HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: William Logan Lee <bill@extro.ucc.su.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:25:27 GMT


From William Logan Lee <bill@extro.ucc.su.oz.au>

In article <Bx1G79.I9o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bill@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (William Logan Lee) writes:
>Look at the types of vehicle construction to see what armour was used:
>much of the early-war German vehicles are of slab-sided construction with
>riveted armour, with much more use of cast armour components (e.g. Matilda I
>and II) which is harder to face harden.

Sorry, On rereading this posting, I realised I had somehow omitted an
important part of the posting.  This paragraph should read:

  Look at the types of vehicle construction to see what armour was used:
  much of the early-war German vehicles are of slab-sided construction with
  riveted armour, compared to the British: who made more use of cast armour
  components (e.g. turrets of Matilda I and II) which are harder to face harden.

Expanding on that, later in the war, the Germans perfected the use of
welded armour plate construction.  This alleviated the need for bolting
or rivetting armour plates onto a load-bearing chassis or frame.  This
speeded and simplified construction, with extra benefits of increased
protection and more internal space due the the absence of the frame.
This can be seen on almost all late war armoured vehicles, and is especially
noticable on the very heavily armoured vehicles with their dovetail-like
keying of their frontal armour with their side armour.

The British tended to use bolted-on armour much later than the German or
US.  Examples include the Crusader, Centaur, and Cromwell; the latter two
having especially noticable bolt heads on the turret. A non-penetrating
hit on a bolt or rivet could still shear the fastener off and create a
lethal secondary missile.

Bill Lee



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Re: Montreux Treaty
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:14:45 GMT


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

In article <Bx7CJo.EJv@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.edu.au writes: 
> 
> From  <2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.edu.au>
> 
>  Just out of curiosity I was wondering if any of you (fellow) military fanatics
> out there knew anything about the Montreux Treaty of 1936. It deals with the
> transport of warships through the Dardanelles.
> 
>   From the information at hand I gathered the foloowing restrictions about
> warship movements:
[Treaty details removed]
>   So I was wondering if any one knew how the Russians (or anyone else for that
> matter) is going to get the uncompleted 2nd carrier (in what is now Ukraine)
> through Turkish waters without cancelling the treaty?
>   And how did the USSR get the first carrier through the strait?
> 
The Kuznetsov is officially a "Heavy aircraft-capable cruiser" thus dodging the
requirements of the treaty.  (oddly her sister-ship the Ulyanovsk is designated
as an "air defense aircraft carrier" but the issue is unlikely to arise since
she doesn't seem likely to leavy the Black Sea in anyting resembling a
completed state.)  There are some suggestions that the designation also
reflects the (ex-)Soviet thinking about the role of such ships.  After all, the
aircraft on board seem to take a back seat to the SS-N-19s (which fire through
the flight deck!) which displace a large amount of potential hangar space below
decks and greatly complicates flight operations.  It was never really clear
what role the Soviets anticipated for this class.

-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Back off man.  I'm a political scientist!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joe Kalash <kalash@starnine.com>
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:52:37 GMT


From Joe Kalash <kalash@starnine.com>

In article <Bwy405.D7L@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
>The plan for Midway predates the Doolittle Raid. It was good propaganda that's
>all.

While the plan for Midway existed before the Doolittle Raid, there was no
agreement that it should be used. The Army Generals (and much of the Navy)
wanted an attack on New Guinea (that would put Australia within range
of their bombers). Yamomoto wanted Midway. The Doolittle Raid greatly shamed
the entire military staff, and they wanted to insure that there would
be no repeat of the raid. This meant closing the "hole" in their defensive
perimeter, right where Midway was.

The amazing thing is that from the American view, the Doolittle Raid
WAS just good propoganda. Nobody thought there would be any strategic
advantage...

>Some evidence that anyone thought the US was weak? A quote from someone
>actually saying that the US might be beaten perhaps.

Well, how about this? On November 8,1941 Yamomoto decided that Y-Day would be
on Dec 7,1941. On Nov 10, his chief of staff outlined to the flag-officers
of the Combined Fleet the form and purpose of the operation (all typos mine):

	A gigantic fleet was massed at Pearl Harbor. This fleet will be
	utterly crushed at the outset with one blow at the very beginning
	of hostilities... If these plans should at any stage fail, our Navy
	will suffer the wretched fate of never being able to rise again.
	The success of our surprise attack on Pearl Harbor will prove to
	be the Waterloo of the war to follow. For this reason the Imperial
	Navy is massing the cream of its strength in ships and aircraft to
	assure success. It is clear that even if America's enormous heavy
	industry is immediately converted to the manufacture of ships,
	aircraft and other raw materials, it will take at least several
	months for her manpower to be mobilised against us. If we assure
	our strategic supremacy at the very outset...by attacking and
	seizing all key points at one blow while America is still unprepared,
	we can swing the scale of operations in our favor.

