HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "Jeffery Capt. Shue" <mclno@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: <none> (was tanks in Somalia)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:30:38 GMT


From "Jeffery Capt. Shue" <mclno@oasys.dt.navy.mil>


In sci.military, gawne@stsci.edu writes:
>
>The Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) has a platoon (4) of tanks -- M1A1's;
>and a platoon (10) of Assault Amphibian Vehicles.  The full Marine
>Expeditionary Force (MEF) has a battalion of each consisting of four
>line companies with four tracked vehicle platoons per company.  The AAV-P7
>is an  amphibious cousin of the M113 APC, manufactured by the same folks
>at FMC Ordnance Division in San Jose CA.  The P7 used to mount
>the M-85 .50 cal MG, and has been upgunned with (I think) a 20 mm
>cannon.  When you read about "AmTracs" in the DoD releases these
>vehicles are what people are talking about -- Amphibious Tractors.
>
>-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
> GySgt USMCR

The current AAVP-7A1 has an UpGunned Weapons Station (UGWS). It mounts
a Mark 19, 40mm automatic grenade launcher and an M2 .50 cal MG. Both
with an effective range of about 2000 meters. The AAVs in Somalia also
looked to have Enhanced Applique Armor Kits (EAAK) applied. EAAK will
allow the AAVs to withstand heavy automatic weapons fire.

The current organization of a AAV Co. has 47 AAVs; 43 Ps, 3 Cs, and
an R. This is changing due to the draw down and lessons learned during
Desert Storm.

I don't think the MEUs are deploying with a tank platoon anymore. In
there place the MEUs are attaching a reinforced Light Armored Infantry
platoon. I'm not sure of the LAI platoon's exact composition.


JP SHUE

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Paul Ayotte <payotte@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>
Subject: German WWII Carrier aka Graf Zeppelin
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #2, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:25:40 GMT


From Paul Ayotte <payotte@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>

Someone asked abouthe aircraft the Nazis were going to use on the only 
carrier they nearly finished(85%). Messerschmidt and Junkers were asked o 
make variants of the BF-109 and the JU-87 Stuka. Messerschmidt's was the 
BF109-T, several were made but when the Graf Zeppelin was cancelled so 
Doenitz could concentrate on submarine warfare they had they tail 
arrestor hooks removed and were put into Luftwaffe service. The Junkers 
JU-87C was prototype was made in 1939 (JU-87C-0). Several were later 
constructed and used as test a/c for a 88mm recoiless cannon after the 
Graf Zeppelin was cancelled in 1944. These tests were not successful as 
the firing mechanism had a tedency to rip apparart from the a/c. Some 
JU-87C-1 were made but were converted to JU-87B's on the assembly line. 
    The Graf Zeppelin was later captured by the Soviets and used as 
.. was 

Paul Ayotte              payotte@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
Subject: Re: Internal Transportation in Somilia
Keywords: Rail Barge Other
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:23:40 GMT


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

In article <Bz3v8x.35s@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Gregory K. Ramsey" <greg@anacapa.ncel.navy.mil> writes:
>Subject: Internal Transportation in Somilia
>From "Gregory K. Ramsey" <greg@anacapa.ncel.navy.mil>
>
>Are there any internal transportation systems in Somilia (or
>that part of Africa at all) other than trucks? ie; rail,
>barges (coastal or river) or even animal caravans.
>
>What are the conditions of the roads?  Are they paved or not?
>
>Greg
>


There is only one major river, the Juba.  Pretty seasonal in its flow.  
River traffic is thus probably confined to primitive bank-to-bank ferries.
Those that aren't rusting hulks maintaining the integrity of various 
sankbanks.

Road systems are the very first items of social infrastructure to break down
in a prolonged period of civil strife and post-colonial neglect.  What roads 
there outside the "major centers" will amount to little more than pot-
holed dirt tracks with rusting, burnt out wreck fragments on the verges 
every mile or so.  Great stuff for the landmine and shockabsorber industries!

Rail, I don't know for certain if Somalia even has any RR track, but I very 
much doubt it.  RR's exist to carry trade -- in a long-term civil war there'
s no trade so the RR system collapses in short order.  Rolling stock and 
locos become mere scrap iron -- witness Angolas' once superb RR to Zaire.
Coastal shipping -- ditto.

