A former spurt . . . or the best part of him ran down his daddy's leg ["Orange hair," Putin (a minor change in French spelling is needed, but I don't have the nerve to change it! **LOL**) . . . . ]
Hello, Tom! Thank you for your analysis of the military actions in Ukraine. Copium is sometimes good, but at the same time it is useful to see events from different angles to adequately assess the situation, especially since we live near the areas where the fighting is taking place.
As usual on point. I listen to talk to and read many sources including some interesting ones on the ground. I'm in Ukraine a couple of times a year and I always appreciate and enjoy your analysis. Kia Kaha
Hi Tom, do not stop to be sarcastic, please. Sarcasm is one of the reasons why I like your posts.
One question: could you expand on this
"crews of US Navy’s dive bombers, which really sunk four Japanese aircraft carriers, were running their dive-bombing attacks in a fashion (see: almost vertically)"
What exactely is a dive bomber and how were they attacking in Midway?
Perhaps the most famous dive-bombers were German-made Junkers Ju-87 Stukas (which was an abbreviation for 'Sturzkampfbomber').
Dive-bombers flew high and then would literally dive towards their target before releasing their bombs. That way they would achieve much better precision than 'level' bombers - which bombed from medium- or high altitude, and flew straight and level.
To stabilise their dive, and prevent them from accelerating too much, they were equipped with big speed brakes: these would be opened (like clam-shell doors), during the dive.
There were different schools of thought regarding the angle at which a dive-bombing attack was flown. And much depended on the level of training of the crews in question, too.
US Navy's dive-bombers tended to dive at 70-90°, i.e. almost vertically. They would approach at an altitude of around 4,000 metres, then go into their dive-attacks, release from around 400 metres (or less) and pull up.
Of course, the aircraft were vibrating quite some while diving. Then add the detonations from enemy anti-aircraft defences, and you've got the picture...
The mass of Japanese aircraft carrier sunk during the war in the Pacific were demolished by dive-bombing attacks. Early during the war, the primary US Navy type was the Douglas SDB Dauntless. Later on, this was replaced by Curtiss SB2C Helldiver.
(BTW, the nick-name 'Helldiver'.... US Navy's dive-bombers of the 1930s and early 1940s were popularly known as the 'hell-divers', because of a contemporary Hollywood movie... something like 'contemporary Top Gun, but about dive-bomber pilots'. This was so popular even the Japanese tended to call themselves that way, or to call the US Navy's dive-bombers that way.)
It's worth explaining that the reason for this was the difficulty at the time of aiming gravity bombs from aircraft in level flight. The trajectory was complicated and the inherent error large and the equipment (Norden bombsight) used to deal with that too expensive to put in large fleets of small bombers. The idea of dive bombing is that the trajectory of an aircraft diving towards the target will approach the trajectory of a free falling bomb as the angle of the dive approaches 90 degrees and the speed increases. So all you have to do is aim the aircraft and the released bomb will follow almost exactly the same trajectory, if you're diving steeply enough and fast enough. So dive bombing is a very simple and quite accurate way to aim a bomb for an aircraft lacking an expensive optical bombsight. On the downside it's quite dangerous for the pilot.
Tom! Keep the dose as you want. It's good to read all those references at the same time of having good info and analysis.
And, by things like You had describes and also remembering about the planning of the 1986 Liybian bombings from the USAF and the USN, now it's obvious to me why I prefer the USN way of the F-14 over the F-15!
I've really enjoy watching the permanently online among the commentariat discover you and be utterly baffled. It's a great spectator sport. Their lack of nuance says all you ever need to know about the value of what they post.
I read this blog because I like the style, including the sarcasm, and above all because the quality of the analysis is excellent. Never mind about the "fame and fortune" - that's hard to get and doubly hard to get without selling out on the quality, so stick with it and accept that this friendly little group thinks you deserve it.
Amazing effort Tom. Ive read every word of yours for roughly 2 years and I've shared you to anyone who's ever asked about this war. The sarcasm is top self
Many thanks Tom for your doses of sarcasm. I really enjoy your style… besides ALL the amount of info and data you provide us over media BS. Keep the work!
