HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@CANREM.COM>
Subject: no cannister-was re:t
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:22:30 GMT


From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@CANREM.COM>



>The 82nd still uses the Sheridan "Armored Recon Vehicle" with cannister rounds
>used as recently as Panama.

Actually, the 82nd also took the Sheridan to Saudi Arabia.  I'm not sure if 
they took the cannister rounds.

>The Sheridan also fires the only tube launched missle (don't ask me how to
>spell it :^) nor it's M- designator).

According to some sources, the Soviet 125mm cannon can also fire the AT-8
"Kobra" missle.

IT>What _is_ the Sheridan's main gun? How capable was the Shillelagh?

The Sheridan's main gun is the M-81 152mm gun/launcher.  It fires a 152mm
HE round, or the Shillelagh missle.  There may be other HE based rounds, I'm
not too sure.  It was originally developed for the US/West German MBT-70
programme, the amazing wonder tank of the '60s that never got past the 
prototype stage.  Some parts of the programme survived, one was the gun, the
other was the turbine engine concept, and we all know where that ended up.
The missle itself seemed okay, fast and lethal, but the gun/launcher
combination really stank.
According to what I've read, the problems with the M-551 were legion.  In
Vietnam, its armour was not up to the task of stopping VC/NVA 12.7mm machine
gun rounds, and its engine was the pits.  Also, the combustable case was a major
cause of grief, as it apparently disintegrated when the tank traversed rough
ground, leaving flammable bits of case all over the turret interior.

The M-551 was at one time part of every armoured cavalry unit - now only the 
82nd uses it, and only until something better comes along.  That should tell 
you something about it.  One of my favourite anecdotes about the Sheridan goes
like this:

An M1A1 pulls up beside a Sheridan in an assembly area.  The Abrams commander
pops out, looks at the Sheridan for a minute, and then remarks to some
onlookers:
(pointing down at M1A1)  "This is your tank."
(pointing at Sheridan)   "This is your tank on drugs."

I don't know if it's true or not, but I sure laughed.
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Iowa Upgrade
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:34:59 GMT


From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>

In article <Bz06ps.EqD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Avatar <v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> writes:
>
>Hi Folks!
>
>bf469@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Twila Oxley Price) writes:
>>      I just read an article in Nov. 92 Naval Institute Proceedings on a 
>>possible upgrade of the Iowa class battleship.  The idea is to make
>>these ships the centerpiece in a Maritime Commando Force.  The 
>>upgrades included:
>>      Extending the Range of the 16 inch guns to 100 miles by
>>utilizing 13 inch submunitions.
>>      Eliminating the 6 secondary batteries and replacing them with
>>verticle launch SM-2 standard, Tomahawk, and other new missles in 
>>development.  This would give the shia mix of over 150 missles.
>>      A reduction in compliment by over 330 men with the elimination
>>of the secondary armament.
>
>	Wow, this sounds excellent!  I am relieved that the Navy has not 
>decided to retire these fine vessels just yet, as I do believe they may fill
>a newly emerging niche in the armed forces and the world.

Alas, the Iowas have been retired AGAIN. Grumble Grumble Grumble. What's
worse, I fear the new Administration may announce a "Razor-Blade Gap" with
our economic competitors (Gotta put the economy first!) and scrap them.
Grumble Grumble Grumble. Bush & company were bad enough about scrapping
the reserve fleet. The new guys will probably be worse.

>	Does anyone have any further information about how they intend to
>extend the range of the 16" batteries, or about the 13" submunition mentioned
>above?

Supposedly, it will be a discarding sabot round. I've heard rumors of this
for years, but before reading the article in Proceedings, I'd never heard
anyone mention a 100 mile range! 50 miles was the most I'd ever heard of.

