HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:27:12 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

ussi-Pekka Korkala <korkkari@clinet.fi> writes:

>Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:

>>	Why not add a Phalanx?
>>	In addition to the anti-air capabilities, it would also work on
>>incoming artillery shells and missiles.  I suspect this is a much
>>greater worry than the helicopter itself, which is all the Stinger
>>will be able to remove.

>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?

	I based this idea purely upon the speculation that an arty
shell would be of a similar radar cross-section as a small missile,
which the Phalanx seems to find rather well, and also upon the idea
that shells, while quick, aren't particularly fast if they're large
enough to destroy a main battle tank.  An M1 is going to shrug off a
105mm round easily enough (in many situations), but a 155 or better?
At roughly 7" diam. or better, I believe the phalanx can find and kill
the incoming.  It can see its own shells, which are no larger than 60mm
even allowing for expansion and a good bit of leeway, so why not a
155mm incoming arty shell?  I think it could be done, and would not be
particularly difficult so far as adaption from sea to land environment
is concerned.  Of course it won't be a bolt-on thing, but adapting it
or a similar weapon system shouldn't be incredibly cumbersome.

	Finally, I realize that radar cross-section is more than just
the diameter of the reflecting object.  However, there are methods to
overcome these limitations that can be used.  It's not a sure-fire thing,
of course, but it makes as much sense to attempt as any other idea I've
seen here.

	All I'm tossing out is ideas; I heartily respect and expect fair
refutations and opinions.  It just seems, to me, that these adaptations
are not used for what I'll call intra-service reasons rather than any
practical reasons, and that if counter-battery fire can be made based
upon incoming trajectory there is little reason a PDS cannot target these
same incoming rounds and fire upon them.

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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: John Stoffel <john@sekrit.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:23:30 GMT


From John Stoffel <john@sekrit.wpi.edu>

>>>>> On 11 Dec 92 17:25:48 GMT, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) said:


Randy> From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)

Randy> edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy) writes:

>Reasons.  (Reader's advisory: I'm a tanker, and thus am a wee bit biased.)

>1) Cost:  Attack helos cost ~10X as much as a tank.  Apache runs about
>20-30M$, M-1 series 2-4M$.  Helos also need more maintainence support
>than do tanks, adding cost both in trained personnel and parts.

Randy> That makes sense, although I *thought that Apaches were about $20
Randy> million, and M1A1's were more than $3 million.

Randy> Here's my question.  What is the correct way for a tank to deal with a
Randy> helocopter?  If you're in a tank, and you see an oncomming enemy helo,
Randy> what do you do?

How about adding some stingers on the outside of the tank for
automatic threat suppression.  Cheap, simple, and probably prone to
taking out your own choppers too.

In the past (WW II era) they used to have the .30s and .50s machine
guns mounted on cupola for the command to use either for off main gun
axis supression firing, or for AA.  You could do sorta the same thing
with stingers I would guess.  How about adding in the new AAM system
on jeeps that uses stingers.  Something like 4 or 8 of them?  

					John
--
Youth of today!  Join me in a mass rally for traditional mental attitudes!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
john@wpi.wpi.edu | Work Station Specialist | Worcester Polytechnic Institute
John Stoffel     | 508-831-5512 (work)     | Worcester, MA  01609
From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: CBU against ships?
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:29:22 GMT
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions


From Ad absurdum per aspera <JTCHEW@lbl.gov>

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?

Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: c b fowler <fowler@esmlsun.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Yamamoto? (was Re: Battleship Diplomacy)
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:43:38 GMT


From c b fowler <fowler@esmlsun.gatech.edu>


In article <BzB9wF.1Gn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> pdchapin@unix.amherst.EDU (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
>From PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.EDU>

>: [mod note -- that one slipped by me.  From what I remember, there were 3
>: BBs in the Yamato class -- Yamato, Musashi, and Shinano.  The Shinano was
>: converted to a carrier (displaced something like 70,000 or 80,000 tons), and
>: was sunk by U.S. sub in the Inland Sea on it's way to sea trials.  Can't
>: remember the name of the sub that did the deed, but it's captain wrote a
>: book about it -- _The Sinking of the Shinano_
>: 

>U.S.S. Archerfish, I believe.

>[mod note -- that's it.  The book is well worth reading]

I had to look it up last night.  The name of the book is _Shinano:  The 
Sinking of Japan's Secret Supership_ by CAPT Joseph F. Enright.  The name of 
the boat is right, except it was spelled "Archer-Fish".  I think the book 
mentions something about why it was spelled that way.

The book is worth reading and it would also make a good movie.

[mod note -- thanks Chris!  The book is at my parent's house, and I didn't
quite remember the title correctly

Steve]

Chris, ex-FTB1(SS), USN; now LT, USNR

c. b. fowler  gtri/esml
chris.fowler@gtri.gatech.edu
CFOWLER@GTRI01 (BITNET)


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: rapiers in usaf
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:23:45 GMT


From Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>

>From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
>
>In article <BzB9qx.19B@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
>raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) writes:
>|> From Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>
>|> >From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
>|> >A friend maintains that a branch of the USAF uses the British Aerospace
>|> >Rapier surface to air missle.  I dimly recall hearing something about
>|> >this ten or so years ago.  Can anyone out there confirm or deny this?
>|> 
>|> As far as I remember, the USAF bought the Rapier to defend the F-111
>|> bases in England. However, the deal included the British Army operating
>|> the system.
>
> Is it RAPIER or ROLAND that defends the F-111 bases?
>
> Either way, I don't think the USAF actually bought them but is
> sorta just "renting" the systems and their crews, ie: paying all
> operational costs.
>
> TRAVIS

The content of a email I (Raymond Man) received after my previous post:
----------------------------------------------------------
    The Air Force bought Rapiers for use in Turkey and the UK.  The ones in the
UK are operated and manned by the RAF Regiment.  The ones in Turkey are
operated by the Turks.  All of the Rapiers are USAF-owned but not operated.  I
think that the USAF also bought some Rolands for the Germans to defend  USAF
bases in Germany but I can't vouch for the accucracy of that statement right
now.
----------------------------------------------------------

Since I have not yet seen a post on sci.military by the sender, I do not
include his name and his affliation in this quote just in case he may
not want the publicity. But trust me, it is real message.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:34:00 GMT


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



Norm Finn writes:
#During the initial battlecruiser action at the battle of Jutland, the
#British battlecruisers failed to properly execute the "fire at opposite
#number" command.  For a time, two British battlecruisers were firing at
#the same German ship, while one German ship was untargetted.  Without
#the distraction of British shells falling upon and about her, that ship
#was able to get some good shots in and sink a British battlecruiser.


Close. During the run to the south the British had 6 battlecruisers
to the German 5. In cases like this the SOP was to engage opposite
numbers with the lead ships doubling up: 1&2 fire on enemy 1, 3 fires
on enemy 2, and so on. This was done at the front of the line, with
LION and TIGER both firing on either SEYDLITZ or LUTZOW (I forget
which - long week :). Further back in the British line the gunnery
officer of either QUEEN MARY or PRINCESS ROYAL somehow determined that
the doubling should be on the rear ship, so instead of firing on DERFFLINGER
she fired on MOLTKE. So for a precious few minutes there were 6 British
battlecruisers engaging only 4 of the 5 German units. DERFFLINGER, with
the best gunnery in the High Seas Fleet, was thus able to engage QUEEN MARY
almost at leisure, with fatal consequences for the latter.

Georg von Hase, DERFFLINGER's gunnery officer, describes this moment
vividly in "Kiel and Jutland".



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
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:34:10 GMT


From sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)

In article <BzB9w9.1E8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:
>
>	Why not add a Phalanx?  Program it to kill at closure rates of
>30 knots or better, keep it on standby, and when your own aircraft aren't
>in the area flip it from standby to on.  Simple, existing, and nothing
>but ammunition and electricity required.

Adds weight to the already massive M1A1/A2. Plus the logistics trail needed to
keep ammo in there.

>	In addition to the anti-air capabilities, it would also work on
>incoming artillery shells and missiles.  I suspect this is a much
>greater worry than the helicopter itself, which is all the Stinger
>will be able to remove.

Better point; but it is EXTREMELY hard to defend against arty, other than to be
where they ain't. Or kill the batteries. Besides, unless it's a direct hit,
artillery is kinda mickey-mouse to kill a tank.

Missiles are more of a pain, but your best bet is to kill the guiding platform
which is (in most cases) a helo, so you're back to square one.

