HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Ranks & Stuff
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:33:16 GMT


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <Bxo17r.6A5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> 
> 
> From athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> I am writing a story that involves some military types and need to know a
> few things...any help would be appreciated.
> 
> * What are the ranks in the different branches?

For officers, the Army, Air Force, and Marines ranking (from lowest to 
highest) are:

2nd Lieutenant, 1st Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Leutenant Colonel, Colonel,
Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, and General

For the Navy and Coast Guard the ranking in the same order is:

Ensign, Lieutenant (Junior Grade), Lieutenant, Lieutenant Commander, Commander,
Captain, Rear Admiral (Lower Grade), Rear Admiral (Upper Grade), Vice Admiral,
and Admiral

> * What are the payscales for those ranks?

Navy Times typically publishes the pay scales once or twice a year.  Your
local library, military recruiter's office, or reserve center should have 
it (especially the last two, typically on a bullitin board somewhere on the
premise)

> * Now many years does the average soldier take to get those ranks?

That depends on the current numbers.  For officers in the Navy (that's my
background) it is generally shorter than the other services.  Typically

Ensign-2 yrs, LT(jg)-2 yrs, LT-4 to 6 yrs, LCDR-5 to 8 yrs, CDR-5 to 8 yrs,
CAPT-5 to 8 yrs, all Admiral ranks depend on too much other stuff but could
be 2 to 6 years.

> ############################################################################
> Rick Eames                         Internet:      athos@apple.com
> Apple Computer, Inc.               CompuServe:    76666,2114

Hope this helps.

Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink..."




========== 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: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2READ/NEW/FOLLOWUP
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:02:53 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <BxvFLG.8z1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:

> Why are the front sprockets driven instead of the rear?  I would think
> that would put the entire length of the track under tension instead of
> just the lower half, require more machinery to carry the power forward,
> and make the mesh-and-release of the track with the sprocket more vulnerable
> to mechanical stress from being shaken as the front of the track rides over
> the rough ground.
> 
> Obviously tank builders know something I don't.

I know the track of the AAV P7 (that's the USMC's amphibious armored personnel
carrier) is driven at the front.  It does put tension on the entire track,
but that's compensated by using "live" (spring loaded) track.  This eliminates
the need for bogie wheels for the track to ride on as it moves forward.

I think that the M113 uses similar track.  Any soldiers out there who've
worked on the things?

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dave Pipes x4552 <dpipes@srg.srg.af.mil>
Subject: Re: Austers, Biggles and Brit War Comics
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:25:57 GMT


From Dave Pipes x4552 <dpipes@srg.srg.af.mil>

Speaking of all these things, what do people think of the Flashman books?
The history in them seems to be right on, and often can begin to justify
reading them, at least until your wife takes a look at one...:-)

Is Fraser's reading of British military history accurate?

	David Pipes
robear@digex.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet C-5 Clone (AN-124?) at Moffet Field
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:47:22 GMT


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <BxtK7q.1MM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu%portal@uunet.uu.net writes:
> Is the USAF or NASA contracting with the Soviets to use their aircraft
> because C-5 time is in short supply, or does anybody think it was delivering
> something to or from the Commonwealth?
> 
> (talking about Moffet Field, Sunnyvale CA, the one with the big dirigible
> hanger)
> 
For whatever reason the aircraft are in the U.S., you may regularly see
Russian/CIS transport aircraft at the Anchorage International Airport and/or
Elmendorf Air Force Base.  The last three times i've been aboard Elmendorf,
there have been Antonov transports there (once in Octobor, twice in November). 
Elmendorf is a convenient stopover from any point in the CIS or Russia to the
west coast, so all or most of the flights may touch down or refuel there.
(which would account for the number of aircraft).

The aircraft at Elmendorf are invariably `official' with military markings,
however i have never been close enough to determine if the aircraft was Russian
or CIS operated- if it makes a difference at this point, or even if you can
tell from the markings at all.
 
