HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: raine@brandonu.ca
Subject: Re: Big Naval Battles was Re: Surprise attack on Pearl Harbor
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:36:04 GMT


From raine@brandonu.ca

In article <Bww8Lp.FKr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu writes:
> 
> From jdavidso@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
> 
> In article <BwqpJq.K09@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Robert E George  
> <regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>> My knowledge of the Pacific Naval War is quite limited, but I believe
>> carriers played a role in virtually all major operations.
>> 
> During the Guadalcanal campaign, there were several major surface battles  
> between various classes of ships. I can't remember right now if any of  
> those involved battleship vs. battleship, though. But I do remember at  
> least one engagement when the japanese used a couple of them, and another  
> one where we sent in two of them.
> --

In November 1942 there were 2 night naval actions to days apart.
The First was between 2 Kongo class battleships and a cruiser force with the
San Fan and other cruisers. The result was the San Fan badly shot up and other
ships sunk from the US side and 1 Kongo disabled to be sunk the next day by air.

The Second night action was between the remaining Kongo and the South Dakota and 
Washington. The result was the Kongo was sunk and the South Dakota was damaged.


Eric Raine
Brandon University
Brandon, Manitoba
Canada

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Donald R. Newcomb" <dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu>
Subject: Re: 106mm Recoiless Rifle - Rocket or Gun?
Keywords: ontos marines
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:42:53 GMT


From "Donald R. Newcomb" <dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu>

In article <BxM5x1.4zL@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gawne@stsci.edu writes:
>In article <BxID61.LMH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
>> p.s. I *did* think the jeep with 4 106mm RR's on it looked neat though!
>> What was it called? 'Ontos', maybe? Anyway, has anyone any experiences
>> with those they'd care to relate?
>
>The Ontos was a small armored tracked vehicle with 6 106's welded to
>the hull.  Two on top and two down each side as I recall.  I'll have to
>look closely at the one parked along Del Valle next time I'm at 29 Palms.
>
>Anyhow, I've talked with people who operated Ontos in the SE Asian
>wargames (US team, 2nd place), and the point they always make is that
>you never wanted to fire ALL your shots until you were sure of a safe
>area to reload.  Nothing like having to pop the hatch, get out of the
>vehicle, and then reload six big guns in full sight of the WHOLE WORLD.
>
>It is a fearsome looking beast with those six big gun tubes. 
>
>-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute 

Bill,
  I knew an ex-Marine who was a sergeant of a Marine Ontos
platoon in SE Asia. He *told me* about one problem with the 106mm
recolless rifle. He said that the rounds tended to skip off the
ground and  ricochet to unintended places. He said that this had
to do with spring-loaded fins on the projectiles. He said  they
had constructed a special firing range in the PI for 106 practice
that had a mountain-side carved into a bullet-trap. He said that
the first time an Ontos platoon cut loose with a full barrage some
rounds still skipped over the mountain and inflicted civilian
casualties on the other side. (Warning! Ex-Marine story. ;-)
  The Ontos was one of a series of small, tracked, heli-mobile
vehicles designed in the '50. It is built on the same chasis as
the Scorpion anti-tank gun. We have a Scorpion at the Mississippi
Military Museum at Camp Shelby. Neat toy! We like to keep all our
toys in running condition ;-) . I believe that the Ontos' RRs are
onto welded to the hull but rather are attached to a limited traverse
yoke that mounts at the commander's hatch. 
  While one could argue the physics of whether the RR is a rocket or
gun (I won't get into that); for the record, a number of RR employ
a small sustainer rocket motor. One example is the FFV-551 round for
the 84mm Carl Gustav.
-- 

Donald R. Newcomb                * The one who dies with the most toys
dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu        * has accomplished nothing beyond
newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet            * enslaving himself to his possessions.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:50:38 GMT


From Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>

In article <Bxq1Fn.5x@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> arthur@eng.sun.com (Arthur Leung) writes:
>
>a scenario might be for coast defence artillery to fire
>DPICM (cluster) and try and scrub the topsides.  while
>it clearly won't sink her, it will degrade her combat
>effectiveness for at least a little while since she
>won't be able to range her shot effectively or communicate
>with anyone/thing.  might even lose a UAV.  blind a BB
>and she loses a lot of her potency.
>
>just a thought.  or am i half baked again?

Remember the relative ranges of the two gun systems. The BB
can fire effectively from outside the range of most of the
world's coastal artillery. An Iowa can fire the lighter 750 kg
shells 27 miles. And a BB is a bear at counter battery fire. 
That's what she was primarily designed to do, take out another
battleship. The kind of coast guns that could reach a BB 
would be fixed prime targets on any fire mission and wouldn't 
last long enough to be much of a threat. 

