Peace Of The Action

Fight the war with words that inspire action.

» Font Size «

htrprRecovering a faulty Poweredge RAID array can be done in different ways. As long as you are guided properly, it will not be difficult for you to retrieve the lost files. However, in order to make these things convenient and hassle free, you can ask recommendations or referrals from a professional who is familiar with recovering Poweredge RAID servers, a company like Irvine, CA’s Hard Drive Recovery Group, as an example. Asking for recommendations is really a good help because these individuals can give you ideas on how to seek the right technician. Of course, you can make comparisons of their services through the feedback and opinions given by the community. Just weigh the positive and negative feedback and you will be directed accordingly.

Another thing to do in order to repair the RAID is by using the internet. There are a number of solid websites on the internet which provides helpful information about Poweredge RAID repair. They will give you suggestions on what software to use or what to company to approach in order to do this process successfully. However, you have to distinguish the best online source for you not to get scammed.

Availing The Services For Poweredge Perc Controller Recovery

There are a lot of services for Poweredge Perc Controller recovery as well. If ever you need any of this, make sure that you consider a number of options. First, know whether the technician is an expert. There are several technicians available nowadays and some of them have gone through a lot of experience. Take time to know the skills of the technicians and ensure that you are dealing with the right one. Consider the feedbacks given by their previous customers so that you will not be robbed with your investment. Second, gather as many technicians as you can. This means that when you plan to avail the services for Poweredge Perc Controller recovery, research several technicians so that you can make comparisons on their skills and effectiveness in dealing with your computer problem.

Third, consider the corresponding costs of the services. There are some computer technicians who charge greater amount than others. If you want to save, better shop around and seek for the most affordable services. Do not stop until you find the right person giving the most reasonable price. Poweredge Perc Controller recovery is a meticulous process so if you want it to be successful, take time to research and make comparisons.

Blogging has become an alternative source of income for people who love writing and who have plenty of time in their hands. If you want to have your own blog site, you should learn how to make a blog. Follow these five simple steps and start sharing your thoughts with the world through the internet.

esahtmbThis is how to make a blog using WordPress. First, decide the topic and write an engaging blog. Make your blog sound as if you are conversing with your readers. Write short, easy to read sentences. Punchy and interesting titles will easily attract your visitors and prompt them to read the pages. Make your discussion lively. Next, insert images that are relevant t your article. You can easily find them on YouTube or on Google. Don’t forget to include credits for the photos if there are.  You can insert images to the text in your word press editor. For YouTube videos, embed the video by copying the code and pasting it where you want the video to be placed on the HTML version of your text. Last, view your post. If you think it is already good, you can publish it and people who visit your site will be able to read it. Follow these steps and you will find out that how to make a blog is easy.

How Should I Start A Blog

If you are starting each day by opening computer, checking the email and other online messages, you are not the only one. And if checking your favorite blogs is on a list of your daily activities, you are also one of the many people around the world. Blogs have become like newspapers. And since it’s easy to open it, you have probably thought to yourself – I want to start a blog. If that’s so, you will need few tips on how to do that. If you want to make a private blog, you will probably enjoy it.

Business blog is what many companies and entrepreneurs have in order to gain customers. First of all, you should decide what kind of blog you want – will it be private or business? Or, will you combine the both? Many entrepreneurs do exactly that because some customers find interesting to know more about a person standing behind a brand or a web shop. Second of all, you will need to decide what to write about. Finding a topic is important because you probably want to write about things that will attract readers. After you’ve decided about your aim, you can search for platforms that offer opening a blog. There are many that offer free service.

Is A Photoblog Better Than The Other Blogs?

Each person who runs a business or owns a web shop probably has a Facebook account or an Instagram. It is a great way of communicating with clients and customers. If a person runs a Facebook page, it can drive more traffic to a web shop. Facebook is one of the modern tools of advertising products or services. But blogs are also one of those tools for advertising services or products as well as people themselves.

Businesses may grow after making an excellent blog that attracts readers. So how to start a blog and make money is a common question each web shop owner or an entrepreneur may ask. After making a decision on what to blog about and where to set the blog, a future blogger will need to admit that great design is what attracts people as well. It is not only a content that counts but also all things visual such as banners, blog buttons, photos and design in general. Great photos are more important than people may think. Most of the people today are visual types and they like to see things. Of course, they like to see beautiful things. So nice photos are a smart way to attract the audience.

btmgbThere was considerable opposition to this within the armed forces, although it was rarely allowed to express itself publicly. That women could perform many military functions as well or better than men was acknowledged. But to put them on the firing lines, whether on land, at sea or in the air, was a very different matter. It just wouldn’t work, said many officers.

They cited the experience of the only army in the western world that must maintain continual combat readiness, the Israeli army. It employed women in every branch of the armed forces, but did not use them in the actual fighting. It had encountered three insurmountable problems with women in combat. First, if they are wounded, male colleagues react irrationally in efforts to save them. Second, when women are captured they are inevitably and repeatedly raped. Finally, as one Israeli officer delicately put it to me, “Killing people does not fulfil the Israeli ideal of womanhood.”

