Yeah, like calling Western diplomats idiots. I've never heard sug a rational and cautious statement before. Refreshingly honest, and sooo cautious. I've much worse descriptions in mind for them!
And the comparison with the US-Japan war makes sense...
(i board-game played that war when i was young, even with US-made games.)
The recent 'Taurus plan' rebirth is just stupid. To reach Moscow, it has to be launched from high in the air, from a German -and German manned- jet on a distance of max 500 km from Moscow, which is around Sumy, where currently the Russian Army has crushed the Kiev-Regime frontline, to create a Buffer-zone along the Border. The alternative, from Latvia is even more than 500 km.
In that position (High in the Air as you mentioned), it can be detected by both the A50 Russian AWACS, in the air at max 400km from that point, inside Russia, and even by ground based AS400 Radars on a distance of 800 km, even deeper in Russia.
It can most easily be downed by MIG31's with the 400 km range KS-172 air-to-air missile, Supersonic, Mach 3-5.
Stopping the Taurus after it has been launched would be the task of the other layered air defenses of Russia, ground based. And they have proven to be able to do that too.
But i assume the Russians will try to down the German Jet before it can launch the Taurus. They have to fly over Ukraine territory from the Polish Border to Sumy. So time enough.
My sensing tells me that the Monster has ordered Zelensky & Fritz, his new NAZI-brother, to try to eliminate Putin, in the hope it will cause problems in the Kremlin and after the Russian retaliation, would hopefully get the US back on the side of the City of London, where the Shadows lay and the EVIL LIES and EVIL NARRATIVES are being brewed.
I believe you overlooked the fact that targeting will require input from US intelligence. (Ritter and Johnson) The Jewish Mafia that controls the US government isn't listening to Trump.
Thank you John, that is true. But until now that info has been provided, but there was pressure, not to use it 'deep in Russia'. It appears (55% probability) that Brits and French Satellites have provided info for guiding Storm Shadow (Brits) brother of Taurus, in flying low to the ground to targets in Crimea, after being launched by the few 'Ukraine' jets that were able to launch them, while risking being shot down themselves, and this stopped after the last of those jets was shot down by MIG31's, while being on a mission, after which those attacks stopped.
"The US is still powerful but with 700 bases in 80 countries, it is spread thin and over-extended".
In fact those bases are not assets at all, but liabilities. Financial of course, because they must cost a substantial fraction of the USA's trillion-dollar "defence" budget. And military, because they are intensely vulnerable and mostly indefensible. Count how many US bases are within missile range of Iran, for instance. All of them are within range of Russia and China.
The Soviet military theoretician, Aleksandr Svechin, may have been an excellent analyst but from reading, "Fighting in Hell", the German perspective on the "War in The East" during WWII, which was created at the request of the US Army after WWII, the Soviet military then did not heed much of his advice.
According to the 4 US Army German manuscripts I am currently reading (published, I believe in 1954), Soviet Infantry Forces had very little regard for Human life (which probably explains the massive number of rapes of German women once in Germany) and as such continued to use mass-wave attacks until the end of the war. These types of wasteful attacks is what caused the massive loss of life in the Soviet Forces... Just sheer stupidity, not valor...
The Wehrmacht would simply mow down the attacking Soviet troops. However, even when completely repulsed, the Soviets would simply regroup and attack again, even when there was no hope of victory.
Despite this, the Wehrmacht had a lot of respect for Soviet Infantry tenacity and bravery, which is not what we often hear in the West, whereby we have been constantly told of the German view of Slavs as nothing more than "untermenchen"...
The Soviets won by their sheer number of supplies (thanks to FDR) and ability to replenish their troop very rapidly.
However, this information puts a completely light on the Soviet victory. Instead, from a military point of view, the Germans lost the conflict, but the Soviets did NOT win it. There is a big difference in understanding this type of paradox in military science.
The same was true with The Southern Confederacy's constant use by Lee of frontal assaults. If you were to read Stephen Sears' one-volume definitive study, "Gettysburg", you would find that Confederate Forces, similar to Soviet Forces in WWII, wasted precious manpower in the American War of Northern Aggression whenever Lee was engaged in a major engagements.
An example of this at Gettysburg was one of the famous North Carolina Brigades, which continued to attempt their attack at Union entrenched forces while being consistently mowed down...
The book you mention was written by German generals and has very few details. Basically, it was written to curry favor with the Americans and went with the "Russian horde" trope.
