HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dchapman@well.sf.ca.us (Dave Chapman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans..
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:39:39 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link


From dchapman@well.sf.ca.us (Dave Chapman)

In article <C0E5vG.79v@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu" <Ops@raven.alaska.edu> writes:
>
>From "sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu" <Ops@raven.alaska.edu>
>
>This has always intrigued me: Did the Germans treat Allied Jewish Pow's any
>differently to other allied Pow's? Or did they treat them as bestially as 
>the concentration camp victims... 

> [mod note -- I just finished reading _A Blood Dimmed Tide_ (can't remember
>the author).  It covers the Battle of the Bulge, including the stories of
>some members who were captured.  There is reference to U.S. ground troops
>who were Jewish that were captured.  They were sent to concentration camps.
>
>The thing to remember is that the Wehrmacht had responsibility for ground
>troops captured, and the Luftwaffe had responsibility for aircrew who were
>captured.  From comparing the descriptions of conditions of the POW camps,
>the POWs held by the Luftwaffe were better treated, and had somewhat better
>conditions than those held by the Wehrmacht
>
>Steve]

   This was a general fact of life.  Whoever captured you made a great
deal of difference.  One of the worst was being captured by the SS,
as elements of US forces captured at Malmedy discovered.
   Probably the very worst were Waffen SS units whose men were not
Germans.

   It also mattered what kind of uniform you were wearing.  The Soviet
Union had never signed the Geneva Convention, and captured Red Army
personnel were frequently worked to death, while US and British
prisoners were treated (usually) correctly.

-dave
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ci590@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael J. White)
Subject: Re: Napoleon's Guard
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:21:50 GMT


From ci590@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael J. White)


The Napoleonic French cavalry equipped with brass cuirasses and
red-crested helmets were the two regiments of line carabinier.
Unitl 1810, the carabiniers were dressed in blue coats and
bearskin caps similar to the Horse Grenadiers of the Imperial
Guard.  After the 1809 campaign, Napoleon decided to convert
the carabiniers into armored cavalry and issued them with
white coats, brass cuirasses and the classically styled 
helmets.  This uniform was worn until the first abdication
and during the 1815 campaign.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael White
Engineering Library
The University of Michigan         Michael White@um.cc.umich.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Hovercraft in Somalia?
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:33:42 GMT


From gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher)


In sci.military, ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:

>>     The LCAC entered service, if I recall correctly, in 1985 or 86.  The Navy
>
>Any idea of their capacity?
>
    Nominally 60 tons cargo at 40 knots in up to Sea State 3, 75 tons
overload at reduced speed and sea state.

>Their tactical deployment tactics?
>
    They are deployed with a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), MEB, and
MEF.  A MEU is the smallest unit and carries 15 days worth of supplies.
 We have a MEU over in Somalia right now being supplemented by Maritime
Preposition Shipping.  The LCACs will be carried to the theater of operation
aboard amphibious shipping and ferry supplies from ship to shore.  I
believe we have 2-3 amphib ships offshore Somalia right now so we have
probably 5-10 LCACs in theater.  Any Marines or Squids (Navy) on the net?

>Are they armoured to an extent?
>
    The compartment around the crew and troops is armored.  I think
the shroud around the props is also armored (Kevlar).

>Could they perhaps be armoured and use their combined sea/land capability to
>transport troops not only up to the beach itself but onto the beach and into
>some form of cover thus avoiding the dash across generally exposed ground (as
>most beaches tend to be?)
>
    No likely - once on land, they proceed very slowly for their own
preservation and any surrounding troops/equipment.  Any armor added
takes away from cargo capacity, and then you have to decide how much
and which vehicle sub-systems get protected.

    The Marines have vehicles to transport troops ashore under cover
- it is called the Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV7A1).  It is launched
from the same ships that carry LCACs, carries 18-20 troops each, swims
6-8 mph, is armor protected and has its won firepower.  Plus once on
land, the AAV7A1 is also the personnel carrier to ferry troops and supplies
around in battle.  Although the AAV doesn't get the TV coverage that
the LAV is getting in Somalia, it is being used quite a bit.  The AAV
was also used extensively in Desert Storm, Beirut, and Grenada.

Mike Gallagher
Marine Corps Programs Office
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Carderock Division

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:21:33 GMT


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

In article <C0CBuM.GE8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> writes:

> There are problems with correcting aim by observing the fall of shot - 
> it is not possible to distinguish between the shell splashes made by 
> many different ships all shotting at the same target.

