HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jim Heath <jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:42:57 GMT


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

>From article <C0E5pq.6z9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>:
> 
> From Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>
> 
> 1)  The US deployed large numbers of passive listening devices in Vietnam -- That
> didn't seem to solve the sniper problem.  Try working out the math for how many
> you need to cover an area reliably and you'll get a feeling for the problem. 
> Data processing would also be ... impressive.

The listening devices in Nam were for other purposes, like are there
people around where they are placed (or am I mistaken?).

I suspect that a computer system _might_ be fast enough to handle the
problem, but I'm a programmer, not a mathamatician ;-{).

> 2)  Yes, most bullets are supersonic, which is why they make scary "cracking"
> noises when they go overhead.  One of the functions of a silencer is to
> decelerate the bullet below Mach 1 (on rifles, that is).  Most pistol rounds are
> subsonic, making them much easier to silence (rifle silencers suck).

It seems to me that subsonic rifle shots would negate the idea of the
sniper, or at least interfer with his/her mission - to kill at fairly long
range.  The slower the bullet, the longer the target has to move out of
its path.  This isn't much of a problem at close range, but can develop
into one at longer ranges.  'Course it now occurs to me to wonder how well
this system would work on a sniper who was the better part of a mile away.

-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi)
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships (edited response)
Organization: The University of Western Australia
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:23:22 GMT


From doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi)

Dave Coder <dave@nucleus.immunol.washington.edu> writes:


>From Dave Coder <dave@nucleus.immunol.washington.edu>

><mckinney@athena.mit.edu> writes:
>]It is important to realize that firing at a longer range is not  
>always a dis
>]advantage.  Thusly:  At very long range, shells come almost  
>straight down to
>]penetrate deck armor.  

>Is this correct? I seem to remember diagrams from the Renaissance that 
>depict the the maximum range to be an angle of elevation of 45 degrees. 
>To get an angle of descent closer to vertical, the elevation needs to be 
>increased resulting in decreased range. So it seems you have to be in 
>closer to lob shells straight into the deck.


>Dave Coder
>Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
>military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM   | Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486  
>(VOICEplus)
>Sci.military moderator

	Many (if not all) of the large guns on battleships could not
elevate higher than 45 degrees. Lower range can also be obtained by
reducing the angle to the horizon. 

	Many long range guns would get maximum distance not at 45
degrees but at elevations higher than that because as the elevation gets
higher, the projectile reaches higher altitude, thus experiencing less
aerodynamic drag.  Also, if the gun was facing the correct direction
(can't remember whether it was west or east), the earth's rotation would
help increase the range of the projectile.

					Daniel Oi
					University of Western Australia


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: glock@chip.cba.ufl.edu (Joe Granto)
Subject: Re: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: College of Business, University of Florida
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:21:30 GMT


From glock@chip.cba.ufl.edu (Joe Granto)

In article <C0CC0q.GxI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com> writes:

>So, the challenge is made.  What does everyone think?  I think the
>challenge itself is telling about just how fast the Cold War is receding.

I am very curious to see how the Apache does against it.  My money is on the 
Apache.

>And on the ecjection seat.  From the picture, the cockpit isn't far enough 
>forward for the pilot not to get pureed (?) by windmilling rotors.  A brake
>perhaps?  But again, from the picture, on the ground both rotors have a
>blade almost directly over the cockpit.  A downward ejection?  That sounds
>like something out of a Road-Runner cartoon.  Wiley Coyote ejects out of his
>gunship only to get a rocket assisted head-plant in the ground.  And as he
>wobbles to his feet, a large shadow grows about him.  He looks up just
>in time to see the flaming wreckage of his Hokum plow him into the ground
>for a second time.

I know that the US looked into helicopter ejection seats, but determined 
they are too much of a hassle to bother with.  Basically it involved blowing 
off the main rotor to prevent the pilot from being la machined.  Pilots, in 
general, did not like the idea of their main rotor having the ability to 
"blow off."  It would be very nasty if the electronics that control this 
explosive were accidently triggered.  Or if the explosive were hit and 
then went off.  Also, in a chopper as small as the Hokum or Apache, I 
question how much good an ejection seat would do anyway.






