HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)
Subject: Re: SAS use tungsten coated 9mm
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:18:27 GMT


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

In article <BtAJop.EKo@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Rick Lafford <lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM> writes:
|> 
|> 
|> Would there be any advantage to intermixing two types of ammo in the same
|> clip, say saboted subcaliber penetrators with hollowpoint? Even if the
|> hollowpoints won't go thru the body armour, they still can hit with 
|> enough punch to knock you down.
|> 
This is a point that is quite valid, but not good tactical doctrine.  The
problem arises when you get down to that last bullet: will it work on
the target given?  This is one reason why I'm curious about the Crossfire.
It would seem to ideally solve this problem (except for the apparent weight/
size thing...).  However, most SF troops are good enough shots, that I
would think that they'd use an entire load of penetrators.  As to a
sub-caliber flechette round, I don't think this is possible in a 9mm round.
While an *adequate* anti-personnel round, it generally needs a good, well
placed shot to get a one-shot-takedown.  This is one reason why most AT
troops pracice firing 3 round bursts.  As far as a hollowpoint goes, it
isn't the greatest as far as expanding rounds go.  There are much better 
rounds to achieve the same effect.

-- 
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: ihlpl!jfb (Joseph F Baugher +1 708 713 4548)
Subject: Second in the Series--The Curtiss P-2 Hawk
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:18:39 GMT


From ihlpl!jfb (Joseph F Baugher +1 708 713 4548)


The designation P-2 (company  designation  Model  34B)  was  the  Army
designation  for  the  last  five P-1 Hawks (Ser Nos 35-420/424) which
were reengined at the factory with the 500 hp Curtiss  V-1400  liquid-
cooled  engine  in  place of the standard 435 hp Curtiss V-1150 (D-12)
engine which powered the rest of the  aircraft  in  the  original  P-1
order.  The  new  engine made these five planes sufficiently different
from the rest of the P-1 order that the Army deemed them worthy  of  a
different P-designation.

The first flight  of  the  P-2  took  place  in  December  1925.   The
increased  power  provided to the P-2 by the V-1400 engine resulted in
an improvement in  performance  vis-a-vis  the  "standard"  P-1  Hawk.
Maximum  speed  at  sea  level  was  172  mph, 151 mph at 15,000 feet.
Initial climb was 2170 ft/min, and an altitude of 6500 feet  could  be
attained  in  3.5  minutes.   Weights  were 2018 lbs. empty, 2869 lbs.
gross.  Service ceiling was 22,950 feet, and range was 400 miles.  The
P-2  was  armed  with a pair of 0.30 cal machine guns installed in the
upper engine cowling, synchronized to fire through the propeller arc.

However, the V-1400 engine proved to  be  unsatisfactory  in  service.
After  less  than a year of operation, the Army converted P-2s 25-421,
422, and 424 to P-1A configuration with the replacement of the  V-1400
engine by the D-12 engine of the P-1 series.  P-2 Ser No 25-423 became
XP-6, the prototype for the P-6 line when fitted with the new  600  hp
Curtiss  V-1570  Conqueror liquid-cooled engine.  Stripped of military
equipment, it placed second (at 189 mph) in the unlimited event of the
1927  National  Air Races.  The winner of this race was the Conqueror-
powered XP-6A, which had been produced by the conversion of a P-1A.

Only Ser No 25-420 remained a P-2.   25-420  temporarily  became  XP-2
when  tested  with  turbosupercharged  Curtiss  V-1400.  Top speed was
almost 180 mph, but  the  basic  shortcomings  of  the  V-1400  engine
precluded any further development.

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,

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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)
Subject: Turbofans in Modern A/C (Was Re: Water Injection)
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:44:04 GMT


From manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)

>In article <1992Jul28.130755.25502@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
>
>|Not exactly.  High performance military jets -- fighters, specifically --
>|tend to use either turbojets or low-bypass turbofans for two reasons:
>|(1) they have a smaller frontal area than high-bypass fanjets, which
>|allows a slimmer fuselage, and therefore less drag; and (2) high-bypass 
>|engines are more efficient and lower altitudes, which isn't of overriding 
>|concern for an interceptor or air superiority fighter (although it would be
>|important for a strike or ASW aircraft).
>

One other reason for high-performance a/c using low bypass ratio engines, is
acceleration.  If most of your thrust is coming from the turbojet, then it
is easy to accelerate rapidly.  The response of a large fan to throttle 
responses would however be quite slow.  

Also, high-bypass engines are more efficient at lower speeds - the 
bigger the fan, the closer the engine approximates a prop (which has the 
highest propulsive efficiency of any propulsive method in their resp. optimum
op. conditions).  This would not be suitable for modern fighter speeds. 
 However, a pure turbo-jet is most inefficient, so I think
all (without exception) modern fighters use turbo-fans, albeit with low bypass
ratios, the ratios varying depending on the role of the a/c and it's need to
conserve fuel.

Gerald

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Thursday, 13 August, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:07:13 GMT


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

Thursday, 13 August, 1942

The Pedestal convoy loses another cruiser and seven freighters to Axis
attacks.  An attack by Italian cruisers and destroyers is aborted when
their air support fails to arrive, and the British submarine Unbroken
torpedoes the cruisers Bolzano and Muzio Attendolo.

In India, riots continue.  Several war production factories are closed by
strikes.

German troops enter Elista, south of Stalingrad.

Three thousand Japanese engineers land at Gona, New Guinea.  Other Japanese
troops continue attacking toward Port Moresby.  

General Montgomery takes command of the Eighth Army and begins preparations
against a German attack.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker   Moderator, sci.military  military-request@att.att.com
(614) 860-5294      Send submissions to military@att.att.com

"There are, it might be noted, approximately 50,000 parts to a big bomber;
as many as 22,500 parts go into a smaller plane." - US Representative 
Dow W. Harter
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)
Subject: Sci.military postings
Organization: NCR Corporation, Corporate Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:28:43 GMT


From steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)




From steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)


Due to some NNTP problems here, sci.military postings for the dates August
3-5 may not have gotten out.  If you have not seen the postings for those
dates, please let me know and I will re-post them (note -- this does not
apply to people receiving the sci.military digest via e-mail).

Also, please try to trim other people's signatures out of any followups.

Steve Bridges
Reserve sci.military moderator
-- 
Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM ___| Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
Reserve sci.military moderator| "The airplane does not recognize attitude,
providing a maneuver is conducted at one G" -- A.M. "Tex" Johnston
From: cvetp034@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Mike Cancellier)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: vision for helicopter pilots
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:39:18 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly Pomona Geography Dept.


From cvetp034@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Mike Cancellier)

In article <Bt4oJC.212@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Dan <BXP5@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> 
> From Dan <BXP5@psuvm.psu.edu>
  Dan, 
    I'm not sure about any of the other services, but the Air Force allows
helicopter pilots to fly without 20-20.  My uncle flies MH-53Js at Hurlburt
Field and has worn glasses since high school.  More important are depth
perception and color vision.  However, you will probably need a waiver for less
than 20-20.  Also, it used to be you could volunteer for helos without having a
pilot slot.  Now you need to get a pilot slot and go to UPT (fixed wing) and in
this day and age, pilot slots are almost impossible to get, as I can attest to. 
About to the only way to get a slot is go to the Academy because to get one in
AFROTC or OTS you must god-like. 
-- 
Daemon Hobbs, cadet, AFROTC
CVETP034@CSUPomona.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jeff Crowell <jeffc@hpsadm5.sad.hp.com>
Subject: re: why velcro insignia
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:12:00 GMT


From Jeff Crowell <jeffc@hpsadm5.sad.hp.com>

The main reason for the velcro attachment of unit patches (other, of course,
than impressing attractive members of the opposite gender) is that all unit
insignia are removed before a war mission. It supposedly makes it more difficult
for the Bad Guys to figure out who's been bombing the crap out of them. Then
again, in an era of universal disregard for the Geneva Convention, maybe it
really doesn't help much...



Later,
Jeff


--
                        
                                                             
     Jeff Crowell                     MID Materials Engr     
     jeffc@hpsadm5.sad.hp.com         (707) 794-3372	      
                                                             
                bon vivant and recreational killer           
           


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pismobch@well.sf.ca.us (Ed Devinney)
Subject: Re: How to spike a gun?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:34:26 GMT


From pismobch@well.sf.ca.us (Ed Devinney)


From pismobch@well.sf.ca.us (Ed Devinney)

In article <BsKCnp.E2s@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dgfritz@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Doug Fritz) writes:
>
>Spiking a gun such as a cannon or artillery piece disables the
>gun, but how does a foot soldier spike a gun?

From field Manual 23-9, _M16A1 and M16A2 Rifle Marksmanship_, p. 2-18:

Means of Destruction:
 - Mechanical (axe, pick, sledge, crowbar)
 - Burning (gasoline, oil, incendiary grenades, torch)
 - Demolition (explosives or ammunition, hand grenades)
 - Disposal (burning, dumping in stream/marsh, wide scattering)

"It is important that the same parts be destroyed on all like materiel ...
 so that the enemy cannot rebuild one complete unit from several damaged
 units..."

Field-Expedient Methods:
Key operational parts are separated from the rifle or damaged beyond repair.
Priority is given in the following order:
 First: Bolt carrier group: removed and discarded or hidden
 Second: Upper receiver group: separated and discarded or hidden
 Third: Lower receiver group: Spearated and discarded or hidden

Hope this is helpful.

-- 
ed devinney						pismobch@well.sf.ca.us
	"I don't know what the world may need, 
	 but a V8 engine's a good start for me..." - Cracker

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gnb@bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Tracers
Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge & Young, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:47:58 GMT


From gnb@bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)




From gnb@bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)

>>>>> On 28 Jul 92 13:07:26 GMT, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) said:

Dan> [...]  There's something more to this than just radar and
Dan> toxicity, but I can't figure it out.  Anybody know?

Perhaps the fact that we (Australia) don't have any enrichment plants
or nuclear industry to get depleted uranium from! I doubt it is
something available on the open market.  (We do mine and export
uranium, but only as yellowcake (an oxide of some sort); no further
processing happens here.)

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
``USL has never sold long distance.  You're going after the wrong men in black 
  hats.  (Or, in the case of Plan 9, black space suits)'' - Tom Limoncelli


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: why velcrow insignia
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:25:16 GMT


From shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)




From shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)

On 30 Jul 92 12:51:56 GMT, carssdf!watson@rutgers.edu (- Self Empl. Sys.Integrator) said:

JW> Why do air force flying uniforms seem to have all insignia 
JW> attached by velcrow?   Is this a laundry consideration?

The Velcro attachment practice is mainly an economic consideration.
Using it means that one need only buy one set of patches.  The reduced
wear resulting from not laundering the patches is fairly minor.

This isn't a universal practice by any means.  Sometimes patches
are Velcro-ed, sometimes they're sewn on.  I've noticed that the
base newspaper still has ads offering to do alterations and sew
on patches.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: tom@math.ufl.edu (Thomas J Gillen)
Subject: F-4D Phantom II Last Flight
Organization: University of Florida Department of Mathematics
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:33:45 GMT


From tom@math.ufl.edu (Thomas J Gillen)


From tom@math.ufl.edu (Thomas J Gillen)


	From the 7-29-92 *Daily News*:


		PHANTOM II TO MAKE FINAL FLIGHT TODAY AT EGLIN

	EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE -- The last flight of an F-4D model
Phantom II aircraft in the Air Force will occur today.

	The 3246th Test Wing operates the last three "D" models of the
F-4 aircraft in the Air Force.  From 1963 to 1975, more than 750 F-4D
aircraft were built for Air Force use.

	The three test wing F-4Ds will be placed on the Eglin Range as
aerial targets to be used in camouflage, concealment, and deception
tests.

	The afternoon flight will be a routine training mission.

	[In the photo, on the side of the plane is painted:]

			PHANTOMS PHOREVER
			1963-1992
			END OF AN ERA

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: depleted uranium
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:14:11 GMT


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


Iskandar Taib writes:
#Does anyone really use Osmium for ammunition???


It's been 10 years since my metallurgy course, so please correct me
if I'm wrong, but:

Doesn't osmium have certain properties, such as a very high melting point,
which allow production of components of only a few grams, with larger
being essentially impossible?


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: rollhaus@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Charles Rollhauser)
Subject: Re: How to spike a gun?
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:41:39 GMT


From rollhaus@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Charles Rollhauser)


From rollhaus@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Charles Rollhauser)


In sci.military, dgfritz@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Doug Fritz) writes:
>From dgfritz@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Doug Fritz)
>
>Spiking a gun such as a cannon or artillery piece disables the
>gun, but how does a foot soldier spike a gun?

    Spiking the cannon was a quick and easy way to render the weapon
temporally inoperable.  It simply consisted of driving an object into the
weapon's vent hole, and breaking it off flush with the top of the hole.
Many things could be used to spike a cannon, including actual spikes or
nails.
    Artillerymen kept a pike with  slow match (fuse) burning near the gun
in case there was a malfunction with the flint or friction igniter system.
The pike had a long sharp spike on its end.  This could be used to disable
their own gun if there was a danger of being overrun by the enemy.  A good
armorer could remove the spike (with some work.) The idea was deny the
enemy the use of the weapon in the present battle, and to be able to use
it oneself in the next battle.
    To really destroy a cannon, one blew off a trunnion, or burst the
barrel.  Both procedures took more talent and more time, not to mention
more guts.


Chuck



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU
Subject: Another insignia question
Organization: UCLA School Of Engineering & Applied Science
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:27:37 GMT


From scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU




From scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU


Well this group did such a good job on Identifying the 36th Infantry patch,
Let's see how you do on this.

My Uncle has a collection of rank badges (U.S. Army) from Between the wars
(1918-1941) he as identified all of them with the excpetion of 2.  To me they
look like the Army was expermenting with Navy style 'rate' badges.


The first one consists of 3 Chevrons (upright) of a bright Green color,
under then is a fan of 5 green lightning bolts and then under that is a
Gold wreath:

    ^
  / ^ \
/ / ^ \ \
/ /   \ \
/       \
  _\|/_ 
x       x
 xxxxxxx

The second consists of a White Star over a Red Shell, with a gold wreath under
the shell. (I'm not even going to try to draw this one).

Anywone got a clue?

-----
Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (310)-825-8614
UUCP: ...{ibmsupt,ncar!cepu}!ollie}!scw  Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
"Non, je ne regrette rien"--1st Para, LE 1963

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ran@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Subject: Help me ID this "rule of thumb"
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:28:04 GMT


From ran@vax5.cit.cornell.edu




From ran@vax5.cit.cornell.edu

There's an old "rule of thumb" that I keep hearing to that states that
an attacker needs a 3-to-1 superiority in numbers in order to decisively
defeat a defender. What's the source of this pithy little maxim? I'm
inclined to say Napoleon, but I also remember him saying something like
"the moral is to the material as three is to one," stressing the importance
of morale and training and elan and all that, and I might be confusing the
two.

Can anyone ID the source of the 3:1 offense/defense rule?

Many thanks,
--Joel Pratt


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pshyvers@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX (Peter Shyvers)
Subject: Re: depleted uranium
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:40:56 GMT


From pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pshyvers@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX (Peter Shyvers)


From pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com!pshyvers@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX (Peter Shyvers)


In article <BsKCDC.DoB@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America) writes:
>
>  Interesting to note that in 1914 the French and German armies did
>really believe that with the power of "modern" weapons a long war was
>imposible.
>
>  We should design two kinds of weapons: 
>
>  A) The most effectives ones but expensive and difficult to build, and
>
>  B) The cheap ones and not so effective but easy to build in quantities,
>     in case of a long war. Remember the 80-20 rule.

   Hear, hear!  WWII is replete with examples of how quantity overwhelmed
   quality. (Not that there weren't *some* qualitative advantages in the
   overwhelming numbers...)  the classic is the T-34 vs. virtually all
   other (Wehrmacht) AFV's. Initially the T-34 was virtually as finely
   crafted as the German AFV's, but the Russian industrialists focused
   on reducing materials and machining, in an effort to deskill the
   process, reduce the materials demand, and boost production. Germany,
   by comparison, focused on very sophisticated vehicles that not only
   were very difficult to build but also had greater logistical demands
   (spares, lubricants, fixtures, etc.)

   The Russians literally over-ran them.

   While few US AFV crews would harp on the protective aspects of M3's,
   M4's, Stuarts, etc. - post-war analysis underscores that supportability
   (in the field) and availability outweigh (sometimes) the short-term
   qualitative edge that sophisticated weapons provide.

   This is not a new issue; even NOVA, the PBS TV series, underscored the
   logistical challenge. In an article reviewing the (then) standoff against
   the Warsaw Pact, the speaker noted that much of the NATO strategy was
   dependent on a strong qualitative advantage yielding a very short war.
   If that didn't work, then the qualitative advantages would begin to 
   fail as the equipment wore down, parts ran out, etc. And worse yet, NATO's
   technical lead was seen as just *balancing* the Warsaw Pact advantage
   in numbers.


The trouble is that in a peacetime setting, defense contractors can get
bigger margins with bigger-price-tag items and low volumes. There's also
more spin-off technologies generated by the R&D effort, which contribute
to new weapons possibilities and therefore increased market opportunities.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)
Subject: Re: HEAT
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:14:29 GMT


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

In article <BtAJG6.D87@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (William M. Aldo) writes:
|> BTW, no flames intended.

None taken, that's why I had the question mark after my statement as my
info on this entire thread is, seemingly, out of date.

Thanks to those who wrote me concerning this subject.  It has been *awhile*
since I last cared to study tanks, and when I quit I just remembered that
they were having trouble making a round for the 120mm smoothbore.

To summarize some of the E-mail I received:

The 120mm does indeed have a HEAT shell.

There was no consensus as to whether it was fin stabilized as well.

The effects of the shaped charge are dissipated by the rotation imparted by
the rifling in a "normal" cannon.  So, the smoothbore actually makes a
shaped charge more effective.

Back to my arguments: the reason that a HEAT round was hard to make for a
smoothbore is due to the loss in stability and range that accompanies
the removal of the rifling.  Granted that there is a greater *initial*
muzzle velocity due to the lessened resistance, but at range, the loss 
in stability actually decreases accurracy and range.  (Experiment with a 
football if you don't believe me...)  APFSDS works due to the aerodynamics
of the round.  HEAT rounds aren't very aerodynamic.  It would seem, however,
that this one is.  Anyone know for sure what this round looks like, and how
they overcame the design problems (i.e. making an effective AND aerodynamic 
charge)?

Continuing the debate,

Bill

-- 
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