HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Lewisite and Lyddite
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:56:34 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


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


Iskandar Taib writes:
#What was Lewisite? Was it a blistering agent?

As Tom Oates said elsewhere, Lewisite is both a vesicant, or blister agent,
and an arsenical, a systemic poison. To elaborate, Lewisite is less 
effective than distilled mustard (HD), but acts much faster, and also
causes immediate pain.


#A related question. After the thread on Jutland I read a few of the
#books and there was mention of British AP shells filled with Lyddite.
#What was Lyddite, and why did it stain everything (including splashes)
#green?

Lyddite was named after the town of Lydd. It is either pure picric acid or
PA with up to 10 % aromatic hydrocarbons (to lower the melting point).
Adopted in 1888, first for torpedoes and later as a shell filling.

The French Melinite and Japanese Shimose are similar. PA was the first
relatively shock-insensitive HE filler available, replacing black powder.

Don't know about the green. Reaction products or maybe a colorant.



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: Mike.Hoffmann@ap.mchp.sni.de (Mike Hoffmann)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Some other carrier questions
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:10:36 GMT
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG, AP 712


From Mike Hoffmann <Mike.Hoffmann@ap.mchp.sni.de>

Along the current discussion on carriers, I would also like to ask something.

When the Kitty Hawk was sent to the Gulf for the recent air strikes on Iraq,
some reporter spoke of her having just returned from a complete overhaul
and refitting, which made her the "most modern carrier in the US fleet".

To which I said "Huh?" 

So all ramblings of a reporter who probably couldn't tell an aircraft carrier
from a helicopter, I was wondering what he could have meant.

How would you measure the "modernity" of an AC? Many are already quite old
in terms of years, but I understand that they are kept up to date in onboard
systems.

COuld the Kittty Hawk be considered the most modern, even if it's "only" an
oil-powered carrier, due to the fact that in it's recent refitting it received
all the newest technology in radar, defence systems, etc.?

And how would other carriers rank? What distinguishes one from another (aside
from their Class)?

Someone wrote about checking Jane's... sorry, unavailable at any library
I checked here in Munich, and after getting the prices from Jane's in GB,
I decided that the books are just a bit *too* expensive right now.

Thanks
Mike
-- 
Mike Hoffmann - Internet Administrator, Siemens-Nixdorf AG, SNI AP 712  
INTERNET: Mike.Hoffmann@ap.mchp.sni.de
"I don't think we're in Riyadh anymore." - US-Marine in Somalia
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Bob Topping <thumper@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Ships bearing the name "Louisiana"
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:45:53 GMT


From Bob Topping <thumper@engin.umich.edu>


Howdy all--

  I'm trying to gather some information for a friend of mine regarding
US Navy ships bearing the name Louisiana.  These don't have to be completed
ships, they can be ships that were budgeted, but never built.            

You can either forward replys to my friend at: dave.caldwell@um.cc.umich.edu,
or to me, and I'll see that he gets 'em.

  Thanks in advance--
   Bob.


-- 
@ "Our lives are better left to chance;  ****      PLEASE!  E-Mail to:       @
@   I could have missed the pain, but    ****  bob.topping@um.cc.umich.edu   @
@   I'd have had to miss the dance."     ****  phy_astrclub@emunix.emich.edu @
@  Garth Brooks, The Dance.   @>-,'--    ****     :::RETURN OUR HURON!:::    @ 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (Dave Bonar)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Economics of Raising Units
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:06:34 GMT
Organization: News and Views from LSU


From Dave Bonar <eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu>


	Can anyone direct me to a good source for the economics of raising
and sustaining units (naval ships and/or regiments) in various nations
around the Napoleonic wars.  

Dave
__________
Dave Bonar
eebonar@lsuvax.sncc.lsu.edu
__________
From: system@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: SAM Site hit in N. Iraq
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:53:11 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From system@doc.bmd.trw.com

Passing this along.


 Posted: Thu, Jan 21, 1993   5:51 PM PST              Msg: WPJD-5068-5235/20
 To:     aerospace.daily/TRW
 Subj:   IRAQI SAM SITE is hit by U.S. planes in first military action of
         Clinton
 
  IRAQI SAM SITE is hit by U.S. planes in first military action of Clinton
Administration.