>[mod note -- I though the Army already had an AD weapon -- it's a 20mm
>Vulcan mounted on an M113 chassis.  Might not be quite able to keep up with
>an M1A1 running flat out, but it's better that the Sgt. York

They do, it won't. 

If you want to get reallly speculative, you also need to talk about
systems like "Stingray" which are designed to blind electro-optical sensors
with a laser (system mounted on a derived Bradley chassey <sp>) 

Wanna guess how well a blinded chopper pilot can fly? 

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:28:56 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

John Stoffel <john@sekrit.wpi.edu> writes:

>How about adding some stingers on the outside of the tank for
>automatic threat suppression.  Cheap, simple, and probably prone to
>taking out your own choppers too.

	Why not add a Phalanx?  Program it to kill at closure rates of
30 knots or better, keep it on standby, and when your own aircraft aren't
in the area flip it from standby to on.  Simple, existing, and nothing
but ammunition and electricity required.

	In addition to the anti-air capabilities, it would also work on
incoming artillery shells and missiles.  I suspect this is a much
greater worry than the helicopter itself, which is all the Stinger
will be able to remove.

[mod note -- I though the Army already had an AD weapon -- it's a 20mm
Vulcan mounted on an M113 chassis.  Might not be quite able to keep up with
an M1A1 running flat out, but it's better that the Sgt. York

Steve]

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



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:36:03 GMT
Organization: Cornell University


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

In article <BzD4rG.Iv1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
claffey_jor@ccsub.ctstateu.edu writes: 

> In article <BzB9w9.1E8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:
>> 	Why not add a Phalanx?  Program it to kill at closure rates of
>> 30 knots or better, keep it on standby, and when your own aircraft aren't
>> in the area flip it from standby to on.  Simple, existing, and nothing
>> but ammunition and electricity required.
>> 
> 
> Sounds easy, doesn't it? The problem is that at 6000 rpm, you need a *LOT* of
> ammunition. This translates into either a very limited supply of ammo (I
> believe that the CIWS carries 1500 rounds, enough for 15 seconds of continuous
> firing) or making a larger turret to hold your ammo in. This will probably mean
> (if you don't take anything out) a higher profile, meaning a bigger target for
> whatever enemy forces are out there.

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.
 
> IMHO, it isn't possible to significantly improve the air-defence capability of
> the M1 series without significantly impairing its ability to perform as an MBT.
There is a British firm (Marconi, I think) which proposed and may have
developed a smaller scale version of such a CIWS for tanks.  As I recall it
consisted of twin 7.62mm Chain Guns and a millimeter wave radar o track inbound
missiles.  In theory it could be very effective.  The unit seemed fairly bulky
but it looked like it could fit on top of an MBT turret without too much
trouble.  (I think the prototype was mounted on a Chieftain or some such.)

> However, an interesting idea is a Bradley variant optimized for air defence.
> Anyone know of such a project in the works?
There are a couple of different such systems.  GE proposed their Blazer system
for the FAADS-LOS Heavy contest which was won by ADATS.  This had a 25mm
Gatling plus a mix of Stinger and RBS-70 SAMs.  (A light version of this system
just won the Marine Corps LAV-Air Defense competition).  More recently, Jane's
Defense Weekly had pictures of a proposed Bradly AD with the regular Bushmaster
and two quad-packs of Stinger.  Several years ago I recall similar proposals
for a Bradly with two quad Rapier boxes.  Finally, the Army is investigating
using Bradleys to carry Stinger teams and fitting some Bradleys with lead
computing computers and rangefinders etc. as stop-gap air defense system.


Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Back off man.  I'm a political scientist!
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jussi-Pekka Korkala <korkkari@clinet.fi>
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:38 GMT


From Jussi-Pekka Korkala <korkkari@clinet.fi>

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


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

>Prompted by the current fasinating history of the Bell Airacobra...

>I hereby nominate the following as the worst and most dangerous (to 
>their aircrews) fighters on the Allied side in WW2

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

>2. Bell Airacobra -- for all the reasons that Joe advances.

Hmmh.. if i recall right, brewster buffalo was the plane that Finnish
pilot made his world record in shooting down enemy planes (don't remember
the exact counts, but it was something like 5 bombers in 5 minutes)

Even lousy plane was better than nothing...