Also remember that the fire control computers on Iowas are
still mechanical analog computers. Even if you got her radars,
she can still fire accurately from known positions or using
optical rangefinders or even forward observers. These ships
were designed to take a lot of punishment and keep on fighting.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mluoto@cc.helsinki.fi (Markku Luoto)
Subject: foxtrot-class ex-soviet sub ?
Keywords: what specs ?
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:36:01 GMT


From mluoto@cc.helsinki.fi (Markku Luoto)

Hello,
	someone here just bought a FOXTROT -class ex-soviet submarine
	from the russian yard sale,,, he's furnishing it to become a
	restaurant in future, but as it's now the biggest sub in
	Finnland I'dd like to get some spec's on it if anyone has...

	yes, it was fully operational as they sailed it in... no ammo
	though...  - what can it carry ?



Thanks !



 
-- 
email: markku.luoto@helsinki.fi    # "I just LOVE G-pull...     
     (will find me where ever...)  #      ...and a AIM9L at your six !"
fax: 358-0-4524015                 #    
voice: 358-0-5091656 (a.maschine ) #    - a surviving "Pro-Flite" freak

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: Soviet C-5 Clone (AN-124?) at Moffet Field
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:40:34 GMT


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

In article <BxtK7q.1MM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu%portal@uunet.uu.net writes:
>
>From cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu%portal@uunet.uu.net
>
>It's Sun Nov 15, and there's a Soviet (whatever) AN-124 C-5A Galaxy
>clone parked where they normally put a C-5. C-5's come by all the time
>to pick up stuff from the Lockheed plant or for NASA Ames. I just noticed

The Antonov was transporting the pieces of a ground satellite facility
for some British/U.S./Russian commercial venture.

>Is the USAF or NASA contracting with the Soviets to use their aircraft
>because C-5 time is in short supply, or does anybody think it was delivering
>something to or from the Commonwealth?

The British component of the commercial group got the low bid in for
transport and set up, they just chose to go with the lowest bidder for
the transport part of the operation.  (The Antonov could take the whole
batch in one gulp, and it was just a tad too big to go in one load for
a C-5 (or a bunch of C-141s) according to local radio reports.

>(talking about Moffet Field, Sunnyvale CA, the one with the big dirigible
>hanger)

Where you don't *normally* see Aeroflot operating...


--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
-------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: travt@cs.curtin.edu.au (Tony Travers)
Subject: USSR military capacity
Summary: Question about old USSR military capability wrt West
Keywords: USSR cold-war capability
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:36:54 GMT


From travt@cs.curtin.edu.au (Tony Travers)

hi


	I was just wondering if anyone could fill me in on the USSR's
military capability during the cold war (i.e. a comparison with the
western equivilant) in light of the new information available from the
old USSR?


			If this is possible!!


				Thanks
					Tony Travers

					travt@marsh.cs.curtin.edu.au

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Re: New Bombers (was Reorganizing the DoD (was New Carrier Plan))
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:39:25 GMT


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

In article <BxEvtD.13F@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
Daniel F Boyd <boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu> writes: 
> 
> From Daniel F Boyd <boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu>
> 
> In article <Bx97op.2DM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> 
> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes: 
>> What about using an existing commercial or military transport
>> airframe as a basis for a new bomber?  What about something based on
>> the 767, or a 747 variant for instance?
> 
> The wing spar is in the way.  There is no place to put the bomb bay
> because both these aircraft are low-winged, with the wing going
> underneath the fuselage.  This puts the wing spar right where you want
> to put the bomb bay.
> 
> Also, 747s and 767s are designed to carry the weight of people
> distributed throughout the cabin, and they're not designed for the
> stresses you would get when you let go of the bombs -- the plane loses
> a lot of weight in a hurry, and 7X7s don't do that.
Even more problematic:  7X7's (and their MD and Airbus counterparts) aren't
designed with low altitude, high speed flight in mind.  The airframe isn't
designed for it, nor is the airframe designed with any radar minimizing
features, etc, et multiple cetera.

> 
>> Would this cost less?
> 
> Probably not enough less to make it worth it.  If the Air Force needs
> a carpet-bombing plane then they'll ask for one -- and it will
> probably have efficient turbofan engines and so on that Boeing learned
> how to build/use when making the 767, a more efficient wing, all sorts
> of things.  But it won't be the same plane, because the basic airframe
> of a bomber and a transport have different needs.
>
Of course the 747 was seriously proposed as a cruise missile carrier sometime
in the '70s I think.  The proposal had 100+ ALCMs launched through a hatch at
the rear of the airframe.  In the event, old B-52s were already on hand so they
were used instead (with fewer ALCMs but 100+ per aicraft would have been a
little like putting all of one's eggs in one basket anyway.)

>[commets on the relative utility of various bombers deleted] 
-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Back off man.  I'm a political scientist!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: Best piece of Artillery you ever saw
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:50:40 GMT


From pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)

Rusty <rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu> writes:
>a northerly direction, and asked where it was aimed. A big sergeant major
Don't believe everything sargeant majors tell you, or you'll get in all
sorts of trouble.

>claimed maximum range. And, I might add, I paced off the barrel length on
>the ground, did some trig, and concluded that the elevation was a few
>degrees less than the ballistically optimum 45 degrees...

It's my understanding that 45 degrees is _not_ the optimum elevation for
long range arty, they shoot higher (like 55 degrees or something) to go for
higher elevations where the wind resistance is lower.

Maybe that's a sargeant major's story, however.  Any gunners out there care
to comment?

-- 
Paul Tomblin, pt@geovision.gvc.com
(This is not an official opinion of GeoVision Systems Inc.)
"A witty .signature proves nothing" - Voltaire (sort of)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)
Subject: Re: Random Navy Cap Protocol Question
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:42:59 GMT


From yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)

In article <BxM62n.59M@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick) writes:
>
>From billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)
>
>I have quite a few Navy ship caps, some with scrambled eggs and others
>plain.
>
>Is it considered rude to wear one if you're not a member of the ship's
>crew or even in the Navy?
>

If it was, then they wouldn't sell them to everybody.
As for the ones with scrambled eggs, now, that might offend some.
Just my opinion of course.

>Like I said -- just a random question...
>
>Bill
>-- 
>SEANEWS  []  Seattle News + Mail  []  Public Access  []  +1 206 747 NEWS
>E-mail for PGP key.   MD5 (no sigs) is: 8e253e95133365a292261c7d0da58bcb
>
>

- Craig

-- 
Craig Huffnagle       			yukyuk@yuck.lanl.gov
"It takes a big man to cry,
	And a bigger man to laugh at him."	Jack Handey
------------- Think of a disclaimer, it applies. --------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Thomas R Balent <trb@cbosgd.att.com>
Subject: Re: Pearl Harbour was not first!!!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:30:43 GMT


From Thomas R Balent <trb@cbosgd.att.com>

In article <By4LC6.CML@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jbutt@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>
>From jbutt@kean.ucs.mun.ca
>
>To all of you who think that the U.S. ws the first to be taken by 
>surprise in port. examine the following.
>Tatanto 1941 (?) RN launshed Fairley Swordfish Torpedo bomnbers and 
>managed to pretty much put the Italian Navy pout of comission for the 
>duration of the war.

That should be Taranto (on the inside of the heel of Italy), it was May 
of 1941 (six months before PH). Another interesting thing about the 
attack was that it was made around midnight.  They dropped flares
"behind" the ships, to shiloutte them, and then the torp. bombers
made their attack.  They only sank one battleship, but severly damaged
two others (at the cost of two planes shot down, but only one crew
killed).  The psycological impact was much greater, as the  Italians
moved the remaining ships to more remote ports - for all intents, 
taking them out of the war.

Another significant point of this attack was that it helped to give
the Japanese the confidence that their attack on PH would be successful.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Thomas Zych <tz10956@meibm17.cen.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Firing 0.5 inch Browning in B17 formation ?
Keywords: Defensive fire, Flying Fortress
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:22:25 GMT


From Thomas Zych <tz10956@meibm17.cen.uiuc.edu>

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


>From Anthony Lee <anthony@cs.uq.oz.au>


>During the daylight bombing campaign by the USAAF in WWII, B17
>bombers flies in box formation.  The reason being, each B17 has a
>number of 0.5 inch MG and flying in a box formation increases the
>volume of fire.  My question is, how do the MGs from each plane
>avoid hitting the other B17s in the formation ?


Since all the guns were manually aimed, you simply did your best to let up on
the trigger when your target got close to one of your own aircraft.  I'd guess
that some planes got hit by 'friendly fire' from overzealous gunners...

