HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Geoff Miller <ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>
Subject: Re: M-16A2 Testing
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:24:38 GMT


From Geoff Miller <ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>

CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil> writes:

>Testing Proves Today's M-16A2 Best Available

>By Master Sgt. Linda Lee, USA
>American Forces Information Service

>     DoD and four commercial weapons firms spent $48.4 million and
>eight years researching, developing and testing to find the best
>possible individual weapon to replace today's standard issue M-16A2
>rifle.

[Self-congratulatory report deleted.]

Fine, but let's try to be honest about this, shall we?  The M-16A2
was tested against _prototypes_ of new weapons systems.  These tests
did not include more recent designs which are in production, such as 
the SA-80, the FAMAS or the Steyr AUG.  The selection of the former 
two rifles for the UK and France respectively may have had as much
to do with national pride as with the intrinsic merits of the weapons,
but the Steyr design has now won out over the M-16 in a lot of 
countries.


Geoff Miller (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: desert storm operations
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:21:06 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <BxKAzM.FIM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> writes:
> 
> From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>

> True.  But man for man I don't think there is a better trained or more 
> educated fighting force in the world.  I don't know if combat experience 
> really means much in modern warfare any more.

I'd have to disagree.  Various NATO armies ore critical of the US Army because
they rotate officers much more quickly, preventing them getting a thorough
understanding of each job.  The Isreali's would probably be even better than
the Europeans.  In general the US Army seems to come over as the best
superpower army but several of the smaller armies are better trained.  The only
relevant quote I can remember was from a US General who said that BAOR (British
Army of the Rhine) was "the best trained but worst equipped army in the whole
of NATO".  Then again, when you have top class weapons systems your training
doesn't need to be the "best", merely adequate.  US army  training is certainly
more than adequate and this combination of good training and top technology
makes them the best cndidate for world policeman.

> 
> Its true that the intelligence community at least publically overestimated 
> the stregnth and abilities of the Iraqi armed forces, but I know they don't 
> rely solely on electronic means for intelligence gathering.  I think some 
> of the overestimates were intentional for reasons of a measure of safety 
> and a bit of propaganda.  I saw an interview where someone said that the 
> counts from photos and the like where wrong, and I just don't believe it.
> I have a inkling that the high command had a very good estimate of Iraq's 
> actual ability.  Swartzcoffs (sp?) might have been suicide if Iraq was a 
> good as they said.
> 
The Pentagon has a habit of overestimating opponents strengths to help them get
much bigger defence budgets than they really need.  I saw a book on this once
where a retired General corrected the "public estimates" put out by the
military (and with evidence) showed the USSR and other "likely opponents" had
about half of what we credited them for and that their weapons systems were
only half as effective as we are led to believe.
I'll get back to you with the name of the book.


>>The rapid destruction
>>of Iraqi forces  was due to a combination of factors including the technologica
>>l edge and the doctrinal edge (also the fact that the majority of Iraqis
>>in Kuwait thought it was wrong for them to be there).

OK I hate to get flamed but get ready.  I don't believe we destroyed the Iraqui
forces as much as you like to believe.  We didn't surround them when we had the
chance, we still have Saddam in power with some very big forces.  This seems to
be the US way of fighting a war, try not to win it just don't let it get
politically embarasing.


Rob


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: JKG100G@oduvm.cc.odu.edu
Subject: Re: Subs in Shallows (was Kilo-class submarines)
Organization: Old Dominion University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:17:55 GMT


From JKG100G@oduvm.cc.odu.edu

1.  Allow me to add my 2-cents worth.  IMHO, as a submariner who plays
the "opposition forces" during fleet exercises--and with my community
prejudices possibly showing--I agree with those who say that the
shallow-water SSK threat is non-trivial.  _All_ my unclassified
reading indicates the difficulty of the problem:  this does not
mean impossible--just difficult.  And, again, as a submariner,
maybe I'm just prejudiced.
2.  As is more and more apparent, in naval warfare as on the land,
no _single_ weapon or platform is alone the equal of the effective
use of the others working together.
3.  (Standard disclaimer.  The above opinions are my own and not
those of the department of the Navy or any other U.S. government
entity!)
4.  I've enjoyed lurking in on this discussion:  keep up the good
exchange of ideas.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mnelson@bofur.cis.udel.edu (Mark Nelson)
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Shallow Water ASW
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:02:51 GMT


From mnelson@bofur.cis.udel.edu (Mark Nelson)