-- 
 -- Jussi-Pekka Korkala     |"And if your head explodes with dark forbodings"
 email : korkkari@clinet.fi | too, I'll see you on the dark side of the moon"
 "Much is usually too much, but enough is allmost never enough. So more than
  enough should be enough for everybody!"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Patrick V Kauffold <cga66@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Re: Speculation on WWII and technology)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:22:09 GMT


From Patrick V Kauffold <cga66@ihlpl.att.com>

Most of the weapons used in WWII were already in the development
or engineering stage in 1940.  At least this aspect would eliminate
effects of wartime thinking on design.

From what I remember of industrial performance during the period,
quality (reliability, availability, maintainability) improved
during the war due to stricter controls required by the War Dept.
for suppliers.  The controls were based on quality control 
methods developed during the 20's by Shewhart, Dodge & Romig,
Deming, and others.

I don't think there is any evidence that weapons were designed
for a short life.  The limits of analysis and design methods
(no computers, no calculators, slide-rule accuracy) encouraged
general over-engineering of most industrial products, sometimes
by a factor of 5.  Notable products with long lives are the 
C-47 (still flying in the 3rd world), Skinner Uniflow engines
in the Liberty Ships (still going ... and going ...), Jeeps,
M1 Garand rifles, Zippo lighters.

What went wrong?  So many things to choose from.

The following is strictly opinion.

During the '50s and '60s, a business could sell damn near 
anything it could produce.  The mass market was growing so fast
that competition was not providing the discipline needed to
weed out the weak and inefficient.  Domestic producers pretty
much had it all to themselves, and went about establishing
de facto monopolies and cartels where they could (autos, 
electrical, chemicals, steel, to name a few).

About the same time, the B-schools emerged, and started preaching
MBO.  Hired managers largely replaced owner-managers in all but
the smallest firms.  The horizon for measuring success narrowed
and shortened.

So when folks started feeling the competitive pressure, the 
B-schoolers were there to jump right in with MBO and its various
flavors.  Short term myopia and a fascination for numbers
is one legacy.  Shoddy products and services now plague nearly
every enterprise once noted for quality and value (GM, Sears,
Zenith).

This has not spilled over that much into military products, in
spite of the notable boondoggles and scandals.  Your average
military system and component continues to be a pretty rugged
and reliable piece of gear (although cost has been a problem).

And there are notable exceptions.  The Boeing Co. continues to
be a world leader.  Lincoln Electric is the low-cost, high-quality
producer of welding equipment.  Intel is kicking ass and taking
names.

And we are doing better.  It all seems very Darwinian.
From: jlc@u.washington.edu (Jeffrey Casterline)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: TOW missiles in Somalia
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:32:39 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


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.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mark Miller <msmiller@igor.rational.com>
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:25:28 GMT


From Mark Miller <msmiller@igor.rational.com>

|> From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
|> 
|> Prompted by the current fasinating history of the Bell Airacobra...
|> 
|> I hereby nominate the following as the worst and most dangerous (to 
|> their aircrews) fighters on the Allied side in WW2
|> 
|> 1. Brewster Buffalo -- so bad that it deserves a class all of its own.

Yet a pile of these were sent to Finland and they chewed up the
Red Air Force with them. Go figure.

|> 2. Bell Airacobra -- for all the reasons that Joe advances.

The Russians loved the P-39 for ground attack and low-level ops'.
Of course, they also loved the fact that the P-39 had a radio
and a cabin heater.


-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Mark S. Miller                                     msmiller@Rational.COM
"Life is a 4-letter word."                        msmiller@world.std.com
[ insert tedious disclaimer drivel here ]                           IV-Q

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dennis womack <dennis@medusa.dseg.ti.com>
Subject: Re: Cobalt bomb?  _What_ cobalt bomb?
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:20:11 GMT


From dennis womack <dennis@medusa.dseg.ti.com>

> 
> 	Just recently I encountered something interesting in a conversation concerning nuclear weaponry: the cobalt bomb.  What in the world is a cobalt bomb, and why can't I find any references to it?
> 
> Gary				.----------------------------------.

The Cobalt bomb is a "normal" nuclear device that has a blanket of Cobalt surrounding it.  The Cobalt becomes very radioactive at exposure to the blast.  It "seeds" an area with highly toxic particles, creating a no-man's land.  Very dirty thing.

... Dennis