Actually the book has quite a bit of detail on the tactics, strategy, and sociology of the Russian soldier. For example, there is a section on Russian "bridgeheads", which was quite fascinating. The German response was to hit them quickly before they had a chance to grow with increased troop levels. It was noted that if a bridgehead grew in size it was increasingly difficult to dislodge the Soviet troops.
The editor also notes in the introduction that these manuscripts were written to assist the US in a possible war against the Soviet Union at the time. However, there were some personal biases to be considered.
So far, I find the translation and reading quite good. And the book wasn't written to describe the battles that were fought but to provide a good understanding of the Russian environments (ie: climate) and how the Soviet soldier fought...
As far as the "horde trope" is concerned, how do you think the Russians lost so many men in WWII?
I imagine some people would say that FDR's Lend-Lease Program was not decisive in the defeat of the Wehrmacht. There are plenty of people who still view WWII from rather outdated lenses and who still want to see the Soviet effort as heroic and for the most part, accomplished completely on their own.
However, Stalin did purge the officer corp in the 1930s of around 25,000 trained officers, which left, for the most part, only the Russian High Command with qualified personnel. Such erratic behavior on the part of Stalin would have logically found its way into other areas of the Russian Armed Forces as Zubov and others have demonstrated.
People have also commented here that Stalin quickly industrialized the Soviet Union. This was a double-edged sword. Yes, he did force the industrialization of the Soviet Union quickly. However, unlike Germany who had many talented people in its population after WWI, Soviet Russia had a population that had a large percentage of peasants and unskilled labor. Even with the finest education programs, which Soviet Russia eventually implemented, going from basically an agricultural economy to an industrialized one in a few short years simply would not have allowed the training of new workers in a timely manner.
The latest research on Stalin's reliance on FDR's Lend-Lease Program that I am aware of is Professor Sean McMeekin's, "Stalin's War", which has been very well received.
McMeekin uses a lot of source material to make his case. And my other readings on the "War in The East" so far, is corroborating McMeekin's research.
For example, I have red in several places that the Luftwaffee did not think much of Soviet fighter pilots or their Soviet built fighter aircraft. Based on Zubov's book, "Stalin's Falcons", one can conclude that the best Soviet fighter in production was the biplane, I-153. This was because it went into production before Stalin started meddling with the Soviet aviation industry.
And you are correct, Russia is no longer using any of the tactical doctrines, which involved mass attacks as they used during WWII. Nonetheless, German generals did find various aspects of their tactical doctrines to be quite excellent, most of which were based upon security and reconnaissance.
In terms of infantry doctrine, Russia now uses the Battle Tactical Group (BTG) in terms of its basic infantry structure. I believe the BTG is bigger than a western regiment.
FWIW: that paper is from 2017. I could be wrong but, it is my understanding that the BTG proved to be ineffective and was abandoned for a more traditional organization. This change happened almost immediately after the beginning of the SMO. I’m not saying you’re wrong. It is a detail that I don’t really care about but which you seem to so I’m just passing on what I recall from a couple of years ago so you might look into it. If you don’t care to, fine.
Very interesting indeed... When I had read about the BTG initilly, I was under the impression that it was the standard unit formation of the Russian Army. However, doing a little research based on your comments above yielded some very interesting results.
It appears you are correct about the use of the BTG, or its now lack of use. One of the problems with the BTG that was noted in one paper I read was that its composition was overly complicated for a single unit commander to manage. The result was that a return to the standard division\brigade infrastructure was the remedial option.
Excellent analysis, thank you! I don't know about that corridor to old East Prussia to teach the Balts some manners, but it could happen, depending on all sorts of things.
Once one understands that Putin is a Russian patriot and what Russia's national interests actually are--which isn't hard to do because the Putin administration usually just comes out and tells us --Putin becomes predictable. Consistent. Reliable.
It's also important to remember that, when it comes to foreign policy, the Russians have always been counterpunchers. They prefer to let their opponent make the first move, because that first move may well give them an opportunity, and then respond as seems best at the time.
Then rinse, lather, repeat until one side or the other has had enough.
1. Japan: the death blow was the Soviet fast advance and over-running the Japanese Imperial Army stationed in Manchuria. A bit more stalling and the Soviets were about to land in Hokkaido. US asked and asked and asked the Soviets to open a second front against the Japanese (the way US opened the second front in the western Europe against the Germans). And as soon as the cannons stopped in May 1945, the Russians delivered. It was one of the stealthiest and secret troops move across all Asia, that ultimately gave the death blow to the Japanese Imperial Army. It was not a sole US defeat of Japan.
