HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cbarilleaux@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Cyberpreppie)
Subject: Wordwrap and wide screens
Organization: The CyberSwamp
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:24:28 GMT


From cbarilleaux@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Cyberpreppie)

>    I and a "partner in crime" are doing research on the North American B-25 Mitchell in the 
> Pacific Theatre of Operations, specifically Gen. Kenney's 5th Air Force. We are interested in
> the "gunship" versions ("strafer", as Kenney called it) that were created by 'Pappy' Gunn and 
> later built by NA on the B-25G & H models.  These include all of the multiple 50 calibre versions
> as well as the 75mm field gun version.

	I realize what I'm about to say is not pertinate to the topic of the
group, and might even be considered a flame. Please fogive me for this, it's
just that many have done this. 
	Also, I apologize to the poster for using this post. This is just the
most rescent example.
	The thing in the way his/her wordwrap is set. Not how the uneven lines
come up. NOt everyone has the same screen width. Usually, 80 columns is the
norm, the safe bet is 70 (I have an 80 column screen, and my editor presents
the quoted lines as going of the screen).
	EVERYONE:Please set the wordwrap on you editor for 80 columns. This
would make everthing easier to read.
	Sorry to complain like this. I do not mean this as a flame, just a
public service anouncement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Charles Barilleaux III                    Known at Miami as the
CBARILLEAUX@MIAVX1.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU            Mauve Marauder

	"I'm a loner. Sorta like James Dean, but behind an 80286."


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:33:02 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <Bvwr6v.KA2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU writes:
> 
 
>   But for a nuc reator to be installed, you also need extensive cooling,
> which means pumps. And on a 1000 ton sub, there ain't gonna be barely any
> sound dampening devices, so the sucker's gonna be loud. eg an alpha.

> 
> Matthew
> UNSW,SYDNEY.
> Australia.
> 

According to _The_Ships_and_Aircraft_of_the_US_Fleet_ (14th ed., Polmar/
USNI) the USN built SSN671 back in the '60s to "evaluate the natural
circulation S5G reactor plant." It also says; "The S5G reacotr use nat-
ural convection rather than pumps for heat transfer/coolant transfer at
slow speeds, thus reducing self-generated machinery noises. This concept
is used in the subsequent LOS ANGELES & OHIO (SSBN726) classes."
This sub was "full-sized" (5300standard/5800submerged) tons so if it
could work on the NARWHAL (SSN671) it would seem to me that it could
work on a much smaller Soviet sub with a much smaller reactor.

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors in space.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:38:48 GMT


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

In article <BvnFEI.JpK@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates) writes:
>Someone posted re. possible dangers of nuclear reactors in space.

>There's no problems about using them to power satellites because when
>the satellite reaches the end of its life there is a special booster rocket 
>which technicians fire to take the satellite so high it will never
>reenter the earth's atmosphere. The only two problems are if:-

The criteria isn't "never", I think it's 1000 years. The number is 
based on the half-life of the radioactives, so that they will be
down to a reasonably safe level before re-entry.

>1). The booster doesn't fire, the orbit decays and the reactor burns
>up and scatters fissile material over land (this happened to a Soviet
>satellite over Canada in the 1970s)

Actually, the Canadian incident occured before the Soviets started
using boosters for their surplus reactor cores. (They also weren't
staying at or above 1000-year decay time orbits...) 

>2). The rocket fails as it is being launched into orbit from earth.

In either case, there isn't a seroius risk: The reactors are _very_
durable: Re-entry from orbit didn't totally shatter a Soviet reactor.
There was a nasty radiation problem at the point of impact, but there
was no general scattering of radioactives. A launch failure probably
wouldn't even break the core open. It's possible to make the system
even more durable: American RTGs (a lower power, less efficient
space nuclear power supply, somewhat different from a proper reactor)
have twice re-entered the Earth's atmosphere without rupturing or
releasing radioactives in any way.

>Trivia: The ex-USSR are streets ahead of the USA when it comes to 
>small atomic reactors. The USA are buying ex-USSR 'TOPAZ' series reactors
>to use in future projects.

Not quite: Department of Energy and NASA bought _one_ "Topaz 2" reactor,
to take apart and see how it works (to better build our own for future
projects.)

