HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Ad absurdum per aspera <jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov>
Subject: Re: F-14 program (was Re: Iowa Upgrade)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:25:41 GMT


From Ad absurdum per aspera <jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov>

>Ever hear of a debacle called the F111?? It wound up being a damn nice 
>strike aircraft, but was intended to be a fighter.

Actually (to oversimplify a complicated story) it was intended to 
be a damn nice strike aircraft optimized for a very specific mission 
profile that was in vogue at the time -- imagine a next-generation
F-105 Thunderchief.  The "F" designation was a political artifact. 
The fighter mission and Air Force/Navy commonality were stuffed into
its definition.  After a *series* of debacles, including overall
excessive pushing of the technology of the day, it evolved into a
fairly nice small strategic bomber.

There are a couple of good books that explain exactly what went
wrong with the TFX program, managerially as well as technically.
If you're seriously interested and can't find the references 
locally, I can zap up the MELVYL bibliographic database and get
back to you.

Your basic comment, of course, stands -- that if you want to build
a platform for all missions, you will be lucky to end up with a
well-rounded mediocrity instead of a complete dud.  Nonetheless it
seems worthwhile to revisit the concept every several years, just 
in case advances in technology allow you to make peace with the laws
of physics on better terms than you got last time.  

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:23:38 GMT


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

In article <Byw8zv.66A@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gregory_b@cubldr.colorado.edu (Brian Gregory) writes:
>
>
>In article <Byp1xo.Kv9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, mpc@biosys.apldbio.com writes:
>
>[Details of Scharnhorst/Duke of York duel deleted]
>
>> 
>> One final irony - the Duke of York had a similar design philosophy
>> to the Scharnhorst.  It had good speed, excellent armor, but, by
>> comparison to most other battleships, was slightly undergunned.
>> 
>
>Hmmm, I wonder what's meant by "undergunned."  From a book I read by a 
>british naval historian (British BBs, 1905-1947, I can dig up the full
>reference if needed), the 14" gun that was developed for the KING GEORGE V
>class had better range and penetrating power than the 15" of the other
>(older) British BBs.  

According to Dulin & Garzke, this is not the case. (vol 1, tables c-8 &
c-9, pg 235-238) The 15" had better armor penetration at all listed ranges.
The 15" generally had marginally better range, up to 30 degrees elevation.
The 15" could only elevate 30 degrees. The 14" could elevate 40 degrees,
and thus had better absolute range.

Add to this that KGV (therefore the DoY) carried 10 of 
>these, as opposed to only 8x15" of the other british ships (barring 
>Nelson and Rodney), and I believe they come up as well armed as any
>Bismark\Littorio of the day, but maybe less than the American 16"-armed 

If the Littorio were well commanded, I would be tempted to put my money on
it. The Italian 15" was phenomenally good, even though it only had 35 
degree elevation. It could fire a 1951 lb projectile out to 46,000 yds!
They would have gotten over 50,000 yds if they'd had 45 degree elevation!
Compare that to a 1590 lb shell and 36,300 yds for the British 14". If
the Italians can shoot straight, their guns ought to win it for them.
(The Littorios were no slouches on armor & speed either)

>BBs or a Yamato (but who ever equalled that behemouth, except its sister
>ship, Musashi?).

How 'bout a Montana? Or a German H-44? (of course, none of these were built!)

				David R. Wells

		(who obviously bought his Dulin & Garzke with him today!)


DISCLAIMER: My opinions, not AT&Ts

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Prussian Military
Keywords: books history prussia
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:28:59 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:
>There must be many books on the subject of the Prussian military, its 
>organization and the various units who were involved in various engagements.

>I would love to hear any opinions as to where I might look for a good 
>description during the 18th century.

	I certainly know zip/squat here, but for informational purposes
only I'll post a bit of information.  There are various "re-creation"
groups that exist, and their members are often nearly experts on a
particular group, time, or place.  On the Usenet News system, there is
rec.org.sca, which deals with time periods from 600ad to 1600ad, and
a query there will likely find information on units and sources from
a bit outside that era.  In addition, a local gun store will likely have
flyers from Civil War re-creation groups, World War I veterans groups,
and everything else you can think of.  While these people do not have
a Ph.D in history, generally, their research is often top-quality and
the ease of contacting them makes for convenient research sources.

	There is also some degree of inter-communication between these
groups, so an SCA member might know a Civil War Re-enactment member who
knows...  Try them -- they're good people who enjoy talking of their hobby.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Daniel F Boyd <boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: UB
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:29:55 GMT


From Daniel F Boyd <boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu>

In article <Bz9FGA.7EJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> eachus@oddjob.mitre.org
(Robert I. Eachus) writes:
> [...] I don't think they ever developed a 105 mm cannister
> round.  (I know there is no US 120 mm cannister.)  This seems sort of
> stupid, as one reason M48s were so useful in Vietnam was the cannister
> round.

Why don't we have a canister round for the M-1?  It seems like such a
simple thing to not have!  How expensive could it be to develop a
canister round?

There are times when a 120mm smoothbore Rheinmetall cannon is really
just a big shotgun.
-- 
Daniel F. Boyd -- boyd@cs.buffalo.edu         -a +X -x -e -m -S -F"> "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))) 
 (quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))))

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Monday, 14 December, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:22:11 GMT


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

Monday, 14 December, 1942

Operation Winter Storm continues.   The 57th Panzer Corps advances toward
Stalingrad, but is faced by Soviet counterattacks in growing strength.  The
Red Army commits reserves to halt the German drive.

The airlift to Stalingrad delivers 180 tons of supplies; a new record, but
still far short of the 500 tons per day required by the 6th Army.

The Eighth Army attacks Rommel's rearguard at El Agheila.

Japanese reinforcements numbering 800 men land west of Gona, New
Guinea.  American troops take Buna village.  The Allies on New Guinea
are now receiving numerous supplies; 178 tons delivered by air from
Australia, plus a number of light tanks shipped into Oro Bay.

Britain reaches an agreement with General de Gaulle; French General
Legentilhomme is named High Commissioner of Madagascar.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military@cbnews.att.com

"The impending struggle for Tunisia, therefore, will rank as one of the
decisive battles of this war.  It may not reach the proportions of a
Waterloo, but it certainly has in its infancy all the trends that mark it
as a Gettysburg." - Maj. Gen. Stephen O. Fuqua, US Army, Retired
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@oddjob.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: <None> (was tanks/terrain)
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:30:44 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


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

In article <Bz3v2H.2pH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

  > Predominant terrain that restricts armor movement.  Very
  > mountainous areas, or jungle/forest that prohibit armored vehicles
  > from operating off road, swamps (including river deltas, etc.).  If
  > a country is mainly composed of such terrain, MBTs may be a waste
  > of money...

  Right answer, wrong logic.  Modern MBTs have very low ground contact
pressures and excellent climbing ability.  Aside from the Aleutians
and deep snow in mountain passes, there are very few terrain
impediments to tanks in Alaska.

  However, miles and miles of miles and miles make helos much more
cost effective.  (And environmentalist would probably object to tank
training maneuvers on the tundra, but I digress.)  You have to
consider system costs.  A few tanks would be very useful for taking or
holding ground, but you would need planes (C-5As) and airports, ships
and harbors, or tank transporters and roads to get them near to
(within 100 miles of) their objective, while helicopters could self
deploy anywhere in the state.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)
Subject: Re: HESH
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:30:32 GMT


From Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)

In article <Bz3v8n.32K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> writes:
>
> Isn't HESH (or HEP if you prefer) also perfectly adequate as a HE
> substitute?

"Adequate" is a better way to put it than "perfectly adequate"; there's a
distinct loss of fragmentation potential owing to the lighter construction
of the HESH/HEP shell, as well as a lack of penetration against bunkers
and whatnot, where the preferred result is to get the shell inside and
then detonate it in order to produce maximum disruption of the target. 
The late British armor expert, Brigadier Richard Simpkin, suggested that
for general support puposes, a 90mm HE shell was about as effective as a
105mm HESH/HEP or a 120mm HEAT.  The tradeoffs involved reflect the
evolution of the tank from a general support system into a specialized
antitank vehicle - "tank destroyers in tank's clothing", in Simpkin's
phrase. 
   

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: LT CHAz <clallen@mailbox.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: Chernobyl satellite pictures
Keywords: Chernobyl, satellite pictures, infrared
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:30:37 GMT


From LT CHAz <clallen@mailbox.syr.edu>

In article <Bz3v8s.346@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Bonnie L. Maidak" <bonnie@indy.life.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
>
>   The Chernobyl power plant fire was filmed by an american 
>satellite, by infrared photography I think, and it showed the 
>cloud spread. How to get those pictures, and who might have their
>rights? Generally, are non-classified US satellite pictures 
>publicly available?

	I believe taht it was either the French SPOT sattelite, or US
Landsat.  In either case you should be prepared to pay a few thousan
US dollars(not kidding) for an original print from the dupneg.
Might as well just cut it out of a magazine.

>LT Charles L. Allen, USAF		     Live from South Korea......CHAz<
>CLALLEN@rodan.acs.syr.edu     "IF A MAN HASN'T DISCOVERED SOMETHING THAT HE<
>Syracuse University 1990       WILL DIE FOR, HE ISN'T FIT TO LIVE"-M.L.King<

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Dr. Strangelove" <zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>
Subject: Defense News
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:22:13 GMT


From "Dr. Strangelove" <zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>

From Flight International 2-8 December

-Turkey is planing on buying three inflight refueling tankers.
 Turkish F-16 pilots have been training with USAF KC-135's based 
 at Incirlik. Second hand KC-135's or modified Boeing 707's are
 what is likey to be purchaced.

-Debt non Payment delays Syrian Arms. Syria has been unable to pay 
 Russia for aircraft purchased. Syria currently has 20 Mig-29's and
 20 SU-24's. Non payment has halted delivery of spares and any additional
 pruchases by the Syrians. The Syrians were reportedly intrested in
 more Mig-29's, Su-24's, Mil-25's and SU-27's. Syrian are also 
 looking to upgrade there air defense missile capability, by purchasing,
 the SA-10.

-Greece has taken the last Mirage 2000. Greece now has 40 Mirage 2000's.
				   
**** DOES ANYBODY HAVE NOV. 25 through DEC. 1st editon of FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL?
I would even take photo copies of it... My news stand didn't carry that
			    issue. Thanks!

Ken


-- 
 Dr. Strangelove      "You know your having a bad day when the fifth
 U.Wisconsin Milwaukee    inning rolls around and they drag the warning
 Major: Political Science  track." -Mike Flanagan, pitcher Baltimore Orioles
 Why that Alias? From the Movie Dr. Strangelove.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:32:12 GMT


From Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>

labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill) writes:
: 
: From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
: 
: 
: 
: 	As far as the concept of high alititude look down radar, what
: 	about the Navy's long standing idea of using a large Airship
: 	with the radar in the gondola or in the hull of the airship as
: 	a phased array??   This would be much cheaper than a hawkeye...
: 		Much longer staying power, don't need the carrier to
: 		refuel.. just drop a line to the fleet oiler and she can
: 		pump the fuel up...
: 				Ryan
: 		
:
All you said were true. But there are some difficulties. Especially, airships
don't stay very still in the gust winds which they might see a lot on the high
sea, and they are vulnerable to any attack from sea or air. WIth their size,
can the maintenence be done by parking them on top of the ship mast? (where
else can you park them?) How about personel rotation or they have to be remote
controlled for such application?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bodge@ecs.umass.edu
Subject: MORE Ranks & Stuff
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:28:59 GMT


From bodge@ecs.umass.edu

I was wondering if anyone knows he rank structure of the British military (both
enlisted and officer) and how it compares to the US system (I speak all but Air
Force fluently, but I have books!)
Thanks,

Greg Bodge
formerly MT2(SS) USN
currently SGT MARNG  (hip pocket commisson)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: carlos@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Miguel Borges)
Subject: Yamamoto? (was Re: Battleship Diplomacy)
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:23:46 GMT


From carlos@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Miguel Borges)

jbutt@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Butt) writes:
>The Battleship "Yamamoto" was built with main guns which could elevate to 70 deg  rees. The idea was to let them fire huge AAA shells. So it can be done, no one has just decided to do it since.

The Battleship "Yamamoto"?  Are you sure that was its name? ;-)
I think you're confusing it with a certain Japanese Admiral.

[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_

Steve]
-- 
C. Miguel Borges        and his EVIL TWIN BROTHER (tm)        Carlos M. Borges
carlos@morgan.ucs.mun.ca <-------------------------> carlos@garfield.cs.mun.ca
##############################################################################
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NF. Canada []*[] <-cheap flag

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Harry Bloomberg <hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Thursday, 10 December, 1942
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:32:57 GMT


From Harry Bloomberg <hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu>


In article <BzB9Kn.so@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes:
>Thursday, 10 December, 1942
>
>German and British shore batteries along the Channel coast at Dover enter a
>90-minute gun duel.
>
   That's one heck of a long range for an artillary duel!  Isn't the
distance across the Channel something like 25 miles?  Could somebody please
describe these batteries?  At such a range, what would be the likelyhood of a
hit?

Harry Bloomberg
hpb@vms.cis.pitt.edu
From: rwmiller@helix.nih.gov (Robert W. Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:29:05 GMT
Organization: Nat'l Cancer Inst./Nat'l Institutes of Health


From "Robert W. Miller" <rwmiller@helix.nih.gov>

In article <Bz9EzI.6M5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN,
bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za writes:
>Prompted by the current fasinating history of the Bell Airacobra...
>
>I hereby nominate the following as the worst and most dangerous (to 
>their aircrews) fighters on the Allied side in WW2
>
>1. Brewster Buffalo -- so bad that it deserves a class all of its own.
>
>2. Bell Airacobra -- for all the reasons that Joe advances.
>

Certainly, the model of the Brewster Buffalo as used by the U.S. Navy and
RAF was a total disaster.  This model was substantially heavier than the
model used by the Finns, with no engine upgrade.  There is a very good
chapter in a book about the early days of the Pacific War covering the
years from 1935-1942, written by Martin Cadin, I can't remember the book
name, however.  This is about an Australian pilot with ther RAF in Burma,
who was assigned to fly Buffalos against the Japaneese.

[mod note -- I believe the book is _Ragged, Rugged Warriors_ 

Steve]

The P-39 Airacobra, when used in ground support, was a very good plane. 
The Russians loved it, as well as its big brother, the P-63 Kincobra.  It
is worthwhile to point out thea, in the European Theater, the P-39 flown
by Americans and Brits suffered the lowest loss rate per sortie of any
American fighter  ( Ray Wagner - American Combat Planes ( a must for any
avaition enthusiast )).  The problem with the P-39 was that the military
decided to delete the turbo-supercharger from the Allison engine, thus
limiting it's high altitude performance.  This was also a problem with
the Curtiss P-40.  One mighht argue, based on this that the P-40 was also
one of the worst fighters.  Certainly, the Germans chewed up them when
flown by the Desert Air Force in North Africa.  The U.S. Army Air Force
in the Phillipines didn't fare too well either.  Then, however, there was
this group of pilots (the AVG)  in China who showed what the P-40 could
do when used properly and thus it passed into legend.  Remember that
these guys employed the hit-and-run tactics devised by General Claire
Channault, who was essentially an outcast from the USAAF for promoting
these tactics for fighting the Japaneese.  The P-39 and the P-40 both
illustrate that the tactics employed for a given aircraft can decidedly
affect its perception as a success or failure

Robert W. Miller
National Institutes of Health, NCI
rwmiller@helix.nih.gov


My vote for the worst fighter is the Bf-110.  It couldn't even defend
itself during the Battle of Britan.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: 92vanatter@gw.wmich.edu
Subject: Need information on NBC equipment
Organization: Western Michigan University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:26:57 GMT


From 92vanatter@gw.wmich.edu


Hello,

I am doing research on NBC equipment used by different U.S. military 
branches.  I am most interested in personal equipment for pilots and 
crew-members of helicopters and transport planes.

If someone has any information that they would like to pass along, 
please e-mail me back. (even if you can only tell me where to go to 
get the information!)

Thanks 

Dion VanAtter
Western Michigan University

92vanatter@gw.wmich.edu



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Number Thirty-Nine in the Series--Bell P-39 Airacobra (4 of 9)
Keywords: XP-39E
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:27:16 GMT


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>

Three P-39Ds were modified to flight test the experimental Continental 
V-1430-1 engine under the designation XP-39E.  The company designation 
was Model 23.  The first two machines were ordered on April 10, 1941, 
with a third machine being added later.  Serials were 41-19501, 
41-19502, and 42-7164.  However, the Continental engine was not yet 
ready when the XP-39E airframes were completed, and the 1325 hp 
Allison V-1710-47 engine was installed in its place.  

The XP-39E featured laminar-flow wings with square-cut tips.  Each of 
the three examples tested different vertical tail surfaces--the first 
being conical, the second being cut-off square and rather short, and 
the third being rather similar to that of the P-51.  The carburetor 
air intake was relocated and the wing-root radiator intakes were 
enlarged.  Wing span and gross area were increased to 35 feet 10 
inches and 236 square feet.  Empty and loaded weights were 6936 lbs 
and 8918 lbs respectively.  During tests, a maximum speed of 386 mph 
at 21,680 feet was attained.  An altitude of 20,000 feet could be 
reached in 9.3 minutes.  

The XP-39E was redesignated XP-76 and 4000 were ordered by the USAAF.  
However, the new design was considered to be inferior to the basic 
Airacobra in other respects, and the order for the XP-76 was later 
cancelled in its entirety.  Nevertheless, the XP-39E was to provide 
some valuable basic data for the later P-63 Kingcobra.  

Sources:

  War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,
  Doubleday, 1964.

  The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

  United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter 
  M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

  P-39 Airacobra in Action, Ernie McDowell, Squadron/Signal Publications, 
  1980

  The Calamitous 'Cobra, Air Enthusiast, August 1971.

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Worst allied fighter in WW2
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:30:49 GMT


From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>

MR KR COMAN <bakcgiraffe.ru.ac.za> writes:

>1. Brewster Buffalo -- so bad that it deserves a class all of its own.

You mean the Gloster Gladiator was better? (It was in production
in 1939.) Yes, I know there was a South African whom I've
forgotten the name of who shot down 50+ aircraft with it, but I'd
like to think that showed his skill, and not the ability of the
aircraft. Similarily, the Finnish air force had very good success
with the Buffalo.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
 Asteroids: It's probably the one we don't see that will get us.

Newsgroups: sci.military