HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The Dambusters
Organization: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt 
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:05:30 GMT


From Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>

In article <Bwu9FD.Ax5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>
>Wasn't Wallis the person who designed the Wellington and Wellesley
>bombers, with their basketweave construction? Was the Victory of 
>the same construction? The name seems out of place.. British prac-
>tice at the time (and now too perhaps?) was to name heavy bombers 
>after towns. Hmm.. is there somewhere named "Vulcan"?

Wallis did indeed design those aircraft using the geodesic construction.
British practice may have been to name bombers after towns before and
during WWII, but the "V" bombers - Vulcan, Victor and Valiant - were not
so named.

As far as I know, the heavy bombers currently in service with the RAF are
named after famous towns on Mars.  (Yes, I know, there are no famous towns
on Mars. :-)

In article <Bwu9FF.Axy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
<re: 633 Squadron>
>
>I wonder where all those Mossies came from when they were 
>filming it. I didn't think there were very many flying ex-
>amples left.

I expect most of them were models.  I hope so anyway, otherwise there were
even fewer flying examples left after the end of the film! :-)

Incidentally, were the German aircraft used in the film Me 108's?  As far
as I know, the Me 108 was a light transport aircraft, similar in appearance
to the Bf 109.  (For that matter, should it be Bf 108 as well?)  The main
differences between the two were the different engine, the larger cockpit
and the lack of guns in the Me 108.

-- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cee
 UUCP: ..!uknet!cee.hw.ac.uk!adrian  |  ARPA:  adrian@cee.hw.ac.uk

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Soviet Navy Posting Number 1:  Delta I class SSBN
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:29:30 GMT


From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)


Delta I class SSBN

Type:  Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement:  8750 tons surfaced, 10,200 tons dived
Dimensions:  Length 137.0 m, beam 12.0 m, draught 8.7 m
Armament:  12 vertical launch tubes for 12 SS-N-8 'Sawfly' SLBM's
	6 533mm bow torpedo tubes, for a typical load of 18 Type 53 dual-role 
	torpedoes.
Electronics:  One 'Snoop Tray' surface-search and navigation radar, one low-
	frequency active/passive bow sonar, one medium-frequency torpedo fire-
	control sonar, one 'Brick Group' ESM system, one 'Pert Spring' 
	satellite navigation system, one 'Park Lamp' direction finder, and 
	extensive communications systems.
Propulsion:  Two pressurized-water cooled reactors supplying steam to two sets 
	of geared turbines delivering 37,300 kW (50,025 hp) to two shafts.
Performance:  Maximum submerged speed, 26 knots; diving depth 400 m operational
	and 600 m maximum.
Complement:  120

Number Built:  18 for Soviet Navy

Comments:  Designed to succeed the 'Yankee' class, the 'Delta I' class began 
	production in 1972.  The large external casing over the missile 
	compartment is hydrodynamicly inefficient, and must be extremely noisy 
	at speed.
	SS-N-8 'Sawfly' Model 1:  Range 7800 km; CEP 1410 m; Warhead, one 1.2 
		Megaton thermonuclear RV; Guidance, stellar-inertial.
	Type 53 dual-role torpedo:  Though my references do not mention this 
		torpedo's capabilities, I can only assume that it is similar 
		to the US Navy's 533 mm Mk. 48 series of torpedoes.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: flak@eagle.eng.corp.mccaw.com (Dan Flak)
Subject: Re: What did he do?
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:45:07 GMT


From flak@eagle.eng.corp.mccaw.com (Dan Flak)

> Does anybody know what Col. Maxwell did?  From this descrption it
> sounds like he was a member of alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.

> Also, how full a newsfeed do the military bases get?  What kind
> of computers do they have?

The DOD isn't as sophisticated as you might think. They're just
beginning to learn how to spell LAN. 

