HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: What are Katyusha rockets ?
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:02:35 GMT


From Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>

  The reason it was called "Katyusha" was that "Katyusha" was a very popular
song at that time (and later in China during the Sino-Soviet honey moon in the
50's) and Red Army soldiers loved it so much that they named it so.  The reason
they loved it so much is that it had a devastating effect on German morale.
True, it has never been accurate (even today).  But it can fire ALOT rockets
into a not too large area in a short burst whose shock effect is tremendous.
With modern fire control systems and terminal guided munition, it can be a real
headache to anyone wandering through its path.  That is probably why US 
developed MLRS which had a very high profile during the Gulf war.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "J.D. Baldwin" <baldwin@csservera.usna.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Random Navy Cap Protocol Question
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:02:38 GMT


From "J.D. Baldwin" <baldwin@csservera.usna.navy.mil>


In article <Bxq1G0.A0@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dpe@inel.gov (Don
Palmrose) writes (quoting billmcc@seanews.akita.com [Bill McCormick]):
>> I have quite a few Navy ship caps, some with scrambled eggs and others
>> plain.
>> 
>> Is it considered rude to wear one if you're not a member of the ship's
>> crew or even in the Navy?
>
>It is not rude to wear them out in the general public.  However, you
>may get a question or two by some old salt who onced served on the
>ship whose ball cap you are wearing.
>
>Most US Naval officers frown on civilians wearing the ones with the
>scrambled eggs . . .

Not in the case of the sample of one you have before you (me).  "Most"
of this sample hasn't given the matter much thought until just now.

>. . . since that represents the rank typically of the Captain and the
>Executive Officer of the ship.

Not as such.  The distinction for scrambled eggs is based solely on
rank and is based on the following:

   "junior" officers        Ensign
   no "scrambled            Lieutenant (junior grade)
   eggs" on cap             Lieutenant
                            Lieutenant Commander

   "senior" officers        Commander
   one row of "scrambled    Captain
   eggs" on cap

   "flag" officers          Rear Admiral (lower half)
   two rows of              Rear Admiral (upper half)
   "scrambled eggs"         Vice Admiral
   on cap                   Admiral

[I can't type those ranks without expressing my disgust over the
bureaucratic-sounding "lower half" and "upper half" distinctions
between the O-7 and O-8 paygrades.  "Commodore" and "Rear Admiral"
were good enough for Dewey and Farragut, by God, and they're good
enough for today's Navy.]

The rows of "eggs" are found not only on the ball caps, but on the
bill of the regular "combination" cap as well.

>So I would not wear the scrambled eggs ones onto a military base at
>any time.

Good advice, I suppose.  A trip to a navy base would increase the
likelihood that you're going to run into someone who could be offended
that you are wearing scrambled eggs.  It's likely, in any case, that
you'd just get the automatic "bonehead civilian" exemption from
military etiquette requirements.

(And by the way, those "eggs" are clusters of gold oak leaves.)
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Markku Luoto <mluoto@cc.helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: Story of MiG-21F & BIS
Keywords: loss rate
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:26:25 GMT


From Markku Luoto <mluoto@cc.helsinki.fi>

In <BxvFLB.8xC@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> co@chrom1.mednet.gu.se (Christer Olsson) writes:


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

>|> 
>|> Finland has got an Air Force consisting of only 60 planes (about 30 Draken
>|> and 30 MiG:s).This means that almost 1/4 of all the MiG:s bought from the
>|> former Sovjet Union have been destroyed in crashes.
>|> 

>How many Drakens has been lost? 

NONE, not a single one ! and they have now served two(2) mig generations
(21F and 21bis) and even now, the 21bis seems to be falling apart faster
( two accidents this year )... allthough the first Draken that was
bought to Finland as used one has retired, but if you ask me, I'd rather
fly that one than ANY mig before the 29 !?!? (including unused ones)

By the way, did you know that the 21F had just a few kilos of dynamite
under it's seat to "eject" it out... We had one poor fellow who had to
bail out twice from 21F... now he's about 2 inches shorter than he used
to be, because of the spine's softlayers crushed... he can't fly a
fighter no more, but otherwice he's doing fine...





-- 
email: markku.luoto@helsinki.fi    # "I just LOVE G-pull...     
     (will find me where ever...)  #      ...and a AIM9L at your six !"
fax: 358-0-4524015                 #    
voice: 358-0-5091656 (a.maschine ) #    - a surviving "Pro-Flite" freak

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: th2_oate@csd.uwe-bristol.ac.uk (Tom Oates)
Subject: Re: The use of unguided rockets in WWII
Organization: University of the West of England, Bristol
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:40:06 GMT


From th2_oate@csd.uwe-bristol.ac.uk (Tom Oates)

It's certainly true that WWII vintage rockets weren't too accurate. However,
it all depends what you were firing at. I have seen some very impressive
gun camera film shot from a De Havilland Mosquito. It shows the full 
complement of 60 lb cordite propelled rockets slamming into a 
German cargo vessel and sinking it. You can't get a bigger target than a
ship or surfaced submarine. Also, rocket firing Typhoons of the RAF had lots
of success against German tanks in France following D-day.