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:29:17 GMT


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


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

In article <Bw0oMF.LKn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:

|Not exactly, but they were increasingly replaced with the 88mm as the
|Allied tanks grew larger and more heavily armoured. A Sergeant Schmidt,
|who fought in North Africa, stated that when the British brought out the
|Matilda tank, the Afrika Korps was forced to begin using the 88mm FLAK
|gun (anti-aircraft) as a PAK gun, and to reduce the range at which they
|opened fire to 6,000 meters. The 37mm, (light PAK) was much more easily
|deployed than the 88 (which weighed something like two tons), and stayed
|in action. It was highly effective against something like a Stuart, for
|example.

Just how widespread was the British use of the Stuart (Honey)? When did 
they stop using them? I'd think they were greatly outgunned by the likes 
of the Panzer IV. Of course the Germans had large numbers of Panzer IIs 
and IIIs which were also lighter tanks. The Matilda wasn't all that heavy 
either by the standard of later tanks like the Churchill, the Grant (Lee) 
and the Sherman.











-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.EDU>
Subject: Re: TOP 5 ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD 
Organization: Amherst College
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:37:58 GMT


From PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.EDU>

"david.r.wells" (drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com) wrote:
: 
: I also have no stats handy, but I would guess that the 5 largest navies are
: 
: USA, UK, France, FUSSR, India (in no particular order)
: 
I seem to remember reading that UK Navy had fallen on hard times was now
well down on the list, below countries such as Italy and Turkey.  That may 
have been making the assumption that it got rid of the last of it's carriers, 
which I believe was planned and never done. (If you've read any of my past
posts you will realize that I accumulate a lot of information, but tend to
be weak on the details).

The real problem with Navys is deciding how to measure them.  Most methods,
numbers count or tonnage, have obvious problems.  What's interesting is
capability and that's a lot harder to judge.
From: urf@ki.icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Il-102 not so new?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:32:21 GMT
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.


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

Letters to some magazines indicate that the Il-102 wasn't new
when it competed against the Su-25. It is very similar to the
Il-40, designed in the early 1950's as an Il-2 Sturmovik
replacement. Differences are: Air intakes farther back from the
nose, stabilisors lower down, installed trust about twice as
high. Performance seems to be about the same elsewise.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)
 I wonder if there is a universe where washing machines give away socks?
Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re; Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:58:21 GMT


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


Perry Morrison writes:
#The Uzi submachine gun was developed by the israelis and by most
#account was most successful in combat and as an export item. I've always
#wondered how a 9mm weapon could be effective in the desert especially
#with the ranges involved. Could you kind folk provide some background to
#this.


The Israelis adopted tactics best suited to the SMG's main attribute,
relatively close range intense firepower. They would close in to the
opposing positions, typically at night, and overwhelm the other party
with fire. Tracers were used, and are supposed to have been especially
intimidating.

Keep in mind that the AK had not yet proliferated among the Arab armies,
and that the typical infantryman had a bolt action or semiauto rifle
of WW2 pattern/philosophy.


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)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Kinetic Energy Tank Killers
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:00:18 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


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

>From lesher@coral.bucknell.edu (T. Lesher)
>>...75kg is 
>>like a 120mm tank gun shell and 1650 m/s is far higher than its muzzle
>>velocity. So if a 120mm tank gun is enough of an anti-tank weapon...
>
>Correct, Raymond.  But we are talking abouta a _kinetic_ weapon here,
>ie, one that doesn't use explosives in the warhead...

The usual 120mm APDS armor-piercing round for tank guns doesn't either.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: nuclear satellites
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:32:43 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


From jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)

amichiel@mailbox.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes:


>>The US flew one nuclear reactor in space, as an engineering test in the 60s.
>>The Soviets have flown several tests, plus an operational nuclear-powered
>>military radar satellite program.

>Because of the dim witted american public, the US is very behind as far as
>nuclear power use on space 'stuff'. 

It isn't just the "dim witted public."  The folks who run the space program have
not really been pushing for big reactors in space until recently.


>The Soviets have been using them quite
>successfully for a number of years.

As the Canadians can attest to.

>  The U.S. is 
>spending money (bribe money if you will) to keep this from happening.  One
>of the programs which would have done this was a program to buy space reactors
>from the soviets for study and possible eventual use in U.S. programs.  However
>the political aspects of this was so dirty to congress that it was canned.

No, it did go through in the end.


