140 Amazing un-seen photos from the Chernobyl disaster

by

Ever wanted to know the truth from the Chernobyl disaster? Here’s a great photo-guide to the events surrounding it from https://leatherbarrowa.exposure.co/chernobyl It is an amazing writeup full of information and even more photos. The following is a much more concise story of the events surrounding the disaster.

Please note, this is a very large, multi-page photo gallery. You can click on many of the photos to make them larger.

 

The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, officially known as the V. I. Lenin Nuclear Power Station during the Soviet era, began construction in 1970 at a remote region near Ukraine’s swamp-filled northern border, 15 kilometres north-west of the small town of Chernobyl. The plant’s location was chosen because of its relative proximity to Ukraine’s capital while still being a safe distance away, a ready water supply - the River Pripyat - and the existing railway line that ran from Ovruc in the West to Chernigov in the East.

The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, officially known as the V. I. Lenin Nuclear Power Station during the Soviet era, began construction in 1970 at a remote region near Ukraine’s swamp-filled northern border, 15 kilometres north-west of the small town of Chernobyl. The plant’s location was chosen because of its relative proximity to Ukraine’s capital while still being a safe distance away, a ready water supply – the River Pripyat – and the existing railway line that ran from Ovruc in the West to Chernigov in the East.

003 - arn1HK4

It was the first nuclear power station ever to be built in the country, and was considered to be the best and most reliable of the Soviet Union’s nuclear facilities.

It was the first nuclear power station ever to be built in the country, and was considered to be the best and most reliable of the Soviet Union’s nuclear facilities.

 

It was one of the ‘youngest’ cities in the Soviet Union, with an average age of only 26. Convincing experienced workers from more populous parts of the Soviet Union to move to such a remote location proved challenging, so many of Chernobyl's workers came straight from college/university.

It was one of the ‘youngest’ cities in the Soviet Union, with an average age of only 26. Convincing experienced workers from more populous parts of the Soviet Union to move to such a remote location proved challenging, so many of Chernobyl’s workers came straight from college/university.

Concurrent to the construction of the power station, the Soviet Union’s ninth Atomograd - Russian for ‘atomic city’ - named Pripyat was being erected 3 kilometres away, for the specific purpose of housing the ambitious station’s 50,000 operators, builders, support staff and their families.

Concurrent to the construction of the power station, the Soviet Union’s ninth Atomograd – Russian for ‘atomic city’ – named Pripyat was being erected 3 kilometres away, for the specific purpose of housing the ambitious station’s 50,000 operators, builders, support staff and their families.

To oversee the titanic operation, 35-year-old turbine expert and loyal communist Viktor Bryukhanov was plucked from his position as Deputy Chief Engineer at the Slavyanskaya thermal power station in Eastern Ukraine, and appointed as Chernobyl’s Director. He is the man second from left.

To oversee the titanic operation, 35-year-old turbine expert and loyal communist Viktor Bryukhanov was plucked from his position as Deputy Chief Engineer at the Slavyanskaya thermal power station in Eastern Ukraine, and appointed as Chernobyl’s Director. He is the man second from left.

Because Pripyat was new and carried with it the prestige of a nuclear power station, it was afforded many modern luxuries other Soviet cities sometimes did without.

Because Pripyat was new and carried with it the prestige of a nuclear power station, it was afforded many modern luxuries other Soviet cities sometimes did without.





It had all the facilities you would expect of a modest-sized city. In addition to a hospital and its nearby clinics, there were 15 kindergartens, 5 schools, a vocational school/college and a school of music and the arts for the children, with 1 expansive park and 35 smaller playgrounds for them to play in.

It had all the facilities you would expect of a modest-sized city. In addition to a hospital and its nearby clinics, there were 15 kindergartens, 5 schools, a vocational school/college and a school of music and the arts for the children, with 1 expansive park and 35 smaller playgrounds for them to play in.

 

Further entertainment was found at any of the city’s 10 gyms, 3 swimming pools, 10 shooting ranges, 2 stadiums, 4 libraries and a cinema, or by reading Pripyat’s own newspaper.

Further entertainment was found at any of the city’s 10 gyms, 3 swimming pools, 10 shooting ranges, 2 stadiums, 4 libraries and a cinema, or by reading Pripyat’s own newspaper.

Children playing in main square.

Children playing in main square.

A couple recently married pose in front of the city's welcome sign.

A couple recently married pose in front of the city’s welcome sign.

For down-time there were 27 canteens, cafés and restaurants distributed throughout the city. All in all, it was a very nice place to live compared to many other locations in the Soviet Union.

For down-time there were 27 canteens, cafés and restaurants distributed throughout the city. All in all, it was a very nice place to live compared to many other locations in the Soviet Union.

Retail came in the form of 25 shops including a bookshop, a supermarket and various smaller food stores, a sports shop, a shop selling TVs, radios and other electronics, and a large shopping centre on the city’s central square.

Retail came in the form of 25 shops including a bookshop, a supermarket and various smaller food stores, a sports shop, a shop selling TVs, radios and other electronics, and a large shopping centre on the city’s central square.





This photo is one of the last photos taken before the explosion of the reactor as the Ferris wheel in the background was set to officially open 2 days after the fateful explosion.

This photo is one of the last photos taken before the explosion of the reactor as the Ferris wheel in the background was set to officially open 2 days after the fateful explosion.

014 - KaUfAi1

 

016 - 4FAYbjO 018 - MXz9tRr 017 - n5DIbgU

The town held parades praising the nuclear power station. This truck has a representation of the reactor control room on its front.

The town held parades praising the nuclear power station. This truck has a representation of the reactor control room on its front.

 

Next Page



Amazing – During WW2, US sailors sunk a Japanese sub with potatoes

by

At least, the Maine potato growers association seem to think so.

 

A tribute to the USS O'Bannon due to their use of potatoes

It was a early morning on April the 5th in 1943 that the O’Bannon was returning from when the sailors spotted something.

It was a Japanese submarine, the Ro-34 to be exact. Once the Japanese sub was spotted, the ship’s captain made the order to ram it at full speed. However, at the last minute, the order was changed, instead to run along side of the ship, in the fear that it could be a mine layer. Ramming a mine layer would result in the destruction of the O’Bannon as well as the Japanese vessel.



The worst nightmare of the Japanese sub

The worst nightmare of the Japanese sub

This brought the American destroyer to extraordinarily close proximity to the Japanese sub. At this time the Japanese sailors started to man a 75 millimeter deck cannon which could be fired at the O’Bannon. By this time, the destroyer was too close to use their own guns, and the sailors did not have any weapons available to fire at the Japanese sailors, now preparing to fire at the ship. So, the men of the O’Bannon grabbed the only thing they could find – Potatoes. They began throwing as many as they could at the Japanese. Lucky for the Americans, the Japanese thought the potatoes were hand grenades and started to throw them in the water. This took their attention from arming the deck cannon, and occupied them with throwing potatoes in the water. Within a short time, the American destroyer was able to position itself so that it could fire its own cannons at the sub.

The O’Bannon made relatively quick work of the Japanese sub, forcing it to submerge after being hit several times from the O’Bannon’s guns. Once submerged, the O’Bannon dropped depth charges, killing the Japanese sub.

That day, the O’Bannon found itself victorious through the use of heavy firepower and potatoes.

Source

If you liked this post, be sure to read our other amazing WW2 articles :

44 Amazing facts about WW2
The cost of WW2 Infantry Weapons



Dispelling the myths surrounding the M4 Sherman

by

#1 – The gasoline engines made the tank a death trap.

A destroyed M4 Sherman tank during Operation Torch

A destroyed M4 Sherman tank during Operation Torch

One of the most popular myths surrounding the Sherman is concerning “Catastrophic hits” to the tank. That is, hits that would cause the tank to either explode or catch on fire violently. In these scenarios, the crew would typically have a very low survival rate and knock the tank out permanently. British tankers nicknamed the tank the Ronson because the lighter of the same name had a motto of “Lights the first time, every time!”.

The truth – Early in the war, the Sherman tank had a nearly identical rate of failures when compared to its contemporaries. The Panzer IV had a nearly identical rate of catastrophic failures.  Even  Belton Cooper – whose book ‘Death Traps’ was highly critical of the M4 Sherman’s performance did note several times that German anti-tank crews had a very difficult time catching the tank on fire

In mid 1944, the US introduced wet stowage to the ammo compartment of the tank. By all accounts, the rate of failure decreased by an overwhelming 75%. This decrease dropped failures to even blow that of the dreaded Tiger tank.

 

 Myth #2 – The 75mm cannon could not destroy enemy tanks

This is by far one of the most perpetuated myths concerning the Sherman tank.

It is partially true, but only when combined with poor US anti-tank doctrine as perpetuated by General Lesley McNair. Many historians remember that in his opinion, tanks were not to be used against other tanks. However one thing not realized is that his opinion had even worse effect on tank crews – They were issued old, out-dated armor piercing ammunition.

From 1943 onward, the US military had in its posession an extremely effective anti-tank round for the 75mm cannon called the M61 APCBC.

The APCBC could actually penetrate the  Tiger tank from ALL aspects as well as the Panther in most regards. It could penetrate nearly 100mm of enemy armor from 500 yards, and over 90mm from a thousand yards. This was enough to penetrate the rear or side armor of the Tiger from the longer distance, or at a distance of 500yds, penetrate the tiger from the front. Many critics of the M4 do note that the up-gunned tanks carrying the 76mm gun could take on a tiger, yet the armor penetration of the 76mm is only 5% better than the 75mm armed with the M61 APCBC ammunition. Sadly, due to McNair’s orders, APCBC was not issued to tankers, and instead substituted with an inferior type of ammunition (The standard APC, which had 30% less penetration characteristics.

The Russians were quite a fan of the power of the 75mm cannon the Shermans. the difference between the way the USSR employed them and the way the US did was the fact that they actually issued the M61 APCBC to their troops.

 

This test was performed firing a 75 mm M3 gun from an M4A2 Sherman with M-61 and M-72 rounds. Here are the results:

  • Side, shell type M-61, distance 400 m. Result: penetration, spalling inside in an area of 300 mm by 300 mm
  • Side, shell type M-72, distance 625 m. Result: penetration, minor spalling on entrance and exit.
  • Side: shell type M-72, distance 625 m. Result: same as above.
  • Turret: shell type M-61, distance 650 m. Result: dent 50 mm deep, 140 mm diameter. Penetration of the turret platform.
  • Turret: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: dent 40mm deep, 120mm diameter.
  • Side: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: Penetration. Shell knocked out a cork-like section of armour.
  • Side: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: same as above.

 

 

Myth #3 – The armor was paper thin

Often the M4′s armor is compared to that of the Panther and the Tiger, where it fares poorly. The T34 however is compared and often touted as one of the best-protected tanks during the entire war.

The truth is pretty simple and straight forward – The Sherman’s armor was nearly identical to the T34, later in the war it was even increased well beyond the T34′s armor. The Sherman offered around 50mm of frontal armor at a 45 degree angle, offering 70mm of armor in relative thickness. The T34 offered about 40mm of armor at a 45 degree angle, or 56mm of relative thickness.

Overall, the armor was inferior to that of the Panther or Tiger, but was superior to tanks that were more similar in usage – The T34 and the PzIV.

The Sherman tank featured up to 50mm of frontal armor that was angled at around 45 degrees which was nearly identical to that of the T34 which had . As a comparison, the PzIV Ausf G had frontal armor of only about 50mm at a 60 to 90 degree angle depending on upper/lower sides – A relative thickness of only 55mm. Additionally, the Pz V Ausf G (Panther) had 60mm to 80mm of frontal armor at a 55 degree angle – A relative thickness of 73mm to 97mm.

So , a summation of the following armor characteristics :

 

Tank Name PzIV Ausf G T34-76 T34-85 M4 Early M4 Late Panther Tiger
Relative Thickness 55mm 56mm 70mm 70mm 80mm 90mm 100mm

 

In the end, the Sherman may not be the best tank on the face of the planet, but it was hardly a pushover against ANY tank on the battlefield. It compared very well against the Panther and could put the hurt on a Tiger should it be needed. It was additionally far superior to the Pz4 or Stug3 which were the most common armored vehicles it would have encountered in ww2. Much of the hate against the Sherman has been perpetrated post war and sadly most of it is from Belton Cooper.

If you’re interested in reading a quality rebuttal against Belton Cooper’s anti-Sherman book “Death Traps”, here’s one of the best from Amazon.

 

Death Traps, a poorly written memoir by Belton Y. Cooper promises much, but delivers little. Cooper served as an ordnance lieutenant in the 3rd Armor Division (3AD), acting as a liaison officer between the Combat Commands and the Division Maintenance Battalion. One of the first rules of memoir writing is to focus on events of which the author has direct experience; instead, Cooper is constantly discussing high-level or distant events of which he was not a witness. Consequently, the book is riddled with mistakes and falsehoods. Furthermore, the author puts his main effort into an over-simplified indictment of the American Sherman tank as a “death trap” that delayed eventual victory in the Second World War.

 

Cooper’s indictment of the Sherman tank’s inferiority compared to the heavier German Panther and Tiger tanks ignores many important facts. First, the Sherman was designed for mass production and this allowed the Allies to enjoy a 4-1 superiority in numbers. Second, fewer than 50% of the German armor in France in 1944 were Tigers or Panthers. Third, if the German tanks were as deadly as Cooper claims, why did the Germans lose 1,500 tanks in Normandy against about 1,700 Allied tanks? Indeed, Cooper claims that the 3AD lost 648 Shermans in the war, but the division claimed to have destroyed 1,023 German tanks. Clearly, there was no great kill-ratio in the German favor, and the Allies could afford to trade tank-for-tank. Finally, if the Sherman was such a “death trap,” why did the US Army use it later in Korea or the Israelis use it in the 1967 War?

 

There are a great number of mistakes in this book, beginning with Cooper’s ridiculous claim that General Patton was responsible for delaying the M-26 heavy tank program. Cooper claims that Patton was at a tank demonstration at Tidworth Downs in January 1944 and that, “Patton…insisted that we should downgrade the M26 heavy tank and concentrate on the M4..This turned out to be one of the most disastrous decisions of World War II, and its effect upon the upcoming battle for Western Europe was catastrophic.” Actually, Patton was in Algiers and Italy for most of January 1944, only arriving back in Scotland on 26 January. In fact, it was General McNair of Ground Forces Command, back in the US, who delayed the M-26 program. Cooper sees the M-26 as the panacea for all the US Army’s shortcomings and even claims that the American offensive in November 1944, “would have succeeded if we had had the Pershing” and the resulting American breakthrough could have forestalled the Ardennes offensive and “the war could have ended five months earlier.” This is just sheer nonsense and ignores the logistical and weather problems that doomed that offensive.

 

Cooper continually discusses events he did not witness and in fact, only about one-third of the book covers his own experiences. Instead of discussing maintenance operations in detail, Cooper opines about everything from U-Boats, to V-2 rockets, to strategic bombing, to the July 20th Plot. He falsely states that, “the British had secured a model of the German enigma decoding machine and were using it to decode German messages.” Cooper writes, “not until July 25, the night before the Saint-Lo breakthrough, was Rommel able to secure the release of the panzer divisions in reserve in the Pas de Clais area.” Actually, Rommel was wounded on 17 July and in a hospital on July 25th. In another chapter, Cooper writes that, “the British had bombed the city [Darmstadt] during a night raid in February,” and “more than 40,000 died in this inferno.” Actually, the RAF bombed Darmstadt on 11 September 1944, killing about 12,000. Dresden was bombed on 13 February 1945, killing about 40,000. Obviously, the author has confused cities and raids.

 

Even where Cooper is dealing with issues closer to his own experience, he tends to exaggerate or deliver incorrect information. He describes the VII Corps as an “armor corps,” but it was not. Cooper’s description of a counterattack by the German Panzer Lehr division is totally inaccurate; he states that, “July 11 became one of the most critical in the battle of Normandy. The Germans launched a massive counterattack along the Saint-Lo- Saint Jean de Daye highway…” In fact, one under strength German division attacked three US divisions. The Americans lost only 100 casualties, while the Germans suffered 25% armor losses. The Official history calls this attack “a dismal and costly failure.” Cooper wrote that, “Combat Command A…put up a terrific defense in the vicinity of Saint Jean de Daye…” but actually it was CCB, since CCA in reserve. On another occasion, Cooper claims that his unit received the 60,000th Sherman produced, but official records indicate that only 49,234 of all models were built. Cooper claims that the 3rd Armored Division had 17,000 soldiers, but the authorized strength was about 14,500. Can’t this guy remember anything correctly?

 

Cooper’s description of the death of MGN Rose is virtually plagiarized from the official history and a number of articles in ARMOR magazine in the past decade reveal that Rose was an extreme risk-taker. Reading “Death Traps,” the uninitiated may actually believe that the US Army was badly defeated in Europe. Cooper even claims that, as the 3rd Armored Division approached the Elbe River in the last days of the war that, “with our division spread out and opposed by three new divisions, our situation was critical.” If anybody’s situation was critical in April 1945, it was Germany’s. Actually, the 3rd Armored Division had one key weakness not noted by Cooper, namely the shortage of infantry. The division had a poor ratio of 2:1 between tanks and infantry, and this deficiency often required the 3AD to borrow an infantry RCT from other units. While the much-maligned Sherman tank was far from perfect, it did the job it was designed for, a fact that is missed by this author.

Phillip McGregor (OFC)
Another interesting document is the following one showing engagement of Tigers & Pathers from 75mm and 76mm gunned Shermans.
 YoFenge

Interested in WW2? Read similar articles we’ve written like……

44 AMAZING facts about WW2

100+ Graphic photos of the Eastern Front

The cost of war – The price of weapons during WW2

44 AMAZING facts about WW2 you didn’t know

by



heMV0x3WW2 is often seen as one of the most world-changing, brutal wars in all of history. The lives of nearly every person around the world was changed in some substantive way during the 6 year period that the war was fought.
    Over the next 4 pages, we’ll list what historians we asked were the most amazing facts regarding ww2.

As time has gone on, many stunning facts are being uncovered and brought to like about the war. While some pieces of information were lost on accident, many were intentional. Coverups regarding the war are actually quite common and taken by nearly every side during the war (Yes, Virginia, the American government did plenty of lying).

So, after asking a group of historians what their favorite, unknown fact was about WW2, we put together a pretty awesome list. Warning though, some of the pictures are pretty graphic.

Next Page



The weapons of WW2 – DPM Light Machinegun

by

The DPM light Machine gun

The DPM light Machine gun

In the years following world war 1, the Soviet Union like many other countries realized it was extraordinarily important to develop a man-portable light machine gun that could be operated and carried by only one soldier.

Out of the development program, the Soviet Union developed the DP-28 (And prototype dp-26) series machine gun. For its time, it was very advanced, featuring a relatively light (25lbs / 11.5kg) package.

The DP-28 was the primary light machine gun available to the Soviet Union during the Winter War against Finland as well as for most of WW2. One of the most useful features of this machine gun was the large 47 round magazine. While inferior to the belt-fed system of the German MG34 and MG42, it had a much higher capacity than the 30 round capacity of the British Bren Gun and the 20 round capacity of the American BAR.

While the DP-28 was a extraordinarily useful gun, by 1944 the Soviet Union realized there were some major shortcomings. The DPM was manufactured to address these concerns. During the development of the gun, there were a few goals.

  • Develop a more robust bipod
  • Improve the recoil/gas system and make it adjustable for adverse conditions
  • Allow crews to disassemble the gun without removing the butt stock
  • Add a pistol-style grip to aid in function.

These issues were quickly addressed with the DPM series and production was started in 1944. While many parts are compatible with the DPM and DP-28, some are not, primarily part of the gas system and many of the dis assembly parts as well. Unlike the DP28 series, the DPM can be easily broken down without the aid of tools and serviced. One severe problem with the DP-28 series was that when the user removed the butt stock, the bolt recoil spring had a tenancy to launch from the gun under tension and become lost. This was a major concern when there were so few spare parts available. Due to the protruding recoil assembly, the bolt has more room to recoil and is under less pressure ,aiding ease of dissassembly.

DPM Light machine gun with M38 and M91/30 mosin nagants

DPM Light machine gun with M38 and M91/30 mosin nagants

Additionally, gas regulation on the DPM is superior to that of the earlier models. The recoil system can be adjusted to deal with matter buildup on parts (Due to lack of cleaning) as well as low-powered ammunition. This made the DPM much more useful in poor  conditions.

After WW2, the DPM was once updated again, forming the RP-46 which added a belt-feed system. This system allowed users to fire without the need to reload the platter-style magazine on the gun.

Further after the war, tooling was sold or given to many client states such as Poland and China. China then produced the Type 58 machine gun, which was a direct copy of the Soviet DPM.

 

The weapons of WW2 – M91/30 Mosin Nagant

by

M91-2 (Large)

This is a pre-war Mosin Nagant 91/30 manufactured in 1934.

In the 1930s, the Soviet Union determined it was necessary to upgrade their primary infantry rifle. This led to the Mosin Nagant 91/30, one of several rifles that makes up the second most produced firearm in history.

The 91/30 continued closely in the lineage of the earlier M91 rifle in the fact that it retained a 29 inch barrel length and overall length of 48.5 inches. Production started in 1930 and continued through the end of WW2 (1945). It first was attempted to be replaced by the SVT-40 and the M38 rifles. However when  war broke out production was continued due to availability of parts and tooling. Production was finally ceased (By the USSR) in early 1945 as the model was fully replaced by the M44 Mosin Nagant.

The primary differences between the M91/30 and the M91 are as follows –

  • A non-ramping rear sight that sits flat against the barrel of the rifle.
  • A hooded front sight post

Additionally as the rifle was produced closer to WW2, the USSR fit some models of the 91/30 with PE, PEM and Zeiss scopes. These were issued to snipers during ww2 and saw significant usage.

m91 (Large)

By some estimates, there are over 60 million Mosin Nagants in existence, most of which are of the 91/30 model. As the Soviet Union phased out bolt-action rifles, many were sold to foreign countries or given to pro-communist rebel groups. The Mosin Nagant in all models (Including the 91/30) are still in usage today due to the accurate and reliable nature of the rifle.

The weapons of WW2 – M38 Mosin Nagant

by

M38 Mosin Nagant manufactured in 1940

M38 Mosin Nagant manufactured in 1940

Just prior to the opening of WW2, the Soviet army was in the middle of several firearm upgrade programs. One was the SVT semi-automatic rifle program, the other was upgrading the production of Mosin Nagants from the 91-30 model to the M38 model.

Unlike its predecessor, the M38 incorporated a much needed shortening of the barrel down to a more manageable length of a little over 20 inches. This enabled the rifle to be much more manageable, over the M91 series which at total length of 48.5 inches (128.5cm).

M38 rifles have found their way into surplus markets around the world and are highly sought after due to their rarity compared to the much more produced M91/30 and the M44. These rifles also served as a prototype for the final M91/30 replacement – The M44. The primary difference between the M38 and M44 was the additional of a permanent, folding bayonet on the side of the rifle. The M38 lacks the bayonet which was one of the primary complaints about the rifle.

A M38 Mosin Nagant (Left) with a M91/30 (right).

A M38 Mosin Nagant (Left) with a M91/30 (right). Both rifles are pre-war issue.

Although production began in 1938-9 of the rifle, the production was tapered severely during WW2 in favor of the more well known 91/30 series rifle.

Overall the craftsmanship of the M38 is fantastic, and most collectors enjoy keeping them in their collection to use as regular use rifles.

Market value on these rifles is also superior to that of many series of Mosin Nagants, ranging from a low end of $200 to upwards of $600. One of the more important characteristics to look for if collecting is all matching serial numbers (As many post-war refurbs have mismatched parts) and correct pre-war M38 stock which lacks bayonet cutouts.

The AMAZING costs of WW2 weapons

by



MP_40_AYF_2
WW2 was fought on many fronts : The air, land , sea and in factories. Many times people can not grasp the actual cost of weapons during war, so we have researched and found the cost of many common (and not so common) weapons from WW2.

Did you know, for the cost of ONE M1 Garand, you could have approximately 5 M3 grease guns, and for one MG42 you could have a similar number of K98s.

Let’s begin with infantry weapons



10 Things they never told you about the moon landing

by

il_570xN.311721352In its relatively short history, America is known for a lot of things. The Revolutionary War, Apple Pie, Honey Boo Boo, and many other cultural and historical contributions. But what event outshines them all? We believe the Apollo Program outshines them all on the scale of America’s greatest moments.

But why was July 20th, 1969 and the following landings so important? We discuss ten reasons as to why it’s still relevant, and still one of the most meaningful contributions America has made to the world.

 

#1 – We Did it to Beat the Commies

Rocky and Apollo Creed. The Jedi and Sith. Ohio State and Michigan. The Axis and Allies. Throughout movies, sports, and history, there have been many mortal enemies that have fought against one another. By 1961, the United States had been embarrassed multiple times by communist countries. First by the Soviet Union successfully launching Sputnik 1 in 1957, and more recently by Yuri Gargarin’s orbit of Earth in Vostok 1, as well as the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion.

Gumdrop_Meets_Spider_-_GPN-2000-001100America was reeling from its many losses. So what did President John F. Kennedy do? He delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress on May 25th, 1961. In the speech, he told those in Congress and the American people that we would embark on one of the largest projects in American history, beating our hated rivals, the Soviet Union, in a field they had recently had much more success in.

Imagine having a neighbor that had a party featuring a loud stereo system that was the envy of everyone on the block. To get back at him, you throw your own party, and get Aerosmith to play it. That is an apt comparison of exactly what JFK decided that America would do in response to the Soviet’s achievements, providing history with the greatest tale of one-upping the competition. Although JFK wasn’t around alive to see the results (Richard Nixon, his adversary in the 1960 US Presidential Election did), it cemented his legacy as one of the 20th centuries’ most remarkable presidencies.

So what happened to the Soviets after the Moon Landing? Very little, and that is exactly what NASA and the ghost of JFK wanted. The Soviets never attempted to land on the Moon, and their contributions to records in space began to steadily decline. If you ever want to see how sad the Soviet and Russian programs have become, just take a look at their Buran Space Shuttle. They did take some cool pictures of Venus, though.

 

 

#2 – The Average Age of a NASA Engineer Was 28 at the Moon Landing

 

The Moon Landing was something only dreamed about in sci-fi literature prior to the 1960s. Even when America embarked on the path to the Moon, there was a lot of hatred over the supposed boondoggle. Such hatred was probably rational in the early 60s. After all, about half of America had grown up without indoor plumbing, so how was it we were going to put someone on an alien surface 250,000 miles away?

The impossible was accomplished with the 1960′s equivalent of Sheldon Cooper. Even then, its not a fair comparison, as the average engineer was even younger than The Big Bang Theory’s wunderkind. This was in stark contrast to the NASA of today, which has an average age of 47. Some of America’s most incredible advancements have been accomplished by young men and women, such as the Manhattan Project, as the average age of their scientists was just 25 years old.

Pictured to the right is a man named John Wolfram. Other than having an awesome last name, he was one of four Navy SEALs who were part of assisting the Apollo 11 crew after splashdown. He was just 20 years old when he attached a 200-pound sea anchor to the capsule, ensuring the survival of Neil Amstrong and company after their triumphant return to Earth. His story and contribution was one of the many thousands involved in the Apollo program.

Trusting your life in the hands of a kid fresh out of college is an incredible act of faith, but that’s exactly what countless astronauts did leading up to, and through the moon landings. So the next time your Starbucks barista begins to tell you about her amazing career in gender-sensitive sustainable quinoa farming, remind her that the kids her age used to be more concerned with inventing nukes and getting people to the moon.

 

#3 – There’s an American flag on the Moon

 

Planting an American flag has become one of the countries’ greatest feats and accomplishments through very turbulent times. Marines planted a flag on Iwo Jima on February 23rd, 1945, despite huge firefights in the vicinity of Mount Suribachi. Likewise, after the tragic events of 9/11, another iconic picture was taken of firefighters raising the US flag over the rubble of the World Trade Center.

Yet despite those two events, there is one flag that is likely still there, just as it was over 40 years ago – the American flag on the moon. Although according to Buzz Aldrin, the flag was tipped over as the astronauts left the Moon in the Lunar Lander, its still quite an accomplishment, as scientists still have evidence that the flag is indeed there.

Originally, the plan was to plant a UN flag on the Moon, but thank God it was nixed. Can you imagine the most permanent symbol on the moon being an agency that excels at nothing?

Every lunar landing has seen the planting of the Stars & Bars somewhere on its barren surface. If aliens have ever visited the Moon, then there is no doubt as to who has been there.

#4 – No One Has Copied It

 

Apollo_10_Lunar_ModuleTechnology has progressed at an incredible pace since the dawn of even the 18th century. Lifestyles and livelihoods change with each generation. Yet one thing has remained consistent for the past 43 years: No one has landed on the Moon except for American astronauts.

Let’s put that in perspective: In 44 years, aviation went from the Wright Flyer 1 to the F-86 Sabre Jet. In another 43 years, military aircraft like the F-117 Nighthawk stealth bomber had just begun to fly from secret locations to blow up unsuspecting bad guys like a ninja version of Rambo. Yet in a similar time span, no one has even come close to the accomplishments of NASA and the Apollo astronauts. Even the Chinese are still decades away from landing on the Moon, despite the fact they always find a way to make an inferior copy of something in a few weeks.

If someone ever lands on the Moon again, its likely they’re going to be American, too. Companies like SpaceX and the newly-announced Golden Spike are planning on returning where Neil, Buzz and the boys played golf a generation ago. When it happens, the likely 50-year record will be something for the ages. And its all thanks to the men (and probably a few women, too) that risked their lives to do something few thought possible.

 

 

#5 – They Invented It All To Get There

 

Invention is the mother of necessity, they say. In the case of going to the Moon, an incredible number of things had to be invented. When Kennedy announced that we were going to the Moon, the US hadn’t even sent a man into space (John Glenn did the next year aboard Friendship 7). Much less, the amount of technology it takes to put a man on the Moon is vastly higher than it is to simply get them to orbit in space. It’s like the difference between a Lady Gaga song, and Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata. Sure, they’re both music, but guess which one was harder to compose?

For example, rockets are a critical component of getting anything into outer space. But not just any rocket will do. It required the aptly named Saturn V. Badass Supreme may have been an even more apt name, but we’ll settle for the Roman god of liberation. The Saturn V tipped the scales at 6.2 million pounds fully fueled. How big is that? Other than the nifty comparison chart below, lets put it a few other ways:

 

1 Saturn V rocket is the same weight as:

17,500 Ford Mustangs
1,460 F-16 Falcons, Fully Loaded
46 M-1 Abrams Battle Tanks

And of course, the Saturn V goes directly up into space, making it an unbelievable feat. The Saturn V is the only launch vehicle to have sent humans to the Moon. Its just one of many things invented to get Americans to the Moon. So what else was invented from the Apollo Program? Kidney dialysis machines, water filtration systems, cooling suits, and range-of-motion exercise equipment. They aren’t quite as awesome as a 3,000 ton rocket that could put people on the Moon, but they’re existence is tied to the Lunar landings.

 

 

#6 – NASA Brought Everyone Back Alive

 

Apollo_11Exploration can come at a huge price. If you don’t believe us, just ask the Donner Party. In the pursuit of incredible achievements, there is always the possibility of tragedy. However, tragedy among the Apollo Program was almost non-existent. Of the 12 men that landed on the Moon, everyone came back. That is not to say there weren’t incredible risks surrounding the missions, as we all learned when Tom Hanks and company witnessed Ron Howard rupture an oxygen tank on Apollo 13. However, thanks to some incredible ingenuity and the will to survive, the crew made it back to Earth safely. Three people did die as a result of the program (Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee), but all were Earthside.

Comparatively, the Soviet program was a little more reckless with its projects. The true cost of lives is likely locked forever away inside destroyed records from the Soviet Union, but we do know that at least 4 cosmonauts died prior to the completion on the Apollo program. Additionally, if any of the Lost Cosmonaut theories were true, it would add significantly to the numbers of people the Soviet Union lost during their space program.

You also have the utter failures of NASA post-Apollo with two shuttle disasters. Its interesting to compare the results of safety standards in the 1960s with the Apollo and Gemini programs, and contrast them to the Shuttle Program. In 135 STS launches, 12 people died, or approximately 1 per 11 launches. Comparatively, zero died from 11 manned Apollo missions, 10 Gemini missions, and various other launches throughout the 60s and 70s. We do note, though, that many men gave their lives during Earth-based training, but its still a stark comparison between launching men into outer space among both programs.

 

 

#7 – One Small Leap for Man, One Giant Leap for ‘Merica-kind

 

Its estimated that 530 million people tuned in to watch the Moon landing. It was only in 2006 that any other even rendered audiences as captive as Neil Armstrong walking on the moon. Given the number of actual TV sets worldwide at the time, its likely a feat never to be repeated. Its been argued that for a moment in time, the whole world was unified in watching Neil utter his historic phrase.

But what has the impact been since the Moon landing? There are many arguments that discuss the impact of the Apollo Program. But the cultural influence can’t be denied, as its very rare that anyone can think of a more important achievement that was watched worldwide. If anything is to be argued, the Lunar Landings sparked a huge cultural shift into everything America. More and more nations began to become steeped in Americana thanks to the television, and the quintessential live spectacle of the landings.

Since then, the goal of beating the Soviets wasn’t just achieved, but it (along with Reagan’s Star Wars Death Ray) was likely a gentle push to destroy the Soviet Union. They couldn’t compete with American dollars in sending people to the Moon. From 1969 on, communism began its slow decline worldwide. Up to that point, it had taken over the hearts and minds of so many. But since 1969, only a handful of tinpot premiers have tried to captivate people with ‘ole Karl Marx. There are probably many reasons for that, but we’d like to argue that the Moon Landing was the watershed moment that told the commies that Democracy and Capitalism could do far more amazing things than bread lines and Bolshevik revolutions.

 

 

#8 – The Event Was So Awesome, It Had to Be Fake

 

800px-Apollo_11_Crew_During_Training_Exercise_-_GPN-2002-000032Everyone loves a conspiracy theory, don’t they? According to some, the same government that blew up the Twin Towers in NYC, killed JFK (or did Castro do that?), and many other clandestine activities isn’t adept at launching a rocket to the Moon. Conspiracies are nothing new, but there have been many people involved in trying to provide proof that the landings were fake.

Although NASA and the astronauts that went to the moon are pretty pissed off at the people that believe they spent $25 billion USD on Hollywood movie sets, it does speak to an interesting aspect of the Moon Landings: Nothing that awesome has ever happened, nor happened since, so it must be fake.

It doesn’t take a genius, or Buzz Aldrin beating the tar out of Bart Sibrel to provide a laundry list of reasons that we went to the Moon, as well as why we never went back. The Apollo landing was a massive government undertaking, which at its peak soaked up almost 5% of the federal government’s annual budget. Most of the reason we never went back (or to Mars for that matter) is simply because there isn’t enough money to go back. Since 1972 – the last year we landed on the Moon – NASA’s budget has been cut by 66% in terms of total government outlays, and approximately 50% in constant 2001 dollars. Despite advances in technology, its still very expensive to go back to the Moon. However, that is changing rapidly, as SpaceX and Golden Spike believe they can go back to the Moon for just $1.5 billion USD – less than 1/10th of NASA’s Apollo budget. If and when someone goes back, maybe they can send some pictures back of the fake Hollywood set Neil, Buzz and friends made on the Moon.

 

 

 

#9 – Every Footprint on the Moon is American

 

When was the last time you bought a shoe made in America? It seems today that everything is made overseas, from shoes to Shake Weights, its either from China, or a country you can’t pronounce. There is one place, though, that has only American-made boots on the ground, and that is the object directly above us – the Moon. Other countries have landed probes on the Moon, but its been incredibly rare. In fact, the Soviets launched (and failed) 21 times before they finally put the Luna 9 on the Moon.

 

In fact, the United States is the only country still in existence that has any material on the Moon, thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union. This should speak volumes of the dedication and value that America has placed on the Moon.
In the future, countries will likely fight over who owns the Moon, if anyone is allowed to own it. Unlike most any other exploratory event that has taken place on Earth, the first Moon landing was and is uniquely American, and will always be. America does certainly owe a great debt of gratitude to men like Nazi Mad scientist turned NASA architect Werner Von Braun, who came to America to help develop the American space program. Certainly, it took other men and women scattered throughout the Earth to ensure each mission was on track that went into orbit, but it does not change that the undertaking was, and will always be an American initiative.
And thanks to the vacuum of space, many instruments remain on the Moon, just as they were when they were left there 40 years ago. One day, when we colonize the Moon, they will be put into museums, and every piece involved in the landing will say or at least infer the slogan “Made In America”.

#10 – We Didn’t Kill Anyone To Get It Done

 

There are a lot of badass events in America’s history. The signing of the Declaration of Independence, freeing the slaves, defeating the Nazis and Imperial Japanese, bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice, and so many more acts of defiance, courage and bravery. Yet in almost every instance, badass has also meant bloody. Landing on the Moon was done without bloodshed, as far as we know.

 

Maybe as history goes forward, more can learn from what NASA accomplished in a 12 year span. It may or may not be governments that accomplish greater feats in space, but anyone that attempts to beat NASA should at least be in awe of what many young men and women endeavored to achieve – all without killing or subjugating someone else to get it done. Given the aforementioned Von Braun’s involvement in the project, its also a tale of redemption of a man that was able to turn the proverbial sword into a spaceship.

In the years following the Apollo missions, many children found a new love for space and space travel, and have taken up the banner of continuing the development of space travel and exploration. Visionary men like Elon Musk, John Carmack and Richard Branson have used (and in many cases, mentioned) the Moon landings as a stepping stone to what they’re currently doing to further space travel where NASA can no longer tread.

Its our hope at SpaceO that the Lunar landings continue to inspire young men and women to dream large and work hard until the day that the achievement becomes common place, and at that time, find new challenges to take on.