The aircraft at Anchorage International sometimes have official livery,
sometimes Aeroflot.  Also, the aircraft i am mentioning are military transport
type, not Aeroflot passenger jets.  There is a regularly scheduled flight from
Magadan/Khabarovsk to Anchorage by Aeroflot, but they use the Tupelov passenger
jets (look like DC-9s) for that service, and i think that they've bought or
leased some Boeing 727s also (I'm not sure, possibly it was just an idea that
the Russians were considering).


James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Re: Jutland
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:23:15 GMT


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


Markus Stumptner writes:
#>> Strategically, Jutland was a clear-cut British victory:
#
#I disagree, since basically, Jutland did not change the strategic
#situation at all, it just managed to preserve the status quo.  Coral

My turn to disagree :) The German intent at Jutland was to destroy a
small element of the Grand Fleet, hopefully paving the way for a
fleet encounter on more equal terms. They needed to upset the status
quo.

With the British, a decisive defeat of the High Seas Fleet would have 
been a highly desirable result, it would not have been an improvement
over the status quo. The distant blockade would strangle the German
economy with or without the High Seas Fleet, and there was no plan to
follow up the defeat of the latter with an amphibious landing (apart
from Fisher's Baltic scheme).

Put another way, the Germans had much to gain, and in retrospect little
to lose at Jutland, while the opposite was true for the British.


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: tcomeau@stsci.edu
Subject: How were Civil War Staff organized?
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:26:40 GMT


From tcomeau@stsci.edu

Can someone suggest a reference for the organization of Brigade,
Division, and Corps Staff for the United States Army in 1862?

I'm particularly interested in how the staffs of Fitz-John Porter,
William Franklin, and Israel Richardson were organized at South
Mountain and Antietam.  I've seen scattered information on individual
officers, but even when a particular person is described, his title
or official duties (other than aides or couriers) are never given.

Any help would be appreciated; if I get something useful by e-mail
I'll summarize in a followup.

tc>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Comeau                            | "Good logistics is Combat Power"
tcomeau@stsci.edu                     |         -- Lt. Gen. Gus Pagonis, USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      We didn't build the Hubble Space Telescope, we just make it work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Subject: Re: 106mm Recoiless Rifle - Rocket or Gun?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:43:45 GMT


From pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)

Grump  Grump Grump.
Secret Weapons show did it agin.  TOTALLY messed up the difference between
recoilles and rocket propelled antitank weapons.  Gahhhh.

Easy distinction (skipping compounds like the rocket assisted):

	If the shell (where the propellant was) stays behind, its a gun/rifle
	(and even the military is not consistent in their use of THOSE two...)

	If the motor goes with it, its a rocket. (/missile/wotever.)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com	|I am the NRA.
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Maurice Blok <mgjblok@cs.vu.nl>
Subject: Info wanted on US & CIS combat formations
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:24:45 GMT


From Maurice Blok <mgjblok@cs.vu.nl>

I`m looking for some info on platoon and company organisation of the US
and CIS amry(s). Like what kind of command structure they have, 
what and how many of a particular unit, vehicle or team are in it,
what sort of support units they normally have; Arty, A/C and the like.

I`m especially interested in Inf, Cav and Recce formations. I think
I can guess the composition of a Tank plt. But any info on any
formation is appreciated.

Does anyone know what a US or CIS Btl HQ looks like qua compostion,
like a Dutch Recce Btl HQ has something like: 3 M577, 2M113, 7 or so
Landrovers, 3 shelters, 2 MG teams, no AD units and sometimes even 
an Alouette III helo.

Also I would like some info on these vehicles/weapons:
US:
	Sgt. York	- (still) in service? 
	ADATS		- Already in service?
	Hummer		- especially the Forward Heavy `Issue`
	TOW		- manportable, like Dragon?
	Blackhawk	- or any Hawk used in Airborne Divs.
			  Speed, Armour, weapon loadouts, troop
			  carrying cap?
	OH-1(A/B/D)	- Speed, loadout, Armour, Detection equip?
	