In Canada there were other misgivings. How could men and women be expected to share the privations and dangers of frontline life without sex becoming an obtrusive factor? And soldiers, whether we like to admit it or not, are trained killers. A certain aggression of character is natural to them, even encouraged. Given the circumstances of front-line life, was it reasonable to expect that this sexual activity would always be “consensual”? Maintaining the “no-means-no” stipulation is difficult enough under civilized conditions. What about two men and a girl in a shell-hole with all hell breaking loose around them, and a dubious life-expectancy for all three? Finally, said the doubters, a female presence in an infantry platoon, or a ship’s company, or a squadron of fighter planes, will not make a minor difference; it will change the whole picture.

But the planners, of course, saw through such official resistance. The minds of men who had these forebodings were rooted in the past; their view of military life belonged to another era; they were prisoners of outmoded chauvinistic attitudes. True, many could cite the experience of actual battle conditions. But of what possible account was that? The planners had far more impressive qualifications: degrees in sociology and psychology, the experience of government, the knowledge that the world must inevitably change.

Moreover, apart from the Israelis, everyone else is doing it, particularly the Americans. Are we to be “left behind”? So recalcitrant officers were quietly removed and those who shared in the new vision, or were prepared to say they did anyway, took command. Within a few years the result became apparent. The armed forces changed radically. We had a whole new army with a whole new attitude.

How well is this new army doing? Not very well, if you read the papers. We seem to be firing one general after another, investigating one “incident” after another, encountering one hitherto unheard-of problem after another. In fact, never before have the Canadian armed forces existed under such public odium. Compounding the difficulties is the fact that the electorate and the politicians consist mostly of “Sixties People,” a generation that distinguished itself by its resistance to the whole concept of warfare, one that seems to be shocked and appalled every time it discovers the fact that the armed forces are engaged in the business of killing people or getting killed themselves. The public just can’t seem to get used to this idea.

And what of the fears about “gender integration”? Were these borne out? Look at the facts:

* “With just two years remaining before women must be fully integrated into the country’s armed forces,” wrote the Globe and Mail last week, “the Canadian military remains haunted by sexism… The recent history of the armed forces, particularly allegations that Canada’s first female infantry officer was tied to a tree, forced to stand barefoot in the snow and was roughed up on a training exercise, suggest that machismo dies hard.” Meanwhile, a feminist spokesman declared that the infantry are “trying their darndest” to keep women out and are succeeding at it.

* The U.S. Army announced last July that 70 of the 1,500 women soldiers in Bosnia have been sent home pregnant, roughly one in 21. Considering the brief time they had been “in action” (so to speak), after two or three years maybe one in ten or even one in five women will be similarly “invalided out.” The Pentagon said it did not regard the figure as surprising. With men and women working together in a war zone, it was inevitable. Some 5.1% of women soldiers got pregnant in the Gulf War.

* There have been four courts martial involving sexual harassment by officers in the Canadian navy in the last three years. In the Gulf War came another twist. The Navy sent several female personnel home for selling and-or otherwise dispensing sexual favours aboard ship. This was considered inconsistent with patrol duty.

* The treatment, i.e., sexual persecution, of women officers at a U.S. naval graduation party for fighter pilots, known to history as “Tailgate,” provided that service with its juiciest, if not gravest, scandal since the Second World War. Dire measures were promised to prevent this sort of thing.

* The harassment and sexual abuse of women at three American army boot camps is now under top-level inquiry. The problem is chronic, authorities say.

All of which would seem to point to a certain conclusion: You cannot by legislation change human nature. Men and women behave in certain easily observable ways. Social regimens founded on these realities will probably work. Those that ignore or defy them will certainly fail. All sane people already know this. Even the social planners may someday discover it, but don’t count on that happening quickly.

crawrIt seems to me that in cases where a government is carrying out or appears to be starting to carry out a policy of genocide, intervention by other countries is the only possible solution. Sometimes a single country may intervene, as Vietnam did to stop Pol Pot’s genocide of his own people in Cambodia and Tanzania did to stop Idi Amin’s slaughter of his people in Uganda. More commonly, intervention comes from a group of other states, and usually it comes too late, as in Rwanda and in Bosnia.

Do I believe that nation states operate purely from humanitarian interests? Probably not. But there may be instances – albeit rare – where humanitarian interests are a significant part of their policy. I believe that the intervention in Bosnia was one such instance, and the intervention in Kosovo is another. The countries are not particularly wealthy; oil resources are not at stake.

I support NATO’s bombing of Kosovo and central Yugoslavia to try to force the government of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to recognize the human rights of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo – and those who have been expelled from Kosovo. I do not support bombing the city of Belgrade or of civilian targets such as the passenger train that was hit on April 12, but I know that once governments begin a war they engage in brutal actions. Nevertheless, how can the world stand by as 500,000 people are forced out of their country, with many more trying to leave because they have been forced out of their homes? This amounts to intended genocide. And, not surprisingly, Serb forces are using rape as a weapon of war again, and they did in Bosnia. (See article on page 1.) I think rape has been used as a weapon in most wars; it is only since the feminist movement that it has been named and documented.

