HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Subject: Best ASW platform
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:47:08 GMT


From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)

Someone from a alt.war wrote ...

>It is a known fact that the best ASW platform is another submarine.
>I would not want to enter a hostile environment with billion+ dollar
>carriers having my subsurface elements not being up to the task of
>defenses of those surface units.

Ids this true???

I would argue that an ASW carrier (like the Italians or Spanish have)
is much better that the few submarines that you could by for the same
cost.  You could probably buy two frigates for the price of a
Centurion, or 1/2 of the carrier and airwing mentioned above.  I'd
think both a better buy for straight ASW work.

however, I'm not very confident of my opinion.  What do ya'll think?

-Randy



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Iskandar Taib <ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Napier Sabre engines (fwd)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:36:16 GMT


From Iskandar Taib <ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>


From Iskandar Taib <ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>

This was the first letter that mentioned the RR Crecy.

jimd@sfu.ca writes:


Sabre engines were H type, sleeve valve, high RPM, short stroke
designs. Napier had a whole series of H type engines before the war.
They were certainly one of the most progressive designers in the late
thirties. To test the sleeve design, they ran single cylinder test
rigs up to and over 6,000 RPM without problems. This is impressive
when you consider the piston speed in feet per minute. H type sleeve
valve engines were also being designed by P&W, but the illness of
their chief engineer ended the company i interest in this type.
another significant exp. design was the V-16 Chrysler 2220. This was
also a short stroke, high RPM design which was actually Type
Certificated. Unfortunately, hard info on all these engines is
virtually impossible to attain. I've been trying for years, with
modest success. Some books I reccomend are:

Development of Aircraft Engines by Robt. Schlaifer (includes Deve-
lopment of Aviation Fuels by S. D. Heron) pub. by Harvard Uni.  Grad.

School of Bus. Admin. in 1950. Very hard to find, but the BEST
available. also include info on early jet engines (incl GER MAN) etc.

If you ever find a copy that you want to sell, let me know. I was able
to get one on interlibrary loan from a university in eastern US (sorry
cant remember name)

Janes Victory Edition of All the Worlds Aircraft, good coverage of
production engines, little or nothing on experimental stuff.

The Merlin in Perspective, Alec Harvey-Bailey, RR Heritage Trust.
Excellent info on merlin and its development, lots of hard tech. info.

Also some info on the RR Cecy (AKA PI26) a two-stroke (!) V-12,
sleeve-valve, direct injection, stratified-charge drop in repalcement
for the merlin. To give some idea of its potential, Harry Ricardo had
a one cylinder, 100 c.i. development test engine, which gave hime 360
BHP at 4000 revs, reliably. See also "The High Speed Piston Engine" by
Ricardo, the 4th edition (I thi nk)

anyway, please excuse the lengthy reply (and messy layout) If you
would like to discuss this further, please send me email!  


Jim Davies
jimd@sfu.ca




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Marty Ryba <ryba@ll.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Nuclear powered satellites
Organization: Group 101, MIT Lincoln Lab.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:32:39 GMT


From Marty Ryba <ryba@ll.mit.edu>


In article <Bvq4E6.Czp@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, P & S Ltd - Accounts Dept <pands@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes:
|> thereabouts.  There are a dozen or so reactors up there now,  all waiting
|> patiently,   glowing a delicate shade of blue (forgive the imagery,  they
|> obviously won't do any such thing!)
|> 

   Yeah, but they really are a pain for the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
I find the idea of "park that junk up there and it won't bother anyone"
repulsive.  Hopefully we will have less need for nuclear-powered sats in
the future.

-- 
Dr. Marty Ryba                     |	Generation X:
Group 101 - Air Defense Techniques |
MIT Lincoln Laboratory             |  Too young to be cynical,
ryba@ll.mit.edu                    |		too old to be optimistic.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 4 October, 1942
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:29:31 GMT


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

In article <Bvwr70.KAv@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) writes:

>From swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)

>>>General Paulus opens a new series of attacks in Stalingrad.  Combat

>>Shouldn't his proper title be "Von Paulus" ?

>What does "Von" denote?  Is it a title of respect like the British "Sir"?