Most DOD computers are stand-alone PC's. There are exceptions,
but you don't find them in the typical DOD "business office".
The normal run-of-the-mill office worker (or commander, for that
matter) does not have access to news feeds. The DOD would
considers them "wasteful" and doesn't authorize them.

It's unlikely that the colonel was doing this at work. If he
were, there would be charges of "fraud, waste and abuse" for the
misuse of Government property -- It's an easy charge to make
stick.

Fraud, waste and abuse charges are used to intimidate people from
misusing computer assets such as: use of unlicensed software, use
of your own software, use of your own hardware, use of locally
developed software (we're not talking abbout applications using
"sanctioned" software), and using "frivoulus" software (e.g.
games). Some offices are better at enforcing computer discipline
than others, but there's no doubt that the court martial would
have invoked the FW&A in this case had the colonel been using
Government assets.

The article specifically mentioned that the colonel was using
"his personal computer".

It was quite likely he was operating off of a PC bulletin board
at home "to solicit, collect and distribute pornographic
material". There are some things that you can do as a private
citizen (or even an elisted person) that you can't do as an
officer hence the charges of "conduct unbecoming of an officer".
However, what comprises "unbecoming conduct" is subjective. What
constitutes pornography is even more so - -just ask the Supreme
Court.

The colonel also faces some statutory criminal charges since the
alleged "trafficing" was done over state lines.

What I want to know is, how did he get caught?
-- 
There are literally tens of thousands of things that can go wrong with a C-5 and
                                most of them do.
       Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 5400 Carillon Point
    Kirkland, Wa 98033-7397, 206-828-8006, (usenet: flak@eng.corp.mccaw.com)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>
Subject: Re: drumbeat
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:22:03 GMT


From "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>

In article <Bx3oqs.3C3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (William M. Aldo) writes:

>  There's a book by
> the same name...OPERATION DRUMBEAT...I haven't read it, but I hear it's
> fascinating; mindboggling, actually.

I can second that, it's well documented.  The commander of the U-Boat
the book follows survived two cruises to the American East coast and
was one of the most successfull of U-Boat commanders.  Interestingly he
was quite the humanitarian, stopping to help the wretched survivors of
his torpedoed or shelled ships once in a while.  In one instance, he
actually placed his sub inland of the intended victim while they were
very close to the shore and in shoal waters so that his cannon would
not strike the shore and kill innocent civilians should it overshoot. 
The water was so shallow the ship didn't even sink out of sight.  His
crew thought him crazy and constantly felt he would go too far and get
them all killed.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: Existence of THAAD (Was: Re: Need help finding datalink simulations (THAAD contractor))
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:32:44 GMT


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


>From Daniel Shoham <shoham@ll.mit.edu>


>THAAD is basically a much-much-improved Patriot! 

How do you reckon that?
THAAD uses a single stage rocket (as do patriot) that detaches the kill vehicle
(patriot doesn't) which is a hit-to-kill war head ( patriot has a proximity 
fuse). THAAD uses TVC (thrust vector control) on the engine stage while patriot
uses fins (THAAD uses attitude control rockets after engine release). Patriot 
uses tvm while THAAD is ground controlled for the main part of the flight and
uses an IR sensor for terminal guidance. 
I don't think I would call THAAD an upgraded patriot.

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

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

"Another casualty of applied meta-physics!" -- Hobbes
From: short@asf.com (Lee Short)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:18:42 GMT
Organization: ASF


From Lee Short <short@asf.com>

In article <Bwzp2n.4M3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Herschel H Mayo writes:
>
>... Had Hitler been a master politician instead of a
>egomaniac, he would have declared war on Japan.  

This is an interesting idea.  

>It is very likely that the war with Britain would have been immediately
>stalemated, and possibly brought to a negotiated end. 

OK.  

>Stalin would have
>been hard pressed to continue the war when faced with the possibility of
>loosing his aid from the west.  
>

Strictly not true.  Lend-lease aid was a small part of the Soviet war
effort.  The simple fact of the matter is that the Wehrmacht was
defeated by Soviet troops, Soviet tanks, Soviet artillery, Soviet
blood, and Soviet determination.  Anyone who thinks that either
lend-lease aid *or* the Western Allies' invasion of France played a
part in the defeat of the Wehrmacht is deluded.  They may have saved
some Soviet lives and speeded up the end of the war, but they did not
change the final result.  It was inevitable.  Evidence provided on
request (i.e., my references are at home).  

By December 1941, the only factor which *might* have allowed the
Germans to attain a stalemate against the Soviets would have been
introduction of a full war economy.  That's a can o' worms I don't
want to get into.


Lee

short@asf.com              The mystery of government is not how Washington
Lee Short                  works, but how to make it stop.  -- P.J. O'Rourke
Software Janitor        I speak for none of the many steps in the food chain
Hughes Training, Inc.         between myself and General Motors corporation.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Surplus Soviet Jets
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:08:43 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

>
> From  <Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
>
>
>  Original message from George Frajkor <gfrajkor@CCS.CARLETON.CA>
>  Originally in:  "(EUEARN ComputerNet)" <EUEARN-L@UBVM.bitnet>,

...stuff deleted...

>       offering Mig21 PF, with 200 hours after overhaul on engine and
> airframe, for 115,000 US$.

 From what I've read of the life expectancy of Soviet military
equipment (in Flight, Aviation week, etc) over the last year or so,
this plane would be due for another overhaul about now!!

Does anyone else remember reading figures like 1000 hrs total life for
a MIG-29 engine, with 400 hrs between o/hauls?
--
 Mike Campbell,
 mike@alyosius.equinox.gen.nz
 I have long since stopped being surprised when anything I say is
 soon shown to be a load of cobblers'!
--
Mike Campbell,
mike@alyosius.equinox.gen.nz
I have long since stopped being surprised when anything I say is
soon shown to be a load of cobblers'!
From: craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Craig R Albrechtson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Looking for ex-soviet army surplus
Date: 3 Nov 92 15:35:20 GMT
Organization: None what so ever


From Craig R Albrechtson <craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>

I was wondering now that the Cold war is history and the 
iron curtain is gone I wonder if anyone knows about and 
kind of mail order surplus outfit where I cold order ex
soviet army pin, badges, uniforms, etc.

I am not a serious collecter but I thought it would be fun
to have a few relics from the cold war.  Looking in my local
army surplus store (In milwaukee, wisc) I noticed a lot of east
german surplus, In fact I bought part of a East German Border 
Guards Uniform, a jacket that was only missing the shoulder boards
indicating rank.  

If anyone has any information about where to buy any ex-soviet surplus
, east german or any other ex-soviet bloc country. could you email
me please. 
-- 
************************************************************************
* Craig Reese Albrechtson (Slider) * University of Wisconsin Milwaukee *
* The usual meanless disclaimers apply * craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu       *
************************************************************************
From: madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Defense Mapping Agency Maps
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:23:40 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


From madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz)

In <Bx97JE.288@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> whitman@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov
(Rusty Whitman) writes: 


>These are excellent maps.  The ones you probably want are the
>Operational Navigational Charts (ONC) which are 1:1,000,000 or
>the Jet Navigation Charts (JNC) which are 1:2,000,000.  Some of
>these charts cannot be sold outside the U.S.  They are a great
>deal at about $3.75 each.  There are also oceanographic maps for
>sale.

An oceanography teacher mention that most oceanographic maps are not
accurate and this is done intentionally.  Or at least the ones not on
submarines ;-) 

max abramowitz
madmax@cs.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Re: Cuban Missile Crisis
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:21:56 GMT


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <Bx1G6r.I38@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
rml@midnight.mv.com (Roger M. Levasseur) writes:

> It has been noted that the Cuban missle crisis took place 30 years
> ago.  Much information has been stated, hashed, and rehashed about
> what was known then, and information that has released over time.

There was a special on television a few weeks ago that went into great
detail about this event and brought out some new information.  One
thing that came out was that we were a lot closer to nuclear conflict
than people may realise.  For one thing, the Soviets had brought in
tactical nuclear weapons and fully intended to use them if Cuba was
invaded.  The experts interviewed were of the opinion that any nuclear
weapon use would have forced Kennedy's hand.  But also, a U-2 pilot was
interviewed who had strayed over Soviet airspace right in the middle of
this crisis after "getting lost". The guy claimed he really did get
disoriented and that he heard the Russians attempting to steer him off
course by giving him false radio instructions.  Kennedy's response to
this was to say: "There's always some studid idiot who doesn't get the
word".

The decision not to use a naval blockage instead of invading was *not*
what the generals were advising Kennedy according to this program. 
Kennedy asked if all the missiles could be taken out in the initial air
strike and the General said "I can promise you we will take out all the
missiles we know about."  That wasn't good enough for Kennedy and he
opted for the blockade.

Corky Scott

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:45:27 GMT


From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>

In article <BwqoxE.Ivz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
>
>In article <BwLHEE.I9q@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
>
>>Besides I don't think the survival of the Battleships at Pearl Harbour
>>would have had much impact one way or the other.
>
>That really depends on how effective battleships could have been
>in conjunction with aircraft carriers: If the carriers committed all
>their aircraft to defending the battleships, who long could they
>protect the battleships? In that time, could the battleships have
>closed to within gun range with the enemy carreirs? I, personally,
>have no idea. I'm fairly sure this never came up during the war.
>
Please keep in mind that the battlecruiser Gneisenau sank the
British carrier Glorious in 1940. Capital gun ships could be used
at that time against carriers. (especially if the carrier has lousy
planes, as British carriers did early in the war) Also keep in mind 
that the British managed to use their battleships fairly effectively
in the European theatre. I maintain that this is because a) Unlike
the USN after 12/7/41, the RN had a sizable force of battleships
b) They had to use them fairly aggressively, because British 
carrier planes weren't terribly good. (I know about Taranto, but
I still think that the Swordfish was a pretty awful torpedo bomber,
especially compared to the Japanese torpedo bombers) My conclusion:
If battleships were available, and used well, they were still a
major force in World War II, and could, to a certain extent, cope
with air attacks. If the American battleships had survived Pearl
Harbor, it would have been a different war. I'm sure we would
have lost some, (Japanese carrier planes were good!) but I think
there would have been some more traditional style battleship
actions.

			David R. Wells

DISCLAIMER: My opinions, not AT&Ts.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ian Woodrow <woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Cuban Missile Crisis
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Service
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:48:57 GMT


From Ian Woodrow <woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk>

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


>For one thing, the Soviets had brought in
>tactical nuclear weapons and fully intended to use them if Cuba was
>invaded.  

These tac nukes were totally in the control of the Soviet generals in Cuba and
as such the generals could release them without authorization from the Kremlin.
This is what made the situation so dangerous.  

Just think; if the U.S. had tried to invade, network news would never have been
invented.



Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     Patrick Jonke <jonke@brl.mil>
Subject:  Meine Kleine Puppchen
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:25:10 GMT


From     Patrick Jonke <jonke@brl.mil>

> As far as I am aware that only gives a game value for penetration, not
> actual penetrations, which is what I'm after. 


All of the penetration values given in the game are equal to the actual
penetration of the weapon plus an additional +5cm, except for KE rounds
of 100-120mm caliber, which receive +6, KE rounds of 122-150mm, which
receive +7, and KE rounds above 150mm which receive +8cm. 

In ASL, the panzerschreck has a penetration value of 26, which
corresponds to an actual value of 21cm. 

>...the "Puppchen" was simply a Panzershreck mounted on a carriage...


