Unofficial Military (and other cool) Stuff Thread

[Dejan Corovic]

One thing about history is that it's hard to get to the bottom of it, because historians are focusing on melodrama, not on decisive material facts.

But slowly I'm getting through curtains and smoke-screens, and revealing to myself this "show-me-the-money" history, which peels off fake news and propaganda.

Essentially this video shows that US entered into WW1 to save J.P. Morgan. At a beginning of the WW1 he borrowed $500 M to Great Britain and France, and after first few years of the war Britain was so overstretched that there was a danger of it defaulting on the loan. But default of G.B. would collapse US banks, and collapse of US banks would collapse US economy. So, to prevent collapse of US banks and economy, US president mobilised general public to buy war bonds which were then used to save J.P. Morgan and other bankers. Practically that's what keeps happening to this day, each time private bankers get into a pickle, politicians step in and save them with public money. But when bankers are doing good, then they keep the profits.


View: https://youtu.be/vtu9B4Pi1oo

 

[pigfarmer]

The Zimmerman Telegram had quite a lot to do with it as did the Lusitania

 

[Dejan Corovic]

The Zimmerman Telegram had quite a lot to do with it as did the Lusitania

its doubtful weather Mexico would fall for it. Mexico's economy was a joke back then as much as today. I doubt that the whole economy of Mexico was worth $500M that J.P. Morgan borrowed to UK & France. Plus, Germany had no means to transport it's soldiers across Atlantic controlled by US and UK.

But Zimmerman telegram is excellent as an false flag presented to general public who's ignorant of J.P.M's $500 M loan.

Germany had every reason to declare war on US because US was already actively supporting German enemies. Obviously, Germans knew better.

 

[pigfarmer]

its doubtful weather Mexico would fall for it. Mexico's economy was a joke back then as much as today. I doubt that the whole economy of Mexico was worth $500M that J.P. Morgan borrowed to UK & France. Plus, Germany had no means to transport it's soldiers across Atlantic controlled by US and UK.

But Zimmerman telegram is excellent as an false flag presented to general public who's ignorant of J.P.M's $500 M loan.

Germany had every reason to declare war on US because US was already actively supporting German enemies. Obviously, Germans knew better.

The intent was to create instability along our border and Pershing's Expedition was only a few years earlier. In the context of the time it was a credible threat. We weren't much of a military power at that time either

 

[Dejan Corovic]

We weren't much of a military power at that time either

I can't imagine that in any point of 20-th century "US was not much of military power", double so relative to Mexico. On a balance of probabilities J.P. Morgan's $500 M, which in today's money is probably few 100s of billions, looks to me far bigger damage, than any damage of any Mexico's sabre rattling.


More one reads history more one realises that there are x2 side to the politics.

Theatrical politics in the mass media, parlaments, etc, and Real politics dominated by spies, diplomats, industrialists, bankers,, etc. But, Theatrical politics is on the surface and easily accessible, but it is a fool's gold. Real politics is much harder to get to because data of material importance is hidden deep in a second or even third layer of reality. Real politics is almost never discussed in mass media, but it mostly comes up to the surface after 50 years when archives are opened. But, if one listens to disgruntled whistleblower spies one can skip waiting 50 years and get insight into more recent Real politics.

The difference between Theatrical and Real politics is why, for the most part, politics appears to general public as chaotic. Once one gets down to real politics and real material information things become a bit more transparent and predictable. Its simply good old rubbish in rubbish out principle.

 

[pigfarmer]

I can't imagine that in any point of 20-th century "US was not much of military power"

It was. Just because we were able to rapidly mobilize doesn't mean we kept a large standing army.

Mexico was making a pain in the ass of itself (nothing new) just prior to WW1 and the punitive expedition formed after a cross border raid represented a large percentage of what we had on hand. It used aircraft and motorized vehicles which was innovative for them at the time. John Pershing led it and later went on to command the AEF in Europe. That expedition also saw a very young George Patton eager to get into combat, which he did.

Pancho Villa Expedition

Troop Levels

 

[nivek]

The Russian Navy Has a Problem It Never Saw Coming​

As Admiral Kuznetsov fades into irrelevance, Russia’s already weak surface fleet raises a hard question: does Moscow even need a navy? While Russia cannot rival the U.S. in global aircraft carrier power, it still has serious regional ambitions in the Arctic and the Black Sea. There, carriers and other surface combatants would be critical to protecting new bases, icebreakers, and coastal positions—and to truly threaten NATO. Instead, Russia relies on impressive submarines but lacks the sea-based airpower to back them up. Budget woes, broken shipyards, and Ukraine’s war make a serious Russian blue-water navy a distant prospect.

As Russia's sole, troubled carrier meets its fate and seems to disintegrate into a mist of non-existence, some might be inclined to raise the question of whether the country even wants or needs a Navy. Russia's Navy has been challenged for many years, to put it mildly. The Russian Navy may not have a pressing strategic need to project global maritime power. Unless Russia wanted to project a global maritime presence as a counterbalance to US global power projection, there are not really too many compelling reasons why Russia would need a carrier.

Part of this is likely because, even if Russia wanted to compete with the US in terms of global maritime power, it would not be in a position to do so anytime in the coming decades. The sheer size of Russia's land army, armored vehicles, and fighter jets—though now reduced due to Russia's attack on Ukraine—is undoubtedly sufficient to present significant threats to Eastern Europe. And yet, in order to achieve influence and pursue its ambitions beyond the European continent, Russia will need a far more formidable Naval presence.

While Russia may not have the ambition to operate as a massive global power with a forward presence across the globe similar to the US Navy, the country does have clear ambitions in the Arctic and Black Sea. Russia borders the famous and often-discussed Northern Sea Route. The route offers direct access to the Arctic, and the country has been steadily increasing its Arctic presence and influence in recent years. Russia is known to operate a large number of icebreakers, but it has only one carrier, which is currently in dry dock, undergoing repair, and is therefore unavailable.

Would Russia need more aircraft carriers if its leaders wish to capture more territory and influence in the rapidly changing Arctic? The answer would seem to be yes. The ability to project power and maintain a forward presence in waters near the Arctic would prove critical to maintaining influence or presenting a threat there.

In recent years, for instance, Russia has increased its presence in various locations throughout the Arctic by adding more bases, equipment, and personnel. However, supporting these assets with projected power from the sea is not possible for Russia. This circumstance appears to limit the ability to truly hold enemies at risk in defense of its Arctic assets. A small number of aircraft carriers could be key to accomplishing this.

Russia also has regional ambitions in the Black Sea, which is surrounded by the coastal areas of NATO members, including Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey. Ukraine and Russia itself border the Black Sea, so the ability to launch air strikes and fire cruise missiles from that area would prove critical in any engagement. Ukrainian forces, for instance, have already had success in destroying Russian ships in the Black Sea on numerous occasions. If Russia gains the ability to launch sea-based airstrikes, the situation along the coast and in Odessa might be pretty different.

Overall, Russia's Navy is not only smaller but also, according to many observers, is believed to be limited in its ability to attack ocean and land targets from surface ships. Should Russia have budget flexibility and industrial capacity, it seems there are several key areas where its posture might greatly benefit from the presence of more aircraft carriers. Russia's submarines, by contrast, are known to be both extremely advanced and threatening to US and NATO naval forces. However, the country's inability to mount and project any real kind of surface Naval warfighting power will place massive limitations on the types of missions it can accomplish.

.

 

[pigfarmer]

Admiral Kuznetsov

The US Navy's nickname for the thing was 'Old Smokey' because it burned a heavy crude called mazut. In operation the thing looked like it was a coal burner and the few times it deployed it was plagued by engineering malfunctions. In short, it was a pile of ****. Reminds me a little of what the IJN was forced to do near the end of the war by using unrefined crude as a necessary expedient.

