HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Daniel Kuan Li Oi <doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: The University of Western Australia
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:20:43 GMT


From Daniel Kuan Li Oi <doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>

ksw3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (KENNETH STARR WATSON) writes:


>From ksw3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (KENNETH STARR WATSON)


>    Why not add a 30mm GAU-8A cannon (the kind the A-10 carries) to the Bradley.  Supposedly
>    its extremely effective against armor and would probably make a decent
>    point defence weapon as well?  There's always the ammo problem, but if you
>    took an M3 and removed the TOWs you would probably have more than enough
>    room for ammo.  The only problem is that I don't know how effective the
>    GAU-8A would be against missles and such.  Just a random thought.
>        Ken Watson
>        Ksw3@lehigh.edu

>        

	There might be a problem of mounting it in order to take the
recoil of 4200 rpm du slugs at close to 1000 m/s on top of a ifv.  The
gun is quite long as well. The barrels themselves are 2.4m in length
without the breach mechanism.

	The GAU-8 has been used in the Goalkeeper CIWS so it should be
quite good against missiles and such.

				Daniel Oi
				University of Western Australia


Disclaimer: I'm only a first year. What's your excuse?


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Tanks vs. Helos
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:36:28 GMT


From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>


	Given time, which the swiss have had plenty of, I think
that They would have made the nation very defensable...underground
bunkers, supply depots, bases prehaps...gun batteris guarding key
valleys and passes..and anti-air batteries guarding the best attack
passes at the bunkers/emplcements...  any one know it this would be
the case?

		Ryan
		.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Helipad on Alleigh Burke
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:25:07 GMT


From prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov


 Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca> writes:

  Why does Alleigh Burke class destroyers (the newest in USN inventory) only 
           ^^^^^^^
  have a helipad for refueling/rearming ASW choppers without a hangar? Can it 
  still sail alone and pose a significant threat to enemy subs?


I think its spelled "Arleigh".  the Perry-class frigates and the Burke-class
destroyers have so much stuff above the waterline that they may have run
into stability problems.  they certainly have a radar cross-section problem
as well as a windage problem.

in terms of being a threat to subs, I would hazard (pardon the pun) a guess
that a surface ship would need a towed microphone array to go after a sub
in deep water, due to the acoustic refraction caused by salinity gradients.
dragging a fish probably cuts down on the destroyer's ability to
accelerate, one of its inherent advantages. operating in a group of 
destroyers might be advantageous, but then again
the bubbleheads may consider that scenario a "target-rich environment."

--
 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Devon Prichard                       I haven't lost my mind;         |
 | Senior Gofer                         its backed up on tape somewhere.|
 | Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.                                  |
 | prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov                                         |
 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: High level bombing
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:28:19 GMT


From buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)

I came across a question the other day which I was unable to find a reasonable
source for. How many ships in WWII were sunk by high level bombings?
-- 
Charles Buckley    buckley@ucsu.colorado.edu

Just another West Virginia exile in the land of make believe.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jim Heath <jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: no cannister-was re:tank vs. helo
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:20:32 GMT


From Jim Heath <jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu>

>From article <BzH4v8.AnI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by eachus@oddjob.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus):
> 
>    Sounds like the Beehive round that was available for 105 mm
> howitzers when I was in, but I don't think it was converted for the
> M-60.  I'll check.  Beehive and cannister however are different in
> intended application, the Beehive is intended to cover a wide area on
> a relatively high trajectory, so the emphasis is on lots of (small)
> projectiles.  Cannister is much more of a low trajectory round
> intended to clear the field, so it has much larger projectiles, and
> does a great job of clearing jungle so you can see what is there.
> 

I have the impression that there was a Beehive round that was used for
those occasions when the VC were attacking a position with 105s.  They
seemed to be anti-personnel.  One instance I remember reading about was
the night the first Medal of Honor was won by a Special Forces guy name of
Donlon (?).  In the story I read about it, they mentioned delevating (?)
the 105s and firing Beehives into the massed VC in the wire.  It sounded
like a _big_ shotgun shell loaded with fletchettes.
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:31:28 GMT


From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>



	With regards to two battlelines facing off why not concentrate
	all your fire upon one target with the view to killing it
	quickly be fore it qould have any affect upon your group and
	move to the next target once the first had been silenced...


			


			Ryan

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Helos vs Tanks
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:01:03 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

> From Jussi-Pekka Korkala <korkkari@clinet.fi>
>
> 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?
>
> Most shells get to their targets in couple of seconds!
>
> And also, i think AT-3, AT-5 etc, are bit too small targets for phalanx.

