HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: island!fester@uunet.uu.net (Mike Fester)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Opinion on Japan being "forced" to attack
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:21:47 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization


From Mike Fester <island!fester@uunet.uu.net>

In article <Bx3oqo.3AH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>
>From Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
>
>>From Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>
>> I think Nanking has little to
>> do with this discussion as does the alledged Japanese desire for land. If it
>> was alright for the US it was alright for the Japanese. Whatever caused the War
>> it plainly was not Japan wanting to extend their meager Empire.
>
>The problem is that it was not alright for the Japanese *from the US
>point of view*.  Since the US had at that time all the colonies they
>wanted (and actually were proceeding to give the Philippines
>independence), they had absolutely no stomach for seeing the Japanese
>doing what they had done forty years earlier.  As in the case of the
>Japanese belief in the invincible Samurai spirit held especially by
>the radical expansionists, the US tendency of considering itself as
>the pinnacle of civilization that liberated the Philippines by
>colonizing them is the same partial blindness as that showed by all
>the European colonial powers.  The US simply did not equate their
>behavior over the past decades and centuries with what the Japanese
>were doing.  

I was under the impression that we got the Phillipines from Spain, rather than
"liberating them by colonizing them". The Phillipines were already colonized
by the time we wandered into the area.

>Note: I am not condoning the Japanese attempts to conquer China.
>My opinion of Admiral Dewey is not favorable, either, though.

??

The first Japanese incursions into Korea and China (of this period) came at
about the same time the US takeover of the Phillipines (ca early 1890's). It
hardly seems that we "had absolutely no stomach for seeing the Japanese
doing what they had done forty years earlier" Rather, it appears that the 
Japanese maintained a pattern of expansion that began in the 1890's, whereas
the US took over a colony, and immediately made plans to give that colony its
independance. This plan was carried out as promised. As for "The US simply 
did not equate their behavior over the past decades and centuries", the US
had not existed for centuries at that time (certainly not at the time of the
takeover of the Phillipines), and its "decades" of expansion in the area 
seems rather limited to that one takeover.

Mike

-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joel Upchurch   <upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:55:36 GMT


From Joel Upchurch   <upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com>

I received a nice e-mail message from Ed Rudnicki
(pica.army.mil!erudnick) answering some of the questions being
discussed about the 16 inch guns, so I've posted his message here


  Hope you guys don't mind this direct mail; editing news postings is a
  pain for me. Feel free to repost.

  The acceleration of a 16 inch projo is actually less than a 155mm, because
  it's a function of projo base area and tube length and pressure. Believe
  it or not the 105mm at high zones that is worst case. 52 cal/1400in3 155m
  systems can reach the same range as the 16 inch these days, but the 155s
  see much more severe environment. The 155mm will see about 15-16,000 Gs,
  while the 16 inch is probably around 11-13,000.

  Copperhead uses a nylon slipping ring in place of a rotating band, and
  is launched from standard 155mm weapons and exits the muzzle with little
  spin. As I stated in another post, the real problem with guiding a 16
  inch round is the inertia of the round. Additionally, the buy would be
  so small that costs per round would be absolutely outrageous, as the
  R&D costs would be amortized over very few projos.

  Someday the RPV footage of 16 inch firings will be released, and then
  all will see how unbelievably accurate the system is.



(If your mail bounces use the address below.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Rivet popping
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:09:04 GMT


From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


German Type VIIC U-boats were welded. _Das_Boot_ used the popping rivets
for dramatic effect. Somebody posted a lengthy dissertation on the
story in alt.war mentioned this.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rlbell@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: Subs in Shallows (was Kilo-class submarines)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:39:39 GMT


From rlbell@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell)

In article <BxICv2.L5D@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Crazyman Pan <pan2765@seas.gwu.edu> writes:
>
>If it's more difficult to find a sub in shallow water, then why do subs
>dive deeper to evade detection?  What about all of that thermal layer stuff?
>Why is it more difficult at shallow depths?

What makes it difficult is that the bottom is also shallow.  It eliminates 
convergence zone detection; it can bounce sound around to confuse the direction
of detected signal; the bottom will send back strong echos if active sonar
is used.  You only dive deep if yoyu will not strike bottom.
From: nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (William M. Aldo)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Drumbeat
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:28:52 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From "William M. Aldo" <nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil>

Subject: Re: Japanese Strategy in WWII

>	Here's a question: we were in a two-ocean war, with most of
>our shipyards located on the East coast.  We, therefore, had two large
>choke points.  Point 1 was, of course, the Panama Canal.  Point 2 was the
>eastern seaboard.  I don't know if a German U-boat could get to our
>coasts without some seriously touchy logistics, but if one could get here
>and loiter around a bit, what would have been the chances of our
>shipyards turning out their ships and for the convoys staging in our
>waters?  It was a gold mine of shipping both Japan and Germany should
>have been looking at.  What precautions did we take?

Ever hear of Operation Drumbeat?? U-boats sank thousands of tons of ship-
ping off the Eastern Seaboard...completely unmolested, for awhile anyway.
We were even supplied the information of the U-boats, their courses, etc.
from the Brits...but Admiral King (if I remember correctly) didn't buy
into (or something). The sub commanders were in total amazement that there
was no blackout at all...they picked their targets at will, completely
silhoetted against the bright lights of the cities behind them. We took
NO precautions for what must have seemed an eternity! There's a book by
the same name...OPERATION DRUMBEAT...I haven't read it, but I hear it's
fascinating; mindboggling, actually.


--

Mark Aldo   UUCP: (osu-cis)!dsacg1!waldo   INTERNET: waldo@dsac.dla.mil
Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center       | 614-692-8111
DSAC-ZTB, P.O.Box 1605, Columbus, Ohio (USA) 43216       | AV  850-8111
I'm not authorized to have an opinion....;-)
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Re: transport planes as bombers
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:09:00 GMT


From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


Joseph ASkew writes:
#Some weeks ago someone mentioned Chile preparing light civilian planes to drop
#hand held bombs made by Cardoen. Maybe we might hear from this same person again?

Okay. Actually, I posted on the Cardoen munition. I doubt that Chile would
ever get nearly so desperate as to use it.

The Cardoen PJ-1 is an approximately 5 kg fragmentation bomb intended to
be employed by any light aircraft or helo via the "stick out the window and
let go" method. Don't know about fuzing.

I'm really puzzled about the raison d'etre and market for such a munition.
It is designed for overflight delivery by a light aircraft. First off,
light aircraft are still expensive, and a government that has them should
surely be able to afford better armament. Secondly, unless the target is
unarmed, the delivery aircraft would be exceedingly vulnerable to ground
fire from its target.

IMHO a machine gun pod, like FNs 7.62mm TMP, would be infinitely superior
in terms of lethality and survivability, and could be adapted to 
virtually all the same aircraft that could use a PJ-1. Am I missing
something?

Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Surprise attack on Pearl Harbor
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:25:20 GMT


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

In article <Bwzp2J.4KH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu writes:
>
>From thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu
>
>>
>>From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
>>
>>
>>straits from the landing.  The US battleships from the attack of Pearl Harbor
>>were lying in wait for them (remember all were repaired except USS Arizona).  
>>
>Pearl Harbor veterans (two U.S. battleships were permanently lost at
>Pearl, by the way - you forgot Oklahoma).  The PT boats attacked first,
 
A couple of minor points. Oklahoma was raised and partially repaired. The
pictures I saw showed that they did a pretty good job fixing the hull.
The superstructure was stripped off, to replaced by a more modern one.
However, by the time she would have been ready, we had things like Iowas
coming on line, and there really wasn't much point in finishing the repairs.
She was being towed to the West Coast for scrapping after the war, when
she broke her tow, and sank.

As for the Pearl Harbor BBs being at Surigao Strait, Colorado, which was
not at Pearl Harbor, was among the six. I think there was a New Mexico class 
battleship there too.(none of which were at Pearl Harbor 12/7/41)
Wish I had a copy of Morrison handy.....

			David Wells

DISCLAIMER: My opinions, not AT&Ts.
From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Japanese Strategy in WWII
Summary: Check Toland
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:20:18 GMT
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide


From Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>


In article <Bx97DE.1uJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George) writes:

>From Robert E George <regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

>In article <Bx5Cy1.J0r@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au
> (Joseph Askew) writes:

>>He ['He' denotes FDR ]
>>tried in 1938 to get Britian and the US to fight Japan. It sort of looks
>>like it. Also a War against Japan was a War against Germany compare with
>>Cold War and Vietnam

>Can you please elaborate on the 1938 incident -- I am not familiar with it?

See the article I have written to Mike Fester. Roosevelt tried to interest
the English into implementing a blockade of Japan late 37 early 38. It's
in Toland about pg 50.

You might also want to think about the Flying Tigers and who wanted them
there. After all long before Pearl Harbour Americans were killing Japanese
soldiers.

>Also, you write "a War against Japan was a War against Germany" . But
>a War against Germany was *not* a War against Japan: Soviet Russia
>fought Germany without fighting Japan. Can you please clarify the
>asymmetry there?

Stalin was a dictator who could fight whomever he chose. Roosevelt was
not, he had public opinion to listen to. I do not believe there is one
person who seriously thinks America could fight Japan alone. As I have
said Ickes didn't think so and he was there! :-) Of course Russia *did*
fight Japan - four days after the bomb was dropped!


Joseph Askew


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  At dawn with staff in hand I climbed the crags,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  At dusk I made my camp amoung the mountains.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Only a few peaks rise as high as this house,
One China One Korea One Eire32  Facing the crags, it overlooks winding streams.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan)
Subject: Defining a Fleet Action
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:29:08 GMT


From jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan)

I define a "Fleet Action" as whenever two portions of opposing navies engage with the sole purpose of destroying the other person's fleet.

Jutland was an example, as the British Home Fleet engaged the German High Seas Fleet with the purpose of destroying the High Seas Fleet as a fighting force.

The battle of the River Plate (I believe that's the name) involved stopping a raiding force- hence a logistic maneuver.

The destroyer/cruiser actions would be considered a "Fleet Action" (I hadn't considered that- thank you.)

The point is though that WWI was not the naval war as WWII evolved into (both a Battle of the Atlantic AND a Battle of the Pacific!)


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Tomas Eriksson <tomas_e@link.physchem.kth.se>
Subject: Re: 'von' as part of german names
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:52:21 GMT


From Tomas Eriksson <tomas_e@link.physchem.kth.se>

In article <Bww8x7.GBL@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> I wrote:

>At least in the very early 20th 
>century, German officers of non-noble origin were allowed to call 
>themself "von <their surname>". To distingusih between this kind of 
>names, and hereditary noble names, this "von" was written as "v.".

...and apparently I managed to screw up. It was the "von" of a noble 
that was usually written as "v." in those days, while the "von" of a 
non-noble officer was written "von" in full. At least in German. My 
source says that this went out of practice in 1918, and that the 
construction "von und zu" always has indicated noble status, e.g. it was 
never written "v. und zu".

What? Me confused? :-)

Tomas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Eriksson                                          tomas_e@physchem.kth.se
            Surface Force Group, Department of Physical Chemistry,
               Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

"These latter-day practitioners of surface chemistry reflect a lingering of the
adventurous spirit of the Enlightment" -- Charles Tanford

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daemon Hobbs)
Subject: re:BLU-82/B FAE bomb
Organization: Cal Poly Geography
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:08:40 GMT


From cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daemon Hobbs)

    The Big Blue 82 FAE 15000lb FAE bomb is dropped only from MC-130Es or soon
MC-130Hs of the 8th Special Operations Squadron, 1st Special Operations Wing at
Hurlburt Field, Florida.  They are the only unit equipped with and trained to
use the Big Blue 82.
     Also, the Big Blue 82 was designed to replace convential ten thousand
pound high explosive bombs originally designed to be dropped from the B-36. 
All of these were dropped in Vietnam and a new bomb, the Big Blue, was
developed.

-- 
---
Daemon E. Hobbs, Cadet, AFROTC
Senior, (Carto/RS/GIS) 
Cal Poly Pomona Geography Dept.
Email: cvalj001@csupomona.edu
Phone: 714-869-3590

Xref: sparky sci.military:10761 soc.history:9229
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Saturday, 31 October, 1942
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:18:31 GMT
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)

Saturday, 31 October, 1942

German aircraft raid Canterbury.  Fighter-bombers attack the city by
daylight, and bombers continue the assault by night.  Barrage balloons
effectively limit the damage, and 10 German aircraft are shot down.

Soviet forces defeat German attacks toward the Grozny oil fields.

References:
C.Argyle, _Chronology of World War II_
R.Dupuy and T.Dupuy, _The Encyclopedia of Military History_
R.Goralski, _World War II Almanac, 1931-1945_
J.Keegan, ed., _The Times Atlas of the Second World War_
C.Messenger, _Atlas of World War Two_
J.Piekalkiewicz, _Tank War 1939-1940_
J.Rowher and G. Hummelchen, _Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-1945_
Royal Institute of International Affairs, _Chronology of the Second 
	World War_
C.Salmaggi and A.Pallavisini, _2194 Days of War_
Brig. P.Young, _The World Almanac of World War II_
The New York Times, daily editions
Time magazine
Newsweek

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"Enemy is fighting desperately, but we are hitting him hard and
continuously, and boring him without mercy.  Have high hopes he will crack
soon." - telegram from General Alexander, British Commander in Chief of the
Middle East, to Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: The use of unguided rockets in WWII
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:23:44 GMT


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

In article <BxGrsF.75K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Anthony Lee <anthony@cs.uq.oz.au> writes:
>
>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 ?

The British sighted the rockets in the same fashion as the guns. The
pilot would then use the gunsight to line up for the shot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | If it were not possible to allow a little energetic
George Patterson -  | discussion between opposing factions, there would
                    | be no market for tire irons or band-aids.
                    |                             Sam Venable
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Paul Podvig <ppl@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Existence of THAAD (Was: Re: Need help finding datalink simulations (THAAD contractor))
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:11:41 GMT


From Paul Podvig <ppl@athena.mit.edu>

In article <Bx97J0.240@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <Bx5Cy3.J1K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca> writes:
>
>>Does that violate Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty?  
>
>No: The treaty allows for development of new systems, and the deployment
>of ABM batteries at two (2) locations. The Russians have (I believe)
>an operational battery of nuclear-tipped Galosh (sp?) ABMs at 
>Moscow.
>

The original ABM Treaty, signed in 1972, did allow two ABM batteries
(ICBM site and national capital). In 1974 they changed the Protocol to
the Treaty, so only one is allowed now (either ICBM site or national
capital). The Russian do have an ABM system deployed around Moscow
(some 64 high altitude Galosh interseptors and 36(?) endoatmospheric
Gazelle interseptors. Both have nuclear warheads).

--
Paul Podvig
ppl@athena.mit.edu
DACS, MIT
(617) 253-3846

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ahahma@utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
Subject: Re: BLU-82/B What sort of bomb is it ?
Organization: University of Turku
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:32:53 GMT


From ahahma@utu.fi (Arno Hahma)

In article <Bx5Cn1.IK1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> pierson@gimp77.enet.dec.com (dave pierson) writes:

>	Ammonium Nitrate, Binder and powdered Aluminum.  "Arsenal of Demovracy"
>	lists it as a Fuel Air Explosive, which i believe to be incorrect.
>	(Ammonium Nitrate is the oxidizer, Al is the Fuel, no "air" needed.)

Such a mixture can act as a sort of a fuel-air explosive. If you take
a large excess of the aluminum and use a binder containing fairly much
hydrogen, the explosion gases are going to be combustible. As the
cloud mixes with air, there will be a secondary explosion involving
oxygen from the air. That effect is responsible for much of the blast
effect of such bombs. A purely fuel-air based bomb of the same mass
would still be somewhat more effective, as far as the carried energy
is concerned.

>dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,

ArNO

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:36:11 GMT


From Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>

In article <BxGrs1.70M@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca> writes:
>drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com ("david.r.wells") writes:
>: 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.
>
>Then the chances are it is loaded with shore-based anti-shipping missiles as
>well.  French built exocets might not worry the captain of New Jersey too much
>because of smallish warheads.  But Russian ones have 500+ kg warheads which can
>smash a distroyer sized surface vessel with one hit.  And they are "cheap and
>many".  It would be a pretty exciting scene on the radar screen.  Even Aegis
>class cruisers would get their hands full by then.  Mind you, it's only 20-some
>miles off the shore.  You don't get much time to react. 

The Iowa class was designed for threats offered by ships of similar 
capabilities, including the Yamato, which fired 1460 kg 18 inch *armor
piercing* shells. Even 500 kg of HE in a thin skinned missile casing
shouldn't penetrate the main armor belt of an Iowa. It would do more
than just scorch the paint like an Exocet, however.

The refitted Iowa's have Phalanx defense systems against wave skimming
missile attacks as well as ordinary AAA missiles. The Phalanx should
be as effective on a battleship as it is on an Aegis, with the additional
comfort that any that get through aren't likely to put the ship out of
action. Remember that less capable battleships withstood thermonuclear
explosions in Pacific tests. An Iowa is a laybrinthe of water tight
compartments bound in a thick and strong armor belt and can take an 
incredible pounding. To sink or seriously damage one, you have to have
a weapon that can penetrate to her vitals and explode there. Or, you
need enough explosive under her keel to break her back. AP bombs penetrating
her decks, or going down a funnel could sink her, but there aren't any left
in world armories suitable to the task, and it would be approaching suicide 
for aircraft to try a direct dive bomb attack through the battleship's, and 
it's escorts', missile fire and Phalanx fire. Submarine torpedos large enough 
to break her back are no longer carried by current submarines. Sinking an 
Iowa with today's weapons would be a formidable task.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military