U.S. planes, in first action of new Administration, hit Iraqi SAM site
     A pair of U.S. aircraft attacked an Iraqi surface-to-air missile
site yesterday in the first military action of the new Clinton
Administration.
     The Pentagon said that a "hunter-killer" team of an F-4G fighter and
an F-16 fighter struck the site at 5:09 a.m. EST Jan. 21, just over 17 hours
after President Clinton assumed office.
     Secretary of State Warren Christopher said the new Administration
will protect American pilots despite a cease-fire declared by Baghdad the day
before the presidential inauguration.
     The two aircraft were escorting a French Mirage F-1 in a "routine
monitoring mission" north of the 36th parallel near Mosul when the planes were
fired on by anti-aircraft artillery, the Pentagon said. Because they were out
of AAA range, they did not return fire.
     Minutes later, however, the planes were "painted" by the Iraqi SAM
radar. The F-4G immediately fired an AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile
(HARM) at the site. The F-16 then attacked the missile site with cluster
bombs, but the Pentagon didn't immediately know the effects of the attack.
     The planes continued their mission "without further incident."
     The F-4G and F-16 "hunter-killer" concept was first tested in the
1980s as a way to get more effect from a limited number of dedicated F-4G Wild
Weasels. While The F-4G uses its radar and electronic warfare equipment to
"tease" enemy radars into turning on, the F-16 escort provides both cover and
additional weapons to fire at enemy SAM and AAA sites.
     Rules of engagement for coalition aircraft flying over Iraq permit
them to attack any radar or missile site which threatens them within either of
the two "no-fly" zones.
 
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stan Smith, Vax System Manager		|ssmith@oz.bmd.trw.com (801) 625-8163 |
TRW, Ogden Engineering Operations	+-------------------------------------+
1104 Country Hills Drive		| Opinions expressed, do not belong.  |
Ogden,  Utah       84403		| Defense, so we can have our Space.  |
					+-------------------------------------+
If we couldn't laugh, then we'd all go insane.                                |
				 Jimmy Bufffet (Changes in Latitudes)         |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MegaZone <megazone@realsoon.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:42:14 GMT


From MegaZone <megazone@realsoon.wpi.edu>

In article <C1F6zE.KuB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>> E-3   early warning radar plane

hehe... Wow, impressive. :-)

Just a correction, that is the E-2 Hawkeye, similar to the C-2 Greyhound.

The E-3 Sentry is the 707 based aircraft the press keeps calling the AWACS.
(Which annoys me, AWACS is a mission type. The E-2 and E-3 both do it, so
have several other aircraft like the EC-121, etc....)

###############################################################################
# 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: Ad absurdum per aspera <JTCHEW@lbl.gov>
Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:40:54 GMT


From Ad absurdum per aspera <JTCHEW@lbl.gov>

In article <C17vxH.FAo@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "david.r.wells"
<drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> wrote:

> But then, war broke out in Korea. Remember how successful the 
> B-36s were there? (Were they even used at all? Not to my knowledge!) 

First, one of the canonical phrases of sci.military: "My references are
at home."  :)  But I recall reading that our use of heavy bombers in
Korea was not a highlight of American military history, and will even
speculate that Gen. LeMay himself got off a wisecrack about "B-29s
chasing tanks down mountain roads."  It would have been in either 
Bill Yenne, _SAC_, or Max Hastings, _The Korean War_.  

Like a lot of people involved in that blood-soaked stalemate, LeMay 
(or whoever was quoted there) was pretty disgusted with the rules 
of engagement,  which, among other things, didn't allow strategic 
bombing of enemy airfields and logistics bases on the Chinese side.
Whether that's all for the better, especially considering how tickled
we apparently were with our five-year-old nuclear capability, is 
another question, perhaps better argued on soc.history. 

I think B-36s were reserved for the nuclear deterrent role during 
Korea, with B-29s (and possibly whatever that evolution of the B-29
was called) being used to drop iron bombs on Koreans, but don't 
bet the farm on my memories of what I read.

Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
From: CBTCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Seal Team Rebreathers
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:00:32 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


From CBTCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu

In article <C1H2D0.E3G@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Ephraim P. Hochberg"
<eph3@po.cwru.edu> says:
>
>Does anyone know how rebreathers work? All I know is that they act like
>SCUBA gear, but give off no bubbles. What kind of duration do they have?
>How expensive are they?
>
>                        Thanks,
>                                Ephraim Hochberg

Rebreathers (as the name implies) give off no bubbles because nothing is
expelled- you breathe the same air several (many?) times.  This is
accomplished by putting the air through a series of filters that scrub most/
all of the CO2 out of the mixture.  For a long time, the only use for
rebreathers was for short-range, covert missions; the filters were notoriously
inefficient.  Recently, though, my SCUBA instructor told me that he had
seen a rebreather rated at many, many hours.  This would presumably be used
mainly for very deep dives, where decompression stops are a must, or for
insertions onto shore, when the sub/ship/aircraft could not get
very close. Sorry I can't give more nuts/bolts, but I don't know 'em.  But
thinking about it, I wouldn't be surprised if activated charcoal was in there
someplace.  Isn't that what WW2 subs used to reduce CO2, when they had to
stay submerged for a long time?

