HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "MILLER, JIMMY A." <HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu>
Subject: Re: USS Abe L or Varyag
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:20:47 GMT


From "MILLER, JIMMY A." <HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu>

In <Bzo8oH.C28@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mf6940705@v9000.ntu.ac.sg writes:

[stuff about the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN deleted]

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

  I think I've missed something.  I thought the Russian had scrapped their
plans for real carriers.  Wasn't the _Varyag_ sold to China?

  And a nit pick, the age of Carrier Duels will have returned, not begun.  
Carrier Duels began in WWII (and have not happened since, to my knowledge).


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: scw@ollie.seas.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Rearwards firing missiles
Organization: UCLA School Of Engineering & Applied Science
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:14:02 GMT


From scw@ollie.seas.ucla.edu


In article <BzD4x0.J3s@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> megazone@buckaroo.wpi.edu (MegaZone23) writes:
>
>Oh, how quaint. He dropped a rocket in my path. *dodge*....
>
>You need something that has sufficient velocity to vector in on a high
>speed agile target. A smart pilot won't follow a straight line.


I think that you miss the point, *dodge* OPPS, there went my carefully setup
attack, just as was getting into gun-range/missile-lock/IR-tone.
Damn now were'd that SOB get to, Hmmm, better bug out.

-----
Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (310)-825-8614
UUCP: ...{ibmsupt,ncar!cepu}!ollie}!scw  Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
"Non, je ne regrette rien"--1er RE de Para 1963

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: No Army Needed(
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:29:49 GMT


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

This topic probably has troubled military leaders for a long time and the 
conclusion is so convincing that none of the western military wants to commit
its forces into the more active phase of "peacemaking" in the former Yoguslavia
no matter what their political masters say and want. Just listen to the then
head of UN peacekeeping force (a Canadian Major General whose name escapes me)
in Bosnia-Herzegovina and you will understand their deep fear of
deploying a well trained and well equiped army against a not so well trained
and not so well equiped guerilla in a mountainous AND hostile environment.

Granted, a guerilla war will not be able to stop the invasion. And it is highly
unlikely that it will be able to get rid of the invaders in a short term, if
not downright impossible. A guerilla war is by definition a long term affair.
But with the mounting loss along the time and dwindling morale, the war effort
becomes so expensive that all incentives will be lost and the technically
superior invader will have to pack and leave and suffer the humiliation.
Vietnam (for French and American) and Afganistan are just two examples.

A well armed, and preferably well trained and well organized, population can
be a deterrant factor to invasion, especially if the invader is thinking long
term occupation. As some posters pointed out, there is morale and trust crisis
now. But remember, when they are defending their home with their wifes and
children at stake, all these problem will evaporate. Lest we forget, they
happen to have a rifle with some hundres of bullets in their closet. What do
you suppose they do with thses? Sure, rifles alone won't be enough.
How about distributing LAWs and shoulder launched ATMs ans SAMs to civilian?
They will need training, but that is part of the "swiss" model, anyway. They
could be some serous concern to the invasion army.



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steve Williams <swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Escalator on Carrier
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:31:42 GMT


From Steve Williams <swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil>


>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 or department
>store).  I assume that it belongs there and wasn't added after the carrier
>was de-commisioned (since it was non-functional, after all).

As early as 1945 wartime experience dictated protected ready rooms in 
addition to a new arrangement of side armor, and more deck-edge elevators.

In the modernization of the Essex class carrier, three ready rooms were 
relocated from the gallery deck to protected positions below the hangar 
deck.  Since the pilots would have to climb some considerable distance 
from below hangar deck to the flight deck (remember that pilots wore 
aviator suits, life vests, parachute, etc.), the escalator was installed 
outboard of the island structure (on the starboard side).


Source:  U.S. Aircraft Carriers, by Norman Friedman, Naval Institute.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
Subject: Re: TOW missiles in Somalia
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:04:30 GMT


From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>

In article <BzH56F.B5M@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jlc@u.washington.edu (Jeffrey Casterline) writes:
>From: jlc@u.washington.edu (Jeffrey Casterline)
>Subject: TOW missiles in Somalia
>Date: 18 Dec 92 21:32:39 GMT
>
>From Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@u.washington.edu>
>
>
>	I read in the most recent issue Time Magazine, where the
>Somali army (prior to its dissolution) had upwards of 850 TOW
>missiles, and that several Special Forces Ops were planned or
>had occurred, to track, recover, or destroy the missiles.  Was
>this army trained well enough for these missiles to be a threat?
>
>	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?
>
>	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.
>
>				
>					Jeff Casterline
>
>Opinions here are mine and mine alone.

These missiles *possibly* form a degree of threat, but the probabilities are
likely to be very, very low....

1.
Training in use is likely to be next to non-existent.

2.
Level of servicability: low and declining by the day -- powerpacks draining
down, no back-ups, cracked sight lenses, missing bits, etc. etc.

3.
Probably kept more as status symbols by their various "owners", therefore
unlikely to be used, and even if so attempted the chances of them 
actually hitting anything is not an act upon which to bet the family silver.

	Really just a typical overdramatic Time magazine/CNN "sound-bite 'n 
video burst" material calculated to fill in some otherwise empty media space
IMO.

Cheers,
Keith Coman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we pay dogfood salespeople more than we   :  Dept of Management
 do teachers, we should not be surprised if   :  Rhodes University
 our dogs eat like kids, and our kids end     :  Grahamstown, 6140
 up reading like dogs."                       :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





Newsgroups: sci.military
From: davidy@seattleu.edu (Stimpson J. Cat)
Subject: Re: Yamamoto? (was Re: Battleship Diplomacy)
Organization: Seattle University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:28:19 GMT


From davidy@seattleu.edu (Stimpson J. Cat)

In article <BzM9zy.MoM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:
>
>>
>I think you're thinking of the Taiho, not the Shinano. Shinano was kind
>of top heavy, what with her concrete flight deck and all, and she rolled 
>over and sank, but she didn't explode to my knowledge.
>   By the way, Lexington was CV-2. Saratoga was CV-3.
>   For what it's worth, there was supposed to be a FOURTH Yamato as well.
>She was given a hull number, (no. 111) but was not officially named, although
>one source I read ages ago mentioned the name "Kii", which was a Japanese
>BB name proposed for an Owari class BB after WWI. She was scrapped incomplete
>after Midway.
>
>				David R. Wells
>
>DISCLAIMER: My opinions, not AT&Ts.
>


	The Shinano capsized, but her loss was due chiefly to poor damage
control and a lesser extent poor construction quality. The four torpedo hits
by Archerfish, while serious, should not have imperiled a ship with the size
and scale of protection the Shinano had. However, the welds were often poor
due to the pressure exterted in delivering this ship, and many items, including
four of the boilers, and firemains/drainage systems, were not installed or
complete. Many holes made for wiring and pipes were not sealed, so the ship
already had compromised integrity.

	When she took the hits, the captain did not reduce speed, so the
water pressure caused even more damage in the areas opened by the torpedoes.
The crew made few efforts to counter the damage initially. There were a great
number of civilians aboard, who wore clothing similar to uniforms, so their
refusal to obey orders added to the confusion. Eventually the crew lost 
discipline and they congregated on deck. Only 25% of the crew were saved.




	The fourth Yamato, No.111, was scrapped 30 % complete in December
1941.

(references -primarily Gartzke and Dulin, Battleships.)
					David L. Yee
				email to:davidy@sumax.seattleu.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Timothy Moy <moy-timothy@yale.edu>
Subject: Re: USS Abraham Lincoln
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:31:25 GMT


From Timothy Moy <moy-timothy@yale.edu>

In article <BzH568.B37@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>
>From athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
>
>Hi there,
>
>Can anyone point me to information on the USS Abe Lincoln?  Is it a Super
>Carrier?  How big?  How old?
>
>[mod note - the Abraham Lincoln is a Nimitz class (therefor, probably in
>the Super Carrier ranks :-).  It was comissioned a year or so ago.  Don't
>know if it has gone on any deployments yet
>
>Steve]
>
>Thanks!
>
I'm just a civ, but had the pleasure of spending a day on Lincoln this fall
during a Dependent's Day cruise.

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72 - Handle: UNION) had keel laid on 3 Nov 1984,
and was commissioned 11 Nov 1989.  Overall length is 1,092 feet, extreme
breadth is 257 feet, 5.5 in.  Full combat load displacement is approx.
100K tons.  Speed is listed as "in excess of 30 knots"; on the way back
into Alameda, the monitor displayed our speed as 32 knots.  At 100K tons, I
found this to be rather impressive.

