HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amichiel@mailbox.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen)
Subject: Re: nuclear satellites
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:24:24 GMT


From amichiel@mailbox.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen)


>From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>>From bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)
>>I have heard of the nuclear reactor satellites a couple times here.  Could 
>>someone provide a few more details on this?  I would think that such 
>>satellites would be banned under a nuclear munitions in space treaty of...
>
>...nuclear reactors are not weapons...and not covered...
>There has been occasional talk about banning reactors from low
>Earth orbit due to the safety issues, ... 

>The US flew one nuclear reactor in space, as an engineering test in the 60s.
>The Soviets have flown several tests, plus an operational nuclear-powered
>military radar satellite program.

Because of the dim witted american public, the US is very behind as far as
nuclear power use on space 'stuff'.  The Soviets have been using them quite
successfully for a number of years.  Now, with 'events' in the (former)
Soviet Union,...  The world (and the U.S.) was afraid about nuclear technology
leaking from the former Soviet Union into the third world.  The U.S. is 
spending money (bribe money if you will) to keep this from happening.  One
of the programs which would have done this was a program to buy space reactors
from the soviets for study and possible eventual use in U.S. programs.  However
the political aspects of this was so dirty to congress that it was canned.
So, instead of buying a soviet space reactor, we sell them grain at lower than
market prices and give them money (and credits).  (Don't take this to mean we
shouldn't help thworld or the former soviet states, we should, but the actual
costs of this should be shown to U.S. citizens, not the smoke and mirrors
we currently have...).

al




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 4 October, 1942
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:28:08 GMT


From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au

In sci.military you write:


>From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)

>Sunday, 4 October, 1942

>General Paulus opens a new series of attacks in Stalingrad.  Combat

Shouldn't his proper title be "Von Paulus" ?

-- 
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stuart Grant <grant@psych.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: Canadian Frigate Program
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:25:45 GMT


From Stuart Grant <grant@psych.toronto.edu>


From Stuart Grant <grant@psych.toronto.edu>

In article <Bw0oxH.M0u@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gene Moreau) writes:
>I remember hearing about that. The pilot tried using a Sidewinder against
>it.  Don't they teach air to ground stuff with the cannon here?  I guess
>it is a heat seeking missle, but still, not designed for surface use. Do
>we even have and AG stuff for the CF-18's  You'd think if they were out on
>patrol for ships they's have a harpoon or two.  Even a Maverik or something.

As I recall, they were on an air-defense mission and the boat was a target
of opportunity. The cannon would no doubt have been able to eliminate the
boat, but to use the cannon the boat would have had to move within shoulder
launched SAM range. THe pilot probably decided that it wasn't worth 
risking his expensive airplane and skin to take out a meaningless little
boat. I've never heard of using a sidewinder against a surface target. It
sounds like a waste of a sidewinder [ and my tax dollars! :-) ].

I believe that the only air to ground weapons in stock right now are 
iron bombs and rockets. The C7 rockets are supposed to be pretty good
as rockets go, and there is a special version for naval targets. Of
course there was talk about buying smart weapons after Desert Storm.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Subject: Re: Canadian Frigate Program
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:38:57 GMT


From youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)

In <BvnEyw.Iy5@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:


>From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)

>In article <BvI6EK.L8A@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant) writes:

>First Question:  The number of SAM's depends on what the ship's primary 
>purpose.  Since the Halifax has a towed array sonar, and ship-board torpedoes,
>it would seem that it is primarily an Anti-Sub Warfare (ASW) frigate.  This 
>means that in any operational scenario, it would operate in conjunction with 
>Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) frigates and destroyers, armed with more powerful SAM 

   This in in fact the case; our DDH 280-class destroyers have just been
   upgraded for an expanded anti-air role. They carry the Mk41 VLS with 29
   SM2MR Block II SAMs, which have a 50nm range. They also have very good
   air and surface search sensors. A typical Canadian task group such as
   that sent to the Gulf used to include 3 destroyers and a replenishment
   ship; now it will most likely have a DDH 280 in command/control and AAW
   roles, with 2 or 3 Canadian Patrol Frigates and a replensihment ship.

>Second Question:  The EH101 was designed, as far as I know, with the option of
>an anti-ship missile armament.  Whether this will be the Harpoon, or some 
>European missile like the British Sea Eagle or the French Exocet, remains to be

   You could probably do it, but I doubt it will happen. The Canadian Navy is
   You could probably use the EH101 with Harpoons, but I don't see it. Canada
   is not primarily an anti-surface navy; our ships are designed for convoy
   escort, and sovereignty protection. The role played in the Gulf,namely
   enforcing the blockade, is perfectly suited to the Halifax-class CPFs. 
   Besides, we have F/A 18's to take out ships and stuff (which were also
   active during the Gulf; although we only got 1 ship target).

   Are there any Canadian Gulf veterans out there? I'd be interested in
   hearing from you.        

   Scott Young
   youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>
Subject:  Long-ago followup - 36th Infantry
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:29:12 GMT


From     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>


From     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>

I'd meant to post this weeks ago, and forgot to until I was reminded
today about it, so I'm combining this followup with a note on what
reminded me... :-)

Some months back, a poster whose name I no longer know asked about 
a patch he had, which looked like a green hexagon with the points
grown out -- sort of like an aerial view of an old-time fortification.
It was cited as being the patch of the "36th Infantry". We had some
discussion about this, since I found an illustration of a patch for the
36th Infantry Division, which was an arrowhead with a letter "T" 
superimposed. ^^^^^^^^

That referred to their origins as a Texas National Guard division. We
never had any further discussion, but I had remarked that the mysterious
green hexagon patch might be for a Regiment, which my sources did not
go into.                           ^^^^^^^^

Well, some months after that, I was at a gun show which included a
vast display of gun and military-related books. I found a thick $30+
volume of US military insignia and patches, and in it was the green
hexagon thing. It really was the patch of the 36th Infantry Regiment!
                                                            ^^^^^^^^
I had meant to tell the list of this right away, but forgot. Was just
reminded today when I found a book on the sale rack at a local B. Dalton's
for $2.99: AMERICAN MILITARY INSIGNIA, by William Fowler (1990, Mallard
Press). This is one of those 8.5" X 11" thin books designed to be sold
at a supposed "discount" price and really isn't all that good, but I
guess it's worth three bucks. I thought I'd mention it in case other 
US sci.military readers wanted to check their local B. Dalton's for 
this book. It has a big round yellow "$5.98" sticker on it which the
local store had put a "$2.99" sticker over. It is only 80 pages long.

Unfortunately, this book also ignores Regimental insignia. I wonder why
so many of these so-called "references" ignore Regiments? The word
isn't even in the index! That book I had found at the gun show was far
better than these, but cost a lot, too... :-)

Regards, Will
wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil

PS to moderator: Where is the mailed sci.military Digest? The last one
received here was #3 dated 30 Sep 92, but actually e-mailed 5 Oct 92.  WM

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Jon C. R. Bennett" <jb7m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:37:28 GMT


From "Jon C. R. Bennett" <jb7m+@andrew.cmu.edu>


wernick@cpoint.clearpoint.com (Rich Wernick) writes:
> From wernick@cpoint.clearpoint.com (Rich Wernick)
> eject. I don't remember if any of the Valkyrie crew was killed. My 

one of the pilots ejected "safely" (he suffers some broken bones i think)
the other pilot was unable to eject, the XB-70 had these escape capsules
for each pilot, as i recal the one who died could not get his to close,
the one who did get out suffered his broken (leg?) when it closed on him
while ejecting.

the Wings episode on the XB-70 gives all the details of the crash along
with some hair raising footage of the XB-70 in a slow spin on its way down
after the collision, a sight that is at the same time awe inspiring and
very sad to watch.

jon

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Subject: Re: Armored Trains in the World Wars
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:36:04 GMT


From pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)

> 
>gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu writes:
>: 
>: Does anyone out there know of english language reference material
>: that would discuss the use of armored trains during World war's one
>: and two ? 

>	Well looking at my library...From the Schiffer Military history
>books by Wolfgang Sawodny, German Armoured Trains, WW II 1939-45.
>Volumes I and II are both about the early track guarding trains of
>captured stock all the way up to the culmination of the BP 44 with
>panzerjager cars and the armoured rail cars w/panzer IV turrets and
>their 7.5 cm KwK long's. Quite some interesting material really.
>Lots of great photos and drawings. 

	Wot Ryan said.
	ISBN 088740-198-8	(Vol I)
	ISBN 088740-288-7	(vol II)

	Also:
	The Armored Train
	G Balfour
	ISBN 07314 3547 4
	Largely UK experience, pre and during WWII.

	Some minor mentions in a variety of other books.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
146 Main St			|I am the NRA.
Maynard, Mass		01754	pierson@msd27.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:32:11 GMT


From daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk

In article <BvI71n.M9s@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
> 
> <text removed>
> 
> I heard that the celebration was going to be a Peenemunde (sp?) and
> was sponsered by several large German aviation companies.  It was
> indeed canceled because of bad press.
> 

In fact it was not cancelled. The German government withdrew official support,
but it did go ahead.


Dave
-- 

David Hastings                      | "Imposition of order=escalation of chaos"
VAX Systems Programmer              |                     
Oxford University Computing Services| "Just when you think you've won the 
daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk              |        rat race, along come faster rats"
               

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: DEFCON 1
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:39:47 GMT


From "Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu>


From "Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu>

I think there may be some confusion between DEFCON and Rules of Engagement.  

DEFCON refers to the state of READINESS of the armed forces to fight. 
Whether they actually WILL fight, or "Shoot at will" as the previous
poster claimed,  depends on the Rules of Engagement that are in effect
-- an entirely different matter and one that varies within DEFCON's.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: B-70 and boron-based jet fuels
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:14:14 GMT


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From jfriday@westmark.Stanford.EDU (The Crazy Archivist)
>The XB-70 (that's as far as the project got) used six jet engines (the
>designation J93 comes to mind.)  It was intended to use a boron-based
>fuel (well it was something involving boron), but I don't know that anything
>much became of that plan...

"Zip fuel", the program for boron-based fuels, was basically a blind alley.
Initially, on paper, it looked good.  In theory, performance would be better
with hydroboranes than with hydrocarbons.

In practice, it had problems.  The fuels were hard to make.  They tended
to react spontaneously with air.  They were toxic.  But worst of all, the
combustion products included things like boron oxides that were *solids*
at jet-engine temperatures, meaning that you got the most horrible
imaginable deposits of refractory ceramic glop on exposed surfaces.
It quickly became clear that boron-burning turbojets were not going to
work; at best, you could build a conventional kerosene-burning turbojet
with a boron-fuel afterburner.  While *that* did work, and the original
B-70 engine design used it, the boost in performance was modest and the
eventual decision was that it wasn't worth the complexity of two separate
fuel systems and all the headaches of boron-based fuels.

>The outer third or so of each wing bends downward to help the plane ride
>on it's supersonic shockwave.

Nope, sorry, the outer-wing folding had nothing whatever to do with
compression lift.  It was done to improve lateral stability and reduce
the rearward shift of the center of lift at high speed.  The crucial
items for compression lift were the shape of the wing and the main
body below it.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Japanese Strategy in WWII
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:39:11 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

Considering the amount of naval that the US laid down starting in
1940 I have a very hard time believing that any rational Japanese
strategist could possibly believe that they could win a war of at-
trition with the US. Everything I've read indicates that the Japa-
nese expected to be able to negotiate a settlement from a position 
of strength due to their assumption that the US had no stomach for 
a prolonged war.

PHIL
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:45:54 GMT
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <BvytKF.rp@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
> 
> From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
> 
> 
> In <Bvtp4A.6Gs@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> cbj005@cch.coventry.ac.uk (The Mistress) writes:
> 
>>	Also, how widespread was the use of the Pz 1 and Pz 2 in the  German  in
>>the  early  war  period, were they widely used or largely scrapped as the
>>newer Pz 3 came into service.

Launch dates German AFV's

PzKpfw I

1934

comprised 1/3 force available in 1939
523 available during invasion France
last used operationally 1941 Western Desert (in significant numbers anyway)

armed with 2 * 7.92mm MG's

PzKpfw II

1935, full production 1937

1226 in use in 1939
950 involved in Poland
1060  in Russia
no figures for France

armed with 20mm gun, coaxial 7.92 mm MG

variants include several SP Guns such as the Wespe (105mm howitzer)
and the Flammpanzer Luchs flamthrowing vehicle.

PzKpfw III

1936
965 Mk A-M used in Russian invasion

A-E generally armedwith 37mm guns of varying design.  Also differing amounts of
armour.

F-M (starting 1940) armed with 50mm guns, ranging from the shortbarrelled L42
to the excellent long barrelleed KwK39.

N starting '42-3, infantry support vehicle equipped with 75mm short barrelled
howitzer.

Derivatives include the Sturmgeschutz III range of vehicles and several SP
gunssuch as the Marder III.

PzKpfw IV

A-E 75mm short barrelled howitzer for infantry support.  First used 1940.
F 75 long barrel.
H-J  75 L 48.

derivatives include the Nashorn, Brummbar and Jagdpanzer IV.

TIGER I

1942.

88 L48 gun, in excess 100mm frontal armour.

TIGER II

1944

88 L70

PANTHER

1942

75mm gun

> 
> A possibly related question:
> 
> The German 37mm anti-tank gun was used widely in early part of the war.

Dates of entry for AT Guns, British and German.
source: War MAchine Magazine, 144 volume serial detailing a specific facet of
warfare each  month.

BRITAIN:

2pdr

delivered 1938
armour penetration: 53mm@455m
calibre: 40mm

6pdr

delivered late '41
penetration: 68.6mm @ 915m
calibre 57mm

17pdr

1942
130mm @ 915m (standard AP shot, no info on HESH etc.)
76.2mm calibre

GERMAN

37mm Pak 35/36

delivered 1928

penetration 38mm @ 365m

50mm Pak 38

mid 1940
101mm @ 740m using AP40, tungsten cored ammunition - no info on standard stuff.
(this gun/ammo combination was essential to defeat the T-34 when it was first
encountered)


75mm Pak 40

approx 1941

98mm @ 2,000m using ap40 again
154mm @ 500m again using AP40


88mm Flak 18

88mm AA gun, first used 1936

100mm @ 1830m

88mm Pak 43

1943

184mm @ 2000m

Hope this answers your question, should you require more details let me know
and I'll post them to you.

regs

Rob
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: danderer@chopin.udel.edu (Dave Anderer)
Subject: Torpedo exploders
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:50:32 GMT


From danderer@chopin.udel.edu (Dave Anderer)


Both the US and Germany had miserable experiences with their torpedo
exploders during the first few years of WWII.  One problem was that
exploders that should have activated *under* the target, didn't.

Do modern heavy torpedos - like the Mk48 and Tigerfish - have
influence exploders to explode under surface targets?  Given the
potential damage, I would assume so, but I've never seen this
particular point addressed.
-- 
    Dave Anderer        danderer@brahms.udel.edu       (302) 831-8805
Instructional Technology Center, University of Delaware, Newark, De.  19716
		"Sinners can repent; stupid is forever."

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: SCTC
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:37:33 GMT


From beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede)

>One of the prototypes was destroyed in testing when an inexperienced 
>chase pilot in an F-104 collided with it.

As I recall, there was no issue of pilot inexperience.  There was an
issue of General Electric wanting a PR photo with five GE-powered
planes in close formation. The F-104 was caught by the truly enormous
tip vortex of the XB-70 and rolled across the top wing surface,
destroying the F-104 and soon thereafter the XB-70.  

If anyone is interested, a not-too-long-ago issue of the Smithsonian
Air and Space magazine (the name escapes me) had an article on the
crash as well as some really good photos of the accident.  I'd never
seen any before, though I'd read about it. (How's that for a useful
citation?) 


	Mike

-- 
Mike Beede         Secure Computing
beede@sctc.com     1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100           
------------------ Arden Hills, MN  55112
                    (612) 482-7420

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: barrongj@cs.curtin.edu.au (Greg Barron)
Subject: Re: Question about aircrew bailing out
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:36:00 GMT


From barrongj@cs.curtin.edu.au (Greg Barron)

Curtis Gibson <curt@quest.uucp> writes:


>From Curtis Gibson <curt@quest.uucp>


>I have been wondering about the AWACS, Crystal Palace, Looking Glass,
>and other such type aircraft with large crews of radar/radio operators,
>controllers and decision makers aboard.  My question is do they have
>parachutes and an excape hatch?  I ask this because in the bad old days
>if the ballon had gone up there would not be very many airfields that
>a 707 based aircraft could safely use left to use.  Did the entire crew
>plan on ditching on I-90 or I-70 with the aircraft or could the aircraft
>commander tell them "Good luck guys, now hit the silk" and reduce the 
>number of people at risk?  Just one of those things the commute to work
>gives me time to think about.  Thanks to anyone who helps scratch this
>itch.

>Curtis S. Gibson   curt%quest.UUCP@cs.umn.edu

My brother is an AEA in a P3c and I asked him about this a while ago.

I'm pretty sure that they don't have chutes. He said that if something
goes wrong over the ocean they would ditch the plane becuase it
contains everything they would need for survival ie water, rafts etc.

A P3 can fly on 1 engine so in peace times its not very likely that
one would need to ditch. In war situations it may be a completely
different story, however.

As for AWACS and other big jets, they will probably ditch in the
ocean and over land I haven't the foggiest.

Greg

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ex Minister of Propaganda for the QMS Emperor. sigs are overated. 1st yrs suck:)
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: titanium capabilities
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 15:23:17 GMT


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
>...only way the United States is behind the CSI is the _size_ of the parts
>(e.g. aircraft wing-sized parts vs. submarine hull-sized parts). I
>don't think any significant techniques would be required to scale up...

Techniques, perhaps not, but time and capital investment, quite possibly.
Really enormous high-tech metal parts are made by fairly specialized
facilities, e.g. very large presses, which do not grow on trees.  One of
Kelly Johnson's enduring gripes -- and he probably knows more about making
titanium aircraft than anyone else in the US, since he's done it and almost
nobody else has -- is lack of systematic government funding to build better
large-scale manufacturing facilities.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroups: sci.military