				David R. Wells

Disclaimer: The Whining and Complaints expressed in this article do not
necessarily reflect the opinions of AT&T.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Yamamoto? (was Re: Battleship Diplomacy)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:04:46 GMT


From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>

In article <BzD4Lo.IIy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Bruce Burden <bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> writes:
>
>From Bruce Burden <bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>
>
>
>>[mod note -- that one slipped by me.  From what I remember, there were 3
>>BBs in the Yamato class -- Yamato, Musashi, and Shinano.  The Shinano was
>>converted to a carrier (displaced something like 70,000 or 80,000 tons), and
>>was sunk by U.S. sub in the Inland Sea on it's way to sea trials.  Can't
>>remember the name of the sub that did the deed, but it's captain wrote a
>>book about it -- _The Sinking of the Shinano_
>>
>
>	The Shinano was lost in much the same way the Lexington (CV-3?) was
>    lost. The torpedoes cracked an aviation fuel line, and the fumes spread
>    below decks. Once this was noticed, the captain ordered ventilation
>    fans activated. However, the fumes were drawn into an arc-ing fan
>    motor and exploded.
>
I think you're thinking of the Taiho, not the Shinano. Shinano was kind
of top heavy, what with her concrete flight deck and all, and she rolled 
over and sank, but she didn't explode to my knowledge.
   By the way, Lexington was CV-2. Saratoga was CV-3.
   For what it's worth, there was supposed to be a FOURTH Yamato as well.
She was given a hull number, (no. 111) but was not officially named, although
one source I read ages ago mentioned the name "Kii", which was a Japanese
BB name proposed for an Owari class BB after WWI. She was scrapped incomplete
after Midway.

				David R. Wells

DISCLAIMER: My opinions, not AT&Ts.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us>
Subject: Re: Yamamoto? (was Re: Battleship Diplomacy)
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:28:06 GMT


From "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us>

"david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:

> I think you're thinking of the Taiho, not the Shinano. Shinano was kind
> of top heavy, what with her concrete flight deck and all, and she rolled 
> over and sank, but she didn't explode to my knowledge.

Well, I've seen several versions of what happened to the Shinano 
so I looked it up. According to "Warships of the Japanese Imperial 
Navy" US Naval Institute Press, ISBN 0-85368-151-1, the Shinano 
was torpedoed 29 November 1944 by the Archerfish and sank ... "as 
a result of uncontrolled flooding, the watertight doors for the 
extensive sub-division having not been fitted". It also noted that 
the flight deck had 3.15 inch armor, but nothing about concrete or 
being top heavy.

The Taiho was torpedoed on 19 June 1944 by the Albacore and sank 
seven hours later as the result of fuel explosions and fires, so 
that must be the one the other fellow was thinking of.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
             Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI -
                         gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: land based Phalanx
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:33:23 GMT


From Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>

In article <Bzq302.4xz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> patterso@ADS.COM (Tim J. Patterson) writes:
[Don Palmrose wrote]
>>Why not take the US Navy's Phalanx CIWS and mount it on top of a Bradley if
>
>Several people have proposed this idea in one variant or another.  I
>would guess though that the tracking radar used to track the shells
>might have substantial problems if used in many land environments.
>The ocean is one of the cleanest possible radar environments even in
>heavy seas.  When the clutter is compared to that found in many types
>of terrain, I would not be supprised to see the performance degrade to
>be unacceptable.

The usual way of dealing with clutter is to use doppler discrimination.
Anything that isn't moving fast isn't a target and is suppressed. Since
the Phalanx is designed to deal with wave skimming missiles where the
clutter environment is quite bad, I would assume it uses this technique.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: harry campbell <harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com>
Subject: Re: no cannister-was re:tank vs. helo
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:39:53 GMT


From harry campbell <harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com>


The Sheridan has a 152mm gun.  This is the same armament used on the M60A2 main
battle tank.  This gun design evolved out of the post Arab-Isreali war philosophy
that ATGM's would become the most effective tank killing weapons.  These vehicles
were given a gun that could launch an ATGM against tanks, and could shoot a
canister or low pressure HE shell for use against infantry, soft-targets, and
structures.

The Shillelagh probably compared favorably with the ATGM of its time (e.g. the Dragon),
but these missiles became quickly outdated.  Improved armor concepts (reactive and
chobham armor), more powerful tank guns with depleted uranium munitions and better
gunnery systems, and the development of much more capable ATGM's (TOW, Hellfire)
caused the 152mm gun to grow long in the tooth fairly quickly.

The Sheridan's saving grace is that it is light, very light.  Of course when you
use styrofoam blocks and molded aluminum for armor you get fairly light
protection as well.  But the airborne troops use the Sheridan because it can be
transported and delivered by air, it does provide a direct fire bunker busting 
punch that they would otherwise be without, and against older vehicles like the
T-55's and T-60's of the Iraqi army, it could be employed as a tank destroyer.

