HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Former Soviet Navy Post Number 6:  Typhoon class SSBN
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:39:23 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>


Typhoon class SSBN

Type:  Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement:  18,500 tons surfaced and 26,500 tons dived
Dimensions:  Length 171.5 m, beam 24.6 m, draught 13.0 m
Armament:  20 vertical launch tubes for 20 SS-N-20 'Sturgeon' SLBM's
	4 650 mm and 2 533 mm bow torpedo tubes for a maximum load of 36 Type 
	65 and Type 53 dual-role torpedoes
	Capacity for SS-N-15 'Starfish' and SS-N-16 'Stallion anti-sub missiles
	to be carried in place of the Type 53 and Type 65 torpedoes, 
	respectively.
	Also, according to some sources, un-confirmed reports of SAM's
Electronics:  One 'Snoop Pair' surface-search and navigation radar, one air-
	search radar (only if SAM's are carried), one low-frequency active/
	passive bow sonar, one medium-frequency torpedo fire-control sonar, 
	one 'Rim Hat' ESM system, one 'Pert Spring' satellite communications 
	and navigation system, one 'Shot Gun' VHF communications antenna, one 
	'Park Lamp' direction finder, one 'Cod Eye' navigation system, and 
	other communications and navigations systems.
Propulsion:  Two pressurized water-cooled reactors supplying steam to two sets 
	of geared turbine delivering 60,000 kW (80,460 hp) to two shafts.
Performance:  Maximum submerged speed, 30 knots (though some sources state that
	through boundary-layer control, the 'Typhoon' is capable of up to 60 
	knots), diving depth 400 m operational and 600 m maximum.
Complement:  150

Number Built:  5 plus two building in 1990 for Soviet Navy

Comments:  Built since 1977, these are the world's largest submarines.  The 
	hull consists of two side-by-side major pressure vessels and separate 
	central and foward pressure compartments inside an outer casing fitted 
	with 'Cluster Guard' an-echoic tiling.
	SS-N-20 'Sturgeon':  Range 8300 km; CEP better than 500 m; warheads 6-9
		100/200 kiloton MIRV's; guidance, stellar-inertial
	SS-N-15 'Starfish':  Range 37 km; speed Mach 1.5; warhead, one 5 
		kiloton nuclear depth charge
	SS-N-16 'Stallion':  Range 55 km; speed Mach 1.5; warhead, one nuclear 
		depth charge or one 450 mm homing torpedo
	Type 53 dual-role torpedo:  Since my sources don't give performance 
		data on this weapon, I can only assume that it is similar to 
		the US Navy's Mk. 48 torpedo.
	Type 65 dual-role torpedo:  Again, my sources dont detail torpedoes, 
		so I have to make assumption about capabilities.  Here, I would
		assume that the Type 65 has a larger warhead and greater range 			than the Mk. 48.
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: desert storm operations
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:20:16 GMT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.


From "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us>

> From gawne@stsci.edu
> 
> I think one of the greatest errors possible is to dismiss the capabilities
> of the Iraqi armed forces at the start of Desert Shield/Storm.  It is a
> tribute to a very well planned and executed joint campaign that they did
> not use much of their combat capability in the final ground operation.
> For those who think it was a piece of cake I'll invite you to talk to any
> of those who went in.  It was pretty scary at the time.
> 
> -Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
>  GySgt USMCR

 Agreed! And I would add, for those who think it was a "piece of 
cake", I'll invite them to go into actual combat against *anyone* 
and come out still saying that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
             Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI -
                         gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ns@csd.cri.dk (Nick Sandru)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Planes that fought on both sides in WW
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:23:25 GMT
Organization: Computer Resources International A/S


From Nick Sandru <ns@csd.cri.dk>

barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - Technical Consultant - Latin America) writes:


>  Do not forget a lot of the French planes that were used by the
>Germans or their allies. For example, the Potez 630 familiy used by
>the French and by the Romanians in the Eastern front.

[...]

Among the planes used by both sides can be considered the B24 Liberator
bomber aircraft.

In Sept 1943 the Romanians restored to flying condition a B24 bomber that
had been downed during a raid on the oil reffineries in Ploiesti in Aug 1943.
The B24 crew managed to land the stricken aircraft on a meadow near Mizil,
a few kilometers east from Ploiesti. At the end of the run the B24 hit a
house and came to a stop near the Ploiesti - Buzau highway.