Sure seems to me like they thought they could hit America fast and hard.
By the time America had recovered, they would have the raw materials in
their grasp, plus a defensive barrier the US wouldn't be able to breach.

				I rob from the rich and give to the poor
				I rob from the poor when the rich need more
				I rob from the rich again, but alas
				I never give anything to the middle class
						- Robin Hoodlum

		Joe Kalash
		uunet!starnine!kalash
		kalash@starnine.com

Disclaimer: StarNine knows nothing about what I am saying.

P.S. The quote is pulled from "The Price of Admiralty" by John Keegan,
a book describing Trafalgar, Jutland, Midway and the Battle of the Atlantic.
Quite an enjoyable book (and remaindered for about $3.00!!!).



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:58:48 GMT


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

In article <Bwu9Ku.B4K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:

>AP bombs require high velocity to punch through the armored deck, and
>also need to be going nearly straight down so as to encounter the least
>armor. The attack profiles needed to get the bomb into this attitude
>are high altitude level bombing (hit prob. ---> 0) 


Thats what a certain Japanese Navy captain said at his court 
martial.. his destroyer had been bombed by a B-17! (I forget 
the name..) He decided not to take evasive action since it was 
"nearly impossible" for a level bomber to score hits on a ship. 
With the proper bombsights and training, though, I'm sure it 
can be done.

Wasn't the Prince of Wales sunk by Japanese level bombers? The
difference was that the B-17 did it from a very high altitude.






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Former Soviet Navy Posting Number 2:  Delta II class SSBN
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:32:47 GMT


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


Delta II class SSBN

Type:  Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement:  9750 tons surfaced and 11,300 tons dived
Dimensions:  Length 155 m, beam 12.0 m, draught 8.7 m
Armament:  16 vertical launch tubes for 16 SS-N-8 'Sawfly' SLBM's
	6 533 mm bow torpedo tubes for a typical load of 18 Type 53 dual-role 
		torpedoes
Electronics:  One 'Snoop Tray' surface-search and navigation radar, one low-
	frequency active/passive bow sonar, one medium-frequency torpedo fire-
	control sonar, one 'Brick Group' ESM system, one 'Pert Spring' 
	satellite navigation system, one 'Park Lamp' direction finder, and 
	extensive communications systems.
Propuslion:  Two pressurized water-cooled reactors supplying steam to two sets 
	of geared turbines delivering 37,300 kW (50,025 hp) to two shafts.
Performance:  Maximum submerged speed 25 knots, diving depth 400 m operational 
	and 600 m maximum
Complement:  130

Number Built:  4 for Soviet Navy

Comments:  Built starting in 1974, the 'Delta II' class is a simple extension 
	of the 'Delta I' class, with a lengthened missile section to accomodate
	16 rather than 12 missiles.  This increased offensive power comes at 
	the penalty of slightly degraded underwater performance.  However, the 
	longer external casing blends more smootly into the after hull, meaning
	that the hull produces less flow noise at speed.
	SS-N-8 'Sawfly' Model 2:  Range 9100 km; CDP 1550 m; warheads, one or 
		two 800 kiloton thermonuclear MRV's; guidance, stellar-inertial
	Type 53 dual-role torpedo:  Though my sources do not give data on the 
		capabilites of this weapon, I can only assume that it is
		similar to the US Navy's Mk. 48 533 mm torpedo.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: desert storm operations
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:11:23 GMT


From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)

In article <Bx7C34.Dv5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca> writes:
>while talking about desert storm, i somehow feel it is not as huge a victory
>as it sounds,  iraq. though armed to teeth, isn't a first class military
>power.  their training and tactics are primative, never mind their logistical 
>support.

I'd have to disagree in one case: The Iraqi Scud missile crews. They
continued to operate, despite total enemy air supremecy and a 
_massive_ effort to destroy them. While the missiles were far from
first rate, the crews launching them seem to have been.

