• SHARE
  • SHARE SHARE
  • PRINT
  • EMAIL
  • COMMENT
  • Faster Than a Speeding Bullet

    A First Look at America’s Supergun

    The Navy’s experimental railgun fires a hardened projectile at staggering velocity—a battlefield meteorite with the power to blow holes in enemy ships and level terrorist camps

    DAHLGREN, Va.—A warning siren bellowed through the concrete bunker of a top-secret Naval facility where U.S. military engineers prepared to demonstrate a weapon for which there is little defense.

    Officials huddled at a video screen for a first look at a deadly new supergun that can fire a 25-pound projectile through seven steel plates and leave a 5-inch hole.

    The weapon is called a railgun and requires neither gunpowder nor explosive. It is powered by electromagnetic rails that accelerate a hardened projectile to staggering velocity—a battlefield meteorite with the power to one day transform military strategy, say supporters, and keep the U.S. ahead of advancing Russian and Chinese weaponry.

    In conventional guns, a bullet loses velocity from the moment the gunpowder ignites and sends it flying. The railgun projectile instead gains speed as it travels the length of a 32-foot barrel, exiting the muzzle at 4,500 miles an hour, or more than a mile a second.

    “This is going to change the way we fight,” said U.S. Navy Adm. Mat Winter, the head of the Office of Naval Research.

    Watch the Video: Pentagon officials believe the high-tech railgun could pave the way for a military advantage defending assets on sea and on land. Photo: U.S. Department of Defense

    The Navy developed the railgun as a potent offensive weapon to blow holes in enemy ships, destroy tanks and level terrorist camps. The weapon system has the attention of top Pentagon officials also interested in its potential to knock enemy missiles out of the sky more inexpensively and in greater numbers than current missile-defense systems—perhaps within a decade.

    The future challenge for the U.S. military, in broad terms, is maintaining a global reach with declining numbers of Navy ships and land forces. Growing expenses and fixed budgets make it more difficult to maintain large forces in the right places to deter aggression.

    “I can’t conceive of a future where we would replicate Cold War forces in Europe,” said Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, one of the weapon’s chief boosters. “But I could conceive of a set of railguns that would be inexpensive but would have enormous deterrent value. They would have value against airplanes, missiles, tanks, almost anything.”

    Inside the test bunker at Dahlgren, military officials turned to the video monitor showing the rectangular railgun barrel. Engineer Tom Boucher, program manager for the railgun in the Office of Naval Research, explained: “We are watching the system charge. We are taking power from the grid.”

    Wires splay out the back of the railgun, which requires a power plant that generates 25 megawatts—enough electricity to power 18,750 homes.

    The siren blared again, and the weapon fired. The video replay was slowed so officials could see aluminum shavings ignite in a fireball and the projectile emerge from its protective shell.

    “This,” Mr. Boucher said, “is a thing of beauty going off.”

    The railgun faces many technical barriers before it is battle ready. Policy makers also must weigh geopolitical questions. China and Russia see the railgun and other advances in U.S. missile defense as upending the world’s balance of power because it negates their own missile arsenals.

    The railgun’s prospective military advantage has made the developing technology a priority of hackers in China and Russia, officials said.

    Chinese hackers in particular have tried to penetrate the computer systems of the Pentagon and its defense contractors to probe railgun secrets, U.S. defense officials said. Pentagon officials declined to discuss the matter further.

    The Navy began working on the railgun a decade ago and has spent more than half a billion dollars. The Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities office is investing another $800 million—the largest share for any project—to develop the weapon’s defensive ability, as well as to adapt existing guns to fire the railgun’s high-tech projectiles.

    Railgun Components

    Power

    A 25 megawatt power plant and large capacitor bank are required to provide enough pulse power to fire the weapon 10 times a minute.

    Electromagnetic

    railgun

    32 feet

    Approx. 24 inches

    Shoe

    Projectile

    Aluminum jacket that supports the bullet in the gun barrel; also provides a bridge for the current between the rails.

    Non-explosive bullet filled with tungsten pellets; weight: approx. 25 pounds.

    Power

    A 25 megawatt power plant and large capacitor bank are required to provide enough pulse power to fire the weapon 10 times a minute.

    Electromagnetic railgun

    32 feet

    Projectile

    A non-explosive bullet filled with tungsten pellets; weight: approx. 25 pounds.

    Shoe

    An aluminum jacket that supports the bullet in the gun barrel; also provides a bridge for the current between the rails.

    Approx. 24 inches

    Power

    A 25 megawatt power plant and large capacitor bank are required to provide enough pulse power to fire the weapon 10 times a minute.

    Electromagnetic railgun

    32 feet

    Projectile

    A non-explosive bullet filled with tungsten pellets; weight: approx. 25 pounds.

    Shoe

    An aluminum jacket that supports the bullet in the gun barrel; also provides a bridge for the current between the rails.

    Approx. 24 inches

    Source: Office of Naval Research

    Some officials expressed concern the technology has commanded too large a portion of resources and focus. “This better work,” one defense official said.

    The age of the gun faded after World War II, hampered by the limited range and accuracy of gunpowder weapons. Missiles and jet fighters dominated the Cold War years, prompting the Navy to retire its big-gun battleships. The railgun—and its newly developed projectiles—could launch a new generation of the vessels.

    “Part of the reason we moved away from big guns is the chemistry and the physics of getting the range,” said Jerry DeMuro, the chief executive of BAE Systems, a railgun developer. “The railgun can create the kind of massive effect you want without chemistry.”

    The Navy’s current 6-inch guns have a range of 15 miles. The 16-inch guns of mothballed World War II-era battleships could fire a distance of 24 miles and penetrate 30 feet of concrete. In contrast, the railgun has a range of 125 miles, officials said, and five times the impact.

    “Anytime you have a projectile screaming in at extremely high speeds—kilometers per second—the sheer kinetic energy of that projectile is awesome,” Mr. Work said. “There are not a lot of things that can stop it.”

    Star Wars sequel

    Railguns have for years been limited to laboratories and videogames.

    Former President Ronald Reagan ’s Strategic Defense Initiative—the so-called Star Wars missile defense—at one time envisioned using the railgun to shoot down nuclear missiles. Those plans were stalled by 1980s technology. One problem was that the gun barrel and electromagnetic rails had to be replaced after a single shot.

    The Navy now believes it has a design that soon will be able to fire 10 times a minute through a barrel capable of lasting 1,000 rounds.

    Besides speed, the railgun also has a capacity advantage. A typical U.S. Navy destroyer can carry as many as 96 missiles—either offensive cruise missiles or defensive interceptors. A ship armed with a railgun could potentially carry a thousand rounds, allowing the vessel to shoot incoming missiles or attack enemy forces for longer periods and at a faster rate of fire.

    Unlike the Reagan-era initiative, the Pentagon doesn’t see the railgun as a shield against intercontinental ballistic missiles but defense against shorter-range conventional missiles.

    The U.S. has kept its military dominance over the past quarter-century largely through such precision weaponry as guided missiles and munitions. It also has spent billions of dollars on interceptor-missile based defense systems to shoot down ballistic missiles fired at the U.S. or its allies.

    That monopoly is about over. China is perfecting a ship-killing ballistic missile. Russia mostly impressed U.S. military planners with the power and precision of its cruise missiles deployed in Syria, and its improved artillery precision revealed in Ukraine.

    “I am very worried about the U.S. conventional advantage. The loss of that advantage is terribly destabilizing,” said Elbridge Colby, a military analyst with the Center of a New American Security.

    Defense planners believe the U.S. needs new military advances. Russia, for example, is believed to be developing longer-range surface-to-air missiles and new electronic warfare technology to blunt any forces near its borders.

    Prospects for an armed conflict among the great powers still seem remote. But for the first time since the end of the Cold War, the Pentagon is again looking closely at responses to rising tensions with China and Russia.

    Military planners say the railgun would be useful if the U.S. had to defend the Baltic states against Russia, or support an ally against China in the South China Sea.

    Moscow and Beijing are investing in missile systems aimed at keeping the U.S. out of those respective regions. A railgun-based missile defense could defend naval forces or ground troops, making it easier to move U.S. reinforcements closer to the borders of Russia or China, officials said.

    Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, right, views the hole made in a steel plate by a railgun projectile during testing last year at a top-secret Naval facility in Dahlgren, Va.
    Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, right, views the hole made in a steel plate by a railgun projectile during testing last year at a top-secret Naval facility in Dahlgren, Va. Photo: U.S. Department of Defense

    “You can’t ignore the fact that Russia has great ability to mass conventional munitions and fire them over great range. We have to be able to fight through those salvos,” said Mr. Work, of the Pentagon. “And the railgun potentially will give us the means to do that.”