Yet I mourn any deaths of innocent Serbs killed by NATO actions as well as the deaths of Albanians killed by Serbs. I worry about the fate of Yugoslav feminists who may be endangered by NATO’s attacks.

For me, Serbia has a face, and the face is the face of Lepa Mladjenovic, a courageous radical feminist lesbian who protested the attempted annexation of Bosnia and came to the United States in 1993 on a speaking tour with women from Croatia and Bosnia to explain the sufferings of women in that war. I had the good fortune to hear her and interview her about the work of Women in Black, a feminist group in Serbia that took personal risks to oppose the war and try to extend their support to Bosnian women. I know that these feminists have worked with refugees and raped women and have strong feminist politics. I was moved deeply when sparkling-eyed Lepa told me that she had read off our backs for years and that oob had helped to shape her politics. Yet she may be in a bomb shelter this minute, hiding from NATO bombs.

Women in Black have supported the rights of Kosovo’s Albanians, but they also, quite understandably, oppose NATO’s bombing their country. (See other article on page 1.)

It is legitimate to ask how violence can stop violence. And no doubt the bombing has made life worse for any dissidents in Serbia. Milosevic used to allow a fairly free press, but it has been curtailed. A newspaper editor critical of his policies was recently gunned down. But how else can genocide be stopped?

The pace of the expulsions probably did accelerate because of the bombing. It recalls World War II, for Hitler stepped up the pace of genocide when the Germans were losing the war, so that he could kill the Jews even if he could not win. That does not mean that the Allies in World War II should have stopped fighting.

I am weeping as I write this. I think every day of the Kosovar Albanians; I think every day of the feminists in Belgrade, and I hope that none of them are injured. I hope with all my heart that there will be few Serb civilian deaths, as I hope that the Kosovar refugees can come home – even though their homes have been destroyed and they will have to start over again.

I have lost my illusions about President Clinton – I believe Juanita Broaderick’s account that he raped her. But I think he is right in this instance. I support the rapist over the genocidal monster. This is a world in which we have to make unpalatable choices.

And of course, we can and should send aid to Albanian refugees.

wcidossSleeping on the back can cause throat muscles to relax leading to snoring; turning your partner on their side will stop snoring for a few minutes. A snoring pillow can stop your partner’s snoring for a while if it remains in position. A number of people who struggle getting a good night sleep due to their partner’s snoring have given very favorable snoring mouthpiece reviews. This mouthpiece stops snoring immediately it is put in the mouth. It is comfortable and stays firmly in place all night ensuring that bedmates attain a desired amount of sleep.

You partner could snore if they have allergies; therefore it is imperative to ensure your bedroom has adequate ventilation. They could also snore if they are very tired before retiring to bed; a warm bath could help them relax for a good night rest. Having a sleep schedule could also help them receive adequate amount of sleep, as the body will adjust to the routine. Snoring mouthpiece experts state that these devices can eliminate snoring and heavy breathing as well. It will make a fun gift for your partner and eliminate snoring in the bedroom for a much deserved night rest.

Factors To Consider When Buying A Best Snore Pillow

There are several pillows in the market. They vary in shape, size, colors, designs, shapes, quality not to mention comfort and style. Because snoring is a universal problem, many companies have come up to make profits from the snoring community. It is not easy to determine the right type of pillow, as they all look good. Since you have a problem that needs a solution, you have to be careful before you get yourself a good snoring pillow. All that looks good does not necessarily have to be good. Your choice therefore matters and these are some of the points to look for:

The material that has been used to make the pillow should be the first consideration. Most companies use latex foam material. They are firmer than the memory foam pillows, providing a firm surface that supports the head well. Secondly, look for a pillow with the right size. Very big or small pillows are not too good, as they do not offer a natural sleep position. Budget is next. Go for a pillow that you can afford not only to buy but also to change as regularly as required. But price should be consistent with quality. Lastly, check on a best snoring pillow that most doctors recommend. This way, you are on the way to eliminating the persistent snore.

dbA clear pattern has formed during the past week or so: information about the fighting in Dagestan comes in dribs and drabs throughout the day, with the later dispatches often contradicting the earlier ones. By the time the evening news broadcasts roll around, a sort of informational consensus is generally established, shaped more by journalists’ instincts and intuition than anything else.

On the morning of August 9, for example, news agencies offered two important news items: a federal helicopter had mistakenly fired on a Dagestan police jeep, killing four people; and a different helicopter, this one carrying Russian general staff chief Anatoly Kvashnin, had come under fire. Later in the day, through the loyal Interfax news agency, the Interior Ministry denied both items, stating that the area where the policemen were allegedly killed had not been subjected to air fire and that Kvashnin was not in the helicopter when it was fired upon; the fire, it was added, was “accidental.” The following morning, the daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported–citing no sources–that four cops had been killed and 17 wounded in the mistaken air raid.

