HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: Another Artillery Question
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:43:24 GMT

In article <1b3523INNnc6@moe.ksu.ksu.edu> jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
>Here's another question for our artillery re-enactors.  What is the
>recoil distance for a typical field gun?
>
>From CW photos of siege guns, I estimate that they must have had a recoil
>of 4 or 5 feet (on a sliding carriage), but I have never seen a field
>gun fired with an actual projectile, so I don't know exactly how far
>they recoiled.

Several of the guys in my unit do live firing, and inform me that the
recoil on the 10-pounder Parrott rifle (a reasonably typical field gun)
is between five and six feet.  It can also vary depending upon how 
much the trail piece is dug in, and how soft the soil is.

Shooting blanks (which I can testify to from personal experience with
the Parrot) the recoil is a couple of inches.
--Chuck


-- 
D'Angelo Law Library         "The dogmas of the quiet past are
cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu      inadequate to the stormy present. . .
uclcjt1@uchimvs1              We must disenthrall ourselves. . ."
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: dguerrer@oak.cel.scg.hac.com (Dan Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: CW Round Table
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:28:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: not enough

I just moved to Colorado and was wondering if there are any CW Round
Tables within the Denver area.  Please post or e-mail any
responses.  Thanks!

--
Dan Guerrero : dguerrer@rigel.hac.com    Hughes Aircraft Co. Denver,CO
==========================================================================
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 
"social sciences" is: some do, some don't.  -Ernest Rutherford
From: massengale_m@cubldr.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: "Brevet" promotions
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:51:56 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

What exactly is a "brevet" promotion?  Is it temporary, or honorary?
I've encountered the term in my reading recently.

Thanks.

Melanie
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: roy_wells@qm.vitalink.COM (Roy H. Wells)
Subject: Re: USA Rank Limitation (was Re: Flag Officers)
Reply-To: roy_wells@qm.vitalink.COM (Roy H. Wells)
Organization: What organization?
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:30:40 GMT

 pan2765@seas.gwu.edu (Crazyman Pan) writes...

>I was not aware of the limitation by Congress upon the Union Army that the
>highest rank be Major General.  It seems peculiar, since Ulysses S. Grant
>was promoted to Lieutenant General (the next higher rank than MG), the previous
>Lt.Gen having been George Washington.

I know this was stated in Ken Burns' series, but I have a book at home with an 1861 photo of 
General Winfield Scott wearing 3 stars.  Is it a mislabeled photo, or was this another Ken Burns 
error?




----
"If you can't reach (age) 70 by a comfortable road, don't go."  --Mark Twain
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan)
Subject: Naval Ranks (was Re: Flag Officers)
Organization: Pacific-Plate Residents (Motto: 54-40 or Bust!)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:35:39 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <Bw5w3v.IrA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu writes:

:  
:   I think they used the British system here:
:  
:  By seniority the Lt.s were numbered in descending order, i.e,
:  
:  1st Lt.,
:  2nd Lt.,
:  3rd Lt.,
:  etc (dependent of the number on board) with each one being assigned duties
:  commensurate with their senority. Thus the 1st Lt. would be Executive Officer
:  on most ships.
:  
:  Larry J
:  

I'm on thin ice, but I think these are positions on a ship, rather than ranks.
Thus Lt. William Bliegh was the "Captain" of the HMS Bounty and Fletcher
Christian (rank unknown) was his "First Lieutenant" etc. 

I believe the postion of "First Lieutenant" still exists on ships in the US
Navy for the third ranking officer (after Captain and Executive Officer). 
I think Fred McMurray played the "First Lieutenant" in "The Cane Mutany"
(with Humphry Bogart as the Captain, Lt.Cdr. Crieg, and Van Johnson as the XO).
Of course depending on the size of the ship the postion of "First Lieutenant"
might be held by an officer with the *rank* of Commander (or Ensign).


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV  (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
        "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
from _Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: USA Rank Limitation (was Re: Flag Officers)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 17:00:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.143040.9081@NOC.Vitalink.COM> roy_wells@qm.vitalink.COM (Roy H. Wells) writes:
>I know this was stated in Ken Burns' series, but I have a book at home with an 1861 photo of 
>General Winfield Scott wearing 3 stars.  Is it a mislabeled photo, or was this another Ken Burns 
>error?
>
Catton refers to Lieutenant General Winfield Scott in several places in
Mr. Lincoln's Army. I think it's a error by Burns.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: kmludvic@eos.ncsu.edu (@color(DarkViolet)@b(@large(@i(The Admiral))))
Subject: Re: Please Help
Originator: kmludvic@c00473-224wi.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: kmludvic@eos.ncsu.edu (@color(DarkViolet)@b(@large(@i(The Admiral))))
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:36:44 GMT


In article <51430001@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>, kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:
|>Path: taco!rock!stanford.edu!agate!biosci!uwm.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!scd.hp.com!hplextra!hpcc05!hpwrce!kingsley
|>From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
|>Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
|>Subject: Please Help
|>Message-ID: <51430001@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>
|>Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:53:58 GMT+5:00
|>Organization: HP Western Response Center
|>Lines: 57
|>
|>
|>              Please answer these 9 questions and return.
|>
|>1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
|>Yes                  [ ]
|>Sometimes            [ ]
|>No                   [ ]
|>Haven't heard enough [ ]
|>Other                [ ]
|>
|>2.) Are you pro choice?
|>Yes                  [ ]
|>Sometimes            [ ]
|>No                   [ ]
|>Haven't heard enough [ ]
|>Other                [ ]
|>
|>3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
|>Yes                  [ ]
|>Sometimes            [ ]
|>No                   [ ]
|>Haven't heard enough [ ]
|>Other                [ ]
|>
|>4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
|>rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
|>Yes                  [ ]
|>Sometimes            [ ]
|>No                   [ ]
|>Haven't heard enough [ ]
|>Other                [ ]
|>
|>5.) What sex are you?
|>Male               [ ]
|>Female             [ ]
|>
|>6.) How old are you?
|>Under 18           [ ]
|>19 to 65           [ ]
|>Over 65            [ ]
|>
|>7.) What religion are you?
|>Protestant         [ ]
|>Catholic           [ ]
|>Jewish             [ ]
|>Other              [ ]
|>
|>8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
|>Democratic         [ ]
|>Republican         [ ]
|>Other              [ ]
|>
|>9.) How many years of education have you completed?
|>Grade School       [ ]
|>High School        [ ]
|>College            [ ]
|>More               [ ]
|>


First of all ...What does this have to do with the Civil War and second of 
all how sexist can this be???
Answers:
1)yes
2)yes
3)yes ,4)NO,5)FEMALE,6)19-65,7)Protestant,8)Democrat,9)In College
And no I'm not a hard core femminist!!!
From: roy_wells@qm.vitalink.COM (Roy H. Wells)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Artillery Question
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:03:08 GMT
Reply-To: roy_wells@qm.vitalink.COM (Roy H. Wells)
Organization: What organization?


 pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander) aks:

>Sounds as if a shrapnel shell would have some significant advantages over
>cannister and grape, such as longer range and for lobbing over the wall of
>a fortification.  And what would grape do to rifling?  Maybe chew it up 
>pretty fast?

Precisely.  Generally, on guns such as the one I own (a 3" Ordnance Rifle, 
Rodman patent) shell was used for long range fire against personnel, whereas 
canister was used at short range.  Whereas a 3" Ordnance Rifle was effective at 
over a mile when used with shot or shell, cannister was generally used at ranges 
up to 400 yards.  In fact, at 200 yards the gun can take two cannister loads, and 
fire about 160 balls.

Grape shot would have little effect on the rifling since it was held in place by 
the plates until the shot cleared the muzzle.  Generally such shot was made of a
material softer than the tube, to avoid damage to the gun.



----
"If you can't reach (age) 70 by a comfortable road, don't go."  --Mark Twain
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: McClellan's Penisula Campaign: Good idea?
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:12:13 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


I agree with you that it was a good idea. But, as at Antietam, McC also 
brought along himself. (And Pinkerton...) 

Had Grant taken command at the beginning of that campaign, it's 
entirely likely that the Confederacy would have lost Richmond at that
point. (Though I don't think that would have ended the war...) 

JZ
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: USA Rank Limitation (was Re: Flag Officers)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 02:47:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.214226.5391@seas.gwu.edu> pan2765@seas.gwu.edu (Crazyman Pan) writes:

>I was not aware of the limitation by Congress upon the Union Army that the
>highest rank be Major General.  It seems peculiar, since Ulysses S. Grant
>was promoted to Lieutenant General (the next higher rank than MG),the previous
>Lt.Gen having been George Washington.
>
The number of general officers in both the Army and Navy is set by Congress.
This was true in the Confederate Army as well. If Congress authorized 12
major generals, Lincoln could promote anyone he wanted to those 12 spots,
but he could not promote a 13th no matter who it was unless Congress
authorized a 13th or he demoted one of the existing 12 (very difficult).
If Congress did not authorize any of a particular rank, none could be
appointed.
  Congress did not authorize a Lieutenant General until 1864, until then
there was no way for Lincoln to create one. When Congress did authorize
one, they did so with the knowledge that Grant would be promoted to it.
I don't know the details of the Congress authorizing Admirals, but I 
believe that Congress did not authorize any at the beginning of the war.
So the rank of Flag Officer was more or less created so that Lincoln
could appoint fleet commanders. Apparently the authorization of admirals
was done specifically for Farragut in the same way that a Lieutenant
General was authorized for Grant.
  Douglas Freeman discusses the effect of these authorizations on the
Army of Northern Virginia in the trilogy Lee's Lieutenants, especially
in Volume II.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: coronell@athena.mit.edu (Dan Coronell)
Subject: Looking up Civil War relatives
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: alt.war.civil.usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:40:05 GMT

	My mother-in-law is interested in looking up some info 
on a distant relative who served in some capacity for the Union. 
She has 2 names but is not sure whether one or both of them were 
involved. One is her great grandfather, John Frank Taylor, who 
was born on June 14th 1850. It seems as if he would have been a 
drummer boy at the most from the age. The other is her great great 
grandfather named William Whitson, born Sep. 13 1821. I would like 
to help her but am not sure where to start. Can anyone point me in 
the right direction? Is there a computer data base that one can 
tap in to? I would greatly appreciate any helpful information.

					Sincerely, Dan Coronell
					coronell@athena.mit.edu
From: dhs@cs.utexas.edu (Douglas H. Steves)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: CW Round Table questions
Date: 7 Oct 1992 09:58:44 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: manx.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1ai2c6INN3of@cs.utexas.edu> russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams) writes:
>I've heard about CW Round Tables, but I know little about them.  Are
>they all independent groups, or part of a national (or worldwide?)
>organization?  How often do they meet and what happens at meetings?
>And is there one in Austin TX?

I can't answer most of your questions, but there is one in Austin.
They meet at The Terrace every month, and have about 60 members.
Their telephone number is 512.477.7543 (fax: 512.474.0954).
Their dues are $20 per year (student rate of $10).

Doug Steves
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:53:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: roy_wells@qm.vitalink.COM (Roy H. Wells)
Subject:  For Artillerists (and those that wish they were)
Reply-To: roy_wells@qm.vitalink.COM (Roy H. Wells)
Organization: What organization?
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:00:29 GMT

Old Soldier Books (Gathersburg, MD) has reprinted L. VanLoan Naisawald's "Grape and 
Canister," a book about the field artillery in the Army of the Potomac 1861-65.

For anyone interested in CW  Federal Artillery this book is a "must read," giving not only historical 
accounts, but technical data on artillery and ordnance.

PS-I quote from page 540 for those about to shout that grape is not field ordnance:

"The author has used a bit of poetic license in titling this work 'Grape and Canister,' for the use of 
grape in field guns had been discontinued in the United States service for a number of years.  It 
had been considered that for field pieces the size and number of balls inn a canister were large 
enough, and that canister possessed the advantage of potentially striking a greater number of 
targets at one discharge than the nine large balls in a round of grapeshot."


----
"If you can't reach (age) 70 by a comfortable road, don't go."  --Mark Twain
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: mujel@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Ranger)
Subject: Re: reenactments
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:24:19 GMT

I am glad to see re-enactment announcements, but I am a re-enactor.
Does my vote still count?
From: COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan)
Subject: Flag Officers
Organization: CALIFORNIANS ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:51:01 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

I have another military-related trivia question. Various CW Naval officers
are refered to as Flag Officer So-and-so. I am somewhat familiar with the term
"flag officer" as a generic term refering to Admirals and Commodores (and 
Captains?) during WW II, but the useage during the CW suggests it was 
an official title of a particular rank. From the context I have assumed 
it was roughly what later became known as Commodore.

While I'm on the subject, does anyone know the list of CW Naval ranks?
I seem to remember that what is now a "Lt.J.G" was then known as "Master".
Also, was there a cap at the rank of Rear Adm. (or the equivalent) in the 
same way that the Congress limted the Union Army to Maj. Gen.?

-Paul


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV  (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
        "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
from _Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:09:05 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <14OCT199209505662@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu>, by holthaus@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (James Holthaus at University of Iowa):
> In article <Bw3sJt.K1w@casper.cs.uct.ac.za>, mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (M B Pinnock) writes...
>>Pearl Harbour would have been a masterstroke had the US carriers been
>>in at the time. Also no major fuel or ammunition was destroyed. The Japanes
 
> If those tanks had been hit, more fuel
> would have had to have been shipped from the West Coast.  Can anyone support
> this [...]?

Simply said, yes, because there were no tanks between Oahu and the
West Coast. 

Btw, another very important and farly vulnerable installation that
escaped virtually unscathed were the naval repair yards (located next
to the tank farms, as I recall).

-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
From: mcgrew@dropout.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: What if there had been no Pearl Harbor?
Keywords: WWII, Pearl Harbor
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:25:34 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


	mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
	So, here are the questions: Would the Japanese have had any
	chance of getting the US to agree to negotiations if

	(a) the Japanese diplomats had not fumbled the translation of
	the declaration of war, i.e., the attack would have happened,
	say, an hour or even a few minutes after the declaration;

... no change.  The important fact was that the Japanese attacked,
really.  If they had declared war, then waited a week while Congress
dithered over a counter-declaration, and *then* attacked (but not at
Pearl, see below), it might have been different.  

	(b) the attack on Pearl Harbor had been timed to happen on the
	day after the declaration?

... some difference, though not perhaps like you think; the attack 
would have been significantly less effective.  Once the Japanese 
declared war, the USN would have put to sea.  Air defenses at Pearl
would have been at full alert (and radar reports of a large number
of aircraft incoming would not have been ignored.)  Somewhere at sea,
several US aircraft carriers and submarines would have been out
looking for the IJN.  At home, things would have probably not have
been very different, so long as the first attack was carried out by
the Japanese.

	(c) at Midway, despite the attack on Pearl Harbor occurring as
	it did historically, they had achieved their goal of sinking
	the US carriers?

... it would have put off the US counter-offensive by about 6 months,
probably, until the new CV's that had been laid down were built
(something like 15 were being built in July, 1942).  The USN would
have been down to 2 CV's, but would have still been getting stronger
and stronger in land-based air (it is likely that had the Japanese
taken Midway, they would not have been able to hold it.)  I doubt that
it would have made the US less likely to continue the war; in the end,
it would have only insured an extremely large number of atomic bombs
to drop on Japan in the spring of 1946.  A reading of US public
sentiment in this time period doesn't really show any possibility of a
flagging of spirit; we were in it for the long haul.

Charles
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn)
Subject: Re: Burnside was awful (was Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All time
Organization: The Ohio State University
 <Oct.8.00.36.59.1992.16258@dropout.rutgers.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:05:46 GMT

In article <Oct.8.00.36.59.1992.16258@dropout.rutgers.edu> mcgrew@dropout.rutge
rs.edu (Charles Mcgrew) writes:
>
>    pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:
>    About six months ago I really cut into Burnside in another
>    thread.  Burnside was a walking disaster.
>
>...as well you should.  Burnsie was a walking, running, sitting,
>riding, kneeling and lying-down disaster.  He is the centerpiece of
>the title chapter of Charles Fair's "From the Jaws of Victory" (Simon
>and Schuster, 1971), and even rates the dedication:  "To the memory of
>Ambrose E. Burnside -- One of the greatest in a tradition still very
>much alive".   "From the Jaws" is a highly readable discussion of
>military idiocy.  I recommend it (the book, not military idiocy.)
>
>Charles

I can remember reading in Shelby Foote's trilogy about Burnside's reaction to 
being given McClellan's command.  He seemed to be scared to death.

I will give Burnsey this much--he never tried to let on that he was Napoleon,
like McClellan did.

PDunn
Newsgroups: alt.war

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger)
Subject: Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Organization: Joint Center for Radiation Therapy
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:55:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.181238.5994@news2.cis.umn.edu>, thornley@giga.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes...
>In article <14OCT199209505662@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu> holthaus@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (James Holthaus at University of Iowa) writes:
>>In article <Bw3sJt.K1w@casper.cs.uct.ac.za>, mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (M B Pinnock) writes...
>>>Pearl Harbour would have been a masterstroke had the US carriers been
>>>in at the time. Also no major fuel or ammunition was destroyed. The Japanes

	Interesting that no one ever learns from these mistakes. The Argentin-
	eans never tried to attack the unarmed supply and support ships of
	the British fleet. I heard the commander of the British forces say
	that had they lost their supply ships, and been without ammo, fuel,
	etc. they would have had to withdraw.

	Rommel made the same point in WWII, stating something like, "If I
	can deprive the enemy soldier of food, ammunition, and fuel, I don't
	have to defeat him."

   Frank R. Borger - Physicist    __       Internet:  Frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Michael Reese - Univ. of Chicago |___      Phone : 312-791-8075 fax : 567-7455
  Center for Radiation Therapy   | |_) _   
                                   | \|_)  Did you ever have the measels, and
    "Birthplace of Softball"          |_)  if so, how many? - Artemus Ward
Newsgroups: alt.war