HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "G.C.J. Timm" <ac579@cleveland.freenet.edu>
Subject: Re: Change of M17A2 mask to M40 mask?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:46:07 GMT


From "G.C.J. Timm" <ac579@cleveland.freenet.edu>


As a former CBR/NBC NCO, c. 1974-1982 I can assure you,
the M40 is an IMPROVEMENT over the M-17 series masks.

There is a time limit on filters exposed to blood agents.

Now, how fast can you remove your M-17 series mask, pop off
the inlet covers, undo the four tiny metal buttons inside,
remover the filers, reinstall new filters, refasten everything
in reverse order, don, clear and inhale again, all while holding
your breath?

It took me ten minutes using an old mask.
With a new mask twenty five to thirty minutes (stiff rubber)
was not unusual.  Neither was tearing the mask and having to
turn it in for replacement unusual.

When things go REALLY SERIOUS, that is exposure to real chemical
agents, the Army gave you an old M-8 mask w/external filter and
a butyl (BRUTAL) rubber suit.

Jeff
Who once asked, "How many people out of a unit are going to 
count flash to bang time, when they realize a nuclear weapon
has been detonated?"
Answer:  "That's your JOB Sergeant!"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
Subject: Re: P-38's armament arrangement (was "Number Thirty-eight....)
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:25:50 GMT


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

In article <Bxyv68.G3I@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
>Subject: P-38's armament arrangement (was "Number Thirty-eight....)
>Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:06:08 GMT
>
>From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
>
>I believe that the Bf-110 had an armament arrangement
>similar to the P-38's & was flown well before the Lightning. The Bf-
>110's armament could even be considered superior since even the early
>models had 2-20mm cannon & 4-7.7mm machineguns. Later models went all

Ditto: (1) Bristol Beaufighter (4x 20mm), 1940; (2) Westland Whirlwind (4x
20mm) 1941.

Keith

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Condemning a research report on the basis of :  Dept of Management
 invalid and unreliable methodology is the    :  Rhodes University
 cheapest shot in the book."                  :  Grahamstown, 6140
                                              :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Rusty <rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu>
Subject: Re: Best piece of Artillery you ever saw
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ, CSC Dept, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:21:16 GMT


From Rusty <rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu>

cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daemon Hobbs) writes:
>
>
> In my opinion, I would have to say it would the South African G-6 6X6 155mm
>self-propelled howitzer.  With it you get:
>  -strategic mobility at low cost and low maintenance(it's wheeled)
>  -under armor protection
>  -superb long range; 40KM with Extended Range Base Bleed shells
>  -many shell types; submunition, HE, illuminating, etc.
>  -able to shoot-and-scoot to some degree to avoid counter-battery fire
>  -low munition costs i.e. shells are cheap, artillery rockets are not
>


	I've seen a G-6 up close, at the South African National Museum
of Military History. It's a fascinating place; among other things, they
have one of the world's rarest warbirds, an Me-262 fitted out with radar
as a night fighter. The museum is in the Johannesburg suburbs and would
well repay a visit by any sci.mil readers who might happen to be in the
area in future...

	In any event, the G-6 is even more intimidating up close. One
thing omitted in the above discussion is that the vehicle is also fully
mine-protected. The South Africans learned the hard way about mines during
the long border war in Namibia and Angola; in consequence, they now possess
the world's best mine-proofing technology. The undersides of the G-6 are
sloped outward to channel blast, and the suspension is high up and behind
armor - i.e., one might lose a wheel, but it would be easily replaced.

	The other note is a subtle one: the range of the gun when using
base bleed projectiles is rumored to be substantially greater than that
published. While at the museum, I noticed that the gun was pointed in
a northerly direction, and asked where it was aimed. A big sergeant major
laughed, and told me that it was targeted on the courtyard of the South
African Defense Force's headquarters in Pretoria. Now, Pretoria is some
distance from Johannesburg, and so I sat down with maps to ascertain what
the range to the GHQ was. It's about 46km, substantially in excess of the
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...




-- 
||||||||   Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU  --  (Rusty)  ||||||||
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gentlemen, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - D. Quayle


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: What are Katyusha rockets ?
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:19:10 GMT


From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>

Thank you. I'll add Finland to my information. Does anyone know how
many BM-21s Finland has, and when they got them?