In article <BxvFrE.9CD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> writes:
>
>A good point here also.  A lot would depend on the ordinance carried by the 
>submarine.  A long range torp allows for mimimum manuevering on the part of 
>the submarine.  Converely, a short range ordinance will require some if not 
>a good bit of movement on the part of the submarine.  On the subject of 
>Iran and the Kilo, I'm not sure that Iran will have access to something 
>akin to the FUSSR MK-65.
>
I doubt that Iran will have anything like the Mk-65 (or Type 65) torpedo:
this is a 650mm torpedo, and my sources indicate Kilos have only 533mm
torpedo tubes.  The Type 65 is supposed to have a 50-60 nm (that's 
nautical mile, not nanometer) range, while the best 533mm FUSSR torpedos
have only about 1/5th that range.  There are western 533mm torpedoes
with ranges in the order of 25nm, but I strongly doubt that Iran could
both acquire them and modify a Kilo to fire them (but this is just a
slightly educated guess.)
-- 
This function is occasionally useful as an argument to other functions
which require functions as arguments.-- Guy Steele Jr. CLTL

Mark Nelson                                       mnelson@cis.udel.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mayhem@access.digex.com (Sgt. Mayhem)
Subject: Re: USSR carriers Varyag, Kuznetov & Ul'yanovsk
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:02:46 GMT


From mayhem@access.digex.com (Sgt. Mayhem)

In article <BxtK79.1Gn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Josh Rovero <rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil> writes:
>
>From Josh Rovero <rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil>
>
>
>There is an article in the latest Naval Institute Proceedings (Nov '92),
>Norman Polmar, "Carrier Conondrum Continues", pgs 119-121.
>
 Well it was almost nice, but not specific enough in area power shifts. So
to add to the total body of knowledge I've decided to do a paper on the
whole deal focusing on the instability the purchase would create.

 
   The following survey is my attempt to quantify the current feelings of 
   the readers of the sci.military newsgroup on the subject of Southeast
   Asia. Every reader knows there is plethora of equipment of the ex-Soviets
   on the market, but the real question is who's going to buy it and put 
   it to what use?
        1. Sex:  Male or Female
        2. Age:  0-18  19-29  30-39  40-49  50-59  60+
        3. Education:  Primary  Secondary  Post-Secondary
        4. Country of origin: (please fill in the blank)  _________________
        5. Occupation: Civil Service, Military, Academic, Private Sector, 
                       Student 
        6. Circle the two countries most likely to have an armed conflict
        in the next 5 years:
                Malayasia            Vietnam
                Australia            Philipines           
                China (Taiwan)       China (Communist)
                South Korea          Japan
        7. This conflict will be primarily a (Land, Air, Sea) war.
        8. What would be the greatest advantage to the countries you 
           chose above in the conflict you predicted ?
               Tanks and Infantry     
               Land based fighters and bombers
               Carrier based fighters and bombers
        9. What will the cause be for the conflict you predicted?
                Ideology              Resources
                Population            Territory
        10. What country will buy the most military equipment from what's
            left of the Soviet Union ? 
                Malayasia            Vietnam
                Australia            Philipines           
                China (Taiwan)       China (Communist)
                South Korea          Japan
   *******************************
   ***MAIL ALL REPLIES TO: *******
   ***mayhem@access.digex.com*****
   *******************************
   
   Thank you for your time. A final tally will be availible at: 
   Mayhem@access.digex.com  when compiled.  If you're interested ask for
   the abstract of the paper this concerns. 
   






Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Re: Random Navy Cap Protocol Question
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:47:05 GMT


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

In article <Bxq1LM.Mq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes: 
> 
> From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
> 
> billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick) writes:
> 
>>I have quite a few Navy ship caps, some with scrambled eggs and others
>>plain.
> 
>>Is it considered rude to wear one if you're not a member of the ship's
>>crew or even in the Navy?
> 
> 	From my time in, it is considered rude if you have no naval
> background and don't look the part, but few care.  If you wear one,
> you are automatically assumed to have served aboard her.  Nobody will
> beat you up, of course, but the scrambled eggs caps are preferable if
> you don't *look* like former Navy as nobody will think you a former
> officer and just think you a poser.

One other hint.  If you are talking about caps from submarines, make sue you
get one with the gold officers' dolphins.  The enlisted personnel tend to be
more upset about people wearing caps with the silver enlisted dolphins since
they have to go through a lot to earn them. 

If they really didn't want you to wear them they wouldn't sell them.  The
procedes usually go to the family fund or some such so it is in a good cause.
-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Back off man.  I'm a political scientist!

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 8 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:17:50 GMT


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

Sunday, 8 November, 1942

Operation Torch begins with landings at Casablanca, Oran, and Algiers.
The landings are supported by large fleets, which ward off attempts by the
Vichy Navy to oppose them.  A French cruiser, 10 destroyers, and 13
submarines are sunk.

At Casablanca the battleship USS Massachusetts exchanges fire with the
partially-complete French battleship Jean Bart and French shore batteries.
Some 35,000 American soldiers under General Patton land at the Moroccan
capital.  General Fredendall leads 39,000 men at Oran, while General Ryder
lands at Algiers with 33,000 troops.

Vichy Admiral Darlan is captured at Algiers, where he is visiting family
members.

A British destroyer and two sloops are lost in the Oran and Algiers harbors.

In general, the resistance of the Vichy forces is confused and delayed,
allowing the initial landings to go relatively unopposed in most cases.
About 1800 casualties are sustained.  Many of the French leaders prefer not
to fight the American and British troops.  Stiff resistance is offered at
Oran, however.

Reporter: john D Hightower <75430.2176@CompuServe.COM>
Reference: "Soldiers Magazine"

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

"It is with stupor and sadness that I learned tonight of the aggression of
your troops against North Africa...  France and her honor are at stake.  We
are attacked; we shall defend ourselves; this is the order I am giving."
- Marshal Petain
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: scrubbing topsides
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:26:42 GMT


From Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>

>From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
>#a scenario might be for coast defence artillery to fire
>#DPICM (cluster) and try and scrub the topsides.  while
> ...
>On the topic of "scrubbing topsides", I was discussing this sort of thing
>with a gunner's mate on I believe it was USS YORKTOWN. He said that if
>they (for Lord knows what reason) were engaging a ship with the 5 inch
>mounts the tactic they would use is to fire prox fuzed rounds targeted 
>just above the ship to strip her of her fire control sensors, and then
>engage with delay fuzed HE to inflict substantial damage. Anybody run 
>into this sort of thing?

The USS Worden (I believe it was) ran into it in a rather spectacular
way off Vietnam, when an air-launched Shrike anti-radar missile homed
in on it by mistake.  The missile did a prox-fuzed air burst just above
the ship.  Now, Shrike is Sparrow-sized, with a puny 66kg warhead,
and it exploded 30m above the ship...  Shouldn't be that bad, right?

In fact, it made a godawful mess.  The ship was dead in the water for
half an hour, a number of men were injured (some fatally), and 60% of
the ship's combat capability was wiped out until it got shipyard-level
repairs done.  The USN was most unhappy.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dave Pierson <pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: Genie missile range
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:43:43 GMT


From Dave Pierson <pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com>

Hansen gives a yield of 1.5-2 KT for the Genie, and mentions a (the?) test
launch to a range of 14,000 odd feet (which seems a bit close, to me  8)>>).

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com	|I am the NRA.
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jan I Wolitzky <wolit@mhuxd.att.com>
Subject: Iranian Kilo / Shallow water ASW / Submarine SAMs
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:23:13 GMT


From Jan I Wolitzky <wolit@mhuxd.att.com>

According to a story on the AP wire today, derived from a report in
today's Jane's Defense Weekly, Iran is building a base at Chah Bahar
for the former Soviet Kilo-class subs it's buying from Russia.

This site is on the Gulf of Oman, between the Persian Gulf and the
Arabian Sea, not at Bandar Abbas in the Gulf as previously believed.
Jane's believes that this implies the subs will be operated mainly
in the Arabian Sea.  How does the mean depth of the Arabian Sea
compare to that of the Persian Gulf?

The report says that a platform on the Kilo that has been delivered,
not present on standard Kilos, can be used for launching "SA-14 or
SA-16" IR-guided surface-to-air missile.

My Aviation Week spec sheet, from 3/16/92, describes the SA-14
"Gremlin" as a solid-fuel, 1-stage, shoulder-launched, IR-guided
replacement for the SA-7 "Grail", with up to 3 mile range.  The sheet
has no information at all on the SA-16.  Does anyone else have details
on this?
-- 
Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 908 582-2998
          att!mhuxd!wolit or jan.wolitzky@att.com
   (Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
           Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: desert storm operations
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:24:47 GMT


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


>From Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>

>: Yes we walked all over them but we were also very lucky and in some
>: cases they were very stupid. If Saddam had invaded Saudi Arabia in August
>: 1990 before we had sufficient troops there the story would have been
>: vey different.
>:
>The progress of the war would be different but the outcome not.  That way 
>Saddam exposed his huge flank to Marine attack which is a US specialty.  There

Care to brush up on your (recent) history here? The marines didn't go around 
in a flanking manouver, the army did. Also, Saddams assumption that the 
coalition couldn't navigate through the desert west of kuwait isn't all that
bad. According to Iraqi Army experience you couldn't navigate with any accuracy
there and if it hadn't been for GPS the coalition would ahve had great 
problems.


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

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

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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: phil@rahul.net (Phil Gustafson)
Subject: Re: WWII Battleships
Organization: a2i network
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:27:20 GMT


From phil@rahul.net (Phil Gustafson)

In article <Bxx2Kn.Jr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:
>
>Actually "CB" for battle cruiser is consistent with USN cruiser nomenclature:
>"CL" for light cruisers and "CA" for heavy [formerly armored] cruisers.

For the record, the Lexington-class battle cruisers of 1920 were to have
been called CC1-6.  CB (Cruiser, Big?) was a new class for the Alaskas.

>I always felt that the ALASKAs were too big and too well armored to be
>considered merely heavy cruisers unencumbered by Washington Treaty limits
>on displacement and armament. IMHO the German Panzerschiffe qualified as
>"post-Washington" heavy cruisers because their gun size and displacement
>exceeded treaty limits while their speed and [lack of] armor was decidedly
>cruiser-like.

After Jutland, there was a strong prejudice against battle cruisers. The
Navy went to great lengths to give the Alaskas some other name.  Contemporary
Jane's called them capital ships:  the USN called them cruisers.

Phil
-- 
Phil Gustafson <phil@rahul.net>

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: JKG100G@oduvm.cc.odu.edu
Subject: Re: desert storm operations
Organization: Old Dominion University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:55:48 GMT


From JKG100G@oduvm.cc.odu.edu

1.  IRT "only TOMAHAWKS and F-117 were used over BAGDHAD":
   a.  The above two were the only ones used _downtown_.  Other aircraft
from USN/USAF were used outside of the immediate downtown area, in at least
to within 10-15 miles of the city center.
   b.  Above information from my present commanding officer, who was CO of
an A-6 squadron and on the first night air raids into the Badhdad vicinity.
(The first night's target was an airfield to the west of the city, about
20 miles west of city center.)

                                     James
(Standard disclaimers)
vicinity.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Michael W. McDowell" <mwm@aps.anl.gov>
Subject: Re: Basic Training
Organization: Argonne National Lab -- APS
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:42:51 GMT


From "Michael W. McDowell" <mwm@aps.anl.gov>

In article 4uy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM, Mark Brown <mbrown@convex.com> () writes:
>
>From Mark Brown <mbrown@convex.com>
>
>SEAN R MCINTOSH <srmcinto@eos.ncsu.edu> writes:
>
>
>>From SEAN R MCINTOSH <srmcinto@eos.ncsu.edu>
>
>
>>Hi! I am thinking of joining the Army and I have a few questions. I would like
>>opinions on what to expect in Basic training.  I would also like so suggestions

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: RPG Combat Rules & Reality
Keywords: rpg
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:47:15 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <BxM629.54s@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> a2husek@rzdspc23.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Carsten Husek) writes:
>
>How effective are kelvar jackets or similar armour? In one Game I play nothing
>but Assault Rifles (or heavier weapons) could penetrate kelvar jackets and
>even then the target got only a light wound !

It depends on the class rating of the particular vest. There are four
classes of protection. Class II is normal police wear and will stop
any handgun, including .44 Magnum, that isn't using special pointed
armor piercing ammo. A Class IV vest will stop 7.62 Nato rounds, but
is heavy since it includes ceramic inserts. Kevlar has enormous tensile
strength and distributes the energy of the round around the entire 
circumference of the chest. Blunt trauma injury is myth in a properly
fitted vest. The guy who owns Second Chance does a demo where he allows
himself to be shot point blank with a full house .44 Magnum. He's done
this over 700 times and has received nothing more serious than slight
surface abrasion from the constricting vest. However, an ice pick will
easily penetrate a Class II vest. Kevlar is cloth, and like all cloth
sharp pointed objects can penetrate *between* the strands of the weave.
Class III and Class IV vests have metal or ceramic inserts that prevent
this, thus making them proof against the pointed bullets fired from
rifles.

>How important is personal toughness ('constitution') in surviving wounds?
>Is it more difficult to kill 'tough guys' than a whimp?

Not necessarily. While mental attitude, often drug enhanced, can keep 
a person attacking after receiving multiple fatal wounds, it won't keep 
them from dying within a short time as blood loss finally drains them. 
A person can die from shock alone, however, and a person with a tough
mental attitude can often stave off shock and survive a wound that
would kill others. And, of course, a person in top physical shape stands
a better chance of survival than someone who is not healthy. It depends
on the exact nature of the wound as well. Disruption of the central 
nervous system by hydraulic shock is usually quickly fatal, as is penetration
of the heart or major arteries.
 

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military