HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Offensive applications of SDI
Summary: Thor (aka Crowbar) = 16 tons of TNT?
Keywords: Thor (aka Crowbar), impact explosion, 16 tons of TNT
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:23:44 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo


From v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar)

In article <1992Apr1.034101.7885@cbnews.cb.att.com>, 
ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes...
>Even with no terminal guidance, having hundreds of 16 ton TNT equivalent
>explosions saturate the area of a massed tank formation would be devastating.

	Could someone please explain to me how this is possible?  Am I to
understand that the Thor (aka Crowbar) weapons system has an impact explosion 
equivalent to 16 tons of TNT!?
                                       .
                                     .' `.                                      
___________________________________.'-{*}-`.____________________________________
Zerxes M. Bhagalia                '---------` TCP: v064lnev@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
State University of New York   .---------------.    bhaga-z@acsu.buffalo.edu    
  at Buffalo                 .'                 `.  BIT: v064lnev@ubvms.bitnet
Recovering Engineer        .'                     `.  Director, News Information
Computer Science         .'________MDCCLXXVI________`.    Division, WFFT 90.5 FM
---------------------N O V U S   O R D O   S E C L O R U M----------------------
From: ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Any good books on the Gulf War?
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:56:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr8.005644.15607
Organization: AT&T


From Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>

>Now that it's been over a year since the Gulf War, I have seen several
recently
>published books covering the conflict. I was wondering if anyone has
>purchased any of these and/or can recommend any that give good and complete
>coverage of the military operations (especially special forces operations)
>during the war in the Gulf.
> 
>In a similar vein, what about books on the Falklands War? It has been ten
>years since that conflict ended.
> 
>Many thanks in advance.
> 
Russell

The best book on the Gulf War, according to USNI _Proceedings_ and
_Marine Corps Gazette_, is _Triumph in the Desert_.  I don't know the
author, but it has a US infantryman standing on top of a T-55 or a T-72
with the turret blown off of it on the jacket.

The best book released so far on the Falklands War is _Battle for the
Falklands_ by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins.  It appears on the
Commandant of the Marine Corps' Reading List.  Admiral Sandy Woodward,
the commander of the British Task Force, recently published his memoirs
of the war, but I have yet to see any reviews of this book.

Allan
-------------------------------------
Allan Bourdius [(|)K(-)/USMCR]
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu
"Give, expecting nothing thereof."
All opinions are those of the author.
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Any good books on the Gulf War?
Keywords: gulf war, books
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:38:00 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden


From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)

Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com (Steven.Schultz) writes:

>I haven't read or bought any, but Norman Friedman, a defense analyst, wrote a
>book called "Desert Victory:The War for Kuwait." It is supposed to be one
>of the best, and from previous work, I believe it. It's $25.95 Hardcover,
>$18.95 paperback. 416 pages, Maps, charts, 75 photos. 5 1/2 X 8 1/4.
>Available from USNI. )I can give you more information on purchasing it.) As

I've read it and yes, it's quite good. However, Friedman has a tendency to get 
into the Navy/Air Force debate once in a while and that detracts from the book.
Another good book is "Gulf Air War Debrief" from World Air Power Journal. It's
19.95 pounds. Published in the US by Airtime Publishing Inc, 10 Bay Street,
Westport, CT 06880
It's enormously  detailed and a good section on gulf war nose art :->.



--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

&& This .sig is protected by SIGinfectant(tm). Look for the &&, a sure sign of
quality .sig protection. &&
From: tek@pram.CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude))
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: F-117 Air-to-Air
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:42:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr8.004208.11584
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department


From tek@pram.CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude))

In article <1992Apr7.032006.1132@cbnews.cb.att.com> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>Anyway, doesn't TACTIC Rainbow provide this capability, ... and this
>is just one of those proposed weapons that got scrapped, ...

AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow went as far as building prototypes and testing,
but it was cancelled. Apparently, the cancellation had to do with both 
buget pressures and disappointing test results.

-ted

--
Ted Kim                           Internet: tek@pram.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department  UUCP:     ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3804C Boelter Hall                Phone:    (310) 206-8696
Los Angeles, CA 90024             FAX:      (310) 825-2273
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bobmcc@tiger.tcs.com (Bob McCormick)
Subject: Re: Phoenix vs. Scud ?
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:06:12 GMT


From bobmcc@tiger.tcs.com (Bob McCormick)

In article <1992Apr7.034006.5780@cbnews.cb.att.com>, astroatc!nicmad!peterson@spool.cs.wisc.edu (Dennis Peterson x2495) writes:
> 
> I was wondering if a F14 on patrol over the Scud launch area would
> have been able to use a Phoenix  against the Scuds during the
> early launch phase.  

