HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: Brewster Buffalo (Worst WW2...etc)
Organization: Sun
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:21:46 GMT


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

>From bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
>
>	BTW, I was looking at some photos and film footage of the Malayan 
>Buffalos the other day and was struck by the relatively small diameter of 
>the three-bladed propellor.  Given that the Buff was quite a small a/c in 
>terms of its overall dimensions, and that it had (at 1200hp) quite a potent 
>engine; I can't help but wonder whether there were some serious performance 
>losses attributable to the Buffalo being fitted with an inappropriate 
>propellor?  

Looking at pictures of the Grumman F4F, it looks to me as though the prop
is about the same diameter.  They used similar engines (if not the same
ones).

I suspect that Brewster's designers were at fault...they went by the
aerodynaic notion that a "perfect streamline form" was what they wanted.
Sort of a fat raindrop.  With the radial engine used, this means that the
max cross-sectional area be a third to half of the way back...back from
an already big engine.  (Look at the Gee Bee racers.)

That, along with Brewster's over-designing for strength (it was *really*
heavy) probably hurt it more than the prop in use.  A bigger prop might
have even been a *worse* match for the engine/airframe combination.






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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:21:38 GMT


From Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>

In article <C0CC60.H23@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>
>From lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
>
>In article <C02w58.GHB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Dave Heisler <dheisler@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu> writes:
>>I had this idea the other day, lets say you have an airport
>>or base that comes under sporadic sniper fire. How do you
>>locate the sniper?

[deleted stuff]

>Airplanes are tougher still, because you get a serious Doppler effect that
>screws with your filtering and matching.  With pairs of mics near each
>other, you might be able to get bearings, but by the time you get the info,
>the aircraft could have moved.  It's best to use radar.

Isn't such an acoustic system similar to the "Big Ears" system described in
the book/movie FireFox?  Was there ever such an acoustical tracking system
in the USSR?

>Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
>The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: np4@prism.gatech.edu (Nick Pomponio)
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:25:10 GMT


From np4@prism.gatech.edu (Nick Pomponio)


In article <C02w58.GHB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Dave Heisler <dheisler@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu> writes:
>I had this idea the other day, lets say you have an airport
>or base that comes under sporadic sniper fire. How do you
>locate the sniper?
>
>I envisioned this: hundreds of self powered radio linked
>microphones scattered about the ground. A control unit that
>knows the position of all of them (relative to control unit
>or maybe use gps) and can calculate direction of sound orgin
>based on the timing of the received sound pulse as radioed by
>the microphones. (thinking about it maybe you could get by with
>2 or 3 sensor microphones)

Passive sensors are probably a good choice for detecting non-repetitive
events such as sporadic gunfire. Your approach seems possible. Here are
a couple of design considerations I thought of:

1) Ambient noise - A setting such as an airport would probably have a
wide spectrum of high-level ambient noise, from the high-pitched whine
of jet engines to the low frequency rumble of the aircraft during take-off.
The filters for isolating gunshots would have to be pretty sophisticated
(probably linear-phase, also, in order to retain the pulse shape for
accurate Time-Of-Arrival measurement).

2) In order to compute unambiguous range and angle to the sniper, the time
between shots would probably have to be greater than the worst case
difference in propagation delay between any two sensors. This may render
the scheme uneffective for machine-gun fire or separated synchronized firings.
-- 
POMPONIO,NICHOLAS A
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!np4
Internet: np4@prism.gatech.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jfb@ihlpl.att.com
Subject: Number Forty-Two in the Series--Curtiss XP-42
Keywords: streamlined P-36
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:42:37 GMT


From jfb@ihlpl.att.com

The fourth Curtiss P-36A (serial number 38-4) was used by the US Army 
and NACA for aerodynamic research in an attempt to overcome the 
aerodynamic drag penalty inherent in large-diameter air-cooled radial 
engines as compared to narrower liquid-cooled Vee-type engines.  The 
aircraft was given the company designation of Model 75S, and the USAAC 
assigned it the designation of XP-42.  

