HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Keywords: Patriot, effectiveness, media
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:28:44 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada


From schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>	I was unable to watch the show in question, but on A&E
>last night there was supposed to be an "Investigative Report"
>item on the effectiveness of the Patriot missile system during
>Desert Storm.  I'm hoping somebody did watch it and can post a
>synopsis of what was seen as the flaw.

Although I'm not a Patriot expert, I thought the show was balanced.

>	Based upon the short previews given, though, the big gripe
>seems to be that the Patriot did not, in fact, intercept the
>inbounds but instead merely exploded near them.  Gee, and I thought
>nearly all anti-air missiles did this.  Last I heard, it is much
>more likely to disable or destroy an inbound if you explode near it
>and send chunkies into its vital areas than if you try to actually
>hit the thing and then explode.

The point IR made was that the original Patriot had a
fuse that was designed for intercepting the original Scuds
entering the atmosphere at x mph [can't remember].

The modified Scuds the Iraqis were using had a greater range meaning
they entered the atmosphere faster. The Patriot critics were claiming
the missile was exploding *after* it passed the modified Scuds and
therefore there was *no* cloud of "chunkies" to pass through.

The military claimed they instituted a software fix for this.

The critics hauled out videotape purporting to show misses of 100
meters plus. Raytheon hauled out a video that showed network videotape
machines can't capture images moving as fast an intercept occurs.

My impression of the whole show [or the 40 minutes I caught] was that
the Patriot had 40% guaranteed kills, and 60% the military wasn't sure
about. The critics got the point across that some of the videotaped
intercepts were actually misses.

The part of IR that I liked was that they did go into the
psychological benefit the Patriot had in Israel, which probably kept
Israel out of the war.

My final impression of the show was that the Patriot worked enough not
to be called a failure, but didn't live up to claims aired during the 
Gulf War.




-- 
===============================================================================
        "We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin -- Split Second

schuck@sfu.ca                                           Vote No on October 26th
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr))
Subject: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:53:58 GMT


From swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr))

The Uzi submachine gun was developed by the israelis and by most
account was most successful in combat and as an export item. I've always
wondered how a 9mm weapon could be effective in the desert especially
with the ranges involved. Could you kind folk provide some background to 
this.

Also, how does the mini Uzi compare to its bigger brother?
thanks
perry morrison
From: dhanda@skorpio.USask.ca (Sanjay Dhanda)
Subject:  TOP 5 ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD 
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:59:28 GMT


From dhanda@skorpio.USask.ca (Sanjay Dhanda)

 Can someone please post the approximate sizes of the top 5 armed forces of
the world in each of the tree categories - Army, Navy and Air Force.

Thanks.

Sanjay

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Simon Richard Cole <Simon.Cole@comp.vuw.ac.nz>
Subject: Damage a Nuke Sub can take? - sci.military #18988
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:20:04 GMT


From Simon Richard Cole <Simon.Cole@comp.vuw.ac.nz>

In article <BvCCHq.4Gr@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, knude@daimi.aau.dk (Per Knudsgaard) writes:
|> 
|> From knude@daimi.aau.dk (Per Knudsgaard)
|> 
|> wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
|> 
|> >In article <Bv1IJ6.29I@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
|> >youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes: 
|> I would surely shoot, but make damned sure I 
|> missed if there was the slightest chance that whatever I was shooting after had
|> nuclear arms aboard.

  How much chance is there of the nukes being set off or radiation released by the
  warhead?
  
  My impression of nuke weapons is that they have so many safeguards built in
  such as an inability to explode within certain range of the launching submarine
  and reactor vessels so strongly made that there would be little chance of
  radiation release from an explosion through the hull from the depth charge or
  torpedo.
  
  Does anyone out there have any info on the approximate ability of nuke warheads
  and reactor vessels to withstand damage while keeping their contents intact.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jac54@cas.org (Alec Chambers)
Subject: Re: Walker and the Pueblo
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:38:57 GMT


From jac54@cas.org (Alec Chambers)

In article <BvAsC1.A89@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> you write:
>
>From island!etorofu!fester@uunet.UU.NET ()
>
>
>Well, maybe, but what I found to be MOST interesting was that Walker apparantly
>recruited himself in 1967, during the Vietnam war. He handed over to the

	Indeed he did, he needed the money (the commonest reason).


>Soviets most of our codes, but the Russians had no way of knowing if they
>were "the real thing" unless they had a copy fo the decoding machine (sorry,
>I don't know enough about this to explain why, but I have every confidence

	I'm inclined to believe that this is a revisionist approach.  I
	suspect the Soviets just got lucky.  If the Purple Machine could be
	reconstructed from decoding messages, I suspect that the Russians
	30 years later with their traditional strengths in cryptography-
	associated mathematics were capable of doing the same thing for the
	rotor machines the U.S was still using during Vietnam.  Don't
	forget that they may have been able to get useful information from
	cipher machines in the Moscow Embassy [far be it from me to criticize
	the State Dept. :-)].

>that someone will offer a very good explanation). So, they apparantly convinced
>the North Koreans to sieze an American spyship, and the USS Pueblo just
>happened to make itself available.

	There is a fairly extensive bibliography on the Walker case.  The
	best known are (sorry if I get the authors wrong)

	Family of Spies by Pete Earley,

	Breaking the Ring by John Barron,

	I Pledge Allegiance by Howard Blum.

	There is also a book called "The Pueblo Surrender: a Covert Action by
	the NSA" that may claim that the NSA set the whole thing up.  I
	haven't read it yet but I am not inclined to believe that this
	was the case because of the way U.S. counterintelligence works (see
	"Informing Statecraft" by Angelo Codevilla.).


	Alec Chambers.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: More info on German jets
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:52:56 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

Here's some more info I came across. (These are from notes I jotted
down a while back so I can't give references)

The jet was the He-290. It *actually* flew under turbo-power early
in 1941, before the Me-262 even got off the ground with a piston
engine! 

Old man Heinkel felt that the design was proven by the end of 1941
& was ready to begin full scale production but the RLM turned down
the idea & went with the Me-262 instead!

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Keywords: Patriot, effectiveness, media
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:31:41 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <BvE5Bx.25M@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>
>The critics hauled out videotape purporting to show misses of 100
>meters plus. Raytheon hauled out a video that showed network videotape
>machines can't capture images moving as fast an intercept occurs.

Standard NTSC video records one frame, of two fields, every 1/30th of
a second. The half resolution fields are recorded at a rate of 60 per
second. So if succeeding fields are used, the missiles could close by
100 meters *during* a field if their closing rate was 6 km/sec, or about
13,000 MPH.  If they were single linewidth  dots on the raster, they
would be resolved, but if the image took up a large part of the field,
they would be motion blurred.

There are other problems with standard broadcast TV gear, however. The
effective shutter speed of the camera is 1/60th of a second. Rapid
motion is very blurred at such a slow shutter speed. Special cameras
with rapidly rotating mechanical shutters have to be used for sporting
events like car races and slow motion replay of golf swings. Effective
shutter speeds of less than 1/1000th of a second are commercially 
available. The cameras used by NBC, and I assume the other networks
as well, were *not* these special sports cameras, however. They were
ordinary newsgathering cameras without the special mechanical shutter.
Therefore, they couldn't *resolve* an object moving at 6 km/s to less
than 100 meters. 

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Subject: Re: V-1 nerve-gas hokum
Summary: Gas warfare would probably have been a tossup in WWII
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:59:41 GMT


From saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)

There's been plenty of speculation over the years about what might have 
happened if war 'gases' (they're fogs, of course) had been used in WWII.
It isn't strictly true that the Germans had a monopoly on nerve gas (the
title of the best reference on this is "Toxic Compounds of Phosphorus
and Fluorine"; unfortunately I forget the author).  What is definitely
true is that the German nerve gases were more appropriate for   military
use than the allied ones (tetraethyl pyrophosphate and diisopropyl
fluorophosphate).  The real allied threat in chemical warfare, though,
was blistering agents.  These can be made in quantities roughly proportional
to total industrial capacity, and cause a high proportion of horrible
(but not directly fatal) casualties.  From a practical standpoint, they're
at least as effective as the first generation nerve agents.  It would have
been VERY VERY rough on everybody if WWII had gone gas, but it doesn't
seem certain that one side or the other would have derived a large benefit.
                                        Steve      saj@chinet.chi.il.us
From: th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: V-1 nerve-gas hokum
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:07:45 GMT
Organization: Bristol Polytechnic, England


From th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates)

Whilst not actually impossible, I find this story hard to believe. The reason
that the Germans made no use of chemical weapons (against soldiers) during
WW2 is as follows:-

* Adolf Hitler was a Corporal during WW1. Whilst in the trenches he was
badly gassed by the British Army. The weapon used was a blistering 
agent ie. mustard gas - dichlorethyl sulphide. Hitler never forgot the pain
of this experience and it coloured his thinking about deployment policy.

