HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian)
Subject: Re: The Bf-109E: A Copy of The Spitfire?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:50:32 GMT


From umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian)

In <Bu9Hs9.GoE@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:


>From rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)


>I have always been a big airplane buff since I can remember.  I was reading an 
>article that claimed the famous german World War II fighter the BF-109E was
>a modified copy of the Spitfire...I dunno by looking at them but I would like
>to know if anyone had any information about this. 



>				Rob

  I doubt that the design of the ME109 was influenced in any way by the
Spitfire, much less copied from it. For one thing the ME109 came into
service 3 years before the Spitfire and ,in fact, 2 years before the
Hawker Hurricane, which was a more primitive design. Messerschmidt might
have been influenced by some of Supermarine's earlier racing airplanes
which were designed by the same person (Mitchell).  I think that both the
ME109 and Spitfire were byproducts of state of the art technology of the
time, and therefore have similar design characteristics (V-12 liquid
cooled engine, thin wing to reduce drag, center mounted landing gear so
as not to overstress the thin wing).

Cheers

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu
Subject: Use of WWII Era Small Arms In Yugoslavia
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:41:12 GMT


From gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu


I've noticed in coverage of the various  wars in Yugoslavia that many
of the Militia forces have been filmed using WWII era small arms.
Although I'm not suprised to see Soviet designs such as the PPSH-41
and 43 sub-machine guns, I was not anticipating seeing German designs
from the same vintage. 
My Question is this : Are the MP-40'S, MG34 and 42 machine guns war surplus
 or did the former Yugoslavian Federal Government take up production of
 these designs after WWII? Or have they been imported from else where in
the Balkens or central Europe ?
On the machine guns I might be mistaken if what I thought was
a 1944 vintage MG34 turned out to be a post war German/NATO M 3.
Any Comments ?
Perry Gelwasser

ALL STATEMENTS/OPINIONS MY OWN AND DO NOT REFLECT THOSE OF STScI








Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Daniel Shoham <shoham@ll.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:24:09 GMT


From Daniel Shoham <shoham@ll.mit.edu>

In article <BuDF4v.Ftu@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:
>
>From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
>
>In article <BuBLLn.GC1@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mark Miller <msmiller@ctbu.rational.com> writes:
>
>>It would not, however, have changed the outcome of the war. Only the
>>amount of time it took.
>
>This is *highly* debateable*. There is considerable evidence to indicate
>that Germany would have had the atomic bomb several months before the
>U.S. did, were it not for resources diverted to the Luftwaffe for use

The German were convinced by the head of their atomic bomb project,
Hiesenberg (of quantum mechanics fame) that the atomic bomb is physically
UNREALISTIC. His computations showed that many TONNES of enriched Uranium
would have been needed. It is still debated if Hiesenberg deliberetly fooled
the NAZI as he claimed after the war, or if he had bungeled the computation
(the only time ever).

>against the bombers. Imagine an a-bomb on a V-2 for a couple of seconds.

Ok, I'm trying to imagine a V-2 failing to lift off because of too much weight.

>The most likely scenario is that Britain would have surrendered in late
>1945. Since plans were also on the drawing board at Dornier for a "New
>York" bomber, the U.S. would probably have been accessible by 1947.

Britain, and certainly the US, would not have surrendered on account of 1
A-bomb while winning the ground war! Surely you don't assume German production
to be above 1-2 bombs/year (and of course production facilities would be VERY
high priority targets for allied air forces).

>In addition to this, Eisenhower regarded the bombing campaign as a means
>to eliminate the Luftwaffe as a threat to his forces on D-Day. The entire
>series of raids known as the "Big Week" was designed to ground the German
>fighters (at least temporarily). Without the daylight bombing raids in this
>period, D-Day would not have occurred - ever.

Not so fast. "Big Week" was a minor diversion. Anyway, D-Day just hastened
the demise of Germany, the Italian front has allready breached the NAZI
perimeter (Rome was liberated BEFORE D-Day).

>Put jets into combat in 1943, and there is no invasion, Germany can devote
>much more of its resources into the Eastern front, London is radioactive
>vapor by 1946, and we're all speaking German by now.

Anyway you slice it, give the Germans jets, A-bomb, victories in Stalingrad and
Leningrad, no Dang-Kirk (sp?) and as many other *reasonable* handicaps as you
please; as long as you put the US+Russia on the same side, the allies would
have won. The massive US industrial base, once shifted into war footing, was
just plain unstoppable! (if you make Russia an Axis power, then *maybe* the
Axis have a chance).

Dan Shoham
shoham@ll.mit.edu
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Birds getting sucked.
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:07:20 GMT
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <BtwJ3B.Cvn@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, utidjian%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David M.V. Utidjian) writes:
> 
> 
> From utidjian%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David M.V. Utidjian)
> 
> I seem to remember hearing, some years ago, that there is a problem
> at some airports with birds, especially seagulls getting sucked into
> commercial and military jet air intakes.  I have heard that this is a
> common problem.
> 
> Is there any "common" solution??
> 
> -poisoning the birds?
> -shooting the birds?
> -scarecrows?
> -sound cannons?
> -making a sound that the birds find unpleasant?
> -an odor the birds find unpleasant?
> -an odor or sound the birds find attractive away from the airport?
> -a decoy that looks like a predator?
> 
> I have heard mention of all of the above techniques...
> What is most successful for coastal airports?
> Are there some that I have missed?
> 
> Any suggestions especially with referrences, however vague, would
> be greatly appreciated.
> 
> David Utidjian
> utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu
> 
> 	"Don't sweat the technique!"
> 				Anon.
> 
> 

Unfortunately, I cannot give you any references.  However, when I was in Texas,
I was a member of a Naval Reserve unit with a then-Commander who was basically
the Navy's expert on bird control/bird strikes.  Most places use sound
cannons (if you are in D.C., this is what is used at National Airport) and
decoys that look like a predator.  Ultra-sonic sound I believe has been tried
but I think that too many near-by pet owners would complain.  Any odors also
could cause problems with the neighbors.

What also has been tried that you do not have listed is making it more
enticing for the birds to be elsewhere (i.e. make some plot of land away
from the airport a better home than the fields around the airport).

There have been conferences on this subject and papers given in some sort of
wildlife management journal.  This might be a good starting place at your
university library.

Good luck.

Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."




========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cashman@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoff Cashman)
Subject: Re: Breaking in green submariners
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:23:31 GMT


From cashman@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoff Cashman)

Some of the ones I have seen....

1) Sound powered phones aboard ship are just that, sound powered.  Requires
   only your voice.  Supposed to be very durable in combat (right)...
   anyways...new seaman on board was sent looking for sound powered phone
   batteries...

2) Same seaman...put into complete foul weather gear, given 10 foot boat
   hook, told to stand on the forecastle and look for the mail buoy.  This
   in a pretty good downpour with relative wind across the deck at +30 
   knots (the XO even got in on this one...ordered the ship into the wind)

3) HT = Hull Technician...generally strong people since they have to do
   alot of muscle work.  Sent different seaman looking for an HT punch.

4) Of course there's the old story about 20 people running fore and aft
   while a new trim officer on a sub tries his darndest to trim the damn
   sub....

5) (One of my personal favorites) Enterprising nuke types get a hold of
   those glow in the dark strings you can buy at any local town fair or
   fireworks display.  Bring them back to ship.  Break them open, cover
   hands, face, and chest of willing pseudo-victim.  Send same running 
   out of main space on nuclear ship screaming "There's a leak in the
   reactor!!!".  Same goo can make for interesting footprints on the 
   bulkheads of a main passageway...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Geoff Cashman  "Disclaimer? What disclaimer?"  cashman@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bentson@CS.ColoState.EDU (Randolph Bentson)
Subject: Re: Where to buy nightvision goggles?
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:16:44 GMT


From bentson@CS.ColoState.EDU (Randolph Bentson)

In article <Bu2BC0.169@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
    kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>
>  U.S Cavary.
>2855 Centennial Avenue
>Radcliff, Kentucky 40160-9000
>
>i believe their catalogues cost $3
>
>they have a range of equipment, from NV goggles ( $4,999.95, with facemask
>an additional $699.95) they have various filters for using in twilight
>hours also.
>
>they also have NV weapon scopes ( $7,299.95! ), Global Positioning Systems
>"perfect for hikers" starting at a cool "$2,295.00"

Garmin hand-held GPS current runs $879 at marine supply stores (I'm not
sure how well they cope with significant elevations above sea level.
Although the data may be inside, the display interface may be "tuned"
for marine use.  I've never had the chance to RTFM.)

You can also find light amplification units at such stores.  I don't know
how they rate with respect to the goggles you've cited.

-- 
    Randolph Bentson                 Colorado State University
    bentson@grieg.CS.ColoState.Edu   Computer Science Department
    303/491-5792                     Ft. Collins, CO 80523

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hp48sx@wupost.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer)
Subject: Re: Use of WWII Era Small Arms In Yugoslavia
Organization: Washington University in Saint Louis, MO USA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:00:56 GMT


From hp48sx@wupost.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer)

The danish armed forces uses lots of the M42 machine gun. 7.62mm. It
uses the same ammunition as the German G3 rifles that is about to be the
normal personal weapon here.

The M42 works very well. Needs some oil, and not too much sand in it.
Then it can fire a few hundred shots before the pipe has to be exchanged
and cooled down. When in a mount it can fire about 1200 rounds/minute.
Guess it is difficult to find anything that is much better.

BTW: A danish newspaper showed a guard with the M42 with the training
tip on it (sorry, do not know the american words), without any hole in
it. So He could not guard very much :-)

And using tracer bullets only in such a beast is great show at night.
Tried this a few times when I was in the air force. If only we had some
more recent submachineguns and rifles.

But now after the TV films from the gulf we get Mavericks for our F16s

-- 
Povl H. Pedersen             hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu
HP48sx archive maintainer

All Opinions (C) Copyright the Intergalactic Thought Association

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi)
Subject: Re: V-1 rocket: why PULSED?
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:27:40 GMT


From doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi)

feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:


>From feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)

>The V-1 (buzzbomb? doodlebug?) propelled itself by PULSED explosions
>/burnings/firings, rather than by the continuous firing associated
>with  earlier and later attack rockets.

>Why was this?
>-- 
>Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
>University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
>Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada	                     

	The V-1 'Rocket' was propelled not by a rocket engine as such
but by a pulse jet.  This was rather easier to manufacture in the
quantities required and were expendable.

	The pulse jet works by using a shutter in the front of the
combustion chamber which can open and close intermittently.  Air is
allowed to flow into the chamber and fuel is mixed into the stream.
When the chamber is full of fuel rich vapour, the mixture is ignited and
the detonation closes the shutter with the exhaust going backwards
providing thrust and then the cycle repeats itself.

	This mechanism is similar to the ramject except that it can
operate at zero forward velocity and does not achieve compression of the
air fuel mixture through inlet shock waves.  The mechanism is very
simple only requiring the one moving mechanism, the shutter compared to
the complex compression and exhaust turbines required for a turbojet or
similar.  It has longer range than a comparable rocket, though much
slower but proved effective for the role in which it was employed.

	It is interesting to note that the Pulse Detonation Engines that
are rumoured to power the secret reconnaisance planes of the USAF
operate on a related principle of intermittant operation though they
don't require the mechanical mechanisms that a pulsejet requires.

	Any additions or corrections appreciated.

					Daniel Oi
					University of Western Australia


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Al Crawford <awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: The University Of Edinburgh - Department Of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:25:12 GMT


From Al Crawford <awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk>


In article <BuBLDx.FyF@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych) writes:
>
> Well, one problem is: where are you going to put the refueling receptacle
> on a prop-driven aircraft?  It can't be anywhere near the front, because
> of the possibility of the propeller interfering with the refueling hose.

Depends on where the props are :-) Had WWII continued for another year or
so, in-flight refuelling may well have been in use. The RAFs Far Eastern
forces were gearing up to bomb Japan from bases in (I think) India. Two
methods were proposed to achieve this - one was in-flight refuelling using
a probe and drogue system, the other was to fit the Lincoln bombers with a
large and extremely ugly saddle tank behind the cockpit. I can't remember
which method was eventually chosen but the work done then on flight
refuelling was the origin of the probe and drogue refuelling system.

With a large 4-engined bomber like the Lincoln, the likelihood of the
drogue getting caught in the propellors really isn't that much higher than
the chances of the drogue getting sucked into a jet intake.

On the subject of these bomber missions (I seem to recall the unit charged
with this was known as Tiger Force but I'm quite possibly utterly wrong)
can anyone remember just what they were going to do about fighter escorts? I
think the Tempest was to be used but I'm not sure.

--
			Al Crawford - awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk
	  Department Of Computer Science, The University of Edinburgh
   Rm 1410, JCMB, Kings Buildings, Mayfield Rd, EDINBURGH, EH9 3JZ, Scotland
	     Tel: +44 (0) 31 650 5165  Fax: +44 (0) 31 667 7209

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Expansionist China
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:16:03 GMT


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <BuKoM0.AM7@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
> There will not be a major war in this region. The fun thing about naval wars
> is that they are over pretty darn quick. The Chinese navy would easily outclass
> anything anyone except Taiwan could put into the water - battle over in a week.
> The technological difference between a Second rate Naval power and a Third rate
> one is just huge nowadays and there would be no chance to put up much of a
> fight.

i should rephrase my last random musings- i had forgotten about those nifty
Taiwanese frigates, both European and homebuilt.  If Taiwan wanted to prove a
point, i suppose they could eject the PRC from the area rather easily (assuming
they were out of range of PRC aircover, which i am)
> Hey we are this huge airbase and communication centre. The US still needs
> some friends in the region.

pretty much guarantee that the US would not allow Australia to be overrun by
anyone.  Even though Bush will tick off all of your farmers with his
electioneering in our farm belt, we still like you.  :)
(hey, what's $750 million in farm exports among friends?)
> 
> The only conflict the Chinese are likely to get involved in is with Taiwan.
> Especially if the Taiwanese vote for independence some time in the near future.
> The Chinese in Beijing and Taipei have made threatening noises about this and
> the Mainland may deliever on this threat if pressed.

Could the Taiwanese keep the Chinese away from their island(s) with naval
strength alone?  Those little frigates are quite modern as i remember, and
fairly powerful for their size.  Are they a match for the PRC's old Soviet
combatants?  How about the airforce?

> Joseph Askew
> jaskew@spam.maths,adelaide.edu.au
> 
More random musings, again, flame away.  :)
James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Homestead AFB
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:26:05 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

As the old saying goes, "There's many a slip 'tween tongue & lips"!

Announcing that Homestead AFB will be rebuilt is fine for now due to
re-election campaign politics. After Nov. though the harsh light of
reality will shine & I'm will to bet that Homestead will never be re-
built. I'm sure everyone can think of an example of some government
scheme that was launched with much fanfare & then never completed.
This will be another example, IMHO.

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:29:01 GMT


From mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)

>From article <BuBLLC.GB3@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson):
> I have read a lot of articles about the V-2 rocket.  Wow!  I can't believe 
> those Germans could acquire space age technology.

Acquire?  They developed it, based on Goddard's original experiments.

> I read articles about the
> mass destruction it did to London.  Why didn't the Germans just concentrate 
> all of their production efforts to building the V-2 and attacking London as
> opposed to even getting involved with a situation like the Battle of Britain.

Because they did not have the V-2 in 1940 (it became operational in
1944, I think), and the military impact of the V-2 was negligible
anyway.  It was a pure terror weapon, and the ineffectiveness of those
was proven fairly conclusively throughout WW2. The Germans lost the
Battle of Britain at the moment when Hitler ordered the switch to
terror attacks instead of dedicated attacks against British air
defense and industry.

Markus
From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:07:13 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada


From youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)


   While in the topic of aircraft going away, here is a little tidbit I'd like
   confirmed (or not confirmed):  I heard the Navy was going to standardize on
   F/A-18s for the carriers.  This would mean the F-14 *and* A-6 would go away.

   Don't flame me; that's just what I heard.  I can't see it happening, because
   of the short legs of the F/A-18 and the big bomb-carrying capability of the 
   Intruder.  The idea of having 5 squadrons of 1 typr of plane might solve
   some problems, but it still sounds like bull to me.  Anymore confirm or
   deny this?

   Scott Young
   youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca
From: tom@dtint.dtint.com (Thomas R. Kimpton)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Phonetic alphabet correction
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:01:46 GMT
Organization: Digital Technology, International


From tom@dtint.dtint.com (Thomas R. Kimpton)

As near as I can remember, here's the Russian (transliterated)
phonetic alphabet:

	Anna
	Boris
	Vladimir
	Grigori
	Dimitri
	Yelyena
	Zhenya
	Zenaida
	Ivan
	Kratki (short Ivan)
	Konstantin
	Leonid
	Mikhail
	Nikolai
	Olga
	Pyotr
	Raman
	Simyon
	Tatiana
	Uliana
	Fyodr
	Tsaplye
	Shura
	Shchuka
	Myakhi znak
	Tvyordy znak
	Eh oborotnaya
	Yuli
	Yakov

I haven't had much use for these in the last 15 years so, if
anyone remembers better, maybe they can correct them.

-- 
---
Tom Kimpton                            tom@dtint.dtint.com
Digital Technology Int.                (801)226-2984	
500 W. 1200 South, Orem UT, 84057      FAX (801) 226-8438
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Daniel Shoham <shoham@ll.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:23:53 GMT


From Daniel Shoham <shoham@ll.mit.edu>

In article <BuKpIr.By7@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> !welty@uu2.psi.com (richard welty) writes:
>
>on top of that (i'll have to dig to find a reference), the leading
>remaining german physicist (who was as i recall was Wolfgang Pauli, but
>i could be wrong on this one) was secretly unsympathetic with the Nazi
>bomb project, and intentionally led it down fruitless paths to insure
>that it was not completed before the end of the war.
>
>supposedly he had the germans convinced that they had to drop an entire
>working reactor on the target.
>
>cheers,
>  richard
>-- 

It was Hiesenberg. He has convinced the NAZI that an A-bomb is not practical.
After the war he claimed to have deliberately misled them. To this day, it is
considered an open question if he really misled the NAZI or bungled the
calculation (which would be his only error, ever).

Pauli, continued to teach physics in NAZI occupied Denmark and NEVER
collaborated with the NAZI. During the war he met with Hiesenberg who MAY
have tried to leak to him NAZI bomb secrets. Pauli came to think that
Hiesenberg was honestly collaborating with the NAZIs. Later on, Pauli was
smuggled to America via Sweden and England to join the US bomb project.

Hope this helps

Dan Shoham
shoham@ll.mit.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military