At the end of August 1943 the engineers from IAR Brasov (Romania's aircraft
builder) inspected the downed B24 and decided to rebuild it. After 4 weeks
of work in the field - replacing the right wing that had been torn by the
collision with the house and repairs to the nose wheel and the engines on
the left wing - the aircraft was flown to Brasov where the repairs were
completed. The repairs were made by using parts salvaged from other B24s
downed during the Aug 1943 raid. The most risky part was to fly the repaired
B24 - still bearing the US markings - around Ploiesti in the range of the
German AA defense. A special order had to be issued preventing the Germans to
shoot at the lone B24 flying with the landing gear down (it could not
be retracted).

At the end of 1943 the B24 was fully restored and repainted with the colours
and markings of the Romanian Army. It was used during the first half of
1944 for test and evaluation flights. On Aug 24, 1944, the aircraft was
destroyed in its hangar near Brasov by the Germans, after Romania had changed
sides the preceeding day. The B24 was never used in combat missions.


Nick Sandru

-- 
Nick Sandru - System administrator   | e-mail: ns@csd.cri.dk         (office)
Columbus Space Station SDE Project   |         ns@sandes.cri.dk      (home)
Computer Resources International A/S | phone:  +45 45 82 21 00 x2036 (office)
Bregnerodvej 144                     |         +45 47 98 06 27       (home)
DK-3460 Birkerod, Denmark            | fax:    +45 45 82 17 11
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Anthony Lee <anthony@cs.uq.oz.au>
Subject: The use of unguided rockets in WWII
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:36:15 GMT


From Anthony Lee <anthony@cs.uq.oz.au>


Recently, in one of the threads, there is a mention of the 
use of unguided rockets as air-to-surface weapons, in particular
to attack tanks.  My question, is how do the pilots aim these
weapons, since they are unguided ?
--
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: "Scott D. Young" <youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: Re: Kilo-class submarines
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:07:58 GMT


From "Scott D. Young" <youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca>

In <Bx5D3M.JC5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@u.washington.edu> writes:

>From Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@u.washington.edu>

>	Heard on the radio news that a FSU Kilo-class sub
>is due to be delivered to Iran in the next week or so, and that
>a US Attack sub will be entering the Gulf in advance of that
>delivery.

>	Can anybody post known characteristics of the Kilo-class
>sub and does anyone know what vintage/characteristics the US
>attack sub might have?

   The Kilo is the quietest diesil sub ih the FUSSR inventory. It has a
   very good sensor suite, and would be quite a threat in the shallow
   water of the Gulf. Its only limitation is that is carries the ET-80A
   torpedo, which has a range of 8km. Up against a US sub or helo-carrying
   destroyer it would probably lose, but aginst merchant shipping it is
   bad news.
   According to Navy News Service, a US Improved L.A. class sub entered the
   Gulf for the first time this week. No mention of the Kilo as the reason, 
   though.
>	Does this kilo sub pose a real threat to surface
>vessels in the Gulf?  Is it enough of a threat that the kilo
>sub might suffer an "accident?"
  Like a 533mm-diameter accident, maybe?

Scott Young
youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:12:30 GMT


From pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)

In article <Bx3oKt.2t8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Dan Sorenson
<viking@iastate.edu> writes, in part:

>	To be honest, I don't know.  I can't see how you could guide a
>shell without some form of airfoil or wing, and to do that you can't
>have rifling.  If you deploy wings while the shell is spinning, you'll
>get this lovely spiral until the spin is overcome, which can't help
>accurracy much.  In addition, spinning shells really hate to change
>direction, and that's the whole point of a guided shell.

	Small reaction motors (rockets).  Positioned around the circumference
	of the shell, fired by onboard computer, the thrust is radial to the
	flight path.  Effect varies with surrounding air density, and is
	cumulative.  Leave the shell spinning, the cpu keeps track of which ones
	are left, and waits til a live one is coming to point in a useful
	direction.  (I didn't dream this up, it was actually tried.  I dunno
	if it was deployed (yet).  Seems workable.  Depends on the tradeoff
	between wanting blast for blasts sake (minimal guidance, max explosive
	load) and targets more (or only) vulnerable to exact hit, in which case,
	the guidance might be worthwhile.)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com	|I am the NRA.
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil>
Subject: C-17 Climate Testing
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:51:59 GMT


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil>

866.  C-17 climate testing
     EGLIN AFB, Fla. (AFNS) -- A C-17 transport arrived at Eglin Oct. 31 to
begin six months of climate testing.
     The aircraft will undergo temperature control testing at the Air Force
Flight Development Center's McKinley Climatic Laboratory.  The aircraft will
be exposed to temperatures ranging from minus 105 degrees to 165 degrees.
     Following the test, the aircraft will return to Edwards AFB, Calif.
     The Air Force plans to buy 120 C-17s, with the first delivery to
Charleston AFB, S.C., in early-1993.

