Bombing during World War I at centennialofflight.gov
Boris Rustam-Bek-Tageev (1916). Aerial Russia: The Romance of the Giant Aeroplane. Рипол Классик. ISBN 978-5-87787-214-1.
The United States Air Service in World War I – usaww1.com
The League of World War I Aviation Historians and Over the Front Magazine – overthefront.com
First World War in the Air at the Dictionary of Canadian Biography
1989 WWI aviation documentary featuring interviews with the last three surviving American aces – YouTube |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Ballistic missile | History: One modern pioneer ballistic missile was the A-4, commonly known as the V-2 developed by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s under the direction of Wernher von Braun. The first successful launch of a V-2 was on October 3, 1942, and it began operation on September 6, 1944, against Paris, followed by an attack on London two days later. By the end of World War II in Europe in May 1945, more than 3,000 V-2s had been launched. In addition to its use as a weapon, a vertically launched V-2 became the first human-made object to reach outer space on June 20, 1944.
The R-7 Semyorka was the first intercontinental ballistic missile.
Flight: In order to cover large distances, ballistic missiles are usually launched into a high sub-orbital spaceflight; for intercontinental missiles, the highest altitude (apogee) reached during free-flight is about 4,500 kilometers (2,800 mi). A ballistic missile's trajectory consists of three parts or phases: the boost phase, the mid-course phase and the terminal phase. Special systems and capabilities are required to facilitate the successful passage from one phase to the other.
The boost phase is the powered flight portion, beginning with the ignition of the engines and concluding with the end of powered flight. The powered flight portion can last from a few tenths of seconds to several minutes and can consist of multiple rocket stages. Internal computers keep the missile aligned on a preprogrammed trajectory. On multi-stage missiles, stage separation (excluding any post-boost vehicles or MIRV bus) occurs primarily during the boost phase.
The mid-course phase is the longest in the missile's trajectory, beginning with the conclusion of powered flight. When the fuel is exhausted, no more thrust is provided and the missile enters free flight. During this phase the missile, now largely consisting of a warhead or payload and possibly defensive countermeasures and small propulsion systems for further alignment toward its target, will reach its highest altitude and may travel in space for thousands of miles (or even indefinitely, in the case of some fractional-orbital capable systems) at speeds of up to four to five nautical miles per second.
The last phase in the missile's trajectory is the terminal or re-entry phase, beginning with the re-entry of the missile into the Earth's atmosphere (if exoatmospheric) where atmospheric drag plays a significant part in missile trajectory, and lasts until missile impact. Re-entry vehicles re-enter the Earth's atmosphere at very high velocities, on the order of 6–8 kilometers per second (22,000–29,000 km/h; 13,000–18,000 mph) at ICBM ranges. During the beginning of this phase, the missile's trajectory is still relatively well defined, though as the missile reaches the heavier layers of atmosphere it is increasingly influenced by gravity and aerodynamic drag, which can affect its landing.
Types: Ballistic missiles can be launched from fixed sites or mobile launchers, including vehicles (e.g., transporter erector launchers), aircraft, ships, and submarines. Ballistic missiles vary widely in range and use, and are often divided into categories based on range. Various schemes are used by different countries to categorize the ranges of ballistic missiles:
Air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM)
Tactical ballistic missile: Range from about 150 to 300 kilometres (93 to 186 mi)
Theatre ballistic missile (TBM): Range from 300 to 3,500 kilometres (190 to 2,170 mi)
Short-range ballistic missile (SRBM): Range from 300 to 1,000 kilometres (190 to 620 mi)
Medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM): Range from 1,000 to 3,500 kilometres (620 to 2,170 mi)
Intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) or long-range ballistic missile (LRBM): Range from 3,500 to 5,500 kilometres (2,200 to 3,400 mi)
Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM): Range greater than 5,500 kilometres (3,400 mi)
Submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM): Launched from ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)
Long- and medium-range ballistic missiles are generally designed to deliver nuclear weapons because their payload is too limited for conventional explosives to be cost-effective in comparison to conventional bomber aircraft.