    Russian officials, meanwhile, including Alexander Grushko, Moscow’s envoy to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, have said technological advances by the U.S., including missile defense, could undermine the strategic stability currently guaranteed by the relative balance between the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenal.

    Faster, smarter

    Hitting a missile with a bullet—a technical obstacle that hampered Mr. Reagan’s initiative—remains a challenge. Railgun research leans heavily on commercial advances in supercomputing to aim and on smartphone technology to steer the railgun’s projectile using the Global Positioning System.

    “Ten years ago, we wouldn’t have been able to build a projectile like this because the cellphone industry, the smartphone industry, hadn’t perfected the components,” said William Roper, the director of the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office. “It is a really smart bullet.”

    Development of the railgun guidance system is about done, officials said, but circuits in the projectile must be hardened to withstand gravitational forces strong enough to turn most miniaturized electronics to scrap.

    Missile defense by the railgun is at least a decade away, but Pentagon officials believe the weapon’s projectiles can be used much sooner. They are filled with tungsten pellets harder than many kinds of steel, officials said, and will likely cost between $25,000 and $50,000, a bargain compared with a $10-million interceptor missile.

    The electrical energy required to fire a railgun means it is likely to be used first as a ship-mounted weapon. Only one class of Navy ship, the Zumwalt-class destroyer, has such a power plant, officials said. The Navy is building just three of those destroyers, so the Pentagon is working to adapt the projectile to use in existing Naval guns on other vessels, as well as for Army artillery.

    While slower than a railgun, a powder-fired railgun projectile still flies at 2,800 miles an hour, which extends the range and power of existing weapons.

    At Dalhgren last year, military engineers test-fired 5- and 6-inch Navy guns loaded with a version of the railgun projectile. The range of the Navy’s 6-inch guns was extended to 38 miles from 15 miles.

    The Pentagon also tested the railgun projectile in 155mm Army howitzers, successfully extending its range.

    “The Navy is on the cusp of having a tactical system, a next generation offensive weapon,” Mr. Roper said. “It could be a game changer.”

    top
    421 comments
    Harlin Smith
    Harlin Smith subscriber

     "Chinese hackers in particular have tried to penetrate the computer systems of the Pentagon and its defense contractors to probe railgun secrets, U.S. defense officials said."

     Chinese hackers have committed an ACT OF WAR on the United States.

    Christopher Lucas
    Christopher Lucas subscriber

    The author needs to review some Newtonian physics. 

    Jay Titus
    Jay Titus subscriber

    One of the most idiotic statements I've read in a long time:


    "In conventional guns, a bullet loses velocity from the moment the gunpowder ignites and sends it flying."


    PHYSICS: The bullets in both types guns start at ZERO velocity, and always accelerate down the barrel.  The bullets in both guns therefore ALWAYS GAIN VELOCITY. What does drop in a conventional gun is the pressure of the explosion, which in turn reduces the ACCELERATION, but it never turns negative (i.e. the bullet never begins to slow down) until it leaves the end of the gun.


    “Ten years ago, we wouldn’t have been able to build a projectile like this because the cellphone industry, the smartphone industry, hadn’t perfected the components,” said William Roper, the director of the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office. “It is a really smart bullet.”


    HISTORY: 25 years ago, our defense contractors did not have to rely on commercial semiconductor manufacturers for technology...it was in fact the opposite.


    PRESENT: 95% of our semiconductor components are made in China or Taiwan.  Not exactly a strategic asset.

    Robert Alexander
    Robert Alexander subscriber

    @Jay Titus Agree - anyone with the least knowledge of firearms knows that greater barrel length is required for higher muzzle velocity.

    Michael Henson
    Michael Henson subscriber

    @Robert Alexander @Jay Titus The following ties the point on barrel length, the Star Wars Initiative, powder guns, and John Bull togther


    During the early 90's we took John Bull's results from the early 60's, refurbished on of his double barrel length 16" in guns out at Yuma Proving ground to shoot a 250lb saboted projectile out the muzzle at 1.8kim/s = 6562 fps.


