HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pierce@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Pierce)
Subject: Vietnam era ammo sabotage
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:48:57 GMT


From pierce@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Greg Pierce)

It became common practice for small units i.e. MACV-SOG RT's, SEALs,
that went deep into the NVA backyard to plant rigged mortar, frags, and
ammo in thier ammunition caches when found.  A good friend of mine who
in fact was a TL with H Co. 75th Rangers related the story of going
out and 'seeding' known area's of the NVA's backyard with spiked ammo i.e
AK rounds with C-4 replacing the powder, and frags that have had the
time delay fuse removed, thus causing instantaneous explosion to the
user.  On more than one occation AK-47's were found blown apart with
the bolt being blown back into the user.  The described op's were known
as BOLO BEAN Operations and had a psychological impact on the NVA/VC.

Fossil from above.
Greg Pierce

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Subject: Re: depleted uranium
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:21:26 GMT


From chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)




From chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)


In article <1992Jul29.125806.21769@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
|>
|> Depleted uranium is, well, depleted.  The effect on the target is
|> the same as any other material.  D.U. is used because it is more
|> dense than lead.  It sounds scarier than it is, but there is no
|> radiation hazard, if that was the focus of your question.

The reason that DU is used is that it is a very dense material.
However, when a DU round strikes a hard target, there is a release of
radioactivity.  It is not dangerous (unless you were to swallow some
of the leftover pieces of the round), but it does exist and it is
measurable.

-- 
Curt Fennell			* chf0@gte.com
Unix System Administrator	* (617) 466-2142
GTE Labs, 40 Sylvan Road	* "Get down off that cross!
Waltham, MA, 02254		*  Somebody needs the wood"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yee@edison.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (John Yee)
Subject: Re: Surrender is Risky Business (was Re: Why execute spies?)
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:18:37 GMT


From yee@edison.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (John Yee)




From yee@edison.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (John Yee)


In article <1992Jul29.130337.22487@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Actually, there is a much simpler and more pragmatic reason:  it is usually
>cheaper in time, resources, and lives to accept an enemy soldier's surrender
>than to kill him.  It is very much in your best interests to make surrender
>relatively appealing to your enemy, and treating POWs decently is a crucial
>part of that.
>
>Note the word "usually".  Surrendering to a small unit which is trying to
>move fast is a bad idea, because the cost to them of guarding a prisoner is
>potentially very high.

I think the situation is a bit more complicated.  The reason you are even
considering surrender is because you are in trouble.  Now, if you also happen
to be serving under a government that takes unkindly to a stratregic
withdrawal on your part to the point of executing you, then maybe it
would be better to surrender to that
small unit in a hurry, the very description of which seems to imply that
they are not going to sit around waiting for you to decide, they are just
going to find some quick way to kill you.  If they are really in a hurry, how
about throwing down your arms and walking towards their rear with your
hands in the air?  I guess all this assumes that you want to live, no
quandry exists if you are willing to fight to the death; also it seems to
depend on the "goodness" of your side versus the enemies.  Different
armies treat the issue of surrender to/from them differently.  There is also
that uncertainty caused by things like you happening to some guy wracked
by rage because your side just killed his buddy, so the official policy
really can't guarantee against one more shot on a battlefield.
OK, so make like a penguin and be the SECOND guy in your unit to surrender..
--
jy, yee@seas.ucla.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Roderic C. Don " <rcdon@tbd2.brl.mil>
Subject: Re: Tracers
Summary: depleted uranium IS radioactive!
Keywords: DU, depleted uranium
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:48:08 GMT


From "Roderic C. Don " <rcdon@tbd2.brl.mil>




From "Roderic C. Don " <rcdon@tbd2.brl.mil>


In article <1992Jul26.181003.28502@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>	The material is depleted uranium, one of the densent metals known.
>It is _not_ radioactive to any extent, despite what some sailors might
>tell the new seaman loading the gun in a fit of mislead humor.
>
><Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
><z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
><viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
>< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >

Sorry there, Danno, but depleted uranium is a significant health risk due to
its radioactivity.  "Depleted" means the percentage of radioactive uranium
is reduced, but not totally removed.  I remember something like 5%
radioactive uranium occuring naturally in ore, which is reduced to around
2% in "DU".

When we test a DU bullet (in an enclosed test range, of course) the test
chamber air is run through filters for up to an hour.  Only then can the
test technicians enter, with positive pressure respirators on.  "Hot" waste
disposal is a _significant_ problem.

