HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Why execute spies?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:06:35 GMT


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

In article <1992Jul20.133604.26753@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In practice, there isn't always as much difference as you might think.
>Surrendering is a high-risk operation; it is much safer to surrender in
>a large group or to a high-ranking officer, if you can.  Individual
>POWs often quietly disappear, especially if the capturing unit is in
>a hurry or angry about something.  People have estimated the mortality
>rate involved in surrendering as high as 50%.

Hmmmm

What was the name of that WW1 Sergeant who singlehandedly captured
a whole battalion of Germans? The way the movie had it he and three
others marched for miles herding the Germans along until someone 
would take them off their hands.... 

(The movie, as many that were made then appear now, was of full of 
overacting - the pacifist Kentucky backwoods boy who wanted to be a 
conscientious objector but was forced by circumstances to make a 
one man attack on a German machinegun nest and use turkey psychology
to attack the flank of the German battalion and pick them off one at
a time...This I don't find far fetched but the part about marching 
off with several hundred prisoners I do...)
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Infrared adsorbtion by H2O
Summary: IRCM are being done at VERY high levels
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:58:27 GMT


From saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)

To illustrate the level at which attack and defense are fighting it out in
the heat seeking missile realm, about 5 years ago I overheard a conversation
in a public place (near a missile design establishment, though) concerning
countermeasures against decoys which matched the temperature and audio
modulation of airplane exhaust.  
                                   Steve      saj@chinet.chi.il.us
From: lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM (Rick Lafford)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Infrared adsorbtion by H2O
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:35:57 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From Rick Lafford <lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM>


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

>I remember watching a documentary of the Soviets in Afghanistan. The
>helicopters kept lauching red flares every 5-6 seconds. My guess is 
>that these would be effective against handheld missiles like the Sting-
>er but might not fool a Sidewinder.I think these flares were pretty 
>tiny.. pistol size perhaps, since a helicopter would have to carry 
>hundreds of rounds at the rate they were using them.

The newer Stingers and current generation of AIM-9 are using a completely
different IR seeker technology. Older missiles used flying spot/starring
arrays and the newer ones actually use an IR imaging chip, the number of
pixels I can't remember at the moment. Fooling one of the new seekers 
with a flare is very very difficult as a point source of IR energy looks
nothing like the shape of the aircraft. You can visualize what the 
missile sees as a very grainy picture of the aircraft. It's not hard
to program the seeker to ignore point IR sources. The seeker can still
be overwhelmed by being pointed at the sun as the target aircraft tends
to get lost in the background noise.

	Rick

===========================================================================
Rick Lafford			| The world would be a far better place if we
Eastman Kodak Co.		| made more Crayolas and fewer bombs.
lafford@serum.kodak.com	|
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Altered history of warfare
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 13:41:24 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au


A quick hypothetical question I was asked the other day:

How would the history of warfare have developed if we did not have horses or a
suitable substitute?

My impressions are that the following would occur:

1) Increase in successful guerilla activity, as supply trains could not use
"horse power" so they would be slower and larger thus providing more easily
found and attacked targets.

2) Fluidity of the whole campaign would be reduced.  Pitched battles would
tendto decide things much earlier as the speed of manouvre would be reduced in
both tactical and strategic terms. For similar reasons would it be logical to
assume armis would be held inland at certain points ready to respond to threats
from several directions,  rather than border patrolling a certain percentage
knowing that they were fleet enough to return whenever needed.

3) Would armour be more important?  Given that you are slower to reach combat
on foot would more time be taken to ensuring that you actually made it into
combat?

4) would individual countries be smaller due to this extra time needed to
patrol ones lands??  How would one control the far flung parts of the empire. 
I am trying to think of a Roman equivalent (I know they had cavalry I was just
wondering what they would do)?

5) What would our infantry tactics be like??  I was trying to think of the
armiesof histiory that did not use cavalry and were successful.  Would leaders
arrange to meet somewhere to decide things or would secrecy rule the day, even
though you eventually have to meet to decide the contest.

Any feedback would be appreciated,

regs

Rob

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)
Subject: Re: Tracers
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:10:09 GMT


From liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)

ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
[stuff about aiming deleted]

>Yes true but the concept is the same, except that there 
>isn't a human being in the loop and the radar that does 
>the aiming doesn't need anything other than the metal in
>the projectile. Do they use lead or is it some exotic 
>metal in the Phalanx projectiles? 

  I am sure the USN uses depleted uranium for the projectiles.
This is to give a better effect on the incoming ASM because of
it is denser than lead. The Australians uses lead. Why? I think
they don't like the enviromental effects. Don't know about the
other countries.

/***********************************************************/
				Liang Tian Soon
				liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au
/***********************************************************/


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Tomahawk Article
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:03:41 GMT


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

Hey all you Tomahawk fans!  The August 1992 issue of the US Naval Institute's
_Proceedings_ magazine has a two page article about tomahawks and their
performance during Desert Storm on page 105 & 106.  Included are two
paragraphs on the version that dispensed spools of wire for attacking electric
power plant.