I recall reading in the memoirs of sailers bracketted by the Japanese
shellfire during the Battle of Leyte Gulf that the spouts of water
raised by the falling Japanese shot had different colors.  I always
assumed this was so the Japanese could differentiate whose shot was
falling where.  This would now appear to be correct.  Can anyone
substantiate this?

The American skippers countered this by steering directly into the
spouts thus negating the next correction.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>
Subject: AGS
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:26:32 GMT


From MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>

In article <C0Jprp.8t7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com> writes:
>standard 105mm gun on a <20 ton tank.  The Teledyne AGS is very odd looking.  
>The gun is mounted above the chassis, in a tiny turret containg only the gun
>mount/recoil system, an autoloader, and sights/sensors.  Everyone else rides i

This sounds like the one chosen... I recall a blurb in Pop. Sci. or Pop. mech.
about the system being chosen and going into production. It uses the low
recoil 105mm cannon with an autoloader. 3 man crew, and 2 stages of bolt on
armor. It is airdroppable from a C-130 in the basic mode, and the armor can
be flown in or dropped seperately. In basic format it is armored against
small arms, next step is against heavier arms and light AT. 2nd step is 
for protection from heavier AT weapons. I forget what the armor is, but I
don't think is was Chobham, too bad, bolt on Chobham seems like a good idea.
It is very angular with a small turret. I do believe all 3 crew ride in the
body, but I'm not positive.

###############################################################################
# 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#
###############################################################################
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans..
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:42:44 GMT
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa


From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>

>From: "sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu" <Ops@raven.alaska.edu>
>Subject: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans..
>This has always intrigued me: Did the Germans treat Allied Jewish Pow's any
>differently to other allied Pow's? Or did they treat them as bestially as 
>the concentration camp victims... 

{Deleted material}

	From what I gather much depended on what uniform the PoW was wearing.
Many South Africans of Jewish descent fought in WW2 and there was a well-
found realisation that in case of capture things might not go well for them.
As it happened, in the vast majority of cases they were treated no 
differently from their Christian colleagues in the same unit or lost 
aircraft.  I imagine that the Germans knew full well that there were 
immediate and long-term complications associated with trying to separate
British/Commonwealth Jewish PoW's from their Gentile comrades: thus they 
didn't press the matter.   A related matter is that at the small unit level, 
there was a strong measure of solidarity between Jewish and Gentile 
comrades: "Don't worry. If we get captured we're all going to make 
sure that we all stick together, and if the Germans try any funny 
business we'll create a huge protest  via the Senior British 
Officer and the Red Cross.".	
	To my certain knowledge though, South African individuals did on 
occasion cover up their origin by either enlisting under a "modified" 
surname or subsequently losing their paybooks and then adopting a "
Christianised" version of their surname.  This was especially true early in 
the war when no one really knew just how the Germans would treat a captured 
Jewish serviceman.   Other obvious instances were where the guys in question 
had volunteered for Special Operations duties (e.g. the Commando raiders) or 
where they were involved in an escape attempt: in which case their origins
were officially concealed thru false identities.
	All of this applies British/Commonwealth forces.  I imagine that the 
fates were not so kind to Jewish PoW's in Polish, French, Russian, etc 
uniforms -- especially early in the war.
	An interesting thread.....I'd like to hear more.
Cheers,
Keith Coman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we pay dogfood salespeople more than we   :  Dept of Management
 do teachers, we should not be surprised if   :  Rhodes University
 our dogs eat like kids, and our kids end     :  Grahamstown, 6140
 up reading like dogs."                       :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhm@ihlpe.att.com
Subject: Re: Geneva Convention (was Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans)
Organization: Chicago Home for the Morally Challenged
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:29:50 GMT


From hhm@ihlpe.att.com

> 
> Not to dispute the conclusions, but the US didn't sign the Geneva Convention
> until 1974.
> 
> -Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
>  GySgt USMCR
> 

I've read several books about POWs: The Great Escape, Colditz Story, Men of
Colditz, the Horse, and maybe a couple of others. In all cases, the authors
mention that the treatment of Russian prisoners was horrible simply because
they did not sign the Geneva Convention. Americans were treated according to
the Geneva convention.  There has been more than one Geneva Convention. The
one observed during WWII was held in the 1920s, and I'm pretty sure that the U.S.
was a signator. There have been others since then, very likely the one in 1974 
was only the latest one, and I suspect that this is the one you are thinking of. 
It was not, however, the only one we signed. 


