11. Commander in Chief: FDR As Leader of the Nation's Armed Forces
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Admiral Sunil Lanba, Pvsm Avsm (Retd)
ADMIRAL SUNIL LANBA, PVSM AVSM (RETD) Admiral Sunil Lanba PVSM, AVSM (Retd) Former Chief of the Naval Staff, Indian Navy Chairman, NMF An alumnus of the National Defence Academy, Khadakwasla, the Defence Services Staff College, Wellington, the College of Defence Management, Secunderabad, and, the Royal College of Defence Studies, London, Admiral Sunil Lanba assumed command of the Indian Navy, as the 23rd Chief of the Naval Staff, on 31 May 16. He was appointed Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee on 31 December 2016. Admiral Lanba is a specialist in Navigation and Aircraft Direction and has served as the navigation and operations officer aboard several ships in both the Eastern and Western Fleets of the Indian Navy. He has nearly four decades of naval experience, which includes tenures at sea and ashore, the latter in various headquarters, operational and training establishments, as also tri-Service institutions. His sea tenures include the command of INS Kakinada, a specialised Mine Countermeasures Vessel, INS Himgiri, an indigenous Leander Class Frigate, INS Ranvijay, a Kashin Class Destroyer, and, INS Mumbai, an indigenous Delhi Class Destroyer. He has also been the Executive Officer of the aircraft carrier, INS Viraat and the Fleet Operations Officer of the Western Fleet. With multiple tenures on the training staff of India’s premier training establishments, Admiral Lanba has been deeply engaged with professional training, the shaping of India’s future leadership, and, the skilling of the officers of the Indian Armed Forces. On elevation to Flag rank, Admiral Lanba tenanted several significant assignments in the Navy. As the Chief of Staff of the Southern Naval Command, he was responsible for the transformation of the training methodology for the future Indian Navy. -
AUGUST 2021 May 2019: Admiral Sir Timothy P. Fraser
ADMIRALS: AUGUST 2021 May 2019: Admiral Sir Timothy P. Fraser: Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, May 2019 June 2019: Admiral Sir Antony D. Radakin: First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, June 2019 (11/1965; 55) VICE-ADMIRALS: AUGUST 2021 February 2016: Vice-Admiral Sir Benjamin J. Key: Chief of Joint Operations, April 2019 (11/1965; 55) July 2018: Vice-Admiral Paul M. Bennett: to retire (8/1964; 57) March 2019: Vice-Admiral Jeremy P. Kyd: Fleet Commander, March 2019 (1967; 53) April 2019: Vice-Admiral Nicholas W. Hine: Second Sea Lord and Deputy Chief of the Naval Staff, April 2019 (2/1966; 55) Vice-Admiral Christopher R.S. Gardner: Chief of Materiel (Ships), April 2019 (1962; 58) May 2019: Vice-Admiral Keith E. Blount: Commander, Maritime Command, N.A.T.O., May 2019 (6/1966; 55) September 2020: Vice-Admiral Richard C. Thompson: Director-General, Air, Defence Equipment and Support, September 2020 July 2021: Vice-Admiral Guy A. Robinson: Chief of Staff, Supreme Allied Command, Transformation, July 2021 REAR ADMIRALS: AUGUST 2021 July 2016: (Eng.)Rear-Admiral Timothy C. Hodgson: Director, Nuclear Technology, July 2021 (55) October 2017: Rear-Admiral Paul V. Halton: Director, Submarine Readiness, Submarine Delivery Agency, January 2020 (53) April 2018: Rear-Admiral James D. Morley: Deputy Commander, Naval Striking and Support Forces, NATO, April 2021 (1969; 51) July 2018: (Eng.) Rear-Admiral Keith A. Beckett: Director, Submarines Support and Chief, Strategic Systems Executive, Submarine Delivery Agency, 2018 (Eng.) Rear-Admiral Malcolm J. Toy: Director of Operations and Assurance and Chief Operating Officer, Defence Safety Authority, and Director (Technical), Military Aviation Authority, July 2018 (12/1964; 56) November 2018: (Logs.) Rear-Admiral Andrew M. -
The Combined Chiefs of Staff and the Public Health Building, 1942–1946
The Combined Chiefs of Staff and the Public Health Building, 1942–1946 Christopher Holmes The United States Public Health Service Building, Washington, DC, ca. 1930. rom February 1942 until shortly after the end of World War II, the American Fand British Combined Chiefs of Staff operated from a structure at 1951 Constitution Avenue Northwest in Washington, DC, known as the Public Health Building. Several federal entities became embroiled in this effort to secure a suitable meeting location for the Combined Chiefs, including the Federal Reserve, the War Department, the Executive Office of the President, and the Public Health Service. The Federal Reserve, as an independent yet still federal agency, strove to balance its own requirements with those of the greater war effort. The War Department found priority with the president, who directed his staff to accommodate its needs. Meanwhile, the Public Health Service discovered that a solution to one of its problems ended up creating another in the form of a temporary eviction from its headquarters. Thus, how the Combined Chiefs settled into the Public Health Building is a story of wartime expediency and bureaucratic wrangling. Christopher Holmes is a contract historian with the Joint History and Research Office on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia. 85 86 | Federal History 2021 Federal Reserve Building In May 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt began preparing the nation for what most considered America’s inevitable involvement in the war being waged across Europe and Asia. That month, Roosevelt established the National Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense, commonly referred to as the Defense Commission. -
