HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:44:15 GMT


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

In article <C143J8.2wt@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:

>   However, while terminal velocity affects the Y-vector (vertical) of
>an object's velocity, it should not affect its X-vector (horizontal).
>Simple physics tells us (if I'm not screwing this up), that the higher
>the angle at which the projectile is fired, the larger its Y-vector,
>and the lower angle it is fired, the higher its X-vector.

>   Therefore, is it valid to assume that this kind of damage is not
>caused so much by the projectile _coming down_, but by it _continuing
>in the same horizontal direction_, where terminal velocity does not
>come into play?

Atmospheric drag comes into play no matter which direction 
the projectile moves in. If an airplane fires a shell hori-
zontally it will eventually lose all of its horizontal velo-
city component and drop straight down. I suppose you could 
say that there isn't a terminal velocity in the horizontal
direction, or that the horizintal terminal velocity is zero,
since there isn't any horizontal gravity (hows that for an
oxymoron!). 

Mind you, terminal velocity for a shell falling base first 
is less than for a shell falling point first. 




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: more ?'s about seacobras
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:42:33 GMT


From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>

In <C1F6tu.KL7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Christopher John Arnold <gorilla@cats.ucsc.edu> writes:

>Does anyone know if it is common practice for the USN to use 
>Sea Cobras on their ships, apart from Marines using them as
>support gunships. Do Cobras ever play a role in anti-ship warfare?

Seacobras are only used for Marine support, carried by Navy amphibious ships.
None carry anti-ship weapons. 
-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com
From: davidy@seattleu.edu (Stimpson J. Cat)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: German nuclear research in WW2
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:07:20 GMT
Organization: Seattle University


From "Stimpson J. Cat" <davidy@seattleu.edu>

In article <C1H2zB.F53@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Ewan M Munro IE90 <emunro@cs.strath.ac.uk> writes:
>
>From Ewan M Munro IE90 <emunro@cs.strath.ac.uk>
>
>

******************* other German A-Bomb meterial deleted ****************

>
>The German goal appears to have been to produce a sustainable nuclear reaction
>is a Uranium machine. I think that this was basically a large number of Uranium
>cubes, suspended in Heavy Water. They got about 75% of the reactants that they
>needed before the reactor was caopture by the allies.
>

************************* meterial deleted ****************************

>
>Hope that this info is of interest.
>
>-- 
>#include <disclaimer.h>                    Internet: emunro@cs.strath.ac.uk
>"You don't understand. If you do drop <the microprocessor> through a crack
> and lose it, then there are millions more where that came from."
>        Robert Noyce : co-inventor of the integrated circuit.  
>



	According to Albert Speer in his autobiography "Inside the Third
Reich," nuclear research was indeed given a low priority in Germany. Speer
attended a conference on nuclear technology, where he was informed by Walter
Heisenburg that America appeared to be well in the lead in nuclear research,
as... "Excerpts from American technical journals suggested that plenty of
technical and financial resources were available there for nuclear research.
This meant America probably had a head start in the matter, whereas Germany had
been in the forefront of those studies only a few years ago." (Inside the
3rd Reich, pp.301, paperback edition.)

	Speer also said nuclear research was held back by the lack of a 
cyclotron, and when Speer proposed to have cyclotrons built as large or
larger than the American ones, he was told their lack of experience meant
only a small one would be useful. Speer offered more in resources, but was told
they could not utilize them at that time. In the end, Speer was told the
bomb could not be ready for 3-4 years, and Speer reasoned the war would end
before then. Thus, Speer says, he "authorized the development of an energy-
producing uranium motor for propelling machinery. The Navy was interested in
that for its submarines." (I3R, pp. 303)

	Speer said he eventually released the stock of 1200 tons of uranium 
for use in solid-core ammuniation, prompted by a shortage of tungsten caused
by cutoffs from their suppliers from Portgual. I recall a thread a while
back asking if the Germans had used uranium-cored ammunition in WWII - if
Speer is correct, it seems they did.




					David L. Yee
				email to:davidy@sumax.seattleu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jan Mattsson <janm@prag.docs.uu.se>
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: Uppsala University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:41:31 GMT


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

franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes:

>In one of the primary U.S. Army manuals (Soldier's handbook?) are
>instructions about shooting at attacking aircraft with your M-16
>rifle. Basically, point the rifle upwards and hold the trigger.


During my military service I was taught to do this to scare the
pilot into flying higher, so that the real AAA gets a better chance
of hitting the plane, not to actually shoot down the plane.
--
Jan Mattsson, CS student, Uppsala University, Sweden
janm@minsk.docs.uu.se

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:44:26 GMT


From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>

In article <C17w37.FLI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

>I always thought that AA shells were fused to explode at a given al-
>titude. Remember all those movies about B-17s over Germany, and all
>that flak?

Some are, some aren't. Typically anything under about 40mm is contact
fused. They'd be throwing 88s at a B-17 - it's the only shell that could
get that high.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | I was told that the best defense is a good
George Patterson -  | offense, so I made up my mind early in life
                    | to be as offensive as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: renfro@geewhiz.ssc.gov (James Renfro)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Keywords: Golden BB
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:53:02 GMT
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory


From James Renfro <renfro@geewhiz.ssc.gov>

In article <C17w2o.FEJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Scott D. Young"  
<youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca> writes:
> 
> From "Scott D. Young" <youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
> 
> In <C143uK.3Fw@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN  
<bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za> writes:
>>From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
>>Everyone on the ground dropped what they were doing, grabbed 
>>the nearest firearm and opened fire.  The story teller relates how  
>>heroicit was to see his troop-sargeant standing on the turret of  
>>the Sherman tankblazing away with a S&W Model 10......
>>The valley was a long one with two squadrons of tanks present, the
>>Me flopped into the ground and burnt out.
 
>I seem to remember back during the Falklands war, an Argentine  
destroyer providing gunfire support for the amphibious landing was  
engaged at close range by the Royal Marines defending the bay. The  
ship was hit by over 1,000 rounds of small-calibre arms fire, which  
put its main gun out of action, took out some radar, and made it beat  
a hasty retrat. If you can make a ship go away, it should be  
(theoretically) possible to shoot down 
>planes with small-arms fire.
> 
>   Scott
================
Several years ago I worked for a principle airframe maker
who produced for the USAF a *tactical fighter-bomber* as
it was then called.  Seeing the airframe largely without skin
and panels, I was amazed at the mass of wires, tubes, wave-
guides, and hydraulic lines concentrated all along the 
length of the plane being assembled.  Then I understood
the term, *golden BB*, as I had heard it used in describing
the vulnerability of such an expensive piece of military hardware.
Only one such *golden BB* is required to seriously disable
that or a similar aircraft, and certainly will compromise its
mission.  I heard several *war stories* while I worked there,
told by uniformed USAF pilots who, during that era of the
Vietnam War, experienced lucky trips back to base after one
or two *golden BBs*  had made them abort their low-level 
missions; I also heard the stories of those who did not make
it back to base on the same missions.  

A bullet from a 30-06 or an M-16 probably would not touch
a crew member, but it would, if it penetrated almost anywhere
on the skin or panels of an aircraft, tear up something enough
to pop a breaker, or blow the crystals in a radar transmitter, or 
worse, open a hydraulic line.  

Jim
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca>
Subject: Re: Scope of Action-US Military
Keywords: US Military
Organization: Communications Research Centre, Ottawa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:37:56 GMT


From Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca>

In article <C15yA1.K8D@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "patterson,george r"
<patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com> writes: 

>Ever heard of the War Between the States (also called the Civil War or the
>Valiant Fight Against Yankee Agression)?

Yes, I have, though I thought since the Confederacy seceeded from the
Union, they weren't considered a part of the United States any more (de
facto, a foreign power, thus within the scope of the ability of Congress
to declare war.)

Thanks to everybody who answered.



-- 
Jerry Han-CRC-DOC-Dept. of Behavioural Research-"jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca"
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 
/   The opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect the opinions /
/         of the DOC or any branch of the Federal Government. 	      /
From: Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:04:06 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service


From Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>

In article <C1D8qt.A92@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>In article <C19ns2.330@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com> writes:
>
>>Also, back to fixed targets, there is another version of the TLAM that has
>>cluster munitions instead of a fixed warhead.  It's typical attack profile is
>>against targets that you want to maintain area denial, ala, an airfield.
>>Let one fly the length of a runway spitting out cluster bombs, and it
>>will take the enemy quite a while to clear the strip, by which time you
>>should be able to crater and cluster again.

>[...]
>What happens to the missile afterwards? I don't see why it can't be
>programmed to turn around again and fly home for retrieval/reuse -
>and if the range is too far, there would be a self-destruct option,
>or it could be used without explosives on a second target. 

That's more or less what happens (not retrieval: no one wants to give up
warload for a recovery system and the engine is designed to be a throwaway
in any case). The TLAM-D[ispenser] missile can attack up to three targets
with its load of - I think - 166 submunitions, the same Combined Effects
Munitions used in the Air Force Tactical Munitions Dispenser.  After that,
what's left hits a fourth target. 

I wonder if that's what hit the Al-Rashid?
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:52:41 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

 
>      The former Soviet Republics also have a number of carrier-type vessels in
>  various stages of disrepair.
> 
>      2 x Moskva Class (Moskva and Lenningrad)--very old, close to retirement--
>                 operate only KA-25/27 helicopters
>      4 x Kiev Class (Kiev, Novorosysk, Minsk, Kharkov(?))--early/mid-1970s
>                 ships with ski-jumps for Yak-38 "Forgers" and ASW helos; some
>                 of these are in awful states of repair and need immediate over-
>                 hauls or scrapping

		The Yak-38 has been withdrawn from service so these ships 
		have no a/c to operate.
		
>      1 x Admrial Kuznetsov--full deck carrier, but I believe it has a ski-jump
>                 as well; operates 40-50 aircraft, Su-27K is main fighter; now
>                 under Russian control
>      1 x Varyag--Still under construction, I think under Ukrainian control;
>                 reports last year said it was to be sold to China, but all
>                 parties involved deny it; would need lots of work to get
>                 functional
>      1 x ??--nuclear powered carrier under construction?

	This one has been scrapped incomplete.
	
>      1 x ??--conventional powered carrier under con., like Kuznetsov

	This one has also been scrapped incomplete.
From: schellen@mprgate.mpr.ca (Neil Schellenberger)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:59:36 GMT
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada


From Neil Schellenberger <schellen@mprgate.mpr.ca>

In article <C19nsK.39L@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov> writes:

   > 2) What kind of aircrafts are they using at their carriers?

   US naval aircraft are: 
   F-14  interceptor
   F/A-18  fighter/bomber
   A-6   bomber
   EA-6B  electronic countermeasures
   S-3   ASW turbojet aircraft
   SH-3  ASW helo
   SH-60  ASW helo
   E-3   early warning radar plane
   ^^^
That would be ... "interesting" ;-) 

I realize that this is probably just a typo, but I think that the
dedicated AEW plane in use on US CVs is the E-2C Hawkeye.  I believe the
E-3 is the Sentry.

Regards,
Neil
--

Neil Schellenberger             | Voice : (604) 293-5438
MPR Teltech Ltd. 		| Fax   : (604) 293-5787
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC    | E-Mail: schellen@mpr.ca
Canada, V5A 4B5                 | "Wibble!" - Blackadder II ("Head")
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca>
Subject: Desert Storm Force Levels
Summary: Desert Storm
Keywords: Desert Storm, Coalition
Organization: Communications Research Centre, Ottawa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:39:06 GMT


From Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca>

Question-> Does anybody at this present moment have a general idea of what
the current US Force levels are in the Iraqi theatre of operations?  (Air
Force, Navy and Army.)  What about other Coalition units?

Thanks in advance!


-- 
Jerry Han-CRC-DOC-Div. of Behavioural Research-"jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca"
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 
/   The opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect the opinions /
/         of the DOC or any branch of the Federal Government. 	      /

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Ted Kim (Random Dude" <tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:37:29 GMT


From "Ted Kim (Random Dude" <tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu>

In article <C15yF6.KC1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov> writes:
>As for US Navy cruise missiles, only the Harpoon (50 NM range according to
>open literature) is air launchable and does not have a land-version (anti-ship
>only).  

However, in the near future the SLAM (land-attack) variant of the
Harpoon should be available. I am not sure when the IOC date is, but
they are in low-rate production to iron out all the details. Seven
were "tested" in Desert Storm.

>I do remember that the manufacturer of Tomahawk did submitted it
>in the competition for the Air Force's ALCM program but lost to the Boeing
>design.  I guess the Air Force doesn't like anything the Navy produces ;-) 
>Also, look who's land attack cruise missile is seeing all the action :-) :-). 

Recently, only the Tomahak has been involved. But in Desert Storm,
some conventionally armed Boeing ALCMs were used. Maybe just so the AF
could say "me too". 1/2 :- )

-ted

-- 
Ted Kim                           Internet: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department  UUCP:     ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3680A Boelter Hall                Phone:    (310) 825-8524
Los Angeles, CA 90024             FAX:      (310) 825-2273
From: "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: Scope of Action-US Military
Keywords: US Military
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:44:21 GMT


From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>

In article <C17vr8.Eso@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca> writes:

>>Ever heard of the War Between the States (also called the Civil War or the
>>Valiant Fight Against Yankee Agression)?
>
>Yes, I have, though I thought since the Confederacy seceeded from the
>Union, they weren't considered a part of the United States any more (de
>facto, a foreign power, thus within the scope of the ability of Congress
>to declare war.)

