HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jb7m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon C. R. Bennett)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:39:34 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From "Jon C. R. Bennett" <jb7m+@andrew.cmu.edu>

asp+@pitt.edu (Anandeep Pannu) writes:
> aback at the size. This is one big airplane ! Slow and big is not good news
> in close support.

you are only half right, slow is very good news in CAS, it gives you more
time to aquire the target and lets you attack targets close to your own
troops with less risk, fast means that you have little time to sort frend
from foe, and that you cant engage enemy units close to your own forces

> So I think that the F-16 would be a good choice for close air support today. 
> Its agile, its fast and it has the avionics to do the job. 
> I like the A-10 but lets be realistic !

yes, lets be realistic, 

the F16 is a tin can next to the A-10s armored form, the F16 has one
unarmored engine in the fuselage (next to the fuel) compared to the A-10
which has two engines mounted clear of the fuselage, well protected from
ground fire and seperated from the fuel. The A10's cannon gives it much
additional CHEAP firepower which cannot be added to the F16 (the A-10 had
to be designed around the Avenger). Damage surviveablility, the A-10
airframe is capable of remaining in flight missing half of one wing and
half of the tail, i cant see a F16 staying in one piece long enought to
sustain that kind of damage. the high mounded engines are less suseptable
to damage from the intake of material off the runway (handy if you want to
opperate from say fowarard dirt runways or damaged runways with lonts of
debris. face facts the F16 was not designed for the CAS role and the A-10


jon
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hakoskinen@tne01.tele.nokia.fi (Harri Koskinen)
Subject: status of the EFA project in Germany?
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:23:26 GMT


From hakoskinen@tne01.tele.nokia.fi (Harri Koskinen)




From hakoskinen@tne01.tele.nokia.fi (Harri Koskinen)

I am somewhat confused about the latest status of the
Eurofighter (Jaeger 90) program in Germany. I would be
most grateful, if someone could inform me, if the official
and final political decision about the German withdrawal
from the project has been made.

---------
Harri Koskinen
freelance aviation writer
Siivet magazine
Finland

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mcgp1!flak@nwnexus.wa.com (Dan Flak)
Subject: Re: Velcro Patches
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:26:42 GMT


From mcgp1!flak@nwnexus.wa.com (Dan Flak)




From mcgp1!flak@nwnexus.wa.com (Dan Flak)

The practice of putting velcro on insignia and rank started in
the mid-70's at that time, many of the unit patches were quite
colorful as was the very shiny gold or silver rank.

In an escape and evasion situation, we were told to remove all
insignia, rank, or whatever.

First of all, it made it more difficult for someone to find you
at close range in "the bush". The services have since come up
with "subdued" versions of patches and rank ("gold" rank is a dark
brown, "silver" is a dark blue"), but the practice continues
anyway.

Secondly, it kept the enemy from getting too much information at
a glance. The Geneva convention requires that you give them your
name, rank, serial number and date of birth. Unit of assignment,
type of aircraft flown, etc. is not required, yet this
information could be gotten from a unit patch.

We were also instructed to "sanitize" our wallets. That means no
pictures, no licenses, credit cards, etc. The only thing you
carry is a military ID card and cash.

Personal information can (and will be) used against you if the
enemy can get a hold of it. The Vietnamese didn't have a highly
automated information management system, yet they were able to
come up with some very demoralizing information on POWs such as
showing one POW a news article and picture of his "hippy"
daughter being arrested in a peace demonstration. Rest assured,
that every POW whose spouse divorced him while he was in
captivity also got the news speedily. They also read the hometown
obituarties to make sure they could report the death of loved
ones, etc. Why use a lie, when a truth will do? It's one of the
curses of living in an "open" society.

So what's the falicy? In the United States military, service
number is the same as social security number. This will tell even
the least sophisticated enemy where the prisoner was born (in
most cases). Any nation with a PC and a modem can now have
volumes of information to use against its American captives.

-- 
People who want by the yard, but try by the inch, should be kicked by the foot.
                                     - anon
       Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 5400 Carillon Point
  Kirkland, Wa 98033-7397, 206-828-8006, (usenet: flak%mcgp1.uucp@nwnexus.com)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Phalanx Ammo
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:46:43 GMT


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




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

In article <1992Jul28.130158.24346@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene) writes:
>
>Theere are a variety of reasons not to use DU rounds.  If one wants
>fragmentation DU is not a good choice and so on.  One of the main reason for
>the use of other types is cost.  Depleted uranium is hellishly expensive.  If
>you can get by with somethiing cheaper, it's not a bad idea.

While there are a variety of reasons for using other types of projectiles,
cost isn't a major deterrent to DU usage. While it is expensive to deplete
uranium, the DOE has millions and millions of pounds of it as *scrap* from
the nuclear fuel and weapons programs. Since it's cost is already absorbed
by another program, using it for projectiles is free, aside from projectile
fabrication costs.

Addressing another concern over DU, radiation, DU stands for Depleted
Uranium. What is *depleted* about the uranium is that almost all of
the highly fissionable U235 has been removed from it for nuclear weapons 
use. The remaining U238 is not very radioactive at all.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Re: 8th AF Loss Rates for Fighters
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:43:28 GMT


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)




From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <1992Jul29.125733.21546@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes:

> I'm curious about how pilot survival compares with modern jets in combat,
> and how people might explain any differences.

I'd have to think WWII pilot survival rates would compare pretty poorly
if for no other reason than because getting out of a shattered airplane
involved disconnecting your radio harness, oxygen, shoulder and lap
strap and then climbing out of a possibly wildly gyrating fighter while
wounded.  Robert Johnson attempted to climb out of his shattered
Thunderbolt while over enemy territory but could not because the canopy
was jammed.  It had a hole in it big enough for him to climb out, but
not with his chute.  He stayed with the airplane and returned safely to
base even after being hosed by a FW-190 with machine gun fire at point
blank range for several long seconds.

Ejection seats only began appearing late in the war and then on German
aircraft.  Getting out of Lightnings was particularly deadly because of
the elevator directly behind the cockpit.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Marines, are they needed?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:46:03 GMT


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




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


Don Palmrose writes:
#Navy aircraft were extremely effective against Libya.  One reason why people
#think they were not is because the Naval Aviators do not want fancy camera
#equipement taking up room and space that can be fitted with electronic jammers


This is a rather specious comment. I sincerely doubt that any Aardvark driver
had anything to do with the contents of a Pave Tack pod. I don't know why
it has a VTR and the A-6's TRAM doesn't (or does it), but this has nothing
to do with what the pilot wants or doesn't. One could surmise that the
F-111 pilots may not like having that pod take up their weapons bay and
cause drag when deployed, but again it's not their call.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mcgp1!flak@nwnexus.wa.com (Dan Flak)
Subject: Re: Why velcro insignia?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:37:03 GMT


From mcgp1!flak@nwnexus.wa.com (Dan Flak)


From mcgp1!flak@nwnexus.wa.com (Dan Flak)

>From christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson)

> I was at an airshow near Kingston NY a while back.  I was standing
> next to a USN S-3 pilot, when a good-looking woman complimented
> him on the patch on his shoulder.  He immediately pulled it off
> and presented it to her.  One reason?

Bartering with the natives is an acceptable use.

The tradition is, that when you land and are on "crew rest", you
take your wings and turn them upside down to indicate your "non
active" (to put it euphuistically) status. (It's sort of like an
international sign of distress - please buy this pilot a drink
:-). 

There are also a number of places world wide where you can get
special patches made up to indicate crew rest status. It is
doubful that many of these patches would ever be approved under
AFR 35-10.

[ mod note -- AFR 35-10 is Air Force Regulation 35-10, which covers
uniforms and personal appearance  -- Steve]
-- 
              Our most important product is a satisfied customer.
       Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 5400 Carillon Point
  Kirkland, Wa 98033-7397, 206-828-8006, (usenet: flak%mcgp1.uucp@nwnexus.com)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Vietnam era ammo sabotage
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:22:13 GMT


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


Keith Coman writes:
#Ammo sabotage in Vietnam thread.....
#
#This type of "dirty trick" seems to be quite a common effort.  In the Kenya

Digressing a bit:

1. During the Second World War, the German forces used, in addition to the
well-known stick grenade ("potato masher"), a smaller egg-grenade. It used
a similar fuze: unscrewing the cap revealed a cord which, when pulled, lit
a friction igniter which initiated the delay. In this grenade the fuze was
removable, and there were two: the blue fuze had a normal 4-5 sec delay,
while the red fuze had a half-second delay and was intended for booby
trapping grenades to be left behind when a position was abandoned. When the
Soviets caught onto this trick, a field-expedient alternative was devised
by modifying the blue fuzes through removing the delay, giving instantaneous
action.