I think the bigget problem (besides having enough F14s on patrol over the
target area 7x24 hours) would be the flight characteristics of the Scud and
the Phoenix.  After initial separation, the Phoenix flies up in a ballistic
trajectory, and then comes down at high speed on top of the target.  Great
for planes (that move mostly horizontally, but the Scud also has a
ballistic trajectory.  The Scud will be moving pretty much vertically the
whole time.  By the time the Phoenix gets near the Scud, the Scud is really
moving, and it could be very high up in its ballistic arc.  I think this
would make the targeting problem a lot harder.  

Now, extensive software changes could be made (as was done for
Patriot), but the flight envelop and timing issues would be a lot
harder to solve.

=-=-=-=-=-
Bob McCormick, Systems Engineer           | bobmcc@tcs.com or uunet!tcs!bobmcc
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc.    | +1-510-649-3881
2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA, 94704 USA | 

Xref: sparky sci.military:5163 sci.aeronautics:968 sci.misc:1038 sci.space:7421 misc.rural:1089 rec.games.misc:12007 rec.games.frp:17524 rec.games.board:4938
From: camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (   James A Seymour   )
Newsgroups: sci.military,sci.aeronautics,sci.misc,sci.space,misc.rural,rec.games.misc,rec.games.frp,rec.games.board
Subject: Publication/Authors net address's?
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:39:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr10.013917.10172
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Kansas State University


From camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (   James A Seymour   )


[mod.note: Followups to the poster. - Bill ]

With the proliferation of electronic nets worldwide, it
is highly likely that among the readers of these groups
are editors and/or writers/contributing writers for many
national/international publications.  If you fit the 
above catagory or know someone who does I would appreciate
it if you could email this information to either of these
accts.

      camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu/camlshop@cis.ksu.edu

NOTE: I would like to make any such list available, so
      it would be advisable to obtain permission before
      sending me anybody's address.

It would be nice if all replies would include a brief
synopsis explaining just who is at the other end of
the email address you are submitting.

Fictitious Example:

pepper@pop.bottle.com 
   Dr. Imma Pepper/staff writer for SODA MONTHLY/contributing
   writer to SUNDAY SODA DIGEST,RECREATIONAL BEVERAGES/author
   of ALL THE WORLD'S A PEPPER

If you followed this format, I could just cut and paste any new
entries.  

Knowing myself, I will not promise that every request for any 
addresses I have gathered will be replied to.  However, I can
promise to do my best.

[For the curious, every now and then I have an urge to write
to magazines.  However, since it is a hassle to get out the 
paper, pen, envelope, and stamp, I dont.  Its so much easier
to just get on the computer and email away.]


james seymour/camel/camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu/camlshop@cis.ksu.edu
From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US SMG
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:27:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr15.232728.2604
Organization: AT&T


From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>



Tom Schoene writes:
#There is one odd weapon which I have heard described as an SMG.  The M231 Fring
#Port Weapon is a version of the M16 designed for firing from inside a Bradley
#and has a collapsing wire stock like many SMG's.  My question is, why did the
#U.S. Army decide they needed the new weapon for firing ports when there are
#several designs of firing ports which allow the troops to use their normal
#weapons?

IMHO most of the designers of firing ports for use with "normal" weapons
have never been in a fully loaded IFV. In the case of the US, use of the 
standard M16A2 with a firing port means nearly 3 feet of rifle swinging around
INSIDE the vehicle. The interference between the rifle and its user, who
vie for the same space in front of the port, is obvious. It is noteworthy
that the Soviets issue folding stock rifles for troops in vehicles with fire
ports. The M231, as mentioned, has a collapsible stock, and also has a
modified barrel/forend which allows it to stick further into the port.

The M231 is also modified for open bolt operation, as weapons used from firing
ports have a much more severe firing schedule than rifles in normal use. The
open bolt improves cooling and eliminates cook-off concerns.

This is moot of course, as the M2A2 Bradley has add-on armor which covers
the firing ports.

Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: prm@ecn.purdue.edu (Phil Moyer)
Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed estimatates
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:18:27 GMT


From prm@ecn.purdue.edu (Phil Moyer)


>From kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt)

>... The
>question is, if the trip distance was much shorter, say 200-300 miles, instead
>of 2000 miles, how fast could they have gone?  And finally, what is the true
>top speed of the aircraft?

The "SR-71 Supersonic/Hypersonic Research Facility Researchers Handbook",
published by NASA, has (on page 11) a Dynamic Pressure Range listed.  Using
that set of numbers (325-847 lbs/sq.ft), it is possible to back-calculate
a theoretical equivalent velocity.  At 85,000 feet, that velocity is
3,410 mph.  Using the speed of sound at 85,000 feet (663.6 mph), that equates
to Mach 5.14.  No, that's not a typo, that's Mach five-point-one-four.

[Thanks to Larry Smith for these calculations.  -prm]

>I haven't checked Jane's so I don't know if they
>have an estimate.  Also, NASA now has at least two SR-71 which will probably
>be painted NASA white, thus making the plane the Whitebird.

NASA has three SR-71s.  They are:

	Serial Number	Article Number	Model
	------------	-------------	-----
	64-17956	2007		SR-71B
	64-17971	2022		SR-71A
	64-17980	2031		SR-71A

They will *not* be painted white. :-)  At least, not to my knowledge.
Perhaps Mary Shafer can confirm this.

In addition to the three NASA birds, the Air Force has three in flying
storage at Lockheed's Plant 42 in Palmdale, CA.  This makes a total of
six operational Blackbirds.

Cheers,
Phil Moyer
Moderater, Skunk-Works mailing list
Send addition requests to skunk-works-request@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu
From: baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Some time back, I saw a move called, if memory serves,
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:51:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler)

In article <1992Apr7.033652.5503@cbnews.cb.att.com>, Tony.Buckland@mtsg.ubc.ca writes:
|> 
|> From Tony.Buckland@mtsg.ubc.ca
|> 
|>  "Twilight's Last Gleaming."  In it, a terrorist group seized an
|>  ICBM site and threatened to fire a few. [...]  
|>  But it occurred to me, that in this or any similar
|>  situation, if an attempt were ever made to actually launch,
|>  the missiles would be total sitting ducks as they launched, and
|>  could be turned into scrap metal by a concentrated point-blank
|>  barrage.

It is not clear that these missiles could be fired by this group. There has
been a lot of work to make unpossible an unauthorized use of nuclear weapons.
Unless this happens in a crisis situation where delegation of nuclear authority
has been done fairly extensively, I doubt that anyone could fire these missiles.

Emmanuel Baechler.                                Tel.: ++41-21-693-2732
Laboratoire d'Intelligence Artificielle
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne/MA-Ecublens
CH-1015 Lausanne	Switzerland
e-mail: baechler@liasun6.epfl.ch/                 Standard Disclaimer
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed estimatates
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:50:59 GMT
Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY


From sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)

In article <1992Apr11.001827.18966@cbnews.cb.att.com> prm@ecn.purdue.edu (Phil Moyer) writes:
:The "SR-71 Supersonic/Hypersonic Research Facility Researchers Handbook",
:published by NASA, has (on page 11) a Dynamic Pressure Range listed.  Using
:that set of numbers (325-847 lbs/sq.ft), it is possible to back-calculate
:a theoretical equivalent velocity.  At 85,000 feet, that velocity is
:3,410 mph.  Using the speed of sound at 85,000 feet (663.6 mph), that equates
:to Mach 5.14.  No, that's not a typo, that's Mach five-point-one-four.

What exactly does DPR mean? Does that take into account atmospheric
friction heating and engine operating parameters?

Sean

-- 
                  |``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the
Sean Casey        | commitment to getting from here to there. But they are the
sean@s.ms.uky.edu | conditions for sailing -- not something to be gotten rid
U of KY, Lexington| of, but something to be danced with.''
From: bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Low Altitude training, airforces
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:41:41 GMT
Organization: Uni Computing Service, Uni of Sydney, Australia


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


When I was working for the Australian Defence Force Academy, I got a trip
round Australia with the 3rd Year students.  We were being flown around
in a C130 (Hercules).  In the leg between Darwin and Katherine (site of
a major airbase), we went into "tactical flying mode".  Basically the
plane went down into the valleys at a height I would call "Very Low".
This meant sharp banking turns as the plane followed the river valleys,
and if the plane was flying level, you would have been able to look out
the windows and see the trees above you (no, not the tree tops, the trees).

Definitely below civilian height limits.

Saw demonstrations of Army aviation too, with light aircraft flying along
valleys at crop duster height ("Turn left here, pilot, to avoid the tree").

(Oh you mean _jet_aircraft_ flying fast at low level!)
Seriously, I suspect all nations with air forces do some low level
training.  Some spend more time than others and in other-than-blue-sky
conditions.  Those in countries which have a lack of free airspace are
just more obvious.

Bill Lee
(Imagine a roller coaster ride that goes on and on... its Drammamine time!)
From: jfu2@midway.uchicago.edu (Carlo Graziani)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Any good books on the Gulf War?
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:42:21 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


From jfu2@midway.uchicago.edu (Carlo Graziani)

In article <1992Apr8.005644.15607@cbnews.cb.att.com> Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>>In a similar vein, what about books on the Falklands War? It has been ten
>>years since that conflict ended.
>
>The best book released so far on the Falklands War is _Battle for the
>Falklands_ by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins.  It appears on the
>Commandant of the Marine Corps' Reading List.  Admiral Sandy Woodward,
>the commander of the British Task Force, recently published his memoirs
>of the war, but I have yet to see any reviews of this book.


I liked "Signals of War."  It's by two authors, one British and one Argentinian
(unfortunately I don't have it at work, and I don't remember the authors'
names). It discusses in depth the political, diplomatic, and military
aspects of the conflict.  There is a very interesting section on Argentine
strtegic aims, explaining their interest in the Falklands --- it had to do
with their conflict with Chile and with their territorial claims in Antarctica.
All in all, an informative and well-researched scholarly work.

Carlo
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Graziani           |   Warning:  some of the above may not be a fully  |
Dept. of Physics         |   correct representation of profound cosmic truth.|
University of Chicago    |                                                   |
carlo@nu.uchicago.edu    |          I plan to write in Elmer Fudd.           |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pyrdek@edinboro.edu
Subject: Minuteman Launch Center Surviablity
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:31:17 GMT


From pyrdek@edinboro.edu

Does anyone have any information on the following:

Survivability of Minuteman Launch Control Centers.
     In particular,
 Has one ever been tested in an underground A-bomb test out
 on the Yucca Flats (or where ever the undergrond atomic
 bomb testing is conducted)?

 Have any been tested using conventional HE to simulate
 either above or below ground detonation?

What accuracy was assumed for U.S.S.R. missle attack on this type
of site?  And did it include penetrator (bunker buster) type
warhead design?

I am not realy concerned about EMP or ionizing radiation effects, just the 
pure mechanical effects (ground movement and over pressure effects)
and possibly, if appropiate, thermal effects.

If I am treading to close to some lines on security (I have heard a 
rumor or two), only previously published sources (on the open market)
should be quoted.
From: ccicpg!cci632.cci.com!jvz@uunet.UU.NET (John V. Zambito)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Refit of Non-nuclear carriers
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:46:41 GMT
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY


From ccicpg!cci632.cci.com!jvz@uunet.UU.NET (John V. Zambito)

>From Jeff Kavanaugh <34X3TAN@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
>How is this for an idea?  Refit the propulsion systems of Forrestal and Kitty-
>Hawk class carriers using the following:
>  1. (16) LM-2500 marine gas-turbine engines to provide 100% electrical, and
>     50% of propulsive power.
>  2. Use the exhaust of the turbine to fire the four remaining boilers for the
>     remainder of propulsive power, and steam catapults.

This is very similar to what they do at Walt Disney World in Orlando FL. 
Of course they use all the output to generate electricity but they do
use gas turbines and their exhaust. I remeber reading about it in 
Design News a while back. They offered a 3 day seminar at the park 
explaining their whole power generation and distribution network. It 
was about $1000 and included passes to the park.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Educating soldiers with the aid of Virtual Reality.
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:31:11 GMT


From clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)

In article <1992Apr10.015518.11826@cbnews.cb.att.com> tonlun@ida.docs.uu.se  
(Tony Lundstedt) writes:
| 
| From tonlun@ida.docs.uu.se (Tony Lundstedt)
| 
| We are group that is going to write a small essey about virtual reality
| at Uppsala University. My idea is to find someone out here that knows
| anything about the VR-technique taht is used when training M1A1-crews,
Pardon bandwidth for post, but E-mail bounced.

I am at the Institute for Simulation and Training of the University of Central  
Florida, USA.  We do research (as best we can) related to VR training issues  
etc.  We have two SIMNET M1A1 tank simulators loaned by the US Army that we use  
for research in networking issues.  Our simulators have appeared briefly on US  
TV.  Maybe they're what you saw.

Send me your physical address, and I'll send some reprints.

Thomas Clarke
IST/UCF, 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300
Orlando, FL 32826

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: johnhall@microsoft.com
Subject: Re: F-117 Air-to-Air
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:05:35 GMT


From johnhall@microsoft.com


| From <TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu>
| Although it lacks air-intercept radar, the F-117 does have the ability to
| carry air-to-air weapons like Sidewinder.  Its mission?  Sneaking up on and
| downing enemy AWACS planes.  Makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

Clancy's Red Storm Rising (Before the public unveiling of the
F-117) had them open the war in Europe on precisely this
mission -- nailing Russian AWACS over central Europe.

-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23)
Subject: Re: CENTIMETRIC RADAR
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:41:07 GMT


From megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23)

In article <1992Apr4.012513.12280@cbnews.cb.att.com> CFG435CNP@mgvax.ulster.ac.uk writes:
>changed shortly after its introduction to AC-47, don't know why, maybe the
>fighter community disliked having a twin turbo-prop fighter in the jet age

Hmmmm. The FC/AC-47 was the Douglas DC-3. Which had to radial piston engines,
not turbo props. And it was by no means a fighter, but then again neither is
the F-111 or F-117. :-) Why can't the USAF use the A designator?

BTW, there is a company that re-engines old DC-3s with P&W PT-6 turboprop
powerplants to extend their useful lives. They look ODD with a pointy nacelle.

###############################################################################
# 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