I've read that most of Russia's heavy shipbuilding facilities were in Ukraine and what they have retaken does not include all of it. Plus, those pesky Ukrainians have blown the crap out of their Black Sea fleet including it's flagship. The game in the Arctic is about ice breakers and submarines.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

Why Edward VIII visited Hitler: Author says book will shed new light on maligned monarch's dalliance with Nazi Germany and overturn his popular image as lazy and unintelligent​

Jane Marguerite Tippett spoke to The Telegraph about her upcoming book which will cast a 'very different light' on Edward and look into his trip to Nazi Germany. Edward gave up the throne in 1936, a year before his trip to see Hitler, to marry the divorced American socialite Wallis Simpson. Edward and Wallis visited Germany and met the Fuhrer in 1937 - despite British officials strongly advising them not to go because of tensions between the two countries at the time. Two years later, World War II began.



.

British Royal family is actually German, descendents of Duke of Humburg (or Hanover, don't quite me on that). They quickly changed surname just before WW1 to avoid adverse publicity.

 

[Dejan Corovic]

Anyway. Nowadays news are so full of drones its almost a visual harassment, because they keep coming with small insignificant variations.

But, here is something truly interesting. This company threw away electric motors and their low energy density batteries and apparently put a jet engine in (my guess). This actually looks as something practical, were one can go for a ride in a very comfortable position, and hopefully long range:

I imagine something like this would be swell for going hunting.


View: https://www.facebook.com/reel/659247357152658



View: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1326631385628816

 

[pigfarmer]

The entire video is interesting, this is just a god spot for a quick look. They gave them warning shots first from the door mounted machine gun that were ignore. Then came the Barrett M82 ......

Whatever we pay these guys they deserve a raise.

Amazing Footage of a Coast Guard HITRON Team in Action​

 

[Dejan Corovic]

Very good spy story:


View: https://youtu.be/QGs-01ASnsk

 

[Dejan Corovic]

I'm finding this YT channel really fascinating, because it is focused on "show me the money" history about which they never teach you in the school, or mainstream media,


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMy3BAJYi54&t=1077s

 

[pigfarmer]

Well, that's what they get for yet another ruinous war on the continent. Would you expect anything different if we were on the other end?

Nobody was too happy about the previous administration shoveling unaccounted billions of taxpayer dollars into the Ukraine void. Doing that in WW2 would probably have resulted in a loss of support. FDR had to walk a fine line in that regard.

 

[pigfarmer]

Uhhhh.... okaaaaaaay.... lasers and rail guns eh? Sure, why not? My only question is: where will the Wave Motion Gun go?




Trump Unveils New Battleship Class; Proposed USS Defiant Will Be Largest U.S. Surface Combatant Since WWII

Mallory Shelbourne and Sam LaGrone
December 22, 2025 7:07 PM - Updated: December 22, 2025 9:58 PM​

Naval Sea Systems Command image

The centerpiece of the Trump administration’s revamp of the U.S. Navy is the largest surface combatant America will build since World War II.
The U.S. Navy will buy two new “battleships” as part of the “Golden Fleet” effort, President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Navy Secretary John Phelan announced Monday at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump said the Navy will start by purchasing two ships and eventually purchase 10, with a goal of 20 to 25 in total for the class with the start of construction planned for 2030.
“The U.S. Navy will lead the design, along with me, because I’m a very aesthetic person,” Trump said.

Images of a future USS Defiant (BBG-1) were featured alongside Trump, Hegseth and Phelan, as well as a ship logo based on the July 13, 2024, Evan Vucci photo taken shortly after Trump was shot in the ear during an assassination attempt amid his presidential campaign.

“The future Trump-class battleship – the USS Defiant – will be the largest, deadliest and most versatile and best-looking warship anywhere on the world’s oceans,” Phelan said during the presentation. “Now there will be work for shipyards everywhere from Philadelphia to San Diego, from Maine to Mississippi, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast, and for manufacturers that will build components for this battleship in every state.”

Naval Sea Systems Command image

The new platform will be a more than 35,000-ton warship and draft 24 to 30 feet, according to Navy data reviewed by USNI News. That’s more than double the size of the 15,000-ton Zumwalt class of destroyers, which is the largest surface combatant currently in the fleet.