Photo Section to PDF.Indd
Photographs Each item in the list below is a hyperlink to a corresponding photograph. 1. Armstrong Whitworth “Whitley” Mk IV heavy bomber 2. AVRO Lancaster heavy bomber 3. Halifax heavy bomber 4. Sterling heavy bomber 5. Dehavilland Mosquito light bomber 6. Early-model B-17 over Washington, DC 7. B-17 bombing, Palermo, Sicily 8. Maj Gen Henry H. Arnold 9. Maj Gen Carl A. Spaatz 10. Maj Gen Frederick L. Anderson 11. General Arnold 12. General Arnold and Air Chief Marshal Charles A. Portal 13. The slipstream spreads four-pound incendiaries over a marked target. 14. B-17G over Frankfurt, 1944 15. B-17G with H2X radar 16. Late-model P-47s 17. P-38s of the Fifteenth Air Force 18. Fifteenth Air Force P-51Ds. 19. Me-110 night fi ghter 20. “Big Week.” 21. Generals Spaatz and Doolittle 22. Abbey of Monte Cassino 23. B-17 unloads on Berlin 24. Lt Gen Spaatz and Lt Gen Nathan F. Twining 25. B-24 releases 500-pound bombs over Ploesti 26. Liberator heads for home 27. The end of the road. 28. Damaged Air Force B-17 29. Budapest’s smashed refi neries 30. 6 October 1944 raid on the Hamburg/Glinde area 31. Preparation for mission over northern Italy 32. Cologne cathedral 33. Low-level aerial photo of the cathedral 34. Medium-altitude photo of the Cologne 35. Lieutenant General Doolittle and Maj Gen Fred Anderson 36. A B-17 goes down over Berlin. 37. Operation Thunderclap 38. Me-262 jet-propelled aircraft 39. Bombing Berlin 40. Generals Spaatz and Doolittle The Armstrong Whitworth “Whitley” Mk IV heavy bomber has two Rolls-Royce “Merlin” engines. -
July 15, 2021 Vice Admiral John V. Fuller Office of the Naval Inspector
July 15, 2021 Vice Admiral John V. Fuller Office of the Naval Inspector General Via e-mail: [email protected] Dear Vice Admiral Fuller: I am writing on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and its more than 6.5 million members and supporters worldwide to urge you to investigate and pursue appropriate sanctions in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Articles 133-134, 10 U.S.C. §§ 933-934, against officers responsible for and military personnel participating in the cruel and unnecessary killing of animals in the annual joint military exercise known as Cobra Gold. Cobra Gold is conducted by multinational military forces, including, inter alia, the U.S. Marine Corps, which is administered by the U.S. Navy. PETA is submitting this complaint and calling on your office to fulfill its role as “the conscience of the Navy,” ensuring that it “maintain[s] the highest level of integrity and public confidence.”1 During Cobra Gold, Marines in Thailand kill chickens with their bare hands, skin and eat live geckos, and decapitate king cobras—a species vulnerable to extinction—in order to drink their blood as part of what the Marine Corps promotes, in some instances, as training in food procurement and, in other instances, as a comradery-building exercise. These acts, even if conducted for the purposes asserted by the military, are completely unnecessary, because proven effective alternatives to the use of live animals are available for the purported purpose of training in food procurement, and camaraderie-building is easily achieved through other activities associated with Cobra Gold that donot require members of the Marine Corps to engage in acts of gratuitous cruelty that reflect poorly on the Navy. -
Fm 6-02 Signal Support to Operations
FM 6-02 SIGNAL SUPPORT TO OPERATIONS SEPTEMBER 2019 DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This publication supersedes FM 6-02, dated 22 January 2014. HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY This publication is available at the Army Publishing Directorate site (https://armypubs.army.mil/) and the Central Army Registry site (https://atiam.train.army.mil/catalog/dashboard). *FM 6-02 Field Manual Headquarters No. 6-02 Department of the Army Washington, D.C., 13 September 2019 Signal Support to Operations Contents Page PREFACE..................................................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ vii Chapter 1 OVERVIEW OF SIGNAL SUPPORT ........................................................................ 1-1 Section I – The Operational Environment ............................................................. 1-1 Challenges for Army Signal Support ......................................................................... 1-1 Operational Environment Overview ........................................................................... 1-1 Information Environment ........................................................................................... 1-2 Trends ........................................................................................................................ 1-3 Threat Effects on Signal Support ............................................................................. -
The Heroic Destroyer and "Lucky" Ship O.R.P. "Blyskawica"
Transactions on the Built Environment vol 65, © 2003 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 The heroic destroyer and "lucky" ship O.R.P. "Blyskawica" A. Komorowski & A. Wojcik Naval University of Gdynia, Poland Abstract The destroyer O.R.P. "Blyskawica" is a precious national relic, the only remaining ship that was built before World War I1 (WW2). On the 5oth Anniversary of its service under the Polish flag, it was honoured with the highest military decoration - the Gold Cross of the Virtuti Militari Medal. It has been the only such case in the whole history of the Polish Navy. Its our national hero, war-veteran and very "lucky" warship. "Blyskawica" took part in almost every important operation in Europe throughout WW2. It sailed and covered the Baltic Sea, North Sea, all the area around Great Britain, the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. During the war "Blyskawica" covered a distance of 148 thousand miles, guarded 83 convoys, carried out 108 operational patrols, participated in sinking two warships, damaged three submarines and certainly shot down four war-planes and quite probably three more. It was seriously damaged three times as a result of operational action. The crew casualties aggregated to a total of only 5 killed and 48 wounded petty officers and seamen, so it was a very "lucky" ship during WW2. In July 1947 the ship came back to Gdynia in Poland and started training activities. Having undergone rearmament and had a general overhaul, it became an anti-aircraft defence ship. In 1976 it replaced O.R.P. "Burza" as a Museum-Ship. -
Switzerland 4Th Periodical Report
Strasbourg, 15 December 2009 MIN-LANG/PR (2010) 1 EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR REGIONAL OR MINORITY LANGUAGES Fourth Periodical Report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter SWITZERLAND Periodical report relating to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages Fourth report by Switzerland 4 December 2009 SUMMARY OF THE REPORT Switzerland ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (Charter) in 1997. The Charter came into force on 1 April 1998. Article 15 of the Charter requires states to present a report to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on the policy and measures adopted by them to implement its provisions. Switzerland‘s first report was submitted to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in September 1999. Since then, Switzerland has submitted reports at three-yearly intervals (December 2002 and May 2006) on developments in the implementation of the Charter, with explanations relating to changes in the language situation in the country, new legal instruments and implementation of the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and the Council of Europe committee of experts. This document is the fourth periodical report by Switzerland. The report is divided into a preliminary section and three main parts. The preliminary section presents the historical, economic, legal, political and demographic context as it affects the language situation in Switzerland. The main changes since the third report include the enactment of the federal law on national languages and understanding between linguistic communities (Languages Law) (FF 2007 6557) and the new model for teaching the national languages at school (—HarmoS“ intercantonal agreement). -
Switzerland1
YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW - VOLUME 14, 2011 CORRESPONDENTS’ REPORTS SWITZERLAND1 Contents Multilateral Initiatives — Foreign Policy Priorities .................................................................. 1 Multilateral Initiatives — Human Security ................................................................................ 1 Multilateral Initiatives — Disarmament and Non-Proliferation ................................................ 2 Multilateral Initiatives — International Humanitarian Law ...................................................... 4 Multilateral Initiatives — Peace Support Operations ................................................................ 5 Multilateral Initiatives — International Criminal Law .............................................................. 6 Legislation — Implementation of the Rome Statute ................................................................. 6 Cases — International Crimes Trials (War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, Genocide) .... 12 Cases — Extradition of Alleged War Criminal ....................................................................... 13 Multilateral Initiatives — Foreign Policy Priorities Swiss Federal Council, Foreign Policy Report (2011) <http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/doc/publi/ppol.html> Pursuant to the 2011 Foreign Policy Report, one of Switzerland’s objectives at institutional level in 2011 was the improvement of the working methods of the UN Security Council (SC). As a member of the UN ‘Small 5’ group, on 28 March 2012, the Swiss -
French Armed Forces Update November 2020
