HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:38:00 GMT


From Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>

In article <C10pK1.48F@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> System Administrator <tgeer@pro-gumbo.cts.com> writes:
>
>From System Administrator <tgeer@pro-gumbo.cts.com>
>
>
>The following is an excerpt from Dale Brown's techno-thriller,
>'Sky Masters':
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>"In 1946, during secret tests code-named CROSSROADS, The Navy wanted to
>see the effects of a twenty-kiloton blast on an aircraft carrier.  CV-3
>USS Saratoga was towed out to Bikini Atoll and the device set off five
>hundred yards away.  

[deleted stuff]
>[mod note -- Crossroads did happen.  There were 2 explosions -- one from a
>bomb dropped from a B-29, and the other was an underwater explosion.  As
>far as the Saratoga being moved as far as Brown cites, I just don't know.

In a recent issue of National Geographic, their photographers accompanied a
group of National Park Service divers who are looking into setting up
Bikini Lagoon, as a National Diving Park (the atoll is still to
radioactive).  

They visited the Sara (the pictures are AWESOME).  They reported that there
was a huge dent in the blast side of the carrier, as well as holes in the
flight deck.  It was their assumption that the thousands of tons of mud
and rock thrown in the sky by the second test (underwater), came crashing
down onto the flight deck, causing the holes, as well as sinking the mighty
ship.  Hence the reason that the ship is upright on the lagoon floor and
did not capsize.  I think the flight deck is at approximately 70 feet
underwater.

-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
From: ken@grok59.columbiasc.NCR.COM (Ken Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: USS Stenis- Nimitz Class Carrier
Keywords: Aircraft Carrier
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:03:56 GMT
Organization: NCR, Columbia SC


From Ken Smith <ken@grok59.columbiasc.NCR.COM>

In article <C1H2zn.F8F@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca> writes:
|> 
|> From Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca>
|> 
|> Question here: Who was Mr. Stenis?  (Considering that US Nimitz Class Carriers
|> are named after famous people from US history, the fact that this name
|> draws an absolute and total blank is annoying.
|> 

John Stennis is a retired US Senator from Mississippi.  He served one of the
longest terms in the Senate, if not the longest, and was a long-time
member of the Armed Services Committee.  He was considered by many as being
very hawkish on defense matters.

-- 

-ken
========
 Ken Smith  Ken.Smith@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM
 Phone: 803 791 6339
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Fuller's "Military History of the Western World"
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:10:42 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing


From "MILLER, JIMMY A." <HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu>

In <C1F6zC.KtI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> lioness@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes:

> 
> From lioness@maple.circa.ufl.edu
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone got J. Fuller's "A Military History of the Western World
> Vols. 1-3"?  It looks like it covers everything from the Spanish
> Armada through WWII.
> 
> How accurate/good are the books' analyses?  Are there any better books
> out there that cover advanced strategy and tactics?

  Fuller is highly regarded as a military historian, and also, I believe, as
a strategist.  I'd say the books you refer to are useful, but to be honest
I found them to be *extremely* dry reading.  I cannot really comment as to
their accuracy, but I found no glaring errors (but then, I wouldn't know
enough to spot most of them).

  Another book I feel worthwile is _Strategy_ by Lidell-Hart.  There's a bit
of self-promotion in his commentary, but it is a very good read. 


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Organization: Chevron
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:38:54 GMT


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

In article <C1D84K.9Ay@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, CBTCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu writes:
|> In article <C17vrM.Exy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock writes:

    [stuff deleted]

|>>Besides, each CIWS station is responsible for only a small quadrant
|>>of the ship's perimeter and acts independently and automatically (in
|>>the case of Phalanx at least).  None of them cover a 360 deg circle by
|>>itself.

  [stuff deleted]
  
|> Finally, what constitues a >large< quadrant (aside from the semantic
|> problems there...)?  If I remember right, Improved-Nimitz carriers carry 
|> 3 or 4 (at most) CIWS.  That is at least 25% for some of them (definitely
|> more- the guns are not arranged symmetrically around the ship).  Iowa-
|> class BB's (I think) have 2.  Pretty damn big ships, there.  And Perry-
|> class frigates carry (count 'em) ONE.  As I said, last resort.  The idea 
|> is that the carrier has a/c and CG's and DDG's to protect it.  The BB 
|> will also have a surface AA escort group.  The frigate packs its own 
|> SAM's and good luck.


 And that's what I was saying - it's not realistic to expect a CIWS to
 engage "multiple missiles coming from unknown directions" - if it is
 even a goal of a CIWS.

 Take the Iowa-class BB's which have 4 Phalanx's mounted 2 to each side, 
 close to symmetrical around the superstructure, just over half way up.
 Just using the Mark-1 eyeball to judge from this picture, it looks like
 each one has about a 180 degree field-of-view (probably less) with some
 overlap over the stern, bow, and amidships. 

 It would be impossible for the one mounted on the starboard-aft to swing
 around an engage a missile coming in on the port-bow.  Therefore, any 
 missile detected by it already has a "known" direction.

 I doubt that even the one CIWS (Phalanx?) mounted on the Perry-class
 frigates have a 270 degree view or engagement zone, let alone one of
 360 degrees.


 TRAVIS
From: hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Hanners)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Submarine related questions
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:57:02 GMT
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Annapolis, MD


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


In sci.military, demaine@ee.ualberta.ca (Cal Demaine) writes:
>From Cal Demaine <demaine@ee.ualberta.ca>
>
>Hello.  I've got three submarine-related questions which I'd like answers
>for.  Posting to the group is fine, but you can Email if you wish.
>
>1.  What is the shape of the tail/rudder on the 688 class and Ohio class
>boats?  I have a large number of pictures of these subs, and not a one
>shows either's rear end.  Is it a standard plus "+" configuration, or some
>hybrid "H" or "double H"?

		|                     |
		|                     |               \           /
		|                     |                 \       /
		|            |        |        |          \   /
	------- o -------    |------- o -------|            o
	      / | \          |        |        |          /   \
	    /   |   \                 |                 /       \
	   "    |    "                |               /           \
	LOS ANGELES CLASS         OHIO CLASS            ALBACORE
	     SSN 688               SSBN 721

The towed array is deployed at the ends of the stationary fins at the
" (quote) marks on the 688.  The X stern of the old Albacore is common
among several subs in foreign navies.  Not sure of the appendage
sensitivity on the SEAWOLF (SSN 21), so we just won't talk about that.

>3.  There are two large American Subbases with the same name - "Bangor".
>One is on the east coast and one is on the west coast.  Any reason for
>the duplicate name?  What is the history of these bases?

Two towns with the same name?  Not that uncommon.  Bangor, Maine and
Bangor, Washington.  One problem-- the large American base in Bangor,
Maine is real hard to find.  Perhaps you are thinking of the shipyard
with an address in Portsmouth, NH, but largely located across the line
in Kittery, Maine.  This is for surface ships only.  I believe the
official base name in the west is the "Trident Refit Facility, Bangor, WA.

-- Bob

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Hanners         "My comments; only mine."          *DIASTOLE* 676673
CD, NSWC, Annapolis, MD                              hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Daniel Kuan Li Oi <doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: V/STOL fighters
Organization: The University of Western Australia
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:51:04 GMT


From Daniel Kuan Li Oi <doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>

Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:

>There's no question that the technology works, the biggest problem I've
>seen mentioned is that in the strictly vertical mode, they cannot lift
>as much fuel and ordinance as they can with a horizontal takeoff.  So
>if they are limited to only vertical takeoffs, their range and/or ammo
>will be limited.

>Corky Scott

	The new designs are meant for short take off and vertical
landing in the usual modes of operation. This would maximize the
flexibility that STOVL operation gives you. So what if a the SYOVL plane
can only carry a reduced load if forced to take off vertically. This is
much better than the conventional plane that cannot carry any load from
an incapacitated runway.

	Actually, if you were to combine the STOVL plane with a ski
jump, the load that can be carried is increased.  Using the harrier as
an example, a conventional takeoff from a 600ft runway allows the
harrier to carry about 10 000lbs of ordinance. To carry the same load
from a ski jump equipped carrier requires only 200ft of runway. If you
combine 600ft runways with ski-jumps, the ordinance carried can be 13
000lbs. I think that the load reducing arguments that have been levelled
at VSTOL aircraft are really unfounded once you take into consideration
that the "penalty" of vertical capability is small compared to the
greatly increased flexibilty that you can have with basing and aircraft
operability.

[note: the french are trying ski-jumps on their conventional aircraft
carrier Charles de Gaulle(?). They use Rafales. Don't know whether the
advantages that occur with harriers are carried over to the Rafales.
Anyone have any info on the effectiveness of the ski-jumps for
conventional aircraft?]

					Daniel Oi
					University of Western Australia


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
Summary: Strategic Targets
Keywords: B2s, Carriers
Organization: :
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:20:04 GMT


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

In article <C17w89.FrF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu> writes:
> 
> From Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu>

> 4) Strategic conventional bombing of civil and military productive assets.
>    This WWII strategy has been shown by history to be an ineffective use
>    of force and should be discontinued as a tool of warfare. It's strictly
>    a terror weapon against civilians and is of limited effectiveness.

Is this entirely true?  My readings about WWII indicate there there were
one or two classes of targets against whic strategic bombing was effective,
the first being refineries, fuel depots, oilfields, and such, and the
second being large railroad yards, vital crossings, and bridges.  Aren't
these still valid strategic targets?

In Iraq, the coalition disabled large parts of the electrical and telephone
networks, apparently to some benefit.  Is this considered strategic or not?
-- 
 (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: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:45:03 GMT


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

In article <C10pK1.48F@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> System Administrator <tgeer@pro-gumbo.cts.com> writes:

>3) I don't know if the forty-thousand ton figure above is its displacement
>   or actual weight (I would guess displacement), but how does this compare
>   with the weight/displacement of modern aircraft carriers?

Aren't the two exactly the same? The amount of water displaced by a 
floating body is equal to its weight? Of course, *actual* displace-
ment might be different than the figure the Navy calculates if they
use some rule of thumb or formula..


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: Jim Heath <jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:51:18 GMT


From Jim Heath <jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu>

>From article <C15yLA.KrJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>:
> 
> From Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
> 
> In article <C0syvK.66v@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dans@bigbird.llnl.gov (Dan Simkins) writes:
>>
>>I find your contention that rifle silencers work by decelerating the bullet
>>to subsonic speeds very difficult to believe.  If you are sure you are right,
>>I would appreciate references showing this to be the case.
> 
> I don't know how accurate it is, but there's "The Armory" by Kevin Dockery, a
> book containing a little information on a lot of guns and ammunitions and
> intended mainly as a role-playing game sourcebook.  Here is what it says
> about the Sterling L34A1, a silenced version of the Sterling SMG.
> 

Beg your pardon, but the Sterling is a machine _pistol_ (submachine gun),
not a rifle.  I think silencers slow the bullet a bit, but won't make it
subsonic unless it nearly is to begin with.  (subsonic < 1100 fps isn't
it?)  The 9mm (?) the Sterling fires is barely supersonic.  A rifle bullet
is usually around 3000 fps.
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: John Walker <walker-john@yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:20:15 GMT


From John Walker <walker-john@yale.edu>

Could somebody let me know a source that might list all the variant
Tomahawks and ALCMs?  (Or if you wish to post them, great!)

The nuclear ALCM has a CEP of around 200 meters -- certainly not good
enough to hit goal posts, or even a football field!  I assume this is
because it is *not* terminally guided (not enough mission flexibility? who
knows...)

So to hear about a conventionally-armed Boeing ALCM implies an alternative
variant -- one with terminal guidance.  Does anybody know details on these
variants?  A similar situation exists with the Tomahawk...

Thanks

Walker
> 
> Re accuracy: the AF generals said, "Not only can we hit a football
> field, we can target any yardline."  So I was told.  It would be
> interesting to know the accuracy numbers for the DS ALCM strikes
> because it's likely that the Tomahawk is actually the second best
> cruise missile in the world.

---
John Walker         (203) 436-0915         walker-john@yale.edu
Yale University

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>
Subject: Re: Scope of Action-US Military
Keywords: US Military
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:37:58 GMT


From Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>

In article <C143os.34u@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca> writes:
>
>From Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca>
>
>>From "Rex A. Buddenberg" <budden@trout.nosc.mil>
>>
>>During the Reagan administration, Posse Comatatus was amended to
>>apply uniformly to all the DoD services and to expressly allow DoD
>>to provide surveillance, intelligence, logistics, C3I ... kinds
>>of support - but short of direct law enforcement.  This results
>>in Navy ships carrying around USCG boarding parties who perform
>>the boarding party functions.  During Desert Shield the sword
>>cut the other direction -- USCG boarding perties were dispatched
>>to the MidEast Force to ride Navy ships and lead boarding parties
>>enforcing the Iraqi embargo -- an act of war, not a law enforcement op.
>
>This is the part I was looking for- the specific question was along the
>lines of:  Could the US President (as C-in-C) order Federal troops to
>operate within US Territorial borders?  
>
>I'm assuming that he can, but there's enough of a question mark around it
>that I want to be sure.  