Similarly, on the morning of August 14, Interfax, again citing the Interior Ministry, reported that there had been no fighting during the previous night. Several hours later, the agency relayed an Interior Ministry statement that, overnight, four Russian soldiers had been killed and 16 had been wounded. Journalists who covered the 1994-1996 war in Chechnya are all too aware of how absurdly unreliable the Interior Ministry can be. Back then, the ministry’s attempts at misrepresentation ranged from the expected–such as denying the existence of Russian army camps where POWs were tortured or falsifying evidence of Chechen troops’ shocking brutality–to the crude and comical. In January 1995, for example, the ministry claimed that federal troops had seized the Chechen president’s palace and placed a Russian flag on it. They even issued a computer-generated photograph to prove it. In fact, federal troops hadn’t even reached the palace yet–much less taken it. But, although the faked photo did grace several front pages the day after it was released, it was quickly exposed as a hoax, because Chechnya was teeming with Russian and foreign journalists who could disprove it.

The situation today is rather different. After the September 1996 cease-fire, Chechnya, and to some extent surrounding areas such as Dagestan, descended into a state of lawlessness. Since then, scores of aid workers and journalists–even those sympathetic to the Chechen cause–have been kidnapped and, in some cases, murdered. Almost without exception, journalists have stopped visiting the region independently. Now, when events demand coverage, Russian and foreign journalists alike are forced to travel with Interior Ministry troops, which makes them virtual information hostages.

Meanwhile, the ministry’s approach to providing reporters with information appears to have changed little since the mid-’90s. Early in the week, the ministry claimed that Chechen fighters were “on approach” to two Dagestani villages; but a reporter for the daily Izvestiya, interviewing refugees in the Dagestani capital, determined that the Chechens had seized 13 villages in two or three different districts. Unfortunately, his alternate source of information dried up after a couple of days, when the refugee flow stopped.

The other option for reporters is to stay in Moscow, read the Interior Ministry statements on the wires, and compare them with the sparse but well-written reports that crop up on a website that appears to be Chechen but does not disclose its authors or sources. Not surprisingly, this reporting technique–which most Moscow journalists are employing–ends up fueling rumors and conspiracy theories. Last week, at least two Moscow dailies came out with articles suggesting there was a Kremlin conspiracy to escalate the war in the Caucasus in order to enable Yeltsin to declare a state of emergency and cancel the parliamentary elections scheduled for December and the presidential election expected next summer.

On its face, this theory appears absurd not merely because of the lack of evidence to support it but because it assumes a far higher level of organization than the Kremlin has been exhibiting of late. Still, it’s not entirely inconceivable that Russia’s scared and confused president, whose last three choices for prime minister have been secret police officers–a clear measure of his sense of insecurity–will use the Dagestan crisis for his own ends. Yeltsin does seem likely to push for a state of emergency. And, though the parliament may first have to pass a law codifying the decree, the president may not face much opposition–especially if the new law does not place undue restrictions on parliament. Certainly, Russia’s leading politicians are all coming out in favor of a strong response to the Dagestan crisis. Even Yavlinsky, one of the harshest critics of the administration’s actions in the Chechnya war, called this situation “unique in Russian history because, for the first time, international Islam has aggressed upon Russia.”

Of course, the information about the Islamic and, especially, international nature of the forces in the Dagestani mountains comes from the Interior Ministry. But the Kremlin, should it opt for the most hard-line extreme, will be free not only of political but also of informational opposition–because there is no information.

aiwFrom the dawn of civilization, mankind has simultaneously domesticated animals and engaged in warfare. It’s not surprising, then, that animals have joined humans on the battlefield for millennia. In the intensity of mortal conflict, animals and humans have discovered the depth of their enduring bonds. And we humans have, appropriately, found ways to honor the courage of our animal heroes.

Alexander the Great’s bold horse, Bucephalus, who lived to the age of 30, was memorialized when his owner named a city after him. The faithful mastiff of Sir Peers Legh, an English knight who was wounded in the 15th-century Battle of Agincourt, stood by his master’s side for hours, deflecting attackers until Sir Legh could be rescued. Although his master eventually died of wounds received on the battlefield, the dog spent its last days in comfort back in its master’s castle, where a stained-glass window depicting dog and owner still reminds visitors of its loyalty. During this country’s Civil War, General Robert E. Lee’s affection for his steed, Traveller, was well known in both the North and the South.

Millions of horses were used a half century later in the First World War in cavalry units on all sides as well as to pull supply and medical wagons. Cats and pigeons also did their parts – both as gas detectors and as messengers. Some dogs also served as messengers, sentries, and medical assist-and-supply carriers in the military forces; other canines went to work for the Red Cross by finding lost or wounded soldiers. A tribute to dogs that served in the First World War is currently situated on the grounds of the Hartsdale Pet Cemetery, in Hartsdale, N.Y., the largest such cemetery in the United States.

During the Second World War, Army personnel officially recognized the need for a dog program and undertook one. These dogs received accolades, including honorable discharge certificates for those that returned home. And dogs in military programs continued to develop skills and areas of specialization as time – and warfare – progressed.

dogAn estimated 4,000 dogs were enlisted by the various branches of the military in the Vietnam War. Mostly German shepherds, dogs accompanied platoons by walking “point” in the jungle and guarded air bases. Other shepherds were used for mine and tunnel detection, while Labrador retrievers specialized in tracking. Conservative estimates say that dogs prevented some 10,000 casualties, often sacrificing their lives in the process. The sense of comfort, trust, and love they offered their handlers was immeasurable, and the memories of those dogs continue to reverberate decades later.

