HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Great Wall of China
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:22:50 GMT


   How effective was the Great Wall of China? I don't know much about the
history of the area, so I don't know how well it did what it was supposed,
or even what it was supposed to do.

   I am inclined to think that it wasn't an effective barrier. Unless the
wall was continuously and heavily garrisoned, it wouldn't prove too much
of a barrier. Any lonely section could be overwhlemed and breached.
   The more likely useful function I can imagine is that the wall could
quickly signal an invasion. If the wall was thinly garrisoned, it could
still be used to warn of an invasion and allow extra time to raise an army
and choose where to repel the invaders.

   Anyone know more?

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: "Suprise" at Pearl
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:52:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.194342.22149@polari> peterd@polari.online.com writes:
>
>Much has been written about the japanese attack on USN
>facilities at Pearl Harbor.
>
>The Suprise was tactical more than 'strategic'.
>USAAF General Billy Mitchel had drafted an excercise in 1925
>where Orange forces attacked Pearl Harbor with aircraft
>in a two pronged attack; very much like the Japanese attack.
>
>There was a book "war in the Pacific 1933" written in
>the same sense of "WW3: August 1985" - how the next war
>would be fought.  Gist of the plot was Surface action
>through the Marianas Islands supported by the aircraft of
>Naval Aviation in a scout role (largely a result of two
>things: aircraft 'reliability' (not) and small payloads to
>targets combined with the insufficently integrated results
>of the weapons tests off the carolinas in the 20's wherein
>Mitchel et al sunk capital ships near "misses")
>
The military knew that an attack was possible. The army trained extensively
in repulsing an invasion force in Hawii. But given there were other, easier,
fish to fry, they expected an attack further west - which was the Japanese
plan until early in 1941. Knowledge does not mean intent. I know how a sex
change operation is done - but I have no intention of having one. ( I would
put a smiley face here but I think half the people here would think it
referred to the last part of the messeage instead of the whole thing).

>In retrospect the attack at Pearl was a forseeable event.
>But: the army was under the impression that the greatest danger
>was when the Fleet was out, and the Navy thought the Army would
>provide air defense when the Fleet was in.
>

>Last but not least: who would dare attack The United States Navy.
>Why that was unthinkable.  And like the Titantic, 'innocents'
>when the unthinkable happened.
>
Not quite true. No one in the military doubted a war with Japan at that time.
It was a question of when. The Navy expected to fight, and win, its battles far from Pearl Harbor.

>
[stuff I agreed with deleted]

[.sig deleted just because]

Charles Buckley    buckley @ucsu.colorado.edu
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Powered Body Armor
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:51:01 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <Bxnx3u.8II@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan) writes:
]This is more Science Fiction than alt.war or Sci.military, but what you're describing sounds like the MI Power Suits from Starship Troopers (By Robert Heinlein)

Today's science fiction is tommorow's reality. The Discovery article the 
original poster cited describes some interesting developments. There is 
still work to be done but that leaves plenty of room for speculation... :)

No, I don't have the issue of Discovery magazine available. I'm one of those
annoying people who picks up a copy from the newstand, flips through it and
then puts it back ;)

Oh yes, you might recall all the theories on the utilities of airpower done
between world wars. I think we can discuss tactics and doctrine on those
grounds if we recognize that there is a good chance it won't be quite the 
way we predict in reality.

]
](I recommend the book- it's a very good read.)
I second it. :)


-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us
#^%$!! Militarist          |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
From: bayliss@skat.usc.edu (T.Drew Bayliss)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: How do I win the medal of honor????????
Date: 17 Nov 1992 00:22:52 -0800
Organization: University Computing Services--U.S.C.
NNTP-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu

In article <92322.000934U37426@uicvm.uic.edu> <U37426@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>Well ........how do I???????????


More often then not, death is a pre-requisite.
I will post the military qualifications for it in a few days when i have
the book with me again.
Drew
-- 
T. Drew Bayliss       UU UU     SSS CCCC    University of Southern California
Questions gladly       UU UU   SS    CC                Soon to be unemployed.
answered, answers       UU UU   SS    CC              UUCP: uunet!usc!bayliss
gladly questioned.       UUUUU SSS     CCCC        ARPA: bayliss@skat.usc.edu
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:21:57 GMT
Organization: Chalmers Tekniska Lekskola, G|teborg, G|taland

In article <1992Nov15.030634.9573@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>Maybe you don't mind having the potential of several hundred male sailors
>walking by when you take a shower, but all of the women I know would not like
>it.

  The question is if they have an issue or not and what reason for not liking
it they cite. People are asked to do all sorts of things they don't like in
the military.

  The argument that it is to avoid having to force people to sleep or shower
in the same room as other people who *might* look on them sexually is clearly
fallacious. It is so because Clinton has stated that he is going to remove 
the ban against homosexuals in the US military.

  "Lets see, then we need four of everything.
One compartment for male heterosexuals, one
for females heterosexuals, one for male 
homosexuals and one for female homosexuals."

				"That won't work! The homosexuals might look
			     on each other sexually!"

  "But if we put the female homosexuals with
the male heterosexuals and the male homosexuals
with the female heterosexuals?"

				"Nope, then the male heterosexuals might look
			     on the female homosexuals sexually, and likewise
			     the female heterosexuals might look on the
			     male homosexuals!
				 And we still have the problem where to put
			     the bisexuals!"

  "Arrgh!!! Give everybody their own
fucking cabin then!"

				"'fucking'? Was that a freudian slip,
			     commander?"

  "<Grumble> Have we solved where to
put the weapon-fetishists?"

				"The officers already have their own cabins,
			     commander!"

  Yes, I'm being rediculous. I know I'm being rediculous. But I'm trying to
point out that male-female segregated areas might be seen as rediculous too:)

>Don Palmrose

-bertil-
--
"Ack! Phht!" - Bill the Prez
From: peterd@polari.online.com
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: "Suprise" at Pearl
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:43:42 GMT
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix (206) 328-4944


Much has been written about the japanese attack on USN
facilities at Pearl Harbor.

The Suprise was tactical more than 'strategic'.
USAAF General Billy Mitchel had drafted an excercise in 1925
where Orange forces attacked Pearl Harbor with aircraft
in a two pronged attack; very much like the Japanese attack.

There was a book "war in the Pacific 1933" written in
the same sense of "WW3: August 1985" - how the next war
would be fought.  Gist of the plot was Surface action
through the Marianas Islands supported by the aircraft of
Naval Aviation in a scout role (largely a result of two
things: aircraft 'reliability' (not) and small payloads to
targets combined with the insufficently integrated results
of the weapons tests off the carolinas in the 20's wherein
Mitchel et al sunk capital ships near "misses")

In retrospect the attack at Pearl was a forseeable event.
But: the army was under the impression that the greatest danger
was when the Fleet was out, and the Navy thought the Army would
provide air defense when the Fleet was in.

Last but not least: who would dare attack The United States Navy.
Why that was unthinkable.  And like the Titantic, 'innocents'
when the unthinkable happened.

As to why the Japanese didn't attack again; to take out
the fuel farms, the graving docks and the sub pens:
prudence. The Admiral in charge had struck twice at a home
base, he could not know the extent of his victory (discounting
pilot reports as optomistic, a usualy wise precaution)
he did not wish to risk his crews, planes and fleet to attack
decoys (the above ground tank farms - had to be.  No sensible
force would leave everything above ground) or ineffectual
forces (the subs.  Japanese subs were not the pride of their
fleet, nor were they considered very good, ergo the American
subs must be similarly ineffectual.  Almost were due to BurWep
bungled torpedo fuses - but that's another story.)

chus
pyotr


-- 
Peter D. Hampe; EKA peterd@polari.online.com
Drat - I've traded my magic beans for a stupid cow!
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: mcclure@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Gaeron McClure)
Subject: Re: COMBAT ARMOR Design
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:48:52 GMT

CLF@ECLX.PSU.EDU (Christopher L Frame) writes:


>	Perhaps personnel interacting on this net can contribute to an actual
>conceptual armor design.

	I'm going to take a leap out into space, here; I will attempt to limit
myself to the feasible, while admitting that I lack real knowledge in the
technologies involved.

>	1.  What function should the armor serve and how can this be achieved?

	Antiballistic ceramic is a must, presumably with some kind of Kevlar-
type protection at the joints.  Question:  has anyone ever experimented with
chain-mail style armor made of some sort of polymers or other impact-resistant
material (lighter than steel).  What about aluminum, or carbon-core ceramic?

>	4.  Should the armor be built for enhanced speed, power, protection?

	Speed:  would it be possible to outfit the armor with some sort of
rotor system, making it in essence a very small helicopter?  This would make
it a lot heavier, but would increase maneuverability and, coupled with heavy
weapons, make it a cheaper, more mobile version of the Apache tank-killer, in
addition to anti-personnel operations.  It would also allow use of aerial 
forces in confined space (within cities, for example).
	Power:  probably not.  It's neat, but I'm not sure it's terribly
useful/cost effective.
	Protection:  should definitely stop small arms, grenade flak, etc.
Should give the wearer survivability if hit with something heavier like an HMG
(i.e., it might not emerge unscathed but would at least slow the round down a
whole lot)

>	6.  What type of armaments should equip the armor?

