HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdl0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (CONRAD DANIEL LLOYD-KNIGHT)
Subject: explosives question
Organization: Lehigh University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:39:41 GMT


From cdl0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (CONRAD DANIEL LLOYD-KNIGHT)

Hello everybody! I wasn't sure where to post this question, but some people on
rec.guns suggested this newsgroup, so I've reposted it here:

1) What kind of surface blast (assuming a direct hit with eg. a missile) would
be required to destroy an underground bunker? I mean an actual military
bunker, not a shelter. I need to know the minimum to put it out of commision,
not necessarily kill everyone inside.

2) Same question, but for a large building complex (about 4 or 5 city blocks
of large buildings).

3) Exactly what energy (in Joules) corresponds to a ton of TNT (since
explosive forces always seem to be given in terms of pounds, tons and megatons
of TNT). While I'm at it - how many pounds are there in a ton of TNT (quite a
lot I should imagine, but are we talking metric tons and pounds or silly
imperial units?)?

I'm not actually planning on putting this information to practical use and
blow something up, it's for a research project! Any help will be greatly
appreciated. Thanks,
    -Conrad.

    
-- 

bye...
________________________________________________________________________________
*               Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.               *
*                     Love is the Law, Love under Will.                        *
*______________________________________________________________________________*
                           ___                                     - A.C.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:32:38 GMT


From thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)

In article <BxB8u0.LC7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>
>From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>
>In article <Bwu9Ku.B4K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:
>
>>AP bombs require high velocity to punch through the armored deck, and
>>also need to be going nearly straight down so as to encounter the least
>>armor. The attack profiles needed to get the bomb into this attitude
>>are high altitude level bombing (hit prob. ---> 0) 
>
>
>Thats what a certain Japanese Navy captain said at his court 
>martial.. his destroyer had been bombed by a B-17! (I forget 
>the name..) He decided not to take evasive action since it was 
>"nearly impossible" for a level bomber to score hits on a ship. 
>With the proper bombsights and training, though, I'm sure it 
>can be done.
>
If this is the destroyer mentioned by Morison, the destroyer was not moving
at that time, since it was conducting rescue operations, and the captain
didn't think B-17s could hit ships.  The correct answer was that they could
not hit evading ships.

>Wasn't the Prince of Wales sunk by Japanese level bombers? The
>difference was that the B-17 did it from a very high altitude.
>
Torpedo bombers.  What really got the PoW was an early torpedo hit that
twisted one of the prop shafts; before that prop could be stopped, it had
torn up the back part of the ship pretty badly.

DHT



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)
Subject: Random Navy Cap Protocol Question
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News & Mail
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:32:46 GMT


From billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)

I have quite a few Navy ship caps, some with scrambled eggs and others
plain.

Is it considered rude to wear one if you're not a member of the ship's
crew or even in the Navy?

Like I said -- just a random question...

Bill
-- 
SEANEWS  []  Seattle News + Mail  []  Public Access  []  +1 206 747 NEWS
E-mail for PGP key.   MD5 (no sigs) is: 8e253e95133365a292261c7d0da58bcb


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jan Mattsson <janm@minsk.docs.uu.se>
Subject: Saab 32 Lansen
Keywords: pathfinder, Lansen, A32
Organization: Uppsala University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:11:30 GMT


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

Yesterday I bought a newly released book about Saab 32 Lansen,
a Swedish combat aircraft designed in the 50s. A quick browsing
revealed the following astonishing fact: only one fourth of the
A32s (the attack version) were radar-equipped! They were supposed
to function as pathfinders for the other planes.
I had, perhaps naively, thought that all Lansens had radar.
My question is: was this pathfinder approach common?
Were similar aircraft from other countries (e.g. Buccaneer)
also built this way?