2. Taurus: it is air launched so for maximum distance the F-16 needs to high and needs to be close to the Russian border. And who is at the Russian border? Yes, all those integrated defenses. And the new Migs have air to air missiles that outrange by 100 km the American ones. And there are not that many Taurus missiles.
So Russians will bear down and continue grinding down the Ukrainians and everything what the west has left to throw at them.
Sorry to disappoint but the famous naval "Thatch Weave" wasn't employed until June of 1942. And there were some criticisms of this tactic which stated that it failed when employed against an experienced pilot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thach_Weave).
Further, In the early part of the war, the US had nothing comparable to Japanese Naval Aviation pilots, who have been considered the finest trained pilots in the world at the time...
The Thach Weave was used at the Battle of Midway. Yes, it could be defeated - like any tactic. And some of JN pilots were very good. But the fought individually without radios, emphasizing dogfighting, all of which contributed to their defeat.
I did some research on the capabilities of both the Japanese and US naval pilots at the Battle of Midway. Because I found most of the information retrieved from Google\DuckDuckGo to be rather sanitized and biased towards the US, I decided to ask DeepSeek-AI if it could provide a comparison between both opponent pilots.
DeepSeek-AI did a credible job of returning what appeared to be rather impartial information...
>>>
Can you compare US naval pilots' capabilities to Japanese naval pilots' capabilities at the famous Battle of Midway?
The Battle of Midway (June 4–7, 1942) was a pivotal clash where the skill disparity between U.S. and Japanese naval pilots played a critical role in the outcome. Below is a detailed comparison of their capabilities:
1. Experience and Training
Japanese Pilots:
Elite but Overstretched: Japan’s carrier pilots were among the best in the world at the war’s start, with extensive combat experience from Pearl Harbor, the Indian Ocean raids, and the Coral Sea. Their training program was rigorous but slow to replace losses (only ~100 new pilots/year pre-war) 26.
Midway Weakness: Many veteran pilots were lost at Coral Sea (May 1942), and replacements were less experienced. At Midway, some Zero pilots had only 300–400 flight hours, down from pre-war standards of 500+ 510.
U.S. Pilots:
Green but Adaptable: Most U.S. pilots were rookies, with some Dauntless dive-bomber pilots fresh from training (e.g., MAG-22’s replacements had just 20 hours in SBDs) 9. Torpedo Squadron 8 (VT-8) lost all but one pilot in their first combat 12.
Peacetime Foundation: The U.S. had a robust training pipeline (e.g., the "Thach Weave" tactic was developed pre-war by Lt. Cdr. John Thach to counter Zeros) 13. Repair crews’ quick turnaround of USS Yorktown also preserved veteran pilots from Coral Sea 410.
2. Aircraft Performance
Japanese Advantages:
Mitsubishi A6M Zero: Superior maneuverability, range, and climb rate outclassed U.S. F4F Wildcats and F2A Buffalos. Zeros dominated dogfights, shooting down 15 of 26 Marine fighters in Midway’s opening engagement 910.
Torpedo Bombers: Nakajima B5N "Kates" carried lethal Type 91 torpedoes, but at Midway, many were caught rearming with bombs, leaving them vulnerable 26.
U.S. Advantages:
SBD Dauntless: Rugged dive-bombers delivered fatal blows to Japanese carriers. Their 1,000-pound bombs ignited poorly stowed ordnance on Japanese decks ("five fatal minutes") 512.
Radar and Coordination: U.S. carriers had radar (absent on Japanese ships), aiding early warnings. Poor Japanese reconnaissance (only 7 scout planes vs. 30+ U.S. Catalinas) left Nagumo unaware of U.S. carriers 610.
3. Tactics and Decision-Making
Japanese Errors:
Nagumo’s Dilemma: Conflicted between attacking Midway or U.S. carriers, Nagumo’s order to rearm bombers with land-attack ordnance left decks cluttered with fuel and munitions—a fatal delay 46.
Fragmented Fleet: Yamamoto’s complex plan dispersed battleships too far to support carriers, while U.S. forces concentrated near Midway 210.
U.S. Adaptations:
Thach Weave: This tactic (crossing paths to mutual defense) helped Wildcats counter Zeros despite inferior aircraft 13.
Intelligence Edge: U.S. codebreaking (HYPO Station) revealed Japan’s plans, allowing ambush positioning. The fake "water shortage" ruse confirmed Midway as target "AF" 1012.
