HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Shooting bullets straight up
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:25:47 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu


Just to tell a recycled war story that i keep thinking of whenever i see this
subject heading: (mind that it's recycled, and starts with the words ``a friend
of mine...'')
 
 A friend of mine was a mortar man with the 2nd Bn, 3rd Marines, and was on a
gunnery exersize with 60mm mortars in the Phillipines.  It had been a long day,
and while the exersize was essentially over, the mortar crews were told to
continue firing until they had expended their allotted ammunition (consisting
of training rounds fitted to give a small smoke puff when they landed.)  These
last rounds were meant to let the gun crews continue familiarizing themselves
with the weapons as the range was still hot for some time, and the ammunition
had to be used in any case.  Therefore, each team leader was allowed to direct
the fire of his own weapon as the majority of the staff NCOs and officers
retired to wait it out, trusting their Marines to continue the training on
their own.
 
 My friend, then a Lance Corporal (ammunition bearer for his team) watched as
his team leader slowly increased the elevation on his tube, walking the rounds
in towards his position, simulating taking an advancing enemy under fire.  Soon
the rounds were landing just at the edge of the impact area, and the tube was
elevated as far as it could be and still land rounds in a safe area.  At this
point, the team leader said that he was going to talk to the squad leader in
the next pit and turned the last few rounds over to the direction of a newjoin
who had only just gotten out of his training school.  The newjoin promptly
started adjusting the elevation as the team leader ducked out.  My friend was
facing away from the gun when he heard the `thunk' of the round going off, but
something about the way that it sounded made him glance back at the tube- which
was now just about vertical.  As he jumped out of the pit looking for someplace
safer to be, he saw that everyone else was also looking at the tube's elevation
with horror on their face and heard the newjoin screaming ``I got it! I got
it!''  Looking back as he dove into the next pit he came to, he saw the newjoin
looking into the sky, with his cover in his hand, as if he was calling a pop
fly on a baseball field.

 Just as the round hit dirt not three feet from the newjoin, who was reaching
out with his cover to catch it, the company 1st Sergeant came trotting up to
investigate-- which is another story not related to shooting things straight
up.

 (sorry to the moderator, couldn't resist)
 
James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Toshio Sunada <sunadg@rpi.edu>
Subject: Cobalt bomb?  _What_ cobalt bomb?
Keywords: bomb
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:22:26 GMT


From Gary Toshio Sunada <sunadg@rpi.edu>

	Just recently I encountered something interesting in a conversation concerning nuclear weaponry: the cobalt bomb.  What in the world is a cobalt bomb, and why can't I find any references to it?

Gary				.----------------------------------.
				:    advertising space for rent    :
				:        pending .sig file         :
				.__________________________________.
 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Norm Gall <gall@nexus.yorku.ca>
Subject: Re: North Amercian Special Forces (Canada)
Organization: York University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:23:43 GMT


From Norm Gall <gall@nexus.yorku.ca>

Greg Pierce <pierce@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> writes:

|Canada's Special Service Force is part of Canada's Mobile Command
|located at St. Hubert, Quebec and is organized as a light brigade.

As of 1 Sep 92, Force Mobile Command has cahnged to Land Forces
Command.

FYI,

Lt N. Gall
CFMS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Cobalt bomb?  _What_ cobalt bomb?
Keywords: bomb
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:25:30 GMT


From dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)

In article <Bz9Eu1.6Dx@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

> long-term poisining of the target. If cobalt is in close proximity to a
> nuclear bomb, the neutron flux will convert it to a radio-isotope with
> a half-life of ~5 years, which slowly produces Iron 60, a long-half-life
> radioactive. The human body naturally absorbs iron, and if the iron
> in the environment is Fe 60, that will be picked up and encorporated into
> the body. 

The quantity of Fe-60 produced would be tiny compared to the amount of
iron already in the soil, so very little would be picked up.
Moreover, its halflife is so long (around 10^5 years) that it would
not present much a dose.

The motivation behind cobalt bombs was supposedly to produce an
isotope that (1) has penetrating gammas, and (2) has a halflife that
is neither too short (so that it can be waited out) or too long (so
that exposure can be tolerated).  In any case, existing thermonuclear
weapons are dirty enough (about half their yield, I understand, comes
from fission, at least for the small ones in the US arsenal.)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: silber@cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Prussian Military
Organization: Dept. of Computer Sci - University of Illinois
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:27:00 GMT


From silber@cs.uiuc.edu



I wonder what point of development anti-cavalry tactics were at 
this point in time. Weren't infantry still armed with matchlocks 
and pikes? Perhaps bayonets had just come into vogue and the square
hadn't been perfected yet. Or perhaps the Austrians were taken by
surprise and didn't have time to form square.