The steel ships will be built in the U.S., the president said, but he noted the U.S. will work with others, without disclosing whether other countries would be involved in the construction.
When asked if the new ship class is meant to counter China, Trump said: “It’s a counter to everybody. It’s not China.”The new ships will replace the Navy’s next-generation DDG(X) program, which was projected to be about half the size of this proposed battleship. Construction is slated to begin in the early 2030s with the Navy serving as the lead design agent for the effort, USNI News understands. The Navy first unveiled the DDG(X) concept in 2022.
Like the DDG(X) program, the new ships will feature existing combat systems and weapons in use on the Flight III Arleigh Burke DDG-51 guided-missile destroyers. They will field the AN/SPY-6 air search radar, 128 MK-41 vertical launch system cells, 12 Conventional Prompt Strike long-range hypersonic missiles and five-inch guns, two sources familiar with the plans told USNI News. The design will also leave margin to add additional weapons, including directed energy, the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile and potentially a 32 Megajoule rail gun, according to Navy data.

Like the initial DDG(X) concept, Defiant would use gas turbines and diesels to drive an electrical grid that would supply power to the ship’s weapon systems and sensors, according to the Navy data. The ship would be capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots. The flight deck and hangar will be capable of fielding V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors and the next future vertical lift aircraft.

“The battleship will be capable of operating independently, as part of a Carrier Strike Group, or commanding its own Surface Action Group depending on the mission and threat environment,” reads the Navy data sheet for Defiant. “With the ability to provide forward command and control for both manned and unmanned platforms, [the] battleship will be a critical component in executing the Navy Warfighting Concept.”

Naval Sea Systems Command image

The announcement comes as the Trump administration overhauls the Navy’s acquisition plans for the surface fleet. Last week, Phelan and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said the service would buy a patrol frigate based on the U.S. Coast Guard’s Legend-class National Security Cutter program built by HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding.

That decision followed Phelan’s truncation of the Constellation-class frigate line last month after the program faced ongoing delays due to design and workforce challenges.
The Navy explored multiple size options, including up to 50,000 tons, before settling on a 30,000-ton battleship, USNI News understands. Other options included a smaller ship that could have been 15,000 to 20,000 tons.
Naval analyst Bryan Clark told USNI News earlier this month that the Navy is considering buying 12 to 13 vessels in this new ship class that could field large hypersonic missiles in large specialized missile tubes in addition to the traditional MK-41 VLS cells. The three Zumwalt-class destroyers are currently having Conventional Prompt Strike tubes installed at HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss.
The cost of building this battleship in an American yard could range from $10 to $15 billion, based on the size and the systems that are included, USNI News understands.
The Navy previously worked with HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss., and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine, which have both built surface combatants.
Both yards said they are standing by to support the Navy’s new effort.

“General Dynamics Bath Iron Works stands ready to fully support the Navy in the design and construction of this important new shipbuilding program,” Charles Krugh, the president of Bath Iron Works, said in a statement provided to USNI News.

Naval Sea Systems Command image

HII CEO Chris Kastner said in a statement to USNI News: “We understand the urgency and have taken a number of actions to increase the speed at which we can deliver. We have seen improvements in our labor and throughput and expect these to continue in 2026. These efforts combined with our distributed shipbuilding network are working, and more capacity is being created to meet these critical requirements.”
Asked how the U.S. would ensure it has a sufficient workforce to build the new ships, Trump said shipyards would utilize robots.

The U.S. industrial base has not delivered a battleship to the Navy since 1944, when the 60,000-ton USS Missouri (BB-63) was turned over to the Navy. Missouri was later the site of Japan’s formal declaration of surrender at the end of World War II. The nuclear cruiser USS Long Beach (CGN-9), which was in service from 1961 to 1995, was 17,000 tons fully loaded.

In the current fleet, the Zumwalt class at 15,000 tons is the largest surface combatant. The Navy proposed building a 20,000-ton guided-missile cruiser – the CG(X) – but the Obama administration cancelled the program in 2010 due to cost and schedule reasons. Instead, the Navy elected to build the Flight III Arleigh Burkes.

Over the years the Navy has struggled to move forward with its DDG(X) program, a planned follow-on to the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer. Planned purchase and construction timelines for DDG(X) were delayed several times as the Navy racked up bills for current ship classes and the development of new programs like the next-generation attack submarine and the sixth-generation fighter.