I think it has some kind of tititular significance. Its probably something
like "from" or "of", and probably denotes that the person was of noble de-
scent, more in terms of landowning gentry rather than a knighthood (i.e. 
the Duke of Marlborough's sons may take on the last name Marlborough, 
though in English we'd leave out "from"). In any case I'm also pretty sure
its part of the last name and shouldn't be left out. I think "De" in French
serves the same purpose (DeGaul comes to mind). The Scottish "Mc" however
means "Son of" or "Descendant of", I think. Someone ought to crosspost to
org.sca - they'd know for sure. (I won't even begin to mention the Norwe-
gians. Their "last name" really isn't 9-) )...

>How many (or what percentage) of WWII German generals had "Von" in their 
>names?

Not just generals, probably a fair proportion of Germans in general.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:25:47 GMT


From moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com


From moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com

In article <Bw0oGp.LB4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
> 
>From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>>Shame Henry, space has no temperature...
> 
>Vacuum doesn't but space, for practical purposes, does.  The temperature
>of the night sky is about 25K.  (The cosmic background temperature is a
>lot lower, but the sky is full of stars and other warm objects too.)  Of
>course, to get the benefits of this, you have to consider the presence
>of the Sun and nearby planets too.  That tends to raise the effective
>temperature to something like 70K.

Space itself has no temperature, but an object placed in space will
cool to a temperature determined by what's nearby - eventually (see below).
25K, maybe more with a warm earth nearby, more with a moon, lots more if
in the sun.

>>The question is whether convection
>>or radiation (thermal) will put the cold plate at a lower temperature.

>Agreed, and it obviously depends on details, like the heat flow involved.
>With near-zero heat flow, a radiator radiating to 70K will get a lot colder
>than a convector with fluid at 280-300K.  How things work out for realistic
>heat flow, I'm not sure... hence the cautious phrasing towards the end of
>my comment.

Since space is a vacuum, insulation against conductive and convective heat
loss is near perfect.  The only way to dump the heat is through radiation.
For radiation, the effectiveness is proportional to the 4th power of the
absolute temperature, so a 70K radiator is going to be real inefficient at
dumping the heat.  It would have to be huge.  So it probably has to run pretty
hot to be a resonable size.  This of course means the RTG efficiency will be
low.

-Mike

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: subs
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:32:38 GMT


From Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>


From Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>

I wrote:
>... If you're less patient, or you want to be able to surface in
>the winter... you need a sub whose sail has been suitably reinforced
>and whose sail-mounted diving planes can be either folded or pivoted to
>avoid damage during ice penetration.  I believe not all US subs have these
>arrangements...

I'm told that in general, the attack subs are fitted for ice penetration
and the missile subs are not.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re:  Re:  Release of Tactical Nukes
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:40:09 GMT


From Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>


From Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>

There is a short blurb in "USA Today" that says 
Iran purchased 4 nuc's from soviet union. Sorry
but I dont think its worth a half dollar to look into
it in greater detail, now if it were the Times....
-- 
##########################################################
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.belcore.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: pfloyd@titan.ucc.umass.edu (BlackWing Restorations, Ltd.)
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Organization: Old Pink, care of the Funny Farm, Chalfont
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:39:35 GMT


From pfloyd@titan.ucc.umass.edu (BlackWing Restorations, Ltd.)


From pfloyd@titan.ucc.umass.edu (BlackWing Restorations, Ltd.)

>:The Uzi is probably more effective in dry climates than in wet ones,
>:like most personal weapons, water is not their friend. Range is not
>:an issue since the Uzi is used for commando and street fighting, not
>:long range sniping duels. The compact Uzi is much better for clearing
>:a room than a long, awkward rifle. Naturally, Israel has assualt and
>:battle rifles as well as submachineguns. The SMG is a specialized
>:weapon for specialized missions, not a general issue piece.
>I recall seeing a video of Israelites attacking the Golan Heights.
>They were clearing out some trenches and using Uzis to do it.
>I guess, in the closed confines of a trench the Uzi would be 
>excellent.


Well, in that respect, there are a few other SMGs that are decent for
that... the Ingram MAC10 is one...

On the climate effectiveness... I have a friend in the SEALs (Team 6)
and another in 22SAS... they have both trained with Uzis and they know
how to care for them in adverse environments, such as wet ones... 
A gun can work well in those climates... it's all a matter of how it's
taken care of... 'course, these guys are specialists in their fields
:)

pf

-------------===========**********===========-------------
	       BlackWing Restorations, Ltd.
            Investigations, Personal Security
               and Restorations a specialty

     Can be reached via the following Internet address:
		pfloyd@titan.students.umass.edu

No case to easy, no fee too large, no ammunition expenditure
too gratuitous. no body count too high... call now for an
inexpensive consultation.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dittman@skitzo.dseg.ti.com (Eric Dittman)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:29:49 GMT


From dittman@skitzo.dseg.ti.com (Eric Dittman)


From dittman@skitzo.dseg.ti.com (Eric Dittman)

In article <Bvq413.CF6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
> Two YB-70 prototypes were built in the early 60's, and were without a doubt the
      ^^^^^
The two prototypes were XB-70s.

> Basicly, the B-70 wold have been a Mach 3 high-altitude bomber, capable of 
> penetratinmg Soviet airspace while carrying large numbers of nuclear weapons.  

Are you sure about the payload?  I seem to recall the XB-70 could only
carry two nuclear bombs at a time.
-- 
Eric Dittman                  Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility
dittman@skitzo.dseg.ti.com    (214) 578-3575
Disclaimer:  Not even my opinions.  I found them by the side of the road.
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: nuclear satellites
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:00:27 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)
>I have heard of the nuclear reactor satellites a couple times here.  Could 
>someone provide a few more details on this?  I would think that such 
>satellites would be banned under a nuclear munitions in space treaty of 
>some sort...

Occasional ignorant bozos to the contrary, nuclear reactors are not weapons
and hence are not covered by the treaties that ban nuclear weapons from
space.  There has been occasional talk about banning reactors from low
Earth orbit due to the safety issues, but so far nothing has been done
about it.

The US flew one nuclear reactor in space, as an engineering test in the 60s.
The Soviets have flown several tests, plus an operational nuclear-powered
military radar satellite program.  The radarsats are thought to have been
primarily for tracking the US fleet.  They were launched them once or twice
a year for quite a while, but the program appears to have been suspended
a few years ago.  (No, this was not in response to the one that came down
in Canada; the program continued for several years after that.)
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Piston engine experiments (Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:37:35 GMT


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

In article <Bvq4K0.D6r@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN) writes:

|  I don't have any general details of the Tempest, but I suspect that it
|  was an 'advanced parallel' development of the Typhoon -- correcting the
|  more obvious faults of the latter.  It was certainly meant to be a 
|  fighter.  It was kept in production until after the war.  Happily, by
|  that time the problematic Sabre engine was history and it was fitted with
|  the powerplant that Hawkers had wanted right from the outset: the Bristol
|  Centaurus radial.  RAF flew the Tempest, whilst the Royal Navy had --
|  you guessed it: the famous Sea Fury -- basically a navalised Tempest.
|  Check 'em out at Reno!!

The Tempest was indeed a development of the Typhoon. One change they made 
was a thinner wing. I'm wondering what it handled like in a dogfight, whe-
ther the pilots used P-47 like tactics (the P-47, surprisingly enough, 
could turn inside a FW-190 on occasion, but the pilots used its tremen-
dous diving speed and zoom climb to great advantage. It also had a good 
roll rate. It wouldn't have fit into typical British tactics - out-turn 
your adversary. They tried it against Zeros and it didn't work...)

It never occured to me that the Sea Fury was a navalized Tempest! Its 
really obvious when you take a second look. 

Were there any Tempests fitted with a turboprop? I kind of recall seing 
a picture of such a beast, but it may have been one with the radial. 
There was a one-of-a-kind Meteor with turboprops, so they did experiment 
with them.

The Typhoon was also an offshoot of the failed Hawker Tornado, which 
according to Quill, was fitted with the Rolls Royce Vulture engine. This 
was the same engine that was to power the Avro Manchester. When the 
Vulture (24 cylinders, configuration unknown) failed to perform, the 
Sabre was substituted and the Typhoon was born. Similarly, four Merlins 
were mounted on a modified wing and the result was the Lancaster.

I'll have to find out more about engines, as I can't find the reference 
for the Sabre being a V. It may indeed have been an H. It was sleeve
valved. 




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Nuclear powered satellites
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:24:04 GMT


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From Marty Ryba <ryba@ll.mit.edu>
>|> ... There are a dozen or so reactors up there now, all waiting patiently...
>
>   Yeah, but they really are a pain for the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.

