HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in post WWII
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:22:01 GMT


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

In article <Bz06KG.EIJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
>
>Given that artillery is (by far) the most cost-effective way to
>deliver close-in support, you want something that can be there for the
>troops when they call down fire on a close-in enemy.
>
>You have to clear out the helos if you want close-in concentrations
>for the infantry. Helos can't even be loitering in the area unless
>they're up pretty high; all that friendly steel in the air is pretty
>dangerous. Airmobile doctrine in 'Nam, at least, was to lay an
>artillery concentration on the LZ until just before the helos arrived,
>then a short pasting from fixed-wings, then land the troops from
>transports while the gunships spray the perimeter. But you don't want
>friendly artillery near the LZ when the helos are around. (cf. the
>Army's publication on Airmobility in Vietnam).

Airmobile doctrine evolved in Vietnam. It should be appreciated that
airmobile doctrine hasn't been clearly tested against mainforce units 
or when the air over the battlefield is being contested. We have a
tendency to be prepared to fight the last war. Vietnam experience may
not apply to other battlefields. The Air-Land battle concepts developed 
for Europe seemed to better fit the situation in Kuwait for example.
The tank played a critical role in that engagement.  However, even in 
Kuwait there was no significant opposition from the air, nor were the 
sealanes contested. It allowed an ideal air-land war environment with no
aerial opposition and open terrain. While we're unlikely to see another WWII 
in our lifetimes, another Korea is more within the realm of possibility.
Neither airmobile nor air-land battle plans fit that situation as clearly.
It would more likely revert back to a grind out the inches type of warfare.
Our modern armaments and tactics are ill-suited to fighting such a war.

Gary
From: James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: re: Tanks vs. Helos
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:42 GMT


From James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>

>From Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>

>|> Here is a more refined question. What sort of situation must a
>|> nation
>|> be in, to responsibly forgoe main battle tanks, and depend on other
>|> systems?
>|> 
>|> 
> Switzerland would be a classic example, I would also think
>England would have problems due to it's large amount of
>wetlands. MBT's need large open areas to effectively operate
>in and use ALL THEIR CAPABILITIES in. Just my $.02 worth.

Actually the Swiss don't agree. They have quite a few Leopard MBT's and
a number of tank repair facilities dug into mountains to service them.
Switzerland isn't all mountains, it has large valleys in which battle of
manuever can be played out. I really am not even sure if they have much
of an anti-tank helicopter force at all, I really don't know. I do know
for certain about the Leopards. I was given a lecture(not formal) by one
of their citizen-soldiers about how the Leopard was the best MBT
available today and that was why they bought it. Well add an additional
couple pennies to the pile.
James Stepanek
esp
From: yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Iowa Class Battleships
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:29:24 GMT
Followup-To: Re: Naval Trivia
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory


From yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)

Here is the information I said I could get on the Iowa Class Battleships.
If anyone wants any more information, just e-mail me and I will post
again if there is enough interest.

The first two ships of the Iowa class (Iowa and New Jersey) were
formally authorized in th Congress by the Act of 17 May 1938.
The preliminary design was completed and sent to the General Board
on 2 June and week later the design was approved by the Secretary
of the Navy.

The Iowa-class Battleships were designated 'fast battleships' capable
of speeds up to 33 knots.  The 'slow battleships' were to start with
BB 67 of the Montana class.  The Montana class would have carried the
18 in. turrets available at the time and would be capable of speeds
up to 27 knots.

BB 61 Iowa

laid down	27 June 1940
launched	27 August 1942
commissioned	22 February 1943
decommissioned	24 March 1949
recommissioned	25 August 1951
decommissioned	24 February 1958
recommissioned	28 April 1984
decommissioned	??

BB 62 New Jersey

laid down	16 September 1940
launched	7 December 1942
commissioned	23 May 1943
decommissioned	30 June 1948
recommissioned	21 November 1950
decommissioned	21 August 1957
recommissioned	6 April 1968
decommissioned	17 December 1969
recommissioned	28 December 1982
decommissioned	??

BB 63 Missouri

laid down 	6 January 1941
launched	26 January 1944
commissioned	11 June 1944
decommissioned	26 February 1955
recommissioned	10 May 1986
decommissioned	??

BB 64 Wisconsin

laid down	25 January 1941
launched	29 January 1944
commissioned	16 April 1944
decommissioned	1 July 1948
recommissioned	3 March 1951
decommissioned	8 March 1958
recommissioned	22 October 1988

BB 65 Illinois

laid down	15 January 1945
cancelled	11 August 1945
broken up	September 1958

(note: the Illinois was 22% complete when scrapped)

BB 66 Kentucky

laid down 	7 March 1942
suspended	August 1946
resumed		17 August 1948
launched	20 January 1950
stricken	9 June 1958

(note: the Kentucky was 73% complete when stricken from the Active Ship List,
her main machinery was carefully removed and saved when she was cut up
and now powers the Sacramento (AOE 1) and Camden (AOE 2).  A 68 ft section of
her bow was also used to repair the Wisconsin when the Wisconsin collided with
the destroyer Eaton (DDE 510) in heavy fog off the Virginia Capes.)