    The gun required a special powder charge that used 16" gun powder, hand stacked in the usual silk bags, and simultaneously ignited along the entire length of the powder charge rather than at the end as with normal guns. We painted it white...think elephant. It was built for Lethality testing as a much lower cost alternative to the rocket sled testing out at White Sands. Unfortunately, Clinton became President and the funding dried up.


    Somewhere I still have photos of it all, include photos taken at Dahlgren where we did our first sabot evaluation shots. Cool place. Naval guns from WWI to today's out there.


    Brings back memories.

    Kirk Ropp
    Kirk Ropp subscriber

    Too bad a L.E.O. platform is not being utilized. It would not be practical, for defensive purposes. But letting gravity do all the work while increasing mass for a much higher yield, would be truly frightening, as an offensive weapon.

    (read it in a sci-fi book once)

    Bill George
    Bill George subscriber

    This article mentions the Ronald Reagan era Star Wars Initiative. The Star Wars Initiative was A Grand Hoax perpetrated by our government. The Soviet Union bit-the- bait and tried to compete militarily. The U.S.S.R's  attempts to compete with the Star Wars Initiative was a significant factor in the U.S.S.R.'s final economic, political and social unraveling.


    Not long after the U.S.S.R. fell as a viable threat in the Cold War a Civil Rights attorney in Northern California (Berkely and San Francisco) sued the U.S. Government, and TRW Corporation for deceiving U.S. citizens and taxpayers about Star Wars. The attorney, Guy Saperstein, won the law suit. I've heard he's a very wealthy man. He must be, he's is part owner of the Oakland A's and a friend of, and contributor to Barbara Boxer, and an editorial writer for the Huffington Post.


    Jay Titus
    Jay Titus subscriber

    @Bill George


    Actually the technology developed during Star Wars resulted in a number of presently fielded weapon systems, one of which is the Iron Dome.  It is true that at that time very little of it was practical, neither the timelines nor the budgets were achievable...as lose as they were.  But that's true of 99% of all military programs anyway.  Nix that: all government funded programs.  Nix that: all programs, business ventures, human endeavors, etc.

    michael ohara
    michael ohara subscriber

    Of course the Chinese want to steal the information on the gun. They may have a Chinese immigrant on the project already. Remember the Naval Commander working as a spy?

    Dean Broder
    Dean Broder subscriber

    Does it make sense to publish this sort of data about our weapons capabilities? We seem to do it all the time, broadcasting what we do, how we do it, even when we do it. Stupid. 

    Dan Chambers
    Dan Chambers subscriber

    @Dean Broder Dean, our enemies, particularly Russia and China, almost certainly know far more about these, and other weapons and technologies in development here (and elsewhere), than is published here.  Moreover, we live a in free country, and we have every right to know generally about such things.  Also, the railgun concept has been around along time, but as the article notes it's taken technological advances in many areas to make them feasible.  I, for one, salute this progress and the technical prowess of those bringing these important technologies forward, whether or not they're ever actually deployed (it seems certain, though, that rail guns will be, probably soon), as we need to maintain a large technological edge over our adversaries.

    Robert Alexander
    Robert Alexander subscriber

    @Dean Broder Agree - Why would an administration that was really confident that they are always the smartest guys in the room say so many stupid things trying to prove it - unless they are trying to prove it to themselves?

    Erik Olsen
    Erik Olsen

    Didn't the Russians shoot down a meteor a couple years ago using more advanced technology?

    JOHN ONSTAD
    JOHN ONSTAD subscriber

    Friends:


    The article doesn't say "boo" about how these projectiles are aimed and guided to their destination.


    I realize this may be confidential information, but the article is rather incomplete without this information.  "Dumb" projectile is travelling 1 mile/second: how to you control it? It has neither brains nor control surfaces.


    Very interesting article, however.  Go Navy!


    Cheers.


    John

    Terry Huang
    Terry Huang subscriber

    @JOHN ONSTAD I don't think these projectiles are guided mid-air like how missiles are. Given the high velocity of the projectile, I think you are only able to control where you shoot, similar to how a rifle.

    Dan Chambers
    Dan Chambers subscriber

    @Terry Huang @JOHN ONSTAD Perhaps true today, Terry, but as the article notes, work is already in progress to harden the electronics needed for in-flight projectile guidance.  Indeed, given the potential range of railgun  projectiles (125 miles), some sort of advanced guidance capability will be crucial to their effectiveness. 