I don't know about others, but I personally read your blog precisely because you are professionally objective in your judgments. Your criticism of some events and processes taking place is constructive. You are trying to analyze events specifically for yourself for personal professional purposes, so such information cannot be biased. In addition, you have a lot of experience to listen to your opinion and respect. For example, we do not have a single expert like you in Ukraine. Those who are are completely unprofessional, completely stupid and pocket-sized oligarchic mercenaries. Their constant lies annoy me. The war in my country in 2014 made me interested in what is happening in our country and in the world. I have been reading your blog, Jennifer Cafarella(ISW) and Chuck Pfarrer. Basically everything related to the war in Syria at that time. In addition, I myself tried to read a lot of different information, compare different information and extract from it what was more in line with reality. No matter how hard it is to dig through this political quagmire, it is still necessary because it directly affects our lives, our incomes, our future prospects and even our health. Again, the health care system depends on the political and economic system of the country, and this direction affects even our life expectancy. Therefore, it would be wrong not to be interested in what is happening in the economy, what is happening globally in the world, what is happening in politics. Our life consists of all these internal and foreign political processes. Those people who are not interested, they just go with the flow and do not want to build their lives according to current realities.
It is indeed very difficult to reconcile the absurdity, stupidity, connivance, ignorance, malevolence, avarice, dishonesty, deceit, cruelty etc in the world, and sarcasm is one way to deal with it. If it weren’t for your need to convey information, you could of course turn sarcasm into absurdist black humour beyond satire (but that would be a different project). When i view all these flaws in humankind i reach for Balzac; for his characters surround us in everyday life whether in jobs, in local politics, in the local sports club…and i just realise nothing changes: people get away with the bad shit they do everyday because other people support them or don’t make them accountable. Which is how we end up with real (Putin) and wannabe dictators (trump). Imho only great art has any chance of saving us from ourselves. And so few care about art, so that makes us all completely fucked.
I come here for your maps and the updates - I do prefer to consume them mostly sarcasm free if at all possible but that appears to not be your style - I would , like a previous commenter , ask you to dial it back a bit since it seems to be coming super saturated sarcasm wise but its your substack and I am a voluntary consumer so I'll suck it up and put up with it for now .
Keep doing you Tom, for you do it exceedingly well 👍.
For my part, my day job is Business Analysis and my passion is military analysis; this blog is golden for that.
And for me at least, my interest won't end 5 minutes after the guns fall silent in Ukraine. Your analysis, and many like it, have rekindled my interest, indeed i would go as far as to say my skills, in this arena.
Even now I'm seeking where i can actually be useful in the present day and into the future. I'll see how i get on.
I read this for the news and analysis that the tradmedia fails so miserably at. As a combat veteran myself (Vietnam) I have enough experiance to, at least sometimes, recognize BS when I read it and that's what WAPO and NYTs and others seem to be dishing out about Ukraine. You and a few other on substack give a different and in my view more realistic viewpoint. The sarcasm is a free upgrade.
Amen! The NYT (of which I'm a paid subscriber for decades) was shockingly horrible for the first year and something of the war -- almost pure propaganda and almost zero understanding of anything. I think it's gotten much better in the last 12 months or so. Not nearly good enough, for us not to need Sarcastosaurus! But the NYT coverage is actually interesting sometimes now, and worth having another look at if you haven't seen it in a while.
I've been reading the NYT since 1964. They completely botched the coverage of the lead-up to Iraq-2 and the best I can say about their recent Ukraine writting is that it's not as bad as that. It makes me wonder if their writting about subjects I don't know as well as military matters is just as bad.
Definition of an expert:
"x" is an unknown quantity
A spurt is a drip under pressure
Alternate definition of an expert:
A former spurt . . . or the best part of him ran down his daddy's leg ["Orange hair," Putin (a minor change in French spelling is needed, but I don't have the nerve to change it! **LOL**) . . . . ]
Hello, Tom! Thank you for your analysis of the military actions in Ukraine. Copium is sometimes good, but at the same time it is useful to see events from different angles to adequately assess the situation, especially since we live near the areas where the fighting is taking place.