Btw: the book is "Lansen" by Sven Stridsberg. It's in Swedish,
but has a short English summary, and there are many pictures.
Highly recommended to those who are interested in Swedish
military aviation.
--
Jan Mattsson, CS student, Uppsala University, Sweden
janm@bern.docs.uu.se or janm@minsk.docs.uu.se
From: spencer@panix.com (David Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Japanese Strategy in WWII
Date: 3 Nov 92 15:35:16 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


From David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>

>From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

>eastern seaboard.  I don't know if a German U-boat could get to our
>coasts without some seriously touchy logistics, but if one could get here
>and loiter around a bit, what would have been the chances of our
>shipyards turning out their ships and for the convoys staging in our
>waters?  It was a gold mine of shipping both Japan and Germany should
>have been looking at.

It sure was, and the Germans sure did. Any decent WW2 atlas will have
a a scatter-map showing locations of ships sunk by U-boats. Shipping
losses along the US coast were appalling. Until well into the war, we
had no convoying or escorts for coastal shipping; no intelligent ASW
plan at all -- until we'd lost a lot of shipping.  Indeed, the civil
authorities didn't even bother to order lights-out in coastal cities,
so U-boats could lie offshore and have a perfect target in silhouette.

There are a number of excellent studies of the Atlantic antisub war,
mostly because it was such a damn near-run thing. It didn't need to
be. the tactics eventually adopted were well-known; we'd successfully
applied them in WW1, and the Brits had understood them from their own
WW2 experience. 

>  What precautions did we take?

Not enough. An appallingly bad show.

dhs   spencer@panix.com
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Former Soviet Navy Posting Number 3:  Delta III class SSBN
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:36:08 GMT


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


Delta III class SSBN

Type:  Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement:  9750 tons surfaced and 11,700 tons dived
Dimensions:  Length 160 m, beam 12.0 m, draught 8.7 m
Armament:  16 vertical launch tubes for 16 SS-N-18 'Stingray' SLBM's
	6 533mm bow torpedo tubes for a typical load of 18 Type 53 dual-role 
	torpedoes.
Electronics:  One 'Snoop Tray' surface-search and navigation radar, one low-
	frequency active/passive bow sonar, one medium-frequency torpedo fire-
	control sonar, one 'Brick Group' ESM system, one 'Pert Spring' 
	satellite navigation system, and extencsive communications eqipment
Propulsion:  Two pressurized water-cooled reactors supplying steam to two 
	geared turbines delivering 37,300 kW (50,025 hp) to two shafts
Performance:  Maximum submerged speed 24 knots, diving depth 400 m operational 
	and 600 m maximum
Complement:  130

Number Built:  14 for the Soviet Navy

Comments:  The adoption of a newer missile for the 'Delta III' class made 
	neccessary the enlarging of the external housing of the missile 
	compartment.  It's height has been increased from 7.75 m above the 
	waterline on the 'Delta II' class to 9.0 m above the waterline.  This 
	increased height means increased drag, and therefore more flow noise.
	SS-N-18 'Stingray' Model 1:  Range 6500 km; CEP 1410 m; warheads, three
		200 kiloton MIRV's; guidance, stellar-inertial
	SS-N-18 'Stingray' Model 2:  Range 8000 km; CEP 1550 m; warhead, one 
		450 kiloton RV; guidance, stellar-inertial
	SS-N-18 'Stingray' Model 3:  Range 6500 km; CEP 1410 m; warheads, seven
		200 kiloton MIRV's; guidance, stellar-inertial
	Type 53 dual-role torpedo:  Since my sources dont give any data on the 
		capabilites of this weapon, I can only assume that it is 
		similar to the US Navy's 533mm Mk. 48 torpedo.
From: cmr@cvedc.prime.com (Chesley Reyburn)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Opinion on Japan being "forced" to attack
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:25:32 GMT
Organization: Computervision R&D, Beaverton OR


From cmr@cvedc.prime.com (Chesley Reyburn)

brett@digits.enet.dec.com (My name is...) writes:

>means can accomplish a lot more than a noisey charge up the middle.  It only
>took them two more major wars [Korea and Vietnam] = but then again the British
>took centuries to learn it.