-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Re: Montreux Treaty
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:39:20 GMT


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

In article <BxID68.Low@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
janm@Moskva.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson) writes: 
> 
> From janm@Moskva.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson)
> 
> wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene) writes:
> 
> 
>>The Kuznetsov is officially a "Heavy aircraft-capable cruiser" thus dodging the
>>requirements of the treaty. (oddly her sister-ship the Ulyanovsk is designated
>>as an "air defense aircraft carrier" but the issue is unlikely to arise since
>>she doesn't seem likely to leavy the Black Sea in anyting resembling a
>>completed state.)
> 
> I believe the sister ship of Admiral Kuznetsov is named Varyag.
> Was Ulyanovsk an earlier name?
> 
You'd think that I'd get that straight one of these days.  (That's the second
time I made that same mistake, even after I wrote a paper on the fleet ;-)
Varyag is Kuznetsov's sister ship.  Ulyanovsk is the full sized carrier that
was under construction and is now scrapped.  I'll try to keep them straight in
future.
-- 
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: Daniel Shoham <shoham@ll.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Ukraine to sell Tu-160
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:30:38 GMT


From Daniel Shoham <shoham@ll.mit.edu>

In article <By4LHn.CtF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou) writes:
>
>From Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
>
>According to Air International, the 19 Tu-160 Blackjack(?) strategic bombers
>in Ukrainian hands are literally unservicable because the Russian crews refuse
>to pledge loyalty to Ukrain and have gone back to Russia.  Ukrainian government
>is considering selling them.
>
>Who would buy them and what does this mean to international power balance?
>1. Russia.  The power balance is not really affected.  But do they want to?  Or
>perhaps more relevent, do they have the money?
>2. China. The power balance in east Asia will be up side down.  Japan, Taiwan, 
>Indochina all the way down to Australia, and possibly India, will get very
>worried.

--- Russia too!

>3. India.  Then China, Pakistan will get very nervous.
>4. USA.  Only for research or "not letting falling into wrong hands".  But 19
>airframes are bit too many for research.
>
>Any comments?

5. Libya. To have a strategic deterent against various wetern Satans.
6. Iran. See above. Also, to be able to position themselves as the protector
of (the new) central Asian nations from Russia should the oppurtunity arise.
7. Taiwan. Should Taiwan try to reach strategic parity with China someday, they
will need a long range delivery system. Such items don't come on the market
every day (let alone at bargain prices).

8. If the price is low enough, comercial applications might be considered.
Low cost competition for the Concorde?

It is unclear how would China, Libya, or Iran maintain the airframes (without
the Russian cooperating - and angering the West). India, the US, and Taiwan
can probably figure out how to do maintainance on their own - or get contract
work from the Russians.


Dan Shoham               shoham@ll.mit.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The view presented are not necessarily those of my employer, etc.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington Massachusetts, 02173-9108
Office B-373
617-981-3515
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Christer Olsson <co@chrom1.mednet.gu.se>
Subject: Re: Story of MiG-21F & BIS
Keywords: loss rate
Organization: MedNet, University of Gothenburg
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:36:46 GMT


From Christer Olsson <co@chrom1.mednet.gu.se>


In article <Bxo176.62K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
|> 
|> From skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF)
|> 
|> 
|> Finland has got an Air Force consisting of only 60 planes (about 30 Draken
|> and 30 MiG:s).This means that almost 1/4 of all the MiG:s bought from the
|> former Sovjet Union have been destroyed in crashes.
|> 

How many Drakens has been lost? 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stefan Kronkvist INF <skronkvi@aton.abo.fi>
Subject: >>>> STORY OF MiG-21F & BIS <<<<
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:06:06 GMT


From Stefan Kronkvist INF <skronkvi@aton.abo.fi>


In response to someone (I forgot the name)


I can't remember that the finnish Air Force would have lost any of 
its Draken.
But when it was flying french made fougas it lost 22 pilots in 21 
crasches (the Fouga had no ejection seat).

However,the draken planes are beginning to get too old.The new F18:s
will replace the Drakens in the first place.

I'm still glad the Air Force decided to get the F18 instead of the JAS.
Buying the JAS would be like" att k|pa grisen i s{cken".