Joe

****************************************************************
**                 GLOCK@chip.cba.ufl.edu                     **
**                                                            **
**     "When the going gets tough, the tough get a GLOCK."    **
****************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cash@calvin.ee.udel.edu (Jason Scott Cash)
Subject: Re: bradley aa version (w
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:42:38 GMT


From cash@calvin.ee.udel.edu (Jason Scott Cash)

>The 30mm Chain Gun used in the AH-64 uses ammunition based on the Aden/DEFA
>family. This uses a very short cylindrical case. The service round used
>with the Chain Gun is HEDP - High Explosive Dual Purpose, with a fluted
>cone copper SC liner and a prefragmented steel body.
>
>The Scimitar and Fox use the 30mm Rarden gun, whose ammunition is based
>on an Oerlikon 30mm round (KCB?) more powerful than the Aden/DEFA but
>not quite as good as the 30x173 of the GAU-8.
>
>Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply

The Warrior also uses the RARDEN 30mm, as well as a few FV432's that have
the Scimitar's turret fitted on top. Speaking of the Warrior, I read an
article in JDW about a year ago that claimed that the Brits were 
ordering some Warriors with MILANs. A later article had a picture included
Are they going ahead with this, or is this a budget casualty?          
If they are going ahead with this, does anyone know how these will be      
deployed? Will they replace the FV432's with MILANs as the mechanized
battalions AT vehicles, as the article contends? This seems rather silly
to me. Why not have one Warrior per platoon fitted with MILANs? They
have relatively few Warriors, why waste them as makehshift AT vehicles?

Jason Cash
cash@udel.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: <None> (was tanks/terrain)
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:42:25 GMT


From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>




	I'm sorry but sure if you want to raid territory then Helos are
	the obvious choice. But you cannot hold territory with a helo.
	The helo has to land and refuel every few hours. The crew needs
	to rest and they can't be on station while they rest...

		Helos are not self Deploying!!..They need gallons of fuel.
	Ok so you have black hawks deploy the lighter gear and fuel in
	Fuel bladders and slings. But you are still going to need The
	heavy gear for fixing the helos. They are not low maintainance
	equipment. A gas turbine is not a simple piece of gear.
	Electronics cannot be field stripped. sure you can change out
	major components but full maintainance needs to be done at a
	base.  
	Someone else said that weather is a major problem...Alaska does
	not always have nice sunny warm clear skies. Ok Albeit the
	AH-64 can operate in marginal conditions. What if a large storm
	blows up...well the helos will be grounded. A situation with
	 visibility down to a mile would really hinder helo ops...

				Ryan

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chris Thompson <christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>
Subject: Info request on Patriot SAMs
Keywords: Patriot, SAM, search radar, range 
Organization: City College of New York - Science Computing Facility
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:35:43 GMT


From Chris Thompson <christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>

Howdy.  I'm trying to work Patriot SAMs into a Harpoon scenario
I'm going to run soon.  Can someone please post and/or send me some
NON-CLASSIFIED information on this critter?  I'm specifically
interested in:
	missile range
	kill probability
	guidance (semi-active radar, inertial w/terminal active radar,
		beam-rider, that sort of thing) 	
	search radar (name, range, etc.)
	minimum engagement range
	minimum & maximum altitudes
	missile speed
Yeah, I know- I'm not asking for much.  But I figure with all the 
foofaraw during the gulf war, this stuff must be around somewhere
(maybe I should get in touch with Ted Turner?).  Thanks a bunch,

Chris Thompson
(Hey NSA!  It really is for a GAME!)

-- 
(Help!  I've fallen and I can't reach my beer!)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chc30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
Subject: British armour/sonic snipers
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:43:40 GMT


From chc30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com


The armour on the British "Warrior" APCs is I think Chobham and according
ne report I heard can withstand any artillery round up to 155mm. I think
the BBC News report said the armour was in plates fixed onto the vehicles
which suggests it is not normally used.
   The sniper locater the British army use is called Claribel and has been
used by foot patrols in Belfast, it cut down the number of sniper attacks
since the soldiers had a better idea of where to return fire.
--
chc30@amail.amdahl.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: kimgh@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Gene Kim)
Subject: McNeal-Lehrer report on Iraqi shootdown
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:42:51 GMT


From kimgh@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Gene Kim)

    Two weeks ago, McNeal-Lehrer had a panel discussing the
incident of the two American F-16s shooting down an Iraqi jet in
the no-fly zone in southern Iraq.  (I can remember neither the
date nor the panel members, sorry!)

    However, one of the panel members said that the Iraqi plane
was shot down by an AMRAAM missile.  Is that correct?  They're
actually in service?  (And it worked?)

Gene


[mod note -- yes, it was shot down by an AMRAAM fired from an F-16

Steve]
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Riccardo Sibilia <rick@imp.phys.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: Swiss military preparedness!!
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:39:31 GMT


From Riccardo Sibilia <rick@imp.phys.ethz.ch>

Ok, I think it is time I say something about the Swiss
army as it is and as it will be, since hearing of how it
should be is not very interesting nor stimulating.
OUR army is undergoing a major restructuration, called
"Army 95". As the name says it will be fully implemented
by 1995, and comprises a reduction of personnel from 
600000 people to 400000, and a fundamental modernisation
at every level, from infantry to AF, from the simple 
soldier to the commandement of bigger units. 
The objectives are:
- more mobility - less personnel
- shorter warning time
- effective administration
- and last but not least: lower cost and less impact on the
  citizen own time!