P.S. We want more sarcasm
As usual on point. I listen to talk to and read many sources including some interesting ones on the ground. I'm in Ukraine a couple of times a year and I always appreciate and enjoy your analysis. Kia Kaha
Hi Tom, do not stop to be sarcastic, please. Sarcasm is one of the reasons why I like your posts.
One question: could you expand on this
"crews of US Navy’s dive bombers, which really sunk four Japanese aircraft carriers, were running their dive-bombing attacks in a fashion (see: almost vertically)"
What exactely is a dive bomber and how were they attacking in Midway?
Perhaps the most famous dive-bombers were German-made Junkers Ju-87 Stukas (which was an abbreviation for 'Sturzkampfbomber').
Dive-bombers flew high and then would literally dive towards their target before releasing their bombs. That way they would achieve much better precision than 'level' bombers - which bombed from medium- or high altitude, and flew straight and level.
To stabilise their dive, and prevent them from accelerating too much, they were equipped with big speed brakes: these would be opened (like clam-shell doors), during the dive.
There were different schools of thought regarding the angle at which a dive-bombing attack was flown. And much depended on the level of training of the crews in question, too.
US Navy's dive-bombers tended to dive at 70-90°, i.e. almost vertically. They would approach at an altitude of around 4,000 metres, then go into their dive-attacks, release from around 400 metres (or less) and pull up.
Of course, the aircraft were vibrating quite some while diving. Then add the detonations from enemy anti-aircraft defences, and you've got the picture...
The mass of Japanese aircraft carrier sunk during the war in the Pacific were demolished by dive-bombing attacks. Early during the war, the primary US Navy type was the Douglas SDB Dauntless. Later on, this was replaced by Curtiss SB2C Helldiver.
(BTW, the nick-name 'Helldiver'.... US Navy's dive-bombers of the 1930s and early 1940s were popularly known as the 'hell-divers', because of a contemporary Hollywood movie... something like 'contemporary Top Gun, but about dive-bomber pilots'. This was so popular even the Japanese tended to call themselves that way, or to call the US Navy's dive-bombers that way.)
It's worth explaining that the reason for this was the difficulty at the time of aiming gravity bombs from aircraft in level flight. The trajectory was complicated and the inherent error large and the equipment (Norden bombsight) used to deal with that too expensive to put in large fleets of small bombers. The idea of dive bombing is that the trajectory of an aircraft diving towards the target will approach the trajectory of a free falling bomb as the angle of the dive approaches 90 degrees and the speed increases. So all you have to do is aim the aircraft and the released bomb will follow almost exactly the same trajectory, if you're diving steeply enough and fast enough. So dive bombing is a very simple and quite accurate way to aim a bomb for an aircraft lacking an expensive optical bombsight. On the downside it's quite dangerous for the pilot.
Watch the movie Pearl Harbour. There are some historical inaccuracies, but it gives you a right picture, especially answering your question.
....or the more recent Battle of Midway.
Sry, I meant that actually. That is the better one for sure.
Tom! Keep the dose as you want. It's good to read all those references at the same time of having good info and analysis.
And, by things like You had describes and also remembering about the planning of the 1986 Liybian bombings from the USAF and the USN, now it's obvious to me why I prefer the USN way of the F-14 over the F-15!
Keep the sarcasm up!
I've really enjoy watching the permanently online among the commentariat discover you and be utterly baffled. It's a great spectator sport. Their lack of nuance says all you ever need to know about the value of what they post.
Don't. Ever. Stop. The. Sarcasm.
I read this blog because I like the style, including the sarcasm, and above all because the quality of the analysis is excellent. Never mind about the "fame and fortune" - that's hard to get and doubly hard to get without selling out on the quality, so stick with it and accept that this friendly little group thinks you deserve it.
Amazing effort Tom. Ive read every word of yours for roughly 2 years and I've shared you to anyone who's ever asked about this war. The sarcasm is top self
Many thanks Tom for your doses of sarcasm. I really enjoy your style… besides ALL the amount of info and data you provide us over media BS. Keep the work!
I don't know about others, but I personally read your blog precisely because you are professionally objective in your judgments. Your criticism of some events and processes taking place is constructive. You are trying to analyze events specifically for yourself for personal professional purposes, so such information cannot be biased. In addition, you have a lot of experience to listen to your opinion and respect. For example, we do not have a single expert like you in Ukraine. Those who are are completely unprofessional, completely stupid and pocket-sized oligarchic mercenaries. Their constant lies annoy me. The war in my country in 2014 made me interested in what is happening in our country and in the world. I have been reading your blog, Jennifer Cafarella(ISW) and Chuck Pfarrer. Basically everything related to the war in Syria at that time. In addition, I myself tried to read a lot of different information, compare different information and extract from it what was more in line with reality. No matter how hard it is to dig through this political quagmire, it is still necessary because it directly affects our lives, our incomes, our future prospects and even our health. Again, the health care system depends on the political and economic system of the country, and this direction affects even our life expectancy. Therefore, it would be wrong not to be interested in what is happening in the economy, what is happening globally in the world, what is happening in politics. Our life consists of all these internal and foreign political processes. Those people who are not interested, they just go with the flow and do not want to build their lives according to current realities.
Hahahahah, Sarcastosaur, I’ve got it only now, hahahaha
It is indeed very difficult to reconcile the absurdity, stupidity, connivance, ignorance, malevolence, avarice, dishonesty, deceit, cruelty etc in the world, and sarcasm is one way to deal with it. If it weren’t for your need to convey information, you could of course turn sarcasm into absurdist black humour beyond satire (but that would be a different project). When i view all these flaws in humankind i reach for Balzac; for his characters surround us in everyday life whether in jobs, in local politics, in the local sports club…and i just realise nothing changes: people get away with the bad shit they do everyday because other people support them or don’t make them accountable. Which is how we end up with real (Putin) and wannabe dictators (trump). Imho only great art has any chance of saving us from ourselves. And so few care about art, so that makes us all completely fucked.
We must just K.B.O., as one Englishman said. Or K.S.O., Keep Sarcasming On. Whatever. Keep it on Tom and thank you.
....and drink tea. ;-)
I come here for your maps and the updates - I do prefer to consume them mostly sarcasm free if at all possible but that appears to not be your style - I would , like a previous commenter , ask you to dial it back a bit since it seems to be coming super saturated sarcasm wise but its your substack and I am a voluntary consumer so I'll suck it up and put up with it for now .
Keep doing you Tom, for you do it exceedingly well 👍.
For my part, my day job is Business Analysis and my passion is military analysis; this blog is golden for that.
And for me at least, my interest won't end 5 minutes after the guns fall silent in Ukraine. Your analysis, and many like it, have rekindled my interest, indeed i would go as far as to say my skills, in this arena.
Even now I'm seeking where i can actually be useful in the present day and into the future. I'll see how i get on.
Thank you.
I read this for the news and analysis that the tradmedia fails so miserably at. As a combat veteran myself (Vietnam) I have enough experiance to, at least sometimes, recognize BS when I read it and that's what WAPO and NYTs and others seem to be dishing out about Ukraine. You and a few other on substack give a different and in my view more realistic viewpoint. The sarcasm is a free upgrade.
Amen! The NYT (of which I'm a paid subscriber for decades) was shockingly horrible for the first year and something of the war -- almost pure propaganda and almost zero understanding of anything. I think it's gotten much better in the last 12 months or so. Not nearly good enough, for us not to need Sarcastosaurus! But the NYT coverage is actually interesting sometimes now, and worth having another look at if you haven't seen it in a while.
I've been reading the NYT since 1964. They completely botched the coverage of the lead-up to Iraq-2 and the best I can say about their recent Ukraine writting is that it's not as bad as that. It makes me wonder if their writting about subjects I don't know as well as military matters is just as bad.