4. Outcomes and Legacy
Japanese Losses: 248 aircraft and 3,057 personnel (including irreplaceable pilots). The loss of four carriers (Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū) crippled Japan’s offensive capability 212.
U.S. Losses: 150 aircraft and 307 killed, but preserved carrier strength (Enterprise/Hornet survived; Yorktown lost). The battle marked a shift to U.S. aircrew quality surpassing Japan’s as the war progressed 510.
Key Takeaway
While Japanese pilots were initially more skilled, their rigid tactics, poor reconnaissance, and logistical failures at Midway negated their edge. The U.S. leveraged intelligence, adaptability, and industrial resilience to turn rookie pilots into a decisive force—a trend that defined the Pacific War’s later stages 5
<<<
The result is that for the most part the capabilities of both sets of pilots was a "wash".
Though Japanese pilots were superior in skill (as I had stated previously), the US pilots had a better "sense of daring". However, US Brewster Buffalos and TBF torpedo-bombers were completely wiped out. Wildcat pilots had a better time of it,and as you said, the Thach Weave was used at Midway. However, this tactic would not be formally introduced into pilot training until November of that year.
The Japanese lost all of their aircraft, mostly a result of successful SBD Dauntless strikes on the Japanese carriers. However, their actual pilot loss was somewhat less than the Americans.
Given the disparity between Japanese and US industrial capabilities, there was no doubt that the US would win in a protracted war with Japan. However, what is often not recognized by most in the US is that both the Japanese and US strategies for the Pacific Theater were completely unintelligent; the Japanese believed that extensive supply lines could be maintained, while US planners actually believed that the Japanese could sustain an invasion of the US West Coast with such supply lines.
Neither belief was true. Nonetheless, the US decided upon an island hopping strategy that wasted thousands of US lives and resources, none of which actually played a major role in the defeat of the Japanese mainland. This was accomplished solely by the US Navy's strategic blockade of Japan. This was even the conclusion in Truman's 1947 "Pacific Air War Survey" of 1947...
I see a lot of declarative sentences about Soviet capabilities with no backup and ones that don’t seem to follow the facts about how its “superiority” is playing out in Ukraine. Without Chinese support and supplies they would have collapsed already. As for nukes, yes they can destroy the world. So not great “analysis” and seems to me just planted Russian propaganda.
One recalls the immature teenager who is compulsively driven to test boundaries. He behaves horribly in family or in public situations. He is driven to presses the boundaries constantly he can’t stand to live without knowing where the hard boundaries are, or if they exist at all.
Call it Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Call it something else. But recognize and dismantle it before the planet dies.
Hahaha, the bot Slav supremacy posting is crazy, see dead internet in the comments. Your take is cooked btw, all the best Russian submarines are rotting in Kola.
The anal polyps have come once again, but they have not gone, merely subsided at the behest of Russian missular suppositories. I am sure they will attempts a return, it is embedded in their deeper nature.
But there’s one other parallel: the US provoked the Ukraine war by creating an existential crisis for Russia: the prospect of NATO and US nuclear missiles right on its “soft underbelly” border; the US also provoked the Pacific War by cutting off oil exports to Japan, creating an existential crisis: we either act now and grab as many oil resources as we can while we still have the strength, and survive, or watch our military capability and industry wither.
The Japanese made serious errors in their attack on Pearl Harbour. They did not risk the planned second wave attack, but crucially they did not destroy the massive oil bunkers on the nearby island. That should have been the target - not a handful of ships that in the event were mostly repaired. Had they done so they would have seriously slowed down the US response, giving them at least several months freedom of action.
Your assessment of Putin aligns with my totally non-expert one.
I'm always struck by how rational and cautious he is in videos.
Trump and other Western leaders, in contrast, come across like spoiled children. I have no faith in their judgment.
When cut, V. V. Putin bleeds rationality and caution.
Imagine if Medvedev followed him.
Putin is in a war with the West and wars aren't won with half measures.
Yeah, like calling Western diplomats idiots. I've never heard sug a rational and cautious statement before. Refreshingly honest, and sooo cautious. I've much worse descriptions in mind for them!
Wow ! That's an impressive overview...
And the comparison with the US-Japan war makes sense...
(i board-game played that war when i was young, even with US-made games.)
The recent 'Taurus plan' rebirth is just stupid. To reach Moscow, it has to be launched from high in the air, from a German -and German manned- jet on a distance of max 500 km from Moscow, which is around Sumy, where currently the Russian Army has crushed the Kiev-Regime frontline, to create a Buffer-zone along the Border. The alternative, from Latvia is even more than 500 km.
