Sixteen million Americans served in uniform during World War 2; 418,500 perished. One in every 38 American servicemen gave their lives for their country.
Our flight crews had it the worst: 44.4% of all RAF bomber crewmen died in the rarefied skies above Europe. However, that pales in comparison to the German U-boats.
In the opening salvoes of the Battle of the Atlantic, U-boat wolf packs wreaked unmitigated havoc on Allied transport ships. Over time, however, improvements in countermeasures as well as the breaking of the Enigma code fundamentally changed that calculus. By war’s end, three out of every four German submariners had been killed in combat.
Occurring as it did in the middle of vast oceans, WW2 naval combat was pitiless. The winners might go home to fight another day. The losers almost invariably slipped beneath the waves to either drown or be mercilessly crushed by the weight of the sea. Such stakes ensured that all involved fought like Norse berserkers.
The Players
The night May 5, 1943 was clear with a bright moon. U-66, a Type IXC German U-boat under the command of Oberleutnant Gehard Seehausen, was cruising along the surface recharging its batteries off of the Cape Verde Islands. U-66 was Hitler’s seventh-most successful German submarine now on her ninth war cruise. Her tally included some 33 Allied ships. U-66 had been at sea for four months and was desperately low on fuel.
As luck would have it, a U.S. Navy TBM Avenger launched from the American escort carrier U.S.S. Block Island picked up U-66 on radar some 20 miles from the U.S.S. Buckley, a compact American destroyer escort that was just itching for a fight. The Buckley’s skipper was Lt. Cmdr. Brent Able. In the dim light, the captain of U-66 mistook the Buckley for a German resupply submarine.
The Fight
By the time Seehausen realized his mistake, the two warships were only 4,000 yards apart. The German skipper ordered a snap torpedo shot that passed harmlessly off the Buckley’s starboard side. Lieutenant Cmdr. Able opened fire with everything that would shoot.
The Buckley ravaged the trapped U-boat for the next two minutes with her 3-inch deck guns, 40mm Bofors, 20mm Oerlikons, and sundry .50-caliber machine guns. High-explosive rounds ripped into the submarine’s conning tower and superstructure. Seehausen fired another ineffectual torpedo. Then Lt. Cmdr. Able then gave his ship hard right rudder and drove the nimble vessel up onto the deck of the U-boat.
In desperation, the Seehausen ordered his men topside. Some attempted to surrender. Others fought like Dervishes.
The crew of the Buckley had emptied their small arms lockers. First Officer Klaus Herbig led a German boarding party onto the forecastle of the destroyer escort. American sailors with Thompsons and .50-caliber machine guns tore them to pieces.
To say this was a desperate fight just doesn’t do it justice. Two of the attacking Kriegsmariners were struck in the head with coffee mugs. Gun crews unable to depress their weapons sufficiently began throwing empty ammunition cases down on the advancing Germans. Several enemy sailors still managed to board the American vessel.
The boatswain’s mate pulled his 1911 pistol and shot the first man dead. The Chief Fire Controlman swept the deck of the German boat with his Thompson. Lt. Cmdr. Able later said he enjoyed, “Excellent results.”
One enemy sailor managed to make it into the wardroom where a ship’s cook doused him in hot coffee before pummeling him into submission with the coffee pot. Five Germans were captured alive onboard the Buckley and escorted below by a sailor armed with a hammer. Meanwhile, the German deck gun crew literally disintegrated when struck by a burst of four 40mm high-explosive rounds.
As the U-boat scraped along the Buckley’s starboard side, an American torpedoman tossed a hand grenade through the open hatch to the U-boat’s conning tower. The dying U-boat then veered into the Buckley near the stern, tearing a hole in the engine room and shearing off the starboard screw. However, U-66 was done. The entire fight had spanned a mere 16 minutes.
The Aftermath
The crew of the Buckley expended 300 rounds of .45 ACP, 60 rounds of .30-06, 30 rounds of 12-gauge buckshot, and a pair of fragmentation grenades along with the aforementioned dinnerware and coffeepot. Roughly half of the U-boat’s crew survived. Oberleutnant Seehausen went down with his boat. He was 26.
The Buckley returned to Boston under her own power. Lieutenant Cmdr. Brent Able was awarded the Navy Cross, the Navy’s second-highest award for valor. His crew was authorized to wear a combat star on their European-African Theater ribbons.
The sinking of U-66 was the last close quarters ship-to-ship combat in U.S. Naval history. What a bunch of freaking studs.
So is the old saying “attention to detail”! Grumpy
I pulled this off Quora, I saw it taking a “Microbreak” at work surfing the phone. so I shamelessly clipped it.
In 1974, surviving WWII commanders wargamed Hitler’s invasion of Britain and made a darkly comedic discovery: the Royal Navy wouldn’t even need to fire its guns to sink the German fleet.
