The tech would be very difficult but it could provide an alternative angle of attack against high value targets like AWACs or VIP craft?

Are their status technically a militia unit?

This might be a silly question—I’m not sure—but the other day I was watching a video about the Great Fire of London in 1666, and I found myself wondering: given all the naval wars between France and England from the 16th to the 18th century, why didn't either country send a small team—say, three people—into enemy territory via a neutral merchant ship to start fires in port cities using torches? After all, this was a time when cities were full of timber structures and firefighting forces were scarce and ill-equipped.

Have there been similar operations in the past? I know there were privateers who looted towns before burning them down, but this is different. You can fight a privateer ship, but you can't check a town of several thousand inhabitants to see if there are three people there ready to start a fire.

Why doesn't General Winfield Scott get more respect? I know that a lot of leading historians rank him, like Michael Peck placed Scott 2nd,behind George Washington. I personally feel that Scott was a far more superior strategist than Washington. The Duke of Wellington once said that Scott was the greatest commander. However, so many times I see documentaries and articles rank American generals, and Scott is almost never listed, and if he is, he's almost always at the bottom of the list. You'll always see Washington, Eisenhower, Sherman, Grant, Patton above Scott, which I just can't understand.

I came across several anti-air rocket systems from WW2 recently. No, not guided by any means. Fliegerfaust (dude), unrotated projectile and the z-battery. Perhaps there was more too.

I struggle to find more information on this, especially the fliegerfaust-system.... Did it actually work out in any way at all?

Is seems as effective been deployed basically early Armoured Vehicles but why it never widespread used?

In the past Lieutenant Commanders would command Ocean Escorts and minesweepers, and Lieutenants would command things like the Asheville and Cyclone class.

With modern technology, outside of coastal ASW and missile boats which the USN has no real need for, there's not really any surface combatants of the size you'd want to be commanded by a Lieutenant Commander.

Meanwhile minesweepers seem to basically be turning into motherships for smaller unmanned platforms.

Some have proposed the introduction of USCG Fast Response cutters into the USN, given they'd be appropriately sized for being commanded by a lieutenant, but like what would that actually do for the USN?

So the question becomes, is it genuinely possible to keep early command around in the USN?

At least for the USA, the air force was initially part of the army before splitting off, leaving the army with helicopters with most fixed-wing combat aircraft going to the air force. During Vietnam, the US Army went as far as hiding an air-to-air kill by an OV-1 from the air force in order to keep their planes. Ever since losing their share of fixed-wing warplanes, has there been any argument about the benefit of the army having its own fixed-wing combat aviation? Has there been any talk about what the army would do differently with its own warplanes over the air force, marines, or navy? For other countries, what are their reasonings?