But the change does not only imply a change in the equipement 
(like the new StGw 90, new jeeps and vehicles and 
the F/A-18 (hopefully)), but also a dramatic change 
in the instruction, at EVERY level, so that a new 
conduction style will result, which will then lead to 
an incraese of motivation. This changes are concretely:

- The recruit school will be 15 week long instead of the 
  actual 17, and there will be less "stupid" exercise, like
  the 50 km march of a whole company, which will be 
  substituted by more stimulating stuff like combat 
  exercises or shorter small teams march (in the range 
  of 30 km). Technical troops will focus on their specific
  formation.

- The underofficer school, which brings a soldier to the
  grade of a corporal, will be longer. Instead of the
  actual 3 weeks (before a second recruit school), it will
  be 5 weeks long, but part of it will be during the recruit
  school period. This means concretely that the recruits will
  be left the first two week with the officials and
  profesional instructors alone.
  The formation of the underofficials has been recognized as
  being one of the weak points in the actual structure. 

- The anual repetition courses will be shorter (2 weeks 
  instead of 3) and a soldier (in general sense) will 
  have to serve up to 37.

- The instuctor school will also become longer and require
  more, since the final scope is to have a much better 
  instruction and motivation.

As you see there are many changes in sight and many have
already been applied. With this measures we will finaly
get a dynamic, young army, well prepared for the 2000.

I will stay at disposition to answer any question, as far 
as I can, since I anly heart of this changes at my last 
course and they did not enter in great detail.

Another thing directed to the guys of McDonald Douglas:
keep ready to produce the F/A-18 for us, since the 
initiative against them will NOT be accepted!



Regards,


--- Riccardo Sibilia

rick@stud.phys.ethz.ch 


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans..
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:30 GMT


From David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>

>From "sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu" <Ops@raven.alaska.edu>

>This has always intrigued me: Did the Germans treat Allied Jewish Pow's any
>differently to other allied Pow's? Or did they treat them as bestially as 
>the concentration camp victims... 

In one of the US Army's official histories of ww2 there's a reference
to an order being given to Jewish troops in a cut-off unit to pound
out the "H" on their dogtags. [Perhaps the regiments of the 106th
division that were captured in the Bulge?] Given the prevalence of
circumcision among all Americans of the ww2 generation, one could
probably conceal Jewishness without too much trouble.

dhs    spencer@panix.com



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Apache and AMRAAM
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:33:51 GMT


From Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>

In article <C0o9J0.IEn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu> writes:
>
>From MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>
>
>In article <C0Jpx0.8xr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu> writes:
>>McDonnell Douglas released some drawings of a "Sea Apache" a few years ago
>>with the FLIR's and chain gun replaced with an APG-65 (F/A-18) radar.  It
>>was shown carrying AMRAAM's.  I believe Harpoon and Penguin were also

>I have some artwork about, but I thought only the gun was gone, replaced 
>with a circular radome ala Sea Hawks. I do recall Harpoon and Penguin as
>possible weapons, I believe the Sea Hawk can carr/fire these, especially
>if the weapons wings are added. 

Penguin, yes, but I don't know about Harpoon; the weight's pretty high for
the hardpoints involved, which are scaled to the Mk 50 torpedo.  I
certainly haven't heard about it being qualified.  I don't think the
SH-60*'s are set up for the ESSS the way the Army UH-60*'s are (there's
less commonality than we'd like to think, I imagine), although it would be
a Good Thing if they were. 

>>AMRAAM does need some input from a fire control radar (semi-active lockon,
>>midcourse command update at all but dogfight ranges).
>[...]
>>which suggests it can be fired from third-party data.  If the Army buys
>>AMRAAM, it'll be as a SAM; the Norwegians are already set to, and it's
>
>Say, Chaparal(sp?) uses Sidewinders with a booster and AMRAAM is compatible
>with Sidewinder rails... So, would it be possible to change the electronics
>suite on the Chaparal to use AMRAAM SAMs? How about replacing Sea Sparrow
>with Sea AMRAAM? 

Chapparal as used now doesn't really have an electronics suite; it's visually
aimed and relies on radioed verbal cues from outside sensors.  I also
can't imagine that there's enough mileage left in the launch vehicles to
make it worthwhile; Avenger is filling most of its niche even now.

There's been some talk about Sea AMRAAM, but the market looks more set for
bigger and better (dual-mode guidance, enlarged motors, vertical launch) Sea
Sparrows right now.
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Subject: Re: AGS selection
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:29:55 GMT


From cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu


  The Army has selected FMC's CCVL to be the AGS or XM-4.  I think the first
ones will be delivered in 1994.