Steve Janke, of Carlstadt, N.J., was 20 years old and had been married for only three weeks when he went to Vietnam in 1970. As an Air Force sentry dog handler in Cam Ranh Bay, he learned to trust Kobuc, his German shepherd, with his life “again and again” during the intense year they spent together. When it was time for Janke to return home, the only difficult part was leaving Kobuc behind.

Janke has had other dogs since then, but “no dog ever replaces the one you have in combat. I think of him every day – still have his picture in my wallet and show people who are interested.” Janke later became a Baptist minister. He is a history teacher and is the chaplain for the Internet group Vietnam Dog Handlers Assn. “We are all proud of our dogs and want people to know that they did exist, saved lives, and were left behind.”

Though dear to their handlers, the dogs of Vietnam did not receive honorable discharges at the end of that war. Despite vociferous attempts by handlers to bring the dogs home, they were classified by the military as “equipment” and remained in Vietnam – many to uncertain fates. For the handlers who returned to this country, the bittersweet memories of their dogs never faded, and a need to thank them persisted.

“We talked about it for many years,” says Tim Mead, memorial co-chairman of the Vietnam Dog Handlers Assn., who was once an Army scout dog handler. “After some ups and downs, it all came together when we hooked up with Jeffrey Bennett.” Bennett, president and CEO of Nature’s Recipe Pet Foods and a longtime dog lover, agreed to produce the documentary “War Dogs: America’s Forgotten Heroes.” Bennett also spearheaded the memorial drive and now heads the War Dog Memorial Fund. This organization’s goal is to commemorate the dogs of all wars with statues placed in national cemeteries in California and Washington, D.C. The proposal is currently under consideration by the National Cemetery Administration. If approved, a sculpture of a soldier standing by a dog would watch over those who lost their lives while in military service.

For the veteran dog handlers of all military branches who served both in war and in peace, the memorial promises to be both emotional and fulfilling. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be reminded of the gift we’ve been given when an animal simultaneously relies on and supports us. The give-and-take between humans and dogs is well expressed in the words of former Marine Dan Miller, of Murphy, N.C., a scout dog handler who saw action in Vietnam: “There was courage at both ends of the leash.”

lsiacowWarriors rode into the 20th century in the saddles of cavalry horses and flew out in the ejection seats of Mach 2 jets. In between, they raised every weapon ever imagined to technological perfection. Leonardo da Vinci’s fanciful plans for submarines and helicopters became as real as rocks. And even the stones David hurled at Goliath received a high-tech spin, reincarnated as the concrete bombs we drop on Iraqi bunkers to minimize civilian casualties.

Of the thousands of weapons that emerged in the past 100 years, three factors truly transformed war from an art to a science.

In the first half of the century, flight added a third dimension to the classic two-dimensional battlefield. Ground attack fighters rendered set-piece battles obsolete. Bombers made the massive fortifications that defined military power in previous centuries curious relics.

On land, tanks transformed the traditional battlefield. With their introduction toward the end of World War I, the strength of an army became less dependent upon the size of a force than upon its mobility. Hitler’s panzers raced around France’s “impregnable” Maginot Line in the early months of World War II. Half a century later, tanks under American command would rout Iraqis from Kuwait in less than 100 hours.

In the second half of the century, nuclear power would play a similar defining role. By eliminating the need for refueling for years at a time, nuclear reactors enabled aircraft carriers and submarines to apply force thousands of miles beyond American shores. Strategic nuclear weapons unleashed so horrific a fury, the mere threat of their use shielded America and its allies until the virus of Soviet communism had run its course. Tactical nuclear weapons, on the other hand, proved utterly useless. Even though their power could be controlled to within a fraction of a kiloton, and the weapon themselves could be delivered within yards, deadly radioactive fallout treated friend and foe alike. And only now are we learning the true cost of these weapons. In the former Soviet Union, the nuclear detritus of weapons testing and manufacturing contaminated hundreds of square miles of land and seabed. In the United States, secret radiation experiments performed on unwitting subjects who included military draftees, prisoners and mentally retarded children soiled the Constitution and mocked the ghosts of those who had died to defend it.

But looking back on this century, the history of warfare is as much a memoir of self-sacrificing soldiers and brilliant generals as it is a story of magnificent machines.

Air Power

For an elite group of 19th century soldiers, the idea of rising high above the battlefield was more than a flight of imagination. These men were the artillery spotters who fought the Civil War and Spanish-American War suspended in the wicker baskets of hydrogen-filled balloons. In the early 20th century, a German military officer named Ferdinand Zeppelin, who as a young man had gone aloft in a Union Army balloon, set into motion the age of modern air warfare.

Returning to Europe, Zeppelin perfected the rigid airships that still bear his name. By the end of World War I, some 100 of the light-as-a-cloud airships would have bombed France and England.

In the United States, the military all but ignored Zeppelin’s machines. And other than to purchase a Wright Flyer for the Signal Corps, the Army did little to advance the cause of military aviation until almost the eve of World War II, two decades later. Military historians credit observation aircraft with turning the tide in World War I’s decisive Battle of the Marne. Aviators in Britain’s Royal Flying Corps gathered information on German troop movements. This helped British and French commanders plan the counterattack that stopped the invading German army outside of Paris in September 1914.