Source: "Iowa Class Battleships: Their Design, Weapons, & Equipment"
	Robert F. Sumrall, 1988 Naval Institute Press

(when this book was published, all four of the Iowa class battleships were
in commissioned service, but, since (sadly) all four have been decommissioned 
and mothballed - They'll be back!)

- Craig

-- 
Craig Huffnagle				      	      yukyuk@yuck.lanl.gov
"My mom always said that rain was God crying,
	She also said it was because of something I did."      Jack Handey
------------------- Think of a disclaimer, it applies. -------------------
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MegaZone23 <megazone@buckaroo.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Rearwards firing missiles
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:35 GMT


From MegaZone23 <megazone@buckaroo.wpi.edu>

In article <BzBA1x.1qy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> b14817@asbt01.gedlab.allied.com (JON W. PARKER) writes:
>Why would the rocket have to pass through zero velocity?  Would the 'reletive'
>velocities be what should be used?  Just slow it down enough so that the targe

Oh, how quaint. He dropped a rocket in my path. *dodge*....

You need something that has sufficient velocity to vector in on a high
speed agile target. A smart pilot won't follow a straight line.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jan Mattsson <janm@aten.docs.uu.se>
Subject: Re: Battleship Diplomacy
Organization: Uppsala University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:28:56 GMT


From Jan Mattsson <janm@aten.docs.uu.se>

jbutt@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Butt) writes:

>The Battleship "Yamamoto" was built with main guns which could elevate to
>70 degrees. The idea was to let them fire huge AAA shells.
>So it can be done, no one has just decided to do it since.


This reminds me that I read somewhere about Tirpitz firing its main guns
against attacking bombers. Does anyone know the maximum elevation of
Tirpitz' guns?

--
Jan Mattsson, CS student, Uppsala University, Sweden
janm@minsk.docs.uu.se

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Brian Douglass <anasaz!anasaz.briand@enuucp.eas.asu.edu>
Subject: Re: Rearwards firing missiles
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:32:24 GMT


From Brian Douglass <anasaz!anasaz.briand@enuucp.eas.asu.edu>

In article <ByyApH.89n@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> megazone@planet10.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
>
>From megazone@planet10.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
>
>In article <Byw8u6.5tp@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
>>Therefore, since you can't drop it and you cant launch without dropping it, 
>>you have a dilema with a rear-firing missile.
>
>Well, the tube launch/rail lauch prospect could work... How about this idea...
>A Hyper-Velocity Kinetic Kill Vehicle (HVKKV). A small light weight missile
>which accelerates near instantaneously to hypersonic speeds. Use the small
>'puffer' charges to steer. Use the KE of the missile to kill...

[stuff deleted]

>airmine concept... Lauch
>a canister of explosives and bearings, an omni directional claymore, from a
>tailgun and detonate. Filling the air with shrapnel in front of the enemy.

Personnally, I think this idea of rear-ward firing missiles and airmines to
be specific solutions to specific combat situations, and ignore other more
likely situations.  If someone is on my six and close enough that I can
launch a "mine", I'm already dead, thank you very much.  Second, why would
I want to waste hard-points on a weapon that can only be used in this last
ditch survival manuevar?  Give me an AIM9-L and a 9G turns instead.

On top of all this, rear-ward attacks, though decidedly advantagous, are
just one of the range of attack profiles possible with all aspect missiles
(behind and below still the best).  So, to equip yourself with a weapon
system that presupposes the attack will be from the stern and in close
proximity would be a deadly assumption.
-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: Chernobyl satellite pictures
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:20:20 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <Bz3v8s.346@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Bonnie L. Maidak" <bonnie@indy.life.uiuc.edu> writes:
> 
> 
> From "Bonnie L. Maidak" <bonnie@indy.life.uiuc.edu>
> 
> Dear net readers:
> 
> I tried to selectively choose the most appropriate Usenet sci.* groups for this question. Please
> respond with email, as a heavy workload limits the amount of time that I presently can devote
> to news reading. The question from a colleague is:
> 
>    The Chernobyl power plant fire was filmed by an american 
> satellite, by infrared photography I think, and it showed the 
> cloud spread. How to get those pictures, and who might have their
> rights? Generally, are non-classified US satellite pictures 
> publicly available?
>                                Sincerely, Niels Larsen
>                                    (larsen@biobase.aau.dk)
> 
> 
> Thanks very much in advance,
> 
> -Bonnie L. Maidak
> bonnie@indy.life.uiuc.edu
> 
> 
> 

They were not U.S. satellite photos but from a French commericial satellite
known as SPOT.  At least that is the source I remember.  You can either 
contact the French space agency or look in the Life or Time magazines from 
that time since they published them and might also have the photo credits 
listed.

Good luck.

Don Palmrose
"There are only two kinds of ships....  Those that project power onto shore
and those that protect the power projectors."





========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Robert Hanners <hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Naval trivia
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Annapolis, MD
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:40:13 GMT


From Robert Hanners <hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil>


In sci.military, zcjm0f@hou.amoco.com (CJohn Mace) writes:
>I am in the need of some naval trivia, or just the answers to these
>questions.
>Submarines:  (two types, Ohio Class and Trident)
>        1) approximate tonnage of displacement
>        2) approximate dimensions
>        3) classification  (boomer, attack, etc)
>        4) date first set sail
>[mod note -- I wasn't aware that the U.S. Navy had a Trident class sub.
>The 2 main classes I'm aware of at the current time are the Ohio, a Fleet
>Ballistic Missle (FBM) sub carrying the Trident D-5 SLBM, and the Los
>Angeles class attack sub
>Steve]

The Ohio Class was commonly referred to as the Trident early in its design/
development, before names were designated.  Normally a ship designated
by the number during this phase.  However "Trident" was more descriptive
in referring to the missile and the term had lingered in usage much
longer than usual.  This may have led to zcjm's confusion which he shares
with a number of others.

Published vitals: SSBN 726 t0 743?; 16,600/18,700 tons; 560 x 42 x 35.5 ft

-- Bob

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Hanners         "My comments; only mine."          *DIASTOLE* 676673
CD, NSWC, Annapolis, MD                              hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Mcgregor <drm@mozart.esl.com>
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:20:22 GMT


From Don Mcgregor <drm@mozart.esl.com>

In sci.military article <ByyB0v.8uy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>:
> 

> From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
> 

> In article <Byn6v7.46v@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Edward J. Rudnicki"  
(FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:
> >
> >Speculation time: How would ALASKA do against RENOWN?
> 

> OOH! Speculation! Fun Fun Fun Fun Fun!
> I'll put my money on the Alaska. 


To speculate in a bit more realistic scenario (and return to the  
battle cruiser vs. heavy cruiser debate), how would the Alaska have  
been employed if it had been available in late 1942 during the  
Solomons campaign?

Would they have been attached to the cruisers and destroyers  
screening the invasion and interdicting Japanese resupply, or  
attached to the fleet as gunfire support, a la _Washington_ and  
_South Dakota_?

It certainly would have been interesting to see how the _Alaska_   
changed the dynamics of the night battles.  My guess is it would have  
been torpedoed, since that was the killing weapon after dark, and its  
guns wouldn't have come into full effect.  But _Alaska_ vs. _Hiei_ at  
2,000 yards, now that would be interesting. Or the effect it would  
have on some of the Japanese heavy cruisers during a night gun  
battle. Or _Alaska_ replacing one of the US BBs in the other night  
action with the Japanese BB and cruisers.

--
Don McGregor | Double your pleasure, double your fun.  Xerox
drm@esl.com  | your paycheck.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Subject: More News about the sale
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:25:51 GMT


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

hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:


>From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)

> Lockheed has bought General Dynamics' Fort Worth Division which
> produces the F-16 for $1.6 billion.

All of this from yesterdays New York Times.

Lockheed payed $1.53 billion in cash for the division, which includes
the general Dynamics businesses involved in making the F-16 and F-22.
This is higher than the expected 1.0 to 1.4 billion.

Lockheed is expecting $200 million in tax benefits, so the cost to
them is only 1.23 billion.

Besides the F-16 business, this gives them a new-found majority of the
F-22 business.  It also propels them to #2 status as a defence
contractor, after McDonnald Douglas.

Lockheed expects $16 billion in sales from the F-16 program over the
next 6 years, of which $10 billion is foreign.

Also this year, General Dynamics sold its missile division to Hughs
for 450 million.  Further, the company is making a profit on
opporations, and so as you can imagine, GD has just a BUNCH of cash.

They have said that they will spend this money to buy into lines of
work were they are already number 1 or number 2.  Extra money will be
spent to reduce debt and buy back stock.

Lockheed was able to buy the division by outbidding Northrop.