Quasi-ballistic missiles: A quasi-ballistic missile is a category of SRBM that is largely ballistic but can perform maneuvers in flight or make unexpected changes in direction and range. Large guided MLRS rockets with range comparable to an SRBM are sometimes categorized as quasi-ballistic missiles.
List of quasi-ballistic missiles: India
Shaurya (active)
Pralay (active)
Israel
LORA (active)
Soviet Union / Russia
Iskander (active)
United States
MGM-140 ATACMS (active)
Precision Strike Missile (active)
Hypersonic ballistic missile: Many ballistic missiles reach hypersonic speeds (i.e. Mach 5 and above) when they re-enter the atmosphere from space. However, in common military terminology, the term "hypersonic ballistic missile" is generally only given to those that can be maneuvered before hitting their target and don't follow a simple ballistic trajectory.
Throw-weight: Throw-weight is a measure of the effective weight of ballistic missile payloads. It is measured in kilograms or tonnes. Throw-weight equals the total weight of a missile's warheads, reentry vehicles, self-contained dispensing mechanisms, penetration aids, and any other components that are part of the delivered payload, and not of the rocket itself (such as the launch rocket booster and launch fuel). Throw-weight may refer to any type of warhead, but in normal modern usage, it refers almost exclusively to nuclear or thermonuclear payloads. It was once also a consideration in the design of naval ships and the number and size of their guns.
Throw-weight was used as a criterion in classifying different types of missiles during Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between the Soviet Union and the United States. The term became politically controversial during debates over the arms control accord, as critics of the treaty alleged that Soviet missiles were able to carry larger payloads and so enabled the Soviets to maintain higher throw-weight than an American force with a roughly comparable number of lower-payload missiles.
The missiles with the world's heaviest payloads are the Russian SS-18 and Chinese CSS-4 and as of 2017, Russia was developing a new heavy-lift, liquid-propellant ICBM called the Sarmat.
Depressed trajectory: Throw-weight is normally calculated using an optimal ballistic trajectory from one point on the surface of the Earth to another. A "minimum-energy trajectory" maximizes the total payload (throw-weight) using the available impulse of the missile. By reducing the payload weight, different trajectories can be selected, which can either increase the nominal range or decrease the total time in flight.
A depressed trajectory is non-optimal, as a lower and flatter trajectory takes less time between launch and impact but has a lower throw-weight. The primary reasons to choose a depressed trajectory are to evade anti-ballistic missile systems by reducing the time available to shoot down the attacking vehicle (especially during the vulnerable burn-phase against space-based ABM systems) or a nuclear first-strike scenario. An alternate, non-military purpose for a depressed trajectory is in conjunction with the spaceplane concept with use of airbreathing jet engines, which requires the ballistic missile to remain low enough inside the atmosphere for air-breathing engines to function.
In contrast, a "lofted" trajectory is frequently used for testing purposes, as it reduces the range of the missile (allowing for a controlled and observed impact), as well as signals a lack of hostile intention with the test.
Combat use: The following ballistic missiles have been used in combat:
9K720 Iskander
Ababil-100
Al-Samoud 2
DF-12
Fateh-110
Ghadr-110
LORA
MGM-140 ATACMS
OTR-21 Tochka
Qaher-1/2M
Scud
Toufan (Houthi version of Iranian Ghadr-110)
V-2
Zolfaghar
Kh-47M2 Kinzhal
See also: Ballistic missile flight phases
Missile (guided)
MIRV
NATO reporting name (has lists of various Soviet missiles)
Surface-to-surface missile
Weapons of mass destruction
List of currently active missiles of the United States military
List of ICBMs
List of missiles
List of missiles by nation
List of NATO reporting names for ballistic missile submarines
Notes:
References: Needham, Joseph (1986). Science and Civilization in China: Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 7, Military Technology; the Gunpowder Epic. Taipei: Caves Books.