RCD

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Use of snipers
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:26:17 GMT


From ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)

mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
>From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
>In article <Bt8GFu.Do3@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Tony.Buckland@mtsg.ubc.ca writes:
>>  Regarding the use of snipers in the current conflicts in the former
>>  Yugoslavia: is this the first time that sniping has formed such an
>>  important part of ongoing assaults and sieges?  I think of sniping
>>  as an auxiliary method, employing scarce experts, for keeping the
>>  opposition harassed and heads-down, but in this case it seems to vie
>>  with mortar fire as a primary method of inflicting casualties.
>>  Please, oh please, no political comments. 

>I think believe that, as in many other aspects of modern war, The War
>Between The States (the American Civil War) anticipated the heavy use
>of sniping.

Probably the first conflict in which riflemen were used intensively was
the American Revolution/War of Independence.  The British infantry were
largely armed with smoothbore muskets and stoood out in the open, while
the rebels/freedom fighters did a lot of their fighting with rifles from
behind cover.  The British also could have made better use of their 
riflemen  -  Major Ferguson at one time had George Washington in his
sights but didn't fire.

Geoff Miller (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)  |   Don't steal.  The government
Computer Centre                     |   hates competition.
Australian Defence Force Academy    |   (via Jeff Cooper)
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:40:06 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA


From ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)

In <Bt4oC5.1p3@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> asp+@pitt.edu (Anandeep Pannu) writes:

>So I think that the F-16 would be a good choice for close air support today. 
>Its agile, its fast and it has the avionics to do the job. I wouldnt like to
>be an A-10 pilot in any environment with any sort of defensive capability.

The A-10 was designed to survive in a different type of air-defense
environment than the F-16: lots of small arms fire, artillery, etc.
but fewer modern surface-to-air missiles.  Thus, it has a great deal
of ruggedness, but lacks speed.  The Air Force planned to replace the
A-10 with the F-16 because of the increased number of small, sophisticated
SAMs the Soviets were deploying in Eastern Europe.  The last I heard, this
decision was being reevaluated because of changing world conditions.     
Xref: sparky sci.military:8675 soc.history:7687
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Saturday, 22 August, 1942
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:03:23 GMT
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


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

Saturday, 22 August, 1942

German tanks open a gap in the Soviet line near Vertyachi, to the north of
Stalingrad.

Brazil issues a declaration of war against Italy and Germany.

Australian General Cyril Clowes assumes command of the 8100 Australian 
and 1300 American soldiers defending Milne Bay, New Guinea.  About 11,000
Japanese troops under General Tomitaro Horii prepare to attack.

Chinese forces take the Kwangsi River city of Yukiang.

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

"The action taken by your government has hastened the coming of the
inevitable victory of freedom over oppression, of Christian religion over
the forces of evil and darkness." - Franklin Roosevelt, in a telegram to
President Getulio Vargas of Brazil
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Arthur Sparrendahl)
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium -- Hydrogen Bombs
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:35:29 GMT


From d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Arthur Sparrendahl)

In article <BszL43.F8p@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
|> From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
|> In <Bsw0L1.Lpu@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
|> >U-238 is a primary component for use in constructing thermonuclear
|> >weapons -- fusion boosted, hydrogen, and neutron bombs. 
			...
|> 	I believe this to be incorrect.  My understanding is that U238
|> is a poison (nuclear engineers have such vague terms, huh?) to the
|> reaction process.  U235 is the isotope needed to produce the neutrons
|> necessary for fission.  U238 is a neutron absorber (hence poison), and
|> mainly an alpha emitter with some gamma emmissions as well.  

	I do not claim to have merlins expetise but according to 
	'General and nonorganic chemistry' by Gunnar Ha"gg U-238
	(in natural uranium) is vital in very powerfull temonucelars.
	A small fission bomb activates the Lithium-6 deutide and a 
	fusion explosion is generated. This generates enormous amounts
	of neutrons. This gadget is surounded by a coat of natural uranium.
	(or DU if that is an available by product) The neutrons generates 
	fission that is not self sutainable in the coat. Uranium isotopis as
	heavy as Uranium 255 has been detected in such detonations. The fact 
	that the fission in the uranium is not expected to be self sustainable
	makes the chape and size of the coat unintresting. It is possible to
	suround the charge with tons of natural uranium. *Very* large termo-
	nucelar devises get 80 or 90 % of their energy from these reactions 
	in the natural or depleated uranium coat. These bombs give a lot of
	radioactive fall-out. Isotopises of a few very heavy elements as Fm 
	was first observed in the fall-out of such detonations.
	I'm sure merlin will agree?

	Arthur

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hards4@ee.adfa.oz.au (Brad Hards)
Subject: Re: depleted uranium
Organization: ADFA Vortex
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:21:33 GMT


From hards4@ee.adfa.oz.au (Brad Hards)




From hards4@ee.adfa.oz.au (Brad Hards)

In article <1992Jul30.123936.16542@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu writes:

> Militaries make sabots out of depleted Uranium because it is a very dense 
> substance i.e. it weighs a lot for a given volume.
> A sabot is the part of a tank round that accutually penetrates the enemy
> tank. Most tank rounds are composed of a shell and the sabot. The two 
> seperate after firing thereby giving the sabot a higher velocity.
Wrong. The round is called "discarding sabot". Sabot is French (?) for shoe,
and it is the bit (usually bits) that fits around the depleted uranium
penetrator. The sabot is used to make up the extra diameter, and it falls off
within a few tens of metres of the end of the barrel.

Brad Hards
From: bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil (CMSgt Mike Bergman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: AF News Svc 08/14/92
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:44:59 GMT
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>

656.  RIF results
657.  Gray Eagle award
				   &    &    &
				   &    &    &
				   &    &    &
NOTE TO EDITORS:  The following RIF story is an item of high interest.
Request widest possible dissemination.
656.  RIF results
     WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Nearly 1,600 officers have been selected for
discharge by a reduction in force board, Air Force personnel officials said.
     Officials announced the need to increase officer separations through
involuntary means June 18.  The board met July 20 at Randolph AFB, Texas, and
selected 1,595 Reserve officers out of a pool of 8,900 from the 1980 to 1989
commissioned year groups.
     Selections were based on percentages announced July 15.  Ninety-five
percent was used to compute the quota for the 1980 to 1984 year groups, 75
percent for the 1985 year group, 25 percent for 1986, 15 percent for 1987, and
6 percent for the 1988 to 1989 year groups.
     Selected officers will have to separate by Dec. 31.
     Notifications will be made Aug. 27.  Selectees will be notified privately
through the senior rater chain, similar to the procedures used for the
selective early retirement board notification.
     There will not be a public release of individual names, officials said.


657.  Gray Eagle award
     WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Lt. Gen. Eugene H. Fischer, Air Force inspector
general, is the 1992 recipient of the Gray Eagle award.
     The award honors the Air Force pilot on active duty or extended active
duty who has the longest aviation service.  Fischer earned his wings March 28,
1956.
     From his start as an aviation cadet at Malden AFB, Mo., Fischer logged
more than 5,500 hours, with 200 combat missions over Laos, North Vietnam and
South Vietnam.  He has flown several fighter aircraft including the F-51,
F-84, F-4, F-15 and F-16.
     Gray Eagle recipients are recognized for their long service, depth of
experience and broad aviation knowledge.  The award also reinforces the


-- 
         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \\  {*}  //                   bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil  
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     / 
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Sabots and Soboteurs
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:14:40 GMT


From Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>


In article <Bsw0r9.MED@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

>"Sabot" is French for "shoe" -
>supposedly "saboteurs" got their name from carrying instructions around
>in their shoes.

While it's true 'sabot' is the French for shoe, saboteurs got their name
from a famous Strike by railway workers in (I think) Belgium. Because the
managment was holding out and using scab labour, the workers lifted the
rails out of their mountings - also 'sabot' in French. Hence the term.
Thus it was originally a civilian term which only came to be applied to
military uses later.


Joseph Askew
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Pacific Studies Center <lsiegel@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re: Phalanx Ammo [was Re: Tracers]
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:26:20 GMT


From Pacific Studies Center <lsiegel@igc.apc.org>




From Pacific Studies Center <lsiegel@igc.apc.org>

The military selected DU weapons over Tungsten for two key reasons. FIrst, it is
pyrophoric--burning upon impact--and second, it's a waste material, available
cheaply in large quantities--produced by uranium enrichment.

The health and environmental threat of unused rounds or DU armor (used in
the Abrams tank) is minimal unless one is constantly exposed. However, the
production, testing, and use does create environmental hazards.

Since it is pyrophoric, DU oxidizeds to form uranium oxide particles which are
both chemotoxic (as a heavy metal) and radiotoxic (at a low level). Consequently
it poses a long-term threat when ingested or inhaled. Though alpha "rays"
do not penetrate clothing, etc., once inside the body they're there.

The NRC requires some type of cleanup at domestic test ranges, but the U.S.
has not even studies--or at least, released studies--the threat of tons of the
stuff left in Kuwait and southern Iraq.

The National Toxics Campaign Fund's Military Toxics Project is organizing a
network of activists concerned about DU weapons. Most of the folks come from
communities where they are produced or tested.

