HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (William M. Aldo)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: losses
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:32:33 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From "William M. Aldo" <nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil>

Subject: Additional Coalition Losses

I originally posted this several weeks ago and didn't get any responses; I
thought I'd give it one more shot and let it go, soooooo......here goes.

About 8 -10 months ago, there were several postings containing statistics for
U.S. tank losses (categories for damaged/destroyed and type) during the ground
phase of Desert Storm. Anybody out there have stats on other coalition tank
losses/types? Especially the British (since their MBTs also utilize the
Chobham-type armor) and anybody else using U.S.-made M60A1s or 'A3s
(i.e.Saudi Arabia). Anybody??

--

Mark Aldo   UUCP: (osu-cis)!dsacg1!waldo   INTERNET: waldo@dsac.dla.mil
Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center       | 614-692-8111
DSAC-ZTB, P.O.Box 1605, Columbus, Ohio (USA) 43216       | AV  850-8111
I'm not authorized to have an opinion....;-)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: subs
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:29:25 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


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

>From elada@eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC  LADA)
> ...wondering what kind of self-defense/offense 
>mechanisms the boomers have.  Do they have any torpedos, or anything non-nuke
>that can go out and kill any ship or attack sub that following them...

They have torpedos, but in general they prefer to keep quiet and try to
sneak away.  Launching a torpedo is noisy.  It's usually a mistake for a
missile-sub captain to take the initiative like that, unless the situation
is so stacked against him that he doesn't have much to lose.

>... do todays subs really have any advantage over ships...

Yes.  Seawater is still pretty opaque.  About the only sensor that penetrates
it well is sonar, and subs have a considerable advantage in being able to
change depth against it.

>Can military satalites track the subs under-water?   

There are occasional rumors about this, but as best one can tell, nobody
has yet managed to make such a system work well enough for operational use.

>...do subs still pop up under the polar-ice
>caps(now that the Soviet Union is no longer?) What kind of subs did/do this(
>boomers or attack)

Undoubtedly they still operate under there, although probably at a reduced
tempo.  The USSR is no more, but Russia is still there, with bigger internal
problems to be sure, but also with much less stable politics.

Under-ice operations are no big deal if you don't need to surface; I think
the relevant sonar gear is standard equipment.  Surfacing during the arctic
summer is likewise no problem, if you're patient enough to look around for
open water.  If you're less patient, or you want to be able to surface in
the winter (when the gaps that are open water in summer will be iced over,
although thinly), 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, although I'm not sure what the percentages are like.
-- 
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: CRAIG HAMMOND GARNETT <cgarnett@unix.amherst.edu>
Subject: Re: the "bouncing bomb"
Organization: Amherst College
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:29:34 GMT


From CRAIG HAMMOND GARNETT <cgarnett@unix.amherst.edu>


From CRAIG HAMMOND GARNETT <cgarnett@unix.amherst.edu>

Hey, what's a bouncing bomb? Never heard of this one....

-C

[mod note -- Here it goes from memory --

	The bouncing bomb was developed by the British (a guy by the name
of Barnes-Wallis) to destroy the dams along the Ruhr river.  These dams
were protected by torpedo nets, so torpedos were out.  Barnes-Wallis
realized that by skipping a bomb along the surface of the water, it would
impact against the dam face, then roll down the face, and explode
underwater. 

The trick was to get a shape designed that would bounce consistently, the
"crawl" down the dame face,  The first problem was solved by using a barrel
shape bomb, and the second problem was solved by rotating the bomb
backwards in it's shackle at something like 500 rpm prior to release.

Lancaster's of 335 Squadron (I think), commanded by Guy Gibson were
modified to carry the bomb, and trained in night low-level attacks.

Barnes-Wallis also developed the Grand-Slam bomb, which was used to destroy
aquaducts and other similar structures by penetrating underground and then
exploding, creating a mini-earthquake.

A good book on the subject is _The Dam Busters_ by Paul Brickhill

Steve ]
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Re: Lake Baial Monster
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:32:13 GMT


From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>

seb@tadtec.co.uk writes:

>The monster is effectively a jet-powered aircraft that specialises in
>gaining extra lift by flying very low over the water. 

The way I've been taught, is that the way wing-in-ground-effect
vehicles are able to fly, is because the closeness of the ground
prevent large, drag inducing, wing tip vortices to form. Air
resistance is then low enough, that engines that would otherwise
be too weak, let them reach high enough speeds to fly.

>The ability to pull up sharply to 100-200 feet altitude and
>then glide back down was specifically mentioned as a possible collision
>avoidance manouevre.