In that position (High in the Air as you mentioned), it can be detected by both the A50 Russian AWACS, in the air at max 400km from that point, inside Russia, and even by ground based AS400 Radars on a distance of 800 km, even deeper in Russia.
It can most easily be downed by MIG31's with the 400 km range KS-172 air-to-air missile, Supersonic, Mach 3-5.
Stopping the Taurus after it has been launched would be the task of the other layered air defenses of Russia, ground based. And they have proven to be able to do that too.
But i assume the Russians will try to down the German Jet before it can launch the Taurus. They have to fly over Ukraine territory from the Polish Border to Sumy. So time enough.
My sensing tells me that the Monster has ordered Zelensky & Fritz, his new NAZI-brother, to try to eliminate Putin, in the hope it will cause problems in the Kremlin and after the Russian retaliation, would hopefully get the US back on the side of the City of London, where the Shadows lay and the EVIL LIES and EVIL NARRATIVES are being brewed.
Keep up the good work !!!
Cassandra
Ironically, if they manage to get rid of Mr Putin by any means, they will get to meet the BAD COP.
I believe you overlooked the fact that targeting will require input from US intelligence. (Ritter and Johnson) The Jewish Mafia that controls the US government isn't listening to Trump.
Thank you John, that is true. But until now that info has been provided, but there was pressure, not to use it 'deep in Russia'. It appears (55% probability) that Brits and French Satellites have provided info for guiding Storm Shadow (Brits) brother of Taurus, in flying low to the ground to targets in Crimea, after being launched by the few 'Ukraine' jets that were able to launch them, while risking being shot down themselves, and this stopped after the last of those jets was shot down by MIG31's, while being on a mission, after which those attacks stopped.
Cassandra
Wow ! That's an impressive comment :-)
"The US is still powerful but with 700 bases in 80 countries, it is spread thin and over-extended".
In fact those bases are not assets at all, but liabilities. Financial of course, because they must cost a substantial fraction of the USA's trillion-dollar "defence" budget. And military, because they are intensely vulnerable and mostly indefensible. Count how many US bases are within missile range of Iran, for instance. All of them are within range of Russia and China.
As usual, an astute and correct observation, Tom. In that regard, you will like Orlov's interview posted tonight, where he gives a good example.
I completely agree...
In addition, Lt. Colonel Don Davis as also stated that many of these bases are poorly staffed due to the crisis in US recruitment.
There's no need to risk injury by killing a rabid dog (as it will die soon).
Minimize interactions.
But if it poses a significant threat, kill it
The Soviet military theoretician, Aleksandr Svechin, may have been an excellent analyst but from reading, "Fighting in Hell", the German perspective on the "War in The East" during WWII, which was created at the request of the US Army after WWII, the Soviet military then did not heed much of his advice.
According to the 4 US Army German manuscripts I am currently reading (published, I believe in 1954), Soviet Infantry Forces had very little regard for Human life (which probably explains the massive number of rapes of German women once in Germany) and as such continued to use mass-wave attacks until the end of the war. These types of wasteful attacks is what caused the massive loss of life in the Soviet Forces... Just sheer stupidity, not valor...
The Wehrmacht would simply mow down the attacking Soviet troops. However, even when completely repulsed, the Soviets would simply regroup and attack again, even when there was no hope of victory.
Despite this, the Wehrmacht had a lot of respect for Soviet Infantry tenacity and bravery, which is not what we often hear in the West, whereby we have been constantly told of the German view of Slavs as nothing more than "untermenchen"...
The Soviets won by their sheer number of supplies (thanks to FDR) and ability to replenish their troop very rapidly.
However, this information puts a completely light on the Soviet victory. Instead, from a military point of view, the Germans lost the conflict, but the Soviets did NOT win it. There is a big difference in understanding this type of paradox in military science.
The same was true with The Southern Confederacy's constant use by Lee of frontal assaults. If you were to read Stephen Sears' one-volume definitive study, "Gettysburg", you would find that Confederate Forces, similar to Soviet Forces in WWII, wasted precious manpower in the American War of Northern Aggression whenever Lee was engaged in a major engagements.
An example of this at Gettysburg was one of the famous North Carolina Brigades, which continued to attempt their attack at Union entrenched forces while being consistently mowed down...
The book you mention was written by German generals and has very few details. Basically, it was written to curry favor with the Americans and went with the "Russian horde" trope.
Actually the book has quite a bit of detail on the tactics, strategy, and sociology of the Russian soldier. For example, there is a section on Russian "bridgeheads", which was quite fascinating. The German response was to hit them quickly before they had a chance to grow with increased troop levels. It was noted that if a bridgehead grew in size it was increasingly difficult to dislodge the Soviet troops.
The editor also notes in the introduction that these manuscripts were written to assist the US in a possible war against the Soviet Union at the time. However, there were some personal biases to be considered.
So far, I find the translation and reading quite good. And the book wasn't written to describe the battles that were fought but to provide a good understanding of the Russian environments (ie: climate) and how the Soviet soldier fought...
As far as the "horde trope" is concerned, how do you think the Russians lost so many men in WWII?
FWIW: others have argued that the US supply of weapons to Russia wasn't all that decisive.
The Russians are not using WWII tactics now.
In this interview, Ritter explains the 3/6 tactics the Russians use now. It is because of the drones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYh8MVnWAqs&
I imagine some people would say that FDR's Lend-Lease Program was not decisive in the defeat of the Wehrmacht. There are plenty of people who still view WWII from rather outdated lenses and who still want to see the Soviet effort as heroic and for the most part, accomplished completely on their own.
However, Stalin did purge the officer corp in the 1930s of around 25,000 trained officers, which left, for the most part, only the Russian High Command with qualified personnel. Such erratic behavior on the part of Stalin would have logically found its way into other areas of the Russian Armed Forces as Zubov and others have demonstrated.
People have also commented here that Stalin quickly industrialized the Soviet Union. This was a double-edged sword. Yes, he did force the industrialization of the Soviet Union quickly. However, unlike Germany who had many talented people in its population after WWI, Soviet Russia had a population that had a large percentage of peasants and unskilled labor. Even with the finest education programs, which Soviet Russia eventually implemented, going from basically an agricultural economy to an industrialized one in a few short years simply would not have allowed the training of new workers in a timely manner.
The latest research on Stalin's reliance on FDR's Lend-Lease Program that I am aware of is Professor Sean McMeekin's, "Stalin's War", which has been very well received.
McMeekin uses a lot of source material to make his case. And my other readings on the "War in The East" so far, is corroborating McMeekin's research.
For example, I have red in several places that the Luftwaffee did not think much of Soviet fighter pilots or their Soviet built fighter aircraft. Based on Zubov's book, "Stalin's Falcons", one can conclude that the best Soviet fighter in production was the biplane, I-153. This was because it went into production before Stalin started meddling with the Soviet aviation industry.
And you are correct, Russia is no longer using any of the tactical doctrines, which involved mass attacks as they used during WWII. Nonetheless, German generals did find various aspects of their tactical doctrines to be quite excellent, most of which were based upon security and reconnaissance.
In terms of infantry doctrine, Russia now uses the Battle Tactical Group (BTG) in terms of its basic infantry structure. I believe the BTG is bigger than a western regiment.
You can find an interesting paper that discusses an American perspective on this Russian unit type at the following link... https://www.benning.army.mil/Armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2017/Spring/2Fiore17.pdf
FWIW: that paper is from 2017. I could be wrong but, it is my understanding that the BTG proved to be ineffective and was abandoned for a more traditional organization. This change happened almost immediately after the beginning of the SMO. I’m not saying you’re wrong. It is a detail that I don’t really care about but which you seem to so I’m just passing on what I recall from a couple of years ago so you might look into it. If you don’t care to, fine.
Very interesting indeed... When I had read about the BTG initilly, I was under the impression that it was the standard unit formation of the Russian Army. However, doing a little research based on your comments above yielded some very interesting results.
It appears you are correct about the use of the BTG, or its now lack of use. One of the problems with the BTG that was noted in one paper I read was that its composition was overly complicated for a single unit commander to manage. The result was that a return to the standard division\brigade infrastructure was the remedial option.
Here is a document that describes the use of the BTG and its removal from service around 2022... https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20221204.aspx#gsc.tab=0
Excellent analysis, thank you! I don't know about that corridor to old East Prussia to teach the Balts some manners, but it could happen, depending on all sorts of things.
Once one understands that Putin is a Russian patriot and what Russia's national interests actually are--which isn't hard to do because the Putin administration usually just comes out and tells us --Putin becomes predictable. Consistent. Reliable.
It's also important to remember that, when it comes to foreign policy, the Russians have always been counterpunchers. They prefer to let their opponent make the first move, because that first move may well give them an opportunity, and then respond as seems best at the time.
Then rinse, lather, repeat until one side or the other has had enough.