I think he is perfectly serious!  The test set installed on the hulk
USS Cunningham in 1975, and remotely controlled from shore (:-) -
there's confidence for you!) in 1975 put hits onto Walleye glide
bombs, and cruise missile sized targets took 40 or so hits on average
(International Defence Review, No 9/1979).  All this in the mid-70's
remember.

Take the British Seawolf anti-missile missile system - in trials one
round actually hit an incoming 4.5" Mk 8 shell, and the same article
has photos of a seawolf hitting a "petrel" - Mach 2.4 target a lot
smaller than seawolf (Encyclopaedia of Rockets & Missiles).

Nope - wouldn't surprise me a bit.
--
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: PFAN000 <PFAN@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Escalator on Carrier
Organization: Milwaukee Area Technical College
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:28:09 GMT


From PFAN000 <PFAN@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU>

>warship to have on board.  I don't recall seeing them on newer ships,
>but perhaps someone with more recent service can bring us up-to-date.

Having served aboard the USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71), I can
safely say that there are NO escalators on board....heh heh...

Pete Fanning
Computer Operator
Office of Information Technology
Milwaukee Area Technical College

Internet: pfan@music.lib.matc.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Infantry in square
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:18:59 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

>
> From Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
>
> >From silber@cs.uiuc.edu
> >
> >I wonder what point of development anti-cavalry tactics were at
> >this point in time. Weren't infantry still armed with matchlocks
> >and pikes? Perhaps bayonets had just come into vogue and the square
> >hadn't been perfected yet. Or perhaps the Austrians were taken by
> >surprise and didn't have time to form square.
>
> The square was perfected by the Romans. With the advent of guns, the
> square became less useful as a defensive formation. Even if the enemy
> missed you, he was likely to hit your opposite number in the back.
> That's one reason the line tactic was developed, to reduce the depth
> of the target for musket fire and to allow all muskets to be mass
> fired at the same target.
>
The Roman infantry didn't need to use squares against cavalry with the
same urgency as musket armed infantry however!  The musket/bayonet
combination is not nearly as useful as the Pila/shield of the
legionaires :-).

Many nations used squares or the equivalent to defend with infantry
against cavalry.  The answer was, as you have pointed out, was to
shoot them to death - as the French didn't do at Waterloo, and the
English did at Falkirk (? - English/Welsh longbows against Scots
schiltrons of spearmen).  All the classic "squares" were rather
immobile, due to the need to frequently dress ranks, and even at
Waterloo the British knew that the corners were particularly weak.

See John Keegan's "The face of battle" for an interesting analysis of
the "dynamics" of infantry/cavalry fights.

There were a number of recorded cases of squares being destroyed by
cavalry - the Russian Chevalier Guard rode down formed French squares
at Austerlitz in 1805 (1 French Regt - don't know how many squares),
and a number od instances are recorded in the Penninsular - in one
case a dead horse fell onto a square causing a gap which the rest of
the cav took advantage of.

At Quatre Bras, just before Waterloo the 42nd Highlanders formed a
square with French Lancers on the inside!!!  There can't have been too
many of them tho' 'cos the Scotsmen killed them all.  At the same
battle the young Prince of Orange refused to allow his troops to form
square and they got slaughtered.
--
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: CBU against ships?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:35:07 GMT


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

In article <BzH50y.AwI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
>
>The thread about battleships and radar made me wonder about the
>robustness of all the external "eyes and ears" of modern ships and
>the effectiveness of a saturation CBU attack from multiple directions.
>Perhaps a "cruise missile kamikaze" attack intended to cover the
>deck/island/whatnot with shrapnel and poke holes in all those
>waveguides, phased array antennas, etc.  Might make an Aegis-type
>ship pretty miserable, for instance, or at least force it to expend its 
>surface-to-air stuff in self-defense and be essentially useless for 
>defending the fleet until it could re-cycle.
>
>Good idea?  Fatal flaw?  Simulated and shown not to work?
>
If I were attacking a battle group, I would use a saturation attack. The
trick is, of course, to attack the carrier group before it attacks you.
Carrier planes have long legs. The best way is to remain undetected.
Thus, the SSGN. Can you say "Oscar" boys and girls? To me this indicates
that SOMEBODY thought about it, and thinks it might work.

				David R. Wells

Disclaimer: My opinions, not AT&Ts.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dave@Cigna.COM (Dave Good)
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks
Organization: Cigna FIRST - Irvine, CA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:25:43 GMT


From dave@Cigna.COM (Dave Good)

In article <BzM9u5.MCy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:
>
>From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
>
>>From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
>
>>As others have commented, Phalanx is rather too large for this.  Some Israeli
                                                                        ^^^^^^^
>>company actaully proposed Phalanx as a land-based air defense system and it
  ^^^^^^^
>>would have required its own truck as a prime mover.

Actually, General Dynamics (who designed and built Phalanx, but have since
sold that division to Hughes Missle Systems Company) proposed a land-based
version for "High Value Site Defense (HVSD)" several years ago.  I've saw
several artists renditions and small-scale models of it about 2-3 years ago.
The engineers working on it called it "Phalanx-on-a-truck".

>
>I saw a mock-up of that in Paris last year. A phalanx /Barak combo for point 
>defence of high-value targets. It was huge. I do wonder if they ever got one 
>sold.

I hadn't heard about this one, though...


Dave Good (who used to work at GD's Pomona Division [where Phalanx was/is
designed and built], which later merged with another GD division to become
the Air Defense Systems Division, and still later was sold and became part
of Hughes Missile systems company [who wants to move the work to Tucson, AZ,
so I decided it was time to get out of the defense biz] -- whew!)

-- 
David Good                                                  dave@cigna.com

                 This space intentionally left blank.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Use of small arms stored in homes
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:19:08 GMT


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

The Home Guard, whose very reason for existance is their short 
reaction times, could not function if they didn't keep their 
equipment at home.

Most soldiers probably defend their country best by quickly 
going to their places of duty. Thusly an attacker has a strong 
interest in keeping them from doing so, or at least delaying 
them. Small sabotage units will not engage trains in firefights, 
regardless if those aboard are armed or not, rather they'd blow 
up bridges etc. Having rifles with you on the train does not keep 
the bridge from beeing blown up: The bridge is better off beeing 
protected by the local Home Guard units.

I can think of only a few situations where it might help you 
reaching your unit if you're already armed, but I acknowledge 
there are some circumstances where it might be useful.

When you reach your unit, some time might be saved by not having 
to go through the process of issuing personal equipment, but if 
this time is significant compared to the travel time, I cannot 
say.

If some soldiers cannot reach their units, it is better if they 
have at least rifles than nothing. They are at least trained 
soldiers, and can augment other units, if perhaps not in their 
specialities.

One aspect that speaks against storing equipment at home is that 
if you don't have it inspected often, you can't be certain that 
everyone will care for it well.

As for light weapons in "civilian" hands; No matter how good a 
shot you are, acting singly, without previous military training, 
you have a very small chance of doing something of military 
significance.

Only way these "civilian" weapons might be put to good use is by 
a resistance organization led and trained by proffessionals, 
where they at least have to be augmented by heavy demolition 
equipment. (Unless you don't specialize in just killing key 
personell.)

(Why "civilian"? Well, as soon as you use them against the enemy, 
you and your weapon becomes "military", provided you do so "under 
responsible leadership", I think the term is. You DON'T have to 
be dressed in uniform, neither does those in charge of the 
"leadership".)
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: richard welty <welty@balltown.cma.com>
Subject: Re: Prussian Military
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:57:37 GMT


From richard welty <welty@balltown.cma.com>

In article <BzB9qq.16v@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> you write:
>From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>

>So, finally, we get to his son, Friedrich II (Frederick the Great), who
>fought wars with virtually any Germanic noble who resisted him, nearly
>unifying the Germanic states. This gave him the power to successfully
>fight Austria, France, and Russia. It was during his reign that units of
>the Bavarian military became Prussian. Of course, your ancestor may have
>been a mercenary soldier; much of the Prussian army were mercenaries.

umm, not really.  Bavaria was an independent kingdom until the
very end of the 1800s, when german politics and chancellor Bismark finally
forced Bavarian King Ludwig (sometimes characterized as ``mad Ludwig'') to
acknowledge Kaiser Wilhelm of Prussia as the German emperor, thus creating
the Second Reich.

cheers,
  richard
-- 
richard welty        518-393-7228       welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
``Nothing good has ever been reported about the full rotation of
  a race car about either its pitch or roll axis''  -- Carroll Smith

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: harry campbell <harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com>
Subject: Re: TOW missiles in Somalia
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:38:14 GMT


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

In article B5M@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM, jlc@u.washington.edu (Jeffrey Casterline) writes:
> 
> From Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@u.washington.edu>
> 	Can a TOW take out an M1A1?  For that matter, are the
> Marines bringing any of the tanks ashore?  I assume a TOW could
> take out any of the other Marine armored vehicles.  Is that true,
> too?

