Mystics & Statistics

Some comments on Kazakhstan

As I am sure a lot of people have noticed, Kazakhstan has been in the news this week. The protests there have been large and violent. They are now saying that at least 164 people have died, including 18 police. It has put an end to the influence of the longest serving FSU (Former Soviet Union) dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev. He had been in office since 1990 (when the Soviet Union still existed). Good riddance, although I am not sure he is going to be replaced by anyone any better. It does not look like this is going to turn into a budding enlightened democracy any time soon. With Russia troops in the country, who knows exactly what path this will take.

The intervening force is CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization), which had been around since 1992/1994. It has six members, Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kygyzstan and Tajikistan. Russia has the largest military of the six, with 900,000 active troops. The next largest military is 45,000. I gather most all of the members have sent troops to Kazakhstan, but clearly Russia is the dominate player. The current secretary general of CSTO is from Belarus.

At the moment, I don’t have much to say beyond what is being reported. Life has become uncomfortable for certain leaders in the FSU. The democratically elected but Russian aligned leader of Ukraine, Yanukovich, was thrown out of power in 2014 in the Euromaiden protests; the leader of Armenia, Sargsyan, was removed from office in 2018 (the Velvet Revolution); the leader of Belarus, Lukashenko, came pretty close to being thrown out of power in 2020/21 (the Slipper Revolution); and now the longest serving dictator in Kazakhstan has been thrown out of power in 2022. One does wonder who is next.

Update (1/13/22):

  1. CSTO sent around 2,500 troops.
  2. They are supposed to pull out by 19 January.
  3. Update 1/19/22: At least 225 people were killed, according to the Kazakhstan prosecutor general’s office. 
  4. Update 1/19/22: Russian and CSTO have stated they have withdrawn their over 2,000 troops deployed to Kazakhstan.

Award Dates for the Blue Max (1916)


Still sidetracked somewhat on the Great War air research. Sorry if this does not hold the interest of many of you. I have been examining the list of the first German aviators who received the Pour le Merite, commonly called the Blue Max, named after its first recipient, Max Immelmann. A total of 13 pilots were awarded the Blue Max in 1916. These first recipients are (name, number of victories, dates, date of death, age, and any notes):


1. Max Immelmann (8): 12 January 1916, KIA 18 June 1916 (25)


2. Oswald Boelcke (8): 12 January 1916, KIA (mid-air collision) 28 October 1916 (25)


3. Hans-Joachim Buddecke (7): 14 April 1916, KIA 10 March 1918 (27)


4. Kurt Wintgens (8): 1 July 1916, KIA 25 September 1916 (22)


5. Max Ritter von Mulzer (8): 8 July 1916, died in testing crash 26 September 1916 (23)


6. Otto Parschau (8): 10 July 1916, KIA 21 July 1916 (25)


7. Walter Hoehndorf (8), 20 July 1916, Crashed 5 September 1917 (24)


8. Ernst Freiherr von Althaus (8): 21 July 1916, died 1946 (56)


9. Wilhelm Frankl (6 or 9): 16 July 1916 or 12 August 1916, KIA (wing failure) 8 April 1917 (23) – Jewish, converted to Christianity in 1917.


10. Rudolf Berthold (8): 12 October 1916, killed in Kapp Putsch 15 May 1920 (28)


11. Gustav Leffers (8): 5 November 1916, KIA 27 December 1916 (21)


12. Albert Dossenbach (9): 11 November 1916, KIA 3 July 1917 (26) – two-seater pilot at time of award


13. Hans Berr (10): 4 December 1916, KIA (mid-air collision) 6 April 1917 (26)


 


I believe that these are all the airmen that had been awarded the Blue Max in 1916. Of those, 11 died during the war, one died violently shortly after the war, and only one died of natural causes.


According to website The Aerodrome, 81 German military aviators were awarded the Blue Max. 76 army aviators and 5 naval aviators. They also provide a listing of the 62 German aces who won it. A total of 687 Pour le Merite were awarded during the Great War.


Let me know if there is anything I have missed in this listing. Note that I have two different dates given for when Wilhelm Frankl was awarded the Blue Max.


 

U.S. Defense Budget for 2022

The U.S. Defense budget was signed into law on Monday. A few things that caught my attention:

  1. Increase of 5% (I guess we have to replace all that equipment left behind in Afghanistan).
  2. 2.7% pay raise (which I gather makes up around 2% or so of that 5% increase).
  3. Seems to be focused on keeping “pace militarily with China and Russia.”
  4. “The bill includes $7.1 billion for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and a statement of congressional support for the defense of Taiwan, measures intended to counteract China’s influence in the region.”
  5. “It also includes $300 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, a show of support in the face of Russian aggression, as well as $4 billion for the European Defense Initiative.”

Let’s look at what keeping “pace militarily with China and Russia” looks like in dollars and sense:

U.S. Budget: $768.2 billion (2022) or 3.42% of GDP in 2019.

Chinese (PRC) Defense Budget: $209.4 billion (2021) or 1.3% of GDP (2021)

Russian Defense Budget: 61.7 billion (2020-21) or 4.3% of GDP (2019).

 

See: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/biden-signs-bill-authorizing-768-2-billion-in-2022-defense-spending-including-a-2-7-pay-raise-for-service-members-into-law-01640648957?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

Russian Invasions – update 1

Well, it appears that the U.S. and Russia will hold “security talks” on Jan. 10, 12 and 13. See: https://news.yahoo.com/1-u-russian-officials-set-035411514.html

I noted in my original post post four possibilities. The last one listed was “4. Or the build up may be the message (most likely option).”

Russian Invasions | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

It does appear that the build up got Russia the attention they wanted. We shall see what comes out of these talks. Suspect they will be more symbolic than substantive.

 

Coronavirus Mortality Rates in the U.S. ?

I have not posted for a while on the Coronavirus. I noticed on my twitter that people have posted the following stats on COVID from the CDC (Center for Disease Control):

Mortality Rates:

Unvaccinated: 6.1 deaths per 100K
Vaccinated: 0.5 deaths per 100K
Boosted: 0.1 deaths per 100K


I went to their websites and tried to find the stats from the original source, but couldn’t find the magic button that led me to the magic stats, so I will just go with what I saw on twitter. After all, that is the data that is being transmitted through the aether.

Now I gather around 62% of Americans are partially or wholly vaccinated. 38% have taken no vaccines.

Now, there are a mere 331,893,745 people in the U.S. (2021 estimate).

So, 62% of 331,893,745/100K x 0.1 = 206 deaths

In this case, I am assuming that those vaccinated will be boosted. 

And, 38% of 331,893,745/100K x 6.1 = 7,693.

In this case, I am assuming these 38% will not get vaccinated. I would not be surprised if up to half of them do.

Does this really mean we are at the point that the total additional cost of the Coronavirus in the United States is less than 10,000 more lives? I find that hard to believe. In the last 28 days we have lost 35,492. Last week we lost 8,442 people.

To date, we have lost 812,283. This is out of a reported 51,564,141 cases. This calculates at a mortality rate of 1.575% or 1,575 deaths per 100K. This is much higher than 6.1 per 100K. There seems to be a disconnect here.

1. Are the CDC statistics as transmitted by twitter incorrect (I first saw them on Anthony Scaramucci’s feed, but have seen the statistics repeated on other feeds. It was labeled “Latest CDC statistic on deaths from known COVID cases”)?

2. Is the mortality rate of the Delta and Omicron variants much lower than the original virus?

3. Is this just the statistical anomaly created by the most vulnerable people having been vaccinated (or worse) and the unvaccinated are mostly younger and healthier, with a much lower mortality rate?

4. Did I make a math error here somewhere?

 

Russian Invasions

My son was texting me today about the threat Russia appears to be posing towards Ukraine. Glad he is paying attention. According to an article he read, the Russians have gathered 175,000 troops on the border and 10 days of supply.

Now, according to Wikipedia (which is usually drawn from IISS) the Ukrainian Armed Forces has 255,000 active personnel and 900,000 in reserve as of 2021. In 2016 there were 169,000 personnel in the ground forces: with two armored brigades, 13 mechanized brigades, eight air assault brigades, two mountain warfare brigades, five airmobile brigades and seven rocket and artillery brigades. In 2016 the Air Force had 36,300 personnel, the Navy had 6,500 personnel and the Special Forces had 4,000. I gather these forces have expanded since 2016.

So, it does not look like Russia is planning on marching to Kiev, especially with 10 days of supply. They are probably not even considering creating a land bridge to Crimea.

So what might they be considering:

1. Help the local governments in rebellion take the rest of Donetsk and Lugansk.
2. Replace the local governments in Donetsk and Lugansk with their own governance (possibly in anticipation of formally annexing these two areas).
3. Make violent border demonstrations.
4. Or the build up may be the message (most likely option).

I gather Russia really does not want Ukraine to join NATO. I am not sure that build ups at the border make that point. In fact, it may reinforce Ukraine’s desire to join NATO. On the other hand, invading Donetsk or Lugansk or the rest of Ukraine certainly works against that goal.

Of course the real question is not whether Ukraine wants to join NATO, I gather that is a given. The real question is NATO willing to take on the responsibility of defending Ukraine, especially with two provinces in open revolt and two entities (Crimea and Sevastopol) annexed by Russia. So far, I gather no one significant has made a clear statement on that subject one way or the other. Ukrainian’s NATO membership appears to be in permanent limbo, which I gather that is what Russia prefers. The build up may be for the sake of signaling that it should stay that way. 

One last note: the price of oil is below $70 a barrel (Brent Crude was at 69.92). Last I checked (it was a couple of years ago), Russia needed the price of oil to be at $80 or higher to balance their budget. It was there a month ago, now it is not. Running significant deficits may limit their willingness to explore military options. Perhaps the easiest way to constrain Russian adventurism is to keep the price of oil down.

Rickenbacker at Narragansett Park Speedway – 1915

On September 18, 1915 Eddie Rickenbacker (America’s top ace in the Great War) won the 100 mile race at Narragansett Park Speedway in Providence, Rhode Island. It was his third win that year.

One internet lap board has his lap leader breakdown as (100 one-mile laps):

Eddie Rickenbacker in a Maxwell: leads laps 1-36
Ralph DePalma in a Stutz: leads laps 37-44
Bob Burman in a Peugeot: leads laps 45-63
Ralph DePalma: leads laps 64-76
Eddie Rickenbacker: leads laps 77-100

See: https://www.racing-reference.info/race-results/1915_Providence_Race/UO/

On the other hand, The Boston Sunday Globe dated September 19, 1915, page 15, has a slightly different account. It says:

“He {Rickenbacker] shot into the lead on the first lap, but was crowded back into third place before the second mile ended. There he held his place watching the speed of the others and always within 50 feet of the leader.

But he had to stop in the 15th lap. He had some carburetor trouble, it was stated. Before he got going the leaders had passed around three laps. So it seemed if it was all over for him…

Rickenbacker cut loose, however, and very soon it was apparent that the little car with 1 on its radiator was coming around very frequently. First it was noticed that it had regained the laps lost to the end of the field. Then when 33 miles had been covered he had won back a lap, the leaders being 33 and Rickenbacker 31….

De Palma had the lead in the 37th mile and from that to the 57th, or a distance of 30 miles, he kept in the van. But every time he and Burman made a mile in 54 or 55 seconds Rickenbacker did it about 50 or under. So he continued to cut down the lead. Before 50 miles had been reached he had circled all the other again and so they were then but one mile ahead of him.

Burman then began to show signs of speed and to tear away from De Palma, having passed into first place on the 58th mile. And each mile, while he was leaving De Palma behind, Rickenbacker was gaining on him. The spectators then began to sit up and shout. And the shouting encouraged Rickenbacker, for he smiles and let his motor car roar its way a little faster.

When 60 miles had been reached, he was swinging around the upper curve with an abandon that seemed reckless, for he appeared to handling the car like a toy. It would whirl around and the rear wheels would start for the sky or the upper edge of the track only to get yanked back like an unruly horse that shied at a street car.

Then it would roar down the track with the driver laughing and nodding to his pit attendants, who help up blackboards telling him how fast he was going, his position, etc. Having evened up matter, it was then his plan to get the lead. De Palma was the first he went after, and when he had swung over the line on the 72nd mile and the cars tore around the first quarter, Rickenbacker went into second place.

It was now Burman only that separated him from first place. Then the real race began. One hardly realized that the Maxwell had passed when it was around again. It came so fast that people mistook it for some other car, and they asked where it was, no knowing it passed. A few times Rickenbacker was pocketed by some of the others, and to see the way he wiggled through without slower up was amazing. 

When the cars came swinging down for the 73rd mile it was seen that Rickenbacher was closing up on Burgamn. The passed over the line five seconds ahead. There was no question then of the outcome, it seemed. On the next lap they tor down side by side and it seemed was if Rickenbacker was playing with Burman.

They crossed the line with Burman four feet in the lead. For two more laps they swung around side by side and then, entering the 77th miles, Rickenbacker seemed to infuse new life into the his car, and he got into the lead. When he went over the line on that mile he was nine seconds ahead of Burman…

So as it neared the 100 mile every one was resigned to Rickenbacker’s win. And he crossed the line amid a great ovation, with 1 minute and 1 second to spare. Burman finished second, Haupt third, De Palma fourth.”

So, the  “race results” internet site only agrees with the newspaper report given at that time on lap 1, laps 37-44, laps 58-63, and laps 77-100. For the majority of the laps, they differ as to who was leading.

 

Note: The paper refers to him as Rickenbacker, although at this time he spelled his name Rickenbacher. 

Two Different Accounts of the Same Air Battle – part 2 of 2

Fokker E.III at the airport in Jaroměř, Pterodactyl Flight, Radka Máchová, 2016 – photo taken by “Portwyn” (from Wikipedia)

And then Boelcke’s letter continues, clearly referring to events on the same day (from same paragraph that says “on the 9th…”):

“The French were very cross with us about that; when the pair of us arrived at the front in the evening for a peaceful bit of hunting, practically all the French aircraft in the neighbourhood went for us. And suddenly those fellows really got megalomania and attacked me; among the assailants was a new type of biplane (with a cockpit and very fast). They appeared to be very astonished that we calmly let them attack us — on the contrary we were very pleased to run up against someone who didn’t bolt at once. After several futile attacks they retired, but we–being far from lazy–went after them, and each of us forced an enemy machine down in a glide.

As it was fairy late, we were satisfied with this success and flew off, side by side, in the direction of Douai [their home airfield]. But when I happened to look round, I saw two other machines circling about behind their lines. As I did not want to give our people in the trenches the impression that we were bolting, I signalled to Immelmann that we would fly round a couple of times, just to show that we were cock of the walk. But Immelmann misunderstood me and attacked one of the Frenchmen (Farman type, without a cockpit), who was not going to be drawn into a fight and so sheered off. But while Immelmann was busy with the Farman, the other Frenchman (a Morane-Saulnier Biplane) swooped down on him from behind. So then I had to turn back to help Immelmann, who could not see the second French machine. When the Morane saw me coming up, he turned round to meet me, I peppered his nose a bit, so that he got in a funk and turned back. That was his greatest mistake. I sat on his neck, and as I hung on and came up fairly close–up to fifty metres–it was not long before I hit him. I must have mortally wounded the pilot–suddenly he threw up both his hands and the machine went down vertically. I watched it fall, and saw it turn over a couple of times and crash about four hundred metres in front of our trenches. Our people ascertained that it was smashed to bits and both inmates dead. 

Meanwhile it had grown fairly late and was high time for us to fly home, especially as our petrol was running out. Finally we had to land about eight hundred metres in front of our aerodrome; as the corn had already been cut, we succeeded in making good landings in spite of the growing darkness.

There was much joy in the section over my new victory. Our infantry had already rung up from the trenches to announce the crash…”

Now Immelmann’s letter of 11 September;

“The following day [which would be the 10th] I forced two enemy aircraft to land. Boelcke joined in the fight with the second one.

We signalled to each other to fly home, because it was already dusk. Suddenly I saw an enemy biplane attack Boelcke from behind. Boelcke did not seem to have seen him.

As if by agreement, we both turned round. First he came into Boelcke’s sights, then into mine, and finally we both went for him and closed up on him to within 50-80 metres. Boelcke’s gun appeared to have jammed, but I fired 300 rounds. Then I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw the enemy airman throw up both his arms. His crash helmet fell out and went down in wide circles, and a second later the machine plunged headlong into the depth from 2,200 metres. A pillar of dust showed where he hit the ground.

So then home. It was almost dark. Flares were burning when we reached our aerodrome, we could see nothing of the aerodrome itself. Suddenly my engine stopped–run out of petrol. So a forced landing. I made a smooth landing in the darkness, climbed out and looked round for Boelcke. He had been flying behind me. Nothing to be seen of him. Finally–he had he same bad luck. Ran out of petrol and made a forced landing. We were welcomed with congratulations on all sides, for everyone had watched the fight and the crash which ended it through their field-glasses.”

So:

From Immelmann’s account:

  1. Immelmann victory on the 9th?
  2. 2nd Immelmann victory on the 10th?

From Boelcke’s account:

  1. Just a single Boelcke victory on the 9th or 10th?
  2. If Immelmann did shoot down a plane on the 9th or the 10th, which one was it?

By the way, with modern text messaging, emails, and tweets, will we be able to preserve these type of accounts of what happened in combat like they did with letters?

Two Different Accounts of the Same Air Battle – part 1 of 2

Fokker E.III at the airport in Jaroměř, Pterodactyl Flight, Radka Máchová, 2016 – photo taken by “Portwyn” (from Wikipedia)

On 9 September 1915, both Oswald Boelcke and Max Immelmann are credited with a kill, the 3rd kill for Boelcke and the 2nd for Immelmann. According to the Aerodrome website, Boelcke shot down a Morane two-seater in the P.M. at French lines. Immelmann shot down a biplane. We gather these claims are drawn from Norman Franks books.

See:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/germany/boelcke.php

Max Immelmann (theaerodrome.com)

Now, I do have letters from both pilots that discuss these air battles. Unfortunately, they do not agree (bolding is mine).  

From Boelcke’s letter dated 18 September 1915:

“On the 9th, we succeeded in getting on either side of huge French fighting machine, so that it did not know what to do and only escaped us by a hasty dive.”

From Immelmann letter dated 11 September 1915:

“Only yesterday and the day before yesterday it was different. I forced an artillery flier down. At first there were three enemy fighters in the neighbourhood, but after a while only me. The machine was a huge thing, with two engines and two machine guns; it was 3,400 metres up and I was 3,200. I therefore screwed myself up a bit higher on our side of the lines, and crossed when I reached 3,400.”

“Suddenly I caught sight of Boelcke, who wanted to attack, but was much lower. He followed me. After I had fired 100 rounds, the enemy began to go down. Then Boelcke was able to attack him as well. The enemy as now between two fires; he went down in a series of very risky turns. He could not escape us.”

“After I had fired 250-300 round he made a hasty landing. Unfortunately he succeeded in reaching his own ground. Meanwhile we had come down to 1,900 metres, and it was pitch dark. So home! When we landed, we found they knew all about our success. Someone had telephoned that two Fokkers had shot down an enemy fighter.”

This story continues….

 

Justinianic Plague

I have always had a certain morbid fascination with plagues. For example:

Plagues and Peoples | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

The London Plague of 1665 | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

And of course:

Plague? | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Coronavirus – One year later | Mystics & Statistics (dupuyinstitute.org)

Anyhow, saw the following article yesterday and felt it was worth re-posting: We May Have Underestimated the First Known Outbreak of Bubonic Plague

Highlights:

  1. May have killed up to half the population of the Mediterranean region at the time.
  2. “Some historians remain deeply hostile to regarding external factors such as disease as having a major impact on the development of human society…”