2. JANE'S INFANTRY WEAPONS states that while Soviet F-1 (pineapple-type)
grenades should have a 4-5 second delay, they have been found with delays
from 0 to 20 seconds. Users are cautioned to check the fuze, as the delay
time is stamped on the fuze below the threads :)


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Michael Chui <mchui@spinner.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: 20mm ammo for Phalanx (was Tracers)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:50:06 GMT


From Michael Chui <mchui@spinner.cs.indiana.edu>

>From jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
[snip]
>	(the SAS use tungsten coated 9mm in their HK-MP5 submachine-guns
>	to avoid overpenetration that might leave the enemy standing), 

References?  Would the use of materials technology to manufacture
expanding military rounds be legal under the Geneva Convention?

Michael Chui
mchui@cs.indiana.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Subject: Re: depleted uranium
Summary: What it is
Keywords: depleted uranium 235 238
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:44:52 GMT


From saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)




From saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)

There seems to be a lack of certainty about what depleted uranium is.

Uranium is made up of several isotopes, mostly the ones of mass 235 and 238.
Fission devices (both reactors and bombs) use uranium which has been enriched
in the mass 235 isotope, by a relatively expensive process.  The mass 235
isotope is more than 1000 times as radioactive as the mass 238 isotope, and
constitutes just under 1% of natural uranium.  Depleted uranium has had most
of the lighter isotope(s) removed for 'other uses'.  It is substantially
less radioactive than the natural isotope mixture.  It might reasonably be
priced as a recoverable waste product.  The metallurgy of uranium is much less
convenient than the metallurgy of iron or lead (or osmium, for that matter),
but over-all, not necessarily all that different in difficulty from the
metallurgy of tungsten.  So manufactured DU parts are fairly costly, but
the price of the raw material is arbitrary.

                                      Steve J    saj@chinet.chi.il.us

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bh419@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ted B Samsel)
Subject: Re: Breaking in green submariners
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:13:58 GMT


From bh419@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ted B Samsel)


Not subariners but veterinarians:

(A true story)
   During a neurology class with goat autopsies, it was notd
that the goats were behaving strangely before they shuffled
off their mortal coil. A pathologist was called in and 2 days
later the goats were pronounced to be rabid.
  All the students had to begin the Pasteur treatment.
Two days after that they were told that there was no rabies
present in the goats.
  (Ha ha)
-- 
Ted....

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chuck <70754.3075@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: sci.military Digest   V10 #60
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:23:42 GMT


From chuck <70754.3075@CompuServe.COM>




From chuck <70754.3075@CompuServe.COM>

regarding the use of depleted urainium in SABOT rounds,
 
    1.  Tanks are BIG users of DU rounds.  An M1A1 carries 40 rounds, and
most of them are usually DU (exact number varies, at the commanders'
discretion, according to the situation).
 
    2.  DU rounds are HELLISHLY expensive, over $10,000 a round for some of
them, which is why tankers practice with steel cored SABOT rounds. Other DU
rounds run as low as $2500, and training SABOTS are around $800.
(DISCLAIMER:  I saw these figures during DESERT STORM and am relying soley
on memory, so do not quote exact figures)
 
    3.  SABOTS are usually the round of choice for carrying in the chamber,
because it may not be the BEST round for every target, but it will kill any
target.  HEAT from a 120mm tank cannon may or may not kill a T-72, but a DU
SABOT will.  Then same HEAT round will total an APC, but a SABOT will stop
it with varrying degrees of damage.
 
    4.  I know of incidents (DESERT STORM and on the live fire range) where
a SABOT hit a M2 Bradley and passed through with little or no casualties
to the crew.  Of course in the few cases where the SABOT actually hit a
crewmember, well, the results are predictable...
 
    5.  DU is used for SABOT simply for its density.  The Uranium is (I
hear) difficult to machine, and steel is certainly cheaper.
 
    6.  All the above apllies only to tank rounds, the only type I know
anything about.
 
 
Chuck Davis



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten)
Subject: Re: How to spike a gun?
Organization: /cuba_b/dirbe/roten/.organization
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:42:00 GMT


From roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten)


From roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten)

In article <BsKCnp.E2s@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dgfritz@rodan.acs.syr.edu 
(Doug Fritz) writes:

>Spiking a gun such as a cannon or artillery piece disables the
>gun, but how does a foot soldier spike a gun?

The term comes from the days when muzzle-loading cannon were fired by 
applying a flame to a touch-hole near the breech, igniting the black 
powder propellent charge inside.  

