HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:26:43 GMT


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


> In today's Arizon Republic, it was reported that Kamov Helicopter
> Scientific and Technology Co, maker's of the Ka-50 Werewolf (Hokum) Attack
> Helicopter, have issued a fly-off challenge to the McDonnel Douglas Apache
> Attack Helicopter, which is assembled in Mesa Arizona.

I was reading an old (24 August) Aviation Week recently, in which they 
pointed out that the Ka-50 had beaten a 2-seat Mil 'copter to win the 
Soviet competition, not only beating the Mil designers, but also 
entrenched Soviet Army favouritism (of Mil), and opposition from the 
Navy (which considered Kamov as "its" designers).

With this in mind I "suddenly" realised that the fly-off would not 
necessarily be in direct combat, but rather to see which aircraft 
would perform the desired role more effectively.  Damn :-)

FLIGHT seemed to think that the Ka-50 would be more useful as an 
assault unit, doing a similar mission profile to the A-10's, rather 
than that of the AH-64.  Perhaps someone in the know could explain the 
difference to me???

Lastly, the AW&ST article said that the Ka-50 was stressed for 3-g 
manouvres.  Is this a lot for a 'copter??  Does anyone know how it 
compares to the AH-64??


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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:43:06 GMT


From Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>

In article <C0E5pq.6z9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu> writes:
>2)  Yes, most bullets are supersonic, which is why they make scary "cracking"
>noises when they go overhead.  One of the functions of a silencer is to
>decelerate the bullet below Mach 1 (on rifles, that is). Most pistol rounds are
>subsonic, making them much easier to silence (rifle silencers suck).

Silencers do not slow bullets below the speed of sound. They only 
muffle the noise of the discharge. If the round is supersonic, it
still "cracks", but the muffling of the discharge makes direction
finding more difficult because you now have a line source instead
of a point source for the sound. Most .45ACP rounds are subsonic,
certainly in military loadings, but most 9mm loadings are supersonic
except for 147 gr loadings. Even the lowly .22LR is supersonic.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>
Subject: Apache and AMRAAM
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:23:24 GMT


From MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>

In article <C0Jpx0.8xr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu> writes:
>McDonnell Douglas released some drawings of a "Sea Apache" a few years ago
>with the FLIR's and chain gun replaced with an APG-65 (F/A-18) radar.  It
>was shown carrying AMRAAM's.  I believe Harpoon and Penguin were also

I have some artwork about, but I thought only the gun was gone, replaced 
with a circular radome ala Sea Hawks. I do recall Harpoon and Penguin as
possible weapons, I believe the Sea Hawk can carr/fire these, especially
if the weapons wings are added. As to the Apache, it is quite possble to
mount tiprail sidewinders, and I believe these were tested. I have artwork
(and a t-shirt actually) showing this. Since AMRAMM is compatible with 
Sidewinder rails the only problem would be weight and prelaunch data.

>AMRAAM does need some input from a fire control radar (semi-active lockon,
>midcourse command update at all but dogfight ranges).  It would also

Hence the standard F-16 can carry it but not Sparrow. All that I have read
indicates ALL F-16s can fire AMRAAM, the AF didn't expect the delays and
they were waiting for AMRAAM instead of equiping for Sparrow. Of course
Sparrow was tested, the gear door Sparrow mounts have got to be the oddest
yet...

>which suggests it can be fired from third-party data.  If the Army buys
>AMRAAM, it'll be as a SAM; the Norwegians are already set to, and it's

Say, Chaparal(sp?) uses Sidewinders with a booster and AMRAAM is compatible
with Sidewinder rails... So, would it be possible to change the electronics
suite on the Chaparal to use AMRAAM SAMs? How about replacing Sea Sparrow
with Sea AMRAAM? (say, does the AMRAAM have a name yet? I think Dale Brown
uses Scorpion, but he isn't very reliable. In 'Sky Masters' he refers to
the CIWS as 20mm and 30mm, plus a bunch of other stuff is screwy....)

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################


Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:35:35 GMT


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


Ryan Montieth Gill writes:
#        With regards to two battlelines facing off why not concentrate
#        all your fire upon one target with the view to killing it
#        quickly be fore it quold have any affect upon your group and
#        move to the next target once the first had been silenced...



Because......

The multiple ships firing on one target would interfere with each others'
range finding unless the range was close.

Scoring enough hits to silence that first ship will still take quite
a bit of time, both because of the low hit probability and the level
of damage required. Meanwhile....

