HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:24:15 GMT


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

fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV) writes:


>From fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)

>Here's a little more pure speculation:

>Remote-control tanks.  Remember Atari's old Tank Battle
>arcade game?  Construct a very heavily armored / protected
>command post, and use remote operators to drive / fight

>Thoughts / comments / criticisms?

Just this - they have enough trouble trying to maintain a data link to a
moving car in a non-hostile environment (just look at the TV camera pictures
during a Formula I race some time.)  Add to the heat, shock and electronic
interference of that environment: explosions, enemy jamming, battle damage,
etc.

-- 
Paul Tomblin, pt@geovision.gvc.com or {uunet,revcan}!geovision!pt
(This is not an official opinion of GeoVision Systems Inc.)
"No matter what you've lost - be it a home, a love, a friend - like the 'Mary
Ellen Carter' rise again." - Stan Rogers - "Mary Ellen Carter"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: km4ba!alan@kd4nc.ampr.org (Alan Barrow)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: km4ba's packet radio gateway
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:00:20 GMT


From km4ba!alan@kd4nc.ampr.org (Alan Barrow)

In <BuF3BE.8Hr@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>about.  It's a nice idea, but by the time you get it workable you'll
>have the product of another game: Ogre.

>	(For those confused, an Ogre is a computer-AI commanded tank,
>no crew, incredibly large, and quite destructive.  Thankfully, a game.)

I was waiting for someone to bring this up! Great board game, great
computer game.... all strategy, no fancy graphics... Like chess with armor!

based on the "Bolo" stories by Keith Laumer....


 Alan Barrow  km4ba | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack
 jab@               | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched
 hpuerca.atl.hp.com | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
 ..!gatech!kd4nc!   | All those moments will be lost in time -
         km4ba!alan | like tears in rain. Time to die.          Roy Batty



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:29:13 GMT


From yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)

rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:
>
>I have read a lot of articles about the V-2 rocket.  Wow!  I can't believe 
>those Germans could acquire space age technology.  I read articles about the
>mass destruction it did to London.  Why didn't the Germans just concentrate 
>all of their production efforts to building the V-2 and attacking London as
>opposed to even getting involved with a situation like the Battle of Britain.

During WW2 some of the British were of the opposite opinion.  They wondered
why the Germans were building the V2 at all.  The V2 was an extremely
expensive device for its day; it used fifteen tons of steel and propellant
to deliver a ton of explosive to the target.  In addition it used some rather
sophisticated electronics and precision mechanical parts.  The V1 -- the
first cruise missile -- was more cost-effective, even though it was shot
down 4 times out of 5.  Rocket propellant is much harder to make than the
simple fuel (something like gasoline) that the V1 used.  And inertial
guidance systems are harder to make than autopilots.

The reason bombing civilians was undertaken at all was for the propaganda
effect.  And WW2 was the period when nations found out, the hard way, that
the propaganda effect of bombing civilians was not very great.  Or at least
that the effect was sufficiently small as to be easily overwhelmed by
official government propaganda.  (A similar observation applies to the
Gulf war.  The Iraqis must have noticed that they got clobbered.  But the
assumption that they would place the blame for the defeat where it actually
lies, and kick out their leader, was an error.)

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
	"Honesty is the rarest commodity in this university."
		-- V. I. Fabrikant, Concordia U.
From: FWR100@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:09:31 GMT
Organization: Penn State University


From <FWR100@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>

There was a discussion in this group a while back about F-16's using hydrazine
to run an APU providing electrical and hydraulic power if the engine fails.
The F-117 may use something similar.

-Frank
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:23:09 GMT


From rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)


Speaking about the stealth, I was wondering exactly how the F117 stealth 
flies.  Yes, I have heard that on board computers adjust the surfaces of the 
plane, but I don't understand what parts of the surface and what happens 
if there is an engine mailfunction and the power shuts down?  Sounds kind
of far fetched, but I am wondering.  Any answers would be appreciated.


				Greg
From: leads51.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com!mcfar@leadsv (Randy McFarland)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Voice Powered Phones
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:09:25 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From Randy McFarland <leads51.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com!mcfar@leadsv>


Somebody mentioned voice powered phones on ships a while ago.  I
was wondering how do voice powered phones work?  Are they just tubes 
and purely mechanical or is enough electricity generated by action of 
the michrophone to power a communication circuit?

Thanks.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: How to spike a gun?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:17:58 GMT


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

In article <BtHwyB.BL1@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN) writes:
2>
>From bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
>
|In article <BtAJCM.CnI@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM| ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

||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.
|
|Aye....... you're probably right.  (Hollywood might be onto something 
|here!)   

T'wasn't Hollywood.. this was the BBC series set during the (English)
Civil War (forget what it was called). The scene occured when two of
the inhabitants of the Royalist castle was getting married and the 
Roundhead captain saluted them with his cannon. They had to unload it 
first.

|(2) a distinctly remembered military exhibit on 
|Napoleonic-era artillery.  One of the items was a rammer-like stave with a *
|flared* cork-screw (*not* like a pointed winebottle job -- imagine a large, 
|normal c-screw but with the point absent and the diameter of the whole a 
|comfortable fit in the bore) on the end. 

There was another post about _sabots_ being something that fitted behind 
the ball (even in muzzleloading times) and something else fit in _front_
of the ball to keep it from rolling out. Perhaps said corkscrew was for
removing the front wadding.

|BTW in black-powder shooting: the trick is to try to dribble a bit of powder
|through the touch hole behind the ball.  Set it off and if you're lucky it 
|pops out like a champagne cork, hitting the ground maybe 25 yards away.

Yup.. Use FFFFG powder after unscrewing the cap nipple. I saw someone do 
this to a stuck ramrod.. apparently he forgot to take it out since shooting 
it last the previous year.. forgot to clean it too. Oops! 
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Subject: Re: Aircraft Carriers & In-flight refueling - what's so hard?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:19:39 GMT


From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)


In <Bu0CnL.5JE@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> trooker%bombe@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Terry Rooker) writes:

>strike).  For that matter, the USN could never decide whether smaller  
>specialized carriers, or large multi-role carriers were better.  This debate  
>still continues, although budget pressures from 1960 on have forced a decision  
>(we just don't know if it is the right decision:-).

I would have thought that the Falklands war would have given
us some indications of whether smaller specialised carriers or
multi-role carriers were better.  Smaller carriers can only carry
a small number of planes, it becomes much harder to decide whether
to depoly them for CAP or for strike escorts, if you have any planes
left over for strike that is.
--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: reiher@ficus.CS.UCLA.EDU (Peter Reiher)
Subject: Re: US Ironclads (Was: Re: US colonializing )
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:29:43 GMT


From reiher@ficus.CS.UCLA.EDU (Peter Reiher)

In article <1992Sep9.184316.90055@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker) writes:
>
>!	Yes, the French with Gloire and British with HMS Warrior (25 
>!December 1860).  I don't have dates for Gloire, however HMS Warrior was
>!laid down in response to Gloire though this does not mean she was launched
>!later.  

The Gloire was launched in 1859.  I don't know which month.

--
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: jet output cross section
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:30:57 GMT


From megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <Bu2B41.rA@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jvz@pt.com (John Zambito) writes:
>to get the biggest push and shut down at high speed to 
>get the fastest thrust speed. Is this correct? Does the
>pilot have explicit control of this feature?

That is to change the nozzle from Convergent to Divergent and back to adjust 
for pressure differentials. You want some back pressure in the engine but not
to much... By changing the cross-section of the opening you can regulate the
pressure variation. The feature is normally controlled by the aircraft's 
energy management system, although it can be manually contolled on many 
aircraft. Many times you will find -15s on airshow display with one nozzle
closed and the other opened to show the variation. And the nozzles are pretty
much infinitely variable through the entire range.

###############################################################################
# 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: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Subject: Re: light aircraft in strike role
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:45:31 GMT


From bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)

In article <BuBLE3.Fz8@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America) writes:
>From: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
>Subject: Re: light aircraft in strike role
>Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:49:14 GMT
>
>From barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
>
>
>>From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>>
>>>Maybe also for night arrasment missions (do not let 'em sleep).
>>
>>The Americans did this to Japanese air bases during WW2.. Send a 
>>bomber at night to drop _one_ bomb once every hour or so..
>>
>
>  And the Germans, dunring WWII, in the Eastern front used the old
>[bi]planes for this purpose on the supply lines o f the Russians.
>
>  Speaking for himself,
>
>  Juan Carlos
>
Plus North Koreans and the Japanese at various times.  The RAF also sent 
Mosquitos out over German cities at night (esp Berlin) to drop the odd bomb 
every half hour -- keep everyone down in the shelters and wideawake.  (Even 
that endearing little poison dwarf in the der Propaganda Ministry was 
honest and astute enough to note how distressing this was to all on the 
recieving end.)

Cheers,
Keith Coman   

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Bikini Islands
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:31:52 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:

>I' am not a big proponent of nuclear warfare howver but i was wondering 
>what ever happened to the Bikini Islands?  Are they still dangerously 
>radioactive?

	About two years ago I heard that the original inhabitants of
the islands were allowed to return.  They were soon trying to file suit
against the USA because the islands are wastelands so far as they
are concerned.  I've heard nothing since, and in two years I could have
a few of the details wrong.  Anyway, this says the islands still exist
and are not dangerously radioactive.

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


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Expansionist China
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:51:26 GMT


From HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)

In <BuDFCG.G8K@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> spencer@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au writes:

> 
> From spencer@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Greg Spencer)
> 
> Reading the local papers here in Australia I am getting the feeling that
> the region is becomming more and more unstable.
[deletion]
> The problem is that if it did, it would 
> involve just about all the counties in this region leaving Australia just
> south of a major War zone.  The question is, if this did happen would
> china stop at indinesia or would they want to visit the almost completly
> undefened Australia.  And if so, what would the U.S. of A do about it?
> Greg Spencer

  Plenty, I think.  The public pressure to help out the gallant Aussies would
IMO bowl over any government reluctance.  For the near future, all China has
really going for it militarily is a large army.  Even if it is well-disciplined
and well-equipped (I don't know) it'll be helpless while in transit on big,
vulnerable transport ships.  A couple of modern naval squadrons with air 
support and some attack subs would quash any Chinese interest in Australia 
real quick.  And that carrier, if ever completed and put into service, has a 
bulls-eye the size of Nebraska painted on it.

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, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************


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, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Fourteenth in the series--The Curtiss XP-14
Keywords: Never built
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:24:52 GMT


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


The Curtiss XP-14 was a proposed Curtiss-built version of the  Thomas-
Morse  XP-13  Viper.  The failure of the Chieftain engine which was to
power both the XP-13 and the XP-14 resulted in the cancellation of the
XP-14 project, and the XP-14 was never built.  

Source:

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


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


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:49:09 GMT


From tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych)

umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian) writes:


> It wouldn't have
>been too difficult to stick some bomb bay tanks into a '17 or Lib and let
>the P-38s and Thunderbolts take a drink now and then. I think someone must
>have thought of the concept as far back as the 1920s or 30s and yet, at least
>in the USAF, the earliest experiments to my knowledge took place in the
>1950s. Anyone care to share some insight on the origin of in-flight
>refueling (and why it wasn't used during WWII) ?

Well, one problem is: where are you going to put the refueling receptacle on a
prop-driven aircraft?  It can't be anywhere near the front, because of the
possibility of the propeller interfering with the refueling hose.  IMHO, 
in-flight refueling did not become practicable until the introduction of jet
aircraft.  Bomber-to-bomber refueling might have been possible before then, but
then the range of the bombers was not the problem...

Tom Zych   tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:31:22 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <BuDFBH.G5u@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
> 
> From mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
> 
>>From article <BuBLxI.GtA@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23):
>> Standard Fly-By-Wire really. The F-16 couldn't stay in the air without it's
>> computers, it's dynamically unstable.
> 
> That may be true for the F-16XL, but AFAIK it is not true for the
> standard F-16.  Fly-by-wire does not imply instability.
> 
I thought the whole reason for fly by wire was so combat fighters could be
designed to be unstable and hence more manouvreable?  Unfortuneately I don't
have my sources handy but I have read on more than 1 occassion that the
majority of modern fightr/interceptor aircraft are designed with inherent
instability so they can run rings around any enemy aircraft they meet.  This
gives them the edge in manouvreability along the lines of the Fokker Triplane
of Von Richthoffen wiithout the excess drag that would slow them down.  By
delegating the complex trimming functions to the computer systems the pilot can
concentrate on the myriad other things he has to worry about in a modern
fighter aircraft.

In non dogfighting aircraft I would suggest that they are designed to be more
stable so they are a better gun platform with improved accuracy as a result. 
Thus the A-10 should always be a better gun platform than the F-16 (to cross
reference with another thread) simply because it is designed to be stable
whereas the F-16 needs to be able to outmanouvre  whatever they will come up
against then go for either a guns kill or missiles.

regs

Rob


> Markus

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker)
Subject: Re: 10006
Organization: Physics Department, Monash University, Australia
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:09:01 GMT


From phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker)

In article <Bu9I03.GxB@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> 
> From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
> 
> In article <Bu0Cv6.5w6@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu writes:
>>I've been following this discussion with great interest, and I've learned
>>a great deal about one of my current favorite topics: The military
>>activities of the early Roman Empire in the east. Could anyone out
>>there offer sugestions other then the WRG books and Osprey books
>>on the Roman campaigns against the parthians after 53 BC ?.
> 
> Cary and Scullard's _A_History_of_Rome_ isn't great on military
> events, but it does spend a little time on the Parthian campaign.
> 
> Some of Plutarch's _Lives_ also mention it, specifically the _Life_of_
> Crassus_ and _Life_of_Antony_.

	Since this is the only response to this question that I have seen
(however our newfeed has been flaky) I would suggest using the bibliography
of: 

	"The Fall of the Roman Empire The Military Explantion", 
	Arther Ferrill, Thames and Hudson 1983, 1988
	ISBN 0 500 27495 9

While this does not cover the period of interest itself some of the books
in the bibliography do so.  Also Arther Ferrill does discuss which books go
into details about military operations, this is fairly unusual in modern
books.

	The second part about the Parthians and other heavy cavalry I don't
know anything useful.  Possibly a library search on the Saka kingdoms and
the Kushan Empire might help.  Both groups had heavy cavalry and were
involved in warfare with the Parthians.

-- 
Stephen Harker			phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Monash University		Baloney baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell

Newsgroups: sci.military