Whether or not a TOW can take out an M1A1 from the front, is a matter of contention,
and probably luck.  However, it is safe to assume that a TOW strike against the
roof, or rear of an Abrams will knock it out.  If the marines are still using their
M-60's then these may be more vulnerable, however their reactive armor might prove
capable of stopping an older TOW missile striking their frontal arc.  The other
marine armored vehicles like the LAV, and the AAV-7 (this may not be the correct
designation, but they are known as "AMTRAC's") don't stand a chance against the
TOW, as their armor was designed to stop small arms fire, and shrapnel.

> 
> 	Admittedly, the Somali warlords thus far have mounted
> little if any threat.  Is it potentially just a matter of time
> before a few dozen Marines get wasted by one of these missiles?
> I do not give the warlords much credit for controlling their
> forces who might have control of this weapon.


It is possible that we will see an incident where these missiles are used on
Coalition (ie US) forces, but keep in mind that the TOW missile is a fairly 
sophisticated weapon which requires training to be employed effectively.  I think
it is unlikely that those who might have these weapons have ever been adequately
trained.  I'm not saying that these weapons will not be used, rather that it is
likely that if they are used they will be unsuccessful.

I too, do not trust the warlords to have complete control of their forces, especially
as food and sustainance becomes more available from alternate sources.  However I
believe that most of the people who have heavy weapons will try to hide these
for use or sale after the US has pulled out.

Harry Campbell
harry@dseg.ti.com



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Worst Allied WWII fighters
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:04:28 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

> From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
>
> BTW:  An e-mail contributor has just added to the list....
>
>         Boulton-Paul Defiant
                   Flawed concept

>         Me 210
                   Hardly Allied :-).  Did seem to have its problems
though!

>         Blackburn Roc
                   Ooooohh - there's one you don't hear much about!  A
Defiant-type turret on the back of a Blackburn Skua derived airframe.
You thought Defiant was bad - this thing was 110 mph SLOWER!!!  Didn't
see any combat (as far as I know), which was probably just as well.
Served with two land-based FAA sqn's from Feb 1940 - August 1941, then
relegated to target towing, usually with turret removed.  136 built.


>         Fiat G-50
                   Allied??  Still I think you've been a bit cruel to
this wee machine.  Apparently an utter delight to fly, could
outmanouvre anything.  Armament of 2 x 12.7mm mgs a bit light and slow
(300 mph ish) meant mostly outclassed by allied fighters.

>         Morane-S. 335(?) -- Sorry, can't recall exact #.
                   Don't know anything about a MS 335, but the 406
come close - slow, low on fire-power (1 x 20mm, 2 x 7.62mm), poorly
armoured.  Fought with Finns also, many being re-engined with captured
Soviet M-105P in-line engines.


--
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: WWII Barrage Balloons
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:04:44 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

> From jeff stump/lml2 <jeffs@austlcm.sps.mot.com>
>
>   Hello all. I have a question concerning barrage balloon's used during WW2.
> I don't think I quite understand how they worked. Did they have multiple
> purposes ? Were they effective ?
>   I have always wondered this ?

The basic idea, I believe, was to force aircraft to fly higher in
order to avoid the cables.  This would then decrease the accuracy of
the bombing.  I have seen photos of twin balloons with a cable strung
horizontally between them, and a "net" of cable descending from this
for a small distance.

Effectiveness?  Well they seem to have been popular enough, but I have
no real data.
--
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Believe it or not
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:25:04 GMT


From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


The 11/92 issue of Military Technology contains a large advertisement
for the MiG-31. The specs they publish are:

Takeoff mass with full internal fuel     41,000 kg
   "   "   " + external fuel tanks       46,200 kg
Max speed at altitude of 17.5 km max      3,000 km/hr
   "      near the ground                 1,500 km/hr
Max endurance with external fuel tanks      3.6 hr
   "   "      with in-flight refueling      6-7 hr
Intercept range at supersonic
cruising speed (M2.35)                      720 km
   "   at subsonic cruising speed (M0.85)
with external fuel tanks                  1,400 km
   "   "   "   "   "   "   "   "   "
with in-flight refueling                  2,200 km
Take-off run                              1,200 km


The ad also lists general capabilities of the "company", General Export
for Defence.

I'm usually blase about aircraft ads (don't work on them; can't afford
them), but this one was eye-catching :)


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military