                                                   Larry Mayo

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: helos vs. tanks
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:49:10 GMT


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


>From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>


>Hi, Erik.

>Yup, I already got corrected on the Swedish/Swiss Bofor/Oerlikon thing.  It's
>a problem when I'm writing most of this from a fogged recollection of a news
>article read over my morning coffee.  

>Anyway, the rest of the info still stands, and I still maintain that ADATS is
>a boodoggle, at least in the context of the cash-strapped Canadian Armed Forces.
Oh, I don't know anything about that. I just thought that Bofors gets enough
_earned_ bad press as it is, so they don't need anything extra :->

Actually, we here were pretty impressed by the forethought of the canadian buy.
Who could have known that the bear would just up and die? We thought ADATS was 
(at least on open papers) a pretty good system. 

cheers


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

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

"Another casualty of applied meta-physics!" -- Hobbes

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Napoleon's Guard
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:33:36 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <C0CC0F.GtF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
> 
> Who were the heavy Guard cavalry with the brass-colored cuirasses and red
> plumed helmets? I've heard them referred to as Carabiniers a'Cheval but 
> were they perhaps Horse Grenadiers or (this would make more sense, since 
> Carabinieri in Italian = Gendarme in French = Police in English) the Elite 
> Gendarmes? Were they used as heavy cavalry units or were they indeed used 
> as military police? 

They are definitly the carbiniers.  The uniform you describe was issued after
Spain where they suffered high losses.  They were heavy cavalry and were
considered an elite force in the same sense as the curassiers.

They were not part of the Guard as such, at least I can't find them in any of
my sources, nor can any of my wargaming group.  There were only 2 regiments of
them, hence they do not get the "column inches" their more famous brothers, the
curassiers, do.

If you need any more info let me know direct and I'll fill in what my sources
have to say.

regs

Rob













Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: Whispering Death?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:39:25 GMT


From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>

In article <C0E5pw.71o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Ops@raven.alaska.edu (sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu) writes:
>
>I have seen more than one aircraft known to the Japanese as "Whispering 
>Death". The Bristol Beaufighter most commonly, but also the F4U Corsair.
>Were there any others? Were both of these aircraft actually known as such, or
>has some author got his facts wrong.

Either the author got the facts wrong or you misread the documents. The
Japanese referred to the Corsair as "Whistling Death" because of the
sound the radiators make during a strafing pass. You can get some idea
of how they sound if you watch the aircraft on Baa, Baa, Black Sheep
land.

The Beaufighter was known as "Whispering Death" because it could make
very quiet approaches. I understand that the two names are not very
similar in Japanese, though they are in English.

In the European theater, the original P-51 (with the Allison engine),
and its attack deriviative was called "Whispering Death" by the Germans,
again because it could sneak up on people. No-one in their right mind
would call the Merlin-engined Mustang by that name, though.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | If you take a dog which is starving and feed him
George Patterson -  | and make him prosperous, that dog will not bite
                    | you. This is the primary difference between a dog
                    | and a man.             Samuel Clemens
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Re: Snipers at Stalingrad
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:43:49 GMT


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

In article <C0E5vB.789@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
Dick Martin <rsmartin@boston.sinet.slb.com> writes:

> I have read references to a published book about snipers at Stalingrad and of
> the "contest" between two of them. I belive the Russian sniper, who eventually
> won, was a woman.

I've read about this also.  I remember it differently though.  There
was a Russian sniper and a German sniper.  The Russian had a girl
friend who also was a sniper.  The square off was between the two men. 
The German lost.  The woman was apparently the lover of the Russian
sniper.  They both survived the battle but the woman, apparently
erroneously, was told that her lover had been killed in a explosion. 
The author of the book looked them both up long after the war when they
were both old people and told the woman that her lover was still alive.
 He said she was visibly shocked.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Landing craft
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:33:55 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <C0o9oH.ILF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) asks:

>    Could someone post a list of the standard abbreviations for various 
>    amphibious landing craft, such as LCM, LCVP, etc?  Thanks.