Further reading: Bath, David W. Assured Destruction: Building the Ballistic Missile Culture of the U.S. Air Force (Naval Institute Press, 2020) online book review
Futter, Andrew (2013). Ballistic Missile Defence and US National Security Policy: Normalisation and Acceptance after the Cold War. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-81732-5.
Neufeld, Jacob (1990). The Development of Ballistic Missiles in the United States Air Force, 1945–1960. Office of Air Force History, U.S. Air Force. ISBN 0-912799-62-5. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Ballistic missile | Science and Civilization in China: Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 7, Military Technology; the Gunpowder Epic. Taipei: Caves Books.
Further reading: Bath, David W. Assured Destruction: Building the Ballistic Missile Culture of the U.S. Air Force (Naval Institute Press, 2020) online book review
Futter, Andrew (2013). Ballistic Missile Defence and US National Security Policy: Normalisation and Acceptance after the Cold War. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-81732-5.
Neufeld, Jacob (1990). The Development of Ballistic Missiles in the United States Air Force, 1945–1960. Office of Air Force History, U.S. Air Force. ISBN 0-912799-62-5.
Swaine, Michael D.; Swanger, Rachel M.; Kawakami, Takashi (2001). Japan and Ballistic Missile Defense. Rand. ISBN 0-8330-3020-5.
External links: Missile Threat: A Project of the Center for Strategic and International Studies |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Balloon | Applications:
Play:
Decoration: Balloons are used for decorating birthday parties, weddings, corporate functions, school events, and for other festive gatherings. The artists who use the round balloons to build are called "stackers" and the artists who use pencil balloons to build are called "twisters." Most commonly associated with helium balloon decor, more recently balloon decorators have been moving towards the creation of air-filled balloon decorations due to the non-renewable natural resource of helium limited in supply. The most common types of balloon decor include arches, columns, centerpieces, balloon drops, sculptures, and balloon bouquets. With the increased aptitude for balloon twisting as well as balloon stacking, the rise of the deco-twister manifests itself as the combination of stacking techniques as well as twisting techniques to create unique and interesting balloon decor options.
Party Balloons: Party balloons are mostly made of a natural latex tapped from rubber trees, and can be filled with air, helium, water, or any other suitable liquid or gas. The rubber's elasticity makes the volume adjustable.
Often the term "party balloon" will refer to a twisting balloon or pencil balloon. These balloons are manipulated to create shapes and figures for parties and events, typically along with entertainment.
Filling the balloon with air can be done with the mouth, a manual or electric inflater (such as a hand pump), or with a source of compressed gas.
When rubber or plastic balloons are filled with helium so that they float, they typically retain their buoyancy for only a day or so, sometimes longer. The enclosed helium atoms escape through small pores in the latex which are larger than the helium atoms. However, some types of balloons are labelled "helium-grade". These balloons are often thicker and have less porosity. Balloons filled with air usually hold their size and shape much longer, sometimes for up to a week.
However, a rubber balloon eventually loses gas to the outside. The process by which a substance or solute migrates from a region of high concentration, through a barrier or membrane, to a region of lower concentration is called diffusion. The inside of balloons can be treated with a special gel (for instance, the polymer solution sold under the "Hi Float" brand) which coats the inside of the balloon to reduce the helium leakage, thus increasing float time to a week or longer.
Beginning in the late 1970s, some more expensive (and longer-lasting) foil balloons made of thin, unstretchable, less permeable metallised films such as Mylar (BoPET) started being produced. These balloons have attractive shiny reflective surfaces and are often printed with color pictures and patterns for gifts and parties. The most important attributes of metallised nylon for balloons are its light weight, increasing buoyancy, and its ability to keep the helium gas from escaping for several weeks. Foil balloons have been criticized for interfering with power lines.
Sculpture: Balloon artists are entertainers who twist and tie inflated tubular balloons into sculptures such as animals (see balloon modelling). The balloons used for sculpture are made of extra-stretchy rubber so that they can be twisted and tied without bursting. Since the pressure required to inflate a balloon is inversely proportional to the diameter of the balloon, these tiny tubular balloons are extremely hard to inflate initially. A pump is usually used to inflate these balloons.