Two quibbles:
1. Japan: the death blow was the Soviet fast advance and over-running the Japanese Imperial Army stationed in Manchuria. A bit more stalling and the Soviets were about to land in Hokkaido. US asked and asked and asked the Soviets to open a second front against the Japanese (the way US opened the second front in the western Europe against the Germans). And as soon as the cannons stopped in May 1945, the Russians delivered. It was one of the stealthiest and secret troops move across all Asia, that ultimately gave the death blow to the Japanese Imperial Army. It was not a sole US defeat of Japan.
2. Taurus: it is air launched so for maximum distance the F-16 needs to high and needs to be close to the Russian border. And who is at the Russian border? Yes, all those integrated defenses. And the new Migs have air to air missiles that outrange by 100 km the American ones. And there are not that many Taurus missiles.
So Russians will bear down and continue grinding down the Ukrainians and everything what the west has left to throw at them.
A little bit longer article and it would be 600 bases in 80 countries 🤣
Sorry to disappoint but the famous naval "Thatch Weave" wasn't employed until June of 1942. And there were some criticisms of this tactic which stated that it failed when employed against an experienced pilot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thach_Weave).
Further, In the early part of the war, the US had nothing comparable to Japanese Naval Aviation pilots, who have been considered the finest trained pilots in the world at the time...
The Thach Weave was used at the Battle of Midway. Yes, it could be defeated - like any tactic. And some of JN pilots were very good. But the fought individually without radios, emphasizing dogfighting, all of which contributed to their defeat.
I did some research on the capabilities of both the Japanese and US naval pilots at the Battle of Midway. Because I found most of the information retrieved from Google\DuckDuckGo to be rather sanitized and biased towards the US, I decided to ask DeepSeek-AI if it could provide a comparison between both opponent pilots.
DeepSeek-AI did a credible job of returning what appeared to be rather impartial information...
>>>
Can you compare US naval pilots' capabilities to Japanese naval pilots' capabilities at the famous Battle of Midway?
The Battle of Midway (June 4–7, 1942) was a pivotal clash where the skill disparity between U.S. and Japanese naval pilots played a critical role in the outcome. Below is a detailed comparison of their capabilities:
1. Experience and Training
Japanese Pilots:
Elite but Overstretched: Japan’s carrier pilots were among the best in the world at the war’s start, with extensive combat experience from Pearl Harbor, the Indian Ocean raids, and the Coral Sea. Their training program was rigorous but slow to replace losses (only ~100 new pilots/year pre-war) 26.
Midway Weakness: Many veteran pilots were lost at Coral Sea (May 1942), and replacements were less experienced. At Midway, some Zero pilots had only 300–400 flight hours, down from pre-war standards of 500+ 510.
U.S. Pilots:
Green but Adaptable: Most U.S. pilots were rookies, with some Dauntless dive-bomber pilots fresh from training (e.g., MAG-22’s replacements had just 20 hours in SBDs) 9. Torpedo Squadron 8 (VT-8) lost all but one pilot in their first combat 12.
Peacetime Foundation: The U.S. had a robust training pipeline (e.g., the "Thach Weave" tactic was developed pre-war by Lt. Cdr. John Thach to counter Zeros) 13. Repair crews’ quick turnaround of USS Yorktown also preserved veteran pilots from Coral Sea 410.
2. Aircraft Performance
Japanese Advantages:
Mitsubishi A6M Zero: Superior maneuverability, range, and climb rate outclassed U.S. F4F Wildcats and F2A Buffalos. Zeros dominated dogfights, shooting down 15 of 26 Marine fighters in Midway’s opening engagement 910.
Torpedo Bombers: Nakajima B5N "Kates" carried lethal Type 91 torpedoes, but at Midway, many were caught rearming with bombs, leaving them vulnerable 26.
U.S. Advantages:
SBD Dauntless: Rugged dive-bombers delivered fatal blows to Japanese carriers. Their 1,000-pound bombs ignited poorly stowed ordnance on Japanese decks ("five fatal minutes") 512.
Radar and Coordination: U.S. carriers had radar (absent on Japanese ships), aiding early warnings. Poor Japanese reconnaissance (only 7 scout planes vs. 30+ U.S. Catalinas) left Nagumo unaware of U.S. carriers 610.
3. Tactics and Decision-Making
Japanese Errors:
Nagumo’s Dilemma: Conflicted between attacking Midway or U.S. carriers, Nagumo’s order to rearm bombers with land-attack ordnance left decks cluttered with fuel and munitions—a fatal delay 46.