Well, here's a *partial* list:

True "landing craft", flop-down bow ramp type things:

LCVP	landing craft vehicle/personnel
LCU	landing craft utility
LCM	landing craft medium
LCH	landing craft heavy
LCAC	landing craft air cussion

Tracked amphibious vehicles:

LVT     landing vehicle, tracked
AAV	assault amphibian vehicle  (post 1978 name for LVT's)

Amphibious ships:

LST     landing ship tank
LSD	landing ship dock
LPD	landing platform dock
LPH	landing platform helicopter
LHA	(?) landing ship, helicopter, amphibious

There's also a new post LHA class out, I  think called Wasp class, that
are supposed to be even nicer than the Tarawa series LHA's.  (Which are
like Princess Cruise Liners compared to old LST's and LSD's!)

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Keith Lewis <lewis@aera8700.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: SNIPER DETECTION.
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:33:53 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


From Keith Lewis <lewis@aera8700.mitre.org>

In article <C0o9oA.IJ0@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu> writes:
>
>From Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
>
>In article <C0Jpx5.8zD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Trevor German <tjgerman@53iss6.waterloo.NCR.COM> writes:
>>	To sense the direction only three microphones would be reqired 
>>	positioned at the corners of some defined triangle. The triangle 
>>	would not need to be large and could be anything from a foot  or
>>	so on the edge up. Since it should be portable this is a definate
>>	asset. 
[...]
>To backtrack the sniper, you need at least minute of angle resolution.
>That's about the accuracy limit for practical military small arms. That's 

Where did this requirement come from?  As I understand it, the purpose of
this device is just to get coordinates for the SWAT-wagon driver.  Your
response seems to indicate you want to use it as input to a return-fire
robot or something.  This, I agree, would be quite difficult.

IMHO, such a device accurate to the nearest degree would be fine.

>phase shift is not off the shelf technology. Things like speed of sound
>changes due to temperature, atmospheric pressure, and humidity would have 

If you add mics, you can self-calibrate to determine current speed of sound.

>to be factored in as well, not to mention problems with multipath reflections.

If the mics aren't in line-of-sound from the sniper, they are of no value. 
Therefore, the earliest spike would be the only important one.

>It looks like a hard problem to do much more than build a system that can 
>say more than "it came from over thataway somewhere."

Of course, you want more than one "triangle", so you can use two directions
to get one local area.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Neal Smith <sasrns@unx.sas.com>
Subject: Re: Napoleon's Guard
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:28:25 GMT


From Neal Smith <sasrns@unx.sas.com>


In article <C0CC0F.GtF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
|>
|> Who were the heavy Guard cavalry with the brass-colored cuirasses and red
|> plumed helmets? I've heard them referred to as Carabiniers a'Cheval but
|> were they perhaps Horse Grenadiers or (this would make more sense, since
|> Carabinieri in Italian = Gendarme in French = Police in English) the Elite
|> Gendarmes? Were they used as heavy cavalry units or were they indeed used
|> as military police?
|>


  The Carabiniers RGTs were not actually part of the Guard.  They were
brigaded with the 1st Cuirassier RGT (1812) to form the 1st Cuirassier
Division.  The breastplates were copper colored.  The Guard heavy cavalry
is the Grenadiers a Cheval and the Empress Dragoons.


Later
Neal Smith
sasrns@unx.sas.com



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ville Virrankoski <vvirrank@cc.helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: Lapland War?
Organization: University of Helsinki, Finland
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:45:59 GMT


From Ville Virrankoski <vvirrank@cc.helsinki.fi>

In article <C0177E.3I1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> brian@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet) writes:
>From brian@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet)
>
>Panu Wilska <wilska@cc.lut.fi> writes:
>
>
>>From Panu Wilska <wilska@cc.lut.fi>
>
>>098802@adpdp2.lanl.gov (098802) writes:
>
>>>From 098802@adpdp2.lanl.gov (098802)
>
>
>>Another reason why Stalin was willing to make peace with Finland was the fact
>>that Finland had its last fortified line still untouched and attacking that
>>line would have resulted Russians so heavy losses that they were willing to
>>compromise. They knew that on their last line Finns would rather die than
>>retreat so it would have taken perhaps months form red army to break
>>that line.
>
>Hmm intresting considering how the Stalin never did seem conserned with
>heavy losses.. I would think that he would of wasted the troops to
>get all of finland. Could there be something else?

Germans were unable to exterminate beacheads in Normandy, and Normandy
is much closer to Berlin as Minsk. Stalin was afraid that Germans and
Western allies could make separate peace, and even combine their efforts
against USSR. He didn't have months to deal with Finns.

Ville Virrankoski


Newsgroups: sci.military