GD shares went up about 3%, and Lockheed shares went up about 7% after

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Norm Finn <ultra!norm@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:29:37 GMT


From Norm Finn <ultra!norm@ames.arc.nasa.gov>

>In article <Bz06pL.Enx@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rollhaus@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Charles Rollhauser) writes:
>> 
>> Before the war, battleships used range clocks, and markings on the turrets,
>> so all the battleships in a squadron could aim at a target that only
>> one ship could see. Anyone care to explain how that worked?

The range clock was a large clock-like dial (with 10 numbers, instead of
12) several feet across.  It was called a "range clock" because it
looked like a clock and indicated range, not because it measured time.
It was mounted on the front of the foremast or the after side of the
mainmast, on or near the gunnery control position.  It was controlled
from the gunnery control position.  The range clocks and turrent
azimuth markings gave observers on the next and following ships in the
battle line an idea of the range and direction to the target.  The
reason for this was not so that the other ships could fire at that same
target, however.

Among the orders that the commander of a fleet or squadron could give
the ships in his line were "fire at opposite number in line of battle,"
"concentrate fire on lead ship," or "concentrate fire on trailing ship."
During the initial battlecruiser action at the battle of Jutland, the
British battlecruisers failed to properly execute the "fire at opposite
number" command.  For a time, two British battlecruisers were firing at
the same German ship, while one German ship was untargetted.  Without
the distraction of British shells falling upon and about her, that ship
was able to get some good shots in and sink a British battlecruiser.
The range clocks and turret azimuth markings made this kind of error
less likely.

--
Norm Finn                       domain:   norm@ultra.com
Ultra Network Technologies      Internet: ultra!norm@ames.arc.nasa.gov
101 Daggett Dr.                 uucp:     ...ames!ultra!norm
San Jose, CA 95134
(408) 922-0100 x122
-- 
Norm Finn                       domain:   norm@ultra.com
Ultra Network Technologies      Internet: ultra!norm@ames.arc.nasa.gov
101 Daggett Dr.                 uucp:     ...ames!ultra!norm
San Jose, CA 95134

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: German Aircraft Carriers
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:29:13 GMT


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

I've just read that the Graf Zeppelin was seized by the Soviets at the
end of WWII, "lying about 90% complete and only slightly damaged at
Stettin."

While being towed to Leningrad, with a cargo of war-reparation
railroad cars on flight and hangar decks, the load shifted during a
storm, and the ship capsized and foundered.

The Soviets also found the Seydlitz scuttled at Konigsberg, and
scrapped her.  Apparently this ship, sister to Prinz Eugen & Hipper,
was 95% in 1942, but the armament and superstructure were removed by
the Germans in the process of converting her into a light aircraft
carrier.

Also, one of the reasons the Soviets didn't proceed with the BB-
building they began just prior to WWII was that they didn't have the
technical skills to construct and operate aircraft carriers to protect
them.  They had asked for the plans to the Graf Zepplin as part of the
friendship pact with Germany, but had been refused outright.

Might the world have been different if those railway carriages had not
shifted?


-Soviet Warships of the Second World War.  MacDonald & Janes 1977.
--
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Number Thirty-Nine in the Series--Bell P-39 Airacobra
Keywords: P-39D for export
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:25:37 GMT


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>

In June 1942, an order for 494 Model 14As was placed with Bell using 
Lend-Lease funds.  Most of these were shipped to the Soviet Union.  
These were produced in two batches--P-39D-1 and P-39D-2.  

P-39D-1 was the designation applied to the first 336 aircraft of the 
order.  These were similar to the British Airacobras in that they 
retained the 20-mm Hispano cannon, but the 0.303-inch machine guns 
were replaced by 0.30-in guns.  A small dorsal fillet gave the tail a 
new shape, which became standard on all later P-39s and was 
retrofitted to most earlier P-39Ds.  

The remaining 158 machines on the Lend-Lease order were produced as 
P-39D-2s.  The P-39D-2 introduced the uprated 1325 hp V-1710-63 (E6) 
engine and had a 2:1 reduction gear.  It brought back the 37-mm nose 
cannon.  It was otherwise identical to the P-39D-1.  

The P-39D-3 and D-4 were earlier Ds which were modified for ground 
attack duties with oil cooler and radiator armor and two cameras 
mounted in the rear fuselage.  They retained the V-1710-35 engine.  
They all saw action in Italy.  

Serials for the P-39D-1s and D-2s were: 

41-28257-28406 		Bell P-39D-1 Airacobra 

41-38220/38404 		Bell P-39D-1 Airacobra 

41-38405/38562 		Bell P-39D-2 Airacobra 

41-38563 Bell 		P-39D-1 Airacobra 

Sources;

  War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,
  Doubleday, 1964.

  The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

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

  P-39 Airacobra in Action, Ernie McDowell, Squadron/Signal Publications, 
  1980

  The Calamitous 'Cobra, Air Enthusiast, August 1971.

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

Newsgroups: sci.military