HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: Nukes in the Republics
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:48:04 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <BtGJ0C.Lq@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, whitman@nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Rusty Whitman) writes:
> 
> From whitman@nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Rusty Whitman)
> 
> Does anyone know which of the Republics of the former Soviet Union
> currently have nuclear weapons?
> 
> Of those that have nukes, what kind are they (ICBMs or tactical, land
> or sea-based)?
> 
> And, who controls the nuclear weapons in the Republics?
> 
> This became of interest to me when the Black Sea fleet was seized (I forget
> which Republic it was), since these ships carry (or carried) nuclear
> weapons. 
> 
>From what I've read;
Strategic nukes were based in Belorus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan & Russia.
Tactical nukes were based in every republic.
(I've also heard that Gorbachev assured the US at one point that all tac 
nukes had been withdrawn from Azerbaijan & Armenia. After the coup Russian 
defense ministry officials stated that this was incorrect.)

PHIL



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: military@cbnews.att.com
Subject: Re: How to spike a gun?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:42:46 GMT


From military@cbnews.att.com

A nifty little book I picked up, _The Confederate Field Manual_, lists
a few techniques from the civil war era.

The preferred method is to drive into the vent a jagged, hardened
steel spike with a soft tip, which is then bent over inside the bore using
a rammer.  The hardened part is broken off flush with the gun.

You can wedge a shot into the bore by wrapping it with felt, or by using
steel wedges to lock it in place.  Wooden wedges aren't recommended, since
they can be burnt out with charcoal and bellows.

For bronze guns, you can detonate a shell inside the bore or fire jagged,
broken metal with high charges.  Or you can load the gun then fill the bore
with sand, firing it to burst the barrel.  Or light a fire under the chase
(the barrel forward of the reinforce), then hammer it until it bends.

For iron guns, break off the trunnions, or burst the barrels by loading
them full of shot and firing at max elevation.



--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker   Moderator, sci.military  military-request@att.att.com
(614) 860-5294      Send submissions to military@att.att.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: tedrick%whistle.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Subject: Clearing cities with non-lethal gas (Baghdad?)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:38:11 GMT


From tedrick%whistle.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)

One of the classical problems with tanks is that they aren't
at their best in street fighting and for clearing cities. I've
been working my way through "Armored Warfare" (J.F.C. Fuller)
and he mentions that gas is the best (as of 1932 anyway :-)
weapon for clearing cities.

Obviously, for political reasons, the USA doesn't want to get
into using poison gas for such purposes, but I wonder if using
large quantities of non-lethal gas (tear gas or whatever the
current state-of-the-art is) might not be useful. For example,
an armored thrust on Baghdad during the recent "Desert Storm"
should have been workable, then when on the outskirts of the
city non-lethal gas might have been used to try to clear the city
of defenders without getting bogged down in street fighting.

Gas is a favorite weapon of SWAT teams when clearing buildings,
and it seems like it might work analogously, on a larger scale,
when clearing cities.

Another theme Fuller mentions repeatedly is the use of anti-tank
units as the "shield" that complements the "sword" represented by
tank units (for example Rommel's tactic of retreating into range
of his anti-tank guns, in hopes of luring enemy tanks into range
so they could be destroyed). It seems like a good current version
of the "shield" might be helicopter and fixed-wing anti-tank 
air units (for example, in case of an armored thrust on Baghdad,
if Iraqi tank units attempted to move towards our tank units, they
could be shot up by the air units.) The high mobility of such
air units allows quick deployment of the "anti-tank shield"
most anywhere our tanks might be used (assuming American air
supremacy).

As in land warfare, where an increase in mobility tends to
increase the value of the unit proportionately to the square
of the increased mobility (otherwise known as "Tedrick's rule of land
warfare" :-) the great mobility of air units tends to outweigh
other factors (and in the air their value tends to increase
proportionately to the cube of the increased mobility :-)

(I include such factors as armor in mobility. For example, the
armor of tanks increases their mobility by neutralizing the
bullet).


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "CINCLANTFLT PAO" <CLFPAO@nctamslant.navy.mil>
Subject: Navy News Service Headlines - 26 Aug 92
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 12:04:39 GMT


From "CINCLANTFLT PAO" <CLFPAO@nctamslant.navy.mil>

Here are the headlines from the latest issue of the Navy News
Service, the weekly summary of Navy news and information
published by the Navy Internal Relations Activity in Washington.
To receive a complete copy of this issue or to subscribe to
NavNews by e-mail, contact navnews@nctamslant.navy.mil. 

NAVY NEWS SERVICE - 26 AUG 92 - NAVNEWS 037/92
     Navy News Service (NAVNEWS) contains official news and
information and is intended for distribution to all Navy people.
Please help pass the word.  NAVNEWS is available:
     -- by message to the NAVNEWS collective address 
     -- on the CNO Bulletin Board, 1-800-582-2355/6940 or (703) 695-
6198/6388 
     -- by electronic mail from NAVNEWS(at)NCTAMSLANT.NAVY.MIL 
     -- and on the BUPERS ACCESS bulletin board, 1-800-346-
0217/18/27, 1-800-762-8567 or (703) 614-8070/6059/8076, (DSN) 224-
8070.
                               -USN-

     TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NAVNEWS 037/92
   Top News and Policy Stories
NNS3.  USS Independence Communicates With World While Underway
NNS4.  CNO Addresses Key Navy Issues [*see note below] 
NNS5.  Bushey to Retire, Hagan Takes Helm as 8th MCPON
NNS6.  VA Drops Interest Rate on Home Loans 
NNS7.  VA Establishes Referral Centers for Persian Gulf Vets     
   Around the Fleet
NNS8.  Notable Quotable:  Sean O'Keefe   
NNS9.  Salute to Excellence:  Naval Dental Clinic, Camp Pendleton
NNS10. USS John L. Hall Conducts Historic Visit to Malta
NNS11. Navy CH-46 Crew Rescued Following Crash
NNS12. This Week in the Navy:  Sept. 2, 1945:  Japanese surrender
signed on board USS Missouri, Tokyo Bay.
   Personnel Notes:
NNS13. Need Money for College? -- Use "Need A Lift"
NNS14. New Course Definitions Planned
NNS15. Navy Ombudsman Day                                    
   Short Splices
NNS16. Fleet Home Town News Sends Your Stories Home
NNS17. Flag Move
NNS18. Editor's Note:  How to Use NNS
NNS19. Navy News This Week 
[*The complete text of ADM Kelso's message is available on request 
by e-mail from navnews@nctamslant.navy.mil.]
                               -USN-


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Good Military Books?
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:08:27 GMT
Organization: Cornell University


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

In article <Bt4oBJ.1MF@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes: 
> One of the books I found most inspiring when I was doing my Reserves Officer
> training was "The Rommel Papers", which is basically taken from Rommels diaries
> and includes his observations on warfare, tactics etc. and gives some very
> important insights into how politics can sway the fortunes of the professional
> soldier.  Well worth a read if only you can find it.
I think this has been reprinted recently since I have seen copies in bookstores
in the past month.  You might also try "Infantry Attacks" written by Rommel. 
Rommel actually wrote it as a text for the German officer's academy.  It draws
on his experience in WWI trench fighting.  Definately worth a read.

-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Whenever you're holding all the cards why does everyone else turn
out to be playing chess?"
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Subject: Re: WWII BLIMP HANGER BURNS
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:40:40 GMT


From swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)



In sci.military, rbeville@tekig5.pen.tek.com writes:

>     TILLAMOOK, OREGON, 23 August 1992.   Last night fire destroyed
>     Hangar A of the local landmark TILLAMOOK NAVAL AIR STATION.....

Was Hanger A was a registered historical landmark?  It seems such
a shame that a piece of history went up in flame.

