HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: WWII Battleships (Was: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:42:51 GMT


From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>

In article <BxKAnp.ErH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:
>
>From rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
>
>In article <BxGrMC.6pH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>> Alaska (2), 34K/10K, 33kt, 9x12" guns arranged as above.
>
>These were never considered to be battleships (or even a battlecruser). The
>Alaska class has always been considered to be large cruisers. Their type
>designation was CB rather than BB or BC.
>
The Navy always classified the Alaskas as "large cruisers", but that doesn't
mean we have to. At 27,500 tons, (can't remember if that's empty, full,
standard, or what) they were significantly larger than any heavy cruiser, and
in fact larger than many WWI battlcruisers. (remember, the Washington Treaty
limited heacy cruisers to 10,000 tons) The 9" armor belt was also better than
the belt armor on many battlecruisers (The Repulse has 6", the never completed
Lexingtons (OK, two were converted to carriers) would have had 7"). The 12"
guns were bigger than the 283mm (11.1") guns on the Scharnhorst. Finally,
they were as fast, or faster than most other battlecruisers. Sounds to
me like they fall within the category of battlecruisers.
   Yes, their cruiser ancestry was obvious (especially in the superstructure)
and their hull form was that of a cruiser, but then, I'd always been taught
that a battlecruiser was just a set of battleship guns on an enlarged
cruiser style hull. The Alaskas clearly qualify.
   Finally, the Alaskas qualify as battlecruisers because of their designed
mission. They were designed to defeat German pocket battleships, (essentially,
armored cruisers) (OK, there was the rumor about the Japanese B-64/B-65 class,
but that's another story). The original battlecruisers, Fisher's Invincible
class, were stated to have the same purpose, defeating armored cruisers.
(They even WORKED in that role.)
   To sum up, they had the size, speed, armor, guns, and mission of 
battlecruisers. Therefore, I consider them battlecruisers.

				David Wells

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: 106mm Recoiless Rifle - Rocket or Gun?
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:42:48 GMT


From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)


>p.s. I *did* think the jeep with 4 106mm RR's on it looked neat though!
>What was it called? 'Ontos', maybe? Anyway, has anyone any experiences
>with those they'd care to relate?

The Onto was a tank (tank destroyer?) with 6 (or was it 8?) recoilless rifles
on it. Never seemed too practical to me. I think I saw photo of one belonging
to the marines.

--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"Another casualty of applied meta-physics!" -- Hobbes

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wab@well.sf.ca.us (Doc Benzene)
Subject: Re: Battleship Diplomacy 
Organization: Hell Hole, Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:15:46 GMT


From wab@well.sf.ca.us (Doc Benzene)

In article <BxB8D9.KL3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:
[...]
>	Don't get me wrong -- I *LOVE* battleships for hammering
>shorelines!  Witness how well things calmed down in Beruit when the
>New Jersey, I think it was, parked off the coast.  

If you look back through the articles written a few months
after the disastrous Beirut incursion, you'll find that the
suicide bombing of the Marine headquarters was staged in
direct retaliation for the New Jersey's "counter-battery"
bombardment of militia artillery position in the hills outside
the city--it's hard to call 16" salvos in reply to
sporadic light artillery shelling "counter-battery" work.  
Anyway, the New Jersey flattened a number of villages in the
process and, needless to say, the inhabitants and their
relatives weren't real pleased.  Of course, the only militia
crazy enough to keep shelling with half the 6th Fleet off the
coast were the Shiites, and they were also crazy enough to
load a truck full of TNT and drive it into (under) the
headquarters barracks.  The rest is grim history.

It's interesting that the Shiites didn't mind air strikes on
their artillery (hell, the Israelis were constantly hitting
them from the air), but the New Jersey bombardment was
"gunboat diplomacy" to them.  When you're a superpower, the
political ramifications of your military actions are always
far more important than the actions themselves.  We could have
dropped five times the weight of those 16" broadsides in
airstrikes and probably not been attacked in return.  Or maybe
the Shiites would have done the same thing.  Regardless, they
took the shelling as typical neo-colonial fascism without
regard to human costs.  Maybe they were right: we killed a
hell of a lot more non-combatants than we would have with
airstrikes, probably.

What we see as a majestic weapons system, 4/5's of the world's
population sees as a huge relic of past oppression.  Since
we're going to be fighting unconventional wars most likely, we
can't afford the political costs of using battleships.  

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Brian_Evans.wbst129@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Desert Storm Special Op's
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:38:45 GMT


From Brian_Evans.wbst129@xerox.com


Friedrich BROHS in Vienna inquired about special operations in Desert Storm.
The commander of British forces discusses  SAS operations in his book which was
published in England two months ago.