The highly detailed simulation of Operation Sea Lion was held at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and featured actual combat veterans making the decisions, including Luftwaffe General Adolf Galland and Kriegsmarine Admiral Friedrich Ruge.
The wargame yielded several unexpected insights, starting with the initial assault. Most historical assumptions suggest the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy would have crushed the invasion fleet before it ever reached the beaches.
Instead, the Sandhurst simulation showed that the Germans would have successfully landed around 90,000 troops in Kent and Sussex. Because the British Army had abandoned most of its heavy equipment during the evacuation of Dunkirk just months earlier, the coastal defenses were too weak and disorganized to stop the initial beachhead. The German army quickly pushed inland, capturing their early objectives.
But the success was short-lived, largely due to the fatal flaw in German logistics. The Kriegsmarine lacked purpose-built landing craft, forcing them to commandeer hundreds of flat-bottomed river barges from the Rhine to transport men and supplies across the English Channel.
Once the British realized a full-scale invasion was underway, the Royal Navy unleashed the Home Fleet from Scapa Flow. When the British cruisers and destroyers arrived in the Channel, they found that they did not need to rely on their main guns to destroy the German supply lines. Simply steaming through the invasion flotilla at high speed would generate enough wake to swamp and capsize the flimsy, unseaworthy river barges.
With the Channel completely severed by the Royal Navy and the RAF, the 90,000 German troops who had successfully landed were suddenly trapped. Cut off from food, medical supplies, and artillery shells, their advance ground to a halt.
The Luftwaffe suffered massive losses attempting an improvised aerial resupply. Facing a fully mobilized British defense and completely out of ammunition, the entire German invasion force was compelled to surrender within six days, proving that without absolute naval and air supremacy, Sea Lion was a guaranteed trap for the German army.
German invasion barges, many of them commandeered river vessels, waiting at Boulogne Harbour in France during the Battle of Britain. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
Every now and then, a Supreme Court filing comes along that makes you stop, reread the argument and wonder if you understood it correctly the first time.
This is one of those filings.
Connecticut attorney David A. Robinson has submitted an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold bans on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles. His central argument is not simply that certain rifles can be regulated. He wants the Court to declare part of the Second Amendment “extinct.”
Yes, that is the word used in the brief.
The AR-15 Case Before the Court
The filing comes in the consolidated cases of Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. The cases challenge bans imposed by Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut.
The question before the Supreme Court is straightforward: Do the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms?
The Court granted review on June 30, consolidated the two cases and scheduled oral arguments for December 2, 2026.
Robinson’s brief supports the governments defending their bans. However, an important distinction needs to be made. This is not a ruling, a government filing or the official brief from either respondent. Robinson wrote and funded it himself. As of October 27, the Supreme Court docket listed it as “submitted.”
If the Amendment Process Fails, Ask the Court?
Robinson says he previously tried to build support for a proposed 28th Amendment that would rewrite the constitutional protection for arms. He self-published a short book, purchased Amazon and Facebook ads and contacted elected officials.
The campaign went nowhere.
That failure becomes part of his argument to the Court. Robinson reasons that because Americans could not agree on new constitutional language, the justices should step in and declare which portions of the existing Second Amendment remain alive.
That is where the argument starts running backward.
The Constitution already provides a process for changing its language through Article V. If an effort to amend the Constitution fails, the original language remains in effect. Failure to persuade the public does not normally create permission for judges to rewrite the provision themselves.
Robinson nevertheless asks the Court to declare the militia clause “extinct.” He then argues that the protection for keeping and bearing arms should survive only to the extent judges consider a weapon necessary for personal defense or hunting.
That turns an explicit constitutional limit on government into a government-approved list of permitted purposes.
The Brief Takes Some Wild Turns
Robinson compares the Second Amendment’s militia language to Major League Baseball’s pre-1947 exclusion of Black players. He claims both concepts may have made sense to people in their respective eras but are now outdated.
He also compares firearm-capacity limits to speed limits on cars.
That analogy skips over a fairly important detail. Driving at a particular speed is not an enumerated constitutional right. The right to keep and bear arms is.
The filing goes further by suggesting that AR-15 owners who cite protection against tyranny must believe they have the right to shoot police officers attempting to enforce a firearm ban. Robinson describes gun owners as combining a “1791 mentality” with a modern AR-15.
That is a massive leap from opposing government overreach to advocating violence against individual officers. It substitutes an extreme hypothetical for the actual question before the Court: whether commonly owned semiautomatic rifles fall within the protection of the Second Amendment.
The brief concludes with an imaginary conversation between a 9-year-old student and her teacher during an active-shooter drill. Robinson says the hypothetical conversation “proves” semiautomatic rifles are not constitutionally protected.