To disable such a gun in a way that cannot be reversed easily in the 
field, just drive a spike through the touch-hole.  Thus, the origin of 
the term.  

This was typically done when a battery of such cannon was about to be 
overrun by an opposing force.  

These days, you loose/disable the breechblock.  

--
Charles Roten | Hughes-STX, Incorporated | 
  roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov               | 'Use the Source, Luke!'
  7601 Ora-Glen Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20706 | 
  301-513-7805 (w),  301-317-0872 (h)    |            Obi-Wan Stallman

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Water Injection
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:22:30 GMT


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


Iskandar Taib writes:
#As a matter of fact, doesn't the A-10 use at least low
#bypass turbofans? They might even be of the high bypass
#variety.


Does not the A-10 use TF-34s, as does the S-3, a decidedly high bypass
engine?

[mod note.  According to the sources I've seen, the A-10 does use the TF-34
engine 

- Steve ]

Which dredges up another memory: Circa 1980 I visited Grumman Bethpage,
and saw an experimental VTOL aircraft under construction, which used the
TF-34. It was sort of a tilt-wing: The two engines were on top of the
wing and mounted on a short horizontal element which tilted up for lift
and became the upper surface of the wing when horizontal. The wing proper
did not move.

Anybody else hear of this one? I guess it died soon thereafter.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Wednesday, 5 August, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:28:19 GMT


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




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

Wednesday, 5 August, 1942

German forces establish a bridgehead over the Kuban River near the
foothills of the Caucasus Mountains.  Kropotkin is also captured.

A U-boat wolf pack begins attacks on convoy SC-94 in the North Atlantic.

Churchill wires Clement Attlee from Egypt, voicing his dissatisfaction with
General Auchinleck's command of the Eighth Army.

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

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

"Wherever the fault may lie for the serious situation which exists, it is
certainly not with the troops, and only to a minor extent with their
equipment." - Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ihlpl!jfb (Joseph F Baugher +1 708 713 4548)
Subject: Second in the Series--The Curtiss P-2 Hawk
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:18:33 GMT


From ihlpl!jfb (Joseph F Baugher +1 708 713 4548)


The designation P-2 (company  designation  Model  34B)  was  the  Army
designation  for  the  last  five P-1 Hawks (Ser Nos 35-420/424) which
were reengined at the factory with the 500 hp Curtiss  V-1400  liquid-
cooled  engine  in  place of the standard 435 hp Curtiss V-1150 (D-12)
engine which powered the rest of the  aircraft  in  the  original  P-1
order.  The  new  engine made these five planes sufficiently different
from the rest of the P-1 order that the Army deemed them worthy  of  a
different P-designation.

The first flight  of  the  P-2  took  place  in  December  1925.   The
increased  power  provided to the P-2 by the V-1400 engine resulted in
an improvement in  performance  vis-a-vis  the  "standard"  P-1  Hawk.
Maximum  speed  at  sea  level  was  172  mph, 151 mph at 15,000 feet.
Initial climb was 2170 ft/min, and an altitude of 6500 feet  could  be
attained  in  3.5  minutes.   Weights  were 2018 lbs. empty, 2869 lbs.
gross.  Service ceiling was 22,950 feet, and range was 400 miles.  The
P-2  was  armed  with a pair of 0.30 cal machine guns installed in the
upper engine cowling, synchronized to fire through the propeller arc.

However, the V-1400 engine proved to  be  unsatisfactory  in  service.
After  less  than a year of operation, the Army converted P-2s 25-421,
422, and 424 to P-1A configuration with the replacement of the  V-1400
engine by the D-12 engine of the P-1 series.  P-2 Ser No 25-423 became
XP-6, the prototype for the P-6 line when fitted with the new  600  hp
Curtiss  V-1570  Conqueror liquid-cooled engine.  Stripped of military
equipment, it placed second (at 189 mph) in the unlimited event of the
1927  National  Air Races.  The winner of this race was the Conqueror-
powered XP-6A, which had been produced by the conversion of a P-1A.

Only Ser No 25-420 remained a P-2.   25-420  temporarily  became  XP-2
when  tested  with  turbosupercharged  Curtiss  V-1400.  Top speed was
almost 180 mph, but  the  basic  shortcomings  of  the  V-1400  engine
precluded any further development.

Sources:

  United States Military Aircraft Since  1909, Gordon Swanborough  and
  Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

  The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books,

Joe Baugher    AT&T Bell Laboratories  2000 N. Naperville Road
		Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033  (708) 713-4548


Newsgroups: sci.military