For the very curious, Lincoln also consumes 20,000 meals a day, and churns
out 250 haircuts a day.  Really! :-)

Timothy Moy
moy@minerva.cis.yale.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Worst allied fighter in WW2
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:25:38 GMT


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

In article <Bzo8J5.Btn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Stimpson J. Cat" <davidy@seattleu.edu> writes:

>This monstrosity used a coupled Allison engine
>(similar to the DB610 coupled engine used in the infamous Heinkel He-177
>heavy bomber.)

What is a coupled engine? Would this be the H and W cylinder
configurations we talked baout earlier?


>[mod note -- a prototype P-75 still exists -- at the USAF Museum at
>Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton Ohio.  From what I remember reading about
>the airplane, it took bits and pieces of existing designs, welded them
>together, and viola' -- a new airplane design.

Is it? I'll have to look for it the next time I'm there. Is it out 
on display? Is it near the other WWII fighters? 

[mod note -- sure does -- it's in the Annex]

I wish they'd get their Spitfire XVI out on display.

[mod note -- I believe it is on display.  Whoops -- no it's not.  Damn, I can't
remember.  The corner where a Spitfire used to be is now occupied by a
Hurricane Mk II.  I can't seem to remember if they have a Spit on display.
]

I remember reading about an Allison-powered fighter that looked like 
a P-39 or P-63 but was much larger. I seem to recall it was a General
Motors design. Was this the P-75? 

Also.. what was the twin engined job Howard Hughes crashed in? The 
story goes that one of the pitch control actuators failed. 



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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
Subject: Re: Gladiators in WWII RAF service
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:17:20 GMT


From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>

In article <Bzo8DG.BK2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> writes:
>From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
>Subject: Gladiators in WWII RAF service
>Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:24:51 GMT
>
>From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
>
>> From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
>
>   <quite a lot deleted>
>
>> Certainly no Glad squadrons feature in
>> the RAF's Order of Battle after May 1940.
>
>
>I seem to remember that there was a single squadron still equipped
>with the type in 10 (?) Group (SW of England) during the "Battle of
>Britain", August - September 1940.  The final delivery was only in
>April 1940 (!!!!).
>
>Any one know any other details?
>--
>Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
>mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
>

Mike,
     You might well be right, the timing's the thing.  The OoB for June-July
and August in the vital Sector 11 (SE England) features only one "funny": the
Bristol Blemheim "fighter" -- a 4 x 303 Browning gunpack bolted on under the
nose.   

      Sector 12 (?) in the SW also included parts of Wales and the Bristol
Channel -- bit of a backwater, so rotating in a Glad sqdn there makes sense 
if the objective is to attain some low-risk combat procedures training. 

	Another area that's worth a look is the northern-most sector covering
Scotland.

	Will try to check all this out further after Xmas.
Cheers to all!
Keith Coman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we pay dogfood salespeople more than we   :  Dept of Management
 do teachers, we should not be surprised if   :  Rhodes University
 our dogs eat like kids, and our kids end     :  Grahamstown, 6140
 up reading like dogs."                       :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Stimpson J. Cat" <davidy@seattleu.edu>
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: Seattle University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:28:12 GMT


From "Stimpson J. Cat" <davidy@seattleu.edu>

In article <BzD4wx.J2z@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Stephen Harker <phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> writes:
>
>From Stephen Harker <phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
>
>In article <Bz06vK.F1F@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>> 
>> From Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
>> 
>> 
>> I remember reading somewhere that the Bismarck used radar-directed
>> gunnery on the British destroyers in the night before she was sunk.
>> Didn't hit any, but shot well enough that they did not get into
>> torpedo range.  That was in 1941.  Can somebody corroborate or
>> disprove this?
>
>I can't confirm this definitely, however from the following reference:
>
>	"Loss of the Bismarck", V. Adm. B.B. Schofield, 
>	Ian Allan, 1972 SBN 7110 0265 7
>
>in discussing German radar it is stated that the Germans first put a Freya
>air warning (D.T. Gerate) radar set on ships in 1939, while the Graf Spee
>had a Seetakt gunnery radar with a 9 mile range.  At the time this book was
>written it was not certain if the Bismarck had gunnery radar though search
>radar was definitely carried.  However the accurate fire on the destroyers
>at night is mentioned.  It was suggested that Bismarck probably did carry
>gunnery radar as photos seem to show the appropriate aerial type.
>Stephen Harker			phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
>Monash University		Baloney baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell
>


	The Bismarck did not use her radar against the destroyers during the
night action, but rather her optical rangefinders, according to Gartzke and
Dulin. From pp.237:

	" At 2238 Admiral Vian's flotilla of destroyers Zulu, Piorun, Cossack,
Sikh, and Maori, made visual contact with the Bismarck. Four minutes later
the Bismarck fired three main battery salvos at Piorun, which had closed range
to 12,500 meters, and obtained a straddle. The main-battery rangefinders
barely could detect these warships in the dark."