For the smallest unguided rocket system of WWII, and one that few of
you out there in cyberspace will ever have heard of, take a look at the
German 'fliegerfaust'. It was one of the 'last ditch' weapons that were
developed in late 1944 and early 1945. Few were made, and I don't believe 
that any saw action.

The fliegerfaust was a six-barrelled man-portable anti-aircraft rocket
launcher. It looked slightly like a minigun, but was held like a 'bazooka'.
The projectiles were standard 20mm cannon shells with a cordite rocket motor
fitted behind - spin stabilised of course. The operator wore a battery pack, 
and fired each barrel individually or in salvo. Since the rockets were very 
short - approx 12 inches, I can only presume that the fliegerfaust was 
designed for use against ground attack planes such the Typhoon.

I've seen a photo of a fliegerfaust in the hands of a US Army serviceman 
taken shortly after the war. Presumably there must be an example of this
weapon in a museum in the USA somewhere.

-- 
****************************************************************************** 
* Tom Oates (Univ. of West of England) * DISCLAIMER:I speak only for myself. * 
* Email to: th2_oate@uk.ac.uwe.csd     * PGP 2.0 Key available upon request. *
******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: emery@dr-no.MITRE.ORG (David Emery)
Subject: Re: Best piece of Artillery you ever saw
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:33:52 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


From emery@dr-no.MITRE.ORG (David Emery)

There are several elements that influence max range.  A higher
elevation puts the bullet through higher atmosphere, which is thinner.
But for our 155 M198, here's the max range data, where 800 mils is 45
degrees.  You'll notice that max range is achieved at two elevations,
low angle and high angle...

	Charge 8, Ill,  
	791 mils->17,500 meters
	871 mils->17,500 meters

	charge 8, HE
	804 mils->18,100 meters
	830 mils->18,100 meters

	charge 7, HE
	756 mils->14,700 meters
	847 mils->14,700 meters

	charge 6, HE
	726 mils->12,200 meters
	861 mils->12,200 meters

	charge 5, HE
	647 mils->10,000 meters
	933 mils->10,000 meters


				dave

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Thursday, 12 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:40:21 GMT


From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)

Thursday, 12 November, 1942

On Guadalcanal, Marines eliminate 450 Japanese soldiers surrounded at Gavaga
Creek.  The Marines are reinforced by 6,000 US soldiers from the New
Hebrides and New Caledonia.  The ships which landed these fresh troops are
forced to withdraw by the approach of a Japanese fleet.

A night action develops off Guadalcanal, in which the American fleet loses
the cruisers Atlanta and Juneau and four destroyers, with two cruisers and 
two more destroyers damaged.  Two Japanese destroyers are sunk, and the 
battleship Hiei is crippled and later sunk by aircraft.

British paratroopers land at Bone airfield in Algeria, capturing it before
a similar German plan could be executed.  German troops begin arriving at
Tunis and Bizerta, commanded by General von Arnim.

The US 9th Army Air Force is formed in North Africa.

Germany states that Toulon, held by a French garrison, will not be entered,
and that the French fleet will not be taken.

Tobruk falls to the Eighth Army.

Japanese forces retreating from Oivi, New Guinea, cross the Kumusi River.
General Horii is drowned.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"We have a new and extremely accurate American mortar and one fort at Oran
decided to resist.  A combat team brought up mortars and gave the fort a
pasting which would not have been possible with the mortars of the last
war, and it surrendered almost at once..." - Lt. Gen. Eisenhower
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Bruce Munro <B.Munro@bnr.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Daisycutter
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:33:05 GMT


From Bruce Munro <B.Munro@bnr.co.uk>

In article <Bxq1qr.pr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
>
>bf469@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Twila Oxley Price) writes:
>
>
>>AS I recall, this is not an FAE.  It is a GP or General Purpose Bomb,
>>basically high explosives in a case.
>
>	I noticed some of this ambiguity in the previous discussion,
>and talked to Jim Jesma (Force Recon, MAC-SOG, etc...) about it.  His
>term for a Daisy-Cutter was one of those mini depth-charges they
>dropped out of Huey's.  It was a cylinder that contained a bunch of
>washers, hence cutting down virtually everything in the new LZ.
>
>	Perhaps the slang is not incredibly descriptive here?  