The other ships in the opposing line will have a great time conducting
in effect target practice on your line. Their fire will obscure your
ranging, while theirs is unimpeded.



Recall that during the run to the south at Jutland the German battlecruiser
SMS DERFFLINGER was left unengaged for only a few minutes as a result of
erroneous fire distribution by the British. Her fire on HMS QUEEN MARY
was fatally accurate as a result.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Tom Oates <th2_oate@csd.uwe-bristol.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: CBU against ships?
Organization: University of the West of England, Bristol
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:42:50 GMT


From Tom Oates <th2_oate@csd.uwe-bristol.ac.uk>

Cluster bombs used in an anti-shipping role?

Hmm...I can't see any reason why not.

I doubt whether you could sink a ship with CBUs. However, you could certainly
do a lot of damage to exposed crewmen, not to mention rendering radomes and 
missile silos unusable. This would "blind" the ship and make it an easier
target during successive attacks.

`Hades' is a CB dispenser manufactured by a British company (Hunting  
Engineering in Bedfordshire). The CBUs inside are standard fragmentation/HEAT 
bomblets, without the usual HB876 runway area-denial mines as used in JP233.
They are about the size of a beer can and the same shape. When in flight a 
spring expands the bomblet by forcing the cone shaped warhead a few inches up 
from the flat nose, thus providing the required stand-off for the shaped 
charge. I forget how much armour it will penetrate, but I do remember that it
was quite impressive in relation to the small size of the things.

-- 
****************************************************************************** 
* Tom Oates (Univ. of West of England) * DISCLAIMER:I speak only for myself. * 
* Email to: th2_oate@uk.ac.uwe.csd     * PGP 2.0 Key available upon request. *
******************************************************************************
From: mvcy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Geneva Convention (was Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans)
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:39:33 GMT
Organization: Cornell University


From mvcy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu

In article <C0o9tr.IpG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
hhm@ihlpe.att.com writes: 
> 
> From hhm@ihlpe.att.com
> 
>> 
>> Not to dispute the conclusions, but the US didn't sign the Geneva Convention
>> until 1974.
>> 
>> -Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
>>  GySgt USMCR
>> 
> 
> they did not sign the Geneva Convention. Americans were treated according to
> the Geneva convention.  There has been more than one Geneva Convention. The
> one observed during WWII was held in the 1920s, and I'm pretty sure that the
> U.S. was a signator. ....
> 

I recall the same.  Prior to WWII, U.S. did sign the convention but reserving
the right to retaliate to chemical warfare in kind.  At least that's what
I remember seeing somewhere.

Satoshi Amagai

Did Japanese sign it after the war by the way?  I know they weren't pre-war
signatories but..
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cgellasc@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Chris Gellasch)
Subject: Re: no cannister
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:21:52 GMT


From cgellasc@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Chris Gellasch)

>From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@CANREM.COM>
>
>
>The M-551 was at one time part of every armoured cavalry unit - now only the 
>82nd uses it, and only until something better comes along.  That should tell 
>you something about it.  
>

Soldiers magazine had an article about the Sheridan sometime last year.
According to the article, the tankers (if you can call them that) liked
the M-551 but had to train the newbies since they only had M1 training.
There are problems with the missile system being screwed up when firing
the main gun which could make life interesting.  Of course if you are
airborne, any kind of armor would be a welcome sight.

I read that the M-551 will be replaced by the Armored Gun System which
by the picture looked like a cross between a MBT and a SP arty gun.  I
can't recall any stats offhand and I don't know where the article is,
does anyone have more info?


Chris Gellasch
2LT, USAR

cgellasc@silver.indiana.edu
From: scw@ollie.seas.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Geneva Convention (was Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans)
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:39:16 GMT
Organization: UCLA School Of Engineering & Applied Science


From scw@ollie.seas.ucla.edu


In article <C0HvLr.Fs1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gawne@stsci.edu writes:
>
>
>>    It also mattered what kind of uniform you were wearing.  The Soviet
>> Union had never signed the Geneva Convention, and captured Red Army
>> personnel were frequently worked to death, while US and British
>> prisoners were treated (usually) correctly.
>
>Not to dispute the conclusions, but the US didn't sign the Geneva Convention
>until 1974.