-- 
         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \\  {*}  //                   bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil  
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     / 



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Subject: 106mm Recoiless Rifle - Rocket or Gun?
Organization: Chevron
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:31:56 GMT


From hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)

 Over on the sci.physics newgroup, there was a discussion of 
 recoil and the subject of a recoiless rifle came up.  One
 person claimed it was a GUN, another said it was a ROCKET.

 I also said I thought it was a GUN in that the only difference
 between it and a 105mm howitzer was that the 106's shell casing
 had holes in it which bleed off pressure and propellant which
 escaped rearward through holes in the breech.  But others said
 it was a rocket powered warhead that was ignited and "launched"
 from the tube like a LAAW.  Having fired several of these while
 in the Marines, I don't ever recall the term "rocket" used.

 Anyone know better?

 Thanks,

 TRAVIS
From: 2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Montreux Treaty
Summary: Former USSR's Black Sea Fleet.
Keywords: Dardanelles,warships
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:28:36 GMT
Organization: school of Engineers UNSW


From  <2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.edu.au>

 Just out of curiosity I was wondering if any of you (fellow) military fanatics
out there knew anything about the Montreux Treaty of 1936. It deals with the
transport of warships through the Dardanelles.

  From the information at hand I gathered the foloowing restrictions about
warship movements:
                 1) 8 day notification is required.
                 2) Submarines must travel on the surface while in transit.
                 3) The aggregate tonnage of any foreign naval ships travelling
through the straits cannot exceed 15000 tons.
                 4) Any foreign warship displacing more than 10000 tons or armed
with weapons larger than 8 inch calibre cannot transit the straits unless the
ships are doing courtesy calls to Turkish ports.

  So I was wondering if any one knew how the Russians (or anyone else for that
matter) is going to get the uncompleted 2nd carrier (in what is now Ukraine)
through Turkish waters without cancelling the treaty?
  And how did the USSR get the first carrier through the strait?

  Just a couple of questions, as I said...

Later,
Matthew.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Wael  Helal <whelal@sol.uvic.ca>
Subject: Re: BLU-82/B What sort of bomb is it ?
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:45:30 GMT


From Wael  Helal <whelal@sol.uvic.ca>

In article IHF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM, chc30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com () writes:
>
>From chc30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com
>
>
>I saw a reference to the BLU-82/B bomb which said it was known by the
>nick name Big Blue and Daisycutter. The delivery system used was said to
>be pushing it out of the back of a Hercules C130. I don't know what type
>of weapon this and what it is intended for (apart from going boom), anyone
>know what it is ?
>--
>chc30@amail.amdahl.com


I think they used the BLU-82/B in Vietnam to creat helicopter landing zones. A Herc would fly over the area drop a bomb. The bomb weighed something like 15,000 lbs and destroyed a huge amount of jungle. I also beleive that the concusion was capable of killing people at over a mile from the blast site.
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Pearl Harbour attack - did the US know?
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:21:52 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing


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

In <Bx3ow7.3Is@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> glock@chip.cba.ufl.edu writes:
> 
> In article <Bwy40J.DCL@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Thomas Cohen <thos@suite.sw.oz.au> writes:
> >From Thomas Cohen <thos@suite.sw.oz.au>
> 
>>[America would have been outraged regardless of damage done at Pearl, so 
   why allow such a destructive attack if the higher-ups knew it was coming?]

> There is HUGE advantage for letting the incident be so destructive; it 
> galvanized the American people.  The public was OUTRAGED, and therefore 
> WANTED to be in the war.  And we all know the consequence of fighting a war 
> without public support (aka Viet Nam).

  Minor problem here.  Wasn't the extent of the destruction covered up for
months, to prevent serious damage to civilian morale?  This would poke a big
hole in this last argument.

  I have to agree with Mr. Cohen --  A "Reverse Surprise" pulled on the Jap-
anese attackers would have done as much to make the US people happy to fight
the Japanese as the actual event did.  The only possible reason for "allowing"
Pearl Harbor to happen as it did would be to hope that the Americans would be 
angered enough to desire a "total" war with Japan.  I think this is reaching
rather far, and I'm not sure what FDR and Co. would have hoped to gain this
way.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Collins Class?
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:12:21 GMT


From bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au


> From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
>
>
> bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>
>
> :present to order Collins class subs (the Collins class was designed
> :as a submission for the Australian navy, to replace our Oberons).
>
> Do you know what will happen to our Oberons ?