Also discussed is a proposed version for attacking submarines !!!

Happy trails!

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






========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cfrandal@iastate.edu (Charles F Randall)
Subject: Sat->Sub Optical Communication?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:04:38 GMT


From cfrandal@iastate.edu (Charles F Randall)

I've heard that the US Navy uses (on occasion?) a Sat->Sub optical
communication system.  I've also heard that this is even used for
submarines under the polar ice caps.

Does anyone have any more information on this subject?

Does the US Military use Sat->Ground optical communications at all?

Thanks,
-Randy
Charles F. Randall IV |    _               | "Are you kidding? I study
Aerospace Engineering |  == \---------..,  |  from crisis to crisis!"
Iowa State University |  ==___-----_____>  |       -anonymous student
cfrandal@iastate.edu  | _____b________d___ | <== ascii space shuttle




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: Why execute spies?
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:16:31 GMT


From fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)

>From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>Hmmmm
>
>What was the name of that WW1 Sergeant who singlehandedly captured
>a whole battalion of Germans? The way the movie had it he and three
>others marched for miles herding the Germans along until someone 
>would take them off their hands.... 

Sgt. Alvin York.

>(The movie, as many that were made then appear now, was of full of 
>overacting - the pacifist Kentucky backwoods boy who wanted to be a 
>conscientious objector but was forced by circumstances to make a 
>one man attack on a German machinegun nest and use turkey psychology
>to attack the flank of the German battalion and pick them off one at
>a time...This I don't find far fetched but the part about marching 
>off with several hundred prisoners I do...)

I just re-read a description of what York did to win the Medal of
Honor.  We're looking at 135 prisoners of war and roughly 25
machine-gun nests silenced.









--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Marines, are they needed?
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:12:24 GMT


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <1992Jul20.132331.24965@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, jmc@sail.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
> 
> 
> From jmc@sail.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
> 
> Someone posted that the Marines exist to support Navy missions.  To
> this layman it seems that the reverse is more nearly true and
> will be more true in the future.  For example, Marines afloat
> in the Adriatic provide a very credible threat to use force
> in Yugoslavia.
> --
> John McCarthy
> 

The purpose of *ANY* navy is to project power on shore.  This is either done
as direct support of a land strategy (such as landing the Marines, carrier
land strikes, shore bombardment, land-attack cruise missiles, etc.) or for
indirect support of the land forces (safe transport of supplies across the
oceans, removing enemy forces from the seas to protect the supply lines or 
preventing the enemy from launching an attack from the sea, etc.).

With this view in mind, the US Marines exist to support the overall US Naval
strategy of power-projection onto shore.  Thus, the combination of the modern
carrier task group (with the strike wing and land versions of tomahawk on the
escort ships) AND the Marine Amphibious Landing Group makes for one of the
most mobile, responsive, and capable fighting forces devised so far (IMO of
course).

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

(now for a really long disclaimer)


========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: V-22 Osprey crash ?
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:10:36 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <1992Jul23.184745.20798@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan) writes:
>
>From manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)
>
>
>I caught the tail end of a local newscast about an Osprey crash, 
>killing 6 or 7 servicemen.  Since I haven't seen anything in the
>group about it, I was wondering about the the accuracy of a) the
>news item, and b) my hearing.   
>Anybody out there know anything ?  If true, I wonder what impact
>it'll have on the future of the whole program ...

Indeed, a prototype Osprey crashed in the Potomac killing all seven
people. Names have not been released as I post this, but the Public
Information Officer said that they were civilian and military personnel.
Likely contractor and evaluation teams. The PIO also said that there
was an explosion as the Osprey shifted from horizontal to vertical
flight mode and the aircraft plummetted into the river. This is the
second crash of an Osprey prototype.

Today, the House approved funds for continued development of the Osprey,
$755 million dollars, but held up 50% of it pending a report from the Marine
Commandant on the cause of the crash. A similar bill passed the Senate
without the impoundment clause. It's my understanding that DOD has been
trying to kill this program for some time, but Congress continues to
reinsert it in the authorization bills because powerful members' districts
would be impacted by the loss of pork.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 19 July, 1942
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 13:22:11 GMT


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

Sunday, 19 July, 1942

A Japanese force of 1800 men leaves Rabaul to capture Buna and Gona in 
New Guinea.

SS Chief Oberg enacts the "Family Hostage Law" in Occupied France.
Any French person identified as a terrorist must surrender within 10 
days; otherwise, their family can be held liable.  Adult male family
members will be executed under the law, while adult women will be
sent to labor camps and children under 17 to reform schools.

General Stilwell requests Chinese help in the recapture of Burma.  In
exchange, he promises increased flow of American supplies to China.

Captain Antonio Lavat, commander of the Blue Squadron, is killed in
action.  The Blue Squadron is composed of Spanish volunteers flying 
fighters for the Axis on the Eastern Front.

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

"WAR DOGS - Dogs are used as sentries to guard camps and bases.  The idea
of inducting them came from Franklin two centuries ago ... [H]e wrote
that the dogs "should be large, strong and fierce," suggested that they be
used to track down enemy scouts in the woods and gave the Spanish credit
for "guarding their marches" thus." - New York Times "Notes on Science."
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Why execute spies?
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:35:21 GMT
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology


From draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)

In article <1992Jul20.133604.26753@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>From sun330!ur-guh.com!smith@uunet.UU.NET(Russ Smith)
>>Why is there a "tradition" of executing spies caught during
>>wartime? What makes a spy sufficiently different from any other
>>soldier that the spy should be killed?
[...]
>In practice, there isn't always as much difference as you might think.
>Surrendering is a high-risk operation; it is much safer to surrender in
>a large group or to a high-ranking officer, if you can.  Individual
>POWs often quietly disappear, especially if the capturing unit is in
>a hurry or angry about something.  People have estimated the mortality
>rate involved in surrendering as high as 50%.

There may be some very pragmatic reasons for all this.

In a war, you basically want to get your forces somewhere without
being killed by the other side.  To keep the other side from killing
you, you try to kill them first.  This does two things: it reduces
their strength, and it discourages them from trying to kill you.
However, if you trap the enemy, the knowledge that you intend to kill
them has the opposite effect---it's a real fight to the death---and
they will fight even harder, killing more of your forces.

The practical solution is to permit the enemy to surrender.  They get
to live in return for stopping trying to kill you.  Everybody wins.

Killing the occasional surrendering individual will not attract much
attention.  Even if that individual soldier fights to the death, it
won't affect the big picture much.  On the other hand, if you
slaughter a large group of enemy soldiers trying to surrender, you
will gain a reputation as a butcher, and every enemy force you meet
will fight to the death.

The galvanizing effect of a fight to the death outweighs the deterrent
effect of killing all enemy soldiers, so surrendering soldiers are
not executed.

The same logic does not apply to spies.  It's true that killing spies
discourages them from spying on you.  However, spies do most of their
damage indirectly by disclosing information, rather than by directly
harming your forces.  A spy's biggest advantage is secrecy rather than
violence, stealth rather than firepower.  Even though spies know they
will be killed if captured, they aren't in a position to do much harm
while resisting capture.

The deterrent effect of executing spies outweighs the risks of spies
fighting to the death, so spies are executed.
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: Altered history of warfare
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:12:40 GMT


From rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell)

In article <1992Jul20.134124.27197@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>
>From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
>
>
>A quick hypothetical question I was asked the other day:
>
>How would the history of warfare have developed if we did not have horses or a
>suitable substitute?
>

The most important thing to consider is why there are no draught animals.
Darwinism states that the ONLY way we will not have ANY draught animals is
if there is no ecological niche for them (unless they were all hunted to
extinction by man).  Most of the larger draught animals are grasslands
grazers ; therefore, there probably will not be any plains or grasslands --
no open battlefields either.  The lack of open fields for battle will dictate
the tactics, not the lack of draughht animals.

On a side note, David Drakehas been collaborating with S. M. Sterling on a 
series of novels based on the life of the Byzantine general Belisarius, which
takes place on a planet where the only draught animals are very large dogs.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: LJ10717@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Possible events in the USA?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:13:16 GMT


From LJ10717@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM


Hi MilSci netters,

I need help from true military science researchersthat exist in this news-
group.  What I need to know is the following:

What is the significance of the Battle at Thermopoly (sp?) and
The "Garden Party Plot"?
Equally, what connection is there with current world events and the status of
Citicorp Bank?

Please post responses.  Thanks in advance!!!

NEWORDER


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jmc@sail.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Marines, are they needed?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:58:40 GMT


From jmc@sail.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)

A navy has several missions as Steve Bridges says.

[ mod note -- I belive the author has mis-attributed the above line to me.
It should be attributed to dpe@inel.gov' 

- Steve ]

1. to control the sea so as to allow our side sea transport and
deny it to the enemy.  However, we several times as many
aircraft carrier groups than are needed for this.  During the
19th century the British had a policy of maintaining a navy
capable of dealing with the navies of any two potential enemies.
If we adopted that policy we would reduce our navy to a third
or less of its present seagoing fire power.

2. to support the landing of forces where wanted.  I am convinced
that the Marines are good for this purpose and favor whatever
navy is required for this.

3. My impression is that naval air power was not of much use against
land targets in Libya or in the Gulf.  It seems that too much of it is
optimized for air-to-air combat in defense of the carriers themselves.
The Aegis cruisers would be useful against an enemy with substantial
air power, but we don't have any at the moment.

I was told that in the Gulf, the Navy was inhibited by the prospect
of mines and that they could not co-ordinate air strikes with the
Air Force because of lack of high speed digital communication.  (The
daily 700 page air tasking document had to be delivered on floppy
disks.)

A third of the defense budget goes to the Navy and it is my leading
candidate for reduction.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.


Newsgroups: sci.military