That was the Confederacy's opinion. Lincoln did not agree. His entire
rallying cause during the first three years of the war was the attempt
to reunite the country. The following is from "The History and Battlefields
of the Civil War", by John Bowen.

    "Constitutional issues also were important in the North. Lincoln
     assumed more power than any other president. By classifying 
     secession as insurrection, he was able to assume emergency
     powers and commit the United States to war long before Congress
     acted. In the interests of national security, he followed a rule
     of 'military necessity' during the war, which suspended civil
     liberties and instituted summary arrest of persons suspected of
     opposing the war effort."

This refusal to consider the Confederacy as a "real" country continued
until the end of the war. Had the Union considered the Confederacy as
another country, troops under Sherman and Sheridan would have been
much more restricted under international law of the times. For example,
Atlanta would not have been defended, and Sherman would have been 
required to treat it as an "open city", instead of razing it to the
ground.

It was only after Sherman informed Johnston that he intended to burn
the city whether it was defended or not did Johnston begin preparations
for defense of the city. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | I was told that the best defense is a good
George Patterson -  | offense, so I made up my mind early in life
                    | to be as offensive as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: question- discipline
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:07:16 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA


From eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)

Is it true that one can be court marshalled for providing false information
(on a medical exam upon entering the military, for instance)?

Please reply by e-mail
Thanks!
-Eric
From: spirit@wildwood.demon.co.uk (Mike Horrell)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Nazi Nuclear Programme - Some References
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:57:15 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From Mike Horrell <spirit@wildwood.demon.co.uk>


>From aylwyn@maths.tcd.ie (Aylwyn Scally)
>
>Does anyone know of any evidence confirming or disputing the existence of a
>German nuclear research programme? If there was one, was it very far
>advanced by the time the war ended? 

I would suggest the following books as useful references:

1. Hitler's Nuclear Weapons - Geoffrey Brooks
   Leo Cooper  1992  ISBN 0-85052-344-3

   Main thrust of the book is that Werner Heisenberg acted to delay and
   sabotage the Nazi atomic program.  Discusses the use of Radiological 
   (fallout) weapons rather than fission.  Contains a report of the 
   shipping of the Nazi nuclear stocks to the Japanese on the U-234
   (a mine laying U-boat) in March 1945.  Supposedly surrendered to the
   US Navy (also had V weapon plans) and the discovery of the U-235 etc
   (and concern that other shipments had got through) lead to the US 
   decision to use nuclear weapons.

[Anyone seen anything about this in FOI disclosures ?] 

2. Hitler's Rocket Sites - Philip Henshall
   Robert Hale  1985  ISBN 0-7090-2021-X

   A detailed look at the V1 & V2 weapon sites (as opposed to the 
   weapons or their use).  Describes the sites as constructed, as 
   they were planned to be used and as they stand today (includes
   directions to find them).  Most interesting is the discovery of
   nearly complete missile silos on the Cherbourg Peninsula each
   capable of holding one missile.  It seems they were desoigned to
   hold a weapon armed with nuclear (or biological) warhead in a
   bomb proof manner (silo would have "lid" which would be raised 
   for firing.


Hope this info helps, the books are well worth chasing up.


Regards, MikeH

--
--------------------------------------------------------------
* Mike Horrell                   spirit@wildwood.demon.co.uk *
*                                                            *
* wildwood is not affiliated with any other demon.co.uk site *
* wildwood is not affiliated with any other demon.co.uk site *
From: agae@palm.lle.rochester.edu (Andres C. Gaeris)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: German nuclear research in WW2
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:57:17 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


From "Andres C. Gaeris" <agae@palm.lle.rochester.edu>


The best reference about the history, science and politics of the German
nuclear research program in WW2 is in the book of the controversial (because
his supposed Germanophilia) author David Irving. From the Univewrsity's
electronic catalog I get:

AUTHOR:   Irving, David John Cawdell, 1938-
TITLE:    The German atomic bomb; the history of nuclear research in Nazi Germ>
IMPRINT:  New York, Simon and Schuster [1968, c1967]

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION:  329 p. illus., maps, ports. 23 cm.
NOTES:      "Notes and sources": p. 305-320.
SUBJECTS:   Atomic energy research -- Germany. * Atomic bomb -- History.
OCLC NUMBER: 00382109
 
I found this book pretty interesting, fairly written and very enlightening
about the workings of the German research 'establishment'.

Andres C. Gaeris
Junior laser fusioneer

agae@lle.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military