HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick.eves@canrem.com (Patrick Eves)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: carrier info.wanted !
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:56:21 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>



Hi there.  I'll take a crack at this, with the understanding that there
will probably be some errors, and others will no doubt delight in 
correcting them...

SI>1) How many carriers do UK,USA and France have? (names if possible)

UK - 3 light carriers
US - 14 fleet carriers plus 13 "helicopter carriers" called LHAs, that
most other countries would consider light aircraft carriers (they actually
do operate V/STOL Harriers).
France - 2 light carriers (but bigger than UK's "light carriers") and one
helicopter carrier.

SI>2) What kind of aircrafts are they using at their carriers?

UK - Harriers, plus Sea King and Lynx helicopters.
US - F-14s, F/A-18s, A-6s, S-3s, E-2s, Sea Kings, SH-60s...I dunno, lots.
France - F-8 Crusaders, plus choppers and one other attack jet that I forget
right now.

SI>3) What kind of defensive weaponry is usually fitted on a carrier (exept
SI>   for the planes of course)?

Usually just close-in antimissle/anti-air systems, like Phalanx and Sea
Sparrow (on US ships, other countries use their equivalent systems.)

SI>4) Did UK use their carrier(s) at the 'Falklands-War'?

Sure did.  Couldn't have won without them.

SI>5) When is the average western carrier built (-50:s -60:s ...)?

Most of Britain's and France's were built in the '60s, I believe.  At least
one of the US carriers, the Midway, dates back to 1945.  The bulk of them are
'60s and '70s vintage.  New ones are being built at this moment.
 
SI>6) Are there any major differenses between British,French and US carriers.

Many.  American carriers are big, very big.  The newest displace around
95,000 tons.  British and French carriers displace around 16,000 and 22,000
tons, respectively.  This means many more aircraft, of many different varieties,
are carried.  As one fellow put it, "An American carrier air wing would make
a great air force for a small country".  British and French carriers carry
smaller numbers of aircraft, of only one or two varieties.  The newest American
carriers are nuclear powered, whereas British and French ones aren't, although
the French are building two new nuclear powered ones.


There, that's my bit.  Hope it was of some help.

Pat
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ Ensign Pillsbury?  He's BREAD, Jim!
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Gravity Bombs (was Re: Is this true?)
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:20:12 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In all the discussion of high yield warheads, several folks have used the
term "gravity bomb".  Would somebody please elaborate on the difference
between a gravity bomb and a more conventional nuclear weapon?

[mod note -- from what I've read, a "gravity bomb" is a free-fall weapon
(possibly retarded by parachute), where as other "conventional" nuclear
weapons include the SRAM, warhead on a ALCM, or a MIRV from a SLBM or ICBM.

Steve]

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 MSgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:49:11 GMT


From pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)

In article <C19o9K.46A@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Chad Barret Wemyss
<chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu> writes, in part:

>1)  All large caliber (23mm and above) anti-aircraft shells have a fusing 
>system that causes them to explode at a preset altitude.  In theory, they all 
>explode at or around that altitude, 

	To expand a bit, "preset" means "preset at firing time".  The fuzes
	were adjustable, and set to the predicted (radar, optical) altitude,
	or, rather, the predictied time of flight to reach that altitude.
	Originally done by hand, by mid WWII, much of this had been semi
	automated, with analog computers driven from the radar (optical)
	inputs, as much as possible.  The fuzed shell was poked into an
	opening, and the machine set the delay.

As to the ffect of ground fire, there were published reports, between WWI and
WWII, based on small scale actions (Central/Sout American wars, for one).  These
argued that the effect of strafing fire, on trained troops was minimal, and that
disciplined return fire could, at least, keep the raider up.  How accurate,
how applicable to other conflicts, and how applicable to more modern weapons
systems, is left as an exercise for the student....

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: John Walker <walker-john@yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Yale University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:47:41 GMT


From John Walker <walker-john@yale.edu>

In article <C17vLw.Eo6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Geoff Miller
<Geoff.Miller@corp.sun.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From Geoff Miller <Geoff.Miller@corp.sun.com>
> 
> 
> drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (david.r.wells) writes:
> 
> >But 5 meg bombs are awfully rare these days. Even US ICBMs don't carry
> >much more than 350k warheads. 
> 
> Why are megaton-range weapons rare in this day and age?  Also, what are
> typical yields of the various nuclear gravity bombs still in inventory?
> 
Multi-megaton warheads on missiles were largely necessary because of the
inaccuracies of early-generation ICBMs and SLBMs.  Modern missiles are
accurate enough to obviate the need for large yields.  As the saying goes,
"Twenty kilotons on the roof does it every time."

In general, larger yields require warheads that weigh more.  Heavier
warheads mean less range, or fewer RVs...  So it is generally more
efficient to make a missile more accurate, reduce the weight of the
warhead, make the missile smaller, cheaper, etc.

Gravity bombs are still usually pretty large.  US bombs range from 1 to 5
megatons, the FSU has bombs of 5, 25, and 50(!) megaton yields.

Note that there are a number of limited production run missiles with large
warheads.  There is a SS-18 mod, for example, with a (I believe) 20 megaton
single RV.  Presumably with Cheyenne Mountain chalked on its side...

For pretty complete details of current strategic weapon systems, check the
IISS's The Military Balance.  It is one of the better and less biased
available sources.

John Walker          
Yale University      
walker-john@yale.edu       

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Interesting Article on Japanese WWII Radar
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:57:10 GMT
Organization: Sun


From fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)

>From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
>James Parkyn <jparkyn@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>> Maybe the microwaves could disrupt the ignition system or cook the pilot,
>> but there were no control systems that I can recall until almost the end of the
>> war in planes such as the B-29 that had empty-state devices (vacuum tubes) in
>> (gasp) analog fire control computers. I really can't remember if they had
>> tube autopilots. 
>
>Most if not all American bombers had an autopilot.  If they used the
>Norden bonbsight, they had to because the bombsight was coupled to the
>auto pilot and was flying the airplane during the run in to the target.
> These autopilots were gyros I believe, I don't think tubes were
>involved.

The Sperry autopilots were gyro types.  The earliest flying experiments
with a Sperry-type autopilot were done around 1918 with a gadget called
the Doodlebug.  Nothing like the later V-1...sort of like a Nieuport with
no visible pilot.





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Friday, 22 January, 1943
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:37:21 GMT


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

Friday, 22 January, 1943

Russian tanks lead an attack which captured the Salsk rail junction,
southwest of Stalingrad.  A renewed attack on the German Stalingrad
pocket is launched, proceeded by a massive artillery bombardment.

American attacks on Guadalcanal make progress, with sizable gains toward
Kokumbona.

German forces retreat from Tripoli, taking with them as many supplies as
they can and destroying much of the dockworks.

The last Japanese resistance in Papua ends.  About 7000 Japanese
soldiers have been killed in the New Guinea campaign; Allied losses are
around 3500.

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

"Rations exhausted.  Over 12,000 wounded unattended in the pocket."
  - General Paulus, commanding the Stalingrad pocket
"Surrender is out of the question." 
  - Adolf Hitler
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Snipers at Stalingrad
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:06:32 GMT
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa


From bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)

>From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
>Subject: Re: Snipers at Stalingrad
>I don't know anything about Denver, but I have heard of another famous,
>unlikely personality who was: Dr. Ruth (the sweet, grandmotherly, sex
>"expert"/therapist/whatever) was a sniper in the Isreali army in the
>early 1950s)... (Yes... I do have a source: P. J. O'Rourke's interview
>with her...)

	Hey, hey, hey!!!   Anyone know what she was shootin'?????!!!

{Sorry, Mr Moderator -- couldn't "hold back" on that one!]

[mod note -- This one goes through -- I too have a sense of humor.  Hmm,
maybe we have a plot for Quantum Leap here -- Sam's already leaped into her
once, maybe he could leap back into her back in her sniper days.  Given
QL's unique view of history through leaping, it's not too implausible.
Remember you read it here first -- if they use it, NBC owes me megabucks!

Steve]

Cheers,
Keith Coman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we pay dogfood salespeople more than we   :  Dept of Management
 do teachers, we should not be surprised if   :  Rhodes University
 our dogs eat like kids, and our kids end     :  Grahamstown, 6140
 up reading like dogs."                       :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Operator <operator@udcf.gla.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: AF News Svc 01/14/93 - Iraq Raid
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Service
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:34:47 GMT


From Operator <operator@udcf.gla.ac.uk>

Anthony Lee <anthony@cs.uq.oz.au> writes:


>>From the news I heard the Iraq simply turn off their radar this 
>time and the HARMs missed their target.  Can anyone confirm this
>and if it is true then is there another way of knocking out
>the Iraqi's AA radars ?

They are no good switched off.   Even making them switch off in the knowledge
that they will attract a HARM will suppress the SAM - although they are still
there for the future.

If you want to get rid of them,  get the weasels up and when the Iraqis switch
off,  knock them out with cbu at close range, or something, while they are not
a threat.


-- 
 @@ WOODY____________________________________________________________________
@@@ Ian Woodrow, Computing Service, Uni of Glasgow, GLASGOW G12 8QQ, Scotland\
 @@         <FONE:  041-330-4800     | e-mail: woody@compserv.gla.ac.uk>      >
  @ _________ FAX:__041-330-4808_____________________________________________/
From: aylwyn@maths.tcd.ie (Aylwyn Scally)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: German nuclear research in WW2
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:52:58 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.


From aylwyn@maths.tcd.ie (Aylwyn Scally)

It seems to be a commonly held view that by the end of the Second World War,
German physicists were very close to developing their own atomic bomb.
Coupled with the development of the V2 missile, this could have completely
changed the outcome of the war.
However, Gleick, in his biography of Feynman, suggests that most physicists
in Britain and the US at the time doubted the existence of a German atomic
programme, on the grounds that there had been very little published research
from Germany in this field.
While this may be the case, I do recall reading somewhere that the large
heavy-water distilling plant (the name of which I cannot remember) in Nazi-
controlled Norway was considered a serious-enough threat for them to try to
destroy it.

Does anyone know of any evidence confirming or disputing the existence of a
German nuclear research programme? If there was one, was it very far
advanced by the time the war ended?
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: AMRAAM, CIWS, and Dale Brown
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:59:50 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden


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

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

>In article <C143uo.3HI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

>>You're talking about the RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile). It didn't use the 
>>Phalanx turret, it used the Phalanx mount. It's operational with both USN and
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^

>Which ship classes have the RAM?
>I didn't know that it was yet operational.

I saw it in one of the rags. I think the first ship carrying RAM was a Wasp 
class vessel. Sorry, actual name eludes me right now.

cheers




--
     Erik Svensson
    Research Officer            National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
 Guided Weapons Division        Stockholm, Sweden      eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
 -- Hobbes
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rocher@husc8.harvard.edu (Jean-Marc Rocher)
Subject: Re: Snipers at Stalingrad
Organization: Harvard University Science Center
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:54:34 GMT


From rocher@husc8.harvard.edu (Jean-Marc Rocher)

In article <C15y9p.K44@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>    Also, John Denver ( Yes the Singer ) was a sniper in Vietnam, and I believe
>that he had 70+ confirmed kills. 80 to 100 does sound reasonable for
>Stalingrad.
>
>[mod note -- I asked Michael for confirmation of this, and he replied that
>he had read it in a non-military publication.  Can any other readers out there
>verify that John Denver was a U.S. Army sniper? 
>
>Steve]
>
>Michael Kupka
>	
According to alt.folklore.urban, this seems unlikely, as he was writing and
performing in the late 60's and throughout the 70's.
Makes a nice story, though.

				...Jean-Marc Rocher
"Sunshine, on my *BLAM*"  


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Frank Kastenholz <samsung!ulowell!vax.ftp.com!kasten@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., North Andover, Massachusetts
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:47:58 GMT


From Frank Kastenholz <samsung!ulowell!vax.ftp.com!kasten@uunet.uu.net>

In article <C17vLw.Eo6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Geoff Miller <Geoff.Miller@corp.sun.com> writes:


 > >But 5 meg bombs are awfully rare these days. Even US ICBMs don't carry
 > >much more than 350k warheads. 
 > 
 > Why are megaton-range weapons rare in this day and age?  Also, what are

The destructive effects of the bombs do not increase as the yield increases.
A 1-Megaton bomb does not cause twice the destruction, have twice the blast
radius, etc, as a 500 Kiloton bomb. 

There might also be a reliability issue. If a city has one 1 big bomb
targeted on it and that bomb doesn't make it for whatever reason,
then the city isn't bombed. If there are 5 smaller bombs targeted on
the city, even if a couple don't make it, the rest _do_ make it...

--
Frank Kastenholz
From: jfb@ihlpl.att.com
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Number Forty-Seven in the Series--Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (4 of 9)
Keywords: XP-47H, Chrysler liquid-cooled engine
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:04:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois


From jfb@ihlpl.att.com


In 1943, two P-47D-15-RE airframes (serials 42-23297/23298) were 
selected for testing with the new experimental 2300 hp Chrysler 
XIV-2220-1 sixteen-cylinder inverted Vee liquid-cooled engine.  These 
aircraft were redesignated XP-47H.  The liquid-cooled Chrysler engine 
with its large under-fuselage radiator radically changed the 
appearance of the Thunderbolt, and increased overall length to 39 feet 
2 inches.  With the increased power and improved streamlining, a 
maximum speed of 490 mph was anticipated.  

Although the project was begun in August 1943, the two P-47D-15-RE 
airframes were not actually converted until 1945.  Test flights began 
on July 26, 1945.  One of my sources (Green) says that during flight 
trails, one of the XP-47Hs actually attained a speed of 490 mph in 
level flight.  However, another one (Wagner) says that the Chrysler 
engine failed to deliver the promised power output, and that the 
maximum speed attained during tests was only 414 mph at 30,000 feet, 
poorer performance than the "stock" P-47D.  In any case, the Chrysler 
XIV-2220 engine never achieved production and the advent of jet 
propulsion killed any further USAAF interest in the development of 
even faster piston-engined fighters.  Consequently, no further work 
was undertaken on the XP-47H project.  

Sources: 

  American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 
  1982.  

  The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 
  1987.  

  War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William 
  Green, Doubleday 1964.  

  United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and 
  Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.  

  Famous Fighters of the Second World War, Volume I, William Green, 
  1967.  

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: lioness@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Silencers (was Re: Sonic Sniper Locater)
Organization: Center for Instructional and Research Computing Activities
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:54:38 GMT


From lioness@maple.circa.ufl.edu


In article <C10pq4.4nH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
>
>From Greg Finn <finn@isi.edu>
>
>
>In article <C0utIu.JI4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> lioness@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes:
>>Hmmm...McMillan makes a few sniper rifles in .300WM that are fully suppressed
>>with full length integral barrel suppressors.  These weapons have been known
>>to kill out to 300 yards and are completely quiet.  According to one SEAL
>>who used one in Desert Storm:
>
>	I concur with the comments made earlier.  This sounds wrong.
>Consult Duncan Long's book on combat ammunition for a short discussion
>of why this is not likely.  The supersonic crack is very loud.  On the
>other hand, if the suppressor lowers the velocity to subsonic, why use
>a .300 Weatherby?
>--
>Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
>Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292

The SEALs use handloaded rounds for long distance firing, and for short
range they use the suppressed weapons with a special Finnish subsonic
load.  It might have been Norwegian loads.

>From the article I gathered that they use the subsonic ammunition for close
in work and the other stuff for long distance.  The prefer .300WM I guess
because in general it is harder hitting, retains more energy, and also
flies flatter ( assuming supersonic travel ) compared to the .308.

The two exact accounts listed of the weapon use were two confirmed kills
of sentries situated on an oil platform, hit at night from a Zodiac
approx 300 yards away, using subsonic ammo.  The other confirmed was
hitting a tank commander in the head as he peeked out of his hatch from
800 yards away, using supersonic ammo.

Brian

PS Some confusion may arise because McMillan makes both a suppressed and
non-suppressed version of the M89.  The non-suppressed is available for
sale to public.  About 2000 dollars.
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@qucdn.queensu.ca>
Subject: Re: V/STOL fighters
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:40:57 GMT


From Graydon <SAUNDRSG@qucdn.queensu.ca>

There's always the proposal that, alas, never got off the drawing
board with the Avro Arrow (CF-105), which was seriously overpowered.
Clamp the nosewheel, tilt the whole plane up to 35% on a ramp,
cycle the engines all the way up, and pop the clamp.

Doesn't help much for _landing_, but the the tilt-on-a-ramp
proposal was a worked-out-the-numbers thing.

Graydon

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:45:39 GMT


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


George Patterson writes:
#>I always thought that AA shells were fused to explode at a given al-
#>titude. Remember all those movies about B-17s over Germany, and all
#>that flak?
#
#Some are, some aren't. Typically anything under about 40mm is contact
#fused. They'd be throwing 88s at a B-17 - it's the only shell that could
#get that high.


The 8.8cm AA guns were really marginal against the B-17s and B-24s. They
were functioning at nearly maximum altitude, the projectiles took a long
time to get there, and the lethal volume was (relatively) small. As the
bombing campaign went on the Germans introduced a 10.5cm AA gun, which
was probably derived from the existing naval mount. Later came a 12.8cm,
which indicates a pressing need, as this was never a standard German
caliber before. A 15cm gun was in the works when the war ended.

The fuzes on the German AA were mechanical time fuzes. The time of flight
to various altitudes was known, so when engaging bombers the altitude was
determined and the fuze time set accordingly. Obviously a high velocity
reduced time of flight and increased accuracy. The Germans were apparently
the first to use mechanical time fuzes in large numbers, which were both
more accurate and more reliable than pyrotechnic time fuzes such as those
used with shrapnel in the Great War. The Allies of course improved
on this further by introducing proximity fuzes for AA work.

Today, as George states, AA under 40mm uses PD fuzes, while 40mm and up
can, and typically does, use proximity fuzes. Most AA fuzes of both types
use a self-destruct.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Harry Bloomberg <hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:00:23 GMT


From Harry Bloomberg <hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu>


In article <C1H2o3.EMM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:
>
>The fuzes on the German AA were mechanical time fuzes. The time of flight
>to various altitudes was known, so when engaging bombers the altitude was
>determined and the fuze time set accordingly.

   But what would happen when the planes changed altitude to avoid the
flak?  Did the German gunners need to stop shooting for a while to
change to ammunition fused to explode at the new altitude?

Harry Bloomberg
hpb@vms.cis.pitt.edu