The health impact of these weapons, which were developed secretly and never
given a full environmental review, is not nearly so dramatic as fission
weapons. But there are significant long-term threat. DU may be the Agent
Orange of the 1990's.

Lenny Siegel
Pacific Studies Center

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: asp+@pitt.edu (Anandeep Pannu)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:36:04 GMT


From asp+@pitt.edu (Anandeep Pannu)


 I recently saw the A-10 for the first time at an airshow and was taken 
aback at the size. This is one big airplane ! Slow and big is not good news
in close support. I talked to some Indian pilots who had flown Su-7s in the
1971 war with Pakistan. The Sukhoi (called S-22 in Indian service) was well
liked by its pilots who claimed that they were faster than the Mig-21s at low
level and beat the Migs at dogfights anytime ! But the S-22s had the largest
loss rate for any Indian plane in the war. 

According to the IAF pilots this was due to 2 reasons - 
 (i) wrong tactics; using Hunter like pop ups and slowing down to deliver 
     ammo.

 (ii) the sheer size of the plane made it vulnerable to undirected ack-ack 
      and small arms fire. Not a single Su-7 was lost in dogfights and despite
      its ability to take a lot of punishment all the losses were due to ground
      fire. 

All pilots said that they would have preffered the Hunter for close air support
only because it was a smaller target ! High speed at that time could not be used
because the avionics for high speed weapon delivery were just not there. 

In fact HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) came up with a version of the Mig-21
that was unique to India (it was called the Mig-21M ) to overcome the Su-7s
shortcomings. This had a Mig-21MF airframe with the Tumansky R-11 engine of 
the  Mig-21FL. It was a great success (though a lot of adaptions had to be 
made) in IAF service. It was small, agile and fast. 

So I think that the F-16 would be a good choice for close air support today. 
Its agile, its fast and it has the avionics to do the job. I wouldnt like to
be an A-10 pilot in any environment with any sort of defensive capability.

I like the A-10 but lets be realistic !

Anandeep


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com (Lou Montgomery (214+464-1049))
Subject: Re: How to spike a gun?
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:40:29 GMT


From lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com (Lou Montgomery (214+464-1049))


From lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com (Lou Montgomery (214+464-1049))


In article <BsKCnp.E2s@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dgfritz@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Doug Fritz) writes:
>
>From dgfritz@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Doug Fritz)
>
>Spiking a gun such as a cannon or artillery piece disables the
>gun, but how does a foot soldier spike a gun?

        One might pull the bullet, and remove the propellant. This
      could be followed by the insertion of a blasting cap, or possibly
      a small amount of C-4 explosive. The round would then be reassembled
      and placed back into the magazine (several rounds down,
      preferrably). The rifle would then be returned to it's original
      place, ready for the enemy to use.
        Actually, I'd rather take it out of the enemy's hand by adding
      it to my collection, however, surprises like this could be "fun".


                                           Later...
                                                   ...Lou #0083

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Tracers
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:19:00 GMT


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




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


Dan Sorenson writes:
#        The material is depleted uranium, one of the densest metals known.
#It is _not_ radioactive to any extent, despite what some sailors might
#tell the new seaman loading the gun in a fit of mislead humor.


And yet it is radioactive enough to give a meaningful dose in certain
situations, such as a crew being in an armored vehicle carrying a load
of DU KE ammo for long periods.

But it is true that the gamma dose is very small, and under the conditions
encountered with Phalanx ammo may be ignored.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: quest!curt (Curtis Gibson)
Subject: making a radar decoy
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 17:51:49 GMT


From quest!curt (Curtis Gibson)

Would anyone care to comment on what will "fool" a radar?  Will
papermache covered with aluminum foil pass as a real truck or plane?
If not, what kind of reflective surface would be needed? ( I am
assuming the size and shape of the decoy are exactly the same 
as the real thing.)  Thanks.

Curtis S. Gibson    curt%quest.UUCP@cs.umn.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson)
Subject: Re: why velcrow insignia
Organization: City College of New York - Science Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:29:15 GMT


From christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson)




From christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson)

In article <1992Jul30.125156.18302@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
      carssdf!watson@rutgers.edu (- Self Empl. Sys.Integrator) writes:
>
>Why do air force flying uniforms seem to have all insignia 
>attached by velcrow?   Is this a laundry consideration?
>
>John Watson
>
I was at an airshow near Kingston NY a while back.  I was standing
next to a USN S-3 pilot, when a good-looking woman complimented
him on the patch on his shoulder.  He immediately pulled it off
and presented it to her.  One reason?

Chris Thompson


-- 
(Help!  I've fallen and I can't reach my beer!)

Newsgroups: sci.military