HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harry campbell <harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com>
Subject: Re: Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs ta
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:23:53 GMT


From harry campbell <harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com>

In article C5G@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil> () writes:
> 
>     Problem with 30mm weapon use is there is no AP round in service
> - the A-10 and Apache AH-64 helicoter use a dual purpose 30mm round
> that is slow and probably won't defeat the future threat land combat
> vehicle the Bradley will come up against.  That is why the Army wants
> 45/50mm rounds and EM/ETC cannons.


YES THERE IS an AP round for the 30mm GAU-8A cannon.  It is a depleted urainium
tipped projectile, especially made to penetrate armor plating (that's what AP
means, isn't it?).  Keep in mind that the 30mm amunition used for the A-10 cannot
be used by the chain gun on the Apache.  I thought that there were two types
of amunition available for the Apache's gun, one being an exploding round, and
the other an AP Sabot (I'll have to look this up in my library at home to be sure).

You are correct however in mentioning that the 30mm rounds are most effective
against the top, and rear armor on tanks, and so it's use as a ground based
tank-killer is limited.  However a ground based variant could deal very well
with AVFs other than tanks, and be used as an AAA weapon.

Harry Campbell
harry@dseg.ti.com





Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Lauri S{{ski Tkkk <LSAASKI@finabo.abo.fi>
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Turku School of Economics
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:24:41 GMT


From Lauri S{{ski Tkkk <LSAASKI@finabo.abo.fi>

> >The Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo was credited with 517km/h. The Finnish ones, if
> >they were really lighter with same power, must have been faster.
> 
> The only reference I have credits the F2A-3 with a 300mph maximum speed
> (about 480 kmph).  Also a full-up weight of 7,160 lbs.
> 
> The Finnish version was given at 5,160 lbs.  Even if it wasn't faster
> in level flight, it should have climbed a lot better.  Not so many
> engine fires up north, either.
> 


Since there seems to be large interest in the Brewster topic, I'd like
to share my information, based on the book The_American_Fighter by
Enzo Angeluggi, 1987. It doesn't show complete information, so
I can't make comparisons between their rate of climb. Maybe someone
can fill us up.   
 
Plane	      |	Finnish BW (Model B-239)	F2A-3 (Model B-439)		
Power plant   |	Wright R-1820-G5, 950 hp	Wright R-1820-40, 1200 hp
--------------|----------------------------------------------------------
Empty weight  |	3900 lb				4732 lb
Gross weight  |	N/A				6321 lb
Max take-off  |
weight	      |	5820 lb				7159 lb
Max speed     |	297 mph at 15,580 ft		321 mph at 16,500 ft
Climb at	9,840 ft			N/A
in		4 min 12 sec			N/A
Climb in 1min |	N/A				2,290 ft
Ceiling       | 32,480 ft			33,200 ft


Jussi Saaski
finabo.abo.fi

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Panu Wilska <wilska@cc.lut.fi>
Subject: Re: Lapland War?
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:36:43 GMT


From Panu Wilska <wilska@cc.lut.fi>

098802@adpdp2.lanl.gov (098802) writes:


>From 098802@adpdp2.lanl.gov (098802)

>In reading one of the articles discussing the "worst fighters of WW II", I note
>that the Finns were fighting the Germans in the Lapland War. I guess I didn't
>know that the Finns and the Germans ever fought. Would someone care to explain
>the circumstances which resulted in this war. 

When Germany attacked Russia in 1941 Finland joined to get back land areas
which Russians had taken from Finland in Winter War 1939-1940. 1944 it
was very clear that Germans are losing the war and finnish Government
seeked a way out. The Russians offered first unconditional surrender and
Finland rejected it. Russians proceeded a huge attack against Finland in
summer of 1944, resulting a breakthrough, but the Finns stopped the attack
in battle of Ihantala and resulted massive losses to Red army. At the same
time Russians fought to get first in Berlin before allied forces and they
could not afford to have great part of their army against Finland any more
if they wished to be the First in Berlin. So, Stalin agreed to make peace
with Finland. The price for peace was that Finland must throw away German
troops which were in northern Finland. That resulted the Lappland war between
Germany and Finlad. Germans retreated to Norway, but they destroyed everything
on their way. (roads,bridges,towns)

Another reason why Stalin was willing to make peace with Finland was the fact
that Finland had its last fortified line still untouched and attacking that
line would have resulted Russians so heavy losses that they were willing to
compromise. They knew that on their last line Finns would rather die than
retreat so it would have taken perhaps months form red army to break
that line.

PW,
2nd lieutenant (reserve), Finland


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Helipad on Alleigh Burke
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:36:34 GMT


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

Why does Alleigh Burke class destroyers (the newest in USN inventory) only have
a helipad for refueling/rearming ASW choppers without a hangar? Can it still
sail alone and pose a significant threat to enemy subs?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Naval trivia
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:04:25 GMT


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

In article <BzD4rI.Ivu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:

>They are one and the same (i.e. USS Ohio class subs *are* Trident missile 
>subs).  You have confused the class name (Ohio) and the missile type (Trident)
>they carry, alot of people do since the US Navy uses both interchangabily.

Was the same true of the earlier nuclear missile subs? They were often 
referred to as "Polaris" and "Poseidon" subs - I distinctly remember a
book with drawings of both. The Poseidons were a little bigger.

[mod note -- the Polaris was the first SLBM, and the Poseidon was a follow
on (more range, more accurate)].

The first FBM (Fleet Ballistic Missile) sub class the the George Washington
class, made by splitting a Skipjack hull and putting in a missile
compartment.  The next class was the Ethan Allen class.  I don't remember
if the George Washington's could carry the Poseidon, but the Ethan Allen's
could.  The next class, I believe, was the Ohio class.  Any corrections are
welcome to this 

Steve]




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: WW2 BARRAGE
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:01:19 GMT


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

In article <BzH56M.B81@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou) writes:
>
>Do these balloons, nets, cables do any damage to modern low level strike
>aircraft, like f-15e and tornado? or better yet, f-117 and b-2? given the
>speed of those birds, i would guess the impact be quite serious, although
>the idea looks positively low-tech. might even hang a few claymore to enhance
>the effect. what do you think?

What do you *think* the effect is going to be of hitting a 1" piece of
steel at hundreds of miles per hour? Low-tech doesn't mean ineffective.
The claymore idea is interesting, but the cables normally used are quite
heavy as it is. It probably wouldn't be worth it to make a balloon big
enough to hold up mines as well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | The easy confidence with which I know that another
George Patterson -  | man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that
                    | my own is also.
                    |                        Samuel Clemens
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
Subject: tow missiles in somal
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:19:15 GMT


From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>



HY>It is possible that we will see an incident where these missiles are used on
HY>Coalition (ie US) forces, but keep in mind that the TOW missile is a fairly
HY>sophisticated weapon which requires training to be employed effectively.  I think
HY>it is unlikely that those who might have these weapons have ever been adequately
HY>trained.  I'm not saying that these weapons will not be used, rather that it is
HY>likely that if they are used they will be unsuccessful.

I've only seen the CNN footage of what's going on in Somalia, but judging from
the shots of the Somalian gunmen, these fellows are pretty poorly trained.  
Guys leaning on their AKs muzzle down in the dirt, etc.  Of course, it's always
a mistake to underestimate the potential foe.

If the US sold them the TOW, then somewhere in Somalia there must be someone
who knows how to use the thing.  I'm not up on how the US deals in arms, but
surely they must include training with whatever system they sell.  Can anyone
fill me in on this?

(I have this mental image of a UPS truck pulling up beside a Somalian military
base.  The guy hops out, lifts out a crate of TOW missles, and a smaller crate
of TOW TMs.  The Somalian general signs the receipt, and the truck roars off..)
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
Subject: tow missiles in somal
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:57:45 GMT


From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>


JC> Can a TOW take out an M1A1?  For that matter, are the
JC>Marines bringing any of the tanks ashore?  I assume a TOW could
JC>take out any of the other Marine armored vehicles.  Is that true,

Hi, Jeffrey.

From what I've read, it's generally accepted that a TOW (or ITOW, or TOW 2)
cannot destroy an M1A1, although I'm sure you can kiss the tank's external
sensors goodbye.  This assumes a frontal hit.  A TOW to the tail will 
undoubtedly destroy or at least disable the tank.  All of this is theoretical,
however.  The only way to find out is to fire a TOW at an M1A1, and to my 
knowledge, this has not been done.  Destructive testing is unpopular, as it
costs huge sums of money.  The Army first found out the ability of the M1A1 to
protect against its own main gun during the Gulf War, when a tank unit had to
destroy one of its own bogged down tanks to prevent capture.  (It took three
rounds to penetrate, the ammo cooked off and the roof blowout panels did their
job, preventing major damage.  The gun would still fire, although the sights 
were screwed.  The turret was replaced, and the tank is back with its unit, the
24th Mech.)  

I assume that the Army is not terrifically concerned with this issue, WRT the
M1A1, as SOP would dictate that enemy AT systems be suppressed, regardless of
whether or not they have a chance of penetrating.  It's generally considered
a very bad idea to leave any armed enemies hanging about.

The LAVs and amphibious vehicles operated by the Marines are, on the other
hand, extremely vulnerable to the TOW.
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: 098802@adpdp2.lanl.gov (098802)
Subject: Lapland War?
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory, EMVAX
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:22:25 GMT


From 098802@adpdp2.lanl.gov (098802)

In reading one of the articles discussing the "worst fighters of WW II", I note
that the Finns were fighting the Germans in the Lapland War. I guess I didn't
know that the Finns and the Germans ever fought. Would someone care to explain
the circumstances which resulted in this war. 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: helos vs tanks
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:24:56 GMT


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


Robert I. Eachus writes:
#     I'll check the effective range on the 90 mm cannister, but I seem
#to remember 1200 yards published, and about that in real use.  The
#projectiles were not steel balls but steel rods cut into about one
#inch lengths, and the spin from the shell stabilized them.
#
#     Maybe that's why there is no 120 mm cannister!  The projectiles
#could not be spin stabilized.


"Canister" is a bit more generic than you realize. It refers to a 
projectile which breaks up into or produces large numbers of antipersonnel
subprojectiles upon muzzle exit. The subprojectiles are most typically
steel balls, but they can be steel rods/cylinders as in the 90mm M336
cartridge described above (max effective range 200 yds). They can even be
flechettes, as in the 90mm M377 (Caution! Flechette does NOT always
mean "Beehive". If the projectile functions at the muzzle without fuzing
it's a flechette canister round; if it has a time fuze alowing muzzle
action function as well as function at a distance from the weapon it's
"Beehive"). What makes it "canister" is that it works by distributing
a pattern of subprojectiles intended for close-in antipersonnel work.

There is no 120mm canister because the user wants a two round (+ STAFF)
solution: KE for heavy armor and HEAT-MP for everything else.


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: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:24:04 GMT


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

In article <BzEz4v.Ey6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Robert E George <regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:

>    Fiat G-50

Hmmm...

Wasn't it Robert Stanford Tuck who had the day off when his 
squadron intercepted an Italian force consisting of slow bombers
and Fiat biplanes? This was at the height of the Battle of Bri-
tain. The italians were brave but the biplanes didn't do too well
against Hurricanes.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Shakos, Busbys and the Light Brigade
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:18:57 GMT


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

> From Aryk Nusbacher <nusbache@epas.utoronto.ca>
>
> In article <BzH50K.AsH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu (Jim Heath) writes:
>
> >The "600" of Charge of the Light Brigade fame were Hussars (if I'm not
> >mistaken).  I believe the coat was designed that way to leave the
> >sword hand free.
>
> The Light Brigade at Balaclava included the 11th Hussars (Prince Albert's).

The first line was the 13th Lt Dragoons and 17th Lancers, the second of
the 11th Hussars in support of the 17th.  The third line comprised the
4th Lt Dragoons and 8th Hussars.  A total of 673 men and officers.

Other British light cavalry present in the Crimea at one stage or
other:  10th Hussars and 12th Lancers.

>
> A hussar's hat is a shako, not a busby.

Depended just exactly who you were and when!  In the Crimea the 3
British Hussar Regts wore Busby's, German (from the minor states)  and
French Hussars during Napoleonic times wore shakos, though the 11th
Hussars (French) as raised in 1810 had white busbies for the light
troop!  I also have drawings of French hussars in shakos from the 7th
(trumpeter, 1809 and Flanker, 1813), 8th (1809) and 12th (1813) with
no explanatory text. (Funken's "Arms and Un iforms of the Napoleonic
Wars)

The Kings German Legion Hussars wore busbies, as did the 4 Hussar
Regts formed by the British in 1811.


--
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Friedrich BROHS <fbrohs@email.tuwien.ac.at>
Subject: Re: No Army Needed(
Organization: Technical University of Vienna
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:20:29 GMT


From Friedrich BROHS <fbrohs@email.tuwien.ac.at>



It all depends what the overall aim of the agressor/occupant is. There
are several points I think a armed civil population can gain:

* In this sort of guerilla warfare it's not so much the small arms that
  do the damage,it's in my point of view a state of mind that is
  expressed in this way of armed resistance.

* A lot of special forces are trained to work with local population. 
  Of course these troops bring with them a lot of heavy equipment, but
  it helps a lot if the local resistance is already armed with personal
  weapons (although they are of little use for amush and assault)

* The main aim of civil resistance is to tie down frontline troops and
  set a signal for other countries to offer some help. I for instance
  doubt, if the US would have gone to such measures as they did in 
  AFGHANISTAN without a well organised guerilla. The same is true for 
  VIETNAM and former Soviet Union and China.

* Of course, what a guerilla force can achieve is also dependent on the
  main aim of the agressor. If the ex Warsaw-Pact decided to invade
  AUSTRIA asd a sole purpose, there is little what the Austrian army
  could have done against. But, what had the Warsaw Pact got??? A few
  mountains. If on the other hand he tried a very quick assault across
  this territory, the agressor would be oblieged to divert a lot of
  troops to security of supply routes. This would slow the assault and
  give, as in the Austrian example the Nato some time to intervene. This
  is of course true for the opposite direction, too. So the main
  conclusion is, that it just deterres a bit from marching unhampered
  trough alien country.

 


=========================================================================

     F. Brohs                   fbrohs@email.tuwien.ac.at
     Institute for chemical technology of inorganic compounds
     Getreidemarkt 9/161 A - 1060 VIENNA
                     AUSTRIA

=========================================================================

Only personal points of view!!!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ipc@zoo.bt.co.uk (Ian Coleman)
Subject: Re: Swiss military preparedness??
Organization: BT Laboratories
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:31:31 GMT


From ipc@zoo.bt.co.uk (Ian Coleman)

In article FDn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM, pyrdek@edinboro.edu () writes:
>
>From pyrdek@edinboro.edu

>The point of the program was that the swiss, perceived as SO NEUTRAL,
>were indeed one of the MOST militarily prepared, equipped and trained
>army/civil operations in the world.  I guess if I recall correctly,
>it just goes to prove that those who are most prepared to defend themselves
>are the least likely to have to do so.

Hmmm, interesting. A couple of years ago I was on holiday in Switzerland, and
was amazed at the level of Military activity. Everywhere I went there were
small convoys of vehicles. One day I sat at a railway station for the best
part of an hour and watched a whole stream of trucks and the like stream by.
Another time I passed a battery of artillary which appeared to be just setting
up at the edge of a field. Added to this there were always Jets flying over.

I don't know whether I had just arrived during the summer exercises, but I've
never seen that much activity anywhere before or since (and that's despite living
very near a couple of major USAF & RAF bases)

---
Ian Coleman
ipc@zoo.bt.co.uk 


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mvcy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Yamamoto? (was Re: Battleship Diplomacy)
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:01:21 GMT


From mvcy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu

In article <BzD4Lo.IIy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
Bruce Burden <bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> writes: 
> 
> From Bruce Burden <bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>
> 
> 
> In article <Bz9EzM.6nr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> carlos@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Miguel Borges) writes:
>>
>>[mod note -- that one slipped by me.  From what I remember, there were 3
>>BBs in the Yamato class -- Yamato, Musashi, and Shinano.  The Shinano was
>>converted to a carrier (displaced something like 70,000 or 80,000 tons), and
>>was sunk by U.S. sub in the Inland Sea on it's way to sea trials.  Can't
>>remember the name of the sub that did the deed, but it's captain wrote a
>>book about it -- _The Sinking of the Shinano_
>>
> 
> 	The Shinano was lost in much the same way the Lexington (CV-3?) was
>     lost. The torpedoes cracked an aviation fuel line, and the fumes spread
>     below decks. Once this was noticed, the captain ordered ventilation
>     fans activated. However, the fumes were drawn into an arc-ing fan
>     motor and exploded.
> 

I think you are mistaking the Shinano for the Taiho.  At the time of the
sinking, Shinano was being transferred from Yokosuka navy yard to the inland
sea for armament I believe.  As far as I remember from the Japanese accounts,
the Shinano was not yet operational, in fact the complement included many
construction workers who were still busy doing whatever construction workers
do.  Archerfish I believe scored hits with 4 torpedoes, which would ordinarily
have been insufficient to sink a Yamato class hull, but lack of combat crew
on board crippled damage control sufficiently enough to sink it.  It didn't
sink in the inland sea, but off the Kii peninsula, northbound, rather than
southbound.  That's what I remember reading, but of course, it could have
been Japanese propaganda to cover up the pathetic nature of the IJN anti-
submarine warfare.

By the way, ere were 5 hulls of the Yamato class laid.  The 4th and the 5th
never were finished, but one was supposed to be called the Kurama (just like
the current JMSDF destroyer).  I forget how the 5th vessel was named.  Aso
rings the bell.  On the other hand it is strange that these names are taken
from mountains of Japan, usually reserved for heavy cruisers.  I think one
or the other hulls were used for target practices.

Satoshi Amagai



Newsgroups: sci.military