    Steven Cushman
    Steven Cushman subscriber

    I am surprised that the vehicle this supergun is to be mounted on hasn't been killed because it is so not GREEN.  The power source for propulsion, auxiliary power and weapons systems are Rolls Royce aeroderivitive gas turbine driven gensets.  The Zumwalt class destroyer has 58 megwatts of power in excess of that required for propulsion and auxiliary systems.  Simple cycle gas turbines have HUGE carbon footprints compared to diesel or bottoming cycle gas turbines*.  To only way marine vessels that use gas turbines can compete with the efficiency of diesel power is to use Combined Diesel And Gas-turbine propulsion.

    *Bottoming cycle gas turbines are used for stationary power generation.  These have large footprints for the Heat Recovery Steam Generator and steam turbine.

    John J McCloskey
    John J McCloskey subscriber

    "Railgun research leans heavily on commercial advances in supercomputing to aim and on smartphone technology to steer the railgun’s projectile using the Global Positioning System."

    Sounds vulnerable to EMP and loss of satellite guidance.  Russia just test launched a device that will eventually be able to seek and destroy U.S. military satellites. This could be an effective countermeasure given this new weapon is dependent upon GPS and cell phone technology to maintain accuracy.

    ALEXANDER SEIBERTH
    ALEXANDER SEIBERTH subscriber

    "China and Russia see the railgun and other advances in U.S. missile defense as upending the world’s balance of power because it negates their own missile arsenals."

    Okay, then.

    The fps is only about twice that of a hunting rifle bullet.

    Donald Latham
    Donald Latham user

    Seems somewhat similar to the German V-3 (Vergeltungswaffen) super cannon that the Germans developed in 1944.  Just google V-3 and you'll find the V-3 on Wikipedia.

    Shawn Smith
    Shawn Smith subscriber

    In conventional guns, a bullet loses velocity from the moment the gunpowder ignites and sends it flying. The railgun projectile instead gains speed as it travels the length of a 32-foot barrel, exiting the muzzle at 4,500 miles an hour, or more than a mile a second." If this were correct the projectile would be going in reverse. Both types of weapon accelerate the projectile down the bore and both lose velocity according to the ballistic coefficient of the projectile.

    Just an add on for all the security risk guys talking out there, nothing was said about the super secret parts that make this thing work, are also expendable, and strangely even missing in the cost reporting even though it might be more than half the cost of the weapon. 

    CHRIS STINNETT
    CHRIS STINNETT subscriber

    @Shawn Smith Just to be clear, the entire propellant pressure is produced in a conventional round within microseconds as the propellant ignites--even before the projectile begins its trip out of the barrel. Thus, maximum pressure is attained practically instantly and, as the projectile begins its flight, the pressure actually drops (although the projectile can continue to gain velocity for some distance up the barrel). Muzzle velocity is the fastest the projectile can travel; air/gravity resistance begin instantly degrading speed. The rail gun projectile actually continues to accelerate (no loss of pressure)  until it exits the barrel--at which point the same air/gravity resistance begin to degrade its speed. As you point out, the ballistic coefficient of the projectile matters--and that's one are where the specific gravity of HE versus solid tungsten shot will require all new computations! What fun!

    Edward Phillips
    Edward Phillips subscriber

    I am always calmed in knowing the writers to publications are not a random sample of the adult population.

    Arthur Grady
    Arthur Grady subscriber

    I had an idea. Let's all make a special effort not to give the designs to Chinese. Now, I know this may pose a special challenge to a possible Clinton administration, particularly when there's so much money involved, but Hillary, if you can't do it for the tax-paying middle class Americans, do it for the illegals and the gay/lesbians. 

    Bob Sanderson
    Bob Sanderson subscriber

    A Clinton angle....you are so clever

    Lyndon Bradish
    Lyndon Bradish subscriber

    @Arthur Grady Wow. Now a super gun has been politicised in a very inane manner.

    Thank you Arthur for providing some humour in this article's posts

    James Murphy
    James Murphy subscriber

    If detailed technical information regarding this technology was on Hillary Clinton's homebrew server, The Chinese and Russians already have it.

