HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:42:36 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <C02wGG.H12@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu> writes:
> 
> 
> From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
> 
> 
> 
> 	With regards to two battlelines facing off why not concentrate
> 	all your fire upon one target with the view to killing it
> 	quickly be fore it qould have any affect upon your group and
> 	move to the next target once the first had been silenced...
> 
> 
> 			
> 
> 
> 			Ryan
> 
> 

Because the other is free to blast the **** out of the other ships.  Two
cases support this.

In the Battle of Jutland, there was a mix-up in the targetting and two
British battleships were firing on the same German ship leaving one German
battleship un-targetted.  This German battleship quickly concentrated all of
her guns on a British ship and literally blew the ship out of the water.

In the night action between the US battleships South Dakota and Washington
with 8 destroyers vs a Japanese group with one or two battleships, a couple
of cruisers and some destroyers this is what happened.  The Japanese spot
lights locked on to the South Dakota and all started to fire on her.  This
gave Washington the time to sort out her radar picture and start return fire.
Washington *quickly* scored 9 16" shell hits on one Japanese battleship (sunk
by the Japanese the next day due to damage and incoming air attacks).  
Washington also caused serious damage to the other Japanese ships forcing them
to retire.  Fortunately for the South Dakota, the Japanese were firing high
explosive shells because they were going to shell Henderson Field and did
not expect to encounter two US battleships.  Needless to say the US was firing
armor peircing (sp) shells.

I hope this is enlighting.

Don Palmrose
"There are only two kinds of ships....  Those that project power onto shore
and those that either protect or support the power projectors."




========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: PTomblin@gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:46:17 GMT


From PTomblin@gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)

Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:
>Dave Heisler <dheisler@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu> writes:

>>I had this idea the other day, lets say you have an airport
>>or base that comes under sporadic sniper fire. How do you
>>locate the sniper?

>>I envisioned this: hundreds of self powered radio linked
>>microphones scattered about the ground. A control unit that
>>knows the position of all of them (relative to control unit

>	It sounds to me like you just re-invented the passive
>sonobuoy and placed it on land.  It could certainly work, and

Funny - what goes around comes around.  In the book ``Vimy'', buy Pierre
Berton, he talks about using sound ranging to do counter-battery artillery
in WWI, especially in the prelude to Vimy.

Of course, with computers and such, it would be a lot easier to trace
smaller things (such as bullets) more precisely, and faster.

(Of course, you get one or two people firing on full auto, and I think you'd
have an insurmountable problem)

Isn't the phalynx capable of correcting it's own line of fire by comparing
the radar image of the outgoing bullets with where it _wants_ them to go?

-- 
Paul Tomblin, speaking from but not for GeoVision Systems Inc.
"He who hasn't hacked assembly language as a youth has no
heart. He who does so as an adult has no brain."
    - John Moore (john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu) on rec.humor.funny

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Tommy Kelly <tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Night Vision
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:42:44 GMT


From Tommy Kelly <tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk>

Is loss of dark-adjusted vision a serious problem on the battlefield.
If so, how is it dealt with?  Is there any way to speed up the opening
of the iris once it has contracted?

tk

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Whispering Death?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:39:33 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

Ops@raven.alaska.edu (sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu) writes:

>I have seen more than one aircraft known to the Japanese as "Whispering 
>Death". The Bristol Beaufighter most commonly, but also the F4U Corsair.
>Were there any others? Were both of these aircraft actually known as such, or
>has some author got his facts wrong.

	Jim Jesma, a friend of mine who grew up in Japan and who's father
flew Corsairs with VMF214 (yes, with Pappy Bowington, whom his father's
remarks on are unfit for print but are tinged with respect), once
mentioned to me that the Corsair actually translated into "Screaming
Death" or the like.  Apparently, the wing-root radiators gave a good
howling sound when in a power-dive.

	Perhaps there is a translation problem somewhere?  I've read the
same name given to both as well, but have only heard from Jim that
it was really screaming instead of whispering.

	I assume Jim heard the term from his father or in Japan.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Apache vs Werewolf
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:26:10 GMT


From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>

The big issue is probably whether the customer wants a
one- or two-seat aircraft. I've read that a two-seat
"trainer" version of the Werewolf will be built, but my
guess is that it's much a matter of making it more
salable to those who don't think a single crew can handle
all tasks well.

Then we come to the more interesting subject: Should
the places in a two-seater (be it a helicopter or a jet
fighter) be identical or not?

In the Werewolf case, I can't see how they'd do except
add an identical cockpit, as it would take lots of
development work to customize one for a gunner and one
for a pilot. This is how the two-seat Rafale is designed,
partly on cost grounds, partly because it can then be
flown as a single-seater when that's appropriate. How
about the Rooivalk, aren't both cockpits the same in 
that too? Was the Lavi's cockpits supposed to be the
same. Pros and cons of having dedicated stations?
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
 Won't read news or mail Jan 15:th - Feb 7:th, but the mail
 gets saved of course.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
Subject: Re: High level bombing
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:39:03 GMT


From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>

In article <C02wB7.Gus@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY) writes:
>From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
>Subject: High level bombing
>Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:28:19 GMT
>
>From buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
>
>I came across a question the other day which I was unable to find a reasonable
>source for. How many ships in WWII were sunk by high level bombings?
>-- 
>Charles Buckley    buckley@ucsu.colorado.edu

Hmmmm!  Might be a bit more helpful to put up operational definitions of the
terms: "ships" and "high level bombing".   As posed, this question is almost
impossible to answer except to say -- "Literally thousands".
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: Michael Gallagher <gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Hovercraft in Somalia?
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:45:57 GMT


From Michael Gallagher <gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil>


In sci.military, ritley@uimrl7.mrl.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>Are these in fact hovercraft?  When did they first come into use?
>
>[ mod note -- They sure are -- LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cushion).  Don't
>know when they entered service

    The LCAC entered service, if I recall correctly, in 1985 or 86.  The Navy
should be buying around 60-80 of them.  They are based out of Little
Creek VA and Camp Pendleton CA.  They are transported in Navy Amphibious
ships (LSD, LHA and LHD).


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jfb@ihlpl.att.com (Joseph F Baugher)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Number Forty in the series--the Curtiss P-40
Keywords: P-40M version, a return to the Allison engine
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:39:37 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois


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

In 1943, the scarcity of Packard Merlin engines necessitated that the 
Allison engine be reintroduced into the P-40 production line.  The 
result was the P-40M version.  The P-40M was essentially similar to 
the P-40K-20-CU, apart from the use of the Allison V-1710-18 engine 
rated at 1200 hp for takeoff and 1125 hp at 17,300 feet.  The P-40M 
could be distinguished by the introduction of a cooling grill forward 
of the exhaust stubs.  

The P-40M was built solely for Lend-Lease, the contract being approved 
on August 24, 1942.  The first P-40M appeared in November, 1942.  Most 
of them went to the RAF, the RAAF, and the RNZAF as the Kittyhawk III.  
The type served with British Commonwealth forces in the Far East.  A 
number were operated in Italy by No.  5 Squadron of the South African 
Air Force.  

The differences between the production blocks were as follows:

The P-40M-1-CU had reinforced ailerons.  

The P-40M-5-CU had improved carburetor air filters and further aileron 
improvements.  

The P-40M-10-CU had revised undercarriage warning systems and fuel 
system changes 

Serials of the P-40M were as follows: 

43-5403/5462 	Curtiss P-40M-1-CU Warhawk 
43-5463/5722 	Curtiss P-40M-5-CU Warhawk 
43-5723/6002 	Curtiss P-40M-10-CU Warhawk 

The RAF serials for the 264 P-40Ms supplied to the RAF as Kittyhawk 
IIIs were FR779/872 and FS100/269.  168 P-40Ms were supplied to 
Australia as Kittyhawk IIIs under the serial numbers A29-300/389, 
A29-400/414, A29-420/434, A29-442/460, and A29-473/502.  34 P-40Ms 
went to New Zealand as serial numbers NZ3066/3073, NZ3075/3089, 
NZ3109/3119, and NZ3180.  The P-40M equipped the No. 5 Squadron of 
the South African Air Force serving in Italy.  19 P-40Ms were 
transferred to Brazil.  

Sources:

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

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

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

  Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979.

  The Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawk I-IV, Ray Wagner, Aircraft in Profile, 
  Volume 6, Doubleday, 1969.

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "J. David Narkiewicz" <narkiewi%madona@cs.umass.edu>
Subject: Vultee Aircraft, 1932-1947
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:26:07 GMT


From "J. David Narkiewicz" <narkiewi%madona@cs.umass.edu>


This is an advertisement for my step father's latest book (self published).
This advertisement falls within the net charter so no flames please.
If you're not interested in Vultee Aircraft, then don't read any further.
If you have any questions about the book, etc, please ask.  I've read it.
IMHO: It's slick.

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

	For historic airplane buffs in general and for World War II pilots
in particular, ``Vultee Aircraft, 1932-1947'', a book published this month
by Jonathan Thompson, adds an important chapter to the story of America's
air power.  For the first time in book form, all Vultee aircraft -- from
the V-1 airliner in the early Thirties to World War II bombers, fighters,
trainers and floatplanes -- are covered, including their design, production
and service, as well as production and serial numbers, specifications,
and performance figures.

	The book contains more than 230 splendid photographs, the
majority appearing in print for the first time.  Twenty-three drawings
show the various aircraft in 1/72, 1/96 or 1/144 scale.

	Thompson, formerly Associate Editor of ``Road & Track'' magazine,
is the author of twelve other books, on such subjects as Ferrari,
Porsche, and Italian aircraft of World War II.

	``Vultee Aircraft'' may be ordered from Jonathan Thompson,
Publisher, 1331 South Birch Street, Santa Ana, CA 92707.  The prices is
$29.95 plush $3.55 shipping and handling.  California residents add
7.25 percent sales tax.



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:35:50 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

Dave Heisler <dheisler@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu> writes:

>I had this idea the other day, lets say you have an airport
>or base that comes under sporadic sniper fire. How do you
>locate the sniper?

>I envisioned this: hundreds of self powered radio linked
>microphones scattered about the ground. A control unit that
>knows the position of all of them (relative to control unit
>or maybe use gps) and can calculate direction of sound orgin
>based on the timing of the received sound pulse as radioed by
>the microphones. (thinking about it maybe you could get by with
>2 or 3 sensor microphones)

	It sounds to me like you just re-invented the passive
sonobuoy and placed it on land.  It could certainly work, and
I doubt you would need more than a dozen along a 1-mile
perimeter to work out just where your sniper is.  Had this
been used for perimeter security before?

	What other methods might be used?  I doubt a bullet
will heat up the surrounding air enough to leave a thermal
signature, so IR goggles are out, but they might be of use
in glassing the area for warm bodies.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
Subject: AF News 01/07/93 -- Thunderbird Schedule
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:29:32 GMT


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>

012.  1993 Thunderbird schedule
     WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds 1993 demonstration
season starts in mid-March and includes shows at 51 sites in 28 states and
Canada, Pentagon officials said Jan. 4.
     More than 150 requests were received for Thunderbird performances in the
1993 season, which ends in mid-November.  The number of requests supported is
limited by the length of the season, travel and training requirements,
operational and deployment considerations, and seasonal weather conditions.
     With safety the primary consideration, officials said demonstration sites
are selected to support Defense Department objectives and the interests of the
armed services.
     1993 show sites are:
     March 20-21, Punta Gorda, Fla.; March 27, Luke AFB, Ariz.; and March 28,
Vandenberg AFB, Calif.
     April 3, Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz.; April 4, Dyess AFB, Texas; April
17-18, MacDill AFB, Fla.; April 21, Lakeland, Fla.; April 24, Eglin AFB, Fla.;
and April 25, Columbus AFB, Miss.
     May 1-2, Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, Calif.; May 8-9, Little Rock
AFB, Ark.; May 14-15, Andrews AFB, Md.; May 16, Rochester, N.Y.; May 22,
Randolph AFB, Texas; May 23, Vance AFB, Okla.; May 29, Coney Island, N.Y.; and
May 30, North Kingston, R.I.
     June 2, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colo.; June 5, St. Joseph ANGB, Mo.; June
6, Altus AFB, Okla.; June 9, Myrtle Beach, S.C.; June 12, McConnell AFB, Kan.;
June 13, Scott AFB, Ill.; June 19-20, Montreal, Canada; and June 26-27,
Hanscomb AFB, Mass.
     July 3-4, Battle Creek, Mich.; July 10-11, Davenport, Iowa; July 17-18,
Fort Wayne, Ind.; July 24, West Chicago, Ill.; July 25, Minot AFB, N.D.; July
28, F.E. Warren, Wyo.; and July 31, Truax Field, Wis.
     Aug. 1, Ellsworth AFB, S.D.; Aug. 6-7, Abbotsford, Conn.; Aug. 8,
Fairchild AFB, Wash.; Aug. 21-22, Chicago; Aug. 28, Kalispell, Mont.; and Aug.
29, McChord AFB, Wash.
     Sept. 4, Moody AFB, Ga.; Sept. 5-6, Jackson ANGB, Miss.; Sept. 11-12,
Toledo, Ohio; Sept. 18-19, Smyrna, Tenn.; and Sept. 25-26, Denver.
     Oct. 2-3, Travis AFB, Calif.; Oct. 9-10, Fort Worth, Texas; Oct. 16-17,
Houston; Oct. 23, Edwards AFB, Calif.; Oct. 24, Castle AFB, Calif.; and Oct.
30-31, March AFB, Calif.
     Nov. 6-7, Miami, and Nov. 13-14, Daytona Beach, Fla.

-- 
         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \\  {*}  //                   bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil  
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     / 



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dave pierson <pierson@empror.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:39:15 GMT


From dave pierson <pierson@empror.enet.dec.com>

In article <C02w58.GHB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Dave Heisler
<dheisler@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu> writes, in part:

>I had this idea the other day, lets say you have an airport
>or base that comes under sporadic sniper fire. How do you
>locate the sniper?
> 
>I envisioned this: hundreds of self powered radio linked
>microphones scattered about the ground. A control unit that
>knows the position of all of them (relative to control unit
>or maybe use gps) and can calculate direction of sound orgin
>based on the timing of the received sound pulse as radioed by
>the microphones. (thinking about it maybe you could get by with
>2 or 3 sensor microphones)

	Hundreds is probably overkill.  Such schemes, with lesser numbers of
	observers, date at least to WWI.  (see the recent postings on the
	Paris Gun...).  A relatively small number of points and soem analysis
	(cheaper by the day) will locate the source.  (Of course, if I was the
	source, I'd MOVE.  (one school of sniperthought says stay and hide well,
	but against that sort of counter, a rapid move sounds a lot better...))
	I don't know if acoustic and flash ranging, for counterbattery work
	are still in use, in this day of radar.  Both are passive, so maybe, in
	a high ecm, high "HARM" environment.

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: Aryk Nusbacher <nusbache@epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans..
Organization: University of Toronto - Office of the Provost
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:24 GMT


From Aryk Nusbacher <nusbache@epas.utoronto.ca>


A buddy of mine's father was a USAAF sergeant downed in Europe.  He
was held in general population at Luftstalag 3 in spite of being
Jewish, and didn't think he was treated differently.

Aryk Nusbacher


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Hovercraft in Somalia?
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:23:26 GMT


From MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>

In article <C0Jpx3.8yK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>Any idea of their capacity? 

The LCAC were basically designed to carry one MBT, or several smaller 
vehicles plus troops. About 70 tons from memory... They are a roll on roll
off design, open topped.

>Are they armoured to an extent?
>Could they perhaps be armoured and use their combined sea/land capability to
>transport troops not only up to the beach itself but onto the beach and into
>some form of cover thus avoiding the dash across generally exposed ground (as
>most beaches tend to be?)

They are armored against small arms fire as far as I know. (Except the skirt 
of course, that's compartmentalized) And the dash tactics you describe was
their purpose from the start. Their big advantage is floating over normal
mines and obstacles at high speed. Plus a smoother ride in general. One
reason the MArines want the V-22 so bad is it is supposed to be part of a
combined landing plan with LCAC and the Super Stallion. (And maybe the
Army HLH IF that every finishes...)

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Thompson <execu!dont@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Gov.flight sim code
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:25:06 GMT


From Don Thompson <execu!dont@uunet.uu.net>



Would anyone happen to know where a body could get information
on old flight simulation code written by NASA or any of the military
branches? I am interested in obtaining any code that might be declassified
and publicly availible. In addition, any data related to the flight models
of old or new aircraft would be nice.

I tried this on sci.space and got one good lead but that's all.

Please forgive the shotgun crossposting

Since my News feed is flaky, please email dont@execu.execu.com

					Thanks
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Don "Syco" Thompson                 |   I may be opinionated, but at least
Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com  |   my opinions are my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "There's no kill like a guns kill".  Lt Commander Joe "Hoser" Satrapa, USN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.military