 "Storm Command: A Personal Account of the Gulf War"  by  General Sir Peter de
la Billiere,  published by Harper Collins at  17.50 pounds sterling.   Copies
available by post  for 18.50 pounds (20.00 overseas)  from  Telegraph Books,  1
Canada Square,  Canary Warf,  London E14 5DT,  England,  or call the  Bookline
at  071 537 2207 (Access/Visa/Amex 24 hrs.)

Extracts from the book were published in  "The Daily Telegraph"  (London)  in
September,  which is my source for this info.   The Saturday,  5th. Sept. issue
described how the SAS had devised a plan,  and  Sir Peter gained General
Schwarzkopf's agreement for the operation.  SAS teams were helicoptered deep
inside Iraq,  positioned near important roads, and waited for Scud missiles on
their transporters to pass by.   They then called in air stikes which,
although often successful,  could take up to 50 minutes.   In that time the
transporters could move some distance, and hide under overpasses,  so later the
SAS units moved closer to the highways,  and used anti-tank missiles to destroy
the scuds.   This caused the Iraquis to move the launch points further from
their targets,  which reduced the scud's effectiveness.   Later,  American
forces tried the same tactics,  and separate zones were allocated to them and
the SAS.

Happy  Guy Fawkes  Day,

Brian

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppl@athena.mit.edu (Paul Podvig)
Subject: Re: Kilo-class submarines
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:11:36 GMT


From ppl@athena.mit.edu (Paul Podvig)

In article <Bx97DG.1vM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M Ryan) writes

>               However, since the gulf is not very deep, and is rather 
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>limited, sophisticated anti-submarine aircraft, as well as US naval 
>submarines would most likely not have too much of a problem. [ Have we sold 
>the Saudi's any ASW helicopters, such as the P3 Orion, S3, SH-3 etc? ]
>

It is usually MORE difficult to find a submarine in shallow water. And
it is almost impossible to find a diesel submarine with passive sonar.
You have to wait till the sub will sink somebody and then quickly deploy
a lot of sonobouys around. Diesel submarunes are more dangerous than they
seem.


--
Paul Podvig
ppl@athena.mit.edu
DACS, MIT
(617) 253-3846

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: tice neil hamilton <neiltice@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Kilo-class submarines
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:35:33 GMT


From tice neil hamilton <neiltice@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>

Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@u.washington.edu> writes:

>	Heard on the radio news that a FSU Kilo-class sub
>is due to be delivered to Iran in the next week or so, and that
>a US Attack sub will be entering the Gulf in advance of that
>delivery.
>	Does this kilo sub pose a real threat to surface
>vessels in the Gulf?  Is it enough of a threat that the kilo
>sub might suffer an "accident?"

	The Kilo is an excellent deisel-electric submarine design.
It may not be nuclear, but don't confuse it with your run-of-the-mill
U-boat.  It has modern sonar, an anechoic coating to confuse other
sonars, and is generally the latest and greatest in deisel sub designs.
(Except maybe the UK's Upholder class)
	It has 6 torpedo tubes, and carries about 14 torpedoes, any one
of which is capable of blowing the average frigate, DDG, or most cruisers
out of the water, not to mention causing serious damage to BB's, CV's, or
super tankers.
	To make a long story short, the Kilo is a very silent, very
deadly customer.  I wouldn't place any bets on the U.S. disrupting a
shipment, though it is definately something to consider.

					Neil Tice
					neiltice@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: BLU-82/B What sort of bomb is it ?
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:55:23 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>

In article <Bx5D3s.JDr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar) writes:
>
>	The BLU-82/B, also known as the Daisycutter, is perhaps the largest
>single piece of convential explosive in the US military, weighing in at
>approximately 15,000 pounds (no numerical error).  It was used during 
>Operation Desert Storm on at least one occasion that I can remember.  

When it was employed in Iraq, the blast was so huge that some British SAS 
commandos operating behind enemy lines a few miles away from the blast radioed 
in that "the bloody Americans have started using nukes."  I'd imagine the 
effect on troop morale was tremendous.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute




Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     Eugene Heiss (GWD) <heiss@brl.mil>
Subject:  Recoilless Rifle
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:36:11 GMT


From     Eugene Heiss (GWD) <heiss@brl.mil>



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

> Over on the sci.physics newgroup, there was a discussion of 
>recoil and the subject of a recoiless rifle came up.  One
>person claimed it was a GUN, another said it was a ROCKET.

>I also said I thought it was a GUN in that the only difference
>between it and a 105mm howitzer was that the 106's shell casing
>had holes in it which bleed off pressure and propellant which
>escaped rearward through holes in the breech.  But others said
>it was a rocket powered warhead that was ignited and "launched"
>from the tube like a LAAW.  Having fired several of these while
>in the Marines, I don't ever recall the term "rocket" used.

 reference FM 23-82 106mm Rifle M40A1 page 7

3. Principle of Recoilless Operation

   The recoilless ammunition cartridge case is perforated to permit   
expanding gasses of ignited propellant powder to escape evenly into
the enlarged reaction chamber.  These gases exert equal pressure in 
all directions within the chamber.  Pressure to the front against the
sloping wall of the chamber equals the force to the rear against closed
portion of the breech.  Remainder of the force exerted by the gases 
causes a conventional weapon to recoil.  In a recoilless rifle, remaining
gases are permitted to escape to the rear through openings in the
breech; therefore, the rifle remains motionless when fired.





Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cardeniajf%avlab.dnet@aaunix.aa.wpafb.af.mil
Subject: COMPASS nnnn
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:38:55 GMT


From cardeniajf%avlab.dnet@aaunix.aa.wpafb.af.mil


    	   Am trying to put together a historical review of DoD programs 
    that had/have the title "COMPASS aaaaa", where aaaa so far has been 
    identified as:
    	   ARROW; BEAR; BRIGHT; CALL; CLEAR; CLEAR LOOK; CLEAR WISE; 
    COOKIE; COOL; COPE; COUNTER; CROW; DART; DAWN; EAR; GHOST; HAMMER; JAY; 
    MATRIX; PREVIEW; ROBIN; ROYAL; QUICK; SAIL; SEVEN; STAR; SWING; TIE; 
    TRAIL; WISE; WORLD
    	   At this point in time, I'm only attempting to put the list 
    together, and am asking if anyone out there knows of any I've missed.  
    	   The next step will be to do a time line on the programs as well 
    as short historical write-ups to show development progress.
    	   I've not completed my literature searchs, and it is possible 
    that some of the above names will turn out to be either aliases, or 
    non-programs.
    	   This topic may have already been researched by one of your 
    mil.sci folks, and perhaps you can forward any info you have in the 
    archives to me at the above address
    
    	   I'm not currently tied in to your conference, so please advise 
    if either additional information is required, or if there is something 
    I need to do to get this both posted, and to have access to any 
    responses.
    
    	   System that I'm currently on, has been getting shutdown the last 
    few weekends, and is expected to be down almost every weekend till end 
    of year for retofits and moves.  Thus any e-mail response should be 
    sent after 0900 EST of the first normal working day of the week, and 
    before 1600 EST of the last normal working day.  When up, we are 
    connected  24 - hours and world wide, but weekends are murder, since 
    originator normally has no idea that his message has gone into the 
    ether!
    	   Thank for any assistance you can provide her
    
    Joe Cardenia 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: BLU-82/B What sort of bomb is it ?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:29:24 GMT


From moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com

In article <BxEvz2.1Dw@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Mark Cook <markc@hpcvxjme.cv.hp.com> writes...
|>The following text is excerpted from "Arsenal of Democracy-III: AMERICA'S
|>WAR MACHINE (The Pursuit of Global Dominance)" by Tom Gervasi (Global Press,
|>1984 - ISBN 0-394-54102-2) page 253:
|> 
|>[Begin included text]
|> 
|>FUEL AIR MUNITIONS -

...

|>BLU-82/B 15,000-lb. GENERAL PURPOSE BOMB:
|>    ALso known as the Daisy Cutter or Big Blue 82, thsi is a cast steel
|>case filled with 12,600 lbs. of DBA-22M, an aqueous mixture of ammonium
                                                                 --------
|>nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene soap as a binder.  It produces
  -------
|>an explosion of a size and intensity that observers have described as "the
|>closest thing to a nuclear bomb" and is used not only for mine clearance

With this description, why did this book include the BLU-82 with fuel-air
explosives?  With ammonium nitrate, it would not be a fuel-air explosive.

-Mike
From: efrazier@falconssrg.af.mil (Eric Frazier x4961)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: SAM Simulation
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:32:11 GMT
Organization: ARINC Research, Corp.


