HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zo@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Organization: Center for Instructional and Research Computing Activities
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:27:33 GMT


From zo@maple.circa.ufl.edu

In article <BvvIsE.DFH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Contrary to long-standing mythology, even in the desert most *infantry*
>combat takes place at very short ranges.  And I suspect you'd find that
>the Israelis issue Uzis mostly for urban warfare and the like, although
>I don't know for sure.
>-- 
>There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
>

Remember, the UZI SMG is NOT the main battle rifle for the Israeli army.  They
also use the Galil ( in 7.62 and 5.56 I believe ), which should be capable
of longer ranges ( i.e. ranges in open desert ).

Brian

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stefan <smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: who knows
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:32:44 GMT


From Stefan <smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>


From Stefan <smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>


Check out the lastest issue of either Air Power or Wings magazine.
It has an article on the XB-70 with some great photos.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dave Pierson <pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: B-25 Info
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:26:01 GMT


From Dave Pierson <pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com>


From Dave Pierson <pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com>

In article <BvvIsK.DH3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Ron.Plunk@EBay.Sun.COM (Ron
Plunk) writes, in part:

>   I and a "partner in crime" are doing research on the North American B-25
>Mitchell in the >Pacific Theatre of Operations, specifically Gen. Kenney's 5th
>Air Force. We are interested in >the "gunship" versions ("strafer", as Kenney
>called it) that were created by 'Pappy' Gunn and >later built by NA on the
>B-25G & H models.  These include all of the multiple 50 calibre versions >as
>well as the 75mm field gun version. 
	The Machine Gun
	George M Chinn Lt Col(?) USMC
	Vol III, Part VIII
	P 160 et seq
	
	This is the 75 mm version.  This was not a "field expedient" job,
	originating in 1937 and continuing thru the war.  The fielded version
	was "semiauto" (auto eject) single shot.  Work was underway on
	a full auto when the war ended.  (Some testfire had been done.)
	Model numbers M4 and M5
	weight reduction from 1015 to 406 lbs.
	recoil reduced from 46" to 23".
	Original testing used an M1897 "French 75".
	Special rangefinder/targettting optical gear.

	Overtaken by the advantages of unguided rockets.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
146 Main St			|I am the NRA.
Maynard, Mass		01754	pierson@msd27.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Anthony Lee <anthony@cs.uq.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:36:06 GMT


From Anthony Lee <anthony@cs.uq.oz.au>


From Anthony Lee <anthony@cs.uq.oz.au>


In <Bvyqqr.5wM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:


:There's no evidence that the Argentines were particularly clever about
:the timing in this regard.  In fact, they were very stupid about the
:timing.  If they'd waited a little bit longer, plans to sell Hermes to
:Australia would probably have gone through, and likewise plans to
:mothball -- perhaps even sell -- Invincible as soon as Illustrious was
:operational.

I think one point that people fail to realise is that 
Australia (as least back in the earlier 80s) still very
much think of herself as having very closed ties with the U.K.
If the U.K. need the Invincible back from Australia then I am
sure the Australian government would have gladly lent it back to
U.K.
--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steve Williams <swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: B-70 --> B-36 & Toilet
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:39:39 GMT


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


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


In sci.military, ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>If you want to talk immense, the B36 inside is immense. Wow!

Yes, B-36's great size was very impressive.

Now, here's a question for you aviation buffs:

It has been said that the B-36 never dropped a bomb in anger, except
that it dropped a toilet.

I couldn't get a full story on this.  Does anyone know anything
about this?

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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:32:04 GMT


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

In article <BvnFu0.KDo@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr)) writes:
>The Uzi submachine gun was developed by the israelis and by most
>account was most successful in combat and as an export item. I've always
>wondered how a 9mm weapon could be effective in the desert especially
>with the ranges involved. Could you kind folk provide some background to 
>this.

The Uzi is probably more effective in dry climates than in wet ones,
like most personal weapons, water is not their friend. Range is not
an issue since the Uzi is used for commando and street fighting, not
long range sniping duels. The compact Uzi is much better for clearing
a room than a long, awkward rifle. Naturally, Israel has assualt and
battle rifles as well as submachineguns. The SMG is a specialized
weapon for specialized missions, not a general issue piece.

Some US Secret Service agents carry the compact Uzi in their protective
role for the President. If you recall the attempted assassination of
President Reagan, one of the agents deployed the Uzi immediately after
the shots were fired. It was a human wave tackle though that brought
Hinckley down. Pistol size SMGs are more useful for laying down suppressive
fire than for taking out a target. Thus other agents carry more accurate
weapons, and for close work against lone crazies, use their bodies.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jac54@cas.org (Alec Chambers)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: DEFCON 1
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:32:28 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From Alec Chambers <jac54@cas.org>

	My recollection of the change in DEFCONs after the
	attempt on Reagan was that it moved from 4 to 3.  It had
	gone to 4 after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

	I was paying particular attention to this because I was
	about to leave Britain for the U.S. at the time.  According
	to my "Encyclopedia of the U.S. Military" the U.S. went to
	DEFCON 2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The levels described
	in this publication are:

	No.     Codeword        Status

	5       Fade Out        Normal peacetime situation exists

	4       Double Take     Tensions exist which require greater
				military vigilance.

	3       Round House     Getting progressively nastier
					    |
	2       Fast Pace                   |
					    |
	1       Cocked Pistol               V

	The source quoted is "LANTCOM, Atlantic Command Alert System,
	CINCLANTINST s3301.3B, 13 january 1982, released under the FOIA"

	Alec Chambers
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: lawday!ciss!ncrcom!psych.toronto.edu!grant
Subject: Re: subs
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:25:41 GMT


From lawday!ciss!ncrcom!psych.toronto.edu!grant


From lawday!ciss!ncrcom!psych.toronto.edu!grant

In article <Bw0oH1.LF7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Under-ice operations are no big deal if you don't need to surface; I think
>the relevant sonar gear is standard equipment.  Surfacing during the arctic
>summer is likewise no problem, if you're patient enough to look around for
>open water.  If you're less patient, or you want to be able to surface in
>the winter (when the gaps that are open water in summer will be iced over,
>although thinly), you need a sub whose sail has been suitably reinforced
>and whose sail-mounted diving planes can be either folded or pivoted to
>avoid damage during ice penetration.  I believe not all US subs have these
>arrangements, although I'm not sure what the percentages are like.

Subs have been able to move about under ice for some time, and I know 
that operating under ice raises new problems for sonar performance. I'd
like to know how well torpedoes can engage a sub that has surfaced through
the ice. As the underside of ice flows are very uneven, a surfaced sub
will be in sort of an upside-down foxhole. A torpedo might never have a
direct line-of-sight to the target. Surfacing through the ice might
be a handy defensive manoever when you detect that someone has fired
a torpedo at you. 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: New IR Jammer on Apache helicopters?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:29:15 GMT


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


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

In article <Bvwr6s.K97@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

||From mccd@rosie.uh.edu (R. Golshan (713)-743-1540)

||I beleive it is more likely that it is a new IR jammer.  It was a relatively 
||small cylinder which had ten mirrored sides, and had three mirrors on each 
||side(A total of 30 reflectors).  It looked exactly like a Disco light!  It 
||seems like a new counter measure against Stinger missiles.

|It is. It sounds it's the AN/ALQ-144. The "mirrors" should be the heating 
|elements (carbon). I didn't know they were going to be put on the AH-64.

I'll bet the whole thing rotates and uses _one_ IR source beamed
at it. The mirrors will break it up into pulses seen from any given 
direction. The disco(e) light analogy would then be pretty appropri-
ate..







-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: cm9@prism.gatech.edu (MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.)
Subject: Re: New IR Jammer on Apache helicopters?
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:58:17 GMT


From cm9@prism.gatech.edu (MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.)




>

It was a relatively
small cylinder which had ten mirrored sides, and had three mirrors on each
side(A total of 30 reflectors).
>
>

Sounds like a variant of the "Hot Brick" - Modulated IR energy is
use to "meacon" (give the illusion of an offset) the engine signature,
fooling the missle into thinking the heat source is elswhere.



-- 
MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:     ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!cm9
Internet: cm9@prism.gatech.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gene Moreau)
Subject: Re: Canadian Frigate Program
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:39:17 GMT


From ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gene Moreau)

In <BvvIsx.DLx@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes:
[something about EH101 carrying Harpoons deleted]

>   You could probably do it, but I doubt it will happen. The Canadian Navy is
>   You could probably use the EH101 with Harpoons, but I don't see it. Canada
>   is not primarily an anti-surface navy; our ships are designed for convoy
>   escort, and sovereignty protection. The role played in the Gulf,namely
>   enforcing the blockade, is perfectly suited to the Halifax-class CPFs. 
>   Besides, we have F/A 18's to take out ships and stuff (which were also
>   active during the Gulf; although we only got 1 ship target).

I remember hearing about that. The pilot tried using a Sidewinder against
it.  Don't they teach air to ground stuff with the cannon here?  I guess
it is a heat seeking missle, but still, not designed for surface use. Do
we even have and AG stuff for the CF-18's  You'd think if they were out on
patrol for ships they's have a harpoon or two.  Even a Maverik or something.


-- 
Gene Moreau                 | "Morning comes far to early when it's cold
University of Mantitoba     |  outside and there is a maniac on the loose"
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada  |    - unknown
ummorea0@cuu.umanitoba.ca

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Cincinnati Country Day School <ccds@tso.uc.edu>
Subject: Request for information
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:40:21 GMT


From Cincinnati Country Day School <ccds@tso.uc.edu>


From Cincinnati Country Day School <ccds@tso.uc.edu>


I am doing a project for school on the military and how they use the 
networks.  Could you please send some information on this topic. 
In the mailing list, it says that you are open for discussions of
military technology and related matters.  I would also like some 
information on this if it's possible.
                                     Thank You,Stan Hunting

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:32:48 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>

In article <Bw0oxJ.M1n@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:

>Also, there were planes to use the B-70 to carry satelites to high-
>altitude so that they could launch themselves into orbit with a
>single stage. (I understand that this version was supposed to be
>able to reach 85,000 ft plus) It's too bad that this wasn't pur-
>sued because because it could've been used a test bed for the con-
>figuration that the Space Shuttle *should've* used. But that's a-
>nother story.

There is a system in production now, called the Pegasus I believe, that 
involves a small rocket fired from under the wing of a B-52 flying at high 
altitude.  This system was designed as a low cost method to put light-weight 
sattelites into orbit.  The last info I heard was that several test went extremely well, and that the system was going into production.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:32:30 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder


From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)

In article <Bvytpv.y9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> andrewh@panix.com (Andrew Huie) writes:
>OK.  People have been arguing on whether or not the Marines air force should be
>cut.  The argument seems convincing to me that the entire air force shouldn't
>be cut, but it is not so convincing why the marines need fighters like the
>F-18.  If their primary use is air cover...

It isn't: The FA-18 was a replacement for the A-7 attack plane. Improved
technology allowed for a combination fighter/attack aircraft that
was both a good fighter and able satisfy the light attack mission. In 
practice the Marine FA-18 are attack aircraft, that can also defend
itself and/or be reconfigured into a air superiority fighter in case
of need (assuming the Air Force and Navy can't deliver...) I don't
think the Marines fly any single purpose fighters.

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:24:26 GMT


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

In article <Bvtp4t.6MF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>From morlan@afit.af.mil (Bruce W. Morlan)
>>Such a system would be much more efficient in a sub with convective
>>cooling than is possible in space...
>
>Don't bet on it; the efficiency of thermoelectric conversion also depends
>on how big the temperature difference is, and space is a lot colder than
>seawater.  I don't know the numbers, but it's not obvious that the system
>would do better underwater.

Shame Henry, space has no temperature. The question is whether convection
or radiation (thermal) will put the cold plate at a lower temperature.
A convective cooler will certainly be much smaller and more efficient
at a lower delta T than a radiative cooler. In practice, I'd bet the cold
plate on a radar sat is operated above 100 C while a seawater cooled plate
would certainly operate closer to 25 C.

Gary
From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:29:04 GMT
Organization: CERN -- European Organization for Nuclear Research


From roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch

In article <Bvytpx.z2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, zo@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes:
> [...]
> Remember, the UZI SMG is NOT the main battle rifle for the Israeli army.  They
> also use the Galil ( in 7.62 and 5.56 I believe ), which should be capable
> of longer ranges ( i.e. ranges in open desert ).

An IDF officer I was speaking with said they mainly use M-16s these days.

-- 
Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: roeber@cern.ch or roeber@caltech.edu | work: +41 22 767 31 80
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Piston engine experiments (Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:00:22 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


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

In article <BvnFM3.K29@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
>
>Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com> writes:
|
||H-engines?  I searched through my references and came up with two 
||examples of American engines that had H-configurations, namely, two 
||banks of cylinders each driving a separate crankshaft, the crankshafts 
||being coupled together by gearing arrangments.  
|
|	I've seen one of these...
|
||The other example I can recall is the Lycoming H-2470 engine which 
||powered the experimental Vultee XP-54 pusher fighter of 1943.  This 
||engine had 24 cylinders and was liquid cooled.  This engine failed to 
||perform as anticipated, and the project was abandoned.  

This might have been the experimental engine I've read about. Its in 
the right time frame, considering that engines take 2-3 years at least 
to  reach operational status.

|	Could this be known as a W-24, being two V-12's in a common
|crankcase with the crankshafts geared together?  Two banks of cylinders
|stick up at about a 45 included angle, with the other two banks
|sticking out to the sides at what looked to be about a 150 degree
|included angle.  Let's see if I can't do this in ascii:
|
|          *        *
|           *      *
|        ****  OO  ****
|
|	The * are cylinders, the O are crankshaft centers.  Note that I
|have not canted the horizontal cylinders, but they aren't quite level to
|my recollection.  Let's see, four manifolds, four turbochargers, I think
|24 carbs, about 6' long by 4' wide total.  I've seen one in running
|condition in a garage here in Iowa.

Are you sure this is the airplane motor from the Vultee pusher? Six feet 
long sounds about the right size.... sounds more like an X-motor though.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: New IR Jammer on Apache helicopters?
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:36:09 GMT


From birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <BvytKJ.tE@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
> In article <Bvvwvq.G9o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>>  It's a IR or Laser DETECTOR!
> 
> Nope, it is a jammer. (If it is the same one I've seen.)
> 
>>  You can't jam IR! 
> 
> Yes you can. Most IR jammers either use bleed heat from the engines or their
> own heating elements. The idea is to radiate strong pulses of IR, actually
> stronger than the normal signature. The pulses are carefully controlled to
> spoof IR seekers. It's like having a strobe light flases in your eyes, it
> overwhelms the seeker and causes it to break lock on the engines. Then you
> stop the pulses and evade the missile. 
> 
> Or you can run the jammer, pop a flare, kill the jammer and suddenly the flare
> is the best target in the air.
> 
> Hmm, ok, you can't jam IR radiation, but you can screw up the IR homer.
> 

         My understanding of why it (strobing IR) works is this: on some 
    missiles (maybe all of them) the standard IR seeker is some sort of IR
    detector behind a rotating reticle. The reticle has a clear center, and
    alternating clear-opaque sections near the edges. So, a steady signal
    from the detector indicates something hot in front. An intermittent
    signal indicates that the seeker is pointed away from the heat source.
    Then you steer the missile to whichever direction the seeker head is
    pointed, and keep trying to point the seeker head at the target. (How
    you actually steer the seeker head, I do not know. I suppose you could
    vary the dark/light ratio at different distances from the reticle
    center, and use this knowledge to figure out which way to steer the
    head. Or, maybe you just swing it every which way until you get a
    steady signal. That last should be entertaing to watch.)

         Anyway, if your target manages to get an intermittent IR source to
    overwhelm his steady IR signal, he can convince the seeker head that
    it's pointed the wrong way. Of course, as a previous poster pointed
    out, this would not fool an imaging IR system, which would note that
    the IR source had not moved, but had merely become intermittent. 

-- 
 Phillip J. Birmingham   birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov  
 I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough...

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:42:50 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

Before I load up the napalm, is there anybody out there besides Randy who is in
agreement with his ideas? 

If there is interest I'll continue this discussion on the net, if not I'll
limit it to e-mail, with copies to those who have responded to the thread. 

-Bill Gawne, 
             
Science Operations Specialist        | GySgt USMCR, 
Space Telescope Science Institute    | Individual Mobilization Augmentee
Operations Division                  | Operations Research Analyst
Computer Sciences Corporation        | Studies and Analysis Division
Associate Technical Staff            | Marine Corps Combat Development Cmd