French Armed Forces Update November 2020 This paper is NOT an official publication from the French Armed Forces. It provides an update on the French military operations and main activities. The French Defense Attaché Office has drafted it in accordance with open publications. The French Armed Forces are heavily deployed both at home and overseas. On the security front, the terrorist threat is still assessed as high in France and operation “Sentinelle” (Guardian) is still going on. Overseas, the combat units are extremely active against a determined enemy and the French soldiers are constantly adapting their courses of action and their layout plans to the threat. Impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, the French Armed Forces have resumed their day-to-day activities and operations under the sign of transformation and modernization. DeuxIN huss arMEMORIAMds parachut istes tués par un engin explosif improvisé au Mali | Zone Militaire 09/09/2020 11:16 SHARE On September 5th, during a control operation within the Tessalit + region, three hussards were seriously injured after the explosion & of an Improvised Explosive Device. Despite the provision of + immediate care and their quick transportation to the hospital, the ! hussard parachutiste de 1ère classe Arnaud Volpe and + brigadier-chef S.T1 died from their injuries. ' + ( Après la perte du hussard de 1ere classe Tojohasina Razafintsalama, le On23 November 12th, during a routine mission in the vicinity of juillet, lors d’une attaque suicide commise avec un VBIED [véhicule piégé], le 1er Régiment de Hussards Parachutistes [RHP] a une nouvelle fois été Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, nine members of the Multinational endeuillé, ce 5 septembre. -
Staff Sergeant Ricky Hart Assistant Marine Officer Instructor NROTC Unit, the Citadel
Staff Sergeant Ricky Hart Assistant Marine Officer Instructor NROTC Unit, The Citadel Staff Sergeant Hart was born in Beaufort, South Carolina on 9 September, 1987. He enlisted in the Marine Corps in 2005 and attended recruit training with Fox Company, 2nd Recruit Training Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, where he graduated as a meritorious Private First Class. Upon completion of recruit training in February of 2006, Staff Sergeant Hart reported to Marine Combat Training Battalion, Golf Company, and graduated in March of 2006. Staff Sergeant Hart was transferred to NAS Pensacola, where he attended Aviation Warfare Apprentice Training and Avionics Technician Intermediate Level Course, Class A1. While stationed at NAS Pensacola Staff Sergeant Hart was promoted to the rank of Lance Corporal and graduated his MOS at the top of his class. In October 2006, he was sent to his follow on MOS school aboard Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi Mississippi. It was here Staff Sergeant Hart would learn his primary MOS of Precision Measurement Equipment (PME) Technician by completing General Purpose Electronic Test Equipment Repair and Calibration where he graduated at the top of his class. He also completed Intermediate Level Calibration of Physical/Dimensional and Measuring Systems school. In March of 2007, Staff Sergeant Hart received orders to his first duty station aboard MCAS New River, NC where he served as a Precision Measurement Equipment Technician within the MALS-29 Calibration Laboratory. In 2009 he was meritoriously promoted to the rank of Corporal and continued to serve with MALS-29. In August 2010, Staff Sergeant Hart re-enlisted in the Marine Corps and was transferred to MCAS Cherry Point, NC where he was assigned to MALS-14 and served as the Issue and Receive NCOIC for the Calibration Laboratory. -
The United States Atomic Army, 1956-1960 Dissertation
INTIMIDATING THE WORLD: THE UNITED STATES ATOMIC ARMY, 1956-1960 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Paul C. Jussel, B.A., M.M.A.S., M.S.S. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee Approved by Professor Allan R. Millett, Advisor Professor John R. Guilmartin __________________ Professor William R. Childs Advisor Department of History ABSTRACT The atomic bomb created a new military dynamic for the world in 1945. The bomb, if used properly, could replace the artillery fires and air-delivered bombs used to defeat the concentrated force of an enemy. The weapon provided the U.S. with an unparalleled advantage over the rest of the world, until the Soviet Union developed its own bomb by 1949 and symmetry in warfare returned. Soon, theories of warfare changed to reflect the belief that the best way to avoid the effects of the bomb was through dispersion of forces. Eventually, the American Army reorganized its divisions from the traditional three-unit organization to a new five-unit organization, dubbed pentomic by its Chief of Staff, General Maxwell D. Taylor. While atomic weapons certainly had an effect on Taylor’s reasoning to adopt the pentomic organization, the idea was not new in 1956; the Army hierarchy had been wrestling with restructuring since the end of World War II. Though the Korean War derailed the Army’s plans for the early fifties, it returned to the forefront under the Eisenhower Administration. The driving force behind reorganization in 1952 was not ii only the reoriented and reduced defense budget, but also the Army’s inroads to the atomic club, formerly the domain of only the Air Force and the Navy.