Uhmmmm Bill, then pray tell me how did I come into posessition of a laminated
piece of white cardboard with blue printing plus some typwritten data,  it
is the same size as a Liberty card (2 1/2 X 3), the piece of cardboard says
the following:

   Geneva Conventions Identification Card

   Name:  Woods, Stephen C.  Rank:  L/Cpl.
   Date Of Birth:  24Feb47   Branch Of service: USMC
   Service Number: 2141956   Issued:  22Jan66

     This is not a liberty card.

Hint, it was handed to me by the First Sgt of E/2/5 on board the
USS Baxer (APA-236) somewhere between Hawaii and Okinawa.

Be careful there a a whole slew of Geneca Conventions the one in question was
first signed in 1906, and involves the treatment of POW's et. al.  The one that
the US didn't sign until 1974 was (I believe) the 1926 accords involving
chemicial weapons.

-----
Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (310)-825-8614
UUCP: ...{ibmsupt,ncar!cepu}!ollie}!scw  Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
"Non, je ne regrette rien"--1er RE de Para 1963
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Napoleon's Guard (Re: Prussian Military)
Keywords: books history prussia
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:42:42 GMT


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

In article <Bzs8ut.LEK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Peter Cash <cash@convex.com> writes:

>On a (possibly) related note, I've run across mention of German cavalry
>used in WW I called the "Uhlans". Can anyone tell me what kind of units
>these were, and anything about their history? The name strikes me as
>peculiar--it has no meaning in German.


Uhlans were Lancers, complete with Polish-style czapkas (though they 
probably didn't wear them during WWI). 

One of the more interesting WWI cavalry stories I've heard is that when 
the US entered the war they sent some cavalry riding off somewhere. They
were waylaid by a couple German machinegun nests which they took care off 
with massed .45 ACP fire! Sounds apocryphal to me..




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Geneva Convention (was Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans)
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:33:33 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <C0o9tr.IpG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, hhm@ihlpe.att.com writes:
>(responding to my earlier posting) 
>> 
>> Not to dispute the conclusions, but the US didn't sign the Geneva Convention
>> until 1974.
>> 
>> -Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
>>  GySgt USMCR
>> 
> 
> I've read several books about POWs: The Great Escape, Colditz Story, Men of
> Colditz, the Horse, and maybe a couple of others. In all cases, the authors
> mention that the treatment of Russian prisoners was horrible simply because
> they did not sign the Geneva Convention. Americans were treated according to
> the Geneva convention.  There has been more than one Geneva Convention. The
> one observed during WWII was held in the 1920s, and I'm pretty sure that the U.S.
> was a signator. There have been others since then, very likely the one in 1974 
> was only the latest one, and I suspect that this is the one you are thinking of. 
> It was not, however, the only one we signed. 

Quoting the text on my military ID: "Identification for purposes of the
Geneva Convention relative to treatment of prisoners of war of August 12,
1949."  Anybody else care to provide information about Geneva accords prior
to WW II?

I think it is at least noteworthy that the US did NOT agree to the 1949
Geneva convention until 1974.  

Oh, I've read several books too.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "J.D. Baldwin" <baldwin@csservera.usna.navy.mil>
Subject: _Nimitz_-bound!
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:42:27 GMT


From "J.D. Baldwin" <baldwin@csservera.usna.navy.mil>

Moderator:  I know this is hardly in the charter of the group, and I
hate blanket USENET "farewells" as much as the next guy, but there are
probably a few out there to whom this would be of interest.

[mod note -- I think it's perfectly in line.  I realize that by the time
it's posted, you will be long gone, but I'm sure the rest of the readers
wish you the best in your new assignment

Steve]

I'm leaving USENET the minute I walk out of this office (in about an
hour).  I just wanted to offer free (!) tours of the USS _Nimitz_
(CVN-68) to any readers out there who find themselves in the pacific
northwest (homeport is Bremerton, WA) with some free time (that cuts out
99% of USENET-ters.)  You may write me to discuss this or any other
naval aviation matter at

	LT J.D. Baldwin, USN
	Operations Department
	USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
	FPO AP  96697-2820

I don't know my phone number, but you can look it up and ask for the
"Air Operations Division" and anyone there will know me.  I'm going to
be deployed 1 Feb 93 to 1 Aug 93 (that's no longer classified)--I'll be
back on time, God and the Somali warlords willing!

jd baldwin

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:29:24 GMT


From Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>

In article <C0HvLv.Fto@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh) writes:
>
>Has there been any thought to putting AMRAAMs on an apache? Since the missile
>is self-guided, the apache shouldn't need its own radar. Of course, deciding
>when to fire without some form of radar could be a problem (can the AMRAAM be
>fired "blind" in response to a spotting report from someone on the ground?).
>Having the AF give the army some of its newest toys might also be a problem.