I do remember hearing stories that the Sheridan, being so light, had terrible recoil
problems when firing the cannister rounds.  The shock of firing could sometimes
damage the ATGM guidance system, and you better not crouch behind one for cover when 
they are firing the cannister.

I have read that the Airborne forces have grown to like the Sheridan.
Anybody ever crewed one?  How was it?

Thanks

Harry Campbell
harry@dseg.ti.com



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@oddjob.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:29:53 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


From "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@oddjob.mitre.org>

In article <BzEz5C.F3t@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

   >Artillery shells? Are you serious? Where did you get the idea that 
   >Phalanx can shoot down incoming shells? Have you got any idea what their
   >speed is, or does the radar have time to intercept them?

 >	   I based this idea purely upon the speculation that an arty
 >  shell would be of a similar radar cross-section as a small missile,
 >  which the Phalanx seems to find rather well, and also upon the idea
 >  that shells, while quick, aren't particularly fast if they're large
 >  enough to destroy a main battle tank.  An M1 is going to shrug off a
 >  105mm round easily enough (in many situations), but a 155 or better?

     Right, but wrong.  Phalanx would do a good job against most HE
rounds, and would be probably be useful against HEAT, but it would do
nada against the main AT rounds which are usually some form of sabot
round.  A sabot round is a high velocity sub-caliber round.
Sub-caliber means that its diameter is less than the diameter of the
barrel.  The sabot (French for shoe) is the piece behind the
projectile that is full diameter.  Most sabot rounds will discard four
or five pieces of junk, usually chunks of aluminum that would make
much better radar targets than the actual penetrator.  The penetrator
is either tungsten carbide or a uranium metal filled uranium ceramic
and weighs about 10 pounds.  (The Phalanx fires similar, but much
lighter, projectiles.)

     Since the penetrators are long but small (about 1" diameter) you
could probably deflect one at short range, but you wouldn't deflect it
much.  (The image that comes to mind is trying to deflect a
tractor-trailer truck with your car, and the truck is surrounded by
other cars coming at you as well.)  So you would end up firing
hundreds of rounds to (possibly) take out one enemy rounds.  Might as
well use those rounds on the enemy instead.  If a tank fires at
another tank with lethal intent it is direct fire, so you can see him
too.
 
   Of course a Phalanx on a tank chassis would make a nice air defense
system, and would weigh about the same as the main gun.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dave@Cigna.COM (Dave Good)
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Cigna FIRST - Irvine, CA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:25:45 GMT


From dave@Cigna.COM (Dave Good)

In article <Bzo8Cu.BCu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu> writes:
>
>From Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
>
>In article <BzEyzC.EqG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Lee Mellinger <leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
>>In article <BzB9w9.1E8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:
>>:	Why not add a Phalanx?
>>
>>Phalanx gun system aboard ships weighs in at 20,000 pounds and and
>>that does not include the weight of the ammunition. 
>
>10 tons is about the weight increase from a M1 to a M1A2, around 16%.
>Remove the regular turret and main gun from one tank per troop and
>equip it as a Phalanx defense system. Phalanx is supposed to be
>capable of dealing with aircraft, missiles, and ship artillery
>rounds. About the only thing too fast for it would be MBT APDS.
>
>You might have to hitch an armored trailer to the tank to carry
>the ammo though. :-)

Probably the main reason they would never do this is that anybody standing
around outside when the Phalanx main radar was active would get cooked.
This might not be too bad if the poor soul were an enemy ;-), but in the
chaos of war, there would almost certainly be a lot of friendly infantry 
wandering into the wrong areas...

The only serious proposal I've heard about for a land-based Phalanx was for
"High Value Site Defense", where a Phalanx on a large truck could be placed
in a stationary position around, say, an airfield.  Infantry troops wouldn't
have to worry that the Phalanx might move into their vicinity and cook their
rations for them.

Dave Good (who used to work where the Phalanx was designed and built)


-- 
David Good                                                  dave@cigna.com

                 This space intentionally left blank.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: No Army Needed( was: Swiss military preparedness?)
Organization: Chalmers Tekniska Lekskola, G|teborg, G|taland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:33:06 GMT


From Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>

In article <Bzs8pB.L6q@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>In article <Bzo8uF.CFq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu> writes:
>>
>>From PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu>
>
>>A small legal point.  A civilian can not shoot a member of an invading
>>army.  To do so is legally murder and the invading army would be quite within
>>its rights to try and execute the civilian.

>In that case, was it illegal for Afghanis to shoot Soviet soldiers?
>That doesn't make (much) sense to me.  It seems that people should
>have a right to defend their homes.

  I think that there is some confusion about terms here. Quoting from the
chapter about international law during war in the Svensk Soldat 'Swedish 
Soldier' manual the definition of 'combattant'.

  "Combattants are members of
  o The armed forces, excepting medical personell and military priests.
  o Organized resistance movements, under the condition that they bear their
    arms openly during preparation for and participation in combat. In some
    cases are sleeve-badges also required.

   Requirements placed upon all are
  o That they act under leadership that are in charge and responsible.
  o That they follow the rules of war when conducting their actions."

  The talk about sleeve-badges is probably a less formal writing of a
requirement that uniforms are worn. I'm not certain how to interpret the
'leadership' requirement. It is probably intended to differentiate between
mobs of soldiers and military units. The last requirement is particularly
interesting since it opens to opportunity to treat enemy POW's that have
committed war crimes as common criminals.

>Could you provide some sort of a legal pointer so I could do some
>reading on this?

  I suppose that M7742-712004 Svensk Soldat isn't that easy to find in 
the US :)

>Adam

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: no cannister-was re:tank vs. helo
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:23:59 GMT


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

In article <BzEzGt.Fq3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dmak@dec5120a.ccs.northeastern.edu (Dave Mak) writes:

>The 82nd still uses the Sheridan "Armored Recon Vehicle" with cannister rounds
>used as recently as Panama.
>
>The Sheridan also fires the only tube launched missle (don't ask me how to
>spell it :^) nor it's M- designator).

I think this was the Shillelagh missile. If I'm not mistaken it was 
fired out of the main gun somehow. 

What _is_ the Sheridan's main gun? How capable was the Shillelagh?

(The pronunciation isn't so bad.. Shillayley I think. Its an irish war
club.)


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mf6940705@v9000.ntu.ac.sg
Subject: Re: USS Abe L or Varyag
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:31:29 GMT


From mf6940705@v9000.ntu.ac.sg

In article <BzH568.B37@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> 
> From athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> Can anyone point me to information on the USS Abe Lincoln?  Is it a Super
> Carrier?  How big?  How old?
> 
> [mod note - the Abraham Lincoln is a Nimitz class (therefor, probably in
> the Super Carrier ranks :-).  It was comissioned a year or so ago.  Don't
> know if it has gone on any deployments yet


I don't have much info on that carrier only that it is on sea trials and does
npt have an air wing embarked.  The design is of a Modified Nimitz class.  Much
like the difference between the JFK compared to the Kitty Hawk class.
However I should think that the new class of Russion carriers especially the
Varyag is making more headway.  With its compliment of navalised Su27B and Su25
and even Mig29.  Coupled with a Aegis-like Phased Array (skywatch) radar,  it
isan awesome weapon platform.  The era  of Carrier Duels has just began.

Abdullah Zain
(Singapore)


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)
Subject: Re: Gladiators in WWII RAF service
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:26:00 GMT


From patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)

In article <Bzo8DG.BK2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> writes:

>I seem to remember that there was a single squadron still equipped
>with the type in 10 (?) Group (SW of England) during the "Battle of
>Britain", August - September 1940.  The final delivery was only in
>April 1940 (!!!!).
>
>Any one know any other details?

>From "Aces Past", by C. Shores.

"Active over France in 1940 and North Africa in 1941, only one [Gladiator]
now exists in flying condition. Operated by the Shuttleworth Trust, this
Gladiator has been painted in 1940 camouflage to represent an aircraft of
247 squadron which was the only unit thus equipped that saw service during
the famous Battle of Britain."

They also served in Norway supporting the "Back Every Friday" troops.
According to "The War in the Air", by G. Lyall, RAF squadron 263 flew
Glads in Norway in 1940, performing well and being finally evacuated on
the carrier "Glorius". During the Nowegian campaign, they had a relatively
high rate of aircraft loss, being frequently caught on the ground due to
having no early warning system. The aircraft performed very well in the
air, however. On 25 April, for example, five Luftwaffe aircraft were shot
down by the squadron with no British losses in the air.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | The reason that cliches become cliches is that
George Patterson -  | they are the hammers and screwdrivers in the
                    | toolbox of communication.
                    |                        Terry Pratchett
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military