 
--------------------------------------/----------------------------------------
skronkvi@aton.abo.fi                 /   
Stefan Kronkvist                    /  
Abo Akademi University             /     
Finland                           /
---------------------------------/--------------------------------------------









Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>
Subject:  Information-source book
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:40:30 GMT


From     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>

I saw this book on the sale table at the local Waldenbooks at 
lunchtime and it appears to be just what some of you out there would
want, based on queries and discussions that have appeared here:

WWII ORDER OF BATTLE by Shelby L. Stanton. $24.98

This is a thick large-format book that claims to list every US unit that
participated in WWII. There are some color plates at the front,
but most badges are shown in line drawings. The "36th Infantry"
one we've discussed here was in there (line drawing only) -- it was
actually the "36th Armored Infantry Regiment".

For $25 it seems a reasonable Xmas present item...

Will

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: Rickover - plus or minus / Thresher alos
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:30:47 GMT


From megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <By0tpv.96o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy) writes:
>What was the speed of the Thresher when she sunk?  I know she was down 
>deep, but was she doing speed trials at the time or just diving.  The 

I understand that she was on a depth test dive as she just came out of refit.
All that I have read indicates that the most commonly suspected cause, and the
one favored by the USN, was that a cooling water inlet pipe was not welded 
properly and gave way under the extreme pressure on the trials. Whether this 
was the inlet for the condensor or some other system I'm not sure. It seems to
be hinted that it was the condensor in a few things that I have read. This is
part of the nuclear system, but not actually part of the radioactive loop.

The stern quickly flooded and power was lost and the reactor scrammed. The 
Thresher was crushed as she sank, apparently striking tail first from the
photos. But she was pretty broken up by the time she came to rest....

It took the Alvin to reach the wreck, I seem to recall the Trieste visited the
scene too, but I may be blending the nuke bomb search in with the wreck search
as I sometimes have faulty recollection...

Now, anyone know anything about the Scorpion? I believe that is the name of the
other nuke sub that we lost near bermuda/Florida.

[mod notes -- I just finished reading _The Rickover Effect_ by Theodore
Rockwell, who worked with Rickover at Naval Reactors from when it was
started until the mid 60s.

From the book, the conjecture that some sort of seawater fitting gave way,
sprayed into the engine room, and shorted out some control systems.
However, the fitting that probably gave way was not part of the reactor
itself (or any part of it that NR would have had control over).  In
addition, the pipe joints are generally not welded, but brazed.

_The Rickover Effect_ is a very interesting book, well written.  There are
a couple of neat pictures in there -- one of the Mark I prototype reactor
at Arco Nevada, and another one of the U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-65) in a
high-speed turn.  It looks like it rolled 20 or so degrees and has the helm
hard over.  There is a rooster tail from the bow, and quite a big one from
the stern

Steve]

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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Re: WWII Battleships
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:50:47 GMT


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


Richard H. Miller writes:
#> Alaska (2), 34K/10K, 33kt, 9x12" guns arranged as above.
#
#These were never considered to be battleships (or even a battlecruser). The
#Alaska class has always been considered to be large cruisers. Their type
#designation was CB rather than BB or BC.

Actually "CB" for battle cruiser is consistent with USN cruiser nomenclature:
"CL" for light cruisers and "CA" for heavy [formerly armored] cruisers.

I always felt that the ALASKAs were too big and too well armored to be
considered merely heavy cruisers unencumbered by Washington Treaty limits
on displacement and armament. IMHO the German Panzerschiffe qualified as
"post-Washington" heavy cruisers because their gun size and displacement
exceeded treaty limits while their speed and [lack of] armor was decidedly
cruiser-like.

The ALASKAs are most comparable to SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU: well-balanced
ships with meaningful armor, but with gun size from earlier generations.
To bring back a pre-dreadnought nomenclature convention: Second Class
Battle Cruisers?

Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: j724664s@edinboro.edu
Subject: Info wanted on modern Gatling Guns
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:36:42 GMT


From j724664s@edinboro.edu

I am looking for information about the number of variations of gatling guns
within the past 30 years...such as caliber, weight, common use, and other
things you feel may be relevant.  Please send old information of previous
discussions to J724664S@EDINBORO.EUP

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Firing 0.5 inch Browning in B17 formation ?
Keywords: Defensive fire, Flying Fortress
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:25:46 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

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

>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 ?