Fragmented Fleet: Yamamoto’s complex plan dispersed battleships too far to support carriers, while U.S. forces concentrated near Midway 210.
U.S. Adaptations:
Thach Weave: This tactic (crossing paths to mutual defense) helped Wildcats counter Zeros despite inferior aircraft 13.
Intelligence Edge: U.S. codebreaking (HYPO Station) revealed Japan’s plans, allowing ambush positioning. The fake "water shortage" ruse confirmed Midway as target "AF" 1012.
4. Outcomes and Legacy
Japanese Losses: 248 aircraft and 3,057 personnel (including irreplaceable pilots). The loss of four carriers (Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū) crippled Japan’s offensive capability 212.
U.S. Losses: 150 aircraft and 307 killed, but preserved carrier strength (Enterprise/Hornet survived; Yorktown lost). The battle marked a shift to U.S. aircrew quality surpassing Japan’s as the war progressed 510.
Key Takeaway
While Japanese pilots were initially more skilled, their rigid tactics, poor reconnaissance, and logistical failures at Midway negated their edge. The U.S. leveraged intelligence, adaptability, and industrial resilience to turn rookie pilots into a decisive force—a trend that defined the Pacific War’s later stages 5
<<<
The result is that for the most part the capabilities of both sets of pilots was a "wash".
Though Japanese pilots were superior in skill (as I had stated previously), the US pilots had a better "sense of daring". However, US Brewster Buffalos and TBF torpedo-bombers were completely wiped out. Wildcat pilots had a better time of it,and as you said, the Thach Weave was used at Midway. However, this tactic would not be formally introduced into pilot training until November of that year.
The Japanese lost all of their aircraft, mostly a result of successful SBD Dauntless strikes on the Japanese carriers. However, their actual pilot loss was somewhat less than the Americans.
Given the disparity between Japanese and US industrial capabilities, there was no doubt that the US would win in a protracted war with Japan. However, what is often not recognized by most in the US is that both the Japanese and US strategies for the Pacific Theater were completely unintelligent; the Japanese believed that extensive supply lines could be maintained, while US planners actually believed that the Japanese could sustain an invasion of the US West Coast with such supply lines.
Neither belief was true. Nonetheless, the US decided upon an island hopping strategy that wasted thousands of US lives and resources, none of which actually played a major role in the defeat of the Japanese mainland. This was accomplished solely by the US Navy's strategic blockade of Japan. This was even the conclusion in Truman's 1947 "Pacific Air War Survey" of 1947...
> Russia could defeat NATO in a week if it wanted. NATO bases have no defenses against their weaponry if they go all out.
So, why has it taken more that 3 years for Russia to try to defeat just Ukraine?
I see a lot of declarative sentences about Soviet capabilities with no backup and ones that don’t seem to follow the facts about how its “superiority” is playing out in Ukraine. Without Chinese support and supplies they would have collapsed already. As for nukes, yes they can destroy the world. So not great “analysis” and seems to me just planted Russian propaganda.
One recalls the immature teenager who is compulsively driven to test boundaries. He behaves horribly in family or in public situations. He is driven to presses the boundaries constantly he can’t stand to live without knowing where the hard boundaries are, or if they exist at all.
Call it Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Call it something else. But recognize and dismantle it before the planet dies.
Hahaha, the bot Slav supremacy posting is crazy, see dead internet in the comments. Your take is cooked btw, all the best Russian submarines are rotting in Kola.
One advantage that the US had over Japan in WWII was vastly superior naval logistics.
America could resupply ships underway thousands of mile from home ports, where the Japanese had to return to port following an operation.
This allowed for greater operational flexibility .
The anal polyps have come once again, but they have not gone, merely subsided at the behest of Russian missular suppositories. I am sure they will attempts a return, it is embedded in their deeper nature.
A very good summary!
But there’s one other parallel: the US provoked the Ukraine war by creating an existential crisis for Russia: the prospect of NATO and US nuclear missiles right on its “soft underbelly” border; the US also provoked the Pacific War by cutting off oil exports to Japan, creating an existential crisis: we either act now and grab as many oil resources as we can while we still have the strength, and survive, or watch our military capability and industry wither.
The Japanese made serious errors in their attack on Pearl Harbour. They did not risk the planned second wave attack, but crucially they did not destroy the massive oil bunkers on the nearby island. That should have been the target - not a handful of ships that in the event were mostly repaired. Had they done so they would have seriously slowed down the US response, giving them at least several months freedom of action.