    Lyndon Bradish
    Lyndon Bradish subscriber

    @James Murphy No need James. The defence dept uses such outdated computer equipment (including windows 3.1) foreign high school kids can hack it and do the downloads.

    The stupidity lies within unfortunately.

    JOHN HAWKINS
    JOHN HAWKINS subscriber

    Pretty much watched a more dramatic version on this on the internet a long time ago....this is old news

    Arthur Grady
    Arthur Grady subscriber

    @JOHN HAWKINS I already have one that I picked up at Gander Mountain. Once the word got out, my HOA got off my back in a hurry.

    David McQueen
    David McQueen subscriber

    "“Ten years ago, we wouldn’t have been able to build a projectile like this because the cellphone industry, the smartphone industry, hadn’t perfected the components,” said William Roper, the director of the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office."    Obama didn't build that, Samsung did.  I wonder if Obama will give them credit . . .

    Bruce Fegley
    Bruce Fegley subscriber

    Go to see the Navy is defending the US - the Commander in Chief is not.

    James Nelson
    James Nelson subscriber

    It's been displayed on the web for well over a year, this is old news.


    Jack Armstrong
    Jack Armstrong subscriber

    Missile defense makes sense, but if it takes a small power plant to run it and a super computer to aim it, then it's not going to be very portable, other than on a big Navy ship with a nuclear reactor. Hard to see how it could be used on a battlefield.


    I bet Elon Musk could crank one of these out in a lot less time and less cost.



    David McQueen
    David McQueen subscriber

    @Jack Armstrong We had naval support from the 16" guns fired from the battleship New Jersey during the Vietnam War.  With a 25 mile range, I'm sure the weapon can support ground troops even more effectively and it wouldn't be subject to counter- battery fire.

    JOHN HAWKINS
    JOHN HAWKINS subscriber

    @Jack Armstrong 


    and he would no doubt share the technology with the world......I stick with the current contractors.

    David McQueen
    David McQueen subscriber

    @Lyndon Bradish @David McQueen @Jack Armstrong What changes the outcome of ANY war is the will of the participants to defeat the enemy.  Your thinly veiled sarcasm does not rebut the fact that the US could have defeated North Vietnam in 6 months.  There was no will among Democrats to defeat a communist country that had invaded a non-communist country.  Same situation in Korea.  Truman refused to prosecute the war effectively and did everything he could to insure a stalemate (fire MacArthur, try to nationalize the US steel production, advise the UN of all US operations).  The US could have invaded North Vietnam, captured Hanoi and Haiphong in 1965, but Johnson did not want to defeat a communist country.  LBJ was a sick man who let his leftist ideology override his military obligations and whose politics allowed hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese to be murdered.  How many Afghans and Iraqis will die after the US has fully withdrawn?     

    Lyndon Bradish
    Lyndon Bradish subscriber

    @David McQueen @Lyndon Bradish @Jack Armstrong Well David, it is easy to blame the failure on someone but that does not change the fact that the US has not been successful in any war since WWII (except Grenada - LOL).

    You also ask how many Afghans and Iraqi will die after the US fully withdraws and I will ask how many were killed before the US withdraws...Viet Nam or Iraq or any other nation including Laos and Cambodia.

    These wars are started on the basis of a false premise: VN - domino theory or maybe a Soviet sub base - both proven false) or Iraq - WMD also proven false.

    Regardless David, dissecting the reason for defeat is always a good exercise but you have to live with the political system and its consequences...which have been both embarrassing and deadly for so many innocent people.

    Viet Nam and Iraq were a complete waste...period. And with some thought include Afghanistan.

    Michael Henson
    Michael Henson subscriber

    @Lyndon Bradish @David McQueen @Jack Armstrong We have not prosecuted any of those conflicts with an eye to winning. Unashamedly taking the territory, "owning it" 'till the population comes to accept our presence, then staying as we slowly return power to them. That's the difference, the will and intestinal fortitude to win.

    Lyndon Bradish
    Lyndon Bradish subscriber

    @Michael Henson @Lyndon Bradish @David McQueen @Jack Armstrong Indeed. The last war 'won' by the Allies was WWII and in that case it was 'owning it' in conjunction with a people that were exhausted by war and willing to rebuild with the good and proper assistance from the conquerors...as in the care of WWII (compare with WWI which really laid the groundwork for WWII).

    Show More Archives

    Editors’ Picks