Decorators may use helium balloons to create balloon sculptures. Usually the round shape of the balloon restricts these to simple arches or walls, but on occasion more ambitious "sculptures" have been attempted. It is also common to use balloons as table decorations for celebratory events. Balloons can sometimes be modeled to form shapes of animals. Table decorations normally appear with three or five balloons on each bouquet. Ribbon is curled and added with a weight to keep the balloons from floating away.
Drops and releases: A decorative use for balloons is in balloon drops. In a balloon drop, a plastic bag or net filled with air-inflated balloons is suspended from a fixed height. Once released, the balloons fall onto their target area below. Balloon drops are commonly performed at New Year's Eve celebrations and at political rallies and conventions, but may also be performed at celebrations, including graduations and weddings.
For decades, people have also celebrated with balloon releases. This practice has been discouraged by the balloon industry, as it has posed problematic for the environment and cities. In recent years, legislation such as the California Balloon Law has been enacted to enforce consumers and retailers to tether helium-filled foil (BoPET) balloons with a balloon weight. This ensures that the helium-filled balloons do not float into the atmosphere, which is potentially injurious to animals, the environment, and power lines. Many states now have banned balloon releases.
It is becoming more common for balloons to be filled with air instead of helium, as air-filled balloons will not release into the atmosphere or deplete the earthly helium supply. There are numerous party games and school-related activities that can use air-filled balloons as opposed to helium balloons. When age appropriate, these activities often include the added fun of blowing the balloons up. In many events, the balloons will contain prizes, and party-goers can pop the balloons to retrieve the items inside.
Publicity: Balloons are used for publicity at major events. Screen printing processes can be used to print designs and company logos onto the balloons. Custom built printers inflate the balloon and apply ink with elastic qualities through a silk screen template. In January 2008, the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York organized a display of 4,200 red balloons outside the United Nations Headquarters.
Also in the 1950s at the start of the Cold War, activists in Western Europe uses balloons for propaganda purposes that would float east over Eastern Europe, which would release newspapers and pamphlets. In 2014, South Korean activists used the same balloon method to get information to those in North Korea.
Paolo Scannavino set the record of 11 for the most giant balloons entered in 2 minutes.
Water projection: Water balloons are thin, small rubber balloons filled with a liquid, usually water, instead of a gas, and intended to be easily broken. They are usually used by children, who throw them at each other, trying to get each other wet, as a game, competition, or practical joke. By forcing water out the open end of a water balloon, it is possible to use it as a makeshift water gun.
Solar lift: Solar balloons are thin, large balloons filled with air that is heated by the sun in order to decrease its density to obtain lift.
Rockets: Balloons are often deliberately released, creating a so-called balloon rocket. Balloon rockets work because the elastic balloons contract on the air within them, and so when the mouth of the balloon is opened, the gas within the balloon is expelled out, and due to Newton's third law of motion, the balloon is propelled forward. This is the same way that a rocket works.
Flying machines: Balloons filled with hot air or a buoyant gas have been used as flying machines since the 18th century. The earliest flights were made with hot air balloons using air heated with a flame, or hydrogen as the lifting gas. Later, coal gas and later still helium were used. An unpowered balloon travels with the wind. A balloon which has an engine to propel it is called a dirigible balloon or airship.
Medicine: Angioplasty is a surgical procedure in which very small balloons are inserted into blocked or partially blocked blood vessels near the heart. Once in place, the balloon is inflated to clear or compress arterial plaque, and to stretch the walls of the vessel, thus preventing myocardial infarction. A small stent can be inserted at the angioplasty site to keep the vessel open after the balloon's removal.
Balloon catheters are catheters that have balloons at their tip to keep them from slipping out. For example, the balloon of a Foley catheter is inflated when the catheter is inserted into the urinary bladder and secures its position.
Insertion of balloons subsequently filled with air or liquid can be used to stop bleeding in hollow internal organs such as stomach or uterus.