	Some form of LMG, probably, for anti-personnel, plus an RPG or
alternative anti-tank system for larger targets.

>	7.  Should the armaments be integral with the armor or independent?

	Integral with some form of gyro-stabilization.  Since I'm arguing
against powered armor, it would be a bit obnoxious to make the wearer heft an
LMG while hauling around a whole bunch of armor.
	Also not to be forgotten are targetting systems.  At the very least,
laser-sight the things and outfit the helmet with low-light, IR and tactical
displays.  Information technology is, in my opinion, the area where a high-
tech armored suit could really be useful.  It might even be possible to link
some sort of servos in the weapons systems to the targeting directly, a la
"Predator," in which case the wearer would still have his/her arms free.

	Just my $.02, plus FICA, Federal Income Tax and assorted user fees.

>Christopher Frame
>General Armaments 


Newsgroups: alt.war
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Powered Body Armor
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:55:02 GMT

Probably a good idea to see the potential of small power armour, some
technical aspects of it and it's uses would be to check out a Japanese
manga (comic) series called Appleseed.  It is drawn by Masamune Shirow and
published in North America by Eclipse International.  Although of course
it is a comic (more like a graphic novel) it deals very well with how the
people inside would move to manuever their armour, defence/attack positions
and combat applications.  Very well thought out in my opinion and
insightful into problems that would be encountered in combat against small
vehicles and other types of powered armour.


Will Christie
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: how's about alt.me262
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:41:54 GMT

In article <17NOV92.02044000@vax.clarku.edu> mjoseph@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>can someone talk about airplanes in war like the me262. Is there an alt.sex.
>aircraft?

Try rec.aviation.military.  (And practice safe computing!)

Larry J

-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: CLF@ECLX.PSU.EDU (Christopher L Frame)
Subject: Re: Powered Combat Armor
Organization: Penn State Engineering Computer Lab
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 19:21:40 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <BxnFDr.GJC@news.chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se writes:

> In article <Uf0bywu00iV4029adc@andrew.cmu.edu> js43+@andrew.cmu.edu (James William Stepanek) writes:
> >City fighting would also bee a good use,
> >considering that they would act as very small light tanks, and be
> >(hopefully) proof from sniper fire.
> 
>   The trouble is that snipers nowadays also use RPG-s and rifle grenades as 
> seen on the Balkans and in the Caucasus. I don't think it is possible to make a
> powered body armour that is RPG-proof, and since RPG-s and similar are 
> peanuts in comparision to the probably hideously expensive power armours...
>

	True that RPG's are more or less readily available to ground troops,
but this doesn't eliminate the need for Combat Armor.

	I admit that powered combat armor would be expensive, but many vehicles
are more expensive and are used by the military.  Let's examine this:

	The HUMMER or HUMVEE is a lightly armored (extremely lightly armored)
vehicle that probably costs the military around $30,000.  Maybe more maybe
less, but the point is that it costs ALOT.  And more importantly alot more than
the cost of an RPG, which can EASILY defeat it.  But they are still utilized.

	|The same arguement goes for ANY combat vehicle.  Gee, a STINGER
missile can down a helicopter, but helicopters aren't obsolete.  There are tons
of examples.

	WhenI have more time I will elaborate on my opinions about developments
on Combat Armor

Christopher Frame
General Armaments
                
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (Jerry Han)
Subject: Re: Powered Body Armor
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:55:45 GMT

If you were going to have power armour, why would you only carry a pair of G-11's?   I would consider a 7.62 GPMG a MINIMUM- if you have the ability carry the firepower, than carry the firepower.  If you were to optimize a power suit for urban warfare, than a 7.62 or a 14.7 (.50 cal) MG would be nice, along with a grenade launcher of some sort (plus the usual thrown variety; now that you're in armour, it doesn't matter as much if a grenade goes off a little close- but remember, not too close.  (;-) 
Newsgroups: alt.aeffle.und.pferdle,alt.test
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simple Simon
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:24:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.144057.1061@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>   Well, does Bill Clinton count as a sign of the apocalypse?? Or is he the
>>>>   third evil leader that Nostradamus wrote about?
>>>>
>
>>Good one!
>>What's this 'omega' stuff, anyway??
>>
>>Simon
>
>This is the man/thing that posted an exuberant article on Nov 3 to the
>effect of
>
>BUSH WINS
>
>THE LIBERAL MEDIA HAS EGG ON ITS FACE
>
>
>
>kool article, right????
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>
>LOSER
>
>LOSER
>
>LOSER
>
Oh Byte me!  So I've got a sense of humor.  And this is not alt.politics.

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.aeffle.und.pferdle
From: hoehen@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Walter Hoehenberger)
Subject: Re: traubchen
Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:14:28 GMT

r4vanlyn@student.business.uwo.ca (Rijnhard van Lynden) writes:

>mit reinwein,
>wird es gemutlich sein.

>r4vanlyn@student.business.uwo.ca (Rijnhard van Lynden)
>Western Business School  --  London, Ontario

Geradezu himmlisch aber wirds beim Burgenlaender mit Frostschutzmittel

						W.H. 
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: Re: WANTED: Non-corrosive EP lubricant additive
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 18:06:54 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Monday, Nov 23 13:06:51
X-Sequence: 2797
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu

Pete Paraska asks about gear box lube, and specifically about EP and
sulfur-containing lubes.

I don't have any literature myself but in the past I have found that
ARCO is extremely helpful.  Try calling a local ARCO station and
get the phone number for the regional office.  Ask the regional office
for someone to help you with a technical question on lubricants.  My
experience is that they will bend over backwards to help.

Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu                       ...!ucsd!btree!hale@uunet.uu.net


----------
Posted by: emory!ucsd.edu!btree!hale (Bob Hale)
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: Re:  Transmission For Ford 302
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 23:50:53 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Wednesday, Nov 18 18:50:50
X-Sequence: 2785
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu

 > 
> >Well are we looking for performance, or gas mallage.  I never saw a real
> >performance gain the didn't cost a couple mpg's.
> >dennis
> 
> Well I'm mainly looking for mpg's. 
Well then don't worry about that performance crap then.

> I figure I'll get performance from just 
> adding the four-barrel.
They don't really do anything unless the RPM's are up there.

>  I have heard that the Edlebrock intake reall sucked
> som gas.  I like the intake/cam kit thought, but don't want bad mpg's.
Try some of the Competition cams kits.  There mildest cam for your engine
should boost your mpg's and initial of the line power.  That should alow you
to try a numerically lower axle ratio also inproving mpg's.

>  I
> just want some more performance (not drag racing...all I can get out of the 
> motor) for a daily driver.  Thanks.
> Anybody hear anything about Weiand intakes?
They all increase effency the only thing is usually tempt people to use
more power causing worst mpg's.  Probably the best solution to bad milage
is to put a raw egg on the gas pedal under your foot.

Dennis
 

----------
Posted by: emory!picard.med.ge.com!bednarek (Dennis Bednarek Mfg 4-6971)
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: Re: Transmission For Ford 302
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 16:49:01 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Tuesday, Nov 17 11:48:54
X-Sequence: 2771
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu

> 
>  I haven't bought any trick shift yet but I was 
> >considering use all trick shift when I'm done with my C-4.
> >Any particular reason to avoid it?
> Believe it or not, the type F fluid ford reccomends will do
> everything well, especially when you compare the price!
> 
I've heard, and read in Hot Rod, etc. that anymore, the type F Ford tranny
fluid isn't always the best to use, as far as fluids are concerned.  Just 
because it says Ford, doesn't mean it will work better with Ford fluid.

The type F fluid was designed to work with the asbestos clutch packs, which
Ford used extensively for many years.  The transmissions they offer now, 
and that includes rebuild parts too, use organic clutch material like GM,
etc.  It might be a good idea to check what kind of clutch material you 
have, and decide accordingly.  You might be better off putting Dexeron, 
(GM tranny fluid), in there than the type F stuff.

Anybody else know or heard about what I'm talking about?

Laters,


-- 

     Greg Peckham  (stimey)        *******************************************
    Sequent Computer Systems Inc. *                                         *
   S40/S200                      *       No cute .signature here!          *
  1st floor, Columbia           *                                         *
 Phone:  ext. 83022            *******************************************

----------
Posted by: Greg Peckham <emory!sequent.com!stimey>
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: Re: Transmission For Ford 302
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:05:23 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Wednesday, Nov 18 00:05:00
X-Sequence: 2774
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu

 Newer Ford trannies use "Mercon" which is Ford's way of saying "DexronII/
GM was right", I guess. ATFs have different friction modifiers to work 
with whatever the clutch material is, and these friction modifiers can
make a big difference in the clutches' engagement and holding power.

----------
Posted by: emory!mlb.semi.harris.com!jws (James W. Swonger)
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod