HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: oracle!us.oracle.com!gpriores@uunet.UU.NET (gordon prioreschi)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:59:59 GMT


From oracle!us.oracle.com!gpriores@uunet.UU.NET (gordon prioreschi)

In article <BuDEwG.FGJ@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin) writes:
>  >From fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)
> >Here's a little more pure speculation:
> >Remote-control tanks.  Remember Atari's old Tank Battle
>>arcade game?  Construct a very heavily armored / protected
>>command post, and use remote operators to drive / fight
> >Thoughts / comments / criticisms?
> Just this - they have enough trouble trying to maintain a data link to a
>moving car in a non-hostile environment (just look at the TV camera pictures
>during a Formula I race some time.)  Add to the heat, shock and electronic
>interference of that environment: explosions, enemy jamming, battle damage,
>etc.

On the other hand, you don't have some of the constraints you do in F1.
There, if your equipment adds any appreciable weight, aerodynamic
drag, or power drain they won't carry it...

                                             -g
From: rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Bikini Islands
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:09:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


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


I use to love reading about the Bikini islands tests in the mid 50's and
the early part of the 60's.(what a great way to let out our frustrations 
on the Japanese and Germans).  I' am not a big proponent of nuclear warfare
howver but i was wondering what ever happened to the Bikini Islands?  Are they 
still dangerously radioactive?


			Rob     
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: tek@ficus.CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude))
Subject: Re: Typhoon Class Submarines
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:59:08 GMT


From tek@ficus.CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude))

In article <Bu9Ht6.GqG@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:
>I have not been following Russia lately but what is to become of the new 
>Russian, Typhoon class submarines?  Are they going to be cancelled or what?
>I would appreciate any comments.

According to articles in the USNI Proceedings, there will only be 6
Typhoon subs built. That will make Delta IV, the only currently
produced Russian SSBN. According to testimony from the USN Director of
Naval Intelligence to Congress (given in Feb 1992), all Yankee types
should be converted or retired from the SSBN role in 1992.  I don't
know if the newer arms control agreements will change the Russian SSBN
picture further.

Exactly why Delta IV continues, but Typhoon does not is not completely
known. I speculate that the Typhoon was just too darn expensive and
that the missile deployed with the Delta IV was better in some way
(perhaps more accurate).

-ted

Ted Kim                           Internet: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department  UUCP:     ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3680A Boelter Hall                Phone:    (310) 825-8524
Los Angeles, CA 90024             FAX:      (310) 825-2273
--
Ted Kim                           Internet: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department  UUCP:     ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3680A Boelter Hall                Phone:    (310) 825-8524
Los Angeles, CA 90024             FAX:      (310) 825-2273

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SJ Roc D'Arcy, MBP)
Subject: Re: F-16 vs A-10 in CAS role.
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:33:59 GMT


From bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SJ Roc D'Arcy, MBP)

In article <BuBL7t.Fs9@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM (Rick Lafford) writes...

>> If the Air Force wants a ground
>>attack plane, and a dog fighter, tell them to buy the F/A-18.
> 
>To put the record straight, the F-16 has won many NATO and US bombing 
>competitions. The accuracy of the CCIP system is superb. Secondly, the
>F-16 can carry a reasonable bomb load a significant distance, fight it's
>way to the target and fight it's way home. 

I think one reason the F-16 has won many bombing competitions is two fold 
(in respect to these arguments):
1. I don't know of any direct competitions between the F-16 and the F-18.
2. Many of these competitions are tailored to the F-16s ability (the 
"Gunsmoke" event is a bit ridiculous in comparision to reality).

The CCIP is good and if I'm not mistaken can be adapted on to the F/A-18.
Also, I don't see where the statement, " can carry a reasonable bomb load a 
significant distance, fight it's way to the target and fight it's way 
home," is any different from the F/A-18's abilities.  To boot I believe the 
18 can carry more ordinance.
		
>The F-18, in the other hand,
>is also an excellent bomber, good ACM machine but uses way too much fuel
>doing this. Loiter time for the F-18 is practically non-existant with
>any type of useful CAS ordinance load.

At present the 18 is configured as a Navy carrier plane.  This makes it
much heavier and therefor it consumes much more fuel.  I wasn't aware of
a big difference in operating ranges.  If it was set up more like the 
original F-17 plane it should have about equal range.

Something I was wondering about, is, is there still a problem with the
stress cracks found in some of the frames of the F-16s?  If not what was 
the final outcome of the problem.

>But, I agree with Rich, the A-10 is a much better CAS machine. When you
>consider that it was purpose built to do this, that's not too suprising.

True.  

SJRD

Sean J. Roc D'Arcy	Univ. Of Rochester

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Where to buy nightvision goggles?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:33:36 GMT


From kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan)


In a previous article, masman@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (CMS Coordinator) says:

>
>From masman@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (CMS Coordinator)
>
>In article <Bsw19H.16p@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes...
>>From ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)

>>   Does anybody know anything about nightvision glasses, how much they cost,
>>and where to buy them. Just how good do they work?
>
>There is a mail order catalogue put out by a company named U.S. Calvary Equip.
>which includes everythin from BDU's to Delta Force attack vests.  In it, I saw
>a pair of night-vision goggles for a cool $4,999.  They work very well,
>illuminating starlight and moonlight.  However, any attempts at surveillance
>(unless your subjects are in the dark) are futile seeing on how any light
>stronger than starlight results in the wearer getting blinded.
>

a little more information.

it is:
  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", knives, and almost any
military paraphanalia imaginable, including former east germany and soviet 
surplus equipment. anyone want official red army underwear?  :-0
it's worth the three bucks just to brouse through. 


-- 
The views and opinions expressed in the above post do not necessarily reflect 
those of the Management. The propositions contianed in the above are in no way 
intended to reflect the state of affairs, and any coincidence is purely acci-
dental. The Management makes no apologies for any possible reader confusion.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:33:16 GMT


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

>From article <BuBLxI.GtA@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23):
> Standard Fly-By-Wire really. The F-16 couldn't stay in the air without it's
> computers, it's dynamically unstable.

That may be true for the F-16XL, but AFAIK it is not true for the
standard F-16.  Fly-by-wire does not imply instability.

Markus

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium et al
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:33:10 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <BuBL6u.Fow@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Jan Sparrendahl) writes:
> 
> From d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Jan Sparrendahl)
>  	
> 	Question: Is the energy of a 150mm shell enough to destroy a 
> 	tank (from  the front) without using more ingenious tricks 
> 	like DU or shape charge? I believe the energy will be something 
> 	like 4 or 5 time the energy of a 120 mm shell. Isn't there a
> 	rule like a convetional shell penetrates 2 times the caliber?


I read somewhere that the effect of a 45kg (99lb) shell from a 155mm
howitzer directly impacting a MBT was "devastating"! And that's w/o
the higher shell velocity you'd get from a gun as opposed to a howitzer.
The US Army has the Copperhead, a laser-guided 155mm howitzer shell
which is supposed to be effective against anything. Of course, the high-
er trajectory of the howitzer shell would a difference too, especially
since it'd be alot more likely to hit the turret top.

PHIL
From: korkkari@clinet.fi (Jussi-Pekka Korkala)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:05:55 GMT
Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland


From korkkari@clinet.fi (Jussi-Pekka Korkala)

rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:


>From 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.  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.

Well, there were couple of reasons. First of all, the V-2 came long after 
the Battle of Britain was fought. The V-2 was not so efficient at all,
it was only a retaliation weapon. In fact, the Germans WASTED their
capacity to product perhaps defense fighters by building V-2's that couldn't
archieve anything in war.







-- 
 -- Jussi-Pekka Korkala     |"And if your head explodes with dark forbodings"
 email : korkkari@clinet.fi | too, I'll see you on the dark side of the moon"
 "Much is usually too much, but enough is allmost never enough. So more than
  enough should be enough for everybody!"
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "CINCLANTFLT PAO" <CLFPAO@nctamslant.navy.mil>
Subject: Navy News Service Headlines - 2 Sep 92
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:31:43 GMT


From "CINCLANTFLT PAO" <CLFPAO@nctamslant.navy.mil>

Here are the headlines from the latest issue of the Navy News
Service, the weekly summary of Navy news and information
published by the Navy Internal Relations Activity in Washington.
To receive a complete copy of this issue or to subscribe to
NavNews by e-mail, contact navnews@nctamslant.navy.mil. 

NAVY NEWS SERVICE - 02 SEP 1992 - NAVNEWS 040/92
     Navy News Service (NAVNEWS) contains official news and
information and is intended for distribution to all Navy people.
Please help pass the word.  NAVNEWS is available:
     -- by message to the NAVNEWS collective address 
     -- on the CNO Bulletin Board, 1-800-582-2355/6940 or (703)
695-6198/6388 
     -- by electronic mail from NAVNEWS(at)NCTAMSLANT.NAVY.MIL 
     -- and on the BUPERS ACCESS bulletin board, 1-800-346-
0217/18/27, 1-800-762-8567 or (703) 614-8070/6059/8076, (DSN)
224-8070.
                               -USN-

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NAVNEWS 040/92
   Top News and Policy Stories
NNS22. Notable Quotable:  CAPT Dick Williams, Commander TF 28
NNS23. Largest Seabee Airlift in History to Aid Relief Efforts  
NNS24. Help on the Way for Typhoon Omar Victims
NNS25. Hagan Appointed Eighth MCPON                               
NNS26. Most Senior Woman in Military to Retire                    
   Around the Fleet
NNS27. Salute to Excellence:  HS 9 Breaks Record                 
NNS28. Advance Party Deploys to the Ice                   
NNS29. October is Navy Month in Tennessee
NNS30. USS Flatley Arrives at New Homeport
NNS31. This Week in the Navy:  September 10, 1813
   Personnel Notes
NNS32. BUPERS Outlines Timing of PCS Orders   
NNS33. Uniform Prices to Change Oct. 1              
NNS34. Ensure Your Vote Counts            
NNS35. Sept. 18 Marks POW/MIA Recognition Day                     
   Short Splices
NNS36. Toys for Tots to be Listed as CFC Charity      
NNS37. Flag Move
NNS38. Editor's Note                     
NNS39. Navy News This Week 
                               -USN-


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Re: V-1 rocket: why PULSED?
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:24:26 GMT


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <BuKpq1.C8p@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

> 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?

It was cheap and it worked.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
Subject: Light strique planes.
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:25:30 GMT


From barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)


   In the August 1992 edition of the AirForces Monthly magazine there is
an interesting article on the Croatian Air Force and how they used old
planes and small trainers for attack purpose during the war against
Serbia.

   They speak in particular of UTVA-75 trainers modified with a rocket
launcher for one (1) Osa rocket, and of a An-2 biplane used as a night
arrasment bomber with some success. It seems that these planes are very
difficult to shot down by normal methods because of their very low
radar and IR signature.

  There is also a complete article on a Light Armed Surveillance Aircraft
(LASA), the Sadler A-22, which as a cost of US $200.000, and is
developed for for the third-world. It has four hard point in the wings
and a maximum ordonance load of 454 [kg]. It is designed for easy
maintenance, so it uses a car engine, a Chevrolet V-6 of 300 [hp]. The
company claim to have 20 of these planes already in order.

  So, it seems that the light plane (trainer/light civil conversion) is a
adecuate solution for some pleople.

  Speaking for himself,

  Juan Carlos

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:41:46 GMT


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



  Thanks to those who responded to my original post. Some interesting
technical points were raised:
1)Where do you put the refueling booms?  Well mounting the boom on the
bomber wouldn't seem to pose a problem. Just stick it on the bottom rear
of the fuselage. Unfortunately the turbulence from the prop wash of the 
bombers engines would probably be severe enough to make the entire process
impractical. I hadn't thought of that. Mounting the boom on the fighter
would be a bit trickier. On a single engined liquid cooled V-type fighter,
such as a spitfire or P-39 you could have the boom stcking right through
the prop hub/reduction gear box. After all the ME109 and P-39 have a 
cannon in this position. On a P-38 you could stick it on the front of the
center nacelle. On a radial engined type such as the Thunderbolt, you 
could mount the boom near one of the wingtips. If you question the 
aerodynamics of this arrangement, just look at the nightfighter version
of the Corsair; it had a HUGE radome stuck on to one wingtip which would
have caused much more assymetrical drag than a 2" fueling boom.

2) One respondant said that the tanker aircraft would have been overloaded
sitting ducks like the YB-17 gunship. Well, maybe but the aerial refuelling
would have taken place well before the bomber group reached the target. The
tankers, with their extra tanks empty, would have returned to base, not
followed the group all the way to the target. Natuaraly the tanker planes
would have carried fuel only, not bombs. Its true that this would have left
fewer aircraft to do the bombing, but I think the bomber crews would rather
have flown a few extra missions WITH ESCORT to take up the slack, rather that
fly as they did without escort (and get slaughtered).

All this brings up another point - what gave the Mustang such a superior
range? One would think that a Spitfire, which used the same engine and I
think had more wing area, should have been able to carry as much fuel as
a Mustang. (Maybe not internally, but strap on a few more drop tanks and..)
I suppose carrying more fuel internally as the Mustang did means less drag
and therefore greater range, and the laminar flow wing certainly helped,
but the Mustang had TWICE the range of the Spit using the same engine. Why?

Cheers.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: public!timlee@btr.BTR.COM
Subject: Ship Damage in WW2
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:46:26 GMT


From public!timlee@btr.BTR.COM


What ships in WW2 sustained the most damage?  I can think of a few
candidates:

Ships that sank:
	BB Musashi (19 torpedoes, 17 bombs)
	CV Hornet (15+ torpedoes, ? bombs, 300+ 5" shells)
	BB Bismarck (many 14" and 16" shells, 5+ torpedoes, scuttled?)

Ships that survived:
	CV Franklin (2 bombs which ignited fueled and armed planes on deck)
	CA Mogami (collision, many bombs)
	DD Laffey (6? kamikazes)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee                 timlee@btr.com  ...!decwrl!btr!timlee
This message comes with no warranty, not even an implied warranty of
fitness for any particular purpose.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:37:03 GMT


From bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden)


In article <BtyIKs.8zo@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:
>
>Why is the top of a tank still the weakest point?  With the advent of
>tank killing helicopters, airplanes, self- forging munitions, and
>Cessna pilots armed with Super-soaker water guns, I'd think that this
>would no longer be the case.  Are current MBT still designed with less
>regard to the threat from the air?
>
	Unfortunately, tank design is a question of trade-offs. The 
    more weight (armor) you have, the more horsepower you need for
    mobility, the more restricted your combat effectivness (due to 
    said weight, higher fuel comsumption) is, etc. It is also a question
    of what the military philosophy for the vehicle is. With NATO, 
    I would think that it was felt the vehicles would be in prepared
    positions, with adequate cover (camo, AAA or local air superiority),
    while the Soviet answer was to "commit more resources" and ignore
    the human cost.

	Compared to tank designs, top seeking weapons are a rather
    recent phenomena. I think you will find that the Abrams, Leopard-II
    and Centurian (?) all started their design phases when the anti-tank
    missles were still center-mass seekers. The T-72/80 was probably
    designed with the philosophy that NATO would be out of anti-tank
    missles by the time it was committed (by shooting the hordes of
    T-54/55/60/etc.) :-)

	I think that you will see more self-propelled AAA equipment
    appearing (in the US I would bet mounted on the M-60 hull) but
    this takes money (something, amazingly enough, in short supply
    to the various defense organizations in the world!) That should
    help armored vehicles "cover" this weak spot.




							Bruce



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bruce Burden            bruceb@mpd.tandem.com         Tandem Computers Inc.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Eleventh in the Series--The Curtiss XP-11 Hawk
Keywords: Chieftain, P-20, XP-6E
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:28:32 GMT


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>

The Curtiss P-11 Hawk was an attempt to adapt the P-6 airframe to  the
new  600  hp  Curtiss H-1640 Chieftain two-row, 12-cylinder air-cooled
engine.

Three P-6 airframes (29-367, 368, and 374) were to be reserved for the
P-11  project.  A  similar  conversion  of an existing airframe to the
Chieftain engine had  already  progressed  further  along--a  standard
production Curtiss O-1B Falcon two-seat observation plane converted as
a flying test bed.  When fitted with the new Chieftain engine, the  O-
1B  was  redesignated  XO-18.  Flight tests with the XO-18 showed that
the new Chieftain engine was subject to chronic overheating  problems.
It  was  thought  that the problems with the Chieftain were insoluble,
and any further work on this engine was abandoned.  The  XO-18  flying
testbed  was  converted  back  into standard O-1B configuration with a
Conqueror engine.

With the failure of the Chieftain engine, any thoughts  of  proceeding
further with the P-11 project were abandoned.

Ser Nos 29-367 and 268 were subsequently completed  to  P-6  standards
(later  converted to P-6D) with the installation of Conqueror engines.
Ser No 29-374 was to have a completely different history.    It  later
became  the  YP-20 when a 650 hp Wright R-1860-9 Cyclone radial engine
was fitted.  The fin and rudder of the YP-20 were changed slightly  by
raising  the  division  between the rudder balance area and the top of
the fin by half a rib space.  The Cyclone radial  engine  installation
in the YP-20 proved to be unsatisfactory, and this engine was replaced
with the 700 hp V-1570-23 Conqueror liquid-cooled engine, mounted with
an new horizontal tail, and given the single-strut undercarriage first
tried out on the XP-22.  A tailwheel was used in  place  of  the  tail
skid.   The YP-20 was then redesignated XP-6E, to become the prototype
of the famed P-6E variant of the Hawk pursuit.

Sources:

  United States Military Aircraft Since 1909,  Gordon Swanborough  and
  Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

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

  Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press,
  1987.

  "The Curtiss Army Hawks",  Peter  M.  Bowers,  Aircraft in  Profile,
  Doubleday, 1969.

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548


Newsgroups: sci.military