HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DWOLFF@res-c4.prime.com
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Nuking the Reich?
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:43:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: law7.Bw2Jsu.AyF
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From DWOLFF@res-c4.prime.com


From DWOLFF@res-c4.prime.com

Hi all,

Suppose the US had completed the atomic bomb early enough to use it on
Germany, say mid-1944.  Would it have been used?  What would be the first
targets?  Berlin is an obvious answer... but is it right?

Thanks --

David Wolff

dwolff@RES-C4.Prime.COM

Disclaimer:  Reflecting Computervision policy is a non-goal of this posting.
FreeAdvert:  Esperanto, the international language *that works*:
             Call (800) 828-5944 for free info package (US or Canada)
WittyQuote:  Witty but very long saying condensed into a microdot: "."
KiboFodder:  ndt Kibo lrd
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: J.Rowe@cen.ex.ac.uk (J.Rowe)
Subject: Re: Kinetic Energy Tank Killers
Organization: Computer Unit. - University of Exeter. UK
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:35:36 GMT


From J.Rowe@cen.ex.ac.uk (J.Rowe)

In article <BvnF6s.JBz@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU writes:

>   OK, now we're getting somewhere.  It takes a a 1/4" ball of C4 (~.5 cc 
>   ~~ 1/2 gram, c4 doesn't quite float) to boil a canteen cup (~1/2 liter)
>   of water to make Coffee.  Hence a MJ is enough energy to boil 400
>   liters of water starting at about 20c (assuming that you are using a C-rat
>   can with holes in it as the holder (a lot of heat gets wasted).  (That
>   sounds about right, I had a quarter stick (1/2 Kilo) that lasted almost
>   a whole year.)

No, now we're talking total bullshit. As any school child studying
science will tell you, the specific heat of water is around 4.2 KJ per
Kg and one litre of water is almost exactly 1 Kg. So to raise 1 litre
of water from 20c to 100c takes 4.2KJ x 80, around 330 KJ.  Therefore
one MJ will make 3 litres of coffee at 100% efficiency, not 400
litres. 

As far as popular measures of a MJ go, a 1 KW electric heater (in the
UK, each bar of an electric fire) uses 3.6MJ of electricity per hour.
Similary a 100 W light bulb uses 0.36 MJ per hour. Or 1 MJ will heat 3
litres of water from 20c to 100c...

Stephen, if you're studying for engineering degree you need to learn
to *always* do a quick check of your calculations by plugging your
figures into a real life situation. I didn't dare post until I had
done this in my head: a 2.5 KW electric kettle produces 3.6 x 2.5 =
9MJ of heat an hour, at 3 litres per MJ that will bring 27 litres of
water to boiling point. So to boil 3 (UK) pints of water - just under
2 litres - should take around 4 minutes.  That's certainly correct to
within a factor of two. But if you can put 400 litres per MJ in that
calculation you're living on another planet.

What happened to the moderation on this group?

John Rowe
Dept. Physics
Exeter University
UK

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: readingj@nic.cerf.net (John D. Reading)
Subject: Need help finding datalink simulations (THAAD contractor)
Organization: CERFnet
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:29:52 GMT


From readingj@nic.cerf.net (John D. Reading)


From readingj@nic.cerf.net (John D. Reading)


I have been asked to see if I could find any software simulations
of military datalinks - for example, tadil-a, tadil-b, tadil-j or
atdl1.  We are willing to pay Real Money for these, as they are
related to contract work.  We currently have some simulators that
were developed in-house, but apparently they are not sufficient for
our needs.  Any and all leads will be appreciated; and of course,
if there is sufficient interest, I will post a summary.

John Reading
readingj@cerf.net
(818) 902-5096

BTW:  I noticed some comments in other articles here doubting the
existence of THAAD.  It does exist; in fact, we are working on it.
If anybody really wants to find out more about it, I could hunt
down more information. - JDR
-- 
"To know me is to know me"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab)
Subject: DEFCON 1
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 15:23:05 GMT


From colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab)


I just saw a show on TDC about nukes.
They said that the USA went to DEFCON 1 four times:

	1) The U2 incident
	2) The Cuban missile crisis
	3) The Middle East crisis in 1973
	4) The Reagan assassination attempt (why? Beats me!)

-- 
 ___________________________________________________________________________
 *****  *   *  From the e-net desk of: Rick Colombo CD/DCD/DSG    *    *
 *      **  *  Fermi Nat'l Acc'l Lab   708-840-8225 Fermilab     * *   *
 ***    * * *  P.O. Box 500   MS 369   Feynman Computer Center  *****  *
 *      *  **  Batavia, Ill. USA 60510 Colombo@fnal.fnal.gov    *   *  *****
 *    Of course I speak for Fermilab, Congress and the President... NOT !!!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:39:30 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <Bvyqqp.5vt@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, randy@ms.uky.edu 
(Randy Appleton) writes: 
> - There seems to be a strong sense of "I primarily care about my
> service".  For instance, if the Marine Corps needs air supprt, and the
> Air Force is inadiquate, then don't worry too much about the Air Force,
> just give me planes.  There have been people who complain about the
> Air Force, but everyone seems more concerned keeping tha Marine Air
> Corps than fixing the Air Force.

History has shown that it's generally fultile to attempt to "fix" any
large organisation against it's will. The USAF doesn't like CAS & only
does it to keep high performance a/c away from the army. This is about
as good as a "fix" as there's going to be.
 
> - Few people seem to think that the military needs to be cut that
> much.  Perhaps a program here, or a program there, but not any major
> forces.  This seems to be a huge mistake to me.  IMHO, the total
> budget *will* be cut substancially no matter who the next president is.
> 

The fact that the military budget *will* get cut due to political con-
siderations has nothing to do with whether or not the budget *needs*
to be cut. My opinion is that in these cases it doesn't matter what is
recommended, the politicians will want more. Better just to say "There
isn't anything to cut", & then fight whatever cuts they come up with.

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher)
Subject: Re: New IR Jammer on Apache helicopters?
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:37:52 GMT


From gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher)


In sci.military, mccd@rosie.uh.edu (R. Golshan (713)-743-1540) writes:

>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


    This sounds more like a laser warning device.

    When you say mounted on top, where on top?  On top of the rotor
mast or on top of the tail?  The new Longbow MMW radar director will
be mounted on the Apache shortly, but this is more like a squished basketball
than a disco light that is mounted on the rotor mast without mirrored
or glass surfaces.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: TOP 5 ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:26:05 GMT


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


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

In article <BvytK8.pr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>And in any case, I recall reading an assessment which pointed out that if
>it lost *all* its major surface vessels, the RN would still be one of the
>most powerful navies in the world, because of its nuclear submarines.
>A few of those skulking around with hostile intent will make even a USN
>carrier task force very nervous.

While the RN is probably third in the world as a submarine navy, and could
do a creditable job at sea lane denial against even the USN, a lack of surface 
combatants would sharply limit it's ability to project (non-nuclear) force on 
land. That's where carriers, battleships, heavy cruisers, troop transports, and
landing ships shine. They can project force onto adjoining land where the 
*real* combat goes on. (You haven't won until one of your men with a rifle 
is standing unopposed on the disputed territory.) Then you need ASW destroyers,
aircraft, attack subs, and the like to *protect* the part of your force that 
can project power onto land. Eventually you wind up with the equivalent of
the USN, or you lose if you must attack from the sea against a credible
opponent.

Submarines are valuable weapons, but they can't intercept aircraft
attacking the troop transports. At best they can find and sink
opposing carriers. But if the enemy has land based air, like the
ex-Soviet Backfires with standoff missiles, or even some little
third world country with Exocets or Silkworms, the subs are helpless,
the troops drown, and the war is lost. You've got to have surface
combatants, and hopefully carriers carrying interceptors, to deal
with those threats.

Gary
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Nuclear Powered Aircraft
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:46:16 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


From Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>

>From "H.S. Doyle" <H.S.Doyle@newcastle.ac.uk>
>...how exactly could a plane by propelled by a reactor? ...

As far as I know, nobody seriously pursued propellors or the equivalent.
The proposed engine designs all used reactor heat directly, as the heat
source for a turbojet engine.  Two major approaches were being pursued,
a direct cycle that actually ran the air through the reactor, and an
indirect cycle that used a liquid-metal fluid loop to do the heat transfer.
The indirect cycle minimized release of fission products, and let the
reactor and jet be optimized separately, but added complexity and weight.

Well, and then there was Pluto, aka SLAM...  This was a cruise missile
powered by a nuclear ramjet, cruising at Mach 3 at treetop height with
a large payload.  The program was started more or less as a backup for
ICBM work, in case defences against ballistic missiles were developed
quickly.  That didn't happen, Pluto had some problems -- notably, it was
about the least stealthy weapon you could possibly imagine, with a 500MW
unshielded reactor, red-hot nose and leading edges, and a sonic boom that
would smash buildings -- and nobody could think of a way to test-fly it
safely.  They did get as far as testing an early prototype engine on
the ground; it worked.

Pluto aside, the main reason the nuclear-aircraft program slowly died was
not because it was difficult (although it was) or because there were
terrible problems with shielding (although there were) or because operating
such aircraft would be very awkward (although it would have been), but
simply because conventional aircraft propulsion progressed so dramatically
during the long nuclear-propulsion development process.  The main driving
force behind nuclear propulsion was greater range for jets... but when
the B-52 started out with a 6000-mile range and rapidly developed toward
a really incredible 12,000+ miles (achieved on the B-52H with the first
operational turbofan engines), range no longer looked like a problem.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:37:38 GMT


From gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)


> 
> From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
> 
> >From driver8@night.Corp.Sun.COM (Albert Handa)
> 
> >...built in the 60's, was nuclear powered (not thrust)...
> 
> The only nuclear part of the B-70 was its intended weaponry.  There was
> a nuclear-powered-bomber project at about the same time -- early in the
> design phases the B-70 was also known as the CPB, Chemically Powered
> Bomber, to distinguish it from the NPB that was also in the works -- but
> that project was cancelled early.

 I'am supprised no one has mentioned it yet, but I think the 
nuclear aircraft he may be thinking of was a modification of a 
B-36. It wasn't nuclear "powered" (it had the normal B-36 engines) 
but did carry a small reactor as part of a research project into 
the practicality of nuclear powered aircraft. As I recall, there 
was only one ever built and the project died after that. I'll try 
to find the references if anyone wants them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
             Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI -
                         gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cm9@prism.gatech.edu (MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B-70
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:35:51 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


From "MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M." <cm9@prism.gatech.edu>


In any case, it was a waste of taxpayer dollars to be flying such an expensive
plane solely so GE could get PR photos. They could just as easily have taken
the picture on the ground, or during a regular test flight.  The chase pilots
on a full-up test flight have strict guidelines they must follow, and these
may have avoided the disaster.
>
>

Photo flights pop up often as the cause of accidents.  In the AH-64 
Apache flight test program, a T-28 chase plane got too close and became
intimately familiar with the rotor, causing both to crash.  I forget
how many fatalities.


While we were doing the XV-15 tiltrotor test program, both of the
existing aircraft, N702NA and N703NA, were at Ames Research Center
at the same time for a short period.  There was a proposal to conduct
simultaneous
flights to get photos of both in the air at the same time.  
Some of the management types wanted us to list the flights as
"data flights", but we insisted that the missions be listed
as photo flights.  When we would not deviate from that position,
a decision was made to not make the flights.  With the recent
crash of N702NA at Bell, the possibility of a photo of both
in flight together is gone.
-- 
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: Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Question about aircrew bailing out
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:43:33 GMT


From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>


From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>


: >From Curtis Gibson <curt@quest.uucp>
: >I have been wondering about the AWACS, Crystal Palace, Looking Glass,
: >and other such type aircraft with large crews of radar/radio operators,
: >controllers and decision makers aboard.  My question is do they have
: >parachutes and an excape hatch?  I ask this because in the bad old days
: >if the ballon had gone up there would not be very many airfields that
: >a 707 based aircraft could safely use left to use.  Did the entire crew
: >plan on ditching on I-90 or I-70 with the aircraft or could the aircraft
: >commander tell them "Good luck guys, now hit the silk" and reduce the 
: >number of people at risk?  Just one of those things the commute to work
: >gives me time to think about.  Thanks to anyone who helps scratch this
: >itch.
: 
: >Curtis S. Gibson   curt%quest.UUCP@cs.umn.edu
: 
: My brother is an AEA in a P3c and I asked him about this a while ago.
: 
I'm pretty sure that they don't have chutes. He said that if something


	I think he was asking in reference to what a command post unit
	would do once the nuclear war was over and the plane was
	approaching its last drops of fuel...would it just ditch or
	would the pilots try to find an operational air base...If the
	war was of the big type, presumably all the air bases would be
	heaps of slag with massive radiation hazards...I would think
	that a rondevous at one of the great american deserts or dry
	lake beds would be the place to go...all the KC-130's, any
	returning sac bombers, and the airborne commandposts...Could
	probaly have arrangements for a couple of C-130s or the like to
	bring cross country equipment like Jeeps and Hummers with
	supplies and other gear...But then maybe SAC didn't consider
	this something worthwile to think about...

	-Ryan



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu
Subject: Armored Trains in the World Wars
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:35:51 GMT


From gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu


Does anyone out there know of english language reference material
that would discuss the use of armored trains during World war's one
and two ? I'm looking for unit histories, description of capiabilities
TO&E's, etc.

Thanks,
Perry 
 

























Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: Airplane fuel
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:29:20 GMT


From Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>


From Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>

>From ketil@fossekall.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
>(gasoline) is scarce.  For vehicles, this isn't much of a problem, as
>they can often be converted to run on alcohol (ethanol or methanol) or
>some other substitute.
>
>I was just wondering if something similar could be done for aircraft?...
>I thought most helicopters and propeller aircraft were powered from
>gas turbines, are they picky about the fuel?  How about jets?

Turbine engines -- turboprops, plus jets of all kinds -- are much less
sensitive to fuel characteristics than piston engines, in general.  The
continuous combustion of a turbine places fewer demands on the fuel than
the intermittent cycle of a piston engine.  All a turbine really needs
is something that will burn.  People have run slightly-modified jet
engines on natural gas and hydrogen.

Odds are you would need minor modifications to the engines, though.

Do bear in mind that aircraft are extremely fuel-hungry compared to
surface vehicles, and that jet/turboprop engines need a steady supply
of high-tech replacement parts if they're to operate frequently for a
long time.

Oh yes, as for type of engine...  Small propellor aircraft normally use
piston engines, fairly similar to vehicle engines and capable -- at least
in a pinch -- of burning the same fuels.  Larger ones, and almost all
modern helicopters, use turbines.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Nuking the Reich?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:46:01 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


From Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>

>From DWOLFF@res-c4.prime.com
>Suppose the US had completed the atomic bomb early enough to use it on
>Germany, say mid-1944.  Would it have been used?

Very probably.  I believe it is a matter of record that at the worst
point of the Battle Of The Bulge, when Allied commanders were really
worried that a major Allied defeat was in the offing, General Groves
(overall boss of the Manhattan Project) was asked about the availability
of atomic bombs for use against Germany.  (His answer was "not yet".)

>What would be the first
>targets?  Berlin is an obvious answer... but is it right?

Had the bombs been ready considerably earlier, or Germany lasted rather
longer, I'd say Berlin would have been at considerable risk... although
in Japan, one criterion for choosing targets was that they be cities
that had *not* been too heavily bombed before, so damage from the new
bomb could be assessed more easily.  It occurs to me that Dresden might
have gotten the first one and Berlin the second.  I don't know how the
balance between military utility and easy damage assessment would have
looked, but certainly the former would have had priority after the
first one or two.  Tokyo was not on the initial target list in Japan,
but after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was being seriously discussed as
the next target (another bomb would have been ready late in August, as
I recall).

Had the first bomb been ready for the Battle Of The Bulge, I would guess
that there would have been great pressure to use it on the advancing
German armies.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:31:50 GMT


From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)

In article <BvnEtI.Iv0@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> driver8@night.Corp.Sun.COM (Albert Handa) writes:

>I remember it mainly in my memory, and wonder if anyone can post or send me any
>information on it.  I don`t have a bet riding on it or anything, but my co-worker still
>thinks I'm putting him on. 
>
>As I remember it:   It was built in the 60's, was nuclear powered (not thrust), was never
>                                 built as it was supposed to be built (a very fast high altitude bomber),
>                                 and came out as a compromised version. 

Two YB-70 prototypes were built in the early 60's, and were without a doubt the
fastest, biggest bombers ever built in the West, or at least they would have 
been.  One of the prototypes was destroyed in testing when an inexperienced 
chase pilot in an F-104 collided with it.  The other prototype is on display at
the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio.  

Basicly, the B-70 wold have been a Mach 3 high-altitude bomber, capable of 
penetratinmg Soviet airspace while carrying large numbers of nuclear weapons.  
It was powered by six extremely powerful jet engines, and the aerodynamics of 
the plane should have allowed it to exceed Mach 3 while loaded with bombs.

Even though the B-70 was never built as an operational type, many of the 
lessons learned were put into the design of the B-1A, a Mach 2 high-altitude 
missile-carrying penetration bomber with more all-around capability than the
B-70 that was designed in the late 70's, and got as far the prototype stage 
before the program was killed by the Carter administration.  

President Reagan, upon taking office in 1981, decided that Strategic Air 
Command (SAC) needed a new bomber to replace the ageing B-52, and so he revived
the B-1 program, this time with a different emphasis.  Instead of a high-
altitude high speed bomber, the B-1B was concieved as an extremely capable low-
altitude cruise-missile carrier with some inbuilt low-observables or "Stealth" 
technology, and it went into production in this form.  

Recently, with the demise of the Soviet Union, and the lessening of the 
percieved nuclear threat, the decision was made to go conventional with the 
B-1 force, while retaining the nuclear capability it was originally designed 
for.  


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mppd5@syma.sussex.ac.uk (John Coley)
Subject: Re: Piston engine experiments (Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Organization: University of Sussex, five miles away from Brighton
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:35:53 GMT


From mppd5@syma.sussex.ac.uk (John Coley)

: 
: It never occured to me that the Sea Fury was a navalized Tempest! Its 
: really obvious when you take a second look. 
: 
Strictly the Sea Fury is/was a naval version of the Fury which was a
development of the Tempest I think. I dont believe the Fury made it into
service in any sort of numbers (maybe not at all).

<Sig. awaiting construction>

Newsgroups: sci.military