Within a year, machine gun-equipped fighters took to the sky. Bombing, which had previously been limited to strategic targets such as submarine bases and cities, now moved to air bases and other tactical targets. By 1916, both the British and Germans were routinely using aircraft to bomb each other’s infantry.

Only one American plane, the ungainly twin-engine Curtiss flying boat, would actually see combat in World War I. The Germans, on the other hand, excelled at aircraft development. The Fokker D VII, which became operational in 1918, was the state-of-the-art single-seat fighter. Powered by a 160-hp Mercedes engine, the biplane had a top speed of 117 mph and attacked its opponents with two machine guns. Both sides quickly realized the need for specialized aircraft for attacking troops. The British armored the cockpit and added a pair of downward-angled machine guns to a Sopwith Camel, creating the Sopwith Salamander trench attack aircraft. Germany equipped its Halberstadt CL II with racks of grenades, with especially devastating effect on British forward and support positions during the Battle of Cambrai in the closing months of 1917.

Between The Wars

After World War I, the private sector led the way in aviation, with competitions that spurred the development of trans-Atlantic seaplanes, the variable-pitch propeller, larger liquid-cooled engines, aerodynamic cowlings and a host of other improvements. The 1929 National Air Races proved a turning point for military aviation. When the Curtiss biplanes flown by the U.S. Army and Navy were handily beaten by a monoplane, the Travel Air “R” designed by J. Walter Beech, the military withdrew from air racing, and ordered the first monoplane of its own, a Boeing P-26 fighter. In 1935, tile Hughes H-1 incorporated a radical new design philosophy, unbraced wings with a “stressed-skin” aluminum covering that carried stress loads. This lighter airframe, a 1000-hp Pratt & Whitney engine and aerodynamic improvements including flush-riveting, an enclosed cockpit and internally retractable landing gear, enabled Hughes to set a 352-mph speed record.

World War II

Lessons learned in air racing inspired the design of the Grumman F4F Wildcat, Lockheed P-38 Lightning, British Spitfire and Hurricane, German Me 109 and Japanese Zero. Further refinements would increase the distance at which fighters could engage enemy bombers and their firepower. By war’s end, the experience of these early fighters would lead to improved aircraft including the German Focke-Wulf Fw 190, Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, Grumman F6F Hellcat, North American P-51 Mustang and Soviet La-5 and 7, and Yak-3 and 9.

Infant radar technology placed aboard the Messerschmitt Bf 110 and the de Havilland Mosquito would convert these aircraft into the first true night fighters. Bomber development followed a similar track. In 1931, the Boeing B-9 became the first operational purpose-built bomber. The all-metal cantilever monoplane featured partially retractable landing gear and variable-pitch propellers mounted on 600-hp engines. Traveling at 188 mph, it left biplane bombers in its dust. It would, however, be the Martin B-10, rolled out in 1932, that would set the new gold standard for aerial bombardment and determine the shape of future bombers with an enclosed cockpit and bomb bay. Together, these improvements would contribute to making the B-10 25 mph faster than the B-9, and faster than any fighter in the sky. In 1935, Boeing responded with the four-engine Model 299, the prototype of the B-17 Flying Fortress. Its name came from the addition of a feature pioneered by the French and later used by the British–gun turrets. They provided the bomber with sufficient firepower to fend off enemy fighters until it reached its target. With the development of the Norden bombsight, bombing from 20,000-ft. altitudes became a reality.

Boeing’s B-29 was the most powerful bomber of World War II. When it was introduced into service in 1944, it was the first bomber with a fully pressurized crew compartment, capable of taking crews to 35,000 ft. And it packed its own protection with as many as a dozen .50-caliber machine guns mounted in pairs in remotely controlled turrets. The plane, however, proved most useful when it was stripped of these components, thus making it possible to carry heavier bomb loads across previously unimaginable distances. It would deliver atomic bombs to Japan. From bases in the Mariana Islands, it could firebomb Tokyo 2000 miles away, each B-29 dropping 12,000 pounds of incendiary explosives. On any given mission, scores of B-29s filled the skies.

Jets

In the 1920s, British designer Frank Whittle filed a patent for the machine that would evolve into the modern jet engine. As World War II began, the British and Germans were in a neck-and-neck race to put these high-power engines into operational combat aircraft. A German Heinkel HE 178 made the first jet flight on Aug. 27, 1939, although it would not see combat. The British Gloster Meteor became operational on July 27, 1944, and became very good at shooting down German jet-powered V-1 buzz bombs. Two months later, the Germans introduced the Me 262. Powered by a pair of Jumo engines, it could fly 525 mph and attack Allied bombers with four 30mm cannons and unguided rockets. Luckily, it entered service too late to have an effect on the outcome of the war. In the last months of 1944, the Germans also introduced a jet bomber, the Arado Ar 234.