-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
	 The views expresed above do not necessarily reflect those of
ISDS, UIUC, NSS, IBM FSC, NCSA, NMSU, AIAA or the American Association for the
                      Advancement of Acronymphomaniacs
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wernick@cpoint (Rich Wernick)
Subject: Marine Air Force on Carriers
Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp., Hopkinton Mass.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:32:51 GMT


From wernick@cpoint (Rich Wernick)


From wernick@cpoint (Rich Wernick)


I've been hearing about Marine sqaudrons that will deploy on carriers
in the near future. They will suppliment Naval squadrons already deployed.
I read an article in Aviation Week about these Marine units going through
training. My question is, I thought Marine units are already carrier
trained. Why do they need to go through carrier training. I thought Navy
and Marine pilot training was the same. 

Thanks in Advance

Rich 


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: What happened at Sidi Barani?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:58:12 GMT


From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)

In article <BvnFux.KGC@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:

>> Several people have emailed me to ask what happened at Sidi Barani.
>> In 1943 an allied ship carrying mustard gas in artillery shells and
>> aerial bombs was badly damaged either by accident or by enemy action.
>
>I remember reading of a similar incident in Bari, Italy, but cannot
>remember where I read it.

There's a Bantam war series book on the U.S. bookstore stands which covers
this incident. I suppose it might be available overseas.

Basically, someone high up in the U.S. military felt that the Germans might
get upset enough about the loss of Italy to begin using gas warfare, and a
shipment of mustard gas shells was sent to Bari, supposedly so that our
forces could retaliate in kind if the Wermacht started it.

Due to a combination of snafus, unloading of the ship was delayed, and it
was sunk during the bombing raid Markus mentioned. Much of the cargo was
released, spreading out over the town. The concentration of gas was not
high enough to cause immediately fatal symptoms, but mustard gas apparently
forms nasty precipitates.

There were few military casualties, simply because the Allied troops were
able to bathe regularly. Casualties among the civilian population over the
next few weeks were, unfortunately, heavy. At the time, these were simply
credited as being due to exposure, pneumonia, etc., since the U.S. wasn't
about to acknowledge the presence of gas in the area. In retrospect, this
behavior borders on atrocity, since most of the Italian deaths could have
been prevented if the people had been provided with a bath and told to
take one!

I believe the title of the book is "Incident at Bari".

patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    |
George Patterson -  | If train stations are where trains stop, 
                    | what are work stations?
                    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: maxc0452@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Legene)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B-70
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:31:58 GMT
Organization: San Diego State University Computing Services


From maxc0452@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Legene)

>I was in a recent discussion with another co-worker, and I mentioned some things about
>the B-70 Bomber that was built (I believe one or two prototypes), and it being a reason 
>for the Mig 25.  Then, the co-worker disagreed that the B-70 ever existed, and that no
>plane ever had any atomic power capabiltity so far. 

>[ mod note -- your friend is partially right and you are partially right --
>the B-70 existed (2 were built for flight testing), and one still exists --
>right here in Dayton Ohio at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB.  It
>did not use nuclear power, but had 6 big monster jet engines, and relied on
>something called "compression lift" for part of it's performance envelope
>-- Mary Shafer -- any comments on how compression lift works? ]

>I remember it mainly in my memory, and wonder if anyone can post or send me any
>information on it.  I don`t have a bet riding on it or anything, but my co-worker still
>thinks I'm putting him on. 

>As I remember it:   It was built in the 60's, was nuclear powered (not thrust), was never
>                                 built as it was supposed to be built (a very fast high altitude bomber),
>                                 and came out as a compromised version.  
>I'd appreciate any feedback on this topic.

     As I understand it, the B-70 Valkyrie was a Mach 3 high-altitude
bomber that carried nuclear weapons, but was in no way nuclear powered.
While it had a lot of nice features -- compression lift (I think it 
captured a shock wave between the folded-down wingtips.  Shockwaves
compress air, so maybe when it rubbed against the plane lift was generated),
canards, crew escape capsules, titanium honeycomb construction...
     There was a program for a nuclear-power plane, and a prototype
reactor was buillt, but no aircraft prototype for it was built and
of course never flown.  There were several designs, ranging from
bombers that would cruise supersonically forever if you had enough
food & water on-board (which, as I understand it,they didn't have a
clue as how to actually build) to a slow, prop-driven cruise missle
platform.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MSUORANTA@finabo.abo.fi (Mika Suoranta Tkkk)
Subject: RE: F/A-18 vs MiG-29
Organization: Turku School of Economics, Finland
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:32:14 GMT


From MSUORANTA@finabo.abo.fi (Mika Suoranta Tkkk)



 
>From liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)
>From ooi@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jeffrey K Ooi)
>6) The aircraft weighs about 14,515kg and needs only 305m of runway for
takeoff
>   ( the f16 needs 366m )
  

		How does one get so accurate figures? What if our
		runway is just 304m long! 305m is 1000ft. Maybe
		the Soviet/Russian made MiG-29 is a metric plane,
		and so it needs 300m of runway, which turns out to
		be about 984' 3 2/72". On the other hand, American
		F-16 must use the old British units, and I would
		assume the required runway is 1200' long. Which is
		365,76m not 366m.