 

[pigfarmer]

Legendary U.S. WW II Submarine Found 3,000 Feet Underwater 80 Years After Fierce Battle With Japanese Ship


Tim Taylor's Lost 52 Project uncovered the USS Harder wreck, resting 3,000 feet beneath the Philippine waters.
BY KRITIKA BHATIA
PUBLISHED NOV 7, 2024

The USS Harder submarine was found sitting upright. (Cover Image Source: YouTube | Photo by @9news)
The Naval History and Heritage Command had recently announced their joyful discovery of a U.S. World War II submarine. The submarine, USS Harder—nicknamed 'Hit 'em HARDER'—was found near the Philippine Island of Luzon, 3,000 feet underwater, sitting upright and mostly undamaged. Tim Taylor, CEO of the Lost 52 Project, had led the team that located it.


According to CBS News, NHHC Director Samuel J. Cox, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, said in a press release, "Harder was lost in the course of victory. We must not forget that victory has a price, as does freedom." He added, "We are grateful that Lost 52 has given us the opportunity to honor once again the valor of the crew of the 'Hit 'em HARDER' submarine that sank the most Japanese warships—in particularly audacious attacks—under her legendary skipper, Cmdr. Sam Dealey."



Knewz.com noted that Tim Taylor, along with diving expert Christine Dennison, had used advanced imaging tools and underwater robots to find and capture incredible images of the Harder. The submarine had been sunk off the coast of the Philippines by Japan in 1944 during World War II. NHHC stated, "Submarines, by their very design, can be challenging to identify, but the excellent state of preservation of the site and the quality of the data collected by Lost 52 allowed NHHC to confirm the identity of the wreck as Harder."



Tim Taylor and his team had also located other lost World War II submarines, including the USS Grayback, USS Stickleback, and USS Grunion. In recognition of his efforts, Taylor received a Distinguished Public Service Award from the Navy in 2021.



The USS Harder, commanded by the renowned Commander Samuel D. Dealey, had gained fame for sinking three Japanese destroyers and damaging two others within four days. However, Harder’s luck changed in 1944. On August 22, Harder and the USS Haddo sank three escort ships near Bataan. Later that night, Harder, Haddo, and USS Hake headed toward Caiman Point on Luzon. On August 24, Haddo and Hake evaded enemy ships, but Harder remained and fired three times at an escort ship, missing each shot. The escort ship then attacked with depth charges, sinking the Harder and killing all 79 crew members.


According to CNN, the National Medal of Honor Museum described Dealey’s tactics: "At 1,500 yards, Dealey fired three torpedoes and ordered the sub to dive. As the Harder passed 80 feet underneath the destroyer, two of the torpedoes struck the ship, sending shock waves through the submarine." Harder’s achievements earned it a Presidential Unit Citation for its first five missions and six battle stars during World War II. Its courageous commander, Dealey, was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor, a Navy Cross, two Gold Stars, and a Distinguished Service Cross.



The waters around the Philippines had seen many shipwrecks. In 2015, U.S. billionaire Paul Allen discovered the Musashi, one of Japan’s largest warships, in the Sibuyan Sea. Just last September, explorers had documented images of three shipwrecks from the Battle of Midway, including the first close-up photos of a Japanese aircraft carrier sunk in 1942.

 

[pigfarmer]

I believe in George Knapp and Colm Kelleher's Hunt for the Skinwalker, and possibly reiterated in Skinwalkers at the Pentagon there were mentions of people on the ranch seeing small orbs with attendant irrational fear and queasiness. Isn't it interesting that those reports from that strange place just happen to have some involvement from John B Alexander - a subject matter expert in non-lethal weapons?

Here we are 20 years later and I have been reading accounts of the Maduro raid and reports of bloody noses, paralyzing fear and actual physical paralysis that sound very much the same to me. Sounds very similar to the Havana syndrome also.

Inside America’s secret arsenal: ‘Wraith’ weapon tied to Maduro capture seen in rare image

 

[pigfarmer]

 

[Dejan Corovic]

That's a very good channel. I watched hundreds of his episodes.

 

[pigfarmer]

Unsurprising the T-34 won that title. Don't know how long they'd last on a modern battlefield ( .0000002 seconds probably) but they are iconic.