CIS:
	ZSU-57-2	- still in service?
	ZSU-30-6	- or any other name for the replacement
			  of the ZSU-23-4 menace? in service?
	ATGWs		- which are still in service?
	BMP-3		- in service? Never saw any specs on this
			  one just a mean looking pic with
			  2 deadly looking guns on that tiny turret.
	T-80?		- Just a better armoured T-72?
			  Any replacement for the T-80 under 
			  development?

Any info would be appreciated,

Thanks!
Maurice

  /-------\        /-------------------------------\
  |04:23am|        | Let's hit the sack!.....Naaah |
  \-------/        /-------------------------------/ 
     ____         / 
    /   #     /---\           ------
---/    #     |o  |           Maurice Blok <mgjblok.cs.vu.nl>
|       #    <__  |           Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam 
---\____#     \___/           ------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Subject: Re: GPS vs "Friendly Fire"
Organization: Chevron
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:26:22 GMT


From hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)

In article <Bxx2F4.C0@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
|> 
|> From miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
|> 
|> I'm curious.
|> Did "every" vehicle in DS have a GPS unit? If so, how could GPS be used
|> to prevent future "Friendly Fire" accidents?

  No, but they working on it.  It kinda the same as radios, not 
  every truck and jeep has got one, not every guy in a platoon
  has got one, so I doubt if everything/one will get a GPS.

|> With digital encoding of radio signals, and GPS together, why couldn't
|> all friendly units be tracked constantly, or at least "checked" before 
|> fired upon? I know computer technology is there. Am I way behind here?
|> Seems to me like a fire-system computer could do a .5 nano-second check
|> on a target in aquisition. Of course I realize that in many cases, there
|> is no time for anything other than kill or be killed.

 The computer on your desk may be able to do it in ".5 nano-seconds"
 but I can guarantee you that no tactical computer system can.  The
 standard for time-to-release from pilot-trigger is like 50 - 100
 milliseconds.  And it's hard to even make that sometimes.  There's
 a weapon system out there that has a time-to-fire time of 100 msec
 + or - 500 msec.  That's right - you pull the trigger and the damn
 thing may "leave" anywhere from 100 to 600 msec later! That's over
 a half second delay!

 The military is usually about 5 years behind in computer technology.
 It sometimes takes years of testing before they even let a piece
 of equipment "fly".  If you wanted to put a 486/50 on an F-16, it
 would be at least a year of testing before it went wheels-up! 

 TRAVIS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: US and Philippines (Was: Opinion on Japan being "forced" to attack)
Followup-To: sci.military
Summary: Some more on attrocities
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:26:29 GMT


From Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>


In article <BxM6EA.5xq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman) writes:

>From Michael Goldman  <miklg@acuson.com>


>       The US Army succeeded in suppressing the Philipine insurrection
>       by herding large numbers of Filipinos into concentration camps
>       to deny the insurgents aid from the people.  This contributed
>       to the famine and other problems which killed 200,000 Filipinos
>       in addition to the 20,000 insurgents, and 4,200 Americans who
>       died in fighting.  (Roughly 10 times more Americans died in the
>       Philippines than had died in the Spanish-American War.)

>       General Smith (a 62 year-old veteran of the US Civil War and
>       the Indian Wars) was court-martialed for excessive brutality in
>       ordering the burning and destruction of every village and the
>       killing of every male above the age of 10 in the island of
>       Samar (his limited jurisdiction).  He was treated leniently by
>       Roosevelt and merely forced to retire, rather than imprisoned.
>       The trial left a bitter attitude towards Imperialism in the US
>       people.


Just as a further comment on the suppression of the Philippino independence
fighters, I found a book called "Our Philippine Problem - A Study of American
Colonial Policy" by Henry Parker Willis, produced with help from the (right
wing, antiCommunist) Hoover Institute, published by Arno Press and the New
York Times. In it the author singles out three Generals for special mention
Generals J F Smith, Bell (in Batangas, Laguna and Tayabas), Hughes (in Bohol
and Cebu). It does not say what exactly these people did but it does refer
to General Smiths "Kill and Burn" order although it does not spell out what
that means. More to the point it has a quote from General Bell (presumably
the same man) claiming that by 1902 ONE SIXTH of the population of Luzon
had died as the direct or indirect result of the War - that is at least
600,000 people. As a comparison, this is about the same proportion as the
greatly inflated Soviet claims for WW2.



Joseph Askew


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  At dawn with staff in hand I climbed the crags,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  At dusk I made my camp amoung the mountains.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Only a few peaks rise as high as this house,
One China One Korea One Eire32  Facing the crags, it overlooks winding streams.
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: desert storm operations
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:40:22 GMT
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <BxtKCv.1pD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, gawne@stsci.edu writes:
> 
> 
> 	o  The Iraqi artillery using the South African G5 155mm guns had
> 	   the means to do far more damage to coalition ground forces than
> 	   they did.  The only reason we can conclude they held their fire 
> 	   when we came thru the breaches at 0 hour was they wanted to 
> 	   surrender as quickly as possible.  
>

It was the extremely effective counter-battery of the US forces that negated
this.  Within minutes (or seconds) after the Iraqi artillery started to shoot,
return fire, bombs, or missiles were incoming on them.  They quickly got the
message.

> This information is available thru non-classified media and I can assure
> you its true.  The AAA threat in particular was *BAD*.  Fortunately we
> made them keep the targeting radars turned off, but even shooting by eyeball
> they kept our pilots flying so high that the bomb damage was significanntly
> diminished.
>

The AAA threat being sooo great over Bagdad was the reason why only the F-117
and Tomahawks were used on that city.  I do not know of any other aircraft
flying into Bagdad, please correct me if I am wrong.

> -Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
>  GySgt USMCR
>

Don Palmrose
"There are only two kinds of ships.....  Those that project power and those
that 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: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Former Soviet Navy Posting Number 8:  'Yankee II' class SSBN
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:27:58 GMT


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


'Yankee II' class SSBN

Type:  Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement:  7800 tons surfaced and 9600 tons submerged
Dimensions:  Length 129.5 m, beam 11.6 m, draught 7.8 m
Armament:  12 vertical launch tubes for 12 SS-N-17 'Snipe' SLBM's
	6 533 mm bow torpedo tubes for a typical load of 18 Type 53 dual-role 
	torpedoes.
Electronics:  One 'Snoop Tray' surface-search and navigation radar, one low-
	frequency active/passive bow sonar, one medium-frequency torpedo fire-
	control sonar, one 'Brick Group' ESM system, one 'Pert Spring' 
	satellite navigation system, one 'Cod Eye' navigation system, one 'Park
	Lamp' direction finder, and various communications and navigation 
	systems
Propulsion:  Two pressurized water-cooled reactors supplying steam to two sets 
	of geared turbines delivering 37,300 kW (50,025 hp) to two shafts.
Performance:  Maximum submerged speed 27 knots, diving depth 400 m operational 
	and 600 m maximum.
Complement:  120

Number Built:  1 for Soviet Navy

Comments:  This boat was converted from standard 'Yankee I' baseline between 
	1971 and 1975 to carry the SS-N-17 SLBM.  Otherwise, it is identical 
	to the 'Yankee I' boats.
	SS-N-17 'Snipe':  Range 3900 km; CEP 1400 m; warhead, one 500 kT or 
	1 MT RV; guidance, stellar-inertial
	Type 53 dual-role torpedo:  Since my sources do not give any hard data 
	on the Type 53's performance, I can only assume that it is comparable 
	to the US Navy's Mk. 48


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Summary: Why the front sprockets?
Organization: :
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:36:52 GMT


From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us

In article <BxM62r.5B8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Peter Shyvers <pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> writes:
 
> Anyone know if what I recall is true: I seem to remember that the Tiger (I)
> didn't have direct-drive to the front sprockets. Instead, the engine drove
> a generator, and the drive sprockets were powered by electric motors.

Why are the front sprockets driven instead of the rear?  I would think
that would put the entire length of the track under tension instead of
just the lower half, require more machinery to carry the power forward,
and make the mesh-and-release of the track with the sprocket more vulnerable
to mechanical stress from being shaken as the front of the track rides over
the rough ground.

Obviously tank builders know something I don't.
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ

Newsgroups: sci.military