HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "Roderic C. Don " <rcdon@tbd2.brl.mil>
Subject: Re: why velcrow insignia
Summary: removable insignia
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:24:58 GMT


From "Roderic C. Don " <rcdon@tbd2.brl.mil>




From "Roderic C. Don " <rcdon@tbd2.brl.mil>


In article <1992Jul30.125156.18302@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> carssdf!watson@rutgers.edu (- Self Empl. Sys.Integrator) writes:
>
>From carssdf!watson@rutgers.edu (- Self Empl. Sys.Integrator)
>
>
>Why do air force flying uniforms seem to have all insignia 
>attached by velcrow?   Is this a laundry consideration?
>
>John Watson

I recall that when we _practiced_ launching an aircraft standing alert on
the "Victor Alert" (VA) pad, the pilot stripped off all insignia, even
handing over his military ID card to the crew chief.  I assume this was in
case of his being taken prisoner or found dead amidst the wreckage of the 
plane in enemy territory.  Why we would want to deny any personal
information to the enemy is beyond me.  I say _practiced_ because to my
knowledge, no loaded fighter actually cranked up and taxiied out of the
shelter, let alone took off.  The pilot would hand over everything 
immediately before climbing in the cockpit.  

We used a fake nuke for practicing all of the security procedures at our
home base in Spain.  Lots of interesting stuff like "duress codes" (secretly
letting the security guards know that you were being coerced by someone in
the shelter) and rapid identification methods (in case of a scramble, so
that the SP's wouldn't have to scrutinize your badge like they normally did).
Also, we had to follow the "two man" concept: one person doing a job,
another to observe that it was being done properly (to prevent sabotage).

There was some discussion here about destruction of a weapon: it's simple,
just open the door on the side and follow the instructions!  Failing that,
we were told to open up with an M-16 on the plane's fuel tanks to start a
fire, then run like hell!!  This was, of course, only if the aircraft was in
imminent danger of falling into the wrong hands.

When I was stationed at Torrejon AB, Spain, we sent planes (F-4D's, later
F-16 A's) to the VA pad at Aviano, Italy, where they would be carefully 
prepped and loaded with a single nuke in a hardened shelter.  We also kept
"special weapons" at Incirlik, Turkey.  None were allowed in Spain, after
the crash of a nuke loaded B-52 off the coast in 196? (discussed here
previously).  Heck, we couldn't even wear our gas masks in Spain, after an
incident where the locals accused the US of releasing gas during a training
exercise and poisoning some people (turned out it was a company selling
olive oil loaded with tricresyl phosphate from mixing in surplus jet engine
oil; nevertheless, we never had to wear our masks again!  We would run
around in the full protective ensemble, minus gas masks, during exercises).

Roderic Don, TSGT, USAF (Ret)

(1979-1982: George AFB, CA:  F-4E/G)
(1982-1984: Torrejon AB, Spain:  F-4D, F-16A/B)
(1984-1986: Nellis AFB, NV: ???)
From: urf@sw2001.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)
Subject: Tungsten in 9 mm rounds
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:40:10 GMT


From urf@sw2001.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)

>From Michael Chui <mchui@spinner.cs.indiana.edu>

>>From jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
>[snip]
>>	(the SAS use tungsten coated 9mm in their HK-MP5 submachine-guns
>>	to avoid overpenetration that might leave the enemy standing), 

>References?  Would the use of materials technology to manufacture
>expanding military rounds be legal under the Geneva Convention?

1. While tungsten is very heavy, it is also very hard, so I can't
   see how tungsten _on the outside_ could go together with expanding
   bullets. (If you replace the lead in the core, you get an AP round.)
2. SAS is also used for civilian tasks, like counter-terrorism.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson    urf@icl.se 
 Stockholm, Sweden    (Or: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pshyvers@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX (Peter Shyvers)
Subject: Re: depleted uranium
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:53:06 GMT


From pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pshyvers@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX (Peter Shyvers)


In article <BsKCDC.DoB@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America) writes:
>
>  Interesting to note that in 1914 the French and German armies did
>really believe that with the power of "modern" weapons a long war was
>imposible.
>
>  We should design two kinds of weapons: 
>
>  A) The most effectives ones but expensive and difficult to build, and
>
>  B) The cheap ones and not so effective but easy to build in quantities,
>     in case of a long war. Remember the 80-20 rule.