I hadn't heard of Compton having any problems with the defunct reactors.
Details?

Several satellites did find it *very* noticeable when the Soviets were
flying reactors operationally.  The direct radiation actually wasn't the
big problem, although it was detectable during a close pass.  The real
pain was positrons from the reactors travelling along Earth's magnetic
field and kicking up gamma rays when they hit their victims, because
this process didn't suffer from the inverse-square law.  (Under more
controlled conditions, this may in fact be a useful method for large-scale
observations of the magnetic field.)

The astronomers were seriously worried about effects on Compton, but
fortunately the Soviet radarsat program was suspended before Compton was
launched.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: stxtnt@rs733.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:43:36 GMT


From stxtnt@rs733.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng)


From stxtnt@rs733.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng)

In article <Bvyqqr.5wM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

   From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

[timing deleted]

[Vulcan raid and pulling squadrons back deleted]

   when those squadrons left.)  The Argentines were overreacting, but from
   their point of view it made some sense:  the British were behaving in
   unexpected ways already, and who could tell what they might do next?

Overreacting in a big way IMHO.  I suppose that if the timing issue
regarding the carriers is relevant then if the Argies had waited for
the sales and mothballing they probably would have not had to deal
with the Vulcans either.

As far as I remember anyway the Vulcan raid was as much politically
motivated as anything else...the damage done was very minimal.

   I do agree with one of Gary's points:  the British would have been in
   considerable trouble if the Argentines had been more aggressive.
   However, one of their two major vulnerabilities is shared by the USN:
   not enough carriers.  (The other one was lack of radar aircraft, until
   their first radar helicopters were deployed, too late for the war.)
   They had only two carriers in the task force, and loss of even one would
   have been a major disaster.  However, a USN task force probably wouldn't
   have had more than two or three, and losing one would be almost as bad.

Yes...but a USN task force would have been far more capable.  In fact
one US carrier would have been far more dangerous than the two the
Brits had...just with the AEW capability alone.  The Brits certainly
had lots of guts to go into land based air coverage sans early
detection capability...

You can't really compare the Brit force against a real US carrier
group or even a scratch US task force.  Minimum you'd have seen is one
carrier group and a MAU (MAB? What is the correct designation
anyway?)...which is arguably an order of magnitude more powerful than
the British force in any arena except ASW.  At least I hope so or
we've spent far too much money on them ;-).

   Fact is, in a modern war against a capable opponent, it's insane to
   be vitally dependent on assets you can count on your fingers.  As the
   USN's submariners will gladly tell you :-), the USN carriers are *not*
   invulnerable.

Yah...but that doesn't mean they aren't worth having around.  For that
matter name any weapon system that is invulnerable...or that we have
sufficient number of to suit the military in time of war ;-).

   -- 
   MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

Nigel Tzeng
--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
From: news@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: the "bouncing bomb"
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:32:35 GMT
Organization: University of New South Wales


From news@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU

In article <BvI6Ey.L94@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>
>BTW, a test "bouncing bomb" has been hauled out of the English Channel, and it
>apparently going to be put into a museum. Talk about double standards! How many
>people were killed when these weapons were used to breach the German dams?
>
 Nearly 2300 people were killed, and of this a majority (nearly 2000) of these
were Russian POW's.
Nothing like the V-2's.
>
>David Hastings                      | "Imposition of order=escalation of chaos"
>VAX Systems Programmer              |                     
>Oxford University Computing Services| "Just when you think you've won the 
>daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk              |        rat race, along come faster rats"

 Matthew.
Xref: sparky sci.military:9711 soc.history:8880
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Wednesday, 7 October, 1942
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:59:59 GMT
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


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

Wednesday, 7 October, 1942

The struggle for Stalingrad continues.  Particularly fierce combat takes
place near the Tractor Factory.

Britain and the United States announce the creation of a United Nations 
commission to investigate war crimes.  Any armistice will be conditional 
upon the surrender of individuals named by the commission as guilty of 
such crimes.

US Marines capture Japanese positions around the mouth of Guadalcanal's
Matanikau River, placing Henderson Field out of the range of all but a
small number of Japanese artillery pieces.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"The number of persons eventually found guilty will undoubtedly be small,
compared to the total enemy populations.  It is not the intention of this
government or of the governments associated with us to resort to mass
reprisals." - Franklin Roosevelt