	The gunner typically noticed what he was shooting at, and
if it looked like another B-17 he let off the trigger.  It was
not uncommon to get a minor strafing by your neighbor, I'm told,
but most Germans avoided flying inside the box if they could help it.

	When they did, the range was close enough that they were
nearly certain to get hit a few times.  The real danger was at
shooting fighters above you, since those bullets have to come down
somewhere and if another B-17 was there...

	The people on the ground soon learned to take cover if an
engagement was noticed above, just as I'm sure residents of Pearl
Harbor soon wished they'd have done.  I'm told much of the damage
around Pearl was due to AA fire coming back down unattached to
an aircraft.

< 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: caina@merrimack.edu
Subject: Rev. War Reenactment unit Being Raised: The 3d Mass.
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:39:29 GMT


From caina@merrimack.edu

   Just one of many reminders I'll be posting for awhile.  I'm raising a 
Revolutionary War Reenactment unit that will be based in the Northern
Massachusetts/Southern New Hampshire Area (particularly the Middlesex, Essex
and Rockingham Counties).  If anyone is interested in joining Col Greaton's
3d Massachusetts Regiment or just receiving some info, feel free to contact me
at caina@merrimack.edu.
  I hope to become "activated" by August of 1993.  Likewise, I hope to apply
for membership to the Continental Line by about the same time.
  Thanks for your time!
    
Alex Cain

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Back to the future? [ILyushin IL-102]
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:27:11 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>

In article <By4LHI.Crt@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca> writes:
>
>Actually, this rearward firing missile may not be a bad idea.  The guy chasing
>after you will have to think twice before he really follows you.
>

In reality, while a rearward-firing missile might be a good idea, it is nearly 
impossible from an aerodynamic standpoint.  

Missiles are designed to be stable in flight, ie while flying point-first 
toward the target.  However, to be fired rearward, the missile must go from 
moving at upwards of 250 mph (usually much greater) in the aircrafts direction 
of flight, to flying 180 degrees in the opposite direction at a much higher 
speed.  

There are several problems with this that I can see:
	1.  Most importantly, for several seconds after firing, a rearward-
	fired missile will be unstable, and by the time the motor lights and 
	gets the missile moving in the right direction, no-one knows what 
	direction it will be going.  

	2.  If the aerodynamic problems are overcome, there is the problem of 
	range.  For the sake of argument, lets say the the firing aircraft is 
	moving at 400 knots, the missile is of the more common "burn-then-
	coast" type, and that the normal coast speed of the missile is 1300 kts
	(around Mach 2, a normal speed for a dogfight missile).  This means 
	that the relatively short burn time of the rocket will not result in a 
	coast speed of 1300 kts, but rather in a coast speed of 900 kts. While 
	this may not seem like a whole lot of difference, this speed decays 
	rather quickly when the motor burn is through, and the decreased 
	initial speed results in significantly reduced speed.

	3.  Finally, even if these problems are corrected, the missile will 
	still have a difficult time locking on to any target.  Radar guidance 
	is out, because no currently-produced aircraft has a rear-mounted 
	radar.  IR guidance will also have severely degraded performance, 
	because on most ( :-) ) aircraft the engines point backwards, meaning 
	that there is a lot of hot stuff between the missile and any potential 
	target.  Laser and other optical systems, while being okay from fixed 
	platforms (like the ground), become unfeasible when the fact that both 
	aircraft will be maneuvering is considered.  


Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re:  Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:46:12 GMT


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

>In article <Bx5CsC.IpH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:

>> The Sherman Firefly mounted a variation of the British 17 pounder AT
>> gun, nominally of 77mm. There was also a US upgunned Sherman mounting
>> a 76mm gun, a rough equivalent of the 17 pounder. Both apparently
>> worked well.
>The US 76mm gun was used on the HVSS "easy eight" Sherman from memory but I'll
>have to check this one out as well.

>Rob

It suddenly struck me that throughout all this, the usual 
American practice of expressing things in inches seems to 
have been abandoned by the artillery people. While the Bri-
tish stuck to their peculiar "how much does an iron ball 
of this diameter weigh" measure, the American gunners seem 
to have adopted millimeters while the rest of the country 
was still thinking in terms of thousandths of inches, inches
and cubic inches - I imagine a 76mm gun might be called a 
6.08 caliber gun.. was this due, perhaps, to American sol-
diers using French equipment during the First World War?



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