Hmmm. I remember watching a documentary about Vietnam that showed a
Daisycutter being dropped to create an LZ. However, it was somewhat
bigger than could be dropped from a Huey, being rolled out the back
of a Hercules transport on a parachute. This was used to create an instant
LZ in the forest, and the footage of the explosion was pretty spectacular,
with the shockwaves running through the forest like ripples on a pond.
Shame about the rainforest though.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <B.Munro@bnr.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!bnruk!B.Munro
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. | Note the change
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174   | of e-mail address.
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Riccardo Sibilia <rick@imp.phys.ethz.ch>
Subject: Hercules C-130G
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:59:24 GMT


From Riccardo Sibilia <rick@imp.phys.ethz.ch>

I heard of a G version of the C-130. What is it for? Which differences
does it have from the others?

Thanks 

Rick


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)
Subject: What are Katyusha rockets ?
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Service
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:46:22 GMT


From woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)

Hizballah have been firing katyusha rockets from Southern Lebanon into 'Israel'
over the last few days.

Can anyone tell me more about these rockets ?  What are they - what sort of 
warheads - how are they launched - what range do they have etc etc.



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Shallow Water ASW
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:40:17 GMT


From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>

In article <Bxo11r.5vL@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ppl@athena.mit.edu (Paul Podvig) writes...

>>deteriorate sonar perfomance.  A lot of this depends on the sea floor and 
>>the local conditions of the water.  I have seen a few submarine books t 
> 
>It depends also on local wind conditions, for it is the main source of noise.

Its is?  I know it plays a factor, but does it become that influenctial in 
shallow water.  Are you also reffering to the noise produced by the 
interaction of the wind and the water surface?  Actually is there a way to 
calcualate this out?

> 
>The performance is not nill of course, but detection range becomes something
>like 100 meters. When Russian and U.S. subs collide in Barentz Sea in
>February(?) they didn't hear each other until the collision. 

A very good point.  If I remember corretly the other boat was a Sierra 
class.  If so, I gives a lot of points to the class for quietness.

> 
>My understanding is that there are no convergence zones in shallow water.
>Long towed array is useful when you can deploy it. Given that length of
>the thing is up to 2 miles, I doubt if you can operate it in shallow water
>(though surface ships probably could deploy it with little difficulty).


I assume when you say two miles you are referring to the ones on surface 
vessels.  I don't think there is room for two miles of towed array on a 
submarine.  I would  think that also even shorter multiple arrays would be 
helpful for passive work.  

>>Some forms of active sonar do very well in shallow water (medium freq. hull 
>>mount I think).  Again a lot would depend on the geography.  It is probably 
>>a lot easier to find a submarine in the perisan gulf than off the coast of 
>>Norway.
> 
>Agree. Though you are still going to have a lot of problems with reflections
>from the bottom and the surface. And again, if you are on submarine, you
>wouldn't like to use your active sonar--you will be detected first.

True.  Reflections will exist but can be minimized via various methods of 
sonar.  And agreed that in shallow ASW any sub using active sonar will only 
alert the enemy.  I think the best ASW work in shallow water can be done by 
aircraft.

> 
>I am not saying that it is impossible to find diesel boat in shallow water.
>What I am saying it is more difficult than to find a nuclear one and that
><nuclear> attack submarine is of little, if any, help.

I would agree that in the short run it would be just as hard or harder to 
find a DE (I'm not so sure plant noise is all that much of a factor in 
shallow waters), but the DE will have to get out much sooner so that 
eventually it can come to the surface and recharge.  Conversely, if a 
nuclear sub found an excellent hinding place it could remain there until 
the human substinance materials had run out. 

SJRD

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Jutland
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:56:06 GMT


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


David Dix writes:
#
#Edward J. Rudnicki writes:
#
#>It is in the propaganda/public relations arena that things get interesting.
#>Both sides claimed victory (of course :), but the accuracy of claims,
#>and a few other factors, gave the PR win to the Germans for much of the rest
#>of the war: the Germans claimed six major British units sunk, and this
#>was confirmed. The British, however, claimed 4 or 5 battleships AND 4 or 5
#>battle cruisers sunk. When the truth, one each, became known, this fact
#>combined with the AUDACIOUS coverup caused extreme skepticism of the
#>Admiralty's claims.
#
#Are you referring to the battleship AUDACIOUS that was one of the Royal Navy's
#latest acquisitions when it was sunk on 27 October 1914 by a mine off the
#north coast of Ireland?
#What was the AUDACIOUS coverup? Did the admiralty not want the public to
#know the battleship was lost? When was the coverup exposed? What was the
#public's reaction?


Yep, that's the one. The coverup was that since she was a very new unit and
it was early in the war, the decision was made to not reveal her loss. This
might have worked, except that she sank in full view of a crowded passenger
liner assisting in rescue efforts. Her loss was revealed as I recall only
after the war.

Something like the "Official Secrets Act" was used to keep the newspapers
from printing the story. They supposedly got their revenge by using the
word "audacious" as often as possible: i.e. a German success was "another
audacious victory" or something like that.


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,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Tuesday, 10 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:40:15 GMT


From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)

Tuesday, 10 November, 1942

The Australian 25th Brigade captures Gorari, New Guinea, trapping a
Japanese force (including General Horii) at Oivi.

American troops capture Oran and reach Casablanca.  Admiral Darlan
broadcasts to French troops in North Africa, ordering them to cease
fighting.  Darlan also urges the French fleet at Toulon to join the Allies.
Hitler, Ciano, and Laval meet to discuss the situation in Africa.

U-boats sink a British destroyer and a small transport in the
Mediterranean.

Churchill speaks at London's Mansion House, praising Montgomery's victory
at El Alamein.  The Eighth Army meanwhile captures Halfaya Pass.

Appeals are presented on behalf of three Swiss soldiers sentenced to death
for revealing information about Swiss alpine defense to foreign agents.
The Swiss Joint Federal Assembly rejects the appeals.

Haiti and Nicaragua cut diplomatic ties with Vichy France.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"This is not the end.  It is not even the beginning of the end.  But it is,
perhaps, the end of the beginning." - Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Subject: Re: Jutland
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:43:35 GMT


From Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>

>From livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
> In article <BxICus.L1w@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Edward J. Rudnicki" writes:
>> In terms of ship count, it was a clear-cut German victory:

> Only if you think of naval battles in terms of ship count.
> Fortunately, Admirals don't.

Why, then, did you at length quote Keegan's arguments that Jutland was
a victory because of the number of shell hits?  (no, I don't think
ship count per se counts.)

>> 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
Sea was the high water mark of Japanese expansion in the South
Pacific, and they never tried again to get at Port Moresby.  I've
never heard Coral Sea called a clear-cut US victory.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: Type of armor
Organization: student of numerical analysis at the University of Bergen, Norway
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:59:18 GMT


From ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)

>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:02:40 GMT, oahvenla@snakemail.hut.fi (Osma Ahvenlampi) said:

>>>>> In article <1eb533INNp3v@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> sdoran@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Steven Marcotte) writes:

	Steven> There is a type of armor that is make by placing a piece
	Steven> of aluminum on a ceramic tile.  The combination is then heated
	Steven> and the al. is absorbed into the ceramic.  From what I have heard
	Steven> this makes REALLY good armor.  What is the name for this type of
	Steven> armor?

	Osma> Sounds like Chobham(sp?), the one used in for example M-1 Abrams tank.

I always thought that chobham armor was some sort of metal laminate
(several layers of various hardness and toughness).  I thought the
ceramic armor was more of a fututistic thing...

SUpposedly, ceramics would be effective against HEAT, as they have a
very hich melting point, and also against saboted armor piercing
rounds, that would just pulverize the ceramic locally instead of
piercing through it.  

This is much (a bit educated) guesswork, so feel free to show me (and
others) the light,


--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
Subject: China to coproduce Mig-31
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:21:22 GMT


From Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>

According to a recent issue of Air International, China is to coproduce Mig-31
with Russia.  The first move will be assemble 24 examples from pre-manufactured
sets and then coproduce further 48 examples.  Some of them will be delivered
back to Russia.  The rest is presumably going into PLAAF service.  The same
sources (as well as other sources) also indicated that PLAAF has aquired at
least 12 Su-27 with further deliveries in the pipeline.

Now some questions. Mig-31 is a dedicated high altitude, high speed interceptor.
It has a long range, a good radar, has some sort of mini-AWACS capabilities, but
poor agility and low altitude performance (it is a derivative of Mig-25).  Since
China is getting Su-27s, which are potent interceptor and counter air fighter,
have good (better?) radar, superb maneuverability and much more flexible, why
buy Mig-31?

Also, Taiwan is to aquire 150 F-16A/Bs (not the USAF spec C/Ds) which are
more or less a good weather dogfighter (gun+sindwinders, no Sparrows or AMRAAMs)
Do you think they are enough to counter Su-27s?  I understand there has a lot of
discussion about Mig-29 vs. F-16/18, etc, on the net, but Su-27 was never
mentioned which IMHO is a better fighter than Mig-29.  Seems Russians agree
this because they have stopped taking more Mig-29s but Su-27s are still being
delivered in quantity and latest version (designated as Su-35) is to enter 
service around 1995, not the Mig equivalent (Mig-33?).

Newsgroups: sci.military