History: Humans have intentionally filled bladders, especially actual animal bladders, with air since prehistory. In Ancient Greece, these had a number of recorded uses. By the 18th century, people were inflating balloons of cloth or canvas with hot air and sending it aloft, the Montgolfier brothers going so far as to experiment with first animals in 1782, and then, when altitude did not kill them, human beings in 1783.
The first hydrogen-filled gas balloon was flown in the 1790s. A century later the first hydrogen-filled weather balloons were launched in France.
The first modern rubber balloons on record were made by Michael Faraday in 1824. He used these to contain gasses he was experimenting with, especially hydrogen. By 1825 similar balloons were being sold by Thomas Hancock, but like Faraday's they came disassembled, as two circles of soft rubber. The user was expected to lay the circles one on top of the other and rub their edges until the soft, gummy rubber stuck, leaving the powdered inner part loose for inflation. Modern, preassembled balloons were being sold in the US by the early 20th century.
Safety and environmental concerns:
Release: There has been some environmental concern over metallised Mylar balloons, as they do not biodegrade or shred as rubber balloons do. Release of these types of balloons into the atmosphere is considered harmful to the environment. |
mil_tactics_continued_pretraining.csv | Balloon | A century later the first hydrogen-filled weather balloons were launched in France.
The first modern rubber balloons on record were made by Michael Faraday in 1824. He used these to contain gasses he was experimenting with, especially hydrogen. By 1825 similar balloons were being sold by Thomas Hancock, but like Faraday's they came disassembled, as two circles of soft rubber. The user was expected to lay the circles one on top of the other and rub their edges until the soft, gummy rubber stuck, leaving the powdered inner part loose for inflation. Modern, preassembled balloons were being sold in the US by the early 20th century.
Safety and environmental concerns:
Release: There has been some environmental concern over metallised Mylar balloons, as they do not biodegrade or shred as rubber balloons do. Release of these types of balloons into the atmosphere is considered harmful to the environment. This type of balloon can also conduct electricity on its surface and released foil balloons can become entangled in power lines and cause power outages.
Released balloons can land anywhere, including on nature reserves or other areas where they can pose a hazard to animals through ingestion or entanglement. Because of the potential harm to wildlife and the effect of litter on the environment, some jurisdictions even legislate to control mass balloon releases. Legislation proposed in Maryland, US, was named after Inky, a pygmy sperm whale who needed six operations after swallowing debris, the largest piece of which was a Mylar balloon. The Balloon Council, a trade organization that represents the interests of balloon businesses, claims that there is no documentary evidence to suggest that the death of any sea mammal has been attributed to foil balloons as a sole cause, to date. In the United Kingdom, foil balloons sold at major theme parks and zoos have balloon weights attached to help prevent accidental release into the environment.
When balloons eventually return to the ground, they begin the degradation process. Latex balloons are the most used because of their ability to biodegrade. The problem with this is that it can take at least 4 weeks to show substantial degradation of the polymer in the environment, and around 6 months in aquatic environments. This issue can have an effect on the wildlife on both land and in aquatic systems because animals will confuse deflated balloons as food, nesting material, or simply something to play with. When that happens, it can lead to negative effects for the animals. For example, a bird can use a deflated balloon as a component for its nest. When the eggs hatch, they will get tangled in the balloon and that can lead to death.
Anthony Andrady says that releases of latex balloons that descend into the sea pose a serious ingestion and/or entanglement hazard to marine animals because balloons exposed floating in seawater deteriorate much more slowly than those exposed in air. Balloon manufacturers will often state that a latex balloon is perfectly safe to release into the environment as it is made from a natural substance and will biodegrade over time. A latex balloon can take up to a year to degrade if it lands in the sea and during this time it is possible for a marine animal to ingest the balloon and die from slow starvation if its digestive system is blocked.
