HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Lung <lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Subject: AFMC News Service
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:24:44 GMT


From Lung <lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil>

                o /             o /             o /             o /
-----Cut-here----X-----Snip------X---Cut-here----X-----Snip------X---Ouch !
                o \             o \             o \             o \

  <<>><<>><<>><<>><>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>>
  <<>> Hq. Air Force Material Command                                    <<>>
  <<>>        Public Affairs                       July 1992             <<>>
  <<>>  Wright-Patterson AFB, OH         Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat     <<>>
  <<>>        A/V 787-7828                            1   2   3   4      <<>>
  <<>>       - - - - - - -                5   6   7   8   9  10  11      <<>>
  <<>>     AFMC NEWS SERVICE             12  13  14  15  16  17  18      <<>>
  <<>>                                   19  20  21  22  23  24  25      <<>>
  <<>>    TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1992         26  27  28  29  30  31          <<>>
  <<>>                                                                   <<>>
  <<>>        * * * * * * * *                                            <<>> 
  <<>>             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                         <<>>
  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>

This week in World War II
     An Army Air Force combat chronology.

     July 24, 1942 --  Fifth Air Force B-26 Marauders, P-

39s Airacobras and A-24 dive bombers (Army versions of the

Navy SBD Dauntless) attack Japanese troops at  Gona, New

Guinea, as the Japanese continue their push towards

Kokoda.  The following day enemy troops get within six

miles of the city.  Australian troops are flown to the

city but cannot stop the Japanese advance and the city is

evacuated July 26.

     July 27, 1942 -- The 97th Bomb Group becomes the

first heavy bomber unit in 8th Air Force to have complete

air and ground units in the United Kingdom.   The Royal

Air Force agrees to use its Spitfires to provide fighter

cover for 8th Air Force B-17s until American fighter units

are operational.  This will allow the RAF to test

Spitfires against the new German FW 190s at high

altitudes.

     July 28, 1942 -- B-17s  bomb German-occupied Tobruk,

Libya.  Nearby in the Mediterranean, B-24s attack an enemy

convoy, claiming hits on two supply ships.

     July 28, 1942 -- Alaskan-based 11th Air Force units

provide air surveys for Army ground operations to Adak and

Tanaga Islands.  For the next two days, bad weather

prevents successful bombing missions against the Japanese

ships and installations at Kiska Harbor.

     July 30, 1942 -- The China Air Task Force base at

Hengyang, China, is  attacked by 120 Japanese aircraft.

Opposition by U.S. P-40s limits damage to the airfield,

used by the China Air Task Force to harass Japanese

positions throughout the Yangtze Valley.  During the 36

hour raid, 17 enemy aircraft are downed while three  P-40s

are lost.
From: mat@uunet.uu.net!mole-end
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Why execute spies?
Summary: ``Why We Fight''
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:08:06 GMT
Organization: :


From mat@uunet.uu.net!mole-end

In article <1992Jul26.181603.29313@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Peter Shyvers) writes:
> From pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Peter Shyvers)
> In article <1992Jul22.170635.20599@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
> >From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

> To see how hard the US worked to overcome that, you'd have had to see
> Frank Capra's magnificent (propaganda!) film series "Why We Fight". I
> understand here in the States the films were immediately archived after the
> war, or destroyed; Capra presented a withering view of the Germans, Italians,
> and Japanese. ...
 
> [Further digression: Capra didn't shoot much of the footage. He simply wove
> together propaganda films from the three nations and added a voice-over. Very
> stunning, and quite motivating.]

This gets a page or so in Perret's *There's A War To Be Won*.  Capra set
out to study the genre, and was given access to German, Italian, and
Japanese films held by the Captured Property Office.  These showed the
local forces as `swaggering conquerers.'  They were meant to swell the
locals and cow the enemy.  What Capra bet on was that Americans do not
take kindly to that kind of treatment.  ``Here was the enemy as he saw
himself.''  Capra's films were used not only by the US, but by other
Allied nations, including the USSR.

I've never seen them; I'd like to.  Recently, some of the prettier WWII
Nazi films have made it onto VHS (including *Triumph of Will*); perhaps
the DoD can be persuaded that Capra's films are historical material,
especially now when defense dollars are about to shrink :-)

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

	Serendipity is damnfool good luck that you just happen to
	be able to take advantage of. --Aaron Yallow
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 uunet!mole-end!mat, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: billb@is.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)
Subject: Re: Phalanx Ammo
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:09:37 GMT


From billb@is.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)

In article <1992Jul28.130158.24346@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene) writes:

|> This is a pretty sweeping statement.  In fact, for most applications DU is not
|> the round of choice.  The M61 cannons in most U.S. aircraft usually fire High
|> Explosive, Incendiary rounds, for example.  Even the big GAU-8 carried by the
|> A-10 often fires a non-DU API round.  Similarly, tanks, a big user of DU
|> rounds, also use HEAT rounds.
|> 
|> Theere are a variety of reasons not to use DU rounds.  If one wants
|> fragmentation DU is not a good choice and so on.  One of the main reason for
|> the use of other types is cost.  Depleted uranium is hellishly expensive.  If
|> you can get by with somethiing cheaper, it's not a bad idea.