From efrazier@falconssrg.af.mil (Eric Frazier x4961)


I've a friend who's working on a computer simulation of a SAM retaliation to missile strike against naval targets.  Anyone got any suggestions for general algorithmic applications, etc for tracking and destroying multiple incoming warheads?  Appreciate you assistance.  My friend does not have access to internet, so please e-mail me at address indicated below.  Thanks, 

Eric
 
########################################################################
Eric G. Frazier, LCDR(s) USNR-R   E-mail:  uunet.uu.net!srg!efrazier
Senior Staff Analyst             (Note: The return address appearing in  
ARINC Research Corp.             message header is NOT always correct!) 
2551 Riva Road                   
Annapolis, Maryland 21401        (410) 266-4961  FAX: (410) 573-3024
--
########################################################################
Eric G. Frazier, LCDR(s) USNR-R   E-mail:  uunet.uu.net!srg!efrazier
Senior Staff Analyst             (Note: The return address appearing in  
ARINC Research Corp.             message header is NOT always correct!) 
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Neal Altman <na@sei.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: transport planes [helicopters] as bombers
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:32:07 GMT


From Neal Altman <na@sei.cmu.edu>


>From "Elusive Victory", describing "The October War, 1973--Ramadan--Yom
Kippur" (page 515) by Trevor N. Dupuy.  The action described occurred
on October 17, during the early stages of the Israeli crossing of the
Suez canal (the Sweetwater canal parallels the main seaway on the west
side):

   ...While Dayan was at Adan's headquarters the Egyptians initiated a
   major air attack against the bridgehead.  Their principal targets seem
   to have been the ponton [sic] bridge across the Suez Canal and the several
   bridges which the Israelis had seized over the Sweetwater Canal.
   Following a strike by MiG-17s, which caused no serious damage, about
   five Egyptian cargo helicopters came over at low level, conducting a
   clumsy, makeshift attack.  Not intended for the the combat attack
   role, these helicopters had been loaded with fuzed barrels of napalm
   and high explosive, which were kicked out of the cargo doors as they
   passed over their targets.  One barrel of napalm narrowly missed
   General Dayan.  However, again no serious damage was done, and all the
   helicopters were shot down.  This was apparently the only time during
   the war that helicopters were used in a direct combat role by either
   side.

Photo caption, photo insert between pages 260-261.  The helicopter appears
to be literally at treetop height:

    Egyptian helicopter attacking Israeli bridges over Sweetwater Canal,
    October 17th; this helicopter was shot down a few seconds later.


			Neal Altman
			na@sei.cmu.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:52:30 GMT


From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)


In <Bx5CsC.IpH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:


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


:The Sherman Firefly mounted a variation of the British 17 pounder AT
:gun, nominally of 77mm. There was also a US upgunned Sherman mounting
:a 76mm gun, a rough equivalent of the 17 pounder. Both apparently

You must be thinking of the M4A3E8 the "easy 8", I am not sure it
is as good as the 17 pounder.  I recall the M4A3E8s were used
in Korea against the T34/85 but I don't think it was very effective.

--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Former Soviet Navy Posting Number 4:  Delta IV class SSBN
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:36:13 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>


Delta IV class SSBN

Type:  Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement:  10,100 tons surfaced and 12,150 tons dived
Dimensions:  Length 166 m, beam 12.0 m, draught 8.7 m
Armament:  16 vertical launch tubes for 16 SS-N-23 'Skiff' 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 'Park Lamp' direction finder, one 
	'Cod Eye' navigation system, and extensive communication and navigation
	equipment.
Propulsion:  Two pressurized water-cooled reactors supplying steam to four sets
	of geared turbines delivering 45,000 kW (60,355 hp) to two shafts.
Performance:  Maximum submerged speed 23.5 knots, diving depth 400 m 
	operational and 600 m maximum
Complement:  150

Number Built:  5 plus one building in 1990 for Soviet Navy

Comments:  Built from 1985 onward, the 'Delta IV' is essentially a 'Delta III' 
	revised to carry the newer SS-N-23, combining the range of the SS-N-8 
	with the MIRVed warheads of the SS-N-18.  In addition, the 'Delta IV' 
	has a revised fin/rudder unit housing the towed portion of a new 
	communications system.
	SS-N-23 'Skiff':  Range 8300 km; CEP 560 m; warheads, 7-10 150 kiloton 
		MIRV's; guidance, stellar-inertial
	Type 53 dual-role torpedoes:  Since my sources give no performance data
		for this weapon, I can only assume that it is similar to the US
		Navy's Mk. 48 533 mm torpedo.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: Re: New Bombers (was Reorganizing the DoD (was New Carrier Plan))
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:29:18 GMT


From mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)

Don't forget, though, Boeing proposed a 747 variant as a cruise-missile carrier
to replace the B-52.  Would have given us a lot more value than the B-1 ever
will...