A poor choice of words on my part; I should have used "roughly" instead
of "simply". However, at least one source I have ("Secret Weapons of the
3rd Reich" by Leslie Simon [former director of BRL], pp 188) called the
Puppchen "...essentially the 8.8cm panzerschreck mounted on a light
carriage."

Of course there are many differences between the Puppchen and the
hand-carried panzerschreck (around 300 pounds, for starters...) but the
effectiveness of each warhead was essentially the same. The most
significant difference between the RP.Gr.4322 and the RP.Gr.4312 was in
the fuzing mechanism. The extra ounce of HE was probably not significant
to the armor penetration capability because WW2 warheads tended to use
too much explosive as it was.

>> Panzerschreck 43      HEAT    209 209 209  209  x    x        @90 Deg. 
>>                                                                       
>> 8.8cm Raketenwerfer   HEAT    100 100 100  100  100  x        @90 Deg. 
>> (Puppchen)                                                             

>> 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 
>> (Puppchen)                  1.5lbs        -

>>... and this would account for the differences in penetrations for
>>those weapons.


But the difference in penetration given in the table was 109mm.
Was that a typo?


As for the panzerfaust, I believe the penetration value of 200mm was for
an obliquity of 30 degrees, which corresponds to a value of 260mm at
normal impact. For references, see either AFV News, Vol 19, No.3, or 
"Weapons of the 3rd Reich" by Gander & Chamberlain, pp 320.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Michael Goldman  <miklg@acuson.com>
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:39:43 GMT


From Michael Goldman  <miklg@acuson.com>

kalash@starnine.com (Joe Kalash) writes:


>Well, how about this? On November 8,1941 Yamomoto decided that Y-Day would be
>on Dec 7,1941. On Nov 10, his chief of staff outlined to the flag-officers
>of the Combined Fleet the form and purpose of the operation (all typos mine):

>	A gigantic fleet was massed at Pearl Harbor. This fleet will be
>	utterly crushed at the outset with one blow at the very beginning

	As I recall reading, when one of the lead pilots radioed back "No
	Carriers in Pearl" Yamamoto realized the war was lost and his
	gamble had failed.  Crushing the fleet had to mean destroying the
	carriers.

	- Michael Goldman

-- 
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have
exhausted all other alternatives." - Abba Eban
	Disclaimer:  All views are solely my own & not the views of Acuson.
	<sun!sono!miklg>  or  [miklg@acuson.com]

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ernest Cline <@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu:cline@cs.scarolina.edu>
Subject: Nimitz class carrier names (was F-14 as a strike bomber)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:16:42 GMT


From Ernest Cline <@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu:cline@cs.scarolina.edu>

Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu> writes:

|All the nuclear ones are Nimitz class, except CVN-65 Enterprise, in a
|class of its own. The Nimitz class are CVN-68 Nimitz, CVN-69(?) Eisenhower
|CVN-70 Carl Venson, CVN-71(?) FDR and CVN-72 (USS Iforgot).
|
|[mod note -- the hull number CVN-72 is the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.  I also
|saw the Carl Vinson after it had been launched down in Norfolk -- very
|impressive.  The Kennedy was also in port ]

There are six commissioned Nimitz-class carriers
CVN 68 Nimitz
CVN 69 Dwight D. Eisenhower
CVN 70 Carl Vinson
CVN 71 Theodore Rooselvelt (not the FDR, that was a Midway-class carrier)
CVN 72 Abraham Lincoln
CVN 73 George Washington

The CVN 74 is now building and is supposed to be named after some
Congress-critter but IMHO should be named CVN 74 Thomas Jefferson
so that CVN 71-74 have all four of the Mt. Rushmore Presidents covered.
Ships have changed names before being commissioned, so there is hope!

The CVN 75 United States is planned for, but might just go the way of its
antecedent the CV 58 United States and not get built at all.

-- 
Ernest Cline	cline@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu	TheUSC

Newsgroups: sci.military