* The Germans mistakenly believed that the allies had developed nerve 
agents because immediately prior to the war, the British had decided to
classify academic papers re. organophosphate compounds used in pesticides
(and of course nerve agents). In fact this was simply a manifestation of
the British Govt's typical obsession with secrecy - the allies had no 
nerve agents and postwar US technical investigators were shocked to discover
just how advanced the Germans were. Because the Germans believed their stocks
were matched by the allies', their policy was one of "retaliation, but no 
first use". Even after the Sidi Barani accident, both sides showed 
remarkable restraint.

* By 1944, the Germans had developed two much more powerful nerve agents
called Sarin and Soman, and these were in limited production. Were the
Germans to have bombarded the South of England (ie. London), they would 
surely have chosen a more powerful chemical than Tabun? 
__________________________________________________________________________

Frankly, the V1 story doesn't hold water. But here's a verified piece of 
information to make you shudder:-

During the planning stage for operation Overlord (D-Day 1944) Prime
Minister Winston Churchill seriously considered using the most potent
agents in the British CW arsenal (Nitrogen Mustard & Lewisites) against 
the German defenses to soften them up prior to landing troops on the 
beaches. In fact CW preparations had already been made at various sites.
Neither Churchill nor anyone else knew that the Nazis possessed nerve
gases. Fortunately, Churchill changed his mind. If the allies had used 
CW, the Germans would have replied with nerve gas. Allied gas masks 
could not filter nerve gas. The entire course of history would have been
changed.

-- 
**************************************************************************** 
* Tom Oates (Bristol Poly, England)  * DISCLAIMER:I speak only for myself. * 
* JANET: th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk * PGP 2.0 Key available upon request. *
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: Advanced WWII German Tanks
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:39:06 GMT


From wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)

In article <BvAsEF.AF0@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> akula@ecst.csuchico.edu (Guo Han-Zhang) writes:
>
>From akula@ecst.csuchico.edu (Guo Han-Zhang)

>such as E-50
>,E-75 , E-100, and Panther II. I can find all the references of the aircraft
>but failed to find any of the new tanks. 
<......>
>>Could anybody tell me where can I find the refer->ences of those tanks /* if they really existed */ ? Any help will be appreciated.


Try "German Tanks in World War Two in Action" by George Forty, 1987, Arms and
    Armor Press.

The Panther 2 apparently never progressed beyond a prototype phase.
The prototype was captured and is reported to still be in running order
and on display at the Patton Museum, Fort Knox, KY .
The E-series tanks you mentioned were all heavy tanks that were still in
experimental design when the Henschel tank proving ground was captured.
The E-100 was apparently the only E-model that was even partially 
completed in prototype. Forty has a photo of the hull in his book.
-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 |"Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: V-1s with nerve-gas warheads?
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:54:11 GMT


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
>Slater claims that the V-1s were being prepared for launch in a subterranean
>tunnel, parked nosecone to tail and fully fueled...

This isn't the way the V-1 launch sites worked... especially since any site
aimed at the Normandy beachhead in late June would have been improvised in
considerable haste.  V-1s had to be launched pretty exactly in the right
direction -- one of the first clues the Allies had about the purpose of
certain mysterious structures was that they pointed at London -- so the
existing sites wouldn't have been suitable.  Even the normal sites didn't
go in for anything as elaborate as underground tunnels.

>From bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
>... I would think that if Hitler had decided to
>use it against us, he would certainly also have ordered it used against the
>Soviets...

Indeed so.  If you look at commitments of resources etc., it's pretty clear
that the Germans consistently rated the Soviets as a bigger threat than the
Western powers, right through to VE-Day.  What's more, the war on the Eastern
Front was fought with an almost complete disregard for the Geneva Convention
and suchlike on both sides.  I'd be very surprised to see a single attempt
to use nerve gas on the Western Front unaccompanied by vigorous and extensive
use on the Eastern Front.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:29:11 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

trooker%xobu@relay.nswc.navy.mil (T. Rooker) writes:

>In this case you come across as much more disreputable than the journalists 
>you flame.  You base your attack on a short commercial, which by definition
>is going to be somewhat misleading to pique interest in the show.  If you
>had seen it, and you probably have a chance since they tend to rerun the
>Investigative Reports episodes to death, you would not be making the comments
>you did.

	If I had seen it I wouldn't have asked the net what was said in the
show as opposed to the commercials.  In any event, I've had half-a-dozen
messages in my mailbox confirming that the episode was fairly balanced,
but noting that the hype the Patriot was supposed to live up to was
nothing the Patriot was ever designed to do in the first place.  I just
wanted to know if the coverage was fair.

>But then the missile
>does have some problems and it is important to get to the facts rather than
>hiding behind some DoD imposed shield of secrecy.

	Exactly.  I prefer to hear news reported, not created.

<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: Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>
Subject: B2707
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:41:56 GMT


From Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>


In <BvFzsx.10z@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) wrote:
>It should also be noted that the B2707 would have flown circles around the
>Concorde. The SST was designed to be a mach 3 aircraft with a higher capacity
>than the Concorde. The SST was cancelled since it was felt there wasn't much
>of a market, plus the pressures from the environmentalists.

Of course, higher capacity is on paper only. When they did more detail work,
the initial fixed wing design was found incapable of taking off from
existing airports. So they switched to variable geometry. Then the
dilemma was whether to take fuel or passengers. The wing pivot strcuture
was so heavy that a plane without passengers can bearly make it cross
the Atlantic.

The project was cancelled more because of the plane's performance short
fall than anything else. It was just an unreachable target, else we
could at least see something flying.
From: dennisn@comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Anti-Satellite Weapons
Organization: secure_comm
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:31:53 GMT


From dennisn@comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)

In article <BvFzKo.Hv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>
>The Soviet system was a payload placed in low earth orbit and maneuvered to a 
>certain distance from the target satellite.....
>If I remember correctly 
>the system was tested in the early to mid 1980's.

The Russian press also has reported that the Polyot 1 and 2 (11/1/63 and 
4/12/64) were tests of a ASAT system apparently built in response to 
early US projects...I can't recall the name of the old air launched ASAT 
missile project.

>The US system was different.  It involved a rocket strapped to the bottom of
>a F-15. 

I recall reading that the remaining missiles are still in storage.  About
a year ago there were still reports of creating a _new_ ground launched
ASAT project from the Navy/Army/etc., but I haven't read anything about it
for a long time.

Also, didn't Av. Week run a photo of a MiG-31? sporting a ASAT missle also
about a month ago.

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL    

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: s462075d@edinboro.edu
Subject: How Does Defcon system work?
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:44:06 GMT


From s462075d@edinboro.edu

Can anyone out there tell me, is relativley laymans terms, how the U.S.
DEFCON defense system works?  I know we start at DEFCON 5, but what happens
at each level?

Also, whats the lowest we've ever gone, and when was it?

Does anyone know the names and number of steps the Soviets used?

What has changed now that we no longer keep bombers flying on alert
constantly?

Thanks to anyone who can answer.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:56:04 GMT


From bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)

In article <BvE5rp.2sy@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE (Tomas Eriksson) writes...
>> 
>Let's assume that these submarine activities against Sweden, Norway and a 
>few other places were given high priority and a lot of resources. Remember
>that crew saftey had *low* priority, and remember that the Soviet Union 
>produced satellites with nuclear reactors. 

I have heard of the nuclear reactor satellites a couple times here.  Could 
someone provide a few more details on this?  I would think that such 
satellites would be banned under a nuclear munitions in space treaty of 
some sort.  Think of the re-entry risks alone.

>If the intruding subs are 
>indeed 30 m long (I think I've heard slightly smaller numbers - a 
>Swedish 1,000 ton submarine is about 50 m long), this is probably
>sufficient to install a small nuclear reactor.

I don't know if a submarine as small as 30 m would be big enough to hold a 
reactor and all the associated machinery.  I believe the french have the 
smallest nuclear attack submarine in existance (I don't have the name with 
me), which is just slightly smaller than an Alpha class.

>A nuclear reactor would give these subs an endurance far beyond what one 
>would expect of a submarine this size. Indeed, there are indications 
>that the intruders have gone into hiding for a several days when the ASW 
>activities have been intensive. 

I may be mistaken, but isn't it possible for a DE sub to remain submerged 
for several days.  I thought (though once again I don't keep my reference 
books here at work) that the Austrailians had a DE that could remain a deep 
depths for over four days if speed requirements were minimized.

On the subject of shallow water, how is the performance of MAD devices 
effected by shallow and coastal water?  

SJRD

Newsgroups: sci.military