In the United States, General Electric received a British Whittle jet engine in 1941. A year later, the Bell XP-59A Airacomet made its maiden flight, which proved disappointing because it flew slower than existing piston-engine fighters. Lockheed’s legendary Kelly Johnson set to work developing the first practical American jet, the P-80. Although it officially entered service in the last year of World War II, it would not down an enemy fighter until Korea, then designated the F-80 Shooting Star. By then, the competition to develop better aircraft had shifted to a race between the United States and the Soviet Union.

The power and reliability of jet engines would lead to steady increases in the speeds, ceilings and ranges of fighters and bombers. By the 1980s, the last major innovation in military aviation in the 20th century, radar-evading stealth technology, would be introduced by the United States, in the F-117A stealth fighter and B-2 bomber.

Sea Power

When the century opened, it seemed certain that there could be no more powerful force on the ocean than the modern battleship. By century’s end, these floating fortresses were as much relics of the maritime past as sails and riggings. Just as it changed land warfare, air power also altered the weapons, tactics and strategy used in attaining victory at sea. The first step took place in November 1910, when Eugene Ely, a civilian pilot, took off from a platform on the deck of the U.S. cruiser Birmingham, in Hampton Roads, Va. Two months later, this time in San Francisco Bay, he demonstrated he could both land and take off at sea, when he touched down on a platform mortared on the quarterdeck of the battleship Pennsylvania, and then took off.

The first U.S. ship specifically designated an aircraft carrier, a converted collier renamed the Langley, was put to sea in March 1922. But even as its conversion was trader way, naval aviators were searching for a better way to attack ships than to drop torpedoes during shallow approaches, which made them highly vulnerable to surface fire. This led to the development of a new high-altitude target-approach technique–dive bombing.

The feasibility of dive bombing, which was made possible by the invention of airbrakes, or flaps that could be extended to add drag, was demonstrated in the 1920s and led to the 1923 introduction of the Curtiss F8C Helldiver. In 1922, the Japanese introduced the first ship designed from the keel up as an aircraft carrier, the Hosyo.

World War II would begin with two startling demonstrations of just how powerful these new warships were. The first, an attack by British Swordfish torpedo-dropping biplanes, destroyed Italian battleships anchored in Taranto in November 1940. Little more than a year later, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The following June, the United States and Japan faced off in the decisive Battle of Midway, the first major naval confrontation in which surface vessels never exchanged a shot. After the war, carriers became larger, more heavily armored and, ultimately in 1960, nuclear-powered with the launch of the American carrier Enterprise.

Nuclear Submarines

ncsmThe 20th century saw two fundamentally different types of submarines. The first, diesel/electric submarines, were essentially surface-going vessels that for periods eventually extending tip to several days could operate beneath the sea. In fact, the first issue of POPULAR MECHANICS in January 1902, carried a cover story reporting on this new technology. The designs progressed slowly but steadily over the first half of the century, but remained constrained by one physical obstacle. Like humans, diesel engines required oxygen to breathe.

True submarines, that is, ships that continually operated beneath the sea rather than diving only during attacks, did not come into being until after the perfection of compact nuclear powerplants. The arrival of these amazing machines made the submarine the most versatile weapon afloat. And although the nuclear sub’s arsenal was far smaller in physical size, it was actually a more powerful weapon than an aircraft carrier.

Nuclear submarines divided themselves into two distinct categories. Strategic submarines, known in the United States as “boomers,” carry arsenals of nuclear-tipped weapons. Attack submarines carry weapons to take out boomers and surface vessels.

Throughout the Cold War, boomers provided the stealthy leg of the nuclear triad that shielded the United States and its allies. If Air Force silos were destroyed before they could launch their missiles and B-52s and B-2 bombers were knocked down as they penetrated Soviet airspace, it was up to the boomers to reduce Mother Russia to a glowing cinder.

The first true strategic submarines in the U.S. fleet, George Washington-class boats, were put to sea in 1959. Each carried 16 Polaris missiles with a range of 1200 nautical miles. Eight years later, in 1967, the Soviets introduced their Yankee-class submarines armed with 16 SS-N-6 missiles, with roughly comparable range. By 1982, the Soviet Union’s submarine technology had advanced to the point where its Typhoon-class boat, measuring nearly the length of two football fields, could carry 20 SS-N-20 missiles. On station in the Atlantic Ocean more than a thousand miles east of New York City, each of these missiles could strike cities on the West Coast of the United States, to a maximum range of 4500 nautical miles.

The improvements to Soviet submarines and missiles triggered two upgrades to the U.S. fleet. The first was the introduction of Lafayette-class submarines in the 1970s. These carried 16 Poseidon missiles with a 2500-nautical-mile range. Then, in 1981, the U.S. Navy commissioned the first Ohio-class submarines, with 24 Trident missiles. By now, Britain, France and China also had strategic submarine capabilities.

Attack Submarines

To counter the threat posed by strategic submarines, the major powers built attack submarines. Somewhat faster, their mission was to shadow the missile carriers and destroy them before they could unleash their nuclear warheads.

These boats were also equipped to attack surface vessels. The United States was the first to deploy attack submarines, with the Sturgeon class of the 1960s and 1970s, and the Los Angeles and, most recently, Sea Wolf classes. Initially, these boats were equipped with torpedoes and rocket-launched nuclear depth bombs for antisubmarine warfare, and underwater-launched Harpoon missiles for engaging surface ships at 70-nautical-mile distances. Beginning in 1984, both Sturgeon- and Los Angeles-class boats were refitted with longer-range Tomahawk cruise missiles capable of hitting ships at distances of 250 nautical miles. Flying under enemy radar, they could deliver nuclear warheads to targets as far away as 1300 nautical miles.

As with strategic submarines, the Soviets matched U.S. developments. In 1971, they equipped their Charlie-class submarines with the SS-N-7 Star Bright cruise missiles. Launched from underwater, they could knock out ships within a 35-nautical-mile radius. SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles extended this range to 340 nautical miles. Oscarclass submarines, which entered service in the 1980s, carried two dozen of these weapons. The SS-N-21 cruise missile, which had a range and capability comparable to the Tomahawk’s, began entering the Soviet fleet just as the U.S.S.R. began to break up.

Tanks

tanksNo weapon had a harder time working its way into the world’s arsenal than the tank. Within years of their introduction, aircraft, aircraft carriers and submarines were perfected for combat. Tanks, on the other hand, were repeatedly ignored. Their underlying concept of providing mobile protection and firepower dates to the wheeled siege towers and battering rams used by the Assyrians in the ninth century BCE. In 1484, Leonardo da Vinci sketched out a tank that today’s armored commanders would recognize. In 1855, James Cowen received an English patent for an armed and armored steam-powered tractor.

Forty-five years later, in 1900, John Fowler & Co. of England introduced the first modern self-propelled armored vehicle. Generals in England, France and Austria-Hungary all scoffed at the idea of tracked armored vehicles on the battlefield. But this was before they were introduced to trench warfare. When tanks did appear, it was, oddly, because of the navy, specifically the efforts of Britain’s First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston S. Churchill. Among his responsibilities was the direction of a working group known as the Admiralty Landships Committee. In September 1915, its efforts produced the first modern tank, Little Willie. Within a year, 100 of its big brothers, Big Willie, or Mark I, tanks, were venturing across the no man’s land between Allied and German forces. On Nov. 20, 1917, 474 British tanks massed for the Battle of Cambrai. At first, they achieved a spectacular breakthrough of the German lines. Then, because they were too slow and had too short an operating range, their efforts faltered.

The next generation of tanks, the British Medium A introduced in 1918, would partially remedy those shortcomings. Capable of traveling at 8 mph, they had an 80-mile range. At the end of World War I, the British had produced more than 2600 of the weapons the generals had so long rejected, and the French nearly 4000. Germany, which would go on to become the master of tank warfare, had a scant 20.

Of the tanks of this era, there was none better than the Renault F.T. Americans liked it so much they copied the design as the U.S. Army’s light tank. In the United States, J.W. Christie pushed the envelope of tank development. By 1928, he had built an experimental model that could race along at 42.5 mph. Another had independent suspension for smoother, faster travel over roads and broken ground. Yet on the eve of World War II, few tanks as we now know them existed. Most were merely armored machine gun platforms. France, which had the most modern, powerful military force in Europe including 2667 tanks, had only 172 tanks armed with large 75mm guns. Mounted machine guns seemed quite logical, since at the time tanks were used principally as infantry support. This changed in World War II, due mostly to the Germans, the late entry in the field of armored warfare.

The Panzers

By 1939, Germany’s paltry force of only 20 tanks had swelled to some 3200. The weapons were formidable, but what made them so valuable was the way they were used. Instead of being divided between infantry and cavalry units, they were massed in formations known as panzer divisions. By the time the United States entered the war, all the combatant nations had reformed their tank forces to follow the German model.

Now began the serious battle of armament, with longer-barreled, larger-caliber cannons and ever-heavier armor. Weighing some 68 tons, Germany’s Tiger would become the heaviest tank used during World War II. The British, who had introduced the tank to combat in World War I, equipped most of their divisions with turretless variants of U.S. M4 Sherman medium tanks. These they armed with a medium-velocity 75mm gun, mounted in the hull because that way it could be put into production more rapidly. Before the war ended, nearly 50,000 M4s were built. The United States also began fielding its M26 Pershing heavy tanks with 90mm guns.

As tanks became more heavily armored, more ingenious methods of piercing their armor were developed. During the Cold War these included the high-explosive antitank shell, a shaped charge with a conical cavity that concentrated its explosive energy into a very high-velocity jet. These were later replaced by an armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding-sabot shell, which bore penetrator cores of tungsten alloy or depleted uranium. Fire control technology kept pace with the development of both armor and antitank rounds. Optical range finders gave way to computer-controlled lasers and thermal imaging.

By the 1970s, armor had also begun to change, away from steel and toward composite materials. In 1982, Israeli tanks first successfully used reactive armor. It consists of a layer of explosive sandwiched between two relatively thin steel plates. When struck, the armor explodes outward, neutralizing the explosive force of a shaped-charge warhead.

Science At War

The rapid integration of new technology into weapons has led some who are critical of the defense establishment to claim that the military coerced scientists to develop its deadly 20th century arsenals. In truth, the exact opposite occurred. Scientists rushed willingly into the trenches.