McDonnell Douglas released some drawings of a "Sea Apache" a few years ago
with the FLIR's and chain gun replaced with an APG-65 (F/A-18) radar.  It
was shown carrying AMRAAM's.  I believe Harpoon and Penguin were also
mentioned in the blurb as possible armaments.

AMRAAM does need some input from a fire control radar (semi-active lockon,
midcourse command update at all but dogfight ranges).  It would also
probably be pretty clumsy fired from the horizontal in a Nap-Of-the-Earth
environment, although it's interesting to note that a variant was offered
as a longshot candidate for the Army's Non-Line-Of-Sight missile program -
which suggests it can be fired from third-party data.  If the Army buys
AMRAAM, it'll be as a SAM; the Norwegians are already set to, and it's
being offered as a Corps SAM candidate as well. 

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Re: Whispering Death?
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:43:44 GMT


From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>

In article <C0G11p.vH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r) writes...
> 
>From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
> 
>In article <C0E5pw.71o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Ops@raven.alaska.edu (sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu) writes:
>>
>>I have seen more than one aircraft known to the Japanese as "Whispering 
>>Death". The Bristol Beaufighter most commonly, but also the F4U Corsair.
>>Were there any others? Were both of these aircraft actually known as such, or
>>has some author got his facts wrong.

Maybe this is another case, but wasn't it "whistling death" that referred 
to the F4U and "whispering death" the name the Viet-cong gave to the F-111?
I don't have my books here, but one on the F-111, does refer to it as the
Whispering death.

SJRD 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>
Subject: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:46:02 GMT


From Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>

In today's Arizon Republic, it was reported that Kamov Helicopter
Scientific and Technology Co, maker's of the Ka-50 Werewolf (Hokum) Attack
Helicopter, have issued a fly-off challenge to the McDonnel Douglas Apache
Attack Helicopter, which is assembled in Mesa Arizona.

A spokesman for MD said "Our position is that if our customer, in this case
the British government, asked for a flyoff we would be very happy to
participate.  We have every confidence in the aircraft and in its ability
to challenge any of the competitors."

A defense analyst furthered "Before the Hokum got a shot off, it would be
killed.  It would be like a cheap off the shelf fighter going up against an
F-15.  Nothing comes close to the Apache.  When the Longbow is installed,
look out.  No tank or helicopter can survive on the same battlefield, no
matter how maneuverable."

The Hokum was unveiled at the Farnborough International Air show in
September.  It is a single-seat helicopter with counter-rotating rotors
(hmmn).  It has a 30mm cannon, 12 laser-guided anti-tank missiles and 40
rockets.  It also has an ejection seat.

The Apache is a two seat helicopter with a 30mm cannon, 16 laser-guided
missiles and 76 rockets.  The Apache is all weather, while the Hokum is
apparently not.

---

So, the challenge is made.  What does everyone think?  I think the
challenge itself is telling about just how fast the Cold War is receding.

And on the ecjection seat.  From the picture, the cockpit isn't far enough 
forward for the pilot not to get pureed (?) by windmilling rotors.  A brake
perhaps?  But again, from the picture, on the ground both rotors have a
blade almost directly over the cockpit.  A downward ejection?  That sounds
like something out of a Road-Runner cartoon.  Wiley Coyote ejects out of his
gunship only to get a rocket assisted head-plant in the ground.  And as he
wobbles to his feet, a large shadow grows about him.  He looks up just
in time to see the flaming wreckage of his Hokum plow him into the ground
for a second time.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Liquip Propellent Gun
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:21:43 GMT


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


Can anyone on the net enlighten us on the pros and cons of a liquid propellent
gun? Almost all guns are fired by solid explosives. I understand GE or FMC is
studying the possibility of liquid fired guns. Reportedly, it has higher
muzzle velocity and the ammo storage is more compact. Before firing, you
feed a projectile and then inject the liquid explosive, other than that, it
fires pretty normally.

Questions:
1. Why higher muzzle velocity than solid gun?

2. How about rapid firing? (2 step loading!)

3. Any disadvantages compared to solid propellent guns?

Thanks in advance.

-- 
Fengxi Zhou
fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca

Who said nothing is impossible?  I have done nothing through the years.
													  -- Anonymous

Newsgroups: sci.military