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Richard Gilbert <6500rg%ucsbuxa@hub.ucsb.edu>
Subject: Your Request for Simulations Oof Military data links
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:52:02 GMT


From Richard Gilbert <6500rg%ucsbuxa@hub.ucsb.edu>

	We at GRC have some simulations of military communications systems.
Our simulations are generic for the most part, but can be expanded to include
additional protocols.  One of them, called COMPCOM, simulates computer
communications using layered protocols.  So far we have simulated Decnet
and TCP protocols.  We have not had occasion to simulate the Tadil protocols.
However, it might be wotrth your time to find out more about whether our
models would fit your needs.

	I may be had to contact via E-mail, but I can be reached by phone
at : (805)964-77424, X464.  Let me repeat that as there may be an error
in .. what I have typed. (805)964-7724,
X464.

	George Thompson
	General Research Corporation
	Santa Barbara, CA

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler)
Subject: Kilo-class submarines
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:12:23 GMT


From baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler)


>	Heard on the radio news that a FSU Kilo-class sub
> is due to be delivered to Iran in the next week or so, and that
> a US Attack sub will be entering the Gulf in advance of that
> delivery.
>
>	Can anybody post known characteristics of the Kilo-class
> sub and does anyone know what vintage/characteristics the US
> attack sub might have?
>
>	Does this kilo sub pose a real threat to surface
> vessels in the Gulf?  Is it enough of a threat that the kilo
> sub might suffer an "accident?"

The Kilo is desribed in "soviet submarines" published by Arms and Armour
Press (don't remember it's author unhappily).

This sub is a successor for the foxtrots, which are definitely obsolete.
It's a conventional sub, with a drop-shaped hull and is around 2500 tons
if memory serves me. Contrary to the "Tango", the books describes it as
fitted with rather crude sensors (even by soviet standards), and as a cheap
design, for anti-ship coastal partol and for export. Some countries of the
late eastern block and India has also bought some. The same books tell that
the soviet are doing more of them for export than for their own needs.

This sub is dangerous for unescorted cargos, but I doubt that it would be
a problem for the frigates of the US and the Royal Navy.

The only, quite efficient, conventional soviet sub appears to be the Tango.
It is older (made during the seventies) and twice as big as the Kilo. It
was made because the soviets needed a silent hunter-killer sub as an 
interceptor for the northern bastion. At that time, the only way they had to
silent their nukes quickly, was to remove the nuclear power plant. And they
built the Tango.

Emmanuel Baechler.                        | Tel.: ++41-21-693-2732
Laboratoire d'Intelligence Artificielle   | e-mail: baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne  |     or: baechler@liasun6.epfl.ch
MA-Ecublens                               | Standard Disclaimer
CH-1015 Lausanne	Switzerland

Ban the bomb. Save the world for conventional warfare.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Former Soviet Navy
Keywords: Soviet Navy
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:29:11 GMT


From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)

In the past several weeks I have noticed a large number of discussions and 
questions regarding the status of the former Soviet Navy, as well as questions 
about specific data on some ship classes.

In hopes of answering some of these questions, I will be posting a series of 
articles that detail size, armament, electronics and capability data for 
various ex-Soviet ship classes.  

This project will probably take some time, because I have an overload course 
schedule right now.  In any case, I will try to post at least 4 ship types per 
week.

My source for these postings will be Sea Forces Of The World, compiled by 
Christopher Chant, published by Crescent Books, New York, USA, in 1990.  The 
postings will be cross-referenced wherever possible with other reference 
materials.

I plan to move these postins to a dedicated newsgroup, as soon as someone 
e-mails me information on how to start a new one.

Chad Wemyss
chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Rivet popping
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:48:43 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

William Logan Lee <bill@extro.ucc.su.oz.au> writes:

>The British tended to use bolted-on armour much later than the German or
>US.  Examples include the Crusader, Centaur, and Cromwell; the latter two
>having especially noticable bolt heads on the turret. A non-penetrating
>hit on a bolt or rivet could still shear the fastener off and create a
>lethal secondary missile.

	Now this got me to wondering, and while trying to imagine a hit
on a bolt head sending the bolt flying about inside the tank, my mind
went back to the movie Das Boot, where the rivets in the bulkheads were
being sheared and flying about the ship.