On the Bismarck's radar equipment, pp 290:

	"The decimeter radar, however, installed in the Bismarck-class
battleships was primarily for search, but only limited fire control. The
equipment was adequate for target determination, but could not provide target
course and speed for an accurate fire control plot. This was due to a lack of
display units and a plotter, and a broader radiated beam....... Therefore,
the Bismarck could not use her radar for rangefinding, and it was the use of
the stereoscopic rangefinders, with their ability to measure accurately great
distances in conditions of adequate visibility,that resulted in the quick 
destruction of the Hood. Some improvements were later made in the Tirpitz that
permitted some radar assisted gunnery...." 



					David L. Yee
				email to:davidy@sumax.seattleu.edu
         

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
Subject: rapiers in usaf
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:57:42 GMT


From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>



Thanks to all who replied to my question regarding the USAF's use of the
Rapier missle.  It seems that we were both right - the USAF doesn't
deploy the missle, rather they employ those that do... ;)
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Toby . Hughes" <thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu>
Subject: Re: Worst allied fighter in WW2
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:57:53 GMT


From "Toby . Hughes" <thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu>


Well, this needs to be said.  It's real easy, in the light of Jugs and Mustangs
and Hellcats and Corsairs to sit in judgement of the Brewster Buffalo and the
P-40 and the F-4B and the Wildcat and the Devastator, but that is an exercise
in hindsight.  Those airplanes were what we had when war came and they, and the
men who flew, lived and died in them, acquitted themselves well in the overall
scheme of things.  The Brits had the Spitfire, but they had not had to fight
the fight of convincing stodgy old infantry commanders that airpower was the
wave of the future.  To speak disparingingly of "the worst allied fighter of
the war" is unfair to those who held the line with inferior equipment until
the realities of twentieth century combat caught up with the movers and shakers
who decided our military destiny in the most critical period of this nation's
existence.

To quote Gill Robb Wilson, the most eloquent of aviation spokesmen,

"So smile if you will at the wierd machine
but not at the gallant clan
which gave its heart though it lacked the art
and the tools for a better plan.
They reached for the stars while the savants slept,
and their faith was a thing of flame
which kindled the sky, though today they lie
unmarked by the world's acclaim."

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
            |              |
           /O\             |    "Why can't we buy just one airplane and
 \_______[|(.)|]_______/   |     let the pilots take turns flying it?"
   o   ++   O   ++   o     |      - attributed to Calvin Coolidge
thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu  |

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:13:45 GMT


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

In article <BzEz5E.F4n@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>Furthermore, remember that latent heat of vaporization stuff from chem
>and physics?  If common oxy torches need to be shut off in a particular
>sequence to avoid the lines blowing up in your face due to the pressure
>differentual from torch head to atmosphere, I figured gasoline being pumped
>a few hundred feet and then dumping into a tank might pose a fire hazard.

The reason torches need to have the oxygen turned off first
is because if the fuel is turned off first eventually the flame
migrates to _inside_ the torch. By this time the mixture is 
sufficiently lean that the mixture inside the torch explodes.
It usually works when starting with low gas/oxygen flows (any
more and the flame is kept outside the torch tip until it goes 
out from being too lean. 

Makes a nice pop too. Scares the heck out of someone across 
the room. 

I can see another problem to the fuel being pumped up: static 
electricity buildup. I suppose a conducting hose, or a carbon
fiber line dropped down from the blimp to the sea would take
care of that...



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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:24:30 GMT


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

In article <BzEyzC.EqG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Lee Mellinger <leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <BzB9w9.1E8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:
>:	Why not add a Phalanx?
>
>Phalanx gun system aboard ships weighs in at 20,000 pounds and and
>that does not include the weight of the ammunition. 

10 tons is about the weight increase from a M1 to a M1A2, around 16%.
Remove the regular turret and main gun from one tank per troop and
equip it as a Phalanx defense system. Phalanx is supposed to be
capable of dealing with aircraft, missiles, and ship artillery
rounds. About the only thing too fast for it would be MBT APDS.

You might have to hitch an armored trailer to the tank to carry
the ammo though. :-)

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military