NABAS (National Association of Balloon Artists and Suppliers), an organisation that styles itself "The Balloon and Party Professionals Association" and represents the UK balloon industry, publishes guidelines for people holding balloon releases. some of the leading balloon manufacturers have started to recommend avoiding balloon releasing, instead preferring to tie balloons down with weights in order to prevent them from floating away. These recommendations have also been adopted by some industry professionals working with balloons in the fields of design and entertainment.
Makeup: Traditionally balloons are manufactured from plastic. With the rise of worldwide awareness for environmental conservation, some balloon manufacturers started making balloons out of biodegradable materials, which are made entirely of natural recyclable rubber trees. These balloons manufacturing processes preserve the natural state of the material in such a way that allows it to degrade relatively quickly. Some of the manufacturers only use rubber trees that are grown in plantations that receive the Rainforest Alliance's approval, and at which its representatives conduct regular inspections in order to make sure that the farmers meet several criteria set to ascertain that the biological diversity in the area is maintained, and that no worker or natural resource is abused in the material manufacturing process.
Another environmental problem with latex balloons is not the effects the balloons have on the environment once they are decomposed, but when they are being made. When latex is being produced, it produces greenhouse gases, such as CO2, CH4, N2O. This is becoming an increasing problem, especially in Thailand which is responsible for 35% of the worlds natural rubber production.
At the start of the 21st century, balloon recycling or reuse for other purposes was in its infancy. As of 2020, several balloon manufacturers have developed methods for effective balloon waste disposal, and some manufacturers use recycled balloons to produce other products, such as toys for pets.
Air pressure: Once inflated with regular, atmospheric air, the air inside the balloon will have a greater air pressure than the original atmospheric air pressure.
Air pressure, technically, is a measurement of the amount of collisions against a surface at any time. In the case of balloon, it is supposed to measure how many particles at any in any given time space collide with the wall of the balloon and bounce off. Since this is nearly impossible to measure, air pressure seems to be more easily described as density. The similarity comes from the idea that when there are more molecules in the same space, more of them will be heading towards a collision course with the wall.
The first concept of air pressure within a balloon that is necessary to know is that air pressures "try" to even out. With all the bouncing against the balloon wall (both interior and exterior) there will be a certain amount of expansion/contraction. As air pressure itself is a description of the total forces against an object, each of these forces, on the outside of the balloon, causes the balloon to contract a tiny bit, while the inside forces cause the balloon to expand. With this knowledge, one would immediately assume that a balloon with high air pressure inside would expand based on the high amount of internal forces, and vice versa. This would make the inside and outside air pressures equal.
Balloons have a certain elasticity to them that needs to be taken into account. The act of stretching a balloon fills it with potential energy. When it is released, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy and the balloon snaps back into its original position, though perhaps a little stretched out. When a balloon is filled with air, the balloon is being stretched. While the elasticity of the balloon causes tension that would have the balloon collapse, it is also being pushed back out by the constant bouncing of the internal air molecules. The internal air has to exert force not only to counteract the external air to keep the air pressures "even", but it also has to counteract the natural contraction of the balloon. Therefore, it requires more air pressure (or force) than the air outside the balloon wall. Because of this, when helium balloons are left and they float higher, as atmospheric pressure decreases, the air inside it exerts more pressure than outside it so the balloon pops from tension. In some cases, the helium leaks out from pores and the balloon deflates, falling down.
See also:
Types of balloon: Balloon (aeronautics)
Gas balloon
High-altitude balloon
Hot air balloon
Observation balloon
Research balloon
Solar balloon
Tethered balloon or moored balloon or captive balloon, a balloon that is restrained by one or more tethers attached to the ground and so cannot float freely
Tethered helium balloon
Weather balloon
Toy balloon
References:
Further reading: "Stories Behind Everyday Things"; New York: Reader's Digest, 1980.
External links:
Stratospheric balloons, history and present Historical recompilation project on the use of stratospheric balloons in the scientific research, the military field and the aerospace activity
National trade association for the UK balloon industry
Balloon and Party Industry alliance for the UK and European Balloon and Party industry
National trade association for the Australasian balloon industry |