The relative expense of DU is offset by having little further use, tungsten however
does have other uses.  (A DU lightbulb, anyone?)  However, while the GAU-8 has
another round availible, the choice is generally DU.  (Any 'Hog drivers out there
care to settle the dispute?)  This is also true for the A-1W, AH-64, and many other
of the *light* anti-armor weapons systems.  Tanks, in general, AREN'T big du users.  The
APDS rounds do have a tungsten (osmium ?) core.  I believe this is do more to the
metallurgical properties of tungsten (easier to work with in a big dart), rather than 
as a slight against du.  (Again, same disclaimer as before, I'm at my terminal, not 
in the library cuddled up to Jane's). 

Side note: HE and incendiary are two different explosives.  Surface burning incendiary
rounds have little effect at air combat speeds. 

-- 

Bill Blackwell             P H P <==me!   "A just request is to be met
billb@owlnet.rice.edu     F L L F       in silence, by the act."
Houston, Texas, USA          8       -Dante Alighieri "Inferno" XXIV ln.77-78
"My opinions are mine, no one else is that stupid"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Tracers
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:45:48 GMT


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


Iskandar Taib writes:
#the projectile. Do they use lead or is it some exotic
#metal in the Phalanx projectiles?


The Mk 68 projectile used in the Phalanx' 20mm Mk 149 cartridges is
of the APDS type, with a DU penetrator. Tungsten is to be used in the
future.



Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Thomas A. Russ" <tar@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: Torpedo Defense (was DOWN)
Organization: USC-ISI
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 13:35:25 GMT


From "Thomas A. Russ" <tar@isi.edu>


In article ... sjameson@fergie.dnet.ge.com (Stephen M Jameson) writes:

   In article ... jeffc@hpsadm5.sad.hp.com (Jeff Crowell) writes:

   >
   >A fun idea: since virtually all torpdoes have influence (i.e. non-contact
   >exploders which trigger off changes in Earth's gravitational fields), why
   >not mount a device in the anti-torp which generates a BIG flux in the
   >grav field?  Badguy torp senses change, goes BOOM!
   >

   Anyone got any good ideas for a portable (small enough to fit in a warhead)
   electrical/mechanical means to generate this BIG gravitational flux?

I think a standard 5cm diameter black hole should do the trick.
--

Thomas A. Russ                                             tar@isi.edu    
USC/ISI, 4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292      (310) 822-1511

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: What is present/planned alert status of US ICBMs?
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:18:04 GMT


From sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)

In article <1992Jul17.191928.29099@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>I can't comment on the alert status, but if Aviation Leak is to be
>believed, the fate of the MXes and all pre-III Minutemen is settled:
>they're going to the scrap heap, per the latest US-Russian agreement.

MMIIs will end up going in storage and some will go to SDIO for test articles
and launching payloads. I think the same will end up with MX. While we (United
States) have 50 in silos, there are about 100+ MXes actually produced and
built, based on 100 missiles expected to be deployed + the rounds for testing
purposes. 

>The IIIs will be retained, but will get reloaded with only a single
>warhead apiece. 

Yah, verification of this little fact is going to be a gem for both sides. Some
years down the road (5-10?) we may see a protocol to START to allow a one-time
build-down of Midgetman for the United States to replace the IIIs, while the
soviets stick with their single-warhead mobile on their side. 


   Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United
   States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA. 
                    Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction.     
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: <RHG@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: The faulty Mark VI torpedo exploder
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 13:35:07 GMT


From <RHG@psuvm.psu.edu>

I wonder if someone could help clear up a question:  What torpedo
body was used to carry the Mark VI magnetic exploder that blew up
the hulk of the obsolete submarine L-8 in 1926?  I thought it was
a Mark-14 torpedo (that gave so much trouble during WWII), but
my references say the Mark-14 wasn't developed until 1931.

Thanks.  (This is for a book on torpedoes in WWII.)
======================================================================
Robert Gannon              |  Bitnet:    RHG@PSUVM
35 Burrowes Bldg.          |  Internet:  RHG@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Penn State                 |  Phone:     814 355-4800 or 355-0943
University Park, PA 16802  |  Fax:       814 863-7285

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wadley@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Steven Wadley)
Subject: Quantas and Inf Insignia
Keywords: Quantas, Insignia
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:40:41 GMT


From wadley@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Steven Wadley)




Regarding two recent sci.military postings...

First-- The Quantas airliner warning was a classic military SNAFU.
The Aegis cruiser USS Cowpens (CG-63) was participating in the Tandem
Thrust exercises off the California coast.  Without saying so, one
main purpose of the exercise was to pass down the line lessons learned
from recent activities in the Persian Gulf.  As is often done by
navies all over the world, passing commercial traffic was used as
targets for tracking and engagement planning.  The Quantas flight
filled the role of a civilian flight in the wrong place at the wrong
time and was tracked, identified, and warned off.  (Remember the Iran
Airbus and the Vincennes.)  The warning, however, was not supposed to
be transmitted but went out over the UHF anyway.

When the Quantas crew heard the warning, they reacted appropriately
and found another place to be.  They filed a report after landing and
this report was passed on to Navy legal in Washington D.C.  Washington
contacted CINCPAC in Hawaii which was running the exercise to find out
what was going on.  CINCPAC hadn't heard about this and command
doesn't like to be surprised.  The bigger problem for the crew of the
Cowpens was not having accidently transmitted (this kind of thing
happens) but neglecting to send the word up the chain.  At no time was
the Quantas jet in real peril of destruction except, perhaps, to the
upholstery in the cockpit.

Second-- The infantry insignia that has a hexagonal shape is for the
36th Infantry Regiment.  The regiment was originally organized at
Brownsville Texas and the hexagon represents the shape of Fort Texas
which the regiment defended during the Mexican War.  The lone star in
the center is, of course, for Texas.  

During WW2, the regiment was the 36th Armored Infantry and
participated in the campaigns from Normandy, the Ardennes, and the
Rhineland (including the Siegfried Line for which it earned a
Presidential Unit Citation.)

Hope this clears some things up

-- 
Speaking for himself, Steven D. Wadley (wadley@asw.ds.boeing.com)
         OR  (wadley@bcstec.ca.boeing.com or uunet!bcstec!wadley)


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: John Lerchey <jl4l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Grenadier units (Re: some civil war firsts).
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:06:51 GMT


From John Lerchey <jl4l+@andrew.cmu.edu>

Excerpts from netnews.sci.military: 12-Jul-92 Grenadier units (Re: some
c.. Iskandar Taib@silver.ucs (2085)


> low piping, and the regular line infantry wore white. Separate chasseur 
> regiments also existed (as they did in the English army.. the 43rd,
> the 52nd Light Infantry and the 95th Rifles. The British didn't sub-
> scribe to the battalion column charge and didn't have Light Infantry 
> companies in Line battalions). 


I've been playing wargames in the Napoleonic era for over 10 years and
according to all of my research, British Line Battalions had both Light
and Grenadier Companies.   The "lights" had a white pom-pom with a green
center on their shakos, the grenadiers were all wite pom-poms and the
line companies pom-poms were white with a red center.

John K. Lerchey
Carnegie Mellon University
jl4l@andrew.cmu.edu

"Do you _really_ think that anyone else would take credit for _these_
opinions?"
From: pstinson@pbs.org
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: 50 Years ago: Gen. F. Bradley at Yakutsk
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:13:39 GMT
Organization: PBS:Public Broadcasting Service, Alexandria, VA


From pstinson@pbs.org

50 years ago this September, Gen. Follett Bradley completed the final
technical negotiations in Moscow that permitted the Alaska - Siberia
air route to be established.  

As the general flew along this route towards Alaska, his B-24 was disabled by
minus 30 degree weather at Yakutsk and had to be left behind.

Does anyone know how Gen. F. Bradley got back to the United States?
Was this originally a two plane operation?  If so, the crews could have doubled
up, but I have no clear evidence there was a second plane involved from the
start.  If the general's plane was on its own, then was someone sent after him
or did the Russians fly him into Alaska?
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Muskets and Archery
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:24:47 GMT


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

In article <1992Jul20.132346.25036@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes:

|You bet. Before electrolytic aluminium smelting was developed, it was
|produced by "bomb" reduction. A charge of ore is mixed with a
|powdered metal (often magnesium) inside a thick steel container, then
|heated in a molten salt bath. At the right temperature, the mixture
|flashes over and the ore is reduced to a lump of molten netal.

Hmmmm.....


If Aluminum was so difficult to extract from the ore, how did they
get the Magnesium? It is even harder to reduce than aluminum is. 




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: B52 Question
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:51:53 GMT


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


Toby Hughes writes:
#Many jet engines, the ones on the B-52 and F-105 for example, have a water
#injection system whereby water is actually pumped into the engine to provide
#more mass in the exhaust.  In the 'every action has an equal and opposite
#reaction' principle, the more mass that is expelled by the engine, the greater
#the forward reaction (thrust).  Simple, but effective.  Under some high load
#or temperature conditions, unavailability or loss of water injection was a
#'no-go' factor.


My uncle was a crew chief on KC-135As, and has told me basically what Toby says
here. The aircraft would vibrate tremendously when the water injection was
turned on. The best part was having to abort a takeoff with a max weight
aircraft when the water injection failed - made the brakes real warm :)


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: AF News Svc 07/27/92
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:52:28 GMT


From Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>



> 598.  Logair termination

[....]

>      Four airlines, Southern Air Transport, Evergreen International, Express
> One International and Kitty Hawk Air Cargo, are the airlines comprising the
> Logair system.


Are these airlines purely commercial, or do they have any overt/covert links
with the US government & its various branches.

I know SAT certainly has - what about the others ?


          Andy Dingley    dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Subject: TNT equiv of Semtex
Organization: Dept. of Independence
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:19:03 GMT


From packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)

What is the TNT weight equivalent of Semtex? This was
the explosive said to have been used in the bomb
explosion reported recently in Palermo.
From: anderson@bellman.lanl.gov (Alan Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: some civil war firsts.
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:47:33 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory


From anderson@bellman.lanl.gov (Alan Anderson)


Lynn Montross in "War Through the Ages" lists these as American Civil War firsts:
1) 1st duel between ironclad warships
2) 1st railway gun
3) 1st electrically exploded torpedo
4) 1st recorded instance of a vessel being sunk by a submarine
5) 1st metallic cartridges were invented for the 1st breach loading repeating rifles
6) 1st demonstration of the machinegun on the battlefield
7) 1st appearance of wire entanglements
8) additionally, recent inventions which first proved their worth in large scale operations included the revolver and the rifled cannon.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: casey!kevinc@uunet.UU.NET (Kevin C. Castner)
Subject: Re: 10 Worst Generals
Organization: UPS Research & Development
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:00:52 GMT


From casey!kevinc@uunet.UU.NET (Kevin C. Castner)

70754.3075@CompuServe.COM (70754.3075@CompuServe.COM) writes:
: 
: From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
: 
: >From mat%mole-end@uunet.UU.NET
: >	Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter C. Short
: >_Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History_ presents a pretty good case
: >that these were parade-ground officers incapable of understanding
: >the information they were given or of exercising basic prudence to
: >protect the forces with which they were entrusted.
: 
: In fairness... in one of Dunnigan's books, he observes that in almost any
: substantial war, there would be a high attrition rate among senior US
: commanders in the early phases, as the incompetents screw up and get
: booted out.  The US military doesn't fight wars often enough to stay
: in fighting trim; its traditions and operating practices are heavily
: biased towards peacetime.
: 
This is not only true of the U.S. Military but most military organizations 
worldwide.

Dunnigan explains this is so because it is difficult to quantify good wartime
qualities in peactime.  As a result people who "look sharp" but can not handle
wartime needs rise to the top.


  ============================================================================

	Kevin C. Castner                                 kevinc@ups.com

  ============================================================================
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Marines, are they needed?
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:07:22 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing


From HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)

In <1992Jul26.175840.27199@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jmc@sail.stanford.edu writes:

> 3. My impression is that naval air power was not of much use against
> land targets in Libya or in the Gulf.  It seems that too much of it is
> optimized for air-to-air combat in defense of the carriers themselves.
> The Aegis cruisers would be useful against an enemy with substantial
> air power, but we don't have any at the moment.

  For the first point here, it would seem this is a good argument for
changing the the aircraft complement, not ditching the carrier fleets.  (Could 
you imagine A-10's flying off carrier decks?  Never happen, but I do drool at
the thought...8^)) The carrier is still the only reasonable and fairly certain 
way of projecting air power into a coastal area (land bases may not be 
available).

  As to the second point, it is rarely a good idea to cut down on the defenses
for such a valuable vessel.  It doesn't take all that many planes to launch
a frightening number of a/s missiles.

> I was told that in the Gulf, the Navy was inhibited by the prospect
> of mines and that they could not co-ordinate air strikes with the
> Air Force because of lack of high speed digital communication.  (The
> daily 700 page air tasking document had to be delivered on floppy
> disks.)

  I also understand it had to do with the differing philosophies between the
two branches.  The air force preferred very structured, semi-rigid plans,
while the navy was more inclined to maximize flexibility.  This difference
no doubt stems from the different expected operating environments for each.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.military