	Question: does it happen?  I can't imagine how a rivet, unless
it's just incredibly brittle, would shear like that.  If it was just
sort of cut apart by flexing bulkheads, the bulkheads should have
caved in once their structural integrity gave way enough to allow this
much flexing.  Has anybody seen references to this?  Obviously, sailors
don't often live to tell what implosion conditions were like, but there
must be something to confirm it, else why use it for effect?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >





Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban Fredriksson <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Russian sale to Turkey
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:11:32 GMT


From Urban Fredriksson <urf@ki.icl.se>

So, anybody _what_ sort of military equipment Russia has sold Turkey?
(I only heard it was worth about US$70M.)
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Re: Torpex in WWII
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:08:46 GMT


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


Robert Gannon writes:
#The story is this:  During mid-to-late World War II, explosions ripped
#through munitions storage facilities at Yorktown, Alameda, and Hawthorn
#Nevada.  The problem was subsequently traced to Torpex (an explosive,
#I believe, that is composed of TNT with some kind of additives that
#give it a 50%-increase in power).  It was found that Torpex produces
#hydrogen, and that the explosions were caused by hydrogen ignition.
#The cure, so I have heard, was to mix the Torpex with beeswax.
#
#Can anyone out there add anything?  Dates?  Chemistry?  Names?
#References?  Specifics of any kind?


Torpex was developed in England during the Second World War. Three
compositions were used, each succeeding the previous:

name          RDX    TNT     Al     wax     CaCO3     <--%

Torpex 2      42     40      18
(unwaxed)
Torpex 2      41.6   39.7    18     0.7
(waxed)
Torpex 3      41.4   39.5   17.9    0.7     0.5


The RDX added to the TNT substantially increased both blast and brisance,
while the aluminum increased blast additionally - good properties for a
torpedo explosive.

Waxed Torpex 2 was introduced to reduce sensitivity to shock and bullet 
impact. This addition of wax is quite common with RDX-based explosives.

Torpex 3 used calcium carbonate as a moisture scavenger, as it was found
that moisture in the composition would react to produce gases which either
ruptured the munition or increased shock sensitivity (H2?)


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: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: desert storm operations
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:15:39 GMT


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

In article <BxGrsK.776@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gawne@stsci.edu writes:

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

I have all the respect in the world for the guys who went in, and I didn't mean
to sound as if I was taking credit away from them.  The entire operation was
well-planned, and ran more smoothly than any joint operation in recent history.

My point was, that in spite of their large numbers, only a small percentage of 
the Iraqi army was well trained by any standard.  As far as using the 
technology in their hands, the average Iraqi troops were again, not well 
trained.  In addition, they were being demoralized by constant air strikes, and
starved along with the rest of their country.  

I apologize if it seemed as if I was slighting the efforts of any involved 
personnell, from any service, and any country.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute




Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: WW2 Penetration Tables
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:21:54 GMT


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


WRT the German Panzerschrek and Puppchen, I thought the latter's ammunition
was just the former's projectile with an attached propelling charge to
increase the range. We have one of each in our museum here and they look 
very similar except for the back end. The massive difference in penetration
(100mm vs 209mm) is not possible to account for with the minor differences
in the projectile design.

As to Panzerfaust's actual penetration being less than some sources state,
it's likely that as the war progressed the Germans used more wax in the RDX
in an effort to "stretch" it, and at the % RDX levels used in the Panzerfaust
very small changes in wax content can have large effects on explosive
effects. Sloppier tolerances in the charge liner would also reduce performance.


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: Christopher Gaeth <cgaeth@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>
Subject: WANTED: Civil War programs
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: Civil, War
Organization: U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:39:37 GMT


From Christopher Gaeth <cgaeth@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>


Good morning, 
	
	I realize that this may be an unusual request.  I am
     looking for programs that deal with the Civil War, especially ones
     that show the battles.  Any info or ftp sites would be greatly
     appreciated.  I do have to admit I was rather surprised that there
     was not a news group that dealt with the Civil War given the large
     number of people who study it as a hobby.  Please send e-mail.

Thanks,

Chris Gaeth - cgaeth@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil or cbgaeth@aol.com
From: jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Australia to buy US F111s
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:31:58 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo


From jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan)

Anthony Lee writes:

>With mid-ar refuelling, we can get a lot further.

The problem with mid-ar refuelling is that the enemy likes to shoot down your tankers.  Hence, you have to tank in a safe zone, and if the safe-zone is still too far from your target, you're out of luck.
Newsgroups: sci.military