   Hear, hear!  WWII is replete with examples of how quantity overwhelmed
   quality. (Not that there weren't *some* qualitative advantages in the
   overwhelming numbers...)  the classic is the T-34 vs. virtually all
   other (Wehrmacht) AFV's. Initially the T-34 was virtually as finely
   crafted as the German AFV's, but the Russian industrialists focused
   on reducing materials and machining, in an effort to deskill the
   process, reduce the materials demand, and boost production. Germany,
   by comparison, focused on very sophisticated vehicles that not only
   were very difficult to build but also had greater logistical demands
   (spares, lubricants, fixtures, etc.)

   The Russians literally over-ran them.

   While few US AFV crews would harp on the protective aspects of M3's,
   M4's, Stuarts, etc. - post-war analysis underscores that supportability
   (in the field) and availability outweigh (sometimes) the short-term
   qualitative edge that sophisticated weapons provide.

   This is not a new issue; even NOVA, the PBS TV series, underscored the
   logistical challenge. In an article reviewing the (then) standoff against
   the Warsaw Pact, the speaker noted that much of the NATO strategy was
   dependent on a strong qualitative advantage yielding a very short war.
   If that didn't work, then the qualitative advantages would begin to 
   fail as the equipment wore down, parts ran out, etc. And worse yet, NATO's
   technical lead was seen as just *balancing* the Warsaw Pact advantage
   in numbers.


The trouble is that in a peacetime setting, defense contractors can get
bigger margins with bigger-price-tag items and low volumes. There's also
more spin-off technologies generated by the R&D effort, which contribute
to new weapons possibilities and therefore increased market opportunities.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: shuksan!major@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Mike Schmitt)
Subject: Re: Why execute spies?
Organization: The Boeing Co., MMST, Seattle, Wa.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:24:34 GMT


From shuksan!major@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Mike Schmitt)




From shuksan!major@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Mike Schmitt)


 
: I am under the impression that execution of spies generally only occurs in
: war.  (After all, no one is dying.)  During peace, opposing parties generally
: trade captured spies.

  "Spying" can only be conducted during declared wars (according to law).
  Everything else comes under the heading of 'espionage'.  

  According to the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) to be convicted
  of the act of 'spying', one must be "caught, lurking as a spy" (UCMJ
  wording).  Also, if convicted of spying - the punishment is death (again,
  according to the UCMJ).

  The Geneva Conventions gives status to "uniformed beligerants" which means
  properly uniformed soldiers performing their duties are not 'spies' -
  which would protect the 'behind enemy lines' long range recon patrols -
  but does not protect the individual in civilian clothes 'lurking as a spy'
  around military installations.

  There's more information about spying and espionage and protections and
  punishments in Title 18, US Code (so I'd better go look it up before I
  talk myself into flakey facts....)

  --- 

 
-- 
Mike Schmitt - Disclaimer: These opinions are not my employer's.  My opinions 
are protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America.  If you don't like it - get out of my country.   
"Professionals are predictable, it's the amateurs that are dangerous."

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:  Listening to military communications
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:22:36 GMT


From     Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL>




From     Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL>

We had some discussion here about shortwave monitoring of military
traffic back during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Here's a recent note
from te shortwave mailing list regarding some current frequencies
that might be worth a listen, especially during the upcoming Kuwait
training exercise.

Will

----- Forwarded message # 1:
>Date:         Sun, 2 Aug 1992 07:09:18 EDT
>Sender:       Short Wave Listener's List <SWL-L%OHSTVMA.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
>From:         "David L. Wilson" <dwilson@S850.MWC.EDU>
>Subject:      Re: Military comms re. Gulf/Croatia

> Regarding possible military comms, I would recommend monitoring 11176 Khz USB.
> This freq. was very active during Desert Storm, and has become active more
> recently.