Wait a minute here.  Are you saying that Operation Market Garden was NOT
a "noisey charge up the middle"?

Admitedly the deception for Operation Husky ("The Man Who Never Was" by
Ewin Montagu) was a magnificent deception but that is the only one that I
remember.  How about the actions to hold Malyasia in the 50s?  Was this
precticed with subtle deception?

Just adding my oar.

Chesley Reyburn  cmr@cvedc.prime.com
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dvdyke60@ursa.calvin.edu (David Van Dyke)
Subject: Genie missile range
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:08:48 GMT


From dvdyke60@ursa.calvin.edu (David Van Dyke)

I was down in Ohio this weekend visiting the U.S.A.F. Museum in Dayton.
As I was walking around in the modern plane hangar(the one with the XB-70 and 
all that), I noticed a large missile under one of the F-101s(I think).  The 
missile was called the Genie (I forget the designation), and the sign for it 
said that it had a nuclear warhead for taking out packed bomber groups.  Does
anyone know what the stats on this missile are? (Range, warhead size, effective
kill radius, etc.)

Also, my dad told me that this thing wasn't guided, it was just targeted for 
a general area and fired.  Not that I want to contradict my dad or anything, 
but it seems absurd for a missile with such an important job to basically be an
unguided rocket.

[mod note -- listen to your Dad -- the Genie was un-guided.  When it
packing a nuke, you don't need pinpoint guidance -- just fire it into the
general area where the target is.

Steve ]


D-Man

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Subject: Re: Japanese Strategy in WWII
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:32:42 GMT


From bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)

In article <Bx3ovy.3FK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan) writes:
>From: jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan)
>Subject: Re: Japanese Strategy in WWII
>Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 18:04:46 GMT
>
>From jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan)
>
>1)  Word War I was not a fleet action on both oceans. rld War I was a 
continental campaign- after Jutland, there was convoy battle, but not a 
fleet action (and there is a BIG difference between the two- a convoy battle 
involves attacking logistics, a >leet action involves attacking combat elements)>

Depends how you define "fleet action".   I'm very rusty on my WW1 naval 
history, but I seem to recall that there was a German-British encounter 
in the Pacific off the Chilean coast (round 1 to the Germans, 2 to the Royal 
Navy).  In addition, there were numerous destroyer/cruiser scraps in the
North Sea (Heligoland?).  Not forgetting in the Adriatic between the Italian 
andAustro-Hungarian fleets.   What were was the Imperial Russian Navy doing 
in the Black Sea and the Baltic?

Having had a relative who served in the Grand Fleet on battleships during 
this war, I tend to agree that there was nothing much doing before and after
Jutland if you were in the RN and assigned to a capital ship.   Polishing 
brass and watching the rain fall at Scarpa Flow got to be bloody boring!

Cheers,
Keith Coman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Condemning a research report on the basis of :  Dept of Management
 invalid and unreliable methodology is the    :  Rhodes University
 cheapest shot in the book."                  :  Grahamstown, 6140
                                              :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee)
Subject: Re: Japanese Strategy in WWII
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:12:26 GMT


From bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee)

In article <Bx5D9H.JnM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>...  In what must now be considered one of the
>most unfortunate decisions of the war, the British allowed the Germans
>to build and complete the sub pens before they decided to attack them. 
  Possibly.
>Then, once they were completed, they withstood every single attack as
>if impervious, which they just about were.

  Well, almost every attack.  The book, "The Dam Busters" has pictures of
  a submarine pen that took a direct hit from a "Tallboy" deep penetration
  bomb.  A direct hit from one of these is a kill, even on 40 feet thick
  reinforced concrete.

  The trick was to brave the fighters and flak, and then to actually hit the
  target.