As initially delivered in March of 1939, the XP-42 had a special 1050 
hp Pratt and Whitney R-1830-31 radial engiine fitted with a long 
extension fitted to the propeller shaft and nose casing which 
permitted the use of a streamlined nose with a large propeller 
spinner.  The intake for cooling air was located under the engine, and 
the intake for carburetor air was located above the engine.  

The initial configuration of the XP-42 suffered from serious 
overheating problems and from vibrations of the propeller shaft.  
Attempts to cure these problems resulted in no less than twelve 
different cowling designs being tested on the XP-42.  Various types of 
cowl flaps were fitted, and short-nose high- and low- inlet velocity 
cowlings were tried with and without fans.  The nose was progressively 
shortened until the airplane gradually once again resembled a P-36A.  

The XP-42 was entered by Curtiss in the 1939 USAAC fighter 
competition.  Although the XP-42 was faster than the P-36A, it was 
slower than the XP-40.  Consequently, the XP-42 lost out to the XP-40 
for production orders.  

The XP-42 was finally scrapped in January 1947.  

Sources:

  Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 
  1979 

  The Curtiss Hawk 75, Aircraft in Profile No.  80, Profile 
  Publications, Ltd.  1966 

  War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William 
  Green, Doubleday, 1961.  

  The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 
  1987.  

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Napoleon's Guard
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:25:13 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

> From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
> 
> In article <BzzCLI.6C@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
> 
> >The (Guard) Cavalry consisted of: Empress Dragoons (7 sqn), Horse Grenadiers 
> >(5 sqn), Guard Lancers (5 sqn), Chasseurs a Cheval (6 sqn), Elite 
> >Gendarmes (2 companies).
> 
> Who were the heavy Guard cavalry with the brass-colored cuirasses and red
> plumed helmets? I've heard them referred to as Carabiniers a'Cheval but 
> were they perhaps Horse Grenadiers or (this would make more sense, since 
> Carabinieri in Italian = Gendarme in French = Police in English) the Elite 
> Gendarmes? Were they used as heavy cavalry units or were they indeed used 
> as military police? 

These troops were the Carabiniers.  They wore brass cuirasses, as you 
mention, and also extremely unpopular brass "Roman" style helmets. One 
of these exists still, somewhere, from memory.  

They were "line" cavalry, nominally elite cuirassiers, and there were 
2 regiments.  In practice, since the cuirassiers were a bit of a cut 
above the rest anyway, there seems to have been no difference.  they 
were normally brigaded with cuirassiers.

"Carabinier" in this case refers to "Carbine", ie the prototype troop 
after whom these units were named were expected to fire from 
horseback, but that was a long time in the past!!

The Horse Grenadiers only existed in the Guard (at this time, there 
had been other "line" units previous), and didn't wear any armour.  
their dress headgear was a bearskin.  They were simply heavy cavalry.  
The Elite Gendarms may have served a role as police/POW guards, but 
this is reading between some obscure lines.
-- 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: Uhlans (Was Napoleon's Guard)
Keywords: books history prussia
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:35:48 GMT


From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>

In article <Bzs8ut.LEK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Peter Cash <cash@convex.com> writes:

>On a (possibly) related note, I've run across mention of German cavalry
>used in WW I called the "Uhlans". Can anyone tell me what kind of units
>these were, and anything about their history? The name strikes me as
>peculiar--it has no meaning in German.

Originally, these were horsemen who fought primarily with the lance. They
were warriors of the south-eatern steppes (Poles and Cassacks). In about
1745, small groups of Uhlans were instituted in the French army (the Saxon
Volunteers) and the Prussian army (the Bosniaks). The term "Uhlan" then
began to be applied to the soldier as a type rather than an ethnic tag.

The Prussian Uhlans were used against the Cossacks in the Seven Years War,
and the ranks were expanded in 1760 by Mohammedan renegades donated by
the Sultan Porte. These troops were settled in areas of what is now Poland
after the war. They performed well at Eylau in 1807 and served as the
nucleus of expanded regiments of Uhlans later.

According to Manfred von Richthofen's autobiography, he originally joined
the Uhlans, but decided early in the war that there was no future in it.
According to von Richthofen, the Uhlans served mainly as scouts during
the war and never actually charged as cavalry during WW I. According to
von Richthofen, the main weapon was still the lance at the beginning of
the war.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | It could probably be shown by facts and figures
George Patterson -  | that there is no distinctly native American criminal
                    | class except Congress.
                    |                        Samuel Clemens
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Subject: electrothermal tank gun
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:29:34 GMT


From cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu


   Could anyone tell me what an electrothermal gun is?   How much recoil does it
produce?  More than a convential tank gun?  Is there any way of dampening the
recoil to use, say a 140mm gun, on a light tank?  Perhaps with hydraulics or
muzzle brakes?  What kind of ammunition storage is needed and what other
special hardware  is needed (generator?)?

Thanks in advance!!
-- 
                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Daemon E. Hobbs, C/LtCol, AFROTC
                 Senior, (Spatial Information Systems)
                          Cal Poly, Pomona
                            **Commander**
                602D Air Force ROTC Cadet Squadron (ATC)
                Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

         "My ramblings represent no one's opinion but my own."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhm@ihlpe.att.com
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships (edited response)
Organization: Chicago Home for the Morally Challenged
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:29:53 GMT


From hhm@ihlpe.att.com


> <mckinney@athena.mit.edu> writes:
> ]It is important to realize that firing at a longer range is not  
> always a dis
> ]advantage.  Thusly:  At very long range, shells come almost  
> straight down to
> ]penetrate deck armor.  
> 
> Is this correct? I seem to remember diagrams from the Renaissance that 
> depict the the maximum range to be an angle of elevation of 45 degrees. 


Yes, the gyroscopic spin on the shell causes the trajectory of the shell
to climb rather flatly, peak rapidly about 3/4 of the way to the target,
and drop rapidly in a near-vertical fall to the target. 



                                                   Larry Mayo

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: WW2 BARRAGE
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:45:49 GMT


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

I also seem to remember that Uboats carried "Manual"
helocopters on board.
A tethered gyrocopter that could be depolyed with an 
observer, it is an interesting idea but as an observer
I would want a scoped rifle to shoot the cable operator
if he got near the "cable shears" before I was back on
board. :-)
They have one hanging from the ceiling at Wright Patterson.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: WWII Carrier Question
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:42:33 GMT


From creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)

In article <C0171G.345@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
>I'd like to know if anybody has a source for the launch and sinking dates of
>all the American and Japanese carriers used in WWII.  I don't need the dates
>of carriers that where on hand on 12/7, but I need the numbers.  British
>carriers would be nice, but not essential. I don't need anything more than
>name, type, and dates.
>
>I'm hoping that this is an easy question for those of you more into this
>than I am.  Thanks for any assistence.

   I will repeat my offer to send the list I've collected of US
aircraft carriers to anyone who wants it.  This should have most, if
not all, of the information you need on American CV's.

   I also once posted a list of in what battles most or all Japanese
carriers to be sunk had been sunk.  I was unable to find it in my
private sci.military archive, but may have it at home (I'll try to
remember to look).  If by some remote chance someone else happens to
have a copy of it, please e-mail it to me.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: Iowa Class Battleships
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:37:09 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <C0G11n.uK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:
>
> if I can find more data. The Navy DID have an 18" L48 gun that they built
> after WWI for test purposes. In fact, I think Dahlgren still has it!
>  
> 				David R. Wells
>
> 

I remember seeing this 18" barrel lying just off the gun testing line at
Dahlgren.  It was developed just before WWII and tested during the war
at Dahlgren or out here at the now Idaho National Engineering Lab.  Back in
WWII, the US Navy used the empty desert for a gun range free of foriegn
observers that could quite easily observe the tests or hampered by
the commerical/private boat traffic on the Potomac River as at Dahlgren.  
I also believe that three barrels were built for testing.

As a side note, the designation "fast" battleship for the Iowa class was to
aid in distinguishing them from previous US battleships built between WWI and 
WWII.  Even the previous class of battleships (South Dakota ?) could not
travel above 30 knots.

Don Palmrose
"There are only two kinds of ships....  Those that project power onto shore
and those that protect or support the power projectors."




========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: taravade@shark.ecn.purdue.edu (Kunal N Taravade)
Subject: Is the Waterloo account in Les Miserables accurate?
Keywords: Waterloo, Hugo
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:43:42 GMT


From taravade@shark.ecn.purdue.edu (Kunal N Taravade)



In Victor Hugo's classic work Les Miserables there appears a
rather fascinating and dramatic acccount of the fateful 
battle of Waterloo, to which several pages are devoted. What
happens here on the battlefield has immense influence on the
incidents that occur later in the book.
According to this description, briefly, Napoleon lost because
of a tragic accident involving a large battalion which fell,
both men and horses, into a ditch which the strategists had
failed to identify as a possible source of danger. There were
also some tactical misjudgements and of course, as is well known,
nature played no small part in sealing Napoleon's fate. 

However, it appears from Hugo's portrayal of the battle that this
incident involving the fall of several men into the ditch was the
deciding factor in the battle.

Would anyone like to make any comments regarding the above? Is this
how it is perceived by most historians? 

I would appreciate email responses.

Thank you.

********************************************************************************
Kunal N. Taravade
School of Electrical Engineering
Purdue University
taravade@shark.ecn.purdue.edu
*******************************************************************************
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Worst allied fighter in WW2
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:39:29 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <C0Jpru.8v1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
Brian <brian@coombs.anu.edu.au> writes:

> So it can be seen that to judge the poor old Skua as a fighter
> is IMO misguided because it was never intended from the outset to be one.

When dive bombers are asked to be fighters, only bad things can happen.
 During the Battle of the Coral Sea, when the Japanese attacked the
Lexington and Yorktown, there weren't enough fighters to deploy to
high, intermediate and low altitudes so the Douglas SBD Dauntless was
assigned the task of torpedo plane defense.  Unfortunately some Zero's
came down to escort their torpedo planes and the Wolf was truely in the
fold.  Some five or six dive bombers were shot down with US claims of
at least 4 or five Zero's.  Again unfortunately, these claims were
exaggerated, the Japanese lost no fighters to the lumbering dive
bombers.

Perhaps the SBD could lay claim to being one of the worst fighters of
WWII.  When it stuck to dive bombing it was a stable and outstanding
aircraft.

Corky Scott
From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Geneva Convention (was Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans)
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:42:40 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory


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

In article <C0pA3x.JAA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gawne@stsci.edu writes:
>
>From gawne@stsci.edu
>
>In article <C0o9tr.IpG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, hhm@ihlpe.att.com writes:
>>(responding to my earlier posting) 
>>> 
>>> Not to dispute the conclusions, but the US didn't sign the Geneva Convention
>>> until 1974.

... deleted is an argument about when did the U.S. first signed the GC.


- Actually it hardly matters anyway. The treaty stipulate that GC treatment
would be extended to powers that follow the treaty themselves - no matter if
they actually signed it.

The Soviets did not respect the treaty toward the Germans (or, as far as I
know, toward anyone else before or since), and hence the Germans were not
required to (and in fact did not) respect it toward the Russians.

The Western countries DID treat Germans by GC rules and enjoyed similar
treatment from the Germans.

Note that while a power may respect the treaty, individual units may take
extra-treaty actions and be treated accordingly without the entire power
losing GC protection.
For instance, British commandos (in civilian clothing, hence outside GC rules)
might penetrate Axis lines and do some damage. If caught they are libel to
be executed (and usually were), as they no longer enjoy GC protection.
Nevertheless, other (uniformed) British units would not lose GC-protection.


Some GC signatories (such as all Arab countries) have yet to abide by GC
provisions in ANY war, but are afforded it's protection anyhow (say by Israel,
a signatory that regularly abides by GC - although it is regulary accused of
violations on account of differing interpertations of the status of
certain territories). Individuals and units must FIRST violate the
GC before they lose it's protection.

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