HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jjian@tsoft.sf-bay.org (City Hunter)
Subject: Re: China to coproduce Mig-31
Organization: The TeleSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 7958
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:47:30 GMT


From jjian@tsoft.sf-bay.org (City Hunter)

In article <BxtK7n.1LJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca> writes:
>According to a recent issue of Air International, China is to coproduce Mig-31
>with Russia.  The first move will be assemble 24 examples from pre-manufactured
>sets and then coproduce further 48 examples.  Some of them will be delivered
>back to Russia.  The rest is presumably going into PLAAF service.  The same
>sources (as well as other sources) also indicated that PLAAF has aquired at
>least 12 Su-27 with further deliveries in the pipeline.
>
>Now some questions. Mig-31 is a dedicated high altitude, high speed interceptor.
>It has a long range, a good radar, has some sort of mini-AWACS capabilities, but
>poor agility and low altitude performance (it is a derivative of Mig-25).  Since
>China is getting Su-27s, which are potent interceptor and counter air fighter,
>have good (better?) radar, superb maneuverability and much more flexible, why
>buy Mig-31?
>
When I first heard of the news, I was puzzled too, but if you think about it,
it does make some sense for Chinese to co-produce Mig-31. As I understand it,
the primary purpose of the Mig-31 for Chinese airforce would be for AWAC duties.According to Aviation Week, 4 Mig-31s flying abreast would make a mini-AWAC
covering about 500-600miles, and they can vector other aircrafts in the region
thru data links.                                      
So why Mig-31 and not AWACs? 
	1. China is a large, yet poor country. To cover most of its airspace
would require quite a few of AWACs aircrafts, and AWACs are expensive.
	2. PLAAF is huge but obsolete, its main fighters are J-7s & J-8s which
are just modified Mig-21s, it'd have a hardtime trying to protect its AWACs if
PLAAF has them. There aren't enough SU-27s to go around, and there are better
things for SU-27s to do than guard AWACs.
	3. By getting many Mig-31s, PLAAF can have the capability of AWACs to
direct the thousands of non-rader equiped Mig-17,19,21s that make up PLAAF. At
the same time, it can have a force of high-speed intercetors, and there's no
need to use Su-27s or other advance fighters to protect this AWACs. It's one
thing to close-in to a converted transport, quite another to close with an
interceptor that can shoot further than you. And when worst comes worst, Mig-31
can still try running, there aren't many aircrafts that can out run a Mig-31.

Just my two cents.

Jie Jian  (jjian@tsoft.sf-bay.org)


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Jutland
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:18:52 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

> From Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
>
> >> Strategically, Jutland was a clear-cut British victory:
>
> I disagree, since basically, Jutland did not change the strategic
> situation at all, it just managed to preserve the status quo.  Coral
> Sea was the high water mark of Japanese expansion in the South
> Pacific, and they never tried again to get at Port Moresby.  I've
> never heard Coral Sea called a clear-cut US victory.

True - Jutland didn't change the strategic situation - but what was
that situation, and who stood to gain the most from the status quo?

By 1916 the Allied blockade was beginning to hurt Germany.  Many
strategic materials had to be imported, and were in short supply.

The British obviously stood to gain the most from a continued
blockade, so unless the Germans were able to break the blockade any
other outcome was a loss for them.  For Germany to win they had to
defeat the Grand Fleet.  For Britain to win they had to retain the
Grand Fleet - the British would have won Jutland even if no shots had
been fired, as they would have been able to continue the blockade.

As for Coral sea - if you lived in this part of the world, or in that
other little island over there ---> a thousand or so miles, you might
think differently about the value of that battle!!!
--
Mike Campbell,
mike@alyosius.equinox.gen.nz
I am no longer surprised when my facts are seen by
someone else as fiction

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: What are Katyusha rockets?
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:56:08 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

> From woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)
>
> Hizballah have been firing katyusha rockets from Southern Lebanon into 'Israel'over the last few days.
>
> Can anyone tell me more about these rockets ?  What are they - what sort of
> warheads - how are they launched - what range do they have etc etc.


The term "Katyusha" was originally a nickname given to unguided
surface to surface rockets by Soviet troops in WWII.  Unfortunately
I don't know what it means!  Another term used, by the Germans, was
 "Stalin's Organ", due to the sound made by the rockets in the air.

The original rocket was 82mm, weighed 8 kg, with a 3.05 kg
warhead, 1 kg of propellant and a range of 5500m.

The term came to be applied to any Soviet Artillery Barrage Rocket,
of which the 132mm variety became the most widely used:
42.5 kg weight, 18.5 kg warhead, 7.08 kg propellant, 8500 m range.

These rockets are typically launched in multiples as a salvo -
hence the term "Salvo (or Multiple) Rocket Launcher"
applied to the launching apparatus, which might be tubes or rails.
A common Soviet practise was to mount the launcer assemblies on trucks.

A more modern version is the 122mm BM-21 Rocket Launcher, first seen
in 1964.  The rockets weigh 45.9 kg, with 19.0 kg of HE aboard each.
Range is 15,000 m, and the truck (of course) carries a block of 40
tubes mounted on a traversing and elevating system on its deck.  This
unit takes less than 30 seconds to fire its 40 rounds!  The Soviet
unit then takes 10-15 minutes to reload, but the Czech version has a
reloader on board which carries one complete reload, and can be done
in 1-2 minutes.

Your Katyusha then, is probably a Soviet-built multiple rocket
launcher (or a copy thereof), firing salvoes of unguided artillery
rockets.  The usual drill would then be to drive off as quickly as
possible to avoid counterbattery fire and reload.

Sources: Weapons of the modern Soviet Ground Forces, Landsdowne Press,
1981;  Mortars & Rockets, WWII FactFile Series, MacDonald & Janes,
1975;  The Russian War Machine, 1917 - 1945, Ure Smith (Sydney), 1977.

Hope this helps.
--
Mike Campbell,
mike@alyosius.equinox.gen.nz
I am no longer surprised when my facts are seen by
someone lese as fiction

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Maurice Blok <mgjblok@cs.vu.nl>
Subject: Back to the future? [ILyushin IL-102]
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:59:13 GMT


From Maurice Blok <mgjblok@cs.vu.nl>

I just read a piece on CIS' newest tankbuster. Weird looking
thing, it look like a Me-262 with a rear-gunner(!).
And that what's so weird! A 21st century Tankkiller Jet with
a rear-gunner??? Have they developed some kind of 
to-the-rear firing missile?

Any comments?


Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Wednesday, 4 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:17:38 GMT


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

Wednesday, 4 November, 1942

Allied aircraft attack Axis columns retreating from El Alamein.  German
and Italian aircraft are unable to counter, grounded for lack of fuel or
because of damaged runways.  The Axis troops suffer great losses of men and
equipment.

Montgomery's X Corps reaches open ground to attack the Axis rear guards, 
capturing the Afrika Korps commander, General von Thoma, and inflicting 
heavy casualties on the 90th Light Division and the Italian Ariete 
division.  Hours after it has been given, Hitler finally authorizes 
Rommel's retreat order.

In all, the battle of El Alamein has cost Germany and Italy 25,000 men
killed or wounded and 30,000 taken prisoner, mostly Italians.  In addition,
320 tanks, over 1000 guns, and 84 aircraft have been lost.  The Allied
forces have lost 13,500 men including prisoners, 500 tanks, 110 guns, and
97 planes.

American soldiers land at Aola, Guadalcanal, 25 miles from the main Marine
line.  Construction troops are included so that an airfield can be built.

A British Merchant Seaman is hanged after being convicted under the 1940
Treachery Act.  The sailor had admitted taking 18 pounds from a Nazi agent
in Portugal.

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

"The Germans have shown great ingenuity in the conduct of submarine
warfare.  Their strategy has been good.   They pick a soft spot and work it
until dividends cease to pay, then they shift elsewhere." - Admiral William
V. Pratt, USN, Retired
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Change of M17A2 mask to M40 mask?
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:22:39 GMT


From cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)

As quoted from <BxM5x3.50E@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> by 92vanatter@gw.wmich.edu:

> 
> From 92vanatter@gw.wmich.edu
> 
> 
> I would like to discuss why the military is changing from the M17A2 
> chemical and biological mask to the new M40 mask?
> 
> The new M40 seems like a step back, with the filter attached from the 
> side of the mask.  I feel the M17A2 was more ergonomically designed 
> with the filters integrated within the mask.  Thus your mask would not
> catch on as many things, more freedom of movement.

Have you ever tried to change the filters on an M17 series mask?  I KNOW that
you haven't done it in a contaminated environment... you're alive to post your
message....

Any mask that you have to take OFF to change the filters has a LITTLE flaw.
How'd you like to be wearing an M17A2 when the other side drops blood agent
and blister agent on you at the same time?  The blood agent clogs the 
filters... requiring you to take off the mask... while you stand in a rain of
blister agent.  Even if you get the filters changed before you have to take a
breath (in the words of Judy Tenuta, "It could HAPPEN!"), you'll probably have
difficulty resealing your mask over the huge blisters which now cover your
exposed skin....


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
"It's 11:59pm, do you know where your congressman's checkbook is?"
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Christopher Morton
{uunet|backbone}!ncoast.org!cmort                      cmort@ncoast.org

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Marcus J. Ranum AXP" <mjr@decuac.dec.com>
Subject: query: origin of artillery measurement units -
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Washington ULTRIX Resource Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:26:34 GMT


From "Marcus J. Ranum AXP" <mjr@decuac.dec.com>


	Can anyone point me towards sources describing the origin of the
use of "mils" and the measurement systems used by artillery? It all seems
to be quite standard worldwide (at least from a glance at Janes) - where
did it come from?

mjr.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: M16A2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:30:29 GMT


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

In article <By4Ln4.D1C@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Eugene Heiss (GWD) <heiss@brl.mil> writes:
>>Fine, but let's try to be honest about this, shall we?  The M-16A2
>>was tested against _prototypes_ of new weapons systems. 
>  So what!   

Prototypes are, in general, inferior to production systems (where all the
minor bugs have, supposedly, been worked out.) By ignoring existing
production weapons, and comparing the M16A2 only to prototypes, the
M16 was given misleading advantage.

>>These tests
>>did not include more recent designs which are in production, such as 
>>the SA-80, the FAMAS or the Steyr AUG.  

>The goal of the Advanced Combat Rifle Program was to double the hit 
>probability of the rifleman using the M16A2 rifle.  No weapon in production
>could achieve this goal.

If they didn't test those weapons, how do they know that? Further, how
could a program with that goal have concluded the M16A2 was the "winner"?
It certainly doesn't meet that goal.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "James Borynec; AGT Researcher" <james@cs.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Battleship Diplomacy
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:29:53 GMT


From "James Borynec; AGT Researcher" <james@cs.ualberta.ca>

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

> In that respect
>16" salvos are an ideal counterbattery weapon in that the opposing 
>artillery gets the point real fast whether they're on target or not.
>Additionally the BB is out of range of most of the artillery being
>suppressed and is relatively immune to those systems that can reach.

A major problem with BB counter battery fire is that it can be
nullified by digging your guns into a reverse slope position.  The
BB rounds are going so fast that they will either hit the hill in
front of you or fly overhead and land a long way away.

j.b.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Ukraine to sell Tu-160
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:22:34 GMT


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

According to Air International, the 19 Tu-160 Blackjack(?) strategic bombers
in Ukrainian hands are literally unservicable because the Russian crews refuse
to pledge loyalty to Ukrain and have gone back to Russia.  Ukrainian government
is considering selling them.

Who would buy them and what does this mean to international power balance?
1. Russia.  The power balance is not really affected.  But do they want to?  Or
perhaps more relevent, do they have the money?
2. China.  The power balance in east Asia will be up side down.  Japan, Taiwan, 
Indochina all the way down to Australia, and possibly India, will get very
worried.
3. India.  Then China, Pakistan will get very nervous.
4. USA.  Only for research or "not letting falling into wrong hands".  But 19
airframes are bit too many for research.

Any comments?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mark Mazina <mmzn@rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Jutland
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:22:59 GMT


From Mark Mazina <mmzn@rice.edu>


In article <stuff omitted>:
|> >
|> >mmzn@rice.edu (Mark Mazina) writes:
|> >
|> >The whole battle was an accident anyway, because the Germans thought they
|> >were taking on just the battlecruiser squadrons and got a very nasty surprise
|> >when the rest of the grand Fleet turned up behind them. Similarly, the 
|> >battlecruisers were never intended to slug it out with the entire German
|> >fleet, though they were so pretty everyone thought they could...
|> 


I didn't write this; could people please be more careful on cut-n-paste citations?  This isn't a flame at any individual nor at the content;
I'd just rather not take credit/blame for things I didn't do.

Mark

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Spy Satellites for the UAE?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:06:00 GMT


From Josh 'K' Hopkins <jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>

Stephen M Jameson <sjameson@fergie.dnet.ge.com> writes:

>I heard on the news this morning a report that the US is considering selling a
>"Super-Secret Spy Satellite" to the United Arab Emirates.  Does anybody know
>any more details than this?  I am primarily interested in the rationale and
>logistics for such a sale, as I don't expect details of the satellite itself to
>be available.

The reason the US is considering it is mainly becaused they were asked.  The UAE
is interested in buying an observing satellite with resolution in the 1-2 meter
range.  While this isn't especially exciting compared to US spysats it is 
substantially better than other commercially available satellites and wouldn't
be too shabby for a country you don't normally consider a major military or 
space power.  The UAE would like to buy the satellite from a US company, but 
should that be impractical, Europe and Russia both have the capabilities 
required to build the hardware.

Just why they want the satellite isn't clear to me, but there has been
speculation that it would be useful for commercial intelligence, such as 
monitoring activities at oil refineries.  The US government can't make up its
mind on the issue, as one side wants to maintain control over space intelligence
and the other wants to provide jobs.  The current proposal, in which the UAE
only gets the data from the satellite but doesn't actually operate it may be
palatable to both sides.


-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

	"Why put off 'til tomorrow what you're never going to do anyway?"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The use of unguided rockets in WWII
Organization: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt 
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:24:51 GMT


From Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>

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

As no-one else has responded (in public, anyway), here is my guess:
They aim unguided rockets the same way they aim unguided cannon, by using
the gunsight to point the aircraft in the general direction of the target
and hoping the rockets hit it.  They probably have to make some allowance
for the fact that a rocket does not fly in quite the same way as a 20mm
cannon shell.

If I'm wrong, no doubt someone will correct me - without too much flaming,
I hope.  If no-one says I'm wrong, I'll assume the above is correct. :-)

-- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cee
 UUCP: ..!uknet!cee.hw.ac.uk!adrian  |  ARPA:  adrian@cee.hw.ac.uk

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Thomas Zych <tz10956@meibm17.cen.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: LTV N-2???
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:22:23 GMT


From Thomas Zych <tz10956@meibm17.cen.uiuc.edu>

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


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

>At a recent postcard show I picked up an extremely interesting card:

>The picture is of a submarine, apparently an unmodified GATO/BALAO (?)
>class, firing a vehicle which closely resembles a V-1 ("buzz bomb")
>rearward from a ramp.

>The V-1-lookalike is basically white, with red and yellow wide
>single
>bands around the nose. The pulse-jet unit is dark gray.

>The caption says "LTV-N-2 Being Launched from Submarine". It's a fairly
>old card, as the printer's address has no ZIP code.

Just off the top of my head - i.e. this could be completely wrong.

I believe this was known as the Regulus missle, and was indeed almost a direct
copy of the German V-1.  Not sure on numbers or intended usage, but from the
immediate post-WW2 period.  From the paint scheme, sounds like a test missle.

+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Tom Zych   tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The University of Illinois           |
|           tz10956@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu |     at Urbana-Champaign...           |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|  The University may have all my money, but the opinions still belong to me. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|             Vegetarians eat vegetables.  Beware Humanitarians.              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: brian@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet)
Subject: Re: Basic Training
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:22:41 GMT


From brian@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet)

Is basic in the Canadian Forces any different?


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Battleship Potemkin
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:36:15 GMT


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

In article <BxKAnx.Ety@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:

>The KNIAZ POTEMKIN TAVRICHESKEY (POTEMKIN - renamed PANTELEIMON after
>the mutiny) had the following armament:
>
>     4     12 inch 40 cal
>    16      6 inch 45 cal
>    14      3 inch
>     4     47mm
>     2     Machine Guns

Of what importance was the Potemkin to the Tsarist navy? Was it 
a flagship, a major capital ship, or a ship of lesser importance? 
Not having seen the movie I'm curious as to what the mutiny was 
about and when it took place. Was the movie a Soviet propoganda 
thing glorifying the Revolution?






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Japanese Heraldry
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:19:07 GMT


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <BxyvBJ.G8D@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, sasrns@unx.sas.com (Neal Smith) writes:
> but I was wondering if anyone could give me some sources on Japanese
> heraldry during 1300AD-1600AD?  I would like books that are detailed
> and have pictures.  
> 
> Thanks
> Neal Smith
> sasrns@unx.sas.com

did you try rec.heraldry?

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military