  Bill Lee

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: Montreux Treaty
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:55:33 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <Bx7CJo.EJv@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,  <2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.edu.au> writes:
> 
> 
> From  <2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.edu.au>
> 
>  Just out of curiosity I was wondering if any of you (fellow) military fanatics
> out there knew anything about the Montreux Treaty of 1936. It deals with the
> transport of warships through the Dardanelles.
> 
>   From the information at hand I gathered the foloowing restrictions about
> warship movements:
>                  1) 8 day notification is required.
>                  2) Submarines must travel on the surface while in transit.
>                  3) The aggregate tonnage of any foreign naval ships travelling
> through the straits cannot exceed 15000 tons.
>                  4) Any foreign warship displacing more than 10000 tons or armed
> with weapons larger than 8 inch calibre cannot transit the straits unless the
> ships are doing courtesy calls to Turkish ports.
> 
>   So I was wondering if any one knew how the Russians (or anyone else for that
> matter) is going to get the uncompleted 2nd carrier (in what is now Ukraine)
> through Turkish waters without cancelling the treaty?
>   And how did the USSR get the first carrier through the strait?
> 
>   Just a couple of questions, as I said...
> 
> Later,
> Matthew.
> 
> 

The Soviets got around it by declaring all of their built carriers as either
"ASW cruiser" such as the Moskva (sp? the one with the flat aft half, the 
front half like a regular ship carried helos only) or as an aircraft-capable
cruiser (Kiev).  They would never, ever use the word carrier and the Turks did not
want to get them real mad and denign them transit passage.

My guess is, as before, the Turks will just look the other way when and if
any of the true Russian aircraft carriers want to go through.

Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."




========== 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: <RHG@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Torpex in WWII
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:45:17 GMT


From <RHG@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>

The story is this:  During mid-to-late World War II, explosions ripped
through munitions storage facilities at Yorktown, Alameda, and Hawthorn
Nevada.  The problem was subsequently traced to Torpex (an explosive,
I believe, that is composed of TNT with some kind of additives that
give it a 50%-increase in power).  It was found that Torpex produces
hydrogen, and that the explosions were caused by hydrogen ignition.
The cure, so I have heard, was to mix the Torpex with beeswax.

Can anyone out there add anything?  Dates?  Chemistry?  Names?
References?  Specifics of any kind?

Thanks.

Rob

======================================================================
Robert Gannon              |  Bitnet:    RHG@PSUVM
35 Burrowes Bldg.          |  Internet:  RHG@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Penn State                 |  Phone:     814 355-4800 or 355-0943
University Park, PA 16802  |  Fax:       814 863-7285

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: desert storm operations
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:36:20 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <BxB8oH.L4G@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu> writes:
> While the Iraqi army at the time was the fourth or fifth(?) biggest in the 
> world, there is a huge difference between 1 and 2, and an even bigger one 
> between 2 and 3, etc.
> 
> Also, there is a tremendous difference in training and equipment between the 
> US Army (and other services) and their Iraqi counterparts.  
> 
> As far as an analogy, I'd say that a fight between the 82nd Airborne and a 
> Boy Scout troop would be comparable.
> 
> Chad Wemyss

Well, when I was going to meetings at 7th MEB HQ, 29 Palms CA during Sept
of 1990 the descriptions I got of Iraqi capabilities were somewhat beyond
those of any Boy Scout troops I've ever known.  It is very easy now to 
be monday morning quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight, but I know that
if the Iraqis had wanted to make it hard for us they could have made the
breaches very costly.  They didn't fight back because they were starving
and demoralized.  But many Iraqi guns were operable, and laid in to fire
for effect on the breach points, with plenty of servicable shells laid out
in the gun emplacements when we captured them.