It may illustrate his policy concerns, but an invented conversation is not historical evidence or constitutional analysis.
The Argument Collides With Heller
The biggest problem is that Robinson’s “extinct militia” theory runs directly into District of Columbia v. Heller.
In Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right that is not dependent on service in a militia. The Court also explained that the amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose but “does not limit or expand the scope” of its operative guarantee.
Robinson quotes Heller’s statement that courts cannot pronounce the Second Amendment extinct, but then asks the Court to do essentially that.
His claim that the militia no longer exists is also hard to square with current law. Federal law still recognizes both an organized militia and an unorganized militia. Whether that statute resolves the AR-15 question is another matter, but it certainly complicates the claim that the militia has simply vanished.
Robinson also argues that because Garland v. Cargill did not decide whether bump stocks receive Second Amendment protection, semiautomatic rifles may be banned. But Cargill addressed whether a bump-stock-equipped rifle qualified as a machine gun under federal statutory language. The Court’s decision not to reach a separate constitutional question did not answer it against gun owners.
Why This Brief Is Getting Attention
The filing probably will not become the central argument in these cases. It is one independently submitted amicus brief among dozens, and it does not speak for Cook County, Connecticut or the Supreme Court.
Still, it puts a remarkably blunt version of the anti-AR argument into the official record.
The Constitution is too old. The militia is obsolete. Modern rifles are too effective. The amendment process failed. Therefore, judges should declare part of the Second Amendment dead and let governments decide which arms citizens really need.
For gun owners, that sequence is exactly why constitutional protections exist in the first place.
What do you think? Is this brief simply an outlier, or does it say the quiet part out loud about the broader effort to remove AR-15s from Second Amendment protection?
=========================================== In my humble opinion. I kind of doubt that this court would do something so opposed to their previous holding on the 2nd Ad. . But then the crazier things than this have happened before. Grumpy
An extraordinary 4,000-meter sniper shot involving a Ukrainian-made Snipex Alligator rifle highlights how artificial intelligence, drones, and precision shooting are changing the modern battlefield.
By WsjStaff
According to an article from San.com, a Ukrainian sniper has reportedly accomplished one of the most extraordinary feats in modern military marksmanship, eliminating two Russian soldiers with a single shot from an astonishing distance of 4,000 meters, or approximately 2.49 miles.
The engagement, attributed to Ukraine’s elite Pryvyd, or “Ghost,” sniper unit, has been described as a new world record for the longest confirmed sniper kill in combat history. While independent verification of the record remains important, the reported engagement illustrates a significant development in long-range warfare: the integration of precision rifles, aerial surveillance, and artificial intelligence.
What makes this incident particularly remarkable isn’t simply the distance. It is the sophisticated coordination of technology and personnel reportedly required to make the shot possible.
At nearly two and a half miles, the engagement pushes beyond conventional expectations of battlefield marksmanship. The sniper was reportedly operating as part of an integrated team that included drone operators, spotters, and personnel using computer-assisted ballistic calculations.
Rather than relying exclusively on what the shooter could observe through a riflescope, the team reportedly used electronically transmitted targeting information to coordinate the engagement. The result represents a potential milestone in the evolution of precision shooting.
The Snipex Alligator: A Ukrainian Long-Range Powerhouse
At the center of this remarkable engagement was the Ukrainian-manufactured Snipex Alligator, a massive 14.5mm anti-materiel rifle designed primarily to engage equipment, lightly armored vehicles, and other hardened targets. Unlike conventional sniper rifles chambered in .308 Winchester, .300 Winchester Magnum, or .338 Lapua Magnum, the Alligator employs the considerably larger 14.5×114mm cartridge.
Originally developed for heavy military applications, this cartridge delivers substantially greater projectile mass and energy than traditional sniper ammunition. The rifle itself is equally imposing.
According to the video’s account, the Alligator weighs approximately 55 pounds and measures roughly 6.5 feet in length. Its substantial size makes it unsuitable for the mobility normally associated with traditional sniper operations. However, portability takes a secondary role when the objective involves engaging targets at extreme distances.
The rifle’s heavy construction and powerful cartridge provide the foundation for long-range ballistic performance, although even these characteristics cannot eliminate the substantial challenges involved in a 4,000-meter shot. At such distances, equipment represents only one part of the equation. Environmental conditions, projectile behavior, and accurate targeting information become increasingly important.
The Challenge of a 4,000-Meter Shot
To appreciate the reported accomplishment, consider the enormous distance involved. Four thousand meters equals approximately 13,123 feet, or nearly 44 football fields placed end to end.
Even experienced precision shooters recognize that engaging targets beyond 1,000 meters requires considerable skill, specialized equipment, and favorable environmental conditions. At four times that distance, relatively small errors can produce dramatic changes in where a projectile strikes.