        One has already been removed from service (I don't know which
one). Last I heard it was having it's sensor systems removed and would
then be scrapped. It may be razor blades by now. The rest will no doubt
follow as the Collins subs are launched. The govt may consider selling
them if someone makes an offer, but who would be likely to?

> Doesn't the RN still operated theirs ?

        They still have some, but I'm not sure how many. They get used
a lot for special ops like delivering Royal Marine and SAS troops to
remote areas. I believe at least 1 Oberon was used in this way during
the Falklands war.

> :and Sub-Harpoon missiles. There has been speculation of adding
> :Tomahawk cruise missiles, either torpedo tube launched, or in a
> :vertical launcher located in the sail. Projected underwater
>
> Wouldn't it take a major redesign to the sail in order to be
> able to launch Tomahawks ?

        I have been lead to believe that there is quite a lot of
free space behind the periscopes and schnorkle. The modifications
would not be trivial, but they wouldn't require a major redesign
either. A set of individual launcher cells would suffice. From
the pictures I've seen, there could be space for 4 or possibly 6
Tomahawk launcher cells. Every torpedo tube launched Tomahawk is
1 less torpedo you can carry. Missiles can be shot down, torpedos
can't.

> :speed is 25+ knots, with a maximum diving depth of approx 400
>
> That's really fast for a diesel-electric sub.  Is this a short
> duration high speed burst or can it be sustained.  Even the
> RN Upholder class can't do >20 knots.

        Sorry, very short duration burst speed. Since the first sub
hasn't been launched yet, exact figures are hard to track down ;-)
(remember, all of my origional post was from memory, and I may have
mis-remembered the speed).

           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor)
Subject: re:50 years ago, 18 October
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:52:34 GMT


From wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor)

I think it was 18 October. It was round about there. 

There was mention of German prisoners being executed on the Channel islands.
(It was this that Hitler's command to execute commandos was supposedly in
retaliation for).

Can anyone tell me about this alleged execution of German prisoners ? Were they
caught in uniform or not ?  What are the details ?  I never heard of any such
incident as this, before.  Maybe it's been hushed up in British war history
books.

Can anyone help with details or references please.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bill Taylor              wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nations CAN act rationally, but only if all other options have been exhausted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:45:11 GMT


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

In article <Bx5CMu.IHM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Steve Benz <tivoli!steveb@cs.utexas.edu> writes:
>
>I'd add the following.  First, there aren't all that many targets which
>need to be shot with a 16" shell that are within 20-some miles of deep water.
>Second, there aren't all that many such places that are worth risking a
>very expensive warship for.  (Note that while airplanes aren't invulnerable,
>neither is a battleship...)  Third, battleships don't move all that fast,
>so you'd have to know what you wanted hit enough in advance so that
>the battleship could be maneuvered into position and threats to the
>ship suppressed as much as possible.
>
>					- Steve
>


Except of course every port city in the world! Are you arguing that ports
are not valuable targets? How 'bout Kharg Island? Is that worthless?
It's loaded with SAMs, so it's not exactly an easy air target.
How about just about any amphibious invasion site? There are PLENTY of
worthwhile targets out there for battleships. Granted they're not the
right tool for all occasions, but for some things, (support of amphibious
assault) they are exactly the right tool.

				David Wells

Disclaimer: My own opinions, not AT&Ts.
From: miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:23:37 GMT
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California


From Michael Goldman  <miklg@acuson.com>

Herschel H Mayo <hhm@ihlpe.att.com> writes:

>Soviet industry was freed of the vast burden of manufacturing requirements
>that the Germans were saddled with.  Lend lease was a major factor in beating
>the Germans. 

	I agree, just wanted to add that I read that along wiht the lend-lease
	came a change in internal propaganda.  It went from "Fight for Papa
	Stalin" to "Fight for Mother Russia."  With this change, the tide
	turned - (post hoc, ergo propter hoc :) )  I believe this change
	was made at the suggestion of the US, though I'm not positive.

	- 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: Craig Garnett <cgarnett@unix.amherst.EDU>
Subject: Re: BLU-82/B What sort of bomb is it ?
Organization: Amherst College
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:16:40 GMT


From Craig Garnett <cgarnett@unix.amherst.EDU>

This does sound like an impressive weapon, but the delivery system
seems suspect. Unless you pushed the thing out the back of the C-130
at a very high altitude, it seems you'd be running a terrible risk of
getting shot down. And if you did drop it from on high, accuracy 
would suffer, although with something like this, missing by a hundred 
yards or so probably wouldn't matter.

I certainly wouldn't want to be subjected to AA fire in a C-130 carrying
something like this. :)

-C


Newsgroups: sci.military