The above frequency (11176 usb) is one of the frequencies of the new
USAF Global HF System.  The other frequencies in use by that system
include 4725, 6738, 8967, 15015, and 17975.  You will note these are a
mix of the old HF system and SAC's Giant Talk system.  When the AF
was re-structured (and SAC as a separate unit terminated) the change
ocurred.  Stations on these frequencies include Incirlik, Turkey;
Croughton, UK; Thule, Greenland; Andrews AFB, MD; MacDill AFB, FL;
Offutt AFB, NE; McClellan AFB, CA; Ascension AB, Hickam AFB, HI;
Elemendorf AFB, AK; Andersen, Guam; Yokota, Japan; Albrook, Panama;
and Lajes, Azores.  These frequencies including especially 11176
are always active.

> I don't have Navy freqs. on hand and suspect you wouldn't hear much activity
> not encrypted.

Watch 6696, 8972, 11255, and 11267--all usb.
--
David L. Wilson                 dwilson@s850.mwc.edu
Department of Mathematics       Amateur: AC4IU (ex-KD4ASW/KO4EQ)
Mary Washington College         Home Phone:    (703)898-1084
Fredericksburg, VA  22401       Office Phone:  (703)899-4744

----- End of forwarded messages

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: asp+@pitt.edu (Anandeep Pannu)
Subject: Re: propeller planee's anti-torque problem
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:46:30 GMT


From asp+@pitt.edu (Anandeep Pannu)




From asp+@pitt.edu (Anandeep Pannu)


Iskandar Taib talks about propwash effects being confused with torque. 
He is partly right, there is a significant yaw effect due to propwash.
But what I was talking about was the precession of the planes prop.
When something is rotating in one plane and the plane of rotation is 
forcibly changed then there is a force generated at right angles to
the plane. I should not have called it a torque effect, but rather a
precession effect of the prop (which is generating torque). So when 
you raise the tailwheel off the ground and change the plane of the 
propellers rotation a yaw effect is generated. The same thing applys
to jet turbines which generate yaw when due to manuvers the plane 
of rotattion of the turbine/compresser is changed. I believe the P-factor
that Isakandar was talking about is the effect of one side of the prop
rotating faster than the other thus causing yaw effect. I would like
to hear more about the P-factor.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Tracers
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:47:30 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)




From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)


>From wehumble@iastate.edu (Ed Humble)

>viking@iastate.edu, (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>> 
>>	[Phalanx stuff deleted]
>>
>> 	The material is depleted uranium, one of the densent metals known.
>> It is _not_ radioactive to any extent, despite what some sailors might
>> tell the new seaman loading the gun in a fit of mislead humor.

>The AMMO may not be radioactive, but the uranium definitely is.  In 'Triumph
>Without Victory' by US News and World Report, damage done to enemy vehicles
>could be confirmed as coming from an M1A1 firing DU rounds from the residual
>radioactivity around the holes.  That's how the identified most of the ground
>friendly fire incidents, by the radioactive holes tanks shot in Bradleys.

	This is not suprising if the DU left some fine particles on the armor
that could be measured.  It might be noted that the radiation of a DU round is
most likely less, over constant exposure, than what one might get living in
Denver, Colorado, at a distance of one mile above sea level.  Bringing it
closer to home, my memory indicates that Curtuss Hall, the big limestone
building, is more radioactive than the Nuclear Engineering Lab, despite the
Lab having the UTR-10 reactor in there and being made of concrete.  It is a
given that neither is a health threat.  As for DU, if a DU round hits your
tank, you have other worries than the miniscule risk of cancer from
inhalation of a vaporized particle, and these are of a far larger threat to
your life than such pithy radiation damage.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Cheap equipment (was Re: depleted uranium)
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:12:13 GMT


From pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)

pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pshyvers@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX (Peter Shyvers) writes:
>In article <BsKCDC.DoB@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America) writes:
>>
>>  B) The cheap ones and not so effective but easy to build in quantities,
>>     in case of a long war. Remember the 80-20 rule.

>   Hear, hear!  WWII is replete with examples of how quantity overwhelmed
>   quality. (Not that there weren't *some* qualitative advantages in the

And what do you do, train two sets of soldiers?  The ones who are well
protected in their F-16, M-1, etc, and the "cannon-fodder" who get the cheap
and nasty stuff?  Remember we are talking about _lives_ here, and one person
is a lot more expensive than one tank.  How do you motivate people to go
into battle when they know that there are better weapons around, but "the
brass" decided that they didn't deserve them, and would rather send in 5
guys in cheap equipment than one in expensive equipment?

-- 
Paul Tomblin, pt@geovision.gvc.com or {uunet,revcan}!geovision!pt
(This is not an official opinion of GeoVision Systems Inc.)
"Usenet is like Tetris for people who still remember how to read"
 -- Joshua Heller (heller2@husc.harvard.edu) on rec.humor.funny

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Saturday, 8 August, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:31:05 GMT


From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)


From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)

Heavy Japanese air raids strike the US ships stationed off Guadalcanal.
The transport George F. Elliot is sunk, and another transport damaged; the
destroyer Jarvis is critically damaged and later sinks.  

On Guadalcanal, the Marines capture the half-completed airfield and rename
it Henderson Field, in honor of a Marine pilot killed at Midway.  Tulagi,
Tanambogo, and Gavutu are secured.

A night battle occurs off Savo Island, near Guadalcanal.  A Japanese fleet
of seven cruisers and a destroyer surprise an Australian-American fleet of
eight cruisers and eight destroyers.  Four Allied heavy cruisers are sunk,
and a fifth, along with two destroyers, is damaged.  Three Japanese
cruisers are lightly damaged.  Over 1000 Allied seamen are killed, against
only 58 Japanese sailors.

General Alexander officially takes command of the British and Allied forces
in the Middle East.  General Auchinleck is given command of the
Iraq-Persia region.

Six German agents captured in the US are electrocuted.  Two others are
given life sentences, having cooperated with the authorities.

Reporter: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (George Patterson)
Source - "Ghosts" calendar for 1992.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"Our movements for freedom in the past will become insignificant compared
with the forthcoming movement.  Now is the occasion when we will have to
rise." - Mohandas Gandhi
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ac579@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (G.C.J. Timm)
Subject: Re: Use of snipers
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:18:57 GMT


From ac579@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (G.C.J. Timm)


Media use of the term "sniper" is a highly inaccurate variable.

A sniper is a weapons system with specific missions and capabilities.

The use of the term has decayed to mean any stray shot, including
accidental.

A sniper uses precision marksmanship to destroy high value
targets (including lately material) such targets are carefully
selected.

Example:  You can destroy a 25 - 30 million dollar fighter
aircraft with a 1 million dollar missle, or a two dollar
round of .50BMG API delivered by a sniper.  If the sniper is
good he may get more than one aircraft and never have it known.
i.e.  A single Armor Piercing Incendiary round into a half
full fuel truck, near two or three aircraft.

Jeff

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wilderbj@ss1.sews.wpafb.af.mil (Bruce J. Wilder)
Subject: Re: why velcrow insignia
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:24:42 GMT


From wilderbj@ss1.sews.wpafb.af.mil (Bruce J. Wilder)




From wilderbj@ss1.sews.wpafb.af.mil (Bruce J. Wilder)

carssdf!watson@rutgers.edu (- Self Empl. Sys.Integrator) writes:


>From carssdf!watson@rutgers.edu (- Self Empl. Sys.Integrator)


>Why do air force flying uniforms seem to have all insignia 
>attached by velcrow?   Is this a laundry consideration?

>John Watson

There are many reasons for this:  the primary reason being practicality.
It makes it a lot easier to change patches when you change units or PCS
(permanent change of station).

Also a lot of pilots like to trade patches and there are several comical unit
patches out there that are sometimes worn (and you can quickly put on
the real patch when the squadron commander walks by...).


Bruce J. Wilder
wilderbj@fse2.enf.wpafb.af.mil

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pyrdek@edinboro.edu
Subject: Book on 57th FIS/667 AC&W history?
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 17:52:53 GMT


From pyrdek@edinboro.edu

Does anyone know of a goood book that has the history of the 57th
Fighter Interceptor Squadron, (the Black Knights of the Artic) which
was located at Keflavik Iceland?

At the AF Museum bookstore there was a book regarding the F-102
in Europe but Iceland, although geographically in Europe, was
considered to be in North America for publication purposes
(determined by military organization chain of command).

My interest is especially in the 57th and the 667 Aircraft Control
and Warning Squadron which directed intercepts of the Soviet
Bombers coming out of northerrn Russia over the North Atlantic.

This combo probably logged more intercepts of U.S.S.R. military
aircraft than any other U.S.A.F. squadrons.

So, if you know of any good history books on this, please let me
know.

Thanks.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: How to spike a gun?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:33:50 GMT


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

In article <Bsw14s.o9@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN) writes:


>Muzzle-loader: temporary -- grab a cannon ball and ram it down to the bottom 
>of the bore.  Gotta use a screw extractor to pull it back out.


Hmmm... weren't cannon ball made of iron and a loose fit in the 
bore? A screw extractor wouldn't quite work, but I have seen mo-
vies where a piece was unloaded by tipping the barrel down. The 
projectile slid out.





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jac54@cas.org
Subject: Re: Why execute spies?
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:47:51 GMT


From jac54@cas.org




From jac54@cas.org

In article <1992Jul30.124713.18006@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> you write:
>
>From regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
>
>In article <1992Jul29.130421.22738@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> crowl@jade.cs.orst.
>edu (Lawrence Crowl) writes:
>[deletions]
>>
>>I am under the impression that execution of spies generally only occurs in
>>war.  (After all, no one is dying.)  During peace, opposing parties generally
>>trade captured spies.
>[deletions]
>Some exceptions do exist:
>(1) Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953[?4?]
>(2) Switzerland executed some spies during WWII (during which it was neutral)

	The Rosenbergs were unfortunate enough to be nailed at the height
	of the Red Terror and were made an example of.  Since then the
	Soviets in particular have been punctilious about trying to get
	anybody valuable out alive.  It's a very important incentive.

	The death penalty was left in place for treason in Britain after
	it was withdrawn for other offences (except setting fire to Her
	Majesty's Dockyards.).  It is extremely unlikely that it will ever
	be used.

	Alec Chambers.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pshyvers@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX (Peter Shyvers)
Subject: Re: Surrender is Risky Business (was Re: Why execute spies?)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:39:42 GMT


From pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pshyvers@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX (Peter Shyvers)


In article <Bsw0ns.M11@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
>
>From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
>From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
>In <1992Jul29.130337.22487@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>
>>Note the word "usually".  Surrendering to a small unit which is trying to
>>move fast is a bad idea, because the cost to them of guarding a prisoner is
>>potentially very high.
>
>Interesting, in the battle of the bulge many American POWs were shot
>by the SS.  Wonder if this was a case of the POWs surrending to a
>rapidly moving units who did not have the resources to guard the
>Americans ?
>--

Not bloody likely. The SS had three armoured divisions rolling over a few
beat-up regiments of infantry - burnt-out from Huertgen forest up north.

What's likely are that (a) the SS were trying to strike fear; (b) given the
state of the war, and the depletion of the more professional soldiers, the
"rules of war" were not uppermost in the SS troops' minds.

Only a hundred or so US troops were involved - maybe 200 - and it takes but
a few machine-gun toting troops to control that number.


Newsgroups: sci.military