Wind is among the most significant variables. A projectile traveling several thousand meters may encounter different wind conditions along its flight path. Wind speed and direction can change across open terrain, wooded areas, and changes in elevation.
Atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity also influence projectile flight. At extreme distances, shooters must additionally consider the Earth’s rotation, commonly addressed through calculations involving the Coriolis effect. The projectile’s natural dispersion introduces another challenge. Even a highly accurate rifle and ammunition combination cannot guarantee identical impacts from shot to shot. These factors make the reported engagement exceptional, particularly because the targets were reportedly identified and monitored through an electronic surveillance network.
The shot was not simply a demonstration of individual marksmanship. It was reportedly the product of coordinated battlefield intelligence.
Artificial Intelligence and Drones Enter the Equation
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the engagement was the reported use of drone-based surveillance and AI-assisted ballistic calculations. According to the account, the Ukrainian sniper team relied on several interconnected elements to coordinate the shot.
Aerial observers monitored the target area while spotters and technical operators supplied information to personnel responsible for the firing solution. Artificial intelligence reportedly assisted with trajectory calculations, while drone imagery provided additional situational awareness.
The unit commander reportedly emphasized that the engagement depended on cooperation among shooters, spotters, AI operators, and aerial observers. Each component contributed information that would have been difficult for an individual sniper to obtain independently. The account further suggests that the shooter did not directly observe the targets with the naked eye, instead relying on electronically relayed information.
That distinction is significant. Traditional sniper operations generally involve a shooter and spotter working together to identify targets, evaluate conditions, and observe impacts. In this reported engagement, the spotting process expanded into a network involving aerial surveillance and computational assistance.
It demonstrates how modern precision shooting is increasingly becoming a coordinated technological operation rather than an isolated contest between shooter and target. However, the precise capabilities of the AI system, its level of automation, and its contribution to the final firing solution have not been independently established.
Thermal Imaging Changes Battlefield Concealment
The article describes how Ukrainian forces have integrated thermal imaging into sniper and drone operations.
Unlike conventional optical systems that depend on visible light, thermal cameras detect differences in infrared radiation associated with surface temperatures. This technology allows operators to identify potential human targets in darkness and under certain conditions where ordinary visual observation would be difficult. The transcript references Ukrainian sniper engagements near Bakhmut at distances of approximately 900 meters or more using thermal optics.
For perspective, 900 meters represents nearly ten football fields. At those distances, identifying and tracking personnel at night can provide a substantial tactical advantage.
However, thermal imaging is not infallible. Terrain, vegetation, weather, atmospheric conditions, and thermal shielding can interfere with detection.
The transcript also describes Russian soldiers employing thermal blankets to reduce their infrared signatures. Such equipment attempts to limit the contrast between a person’s thermal signature and the surrounding environment.
Nevertheless, concealment from thermal sensors does not necessarily provide concealment from conventional aerial cameras. Changes in movement, vegetation, and terrain can still reveal activity to observers. This combination of surveillance technologies creates significant challenges for forces attempting to remain undetected.
From Individual Snipers to Integrated Battlefield Systems
The larger lesson from the reported 4,000-meter engagement extends beyond the rifle or the shooter. Modern battlefield surveillance increasingly connects drones, sensors, communications networks, and precision weapons into integrated systems. Information gathered by one platform can be transmitted to another, allowing multiple operators to contribute to the same engagement. A drone may locate suspicious movement. A surveillance operator may monitor the area. A precision-shooting team may then use that information to assess whether a target can be engaged.
The video describes this coordination as a transition from traditional sniper operations toward a more comprehensive battlefield targeting network. Such integration can improve situational awareness and extend the effective reach of military units. It also introduces new vulnerabilities. Electronic warfare, disrupted communications, inaccurate sensor data, and unreliable targeting information can compromise the effectiveness of these systems. Consequently, human judgment and verification remain essential, particularly when decisions involve lethal force.
A Glimpse Into the Future of Precision Shooting
Whether the reported Ukrainian engagement ultimately receives universal recognition as a world record, its implications are substantial. The Snipex Alligator demonstrates the capabilities of modern heavy-caliber precision rifles, while the reported involvement of drones and AI-assisted calculations illustrates the growing importance of battlefield information systems.
The most consequential development may not be a longer-distance shot, but the expanding ability of military teams to identify, monitor, and engage targets using information gathered beyond the shooter’s immediate field of view.
For firearms enthusiasts and long-range shooting observers, the reported 4,000-meter engagement offers a striking example of how precision marksmanship is evolving. The rifle remains essential. So do the shooter’s training, experience, and judgment. But increasingly, the effectiveness of a sniper team depends on the information and technology supporting the person behind the trigger.
At nearly 2.5 miles, this reported shot may ultimately be remembered not only for its extraordinary distance, but also for the technological transformation it represents in modern warfare.
Categories