+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Tom Zych   tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The University of Illinois           |
|           tz10956@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu |     at Urbana-Champaign...           |
+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|  The University may have all my money, but the opinions still belong to me. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|             Vegetarians eat vegetables.  Beware Humanitarians.              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: What are Katyusha rockets ?
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:06:15 GMT


From fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)

We also used something similar, the US Navy used what looked
like a large LST (super structure in the stern) and the
front 2/3 d's of the ship was all rocket launchers. I have
seen pictures of them being used mostly in the Pacific and
in the beach landings in France and Italy. Don't know what
type of ship it was or the type of rocket used but they
appeared to fire for continously for 3-5 minutes. 
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I by my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Paul Podvig <ppl@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Shallow Water ASW
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:39:27 GMT


From Paul Podvig <ppl@athena.mit.edu>

In article <BxKAzI.FH0@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> writes:
>
>First, it is my understanding that shallow water does not allways 
>deteriorate sonar perfomance.  A lot of this depends on the sea floor and 
>the local conditions of the water.  I have seen a few submarine books t 

It depends also on local wind conditions, for it is the main source of noise.

>(along with a few "attemped" computer simulations) make shallow water sonar 
>performance to be nill.  While the ability to use long array devices and 
>some convergence zones may be lost, I still wouldn't say that sonar 
>performance is "severely degraded."  

The performance is not nill of course, but detection range becomes something
like 100 meters. When Russian and U.S. subs collide in Barentz Sea in
February(?) they didn't hear each other until the collision. 

My understanding is that there are no convergence zones in shallow water.
Long towed array is useful when you can deploy it. Given that length of
the thing is up to 2 miles, I doubt if you can operate it in shallow water
(though surface ships probably could deploy it with little difficulty).

>Some forms of active sonar do very well in shallow water (medium freq. hull 
>mount I think).  Again a lot would depend on the geography.  It is probably 
>a lot easier to find a submarine in the perisan gulf than off the coast of 
>Norway.

Agree. Though you are still going to have a lot of problems with reflections
from the bottom and the surface. And again, if you are on submarine, you
wouldn't like to use your active sonar--you will be detected first.


>  [some stuff deleted]

I am not saying that it is impossible to find diesel boat in shallow water.
What I am saying it is more difficult than to find a nuclear one and that
<nuclear> attack submarine is of little, if any, help.

--
Paul Podvig
ppl@athena.mit.edu
DACS, MIT
(617) 253-3846

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Arthur Leung <arthur@eng.sun.com>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:55:51 GMT


From Arthur Leung <arthur@eng.sun.com>

>From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
>A valid point. In fact, that is sort of the strategy the FUSSR might have
>been planning against carriers (i.e. damaging them is almost as good as
>sinking them) But, I must point out the following:
>
>1) the ol' 16"/50 can outrange just about any artillery piece (especially
>if the rumors about the subcaliber munitions are true!)

the first hard part is finding them.  the iraqi artillery could
outrange allied tubes in ODS, but they couldn't see targets to
shoot at, effectively negating that advantage.  i'm not sure
what sensors would be appropriate for finding and plotting
gun positions, but would it require local air superiority?
especially if the gun systems are highly mobile (eg: MLRS,
which i know isn't a "gun" :o)

second thing is that the guns can be bunkered.  experience in
the pacific theater in WWII showed that well protected, prepared
positions could survive BB preinvasion bombardment.  the solution
was to fix and destroy bunkers with direct fire from a few
thousand yards off shore.

>2) anti-ship missiles tend to attack amidships, low (right on a BBs
>belt armor! :-) ) rather than on the radars. This is a good strategy
>for sinking destroyers, but a lousy one for damaging BBs.

i quite agree!

>3) Battleships still have optical rangefinders in case the electronics
>go out. Not as accurate, but it might still be enough.

yes, provided you can see the target.  terrain can mask director
fire, as was demonstrated in the initial landings in okinawa (iwo?)
it took a few days to clear those guns from the reverse slope.

don't get me wrong, here.  i'm a big fan of the BB's and i'm
saddened to see them go (again).

-- arthur



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng)
Subject: Re: F-14 as a strike bomber
Keywords: BombCat
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:47:24 GMT


From ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng)

Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu> writes:

>In my opinion, the A-6F is a better choice as a long-range attack aircraft.  
>First, it was designed with the role in mind, albeit nearly 35 years ago.  
>Second, it can carry 30,000 lbs of ordinance, where the BombCat cant carry 
>20,000.  Finally, for anyone who thinks that the A-6 doesn't have the air-to-
>air capability to survive in a hostile environment, the new F model has the 
>capability not only for Sidewinders, but for radar-guided AMRAAM's.

Hi, for the same reasons you've listed the Bombcat as an ineffective attack
A/C the A-6F would be an ineffective fighter.  Air-to-air capability would
be better stated as self defense.  "You never make a big truck and tommorrow
make it a race car."  Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartman Luftwaffe (352 kills)

						A. Ng (0 kills)


Newsgroups: sci.military