The infantry were armed with flintlocks and ring-bayonets. The primary
differences in tactics between Napoleonic warfare and that of the 
7 years war (and the War of the Austrian Succession) are as follows:

1. Artillery was much less mobile, but still more mobile than in the 17th
century. It was used mostly in direct support (no grand batteries.)

2. Infantry never (or at least almost never) formed square. Infantry
maneuvered in march column and usually formed line by snaking the column
over into the desired position and the turning everyone. (As opposed to
deployment by companies as practiced later.) Once deployed, units
maneuvered in line. (In general, formations were more rigid in this
period and a greater use was made of countermarching, so that, for instance,
no matter how a unit was deployed, the #1 company would always be on the
right side of the line. This did make formation changes slower, but may
have helped lead to the greater resiliency of units.)

3. Units tended to have better moral, but if a unit broke the men often
just went home.

4. Cavalry charged only in line. (OK, I think there were a couple
of Prussian units that trained to charge in column as a secret tactic.)

5. Unless attacking a fixed position (usually a redoubt or such), infantry
usually charged in line or reinforced line.



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:29:53 GMT


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

In article <Bz9FGD.7FD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu> writes:
>	As far as the concept of high alititude look down radar, what
>	about the Navy's long standing idea of using a large Airship
>	with the radar in the gondola or in the hull of the airship as
>	a phased array??   This would be much cheaper than a hawkeye...
>		Much longer staying power, don't need the carrier to
>		refuel.. just drop a line to the fleet oiler and she can
>		pump the fuel up...


The big problems with large airships are weather and weather. They
can't handle rough weather and they aren't fast enough to avoid it
or even to keep up with a carrier task force if the head winds are
severe. An airship normally has a top speed of about 50 knots. A
30 knot headwind leaves it trailing in the lee of a carrier task
force. The fact that they're big fat slow targets doesn't help
much either.

All of the Navy's dirigibles were lost to bad weather, and many
blimps were also lost to storms. They have an enormous cross
section but little real strength. They break apart in storms
with violent up and down drafts. Aircraft can handle weather
better, and if the storm is too strong, they can go around or
over. Airships normally don't have those options. 

An airship that could cruise at 50,000 feet at 120 knots would be 
really neat, but the air is so thin up there that conventional 
airships can't generate enough lift to reach that altitude. There
was a proposal in the 1950s for a *nuclear* hot hydrogen dirigible
that could cruise the upper stratosphere for years. Ah, those
were the days, when nuclear power was the answer, no matter what
the question.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>
Subject: Re: F-14 program (was Re: Iowa Upgrade) 
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:25:46 GMT


From David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>

>From emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

>yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman) writes:

>>Why the Congress is killing the F-14 program while everyone (at least on the
>>net) likes it and it is actually cheaper to produce than the F-18s?

>There's that, but it's also an older design that requires more maintenance
>hours per flight hour.

Also, the F18 is both a fighter and a ground-support plane; the F14 is
designed to be a pure fighter. There have been proposals to modify the
F14 to allow ground-support, but they're not very convincing.

Sure, the F14 is a better fighter. Any single-role tool is going to be
better at its design role than a dual-role tool. But if the dual-role
tool is adequate at both roles, why have a single-role tool? With the
demise of the USSR, one can reasonably argue that the F18 is adequate
to attain air superiority against the likely opponents.

It's inefficient to maintain spares, highly trained personnel and ship
space for two separate tools, if one is adequate. 

dhs   spencer@panix.com


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eric remy <edremy@leland.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in 
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:27:14 GMT


From eric remy <edremy@leland.stanford.edu>

In article <Bz3v30.2v4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
>
>From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
>
>edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy) writes:
>
>
>>From edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy)
>
>>Reasons.  (Reader's advisory: I'm a tanker, and thus am a wee bit biased.)
>
>>1) Cost:  Attack helos cost ~10X as much as a tank.  Apache runs about
>>20-30M$, M-1 series 2-4M$.  Helos also need more maintainence support
>>than do tanks, adding cost both in trained personnel and parts.
>
>That makes sense, although I *thought that Apaches were about $20
>million, and M1A1's were more than $3 million.
>
>Here's my question.  What is the correct way for a tank to deal with a
>helocopter?  If you're in a tank, and you see an oncomming enemy helo,
>what do you do?
>
>-Thanks
>


Randy,

Depends on distance: If he's within 2500m: "Gunner, sabot, chopper..."
The sabot round arrives in ~1 sec, his missile takes 5-10 sec.  It is
hard to hit choppers due to their speed, but they have to hover to fire
a missile (Or, like the Hind, fly straight towards you.)  The laser
guided Hellfire, provided the chopper has someone on the ground to
designate the tank, makes this strategy much harder.  The wire guided
TOW and Sagger make the chopper a sitting duck.

Farther out: hiding is the best option, diving into a tree line works
as well. (Wrap the guiding wires around a tree and the missile has
problems.)  Pray that you have some ADA guys attached to you.

It's actually more complicated than this.  The chopper pilots I've
seen are usually _very_ good at using the natural cover of the land to
mask their actions.  It's quite possible that the tank will never see
the chopper before it's hit.  On the other hand, the real battlefield
is likely to be a pretty bad place for any low flying aircraft, given
the proliferation of small SAMs like the Stinger.

Eric R
-- 
Eric R.      edremy@d31ha0.Stanford.EDU       Department of Chemistry
                        -1/2\nabla^2\psi_{T-72}

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Allan Hong-Kay Ng <ahng@ee.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Somali Surface/Air Engagement?/
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:27:04 GMT


From Allan Hong-Kay Ng <ahng@ee.ualberta.ca>

Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu> writes:


>From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>


>	Does anyone have details about the reported engagement of the
>	three american Choppers that destroyed the Somali vehicles?
>		Were they technicals? Tanks? Jeeps?

>					Ryan


Hi,

   I think it went:

	Two US marine AH-1(?) Cobra gunships were fired on by three
	vehicles with MG's.  One of the vehicles was an M-113 (not
	confirmed) and two armed technicals.  The AH-1's returned
	fire using TOW's and 20 mm cannon fire and destroyed all
	three vehicles.  The helos took no damage and the three
	vehicles could not be confirmed to have had occupants at
	the time of destruction.

					A. NG


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: portal!cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Rockwell XFV-12A Supersonic VTOL fighter
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:20:13 GMT


From portal!cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu@uunet.uu.net

Anybody know what ever became of the Rockwell XFV-12A Naval Supersonic
V/STOL experimental fighter? It was relatively lightweight that tried to
augment exhaust through vanes in the wings. Outside of periodic mentions
in Janes, seems the whole thing must have been a miserable flop or
something. There was also a proposal to do something similar with the C-130.

Seems the only workable design right now is the Russian YAK which flies
just fine, but is supposedly millions of dollars away from completion,
and unfunded by the ex-USSR. Supposedly the Navy and AF want to cooperate
on a AV-8 F-18 F-16 replacement that will involve some sort of thrust
augmentation, but it looks the only working designs just take a huge
engine and direct the exhaust through a rotating tailpipe.

BTW, is there anything that the AV-8 could do that the F-18s couldn't do
better in Desert Storm besides

- no air refeuling because of proximity to battle field
- fast response time because airfield was close to front line.
- operation from VTOL carrier off Kuwait (proximity again)
From: baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Swiss military preparedness??
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:29:00 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler)


> The point of the program was that the swiss, perceived as SO NEUTRAL,
> were indeed one of the MOST militarily prepared, equipped and trained
> army/civil operations in the world.  I guess if I recall correctly, it
> just goes to prove that those who are most prepared to defend
> themselves are the least likely to have to do so.

There are several things to say about this. First of all, it is true that
our army can be entirely mobilized in 48 hours. This may look impressive,
and it was for conflicts of the past, but it is unsufficient now. We have
no permanent alert forces, and modern conflicts can start so quickly, that
we are no more in a good situation.

The second important point, is that your report has probably not shown you
the very poor motivation and morale of swiss soldiers. Most young men are
not motivated at all by the army, Even worse, there is a lot of anger
against the army, mainly because of its fundamental lack of respect of 
people.

What you have seen is basically the propaganda of the swiss army. In real
cases, Things would be much poorer than what you have seen.


Emmanuel Baechler.                        | Tel.: ++41-21-693-2732
Laboratoire d'Intelligence Artificielle   | e-mail: baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne  |     or: baechler@liasun6.epfl.ch
MA-Ecublens                               | Standard Disclaimer
CH-1015 Lausanne	Switzerland

Ban the bomb. Save the world for conventional warfare.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:29:01 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu> writes:

>	As far as the concept of high alititude look down radar, what
>	about the Navy's long standing idea of using a large Airship
>	with the radar in the gondola or in the hull of the airship as
>	a phased array??   This would be much cheaper than a hawkeye...

	While I'm certainly not an expert, it seems that it would be a
much larger target and difficult to deploy from existing sites.

>		Much longer staying power, don't need the carrier to
>		refuel.. just drop a line to the fleet oiler and she can
>		pump the fuel up...

	At what altitude?  I know diesel engines ignite fuel oil at a
bit over 450psi, with some variation because this is from memory and
also because so many other variables exist in an internal-combustion
motor.  Given that gasoline, which is more likely to be used to power
motors on an airship, will ignite at 300psi in the combustion chamber
of most motors, I'd be worried about combustion in the connecting
fuel line and where the reduction in pressure causes the fuel to
vaporize as it enters the fuel tanks of the airship.

	No doubt it could be made to work.  Is it worth it?

< 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.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jim Heath <jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:43:29 GMT


From Jim Heath <jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu>

>From article <BzB9qG.13M@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by Mark Miller <msmiller@igor.rational.com>:
> 
> From Mark Miller <msmiller@igor.rational.com>
> 
> |> From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
> |> 
> |> Prompted by the current fasinating history of the Bell Airacobra...
> |> 
> |> I hereby nominate the following as the worst and most dangerous (to 
> |> their aircrews) fighters on the Allied side in WW2
> |> 
> |> 1. Brewster Buffalo -- so bad that it deserves a class all of its own.
> 
> Yet a pile of these were sent to Finland and they chewed up the
> Red Air Force with them. Go figure.
> 
> |> 2. Bell Airacobra -- for all the reasons that Joe advances.
> 
> The Russians loved the P-39 for ground attack and low-level ops'.
> Of course, they also loved the fact that the P-39 had a radio
> and a cabin heater.
> 

I think at least some of the guys flying the P-39 liked them quite well. 
The ones in Alaska (Kiska, Attu) were pretty complimentary, although they
would have like a little more altitude ;-{).

Weren't the P-40, Wildcat and original Thunderbolt (Flying Jug, P-47?) all
pretty much outclassed by the Zero, ME109 and FW190?  They could all
outdive the enemy planes and had better armor than the Zero, but were in
trouble otherwise.
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Thursday, 10 December, 1942
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:34:02 GMT


From skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)

Harry Bloomberg <hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu> writes:


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


>In article <BzB9Kn.so@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes:
>>Thursday, 10 December, 1942
>>
>>German and British shore batteries along the Channel coast at Dover enter a
>>90-minute gun duel.
>>
>   That's one heck of a long range for an artillary duel!  Isn't the
>distance across the Channel something like 25 miles?  Could somebody please
>describe these batteries?  At such a range, what would be the likelyhood of a
>hit?

>Harry Bloomberg
>hpb@vms.cis.pitt.edu

All this is from memory so :-) but I am pretty confident on the info.

Around Dover there are a couple of batteries with 375mm and 350mm guns
(14" and 15") with a range of about 25-30 miles. At this time I believe
the Germans had guns ranging from 250-350mm along the coast from
Boulogne-Cape Griz Nez-Calais area. As for the accuracy I dunno.


--
"There is the smell of an election in the air. Some of you believe it is
the smell of tar and asphalt... I assure you, however, that it is indeed
the smell of an election." -   John Savage, Leader of the N.S. Liberals.
                           skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca St. John's, NF Canada

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: F-14 program (was Re: Iowa Upgrade) 
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:23:44 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

David Spencer <spencer@panix.com> writes:

>Also, the F18 is both a fighter and a ground-support plane; the F14 is
>designed to be a pure fighter.

	My understanding is the F14 isn't even a fighter -- it's an
interceptor, the difference being stand-off fighting versus close-in.

>It's inefficient to maintain spares, highly trained personnel and ship
>space for two separate tools, if one is adequate. 

	One can argue this, until the cost of an aircraft carrier and the
supporting fleet are factored into the efficiency equation.  For a carrier
task force, my bet is that fleet defence is #1, followed by fighters, and
then followed by ground support.  The F18 is a great plane, no doubt about
it, but it has a different role than the F14 and should not be used in
that role so long as the F14 can do it better.

< 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.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
From: labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:32:43 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA


From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>


randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
: Here's my question.  What is the correct way for a tank to deal with a
: helocopter?  If you're in a tank, and you see an oncomming enemy helo,
: what do you do?

	Well it depends on the range...If he is pointing at you...blow
	smoke and head for cover at max tilt...If he is pointing at
	some one else and is not moving fast...then give him a APDS
	round. It would have the longest range and Highest velocity for
	getting there before he fires...I suppose you could engage
	with the hvy Mg on the cupola if you felt like it, but at range
	you might as well be throwing peanuts...
		'course there is always the ever persent friendly infantry
		and with the new battle field hot communication
		system...you could call in an airforce jock or one of your
		feindly neighborhood OH-88's with the sidewinder on the
		side...


					Ryan
Newsgroups: sci.military