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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Fifth in the Series--the Curtiss P-5 "Superhawk"
Keywords: Turbosupercharged, P-1, high altitude
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:19:27 GMT


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


The Curtiss P-5 (company designation Model 34L)  was  the  designation
given   to   a  version  of  the  P-1  Hawk  that  was  powered  by  a
turbosupercharged Curtiss D-12 engine.  At the request of  the  USAAC,
five  airframes identical to the P-1A had the 435 hp turbosupercharged
V-1150-4 (D-12F)  engine  installed  and  were  designated  P-5.   The
turbosupercharger  was mounted externally on the left hand side of the
fuselage.

Five examples of the P-5 were ordered on May 14, 1927.  Serial numbers
were  27-327/331.   The  first  example was delivered in January 1928.
The high altitude performance showed a marked improvement over that of
the  standard  P-1A.  The top speed of the P-5 was only 142 mph at sea
level, but it increased to 173.5 mph at  25,000  feet.   The  aircraft
could  climb  to  10,000  feet in 8.4 minutes.  Initial climb rate was
1250 ft/min.  The service ceiling was 31,900 feet, almost ten thousand
feet greater than than of the P-1B.  Weights were 2551 lb. empty, 3340
lbs. gross.  Armament was the same as  that  of  the  "standard"  P-1,
namely  a  pair of 0.30 cal machine guns mounted in the upper fuselage
cowling synchronized to fire through the propeller arc.

Although the P-5 exhibited a  much  better  high-altitude  performance
than the standard P-1, the general feeling on the part of the Army was
that it would be better to wait for the arrival of the  more  powerful
Conqueror  engine rather than to go ahead with a large procurement for
series production of the P-5. Consequently, only five P-5s were built.
Two  of  the five P-5s were destroyed during the test program, but the
surviving three planes entered service with the 97th Pursuit Squadron.
They  remained  in  service  until  mid  1932.  Curtiss chose the name
"Superhawk" for the P-5, but I don't think that  this  name  was  ever
official.

Sources:

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

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

  Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press,
  1987.

  "The Curtiss Army  Hawks", Peter  M.  Bowers, Aircraft  in  Profile,
  Doubleday, 1969.


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


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd)
Subject: Re: making a radar decoy
Summary: Octahedrons not tetrahedrons
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:10:06 GMT


From boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd)

In article <BszL6s.FFA@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> 
bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> [...] The decoy consists of a pair of radar reflective, inflatable
> tetrahedrons(?) that apparently return a radar image similar to a
> ship [...]

No, they're OCTAhedrons.  There is an inflatable rubber tube along
each edge of the octahedron, and there is tinfoil on the interior
planes of the decoy.  These are neat.

The octahedron is the dual of the cube (take a cube and grind down all
the corners equally until the edges of the cube have disappeared, and
you have an octahedron).  Grind an octahedron and you get a cube.  So
the interior planes of an octahedron meet at right angles, like the
corner of a cube.

Mathematics meets physics meets economics.  It's about four tires'
worth of rubber and a bunch of tinfoil, and it can decoy an ASM
costing a million dollars!

-- 
Daniel F. Boyd -- boyd@cs.buffalo.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's not a System called 'X-Windows', it's a window system named 'X',
after the owl on 'Mister Rogers' Neighborhood'".
From: johnson@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Don Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Smoothbore Weapons (was Re: DU)
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:16:09 GMT
Organization: AMSAA/GWD, APG, MD 21005


From Don Johnson <johnson@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>


In article <Bt4oI0.1v9@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell) writes:
>
>As I said earlier, I wasn't cuddled up with Jane's. But to answer a few
>questions that I do know (?):

>The reason that the 120mm M1Ax cannon doesn't have a HEAT round (?), if
>my memory isn't crashing now, is that it is a smoothbore and they can't
>manufacture a round that isn't APDS that has the proper accurracy.  The 

The U. S. Army certainly does field a 120mm HEAT round designated the M830.
As I understand it, there is a follow on HEAT round coming. 

Yes you do want a HEAT round to spin for stability's sake, so you put
canted fins on it so it spins up during flight. The spinning also activates
one of the arming phases I think.


-- 
W. Donald Johnson
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: clintons@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Clinton Stewart)
Subject: Re: Use of snipers
Organization: Telectronics Pacing Systems
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:22:53 GMT


From clintons@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Clinton Stewart)


In article <BtAJxq.Fop@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
|> 
|> From J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
 
|> I think we should make a clear distinction between 'snipers' who are
|> highly skilled and highly trained, and 'opportunist riflemen' who are
|> not. What the press calls a sniper, I would call a rifleman.

My dictionary defines "to snipe" as "to shoot at individual soldiers, etc., as
opportunity offers from a concealed or long-range position". Seems like what is happening in Yugoslavia(does this exist anymore?) to me. Perhaps "snipers" in
a modern army are highly trained, but given the opportunity I think anyone can join in. 

As to Tony Buckland's earlier question, this certainly is not the first time that sniping has been important in a siege/assault. In castle sieges centuries
ago fellows with crossbows picked off individuals as the opportunity arose.
Actually, I think the Greeks (and certainly the Romans) did the same, so make that a standard procedure for 2000 years. (And yes, this does predate the
American Civil War.)  :-)

Clinton Stewart

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Subject: Re: HEAT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:38:37 GMT


From chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)


In article <BtHxD8.CAD@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi) writes:
|> 
|> 	The advantages of HEAT rounds, so I have read, are that they
|> have a lower muzzle velocity thus the trajectory of the round is higher.
|> This leads the incoming round a greater impact angle thus defeating most
|> of the advantages of sloped armour.

The current HEAT round fielded for the M1's main gun is a dual-purpose
round, meant to replace the old HEAT and HEP rounds that were used in
the 105mm gun.  In addition to a shaped-charge warhead, it has a
fragmenting case for use against softer targets.

Another advantage of the HEAT round is that the penetration capability
of the warhead is unaffected by range.  KE rounds (APFSDS) suffer a
reduction of penetration capability the farther they travel because at
least part of their penetration capability is derived from velocity,
which decreases with range.  

HEAT rounds do not suffer from this degradation of capability because
their ability to penetrate is based on the effectiveness of their
shaped-charge warhead, which is relatively unaffected by the velocity
of impact.

-- 
Curt Fennell			* chf0@gte.com
Unix System Administrator	* (617) 466-2142
GTE Labs, 40 Sylvan Road	* "Get down off that cross!
Waltham, MA, 02254		*  Somebody needs the wood"
From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Smoothbore Weapons
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:12:58 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


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


Bill Blackwell writes:
#The reason that the 120mm M1Ax cannon doesn't have a HEAT round (?), if
#my memory isn't crashing now, is that it is a smoothbore and they can't
#manufacture a round that isn't APDS that has the proper accurracy.  The
#reason that it's a smoothbore is to eliminate the slowdown caused by the
#rifling.  The fin-stabilized rounds are just that big darts (go to a pub ;)).

The 120mm gun does of course have a HEAT cartridge - the US model is called
the M830. Smoothbore tank guns make more sense now than ever: long rod
penetrators are too long to be spin stabilized so need fins anyway, and
HEAT warheads perform better when not spinning (in rifled guns this means
use of a slipping band; the French adopted a round which had the actual
shaped charge mounted on ball bearings within the projectile).

The big problem with HEAT rounds is the fins. Being full-bore projectiles,
you either have to use folding fins or adopt the high-drag spike-nose
configuration.


#Along this thread, there is also an APDS round made for shotguns, ala the
#movie Alien Nation.  They are very good at penetrating things that don't
#have hardened armor.  As the secondary effect of the flechette is the
#shattering that follows a breach in the armor (lots o' nasty shrapnel),
#I'm curious about the effect this might have if used in a special duty
#weapon.  While many special forces (my hobby) use shotguns, their is one
#weapon in particular that I am curious about.  It is manufactured by
#SAM, inc. and it is called the Crossfire.  It is a hybrid 12 ga. on top,
#and a 7.62mm assault rifle on the bottom.  (the shells for the shotgun
#look like they are kept in the buttstock arm)  It looks like an impressive
#(intimidating) weapon that would be very useful to SEALs, GBs, SAS, etc.
#Anyone know anything more?

The DS projectile Bill refers to is the BRI sabot slug. They are made in
a fairly soft lead alloy for sporting purposes, as well as a much harder
"police" alloy, for anti-barricade work. These are DS only and seem to
work best in rifled shotgun barrels. There is also a FSDS sabot slug on
the market, made in France.

Bill, I have the brochure on Crossfire. Drop me a line and I'll send you
a copy.


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
From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:04:35 GMT
Organization: :


From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us

In article <BtC4Lt.5nF@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:
> 
> From carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
> 
> In article <BtAJDu.Cuz@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, john@phobos.sscl.uwo.ca (John Tucker) writes:
> > Given the Stealth's "stealth", how come a commercial autofocus system
> > can "lock-on" for a sharp picture?
 
> After a certain distance (not more than 10 or 20 meters) the incoming
> light rays are essentially parallel for a normal camera focusing
> system, and no more adjustment is needed.  So, unless the F117 was
> flying _very_ low, it would still be in good focus even if the camera
> did not detect it at all (autofocus generally uses the maximum-distance
> focus setting if it can't "see" anything on the reasonable assumption
> that you're taking a picture of something beyond that distance).

I don't think this is quite right.  What constitutes `infinity' depends
on how good you want to focus and how `long' the lens is--that is, how
long its focal length is.

Remember the broadcasts of the Apollo launches?  The networks used two
or three very long lenses, and they had to continually refocus on a
rocket that was moving away at a range measured in miles.

(Probably 1/2 of the people reading this were too young to see them,
and another 2/3 never had the chance.  What a shame!)
 
> Additionally, most auto-focus systems use ultrasound, not radar. Any
> detection system close enough to find the F117 with ultrasound is
> going to hear the engines anyway.

Newer ones focus the same way we do, adjusting the focus for the greatest
detail in the picture.  Last I read, the measured detail by taking a
2-D fourier transform and evaluating the spectra that the image's features
present.  In general, more detail means higher amplititudes of the spectral
components.
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: Sabots and Soboteurs
Keywords: history, philology
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:19:26 GMT


From pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)

In article <BtJntF.9Jy@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes, in part:

>  The story I heard was that during WWII the workers would throw a shoe into
>  the machinery at industrial plants occupied by the Germans. Thus the words
>  'sabotage' & 'saboteurs'.

	And the version I heard dates it to labor unrest associated with the
	introduction of modern weaving equipment (Jacquad looms??) ca 1820.
	In which case it was French workers using wooden clogs to "sabot"age
	the French equipment....

(To bring this a bit closer to sci.military, I picked up a pamphlet, published
in Canada, on British Muzzle Loading artillery.  Some factoids from memory:

	Sabots were used (by name) on the cannonballs, to aid in handling and
	as gas check.

	Quoits were used ahead of the ball, to keep it from rolling out.
	(This refers back to the recent "how to spike a gun" discussion.)
	(One occasionally fired a negative elevation, as from hills or
	ramparts.  Having the ball roll out _before_ the charge was fired was
	embarrassing.)

	There was a tool allocated for removing ball, or powder charge.  Also
	for removing burning fragments of powder bag.  The guns were routinely
	swabbed between shots, but the build up of part burnt bag could get
	thick enough to keep the charge from seating under the touchhole.
	embarrasing.
	
thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
146 Main St			|I am the NRA.
Maynard, Mass	
01754				pierson@majsty.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
From: jlautr01@ulkyvx03.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Marines in Atlanta
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:08:46 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville


From jlautr01@ulkyvx03.louisville.edu

      The Marine Corps were conducting practice urban assault missions in 
      Atlanta last week.  My questions are; Is this a new mission for the 
      Marine Corps or will they be a part of the security force for the 
      1996 Olympics.

      Former never X, Sgt. Autry USMC
      Semper Fi 
Newsgroups: sci.military