A smaller model I read about was able to pass obstacles 800 m
long, with a maximum height of 90 m. It was not clear if the
obstacle could be 800 x 90 m, but I suspect not, as it was
mentioned in connection with passing small islands in an archipelago.
It was clear that the total jump lenght would be more than 800 m.

These large WIG vehicles have been suggested as transports in 
Siberia, which makes me believe the normal flying altitude is
enough to clear tree tops.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)
 Knowledge is power: Read books!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Paul Stacy <jfriday@helena.stat.uga.edu>
Subject: Re: DEFCON 1
Organization: UGA Statistics Department
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:40:24 GMT


From Paul Stacy <jfriday@helena.stat.uga.edu>


From Paul Stacy <jfriday@helena.stat.uga.edu>

In article <BvyqqH.5t5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab) writes:
>
>From colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab)
>
>
>I just saw a show on TDC about nukes.
>They said that the USA went to DEFCON 1 four times:
>
>	1) The U2 incident
>	2) The Cuban missile crisis
>	3) The Middle East crisis in 1973
>	4) The Reagan assassination attempt (why? Beats me!)

I'm sure that it was a precautionary thing.  They didn't know if Hinkley
was on his own or perhaps had foreign sponsorship for what he did.




Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy (not net.police)       Buffalo State College, New York
STACY54@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (Buffalo State College VAX)                JUST THE
jfriday@marie.stat.uga.edu (Univ. of Georgia, Athens UNIX)      "VAX", MA'AM!
Disclaimer:  This isn't the opinion of the school, police, Chief of Detective
             Staff Brown, Planet Spaceball, Starfleet Command, or the Pentagon.
From: f92pema@fy.chalmers.se (Per-Gunnar Martinsson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: naval aspects of Napoleonic war
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:32:23 GMT
Organization: Chalmers Univ. of Technology, G|teborg, Sweden


From Per-Gunnar Martinsson <f92pema@fy.chalmers.se>


In many history books - on all educational levels - one can read that the so callad Continental System used by the French to starve the British inte surrender was very succesful and nearly crushed the british economy. I find this rather hard to accept since the british during most of the wars had control over the oceans. I know that they were driven out of the Mediterranean a few years in the late 1790s but surely this cannot have done any serious damage to the british economy.
The only warscene were the English could have suffered real economical damage was in the west indies where privateers were a serious problem. But were these problem really a threat to the whole economy ? They still had their trade on the east Indies pretty undisturbed.
It is a well known fact that the Crown had to take huge loans to afford the wars and that the economy was seriously disturbed by this for decades after Waterloo but was this really due to the Continental system ?It is a well known fact that the Crown had to take huge loans to afford the wars and that the economy was seriously disturbed by this for decades after Waterloo but was this really due to the Continental system ?
Does anybody know any figures of these effects ? If not I must have to go on believing that the authors of books in history meanfully overdramatizes the damage done to the British just to be able to make parallells with the war on the Atlantic during the World Wars.

	With hope of answers,
	Per-Gunnar Martinsson
	Chalmers University of Technology
	Gothenburg
	Sweden
	E-mail: f92pema@fy.chalmers.se
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Al Mark <amark@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Military Clip Art for Mac Wanted
Organization: jpl
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:14:20 GMT


From Al Mark <amark@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov>

I'm looking for some Military Clip Art for the Macintosh....like: tanks
aircraft, missiles, big and little guns, soldiers, etc.

If you have any to share, please E-mail to:

amark@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov

Thanks
From: adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:42:33 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt


From Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>

In article <Bvwr3o.K36@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Gavin.Dodds@newcastle.ac.uk (Gavin Dodds) writes:
>
>  Mr. Appleton seems to put a rather good point (above), but unfortunatly,
> fails to see the implications of celebrating the V-2 rocket (I'm afraid the
> distinction between the reserch vehicle and the actual weapon is not made
> over here).

Speak for yourself!  It might have helped, though, if the celebration had been
listed as being for the A-4, rather than for the V-2.  (It wouldn't have helped
much, knowing the intellect - or lack thereof - of journalists, but it would
have been a good gesture.  Or was the celebration listed as being for the A-4,
but only reported here as being for the V-2?)

> I think your opinions would be different if the Japanese decided to mount a
> celebration of Pearl Harbour ...

Not quite.  A better analogy would be the Japanese mounting a celebration of
the Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighter.  And even then, the Zero was not exactly the
leap in technology represented by the A-4/V-2.

However, I wonder if reactions would have been different if certain other
plans at Peenemuende had become reality - such as a two-stage version of
the V-2, with the ability to hit Washington. ;-)

-- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!uknet!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian   |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:35:50 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology


From d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)


In article <Bvtp4t.6MF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>More to the overall point, though, the only reason thermoelectric systems
>are used on satellites is that they have fewer moving parts and are thus
>considered more reliable.  Their efficiency is *terrible*, grossly inferior
>to a turbogenerator system.  There is a reason why subs continue to use
>their "noisy type" of power system.

  This is true for the US type RTG's yes, but whats the sizes and outputs from
the Soviet reactors (which I assume is more similar to real reactors than to
RTG's)?

>There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
		"Revive the Swedish-Madagascan Brigand Pact!"
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu (Anthony M Lovell)
Subject: Re: Sparrows and the Turkish DD
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:36:07 GMT


From amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu (Anthony M Lovell)

  Is the Sea Spaarowe meant to be a fall-back weapon for an anti-ship
role?  I did not think they could even be used against ships.  I'm
GUESSING that there is no way that 2 missles that could NOT track and
home on a ship could hit a ship 3 miles off by accident.  What are this
missile's capaibilities vs a ship?

-- 
amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu     ...since 1963.
From: jcs@zoo.bt.co.uk (John C Sager)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: DEFCON 1
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:39:22 GMT
Organization: British Telecommunications plc


From John C Sager <jcs@zoo.bt.co.uk>


There was a programme here on BBC TV last night about the Cuban missile
crisis & it said that the US went to DEFCON 2 at that time. it also
said that DEFCON 1 was a state of war.

John C Sager					Mail:	B67 G18, BT Labs
Email:	jcs@zoo.bt.co.uk				Martlesham Heath
Tel:	+44 473 642623					IPSWICH  IP5 7RE
Fax:	+44 473 637614					England
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:29:54 GMT


From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)


From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)

In article <Bvwr6L.K6r@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede) writes:

>>One of the prototypes was destroyed in testing when an inexperienced 
>>chase pilot in an F-104 collided with it.

>As I recall, there was no issue of pilot inexperience.  There was an
>issue of General Electric wanting a PR photo with five GE-powered
>planes in close formation. The F-104 was caught by the truly enormous
>tip vortex of the XB-70 and rolled across the top wing surface,
>destroying the F-104 and soon thereafter the XB-70.  

A properly trained and experienced chase pilot would have known that the vortex
would form off the tips of such a large wing at low speeds, and that with such 
a light plane (the F-104 weighed less than 40,000 lbs.) he would be sucked into
that vortex like a dry leaf in a tornado.  

In any case, it was a waste of taxpayer dollars to be flying such an expensive 
plane solely so GE could get PR photos. They could just as easily have taken 
the picture on the ground, or during a regular test flight.  The chase pilots 
on a full-up test flight have strict guidelines they must follow, and these 
may have avoided the disaster.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:36:51 GMT


From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)


From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)

In article <Bw0oGK.L9I@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>  With the destruction of their most forward Naval port, the
>>U.S. would have been delayed long enough for Japan to secure
>>their conquests in Southeast Asia and vanquish their other
>>foes before the U.S. could get involved.

The Japanese did not do serious damage to the port facilities 
at Pearl Harbor (perhaps one of the greatest errors of
the war): Ships, not port facilities were targeted. If the port
itself had been seriously damaged, the Japanese might have gained
enough time to consolidate the Dutch East Indes.

>The Japanese won all their battles so fast the US couldn't have intervened
>from Hawaii no matter what. We are talking a couple of weeks here!

Two to three weeks would have been plenty of time: The United States
held Manila Bay until late December, almost two months after the
start of the Japanese offensive, and it took Japan until mid-February,
1943 to occupy Borneo and a few more weeks after that to be fully
in control of the rest of the Dutch East Indes.

The pre-war American plan was to defend the Philipines as long as
possible until the main fleet could fight its way there through
Japanese mandates (the Marshalls, Marianas, etc...) The naval planners
expected this to take a month or two. This would have created 
serious problems for the Japanese occupation of the East Indes.
However, with most of the American Battle Force sitting at the
bottom of Pearl Harbor, and Amercian assets reduced to three
carriers and the RAF (Retreating Asiatic Fleet), such a mission
was impossible.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:03:35 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


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

In article <BvnFvn.KIt@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:

|Though the Japanese had numerical superiority in carriers, they were short on 
|qualified carrier pilots, due to high losses at Coral Sea.  Therefore, the 
|Americans had no real trouble with the Japanese carriers.  Even though we lost 
|one carrier, the previously damaged one, we destroyed four of the Japanese 
|carriers, and damaged the other.  Without adequate air cover, the amphibious 
|attack on Midway could not have been carried out with any degree of success, 
|so the main Japanese fleet returned home, harrassed the whole way by American 
|aircraft.  


Most accounts I've read about this say that the reason the Japanese 
carriers were sunk was because the Japanese CAP was all at low altitude
engaging torpedo bombers, who were massacred. They forgot about the 
dive bombers attacking from altitude. If some of the Japanese fighters
had been patrolling at 20,000 feet or so the outcome would have been 
very different.





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Titanium fabrication capability
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:35:55 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


>> I didn't mean the capability to develop the ability to build titanium 
>> hulls. I meant the capability to build them now. There are alot of 
>> specialized techniques involved from what I've read. I'm sure the US could 
>> develop the ability if the desire was there but the US does NOT currently 
>> have that ability.
> 
> I'm not sure I'd agree with that...I'd bet the U.S. has spent a lot of
> time researching and investigating the methods for building
> titanium-hulled subs, especially given all the publicity and hype the
> Alfa got (thank you, Tom Clancy...).  My guess would be that the U.S.
> has the ability and know-how to build such subs, but, no doubt, it
> would take a fair amount of time and experience in actually *building*
> the things to reach the level of expertise the Soviets have in such
> things.  I wouldn't put it past the Navy to have a titanium-hulled
> design or two waiting for the day when massive titanium deposits are
> discovered somewhere in the U.S. :)  Needless nit-picking, I'm sure,
> but...
> 

I agree with you but would note that it's one thing to draw up a plan
& another thing to bring it to fruition. Historically there've been alot
of naval ship designs that looked straightforward on paper but turned out 
to be quite a different story when it cam time to begin construction.

>> Thus the Soviets are superior to us in this regard because they CAN build
>> titanium hulled subs right now while we would have to work on it for awhile
>> before we could.
> 
> Yeah, they are, but they're only superior because we've never put much
> effort into it. :) 

Isn't that the usual story as far as the US is concerned?
(Could say the same thing about Japan & their military capabilities, BTW)
  
>> I'm sure this is true also. However, I've read a number publications that
>> stress repeatedly that metallurgy was one of the sciences where the USSR
>> was most advanced. The statement, "many of their alloys are superior to
>> ours & even unknown to us" has appeared more than once. This doesn't 
>> mean ALL their alloys are better than ours but that there were a number
>> of instances where they had something we didn't or something better than
>> we did.
> 
> Hmmmmm.  Could you quote some references?  I'm curious about these
> superior alloys, if anything is known about them.  (It'd be sort of
> silly to ask about the unknown alloys, now, wouldn't it? :) )
> 

As I recall there were articles in both _The_Air_Force_Digest_ & _The_
Proceedings_of_the_USNI_ back in the '70s & '80s. I afraid that the ar-
ticles were not very technical. I haven't come across anything lately,
though.

PHIL
From: bluefire@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Jacobson)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: EVENT: American Film Institute seminar on VR, Nov 16-18, 1992
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:40:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct9.231725.11717
Organization: University of Washington
Originator: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu


Crossposted from the WELL (192.132.30.2)   vr   conference

David Blackburn is chair of the Southern California VR SIG and can be
reached at breeder@well.sf.ca.us


Topic 111:  VR ACTIVIES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
# 16: DAVID BLACKBURN (breeder)      Tue, Oct  6, '92  (23:14)      23 lines
 
 I just received info from the American Film Institute about a 2 day seminar
 on VR they will offer. It will consist of 2 sessions from 7-10 PM on
 November 16-18, 92. The sessions will be presented by Dave Smith of Virtus
 Corporation, as he will demo the VR software called "Walkthrough".
 
 The focus of the seminar will be on the application of "Walkthrough" as a
 means of creating the sets for television and film production. Directors
 and Set Designers can then discuss the "look" of a set before it is built
 by the Set builders. This is VR's most compelling application to the Hollywood
 ccommunity at this time because it addresses a real problem.
 
 The cost of attending the 2 evening seminar is $190/person for AFI Members
 or $200/person for non-members. The American Film Institute / Apple Computer
 Center for Film & Video makers offers a diverse mix of courses and seminars
 in numerous topics.
 
 For a catalog of AFI courses, contact:
 
                      The American Film Institute
                      The AFI / Apple Computer Center for Film & Video Makers
                      2021 N. Western Avenue
                      Los Angeles, California 90027
                      (213) 856-7725 or (800) 999-4AFI
From: macris@nsd.fmc.com ((Willie Macris @FMC))
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: JOBS: Salaries
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:04:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct11.184648.13248
Organization: University of Washington
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu



--At this stage VR research is still at doctorate degree
--level, so I'd certainly say 25k+ pounds, I think thats about $45k -
--$50k.

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with you about the "doctorate
degree", although I do think that there are those without a doctorate
that are equally capable of the innovation required for VR (just as
there are many Phds with no imagination whatsoever).

Willie

macris@nsd.fmc.com
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds