HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: island!fester@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: smart tank mines
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:00:47 GMT


From island!fester@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Fester)

In article <1992Apr13.033403.3806@cbnews.cb.att.com> napalm@next09pg2.wam.umd.edu (Warren L. Mohn) writes:
>
>From napalm@next09pg2.wam.umd.edu (Warren L. Mohn)
>
>I read somewhere that a couple companies have developed smart anti-tank  
>mines.  They appear to be small cylinders about the size of a paint-can  
>and they somehow sense an approaching armored vehicle somehow(magnetic?),  
>and then fire a projectile straight up into the air which then locates the  
>target tank and fires itself into the weaker top armor of the vehicle.   
>Can anyone out there confirm this or give more information on this?  I  
>also heard there is an anti-helicopter version of this mine.  How does  
>THAT work?

Several years ago in "Aviation Leak and Space Technology", I read an article
about smart mines. Apparantly, they can distinguish between a friendly and
an enemy tank by the engine noise, and only arm themselves at the approach of
a bad guy. Anyone remember anything else?

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d 
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Thursday, 9 April, 1942
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:52:31 GMT


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

Thursday, 9 April, 1942

General King surrenders unconditionally on behalf of US and Filipino forces
on Luzon.  Seventy-five thousand troops lay down their arms, the largest
surrender in US history.  Scattered resistance remains on Luzon, and
General Wainwright's Corregidor garrison still resists.

Japanese carrier aircraft strike the British naval base at Tincomoalee,
Ceylon.  The carrier HMS Hermes and the Australian destroyer Vampire are
sunk nearby, along with a corvette and two tankers.   Nine British Blenheim
bombers try to attack the Japanese fleet but score no hits; five are shot
down.  The British fleet makes for Bombay and Kenya.

The USSR launches another attack from Parpach in the Crimea, using 6 rifle
divisions and 160 tanks.  The defending Germans are able to withstand the
attack and inflict heavy casualties on the Soviet forces.

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

"Taps... has sounded over Bataan.  But the white flag announcing the fall
was no the traditional surrender symbol of a defeated army.  Rather, it was
the signal of troops, out of food and ammunition, exhausted and diseased,
overwhelmed by superior force." - Maj. Gen. Stephen O. Fuqua, USA, Ret.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: napalm@next09pg2.wam.umd.edu (Warren L. Mohn)
Subject: smart tank mines
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:34:03 GMT


From napalm@next09pg2.wam.umd.edu (Warren L. Mohn)

I read somewhere that a couple companies have developed smart anti-tank  
mines.  They appear to be small cylinders about the size of a paint-can  
and they somehow sense an approaching armored vehicle somehow(magnetic?),  
and then fire a projectile straight up into the air which then locates the  
target tank and fires itself into the weaker top armor of the vehicle.   
Can anyone out there confirm this or give more information on this?  I  
also heard there is an anti-helicopter version of this mine.  How does  
THAT work?

Warren L. Mohn
From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mini-Gun question
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:49:53 GMT
Organization: AT&T


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


There is a 5.56mm version of the Minigun. As it has not been adopted by
the US armed forces, it doesn't have an "M" or "Mk" or "GAU" number yet.
The next on the horizon is the .50 GECAL 50.

The AC-130 Spectre has 3 variations:

1. AC-130A      2 x 20mm Vulcan
                2 x 7.62mm Minigun
                2 x 40mmL60 Bofors

2. AC-130H      2 x 20mm Vulcan
                1 x 40mmL60 Bofors
                1 x 105mm M137 (from M102 howitzer)

3. AC-130U      1 x 25mm (GAU-12? 13?)
                1 x 40mmL60 Bofors
                1 x 105mm M137

As the "U" variants are introduced the "H" versions will be transferred to
the reserve squadron and the "A"s will be retired.

Combat Talon is a SpecOps C-130 variant but it is NOT a variant of the
Spectre.

The 105mm mount has a muzzle device installed to move the muzzle blast
further away from the skin of the aircraft so as not to peel it off when
firing. It also has a mechanical stop on the barrel so that it does not
go through the other side of the plane if the recoil mech fails.

Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Mini-Gun question
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:08:20 GMT
Keywords: Mini-gun, Puff the Magic Dragon


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <1992Apr4.013348.13909@cbnews.cb.att.com> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>
>From sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
>
>I went to the machine gun shoot in Louisville KY. last year, and they
>were selling time on a GE 7.62mm minigun (100 rnds, $75).
>
>I was wondering what you'd use this for. Too small to put in an
>airplane. Mount it in a helicopter? APC?

Can you say "AC-47". These guns were carried on the Puff the Magic
Dragon gunships. Against unprotected ground troops, they are 
devastating.

Gary
From: beckj@rpi.edu (Jason C. Beck)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: AMRAAM information
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:16:42 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY


From beckj@rpi.edu (Jason C. Beck)

I need as much information as possible on the AMRAAM. I am in AFROTC
and I have a briefing to do tomorrow and the only information I have
acquired is the basic stats and some production dates and so forth. If
anyone can send me any info they have on the AMRAAM I would be
extremely grateful. Thank you...

c/4c Jason Beck

e-mail: beckj@rpi.edu

Please send me e-mail on the subject, as I do not read this newsgroup.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: White Phosphorus
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:57:41 GMT


From fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)

>From m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
>brims@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu writes:
>:   During WWII there was a British anti-tank weapon which consisted of a
>: glass globe filled with white phosphorus and water. It had a handle
>: attached and was covered in some kind of glue. Some brave soul was
>: supposed to stick it to a tank as it passed. I think I'd rather throw
>
>  If you stuck it to a tank, how were you supposed to ignite it? 

As soon as the phosphorus had direct contact with air, and was above 70F,
it will ignite spontaneously.  (The water was needed to *keep* the stuff
from burning.)  And it glows faintly green in the dark before it lights
off, too.  Toxic, be careful, etc.

I thought everybody played with a bit of phosphorus/sodium/magnesium
during high school chemistry class.  (At least until liability concerns
made that sort of experimentation verboten here in the U.S.)


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US SMG (Was Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...)
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:20:36 GMT
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH


From cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)

As quoted from <1992Apr13.034541.6737@cbnews.cb.att.com> by dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk (Codesmiths):

> What do US forces use for an SMG at present ?

M3A1 "greaseguns", a new carbine/smg version of the M16A2 called the M4, I  
believe, the firing port weapon for the M2/M3, and odds and ends such as the
H&K MP5s used by SEALS and Delta.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
"It's 11:59pm, do you know where your congressman's checkbook is?"
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Christopher Morton
{uunet|backbone}!ncoast.org!cmort                      cmort@ncoast.org
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Some time back, I saw a move called, if memory serves,
Summary: Relax...we ARE talking about a Burt Lancaster flick... :)
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:53:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr8.005323.14684
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA


From jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)

{In TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING, why didn't the military just use
artillery or even small arms to ventilate the ICBMs while Burt
Lancaster was brandishing them aboveground?}

I would imagine that a lot of people had your problem with
TLG (based on a novel caled _Viper Three_, as I recall).  

Of course, the point of the movie, your basic post-Watergate-etc. 
paranoid fantasy, came at the end when the military (i.e., the 
guys who REALLY run the country :) scragged the President as well 
as the terrorists rather than let the secrets be spilled.  
Everything else, including the extended phallic protrusion of the 
missiles, was just a set-up for that.

Guess I'll have to watch it on video and see what kinds of forces
were deployed while the missiles were aboveground, just to give
the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt.

Followup to rec.arts.movies?

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
From: danmcd@cs.arizona.edu (Daniel L. McDonald)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Su-29?
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:41:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From "Daniel L. McDonald" <danmcd@cs.arizona.edu>

>From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
>
>According to the latest issue of "Flying", the Russians have announced
>plans to attend the EAA gathering at Oshkosh again this year. They
>intend to exhibit the Antonov Mriya (the world's larget aircraft) on
>which there was a thread here some months back. They also intend to
>bring at least one Su-29 (the one that does the "cobra" maneuver) and,
>of course, some of their Sukhoi acrobatics aircraft.

Su-29?!?  What is this.  I've heard of the Su-27, but an Su-29?  Could someone
please either post of mail information on this plane?

------
Dan McDonald    |Internet: danmcd@cs.arizona.edu, UUCP: ..!uunet!arizona!danmcd
U. of Arizona   |BITNET: danmcd%cs.arizona.edu@arizona.BITNET
Computer Science|     "rising falling at force ten
1st year Grad.  |      we twist the world and ride the wind." - Rush (N. Peart)
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: grex@world.std.com (Mark J Urbin)
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:38:02 GMT


From grex@world.std.com (Mark J Urbin)

In article <1992Apr8.234009.23208@cbnews.cb.att.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>The problem is that 9mm is supersonic (i.e. loud) and thus difficult
>to silence, where the 45 delivers slightly better stopping power, and
>can be easily muffled because of its low sub-sonic velocity.
>
>Navy SEALs etc, LIKE silenced weapons.
   In an recent book written by the founder and ex-commander of Seal Team Six
(Rogue Warrior by Richard Markinkos), the author mentioned that his unit
used 9mm autos.  They also used .357 revolvers since they stood up to being
fired right after a swim better.  He also noted that the Navy issue 9mm's 
had to undergo a lot of rework in order to stand up to their usage.  Their
ammo training budget was supposed to have been larger than the ammo training
budget of the entire Marine Corps.
  Delta force used .45 autos.  They liked the stopping power and the fact that 
a .45 slug would NOT go through the side of an Airliner.
  All this information is from the above mentioned book and filtered through
my memory.


-- 
Mark Urbin  grex@world.std.com     These opinions are mine.
Dictators free themselves by enslaving others.  They work not for your 
benefit, but their own.  -- Charlie Chaplin, "The Little Dictator"

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 12 April, 1942
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:38:41 GMT


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

Sunday, 12 April, 1942

The Italian submarine Pietro ends a spree off the Brazilian coast.  In the
last 17 days she has sunk five merchant ships.

Corregidor continues to experience intense Japanese aerial and artillery
bombardment.

Japanese troops in Burma capture Migyaungye, threatening to unhinge the
Allied position along the Irrawaddy River.  The Chinese 38th division is
moved in to support the line.

Iran ceases diplomatic relations with Japan.

References:
C.Argyle, _Chronology of World War II_
R.Dupuy and T.Dupuy, _The Encyclopedia of Military History_
R.Goralski, _World War II Almanac, 1931-1945_
J.Keegan, ed., _The Times Atlas of the Second World War_
C.Messenger, _Atlas of World War Two_
J.Piekalkiewicz, _Tank War 1939-1940_
Royal Institute of International Affairs, _Chronology of the Second 
	World War_
C.Salmaggi and A.Pallavisini, _2194 Days of War_
Brig. P.Young, _The World Almanac of World War II_
The New York Times, daily editions
Time magazine
Newsweek

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

"It distresses me that any Indian should talk of the Japanese liberating
India." - Jawaharlal Nehru
From: dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk (Codesmiths)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Air to Ground Missiles List
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:29:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>


> Air to Ground Missiles
> 

Boar
SLAM
Popeye
From: Tony.Buckland@mtsg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Launching torpedoes at depth
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:48:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr7.034829.6669
Organization: AT&T


From Tony.Buckland@mtsg.ubc.ca

 A recent posting claims that torpedoes can be launched only at moderate
 depths because of the problem of forcing them out of the tubes.  How,
 then, can an attack sub attack a missile sub or another attack sub at
 normal cruising depths?  As a non-mariner, let alone -submariner, I
 would have thought the problem of using compressed air to fire torpedoes
 could easily be solved by using water instead (i.e. flood _behind_ the
 torpedo and either use a pump or let the torpedo use its own screw slowly
 until clear of the tube).  Probably, this just shows my ignorance about
 subs.
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mini-Gun question
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:49:07 GMT
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH


From cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)

As quoted from <1992Apr4.013348.13909@cbnews.cb.att.com> by sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey):

> I was wondering what you'd use this for. Too small to put in an
> airplane. Mount it in a helicopter? APC?

The minigun used to be the standard gun on the Cobra until they switched to the
three barreled 20mm Vulcan.  They were also used a door guns on Hueys.  The
AC-47 "Puff" gunship used three(?) of them firing through the windows.  The
A-36 "Tweety Bird" close support aircraft has one mounted in the nose.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
"It's 11:59pm, do you know where your congressman's checkbook is?"
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Christopher Morton
{uunet|backbone}!ncoast.org!cmort                      cmort@ncoast.org
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: medin@cincsac.arc.nasa.gov (Milo S. Medin)
Subject: Re: Accidental ICBM Launch
Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:13:10 GMT


From medin@cincsac.arc.nasa.gov (Milo S. Medin)

In article <1992Apr15.040308.6413@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jlp@math.byu.edu (Jan L. Peterson) writes:
|> 

...
|> In the event that all five LCCs are destroyed without being able to
|> launch their missiles, an Airborne Command Post aircraft (based on a
|> KC-135) can fly over the missile and issue a launch order directly.
|> I'm not familiar with procedures on the ACP, however.
|> 
|

It was the case at least awhile ago that the any of the Airborne command posts,
and there were several types, could send votes into the missiles ONLY if the LCC's
had lost contact with the missiles, presumably because they had been destroyed.
If an LCC were operational, but it's command links were severed so that it could
not receive orders from the NCA, then they were supposed to manually cut 
off communications with the silos, which would then allow the command post 
aircraft to put votes into the system.  This may have gotten fixed as part of
general C^3 upgrades that were started under the Reagan administration. 

I assume this also was true for an EAM transmitted from ERCS (Emergency Rocket Communications System), since I think they both used the same receivers in the
silos.  Does anyone know if ERCS is still operational?   

In any case, Jan is right, it's HIGHLY unlikely that an accidental launch could occur.  And the USAF has an extensive PRP (Pesonnel Reliability Program) to weed out possibly unstable personalities from any command staff.  SAC is (used to be)
a very professional organization.

If there is any place one should be worried about unauthorized or accidaental launch, it would be the SLBM force, which doesn't quite have the same sort of safegaurds regarding launch codes, because of the difficulties of C^3 to the submarines.  But even there, it would be practically impossible to initiate an unauthorized launch.  Don't know much about Navy PRP procedures....
 
						Thanks,
 						   Milo

PS Usual disclaimers apply.  None of the above information is derived from classified sources.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: EACZ02XE%GRTHEUN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: Pistols
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:36:56 GMT


From EACZ02XE%GRTHEUN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu

urf@icl.se raised the subject of pistol replasement.he proposed a pistol
in a rifle caliber (5.56 NATO).well i'd realy like to see someone that
could fire effectively such a gun,even two handed

pistols still are going strong in the military for the following reasons:
1. PRESTIGE ,when issued to commanders, etc.
2. SPECIAL APPLICATIONS.. silenced - parachuting (no place to use a rifle
                          assault in the confined places of a building
3. BACK-UP..when rifle is out of order or ammo
4. LIGHTWEIGHT..hwen you carry a GPMSG plus ammo,no plac efor a rifle
5. GREAT CONNFIDENCE BUILDER

it seems to me the pistol will never be replaced ......

 KOSTAS the "sniper" (relay nick)  "stay young, in heart and mind"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Low Altitude Training
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:26:54 GMT


From brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)

brims@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu writes:


>A posting on this list last
>year also mentioned a Buccaneer picking up bits of tree, so the Royal
>NAvy obviously fly as low as the RAF.

	RN no longer operates the Buccaneer and hasn't for at least 10 
years.  All Buccaneers (one of the first aircraft purposefully designed
for low-level attack BTW) are all operated now by the RAF which is about
to retire them in favour of redeployed Tornadoes due to limited airframe
life left.  Their deployment in the Gulf was their first and last operational
deployment it would seem.



--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)
Subject: Re: White Phosphorus
Organization: Dept. of Scientific Computing, Uppsala Univ.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:35:29 GMT


From m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se (Patrik Manlig)

brims@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu writes:

:   During WWII there was a British anti-tank weapon which consisted of a
: glass globe filled with white phosphorus and water. It had a handle
: attached and was covered in some kind of glue. Some brave soul was
: supposed to stick it to a tank as it passed. I think I'd rather throw
: it.... Don't know if they were ever used in anger but now and again old
: stockpiles from the Home Guard turn up. 

  If you stuck it to a tank, how were you supposed to ignite it? Anyway,
 getting close enough to a tank to be able to place it on the tank maybe
 wouldn't be that horrible. The germans used an Anti-Tank Magnetic Mine
 that had to be placed on the tank to attack. It was apparently rather
 effective, too (once placed, that is).

-- 
 m91pma@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se        /Patrik Manlig
 "Show me the Devil, and I'll show him HELL!"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Low Altitude Training
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:48:54 GMT


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

I wrote:
>[air forces that train at realistic combat altitudes, e.g. 50ft]
>The ones I know of are Israel and South Africa...

I'm told that Chile has substantial military ties with those two and may
have adopted the same "train as you fight" training philosophy.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed estimates
Keywords: blackbird mach 3
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:17:21 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Service


From woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)

kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt) writes:


>Also, NASA now has at least two SR-71 which will probably
>be painted NASA white, thus making the plane the Whitebird.


They have 3 SR71s but they are not white.  Remember they must be painted with
the special black paint due to frictional heat at high speed.   Tail numbers
of the 3 NASA ones are 17967, 17971 and 17980 (this one was based at Mildenhall,
England prior to the USAF retiring them)


-- 
W@@DY_______________________________________________________________________
 /Ian Woodrow, Computing Service, Uni of Glasgow, GLASGOW G12 8QQ, Scotland \
*  <Dog 'n' Bone:  041-330-4800         | e-mail: woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk>      *
 \__________ FAX:__041-330-4808_____________________________________________/