Nope, the basic assumption that the US should make about Somalia is that it 
is a region of the world that (AK47's aside) is pretty much like it was when 
the Italians first set up shop there back in the 1890's: there's bugger all 
there that works.   

With a drought and a civil war, even the "camels and donkey" option is non-
viable.

Main priority IMHO will be for the 1990's equivalent of the famous WW2 
SeeBees!!
Cheers,
Keith Coman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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: Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:34:13 GMT


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

In article <BzB9wD.1Fu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:
[commenting on airship refueling]
>>		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.

Fuel won't burn unless properly mixed with oxygen. Liquid fuel won't
burn at all, only the vapor burns. At the airship, the fuel pressure
in the hose would be near zero. At the oiler, the pressure would be
high, but the hose is sealed from air, otherwise it would leak 
horribly.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)
Subject: Re: WW2 BARRAGE
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:27:09 GMT


From patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)

In article <BzD4rK.Iwn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jeff stump/lml2 <jeffs@austlcm.sps.mot.com> writes:

>  Hello all. I have a question concerning barrage balloon's used during WW2.
>I don't think I quite understand how they worked. Did they have multiple
>purposes ? Were they effective ? 

The balloons prevented aircraft from flying at low altitudes. Aircraft
which did so stood a good chance of hitting the steel mooring cables.
We lost quite a few B-24s at Ploesti to balloon cables.

Flying higher makes the aircraft more vulnerable to antiaircraft fire;
the guns have a more limited range of altitudes to cover and the aircraft
is visible for a longer period of time. Certain targets (such as ships)
are more difficult to hit from altitude, so port cities had large numbers
of balloons.

They were quite effective. Crews attacking Ploesti were told the B-24
wing spars would cut the cables. In actual practice, the cables literally
stopped one wing; Liberators were seen to spiral down the cables.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | Always acknowledge a fault frankly. This will
George Patterson -  | throw those in authority off their guard and give
                    | you the opportunity to commit more.
                    |                        Samuel Clemens
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Robert E George <regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: AFRES vs ANG?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:26:52 GMT


From Robert E George <regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>


National Guard units are under nominal state control

Reserve units are reserves to the active-duty counterparts

Is there a "Navy National Guard"??
Robert George
(speaking only for myself)

"The very essence of individual freedom is equal justice under a rule of
law, a law to which every man shall be subject and which no executive
can modify."
    Senator Robert Taft , March 11, 1944

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cgellasc@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Chris Gellasch)
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks 
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:25:43 GMT


From cgellasc@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Chris Gellasch)

In article <Bz9Ez6.6I4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> John Stoffel <john@sekrit.wpi.edu> writes:
>
>From John Stoffel <john@sekrit.wpi.edu>
>
>
>
>Randy> From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
>
>Randy> Here's my question.  What is the correct way for a tank to deal with a
>Randy> helocopter?  If you're in a tank, and you see an oncomming enemy helo,
>Randy> what do you do?
>
>How about adding some stingers on the outside of the tank for
>automatic threat suppression.  Cheap, simple, and probably prone to
>taking out your own choppers too.
>
>In the past (WW II era) they used to have the .30s and .50s machine
>guns mounted on cupola for the command to use either for off main gun
>axis supression firing, or for AA.  You could do sorta the same thing
>with stingers I would guess.  How about adding in the new AAM system
>on jeeps that uses stingers.  Something like 4 or 8 of them?  
>
>					John

The system you mention is a pedestal mounted system on the back of a   
Hummvee.  It carries 8 Stingers plus a side mounted .50 cal machine gun.
The system can be remotely targeted from inside the vehicle and the .50
cal is a great backup weapon if the target is too close for missiles.  I
saw one a couple of years ago and some ADA Sgt. was showing off by
targetting friendly choppers flying by.

Chris Gellasch
2LT, USAR


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Gregory K. Ramsey" <greg@anacapa.ncel.navy.mil>
Subject: Internal Transportation in Somilia
Followup-To: sci.military
Keywords: Rail Barge Other
Organization: Naval Civil Engineering Lab, Port Hueneme
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:29:21 GMT


From "Gregory K. Ramsey" <greg@anacapa.ncel.navy.mil>


Are there any internal transportation systems in Somilia (or
that part of Africa at all) other than trucks? ie; rail,
barges (coastal or river) or even animal caravans.