Also remeber in the LA riots and after the hurricane in Florida, the
Govenors of each state had to ask the President to send in troops.  Until
that time (I believe the term is Federalization) the President's hands were
tied from doing much of anything with the DoD.

On the issue of the DoD providing Logistics, Survielance, etc.  I'm pretty
sure there are certain caveats that restrict this activing to defense of
the US borders (monitoring drug smugglers) but still forbid domestic
surveilance of US citizens.  For instance, turning some of the US
comm-intelligence sattelites to listen in on American phone calls and
monitor political groups.  I'm pretty sure this is still forbidden, and like 
matters are the subject of much questioning of Willian Christopher, 
Secretary of State Designate and his activities as a Deputy Attorney General 
in the Johnson Administration when Army Intelligence was ordered/pressured
by Justice to perform domestic surviellance.

>-- 
>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. 	      /
>


-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MegaZone <megazone@realsoon.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Longbow and Brimstone---what are they?
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:38:12 GMT


From MegaZone <megazone@realsoon.wpi.edu>

In article <C143oz.379@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> anasaz!briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>From what I have read, there is an optical sighting pod on the rotor mast
>(ala, Kiowa) for targeting, and the new millimeter radar is in the
>Hellfires making them fire-and-forget capable.

Actually Steve was correct. The AH-64D Apache Longbow mounts a millimeter 
battlefield radar on a mast above the rotors. (Similar to the way the optical
system is mounted on the Kiowa) The Brimstone is a 'new' missile based on the
Hellfire, actullat pretty much a Hellfire with a new guidance system to be 
used in conjunction with the radar.

I also believe the Apache's will have a datalink system to share Longbow data
with non-Longbow Apaches. From what I've heard the older AH-64A's will not be
converted to the AH-64D standard at this time. 

Sounds like how they put FLIR on a few A-7s to make them pathfinders...(Before
they were retired of course...)

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


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stephen Jacobs <saj@chinet.chi.il.us>
Subject: Re: German nuclear research in WW2
Summary: There is a lot of info about this available
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:30:49 GMT


From Stephen Jacobs <saj@chinet.chi.il.us>

There is a small industry in reconstructing the what and why of German 
nuclear weapon research in WWII.  A fair amount was learned by physical
intelligence methods during the war.  More was learned after the war, and
texts of various interrogations are now being released.  The short 
summary is that small numbers of atomic bombs would have done Germany
little good, and the people in charge realized that.  The resources to
develop atomic explosives were used instead on other, more promising,
projects.  A V-2, with a 1 metric ton warhead, couldn't have carried an
atomic bomb of crude design (like the ones dropped on Japan).  If Germany
had produced, say, 4 atomic bombs, and threatened to use them against
Allied cities, the likely response would have involved a very credible
threat to use mustard gas against German cities.  The weapon which the
German nuclear weapons program was within some decent reach of by the
end would have denied use of an area by essentially melting down a reactor.

                                    Steve     saj@chinet.chi.il.us

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: triremes
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:44:24 GMT


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

In article <C17vrF.EvH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov writes:

>   Does anyone know if ancient warships (triremes and the like approx 
>   300bc-300ad) sailed the open sea, or just crept along the coastline?  
>
>few real sailors creep along the coastline.  too many dangers; shoals,
>fast currants, rocks, etc.  deep water is safe water.

The Roman ships of this period were typically sailed (or rowed) only
within sight of land. It was common practice to anchor, or even haul out
(though you're not going to beach a trireme) to sleep every night. This
was also true of the earlier Greeks.

Towards the end of this period, the lateen was becoming popular in the
middle east, and that's a different story, but the galleys generally
stayed close to shore for as long as they stayed in use. Some nations
still used them into the 19th century, and they weren't completely
outclassed until steam power became commonplace.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------