		How about rounding the figures if they are approximates
		to start with...


		Mika OH1NZQ




   ______________________________________________________________________
    Mika Suoranta, Leirikatu 11, 20360 Turku, Finland, tel 358-21-382637
    Internet e-mail MSUORANTA@finabo.abo.fi    Ham Radio Operator OH1NZQ
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Beamriders
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:32:01 GMT


From d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se

>Message-ID: <BvnFMu.K4q@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
>[ mod note -- I believe the Sea Sparrow is a "beam rider", where the
>launching platform keeps the target illuminated with it's radar, and the
>Sea Sparrow "rides the beam" to impact the target ]

  The Sea Sparrow uses Semi Active Radar Homing: The platform illuminates the
target with it's radar and the missile flies towards the energy reflected from
the target. SARH missiles has the seeker looking forward to see the energy
reflected from the target. The radar has to be pointed towards the target all
the time or the missile will loose lock.

  In beamriders the missile compares its position to the radar or laser beam
and moves to center itself within the beam. The platform will then point the
beam at the target and the missiles flies along the beam to the target. 
Beamriders has their seekers pointing backwards, to see the beam comming from
the launching platform. The beam can be pointed anyway desired, but obviously
it has to intersect the target when the missile reaches the targets range or
the missile will miss.

-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: Steve Williams <swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:37:02 GMT


From Steve Williams <swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil>


From Steve Williams <swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil>


In sci.military, Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>
>No wonder the title for the book "Miracle at Midway".

There is another book, "Incredible Victory," which was about the Battle 
of Midway.  Again, the title signifies the unbelievable result of the
battle.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: princecr@mala.bc.ca
Subject: Re: TOP 5 ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD
Organization: Malaspina College
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:29:24 GMT


From princecr@mala.bc.ca


From princecr@mala.bc.ca

	What about the top 5 reletive to skill of troops, and Victorious
battles in the last 100 or so years?
						chris.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant)
Subject: Re: Hybrid subs (was Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?)
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:35:25 GMT


From grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant)

In article <BvnFLM.K1E@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dep+@cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>I always wondered at the utility of putting a "small" nuclear reactor on an
>otherwise conventional sub. Ideally, the reactor would be large enough to
>provide housekeeping functions + a 5kts "creep" speed and small enough that
>it could be convection cooled (i.e. no noisy pumps) and leave some space for
>things like food, torpedoes and crew. And, when speed is essential and noise
>isn't a major concern, the conventional powerplant could be used. If possible,
>such a hybrid sub would seem to have several advantages over a conventional
>sub (nearly unlimited bottom time, freedom from a tender, no need to give away
>its position by running the noisy diesel while on patrol and the ability to
>operate under the ice).

There has been some thought along this line. About 8 years ago, the Canadian
Navy was considering buying nuclear submarines. All came to naught, but
during the discussion came the idea that a small submarine, could be
fitted with a small nuclear reactor. The reactor was a derivative of the
small Slowpoke reactor. It's output isn't large, I don't think it required
circulation pumps, and it was a safe design (as shown by it's use in 
small non-military sites for many years). The reactor was small enough
that it could be contained in a "plug" that could be inserted into
a conventional diesel-electric sub. 

The power from the reactor could move the sub in the 10-15 knot range,
i believe. The reactor would also supply power for systems and charge
electric batteries that could propel the sub in the 26+knot region,
for brief sprints.

The advantages (for the Canadian Navy) were: nuclear powered allowing
extended underice operation, long range, small allowing better under
ice performance and smaller active sonar target, support facilitites
comparable to those required for conventional subs, small crew, 
cheaper than full sized nuclear subs, and the power plant would be
politically and financially profitable as it was Canadian made.

There were a few articles in Canadian Defense in the mid 80's.


Stuart

Newsgroups: sci.military