I think one of the greatest errors possible is to dismiss the capabilities
of the Iraqi armed forces at the start of Desert Shield/Storm.  It is a
tribute to a very well planned and executed joint campaign that they did
not use much of their combat capability in the final ground operation.
For those who think it was a piece of cake I'll invite you to talk to any
of those who went in.  It was pretty scary at the time.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR
From: lafford@clpd.Kodak.COM (Rick Lafford)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: DMA charts
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:20:01 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From Rick Lafford <lafford@clpd.Kodak.COM>

In a recent posting,Christopher Paul Diehl <cd2d+@andrew.cmu.edu> asks:

>Does anyone know if it is possible to purchase DMA maps? 

Gee, finally a question I know something about. I just happen to have
the DMA Public Sale Catalog in my office and was about to send off
for some Tactical Pilotage Charts (TPC). Great for low altitude snaking
about you know. Call the DMA Combat Support Center @ (301)227-2432/3
and ask for a "Public Sale Catalog".

As for your question, it depends on which maps you want. There used to be
several that were unavailable due to strategic reasons but I don't know
today. Several of the a/c simulator packages for the PC use DMA derived
maps for their topographic base. F-117 Stealth Fighter and Falcon V3.0
are two that come to mind.

	Regards,
	Rick

--------------------
Rick Lafford
Eastman Kodak Co.
lafford@serum.kodak.com
======================================
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: a2husek@rzdspc23.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Carsten Husek)
Subject: RPG Combat Rules & Reality
Summary: RPG Combat Rules & Reality
Keywords: rpg
Organization: University of Hamburg, FRG
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:32:32 GMT


From a2husek@rzdspc23.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Carsten Husek)

I'm regular player of Role Playing Games (RPGs) and when the action comes
down to combat I always saw the rules gouverning that subject as some-
what arkward.

Now I'm posting in this group to get answers to the following questions
(in order to design 'better' rules):

How effective are kelvar jackets or similar armour? In one Game I play nothing
but Assault Rifles (or heavier weapons) could penetrate kelvar jackets and
even then the target got only a light wound !

How important is personal toughness ('constitution') in surviving wounds?
Is it more difficult to kill 'tough guys' than a whimp?



These are only the first questions of a whole bunch. I hope this posting (my
first one) will not annoy people who want to discuss more 'serious' topics
in this newsgroup. I also hope that some specialists out there have the time
to spare to answer my questions.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steve Williams <swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: 106mm Recoiless Rifle - Rocket or Gun?
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:39:32 GMT


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


In sci.military, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

 >In article <Bx97D9.1s3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.
 >com(T.M.Haddock) writes:
 >
 >> I also said I thought it was a GUN in that the only difference
 >> between it and a 105mm howitzer was that the 106's shell casing
 >> had holes in it which bleed off pressure and propellant which
 >> escaped rearward through holes in the breech.  But others said
 >          ^^^^^^^^
 >     forward. You want the thust to conteract recoil.

The propellant gas expanded (while burning) inside the chamber, pushing 
the projectile forward, with some gases escaping rearward through the 
breech orifice as to counterbalance the recoil.  Thus, the word 
"recoilless".

 >> it was a rocket powered warhead that was ignited and "launched"
 >> from the tube like a LAAW.  Having fired several of these while
 >> in the Marines, I don't ever recall the term "rocket" used.

The 106mm projectile was not rocket-powered since it didn't have a rocket
engine.  It was driven forward by expanding propellant gases caused
by burning of propellant powder in the cartridge case.  Since some
propellant gases were directed to rear to counter the recoil, this
worked on the rocket principle (opposite reactions cancel each other).
For this reason, you shouldn't stand behind a recoilless rifle during 
firing.

The 106mm is a recoilless rifle (or perhaps gun, as I am not sure).
The difference between a rifle and a gun is that a rifle has a rifled 
barrel while a gun has a smooth bore.  The source book didn't indicate
which barrel, but it did refer 108mm as a recoilless gun one time and as
a recoilless rifle at other times.


Source: Jane's Infantry Weapons 1990-91


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

Newsgroups: sci.military