                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Daemon E. Hobbs, C/LtCol, AFROTC
                 Senior, (Spatial Information Systems)
                          Cal Poly, Pomona
                            **Commander**
                602D Air Force ROTC Cadet Squadron (ATC)
                Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

         "My ramblings represent no one's opinion but my own."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pmckenna@unix1.tcd.ie (P.J. McKenna)
Subject: Israelie armour.
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin (student)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:26:36 GMT


From pmckenna@unix1.tcd.ie (P.J. McKenna)

	While reading a Salamander book on armoured vehicles I came across a 
reference to the M60 in Israelie service. Seemingly the Blazer reactive armour 
being replaced with MAGACH-7 blocks which are bulkier. According to the book
this stuff is better against shaped-charge warheads AND good against sabot 
rounds too.
	IMHO the MAGACH-7 blocks have some sort of built-in proximity-fuse that
detect a fast moving metalic "thing" and set off the armour. This spreads into a
 sheet of heavy-duty shrapnel which breaks up the warhead.
	Anyone else have any ideas? Is this what is on the Merkaava3 ?
	Yours,
	      P.J. Mc Kenna.
--
  I, alone, am personally responsible for the opinions expressed above, except 
      where indicated otherwise. (Then again I may have been brainwashed.)
		     P.J. Mc Kenna - pmckenna@unix1.tcd.ie  
	  The voices in my head told me to come over and talk to you.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Uhlans
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:25:15 GMT


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


> Uhlans were Lancers, complete with Polish-style czapkas (though they 
> probably didn't wear them during WWI). 

German Uhlans still wore a headgear recognisably derived from the 
original Czsapka.  All Austrian cavalry had adopted the same equipment 
and roles by WWI, although regiments kept the designation Uhlan, 
Cuirassier, Hussar or Dragoon, so their "Uhlans" wore a dragoon style 
helmet.

Most other cav wore soft caps of some sort.

> 
> One of the more interesting WWI cavalry stories I've heard is that when 
> the US entered the war they sent some cavalry riding off somewhere. They
> were waylaid by a couple German machinegun nests which they took care off 
> with massed .45 ACP fire! Sounds apocryphal to me..

Seems unlikely, doesn't it :-)

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
> Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
> Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
-- 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chris Thompson <christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>
Subject:  _A Few Good Men_ question 
Organization: City College of New York - Science Computing Facility
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:28 GMT


From Chris Thompson <christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>

I just saw the movie _A Few Good Men_, and I have a purely
military question to ask about it.....


SPOILERS FOLLOW!



The 2 enlisted Marines are convicted of Conduct Unbecoming of a Marine,
and are handed Dishonorable Discharges.  Is this possible?  Likely?
As I don't think this will be of interest to the group in general,
please email replies.  Thanks,

Chris Thompson

-- 
(Help!  I've fallen and I can't reach my beer!)
From: morlan@afit.af.mil (Bruce W. Morlan)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: SNIPER DETECTION.
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:39:31 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology


From "Bruce W. Morlan" <morlan@afit.af.mil>

  [discussion of sonic sniper detection ...]

Just as an interesting validation experiment - we once lost an R/C
airplane in a corn field.  We were able to reconstruct the bearing at
impact from looking at of video camera footage that no longer showed
the airplane, but had been manually "centered" by sound.  Not accurate
enough to return fire with small weapons, but, with artillery, maybe.
-- 
Bruce W. Morlan, Major, USAF             Air Force Institute of Technology
Deputy Department Head (Military)        AFIT/ENC
Department of Mathematics                WPAFB  OH  45433
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Riccardo Sibilia <rick@imp.phys.ethz.ch>
Subject: Re: Still on the Swiss Military
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:37:01 GMT


From Riccardo Sibilia <rick@imp.phys.ethz.ch>

pyrdek@edinboro.edu writes:

>There have been much discussion generated by the Swiss Army question but 
>I am still looking for the one basic answer.  Do the Swiss have:
>    highways convertable into landing strips for jet aircraft by
>    simply removing highway dividers?

yes! photos of a recent exercice where publied on local newspapers

>    pylons on bridges, tunnels and so forth PRE-MINED (that is 
>    already charged with explosives to accomplish almost
>    imediate demolition without the need to secure the explosives
>    from somewhere?  (just one or two responsible people and 
>    a "key" to turn the switch)?

some of them

>    Underground shelters and hospitals stocked and manned to supply
>    shelter and/or medical service to the population in times of
>    war (including atomic warfare)?

yes

>As as side note, does anyone have accurate figures on how much money
>is spent (either %of GNP or actual $ or francs) by the Swiss for
>military budgets?

Not yet should have a look at some old newspaper

Ciao

  Rick