What are the conditions of the roads?  Are they paved or not?

Greg

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:33:52 GMT


From madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz)

In <BzD4Lt.IKK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Gary Coffman
<emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu> writes: 

>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.

Does anybody have more information on the nuclear dirigible?

max abramowitz
madmax@cs.uchicago.edu
From: seb@tadtec.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: U-boat campaigns
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:35:56 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From seb@tadtec.co.uk

The Royal Oak was sunk in harbour (Scapa Flow?) by a U-boat (U47? captained
by Gunther Priem?) - or so he claimed, the Germans claimed & the Admiralty
concurred.  There is a conspiracy theory that suggests sabotage or
incompetence involving the torpedoes the Royal Oak carried (she had two
fixed, submerged torpedo tubes, one per side), based upon inconsistencies
in Priem's accounts of how he reached the anchorage, the overall
difficulties that would have been encountered & some other data.  The
sinking occurred late at night in very cold weather & the loss of life was
heavy.

I think you'll find at least one other carrier got hit/sunk before the
Admiralty thought better of sending carriers out with very small escorts to
hunt out U-boats.

Why go for capital ships, though?  They were generally kept in harbours
that were very well defended & inaccessible to U-boats, or escorting big
fat merchant men or troop convoys.  And think of how few U-boats were
succesful against troop convoys (hint: I can't think of ANY).  The Royal
Oak is the only in-harbour sinking I can think of, although Italian
chariots (two-man subs, using frogmen) were succesful against warships in
Valetta harbour, Malta.  Warships travelled faster than merchantmen & were
generally more alert - they also tended to fight back!

Steve Barber
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:33:58 GMT


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


Daniel F. Boyd writes:
#Why don't we have a canister round for the M-1?  It seems like such a
#simple thing to not have!  How expensive could it be to develop a
#canister round?

Because the "user" wants only two rounds: KE and HEAT-MP. Period.



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: Rich Travsky 3668 307 766-3663/3668 <RTRAVSKY@corral.uwyo.edu>
Subject: New Trends in Body Armor?
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:21:58 GMT


From Rich Travsky 3668 307 766-3663/3668 <RTRAVSKY@corral.uwyo.edu>

I recently read an article in the popular press (been trying to
remember which magazine) about recent trends in materials research.

The article roughly said that hydrocarbons and plastics have been
taken about as far as they can so researchers are looking to Nature
for inspiration. One of the items they mentioned was the prospect 
of new body armor. The material to be used (trying to remember that
too - wish now I'd taken notes) would be cast in a structure 
resembling that of wood. This new setup would allow the stopping of
bullets, like kevlar, but would _not_ bruise the wearer. 

The article was very general and did not give more details on this.
Does anyone have any pointers to work in this field?

+---------+    Richard Travsky   RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
|         |    Division of Information Technology
|     U W |    University of Wyoming   (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
|      *  |    "Wyoming is the capital of Denver." - a tourist
+---------+    "One of those square states." - another tourist

P.S. Back when the first Batman movie came out, some of us had a chuckle
about the scenes where his "bat suit body armor" protected him from
shots fired at close range - with no apparent effect. Now I guess we know
what the armor was comprised of.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jeff stump/lml2 <jeffs@austlcm.sps.mot.com>
Subject: WW2 BARRAGE
Organization: Motorola Inc, Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:33:20 GMT


From jeff stump/lml2 <jeffs@austlcm.sps.mot.com>

  Hello all. I have a question concerning barrage balloon's used during WW2.
I don't think I quite understand how they worked. Did they have multiple
purposes ? Were they effective ? 
  I have always wondered this ?


--
***********************************************************
**  Jeff Stump                                           **
**  Motorola Inc, Austin, Texas                          **
**  E-mail:  jeffs@austlcm.sps.mot.com                   **

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: no cannister-was re:tank vs. helo
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:45 GMT


From James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>

>From "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@oddjob.mitre.org>

>   But I don't think the US has any 90 mm main gun tanks left in
>inventory, and I don't think they ever developed a 105 mm cannister
>round.  (I know there is no US 120 mm cannister.)  This seems sort of
>stupid, as one reason M48s were so useful in Vietnam was the cannister
>round.  (Twelve hundred steel projectiles each about the size of a
>30-06 bullet, but with a slightly higher muzzle velocity.  The
>ultimate in human wave assault breaking.  Also very useful for
>clearing foliage so you can see who was shooting at you.)
actually there was a round for the 105 mm that fired a whole bunch of
flechettes (sorta like real small darts) which were quite effective at
shredding anything (soft) in their path. I imagine these would compare
favourably to the cannister rounds you were reffering to. They did not
bother to make such a round for the 120mm for some reason that I don't
understand.
James Stepanek
esp

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Norman Yarvin <yarvin@cs.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:33:51 GMT


From Norman Yarvin <yarvin@cs.yale.edu>

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

If it has seen you, and if it is of the anti-tank variety, shoot it.
Preferably with an IR-seeking missile, but if none is available your guns
will have to suffice.

But the idea that the helicopter will be visible does not give sufficient
credit to the helo pilot.  He would probably prefer to hide behind a hill,
then pop up, launch a missile and duck back down.  If there are no hills, he
can launch from very long range.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bellcore!midnight.bellcore.com!vanguard@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Schlagenhauf)
Subject: Re: Yamamoto? (was Re: Battleship Diplomacy)
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:29:44 GMT


From bellcore!midnight.bellcore.com!vanguard@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Schlagenhauf)


|> [mod note -- that one slipped by me.  From what I remember, there were 3
|> BBs in the Yamato class -- Yamato, Musashi, and Shinano.  The Shinano was
|> converted to a carrier (displaced something like 70,000 or 80,000 tons), and
|> was sunk by U.S. sub in the Inland Sea on it's way to sea trials.  Can't
|> remember the name of the sub that did the deed, but it's captain wrote a
|> book about it -- _The Sinking of the Shinano_
|> 
|> Steve]

I'm pretty sure the Shinano was sunk by the Archerfish. If I remember right,
according to a book I saw listing all ships verified sunk by US subs in WWII,
Archerfish only sank two ships: Shinano and a freighter so small it barely
counted.  Always thought that was kind of funny. :-)

Mark Schlagenhauf
vanguard@midnight.bellcore.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Shooting bullets straight up 9-) (: Firing 0.5 inch Browning in B17 formation ?)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:23:26 GMT


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

In article <BzB9wM.1J2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu> writes:
>gt7797a@prism.gatech.edu (Travis Works) writes:
>: >several things - a .30 caliber projectile is fairly small in the scheme
>: >of things. A .50 Browning projectile would have considerably more ter-
>: >minal velocity. I don't know if it would reach 140 mph or not.. in any 
>: >case its a small fraction of muzzle velocity.
>: In my last post, I posted my calculated terminal velocity for a .50 BMG
>: (140-150 mph). 
>	What about the old Galilean priciple of acceleration is
>not contingent upon the weight of the object dropping ??

That's true in the absence of air resistance only. A feather does *not* 
fall as fast as a cannonball in air. The difference is the sectional 
density of the projectile. Sectional density is mass divided by frontal 
area.  A .50 BMG has a better SD than a .30 cal, so it falls faster.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Patrick V Kauffold <cga66@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Re: Internal Transportation in Somilia
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:43:18 GMT


From Patrick V Kauffold <cga66@ihlpl.att.com>

>>
>>What are the conditions of the roads?  Are they paved or not?
>>

There are a large but unknown number of land mines all over the
place, planted during the earlier, more organized part of the
civil war.  Relief workers have had to rely on locals knowing
where the mine fields are, and how to avoid them by going
around.  OK when you are in a Land Rover, but not when you
have a heavily loaded 6X6. No military maps available.

This could end up being a major headache for the troops, and
possibly a significant source of casualties.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
Subject: Re: F-14 program (was Re: Iowa Upgrade)
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:25:43 GMT


From yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)

In article <Bz06vM.F28@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, dennis womack <dennis@medusa.dseg.ti.com> 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?

I saw a F-18 with, I think, around 10-12 AMRAAMs.  Wow.  That's a pretty good
load for a medium size aircraft like F/A-18.  Is that how they intended to use
the Honets as the fleet defense A/C?

SF
bvc

-- 
******************************************************************************
*           "I didn't think I ate that much!"                                *
*                                       -- Ding Chavez                       *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*                yuqian.bvc.edu		    the Suicidal Freshman            *
******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military