HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jskean@unlinfo.unl.edu (jonathan skean)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Escalator on Carrier
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:25:58 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln


From jonathan skean <jskean@unlinfo.unl.edu>

Andre Molyneux <andrem@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com> writes:

>While touring the Yorktown, I ran across something that surprised me.  On
>the way back down from the flight deck and superstructure, the tour path
>took you down an escalator (looked just like one in a mall . . . 

>Due to the path that the self-guiding tour takes you on, I wasn't sure
>what level I was at when I ran across the escalator.  My wife asked me
>why it was there, and the only thing I could figure was to take loaded-down
>flight crews from the ready-room level to the flight deck.  Makes more
>sense than an elevator, since you can still climb up by yourself if power
>fails.

>Can anyone tell me if my guess was on the money?  Does anyone have an idea
>when they started putting these things on carriers, and if the practice still
>continues?

I served on the USS Hancock (CVA-19), which was as Essex-class carrier,
as is the Yorktown (CVS-10).  On the Hancock, the escalator ran from the
Hanger (main) deck to the Flight deck (O3 level).  The ready rooms were
on the O2 level, just below the flight deck, and the aircrew had to hoof
it on their own power.  The escalators were used pretty much by anyone
who had to go between the Flight and Hanger decks.  I can recall that
whenever there was a huge mob of people crowding the escalator there 
usually was some practical joker who would flip the switch to reverse its
direction, causing mayhem and much cursing.  Also, I vaguely recall that
most of the time the escalator was unpowered (stationary) so that it
could be used in both directions at the same time.  Use of escalator
power was supposed to be for large groups only.  The power switches were
accessible to anyone, however.  I think most people's first reaction to
the shipboard escalator is that they are a pretty sissy luxury for a
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.
--
Jonathan Skean                     usenet: JSKEAN@UNL.EDU
502 Hamilton Hall                  bitnet: JSKEAN%UNL.EDU@UNLVAX1
University of Nebraska              voice: (402)472-2684
Lincoln, NE 68588-0304   USA          fax: (402)472-9402
From: eric remy <edremy@leland.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in post WWII)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:25:35 GMT


From eric remy <edremy@leland.stanford.edu>

In article <Bz20nI.8t7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant) writes:
>
>From grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant)
>
>This thread has quickly revealed that currently, helicopters cannot
>entirely replace tanks.
>
>Here is a more refined question. What sort of situation must a nation
>be in, to responsibly forgoe main battle tanks, and depend on other
>systems?
>
>

I could think of a few: (Assuming the country is only defense oriented.)

1) Terrain not suitable for tanks: I.e., heavily forested/jungle/swamp, 
very mountainous, etc.

2) Not enough money to fund MBTs, especially since jeep mounted ATGMs
can be so effective.  (Ask the Libyans.)

3) No MBTs in surrounding (potential) hostile countries.

Anybody got any others?

-- 
Eric R.      edremy@d31ha0.Stanford.EDU       Department of Chemistry
                        -1/2\nabla^2\psi_{T-72}

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: Shooting bullets straight up 
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:33:06 GMT


From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>

In article <BzB9wM.1J2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu> writes:

>	What about the old Galilean priciple of acceleration is
>not contingent upon the weight of the object dropping ??

You're only considering that one principle (which is true, as you state
it). This isn't the only factor, however. To quote my old Science teacher;
"All objects will fall at the same speed in a vacuum." In the real world,
air resistance or other friction is the speed limiting factor. More massive
objects tend to be less affected by air friction than less, and of course,
streamlining is a factor as well. I've been told that the human body tops
out at a little over 100mph.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | If it were not possible to allow a little energetic
George Patterson -  | discussion between opposing factions, there would
                    | be no market for tire irons or band-aids.
                    |                             Sam Venable
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: The Argument For Tac Nukes
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:23:35 GMT


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <Bz3uwJ.2FC@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net writes:

> For example, what if the opening salvo in the U.N.-Iraq war had used nuclear
> weapons?  This might have been important for EMP effect alone.  A nuclear
> air burst at a high altitude -- over 50,000 feet -- isn't going to kill
> anybody on the ground, though it might blind them if they happened to be
> looking up at that moment.
> 
My gut reaction to reading this is that it would be a big mistake.

That single incident would incur heavy political costs.  Radiation, whether
actual or imagined, would enrage neighboring countries (especially in the
middle east, where the countries are not large at all).  Iran, or any other
country in the area would probably complain to the U.N. the World Court, and
anyone else who would listen to about incidental damage in their countries due
to fallout, etc. even if they were of miniscule levels-- you've now complicated
the politics of the situation unecessarily.

Also, you would have destroyed the non-proliferation structure.  If the
US used a nuke in a situation not involving defending US territory, especially
in an offensive action, other countries would then have a good case to build
nukes for their own defense.  It's hard to tell North Korea that they don't
need nukes when you've just used one over Iraq.  And you can't condemn a
ruler like Hussein for using or building weapons of mass destruction, then use
one against him.  The fine points of a high altitude EMP pulse vs a dirty
ground strike would most certainly be lost in the international political
reaction, where the operative words would be `use of a nuclear weapon.'

As an aside, no nuclear device is completely `clean' environmentally.  While
conventional weapons arent exactly environmentally friendly, the world doesn't
need that much more radioactive dust floating around the stratosphere.  With
the residue from atmospheric tests, and power plants gone bad detectable
thousands of miles away from their source as it is, further explosions would
not be productive.
 
Besides.  Say that Hussein didn't flinch after your demonstration EMP nuke. 
He might think that you are unwilling to use further nuclear devices on actual
targets, especially in occupied Kuwait or where his military is near civilian
areas.  Now he looks good at home, as he's standing firm against American
Nuclear Blackmail (tm) and we look bad because we can't even scare him with a
nuke.  The choice then is to use more nukes on real targets, with corresponding
political costs, or to admit that the strategy didn't work, again with
corresponding political costs.  It's a no win situation.

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net
Subject: The Argument For Tac Nukes
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:21:54 GMT


From portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net

Now that it appears that use of a nuclear weapon no longer poses the threat
of provoking a full-scale nuclear exchange, is there a difference in the
attitude we should take towards tactical nuclear weapons?

For example, what if the opening salvo in the U.N.-Iraq war had used nuclear
weapons?  This might have been important for EMP effect alone.  A nuclear
air burst at a high altitude -- over 50,000 feet -- isn't going to kill
anybody on the ground, though it might blind them if they happened to be
looking up at that moment.

But it would certainly scare them.  It would certainly scare me if a small
nuclear bomb was detonated ten miles above me.  This might have achieved a
negotiated settlement which would have avoided a war which -- though not
costly in lives (the military loses a similar number of people in training
exercises, an astonishingly large proportion of deaths being caused by
being run over by a tank while sleeping) -- was very costly in dollars.
A small bomb might have saved the U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of
dollars, and saved the Iraqis the loss of thousands or tens of thousands
of lives.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ad absurdum per aspera <jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov>
Subject: SEAL book?  Maybe this is it
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:30:20 GMT


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

While hurrying home from Xmas shopping, I noticed in a bookstore
display a new volume called something like _Brave Men, Dark Water_ 
that apparently purports to be a history of the SEAL Teams.  Haven't
read it myself, obviously.  Since Marcinko's _Rogue Warrior_ came
out a couple of years ago, maybe this is the book our timed-out 
original questioner on rec.martial-arts was looking for.

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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: r_anderson@nova.enet.dec.com (Rick Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Escalator on Carrier
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:32:48 GMT
Organization: DEC


From Rick Anderson <r_anderson@nova.enet.dec.com>


>From DECWET::SCHMUHL "Larry Schmuhl":

    You are correct. The escalator is for pilots and b/n's to get from the
    ready rooms to the flight deck while wearing all their gear, helmets,
    sidearms, etc.
    
    If you want to see an escalator, go aboard one of the big deck
    carriers. There's one on port and one on starboard which go from the
    2nd deck (below the hanger) to the 03 level (below the flight deck) a
    ride of 5 "stories".
    
    ...Larry

--
**********************************************************
* Rick Anderson          * Digital Equipment Corporation *
* "My timing is Digital" * Database Systems Division     *
**********************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:22:23 GMT


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

In article <Byw95t.6Jq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gregory_b@cubldr.colorado.edu (Brian Gregory) writes:
>
>at these ranges?  Without the benefit of radar (radar-ranged gunnery being
>used only by 1944, as I remember), what kind of devices did the directors
>use to accurately sight shell splashes at 30 miles?

Actually, the US was experimenting with battleship radars  as early as the
late 1930's (1938 is the date that sticks in my head). The battleships
New York and Texas were used in the experiments. See the Sqadron/Signal
"US Battleships In Action" for details.

				David R. Wells

DISCLAIMER: Speaking only for himself, as usual

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: US/UK Ships in Soviet Service
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:29:08 GMT


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


 In article <Bz20C9.89v@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Lee writes:

   >
   > As I've stated before, I find it doubtful that the Brits bothered to
   > upgrade the Renown's fire control systems past '43.  Given that they
   > were confident enough in their naval supremacy to *give* the Soviets
   > one of their _Vanguards_ as a Christmas present, it seems strange that

 The Royal Sovereign was handed over in leiu of 1/3 of the Italian
 fleet after that country's usrrender in 1943.  The Royal Navy also
 handed over 4 submarines; Sunfish, Unbroken, Ursula and Unity (Sunfish
 was attacked and sunk by a British Liberator off the Norwegian coast
 on 27 July 1944, the day after it was handed to the Soviets!!)

 The US Navy, as part of the same deal, transfered the old cruiser
 Milwaukee, and 9 old "flush-deck" type destroyers currently on loan to
 Britain.  They were: HMS Brighton (ex-USS Cowell), HMS Georgetown (ex-
 USS Maddox), HMS Leamington (ex-USS Twiggs), HMS Richmond (ex-USS
 Fairfax), HMS Churchill (ex-USS Herndon), HMS Chelsea (ex-USS
 Crowinshield), HMS St. Albans (ex-USS Thomas), HMS Lincoln (ex-USS
 Yarnall), HMS Roxborough (ex-USS Foote).  The former HMS Churchill was
 torpedoed and sunk by U.997 in the Arctic on 16/1/45.

 All surviving ships were retroceded in 1949 - 52 and scrapped.

 Just on the Soviets and their navy, what do the following specs remind
 you of?

 Displacement:  35,240 tons (38,360 full load)
 Dimensions:    813.5' x 103' x 29.75' (248 x 31.4 x 9.1m)
 Machinery:     Fourshafts, geared turbines, 150,000 shp = 32 kts
 Armament:      9 x 12" (305mm, 3x3), and numerous 100mm, 37mm, 12.7mm
                AA guns

  - The Soviet "Battle Cruisers" Kronshtadt and Sevastopol, laid down
 at Marti (Leningrad) and Marti North (Nokolaiev) on 15/7/39 and "the
 end of 1939" respectively.

 Both ships were scraped unlaunched, but an interesting somparison with
 the Alaska's - a bit slower, heavier, wider, longer and shallower.

--
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
From: daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Rapiers in the USAF
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:29:03 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620


From daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk

In article <BzD58L.Jso@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, seb@tadtec.co.uk writes:
> I also think you will find that the USAF bases are all called "RAF ..." eg
> RAF Mildenhall, even though only USAF aircraft are based there.  That's
> what I seem to remember from driving past the main gates & also local
> newspaper comments (I'm at work, so I don't have access to my program from
> the Mildenhall airshow of a few years back)
> 
> Steve Barber

Yes, this is correct. All bases which house US aircraft in this country are
called RAF <wherever>. They also have an RAF station commander, who in practice
acts as a PRO; operational matters are the responsibility of the USAF base
commander.

Dave
-- 

David Hastings                      | "The technical axiom that nothing is
VAX Systems Programmer              |  impossible sinisterly conditions one to
Oxford University Computing Services|  the pitfall corollary that nothing is
daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk              |  ridiculous"
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Naval trivia
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:32:34 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


From creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)

>Carriers:  (E class WWII)
>	1) number produced
>	2) number active at the end of the war
>	3) number sunk in action
>
>[mod note -- The poster is either refering to the Enterprise class, which I
>think only 1 was built (the original U.S.S. Enterprise), but it may have
>been a member of another class, or the Essex class.  If he is refering the
>the Essex class, I don't think any of them were ever sunk in action
>
>Steve]

   Here's my info (originally from LCDR Cupp):

CV-9   ESSEX (d:69)          Class
CV-10  YORKTOWN (d:70)
CV-11  INTREPID (d:74)
CV-12  HORNET (d:70)
CV-13  FRANKLIN (x:66)
CV-14  TICONDEROGA (d:73)
CV-15  RANDOLPH (d:69)
AVT-16 LEXINGTON (d:82)
CV-17  BUNKER HILL (x:73)
CV-18  WASP (d:72)
CV-19  HANCOCK (d:76)
CV-20  BENNINGTON (d:70)
CV-21  BOXER (conv to LPH-4:59)
CV-31  BON HOMME RICHARD (d:71) ESSEX Class
CV-32  LEYTE (d:69)
CV-33  KEARSARGE (d:70)
CV-34  ORISKANY (m:76)
CV-35  REPRISAL (c:8/12/45)
CV-36  ANTIETAM (d:63)
CV-37  PRINCETON (conv to LPH-5:59)
CV-38  SHANGRI-LA (d:71)
CV-39  LAKE CHAMPLAIN (d:66)
CV-40  TARAWA (d:61)

where 'd' means decommissioned, 'c' means cancelled, and "x" means
scrapped or stricken.

   This would indicate the following for answers to the above:

1) 22
2) 22? (I think Franklin took some heavy damage in one battle, so it
        may not have been active at the end of the war)
3) 0

   By the way, on the "Enterprise Class," this was actually the
Yorktown Class:

CV-5   YORKTOWN (s:/6/5/42)  Class
CV-6   ENTERPRISE (d2/17/47)


-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: <RHG@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Torpedo book query
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:27:02 GMT


From <RHG@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>

Some time ago I asked if any of you could verify the story that
two German scientists knew the essentials of the "Mine" Mk24
torpedo (Fido) before the end of World War II.  The only lead
you could supply was a statement in an interview with someone
now dead; in a discussion of the Mk 24, he said: "We congratulated
ourselves that our security had been so effective, but during the
[interrogation] we found out that they not only knew of our
system but even had drawings of it. . . . It was all in Alver's book
on passive acoustic homing torpedoes.

Now I wonder if any of you know what book he was talking about.
Again, thanks.
======================================================================
Robert Gannon              |  Bitnet:    RHG@PSUVM
35 Burrowes Bldg.          |  Internet:  RHG@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Penn State                 |  Phone:     814 355-4800 or 355-0943
University Park, PA 16802  |  Fax:       814 863-7285
From: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Prussian Military
Keywords: books history prussia
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:25:45 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>

In article <BzD58J.Jrv@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Neal Smith <sasrns@unx.sas.com> writes:
>|> From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
>|>
>|> The dragoons were heavily armed calvalry. The uniform resembled the US
>|> revolutionary army uniform, but the boots come to mid-thigh and the hat is
>|> a two-cornered cocked hat with a plume.
>|>
>    The dragoons were still considered mounted infantry at this time and
>fought this way I would say at least 50% of the time.  They were not
>considered battlefield cavalry.  The battlefield cavalry was still called
>"cavalry" or "heavy horse" during this time period.

According to "Battledress", the dragoon's "roots were in the infantry",
all right, but this is a far cry from being just "mounted infantry". In
the early 18th century, he was armed with carbine and bayonet and given
poor horses and no armour. He also wore the grenadier's hat. By the mid
1700s, however, they were allowed to adopt the cocked hat, and by the
end of the century were allowed trumpeters (rather than the infantry's
drummer).

The "kuerassier" was, of course, the "heavy horse" in the Germanic military,
but the dragoons were more heavily armed than the hussars. They became
fairly popular in the 1700s. "The mounted troops of every army included
volunteers; even, in prosperous Hanover, farmers' sone with their own
horses."

As I said, the Prussian dragoon of the mid 1700s wore heavy boots which
came to mid thigh. They had a cutout at the rear to allow the knee to
bend. The illustrations I have show spurs. This is the footgear of
someone who rarely gets off a horse and does not walk far when he does
dismount. I'd sooner take a hike in hip waders.

By contrast, the hussars wore light boots which came to just below the
knee in front and to slightly above mid calf in the rear, also equipped
with spurs. The heel is lower than the dragoons' boot, which one would
expect, since light calvary would spend more time dismounted than dragoons
would.

Prussian infantry of the period wore shoes with leggings which buttoned
to the knee.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | Have a place for everything and keep the thing
George Patterson -  | somewhere else. This is not advice, merely custom.
                    |                        Samuel Clemens
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Thursday, 10 December, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:21:58 GMT


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

Thursday, 10 December, 1942

German forces on the Rzhev front launch a counterattack, gaining some
territory from the Red Army.

German and British shore batteries along the Channel coast at Dover enter a
90-minute gun duel.

Japanese forces northeast of Gona, New Guinea, receive orders to defend the
Napapo area until reinforcements arrive.  

The RAF sends another powerful raid against Turin.

Berlin announces the appointment of General Kurt Zeitzler as Army Chief of
General Staff.  Zeitzler has been performing the duties of that office
since September.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker   Moderator, sci.military  military-request@att.att.com
(614) 860-5294      Send submissions to military@att.att.com

"It was time for Louie the Louse and Washboard Willie, two Japanese
bombers, to pay their nightly visit.  Also, in a little while, Oscar the Sub
would creep toward the shore and toss a few over.  Spotlight Charlie was
due to bring his Japanese cruiser offshore, pick out a target and let go a
salvo." - Olen W. Clements, Associated Press correspondent on Guadalcanal
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dick Rawson <drawson@tymnet.com>
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Monday, 7 December, 1942
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:29:18 GMT


From Dick Rawson <drawson@tymnet.com>

> Three Italian miniature submarines attempt to enter Gibraltar Harbor by
> night.  Five of the submarines are lost, and the sixth returns to its
> parent ship; none successfully attack targets in the harbor.

Is this an "Italian" joke!  They managed to lose five out of three
submarines committed?

Dick

(I look forward to this series on 50 Years Ago very much.  Thanks.)

Newsgroups: sci.military