Chris
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Vulcan Range (was: Tornado F3 replacement)
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:42:26 GMT


From Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)



griffith@acuson.com (Paul Griffiths) writes:

>Indeed the only time the lightblue crabs showed up was in a Vulcan 
>(there were three vulcan flights, each flight had to be refueled 10
>times to make the long flight) [...]


They had to refuel *10 times per flight?*  And the Vulcan was a *strategic
bomber?*  

I realize that it's a long way from Ascension Island to the Falklands, and 
that as far as the airplane's design range is concerned the UK is a lot 
closer to the former USSR than the US is, so the Vulcan didn't need the same
range capability as, say, the B-52.  But even so, five refuelings each way 
sounds like a hell of a lot for what I've always seen described as a long-
range bomber. 

What would the Vulcans have done in the event of nuclear war, stopped to 
refuel in Dresden, Warsaw, Minsk and Kiev on the way to bomb Moscow???

Seriously, though, this raises an interesting question with regard to the
Vulcan's role during the Cold War days.  If the USAF presumably had Moscow
and other major Soviet cities, ICBM sites, etc., covered, what would the 
RAF's nuclear force have been tasked with in the event of the unthinkable?



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller			+ + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM	+ + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
From: oml@eloka.demon.co.uk (Owen Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: af news svc 01/14/93
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:56:57 GMT
Organization: Eloka Consultancy & Project Management


From oml@eloka.demon.co.uk (Owen Lewis)

In article <C1F6yz.Kp9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> megazone@yoyodyne.wpi.edu writes:

>
>From MegaZone <megazone@yoyodyne.wpi.edu>
>
>In article <C1D89z.9H5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> patrick.eves@canrem.com (Patrick
> Eves) writes:

>Not necessary. If we were a bit smarter we'd support the ALARM missile from
>England. It has a variety of modes and is about the same size as the HARM.
>It has home on coordinates mode, locking the position into its guidance
>system. One mode is a boost to high altitude and then slow decent with a small
>parachute. Firing into a radar if it powers up. Plus the normal home on jam 
>and emiter modes. Seems like a good system.
>

SHRIKE= Go ballistic on radar switch-off .
HARM= Strike at pre-determined co-ordinates if radar switch-off.
ALARM= On radar switchoff climb, cut motor and deploy chute. During slow 
descent, scan for any radar emmission. If emission detected, then release
chute and go for it. If radars know that threat is still potent and remain 
silent for just a couple of minutes, attack a/c are through the danger zone.
SEAD is good. 
-- 
                               -= Owen Lewis =-
                                      @
Tele/fax     +44-(0)794-301731      ELOKA       Consultancy & Project Management
                            oml@eloka.demon.co.uk
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:02:59 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder


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

In article <C17vxC.F8y@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>I suspect many calibers couldn't be silenced effectively. I've never 
>heard of a silencer for an M-16, or anything else firing .223 Rem.

After I posted this, someone pointed out, in e-mail, that there is
a silencer for the M-14 (.308 Win). It has no effect at all on the
supersonic shockwave/report of the bullet, but apparently this
doesn't matter for military purposes: Unlike the noise produced
at the muzzel, the shockwave doesn't give away the location of the
sniper (I assume because it isn't produced at the sniper's location,
but along the line of fire.) With such a silencer, people would know
there was a sniper _somewhare_, but they wouldn't know where, exactly,
he was.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Frank Kastenholz <samsung!ulowell!vax.ftp.com!kasten@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: triremes
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., North Andover, Massachusetts
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:47:56 GMT


From Frank Kastenholz <samsung!ulowell!vax.ftp.com!kasten@uunet.uu.net>

In article <C15y9w.K6L@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mathers@sibelius.trl.OZ.AU (Steven Mathers) writes:

 > Does anyone know if ancient warships (triremes and the like approx 
 > 300bc-300ad) sailed the open sea, or just crept along the coastline?  
 > 
 > I know merchant ships of this period had the capability of sailing
 > from Rome to Alexandria in favorable winds, but I would have thought
 > that this kind of trip would be impossible or unbelieveably
 > foolhardy for a fleet of triremes.
 > 
 > Another fact I have in the puzzle is that Rome lost 2 seperate fleets
 > during the Punic wars just sailing from Siciliy to Carthage, so I would 
 > guess this would be about the longest open sea voyage that ancient
 > naval commanders would attempt.  But Im guessing.
 > 
 > Thanks for any help.

Most sea voyages at the time were limited to crossing open water at
restricted points or hugging the coastline/island hopping. The main
problem was navigation. Navigation for crossing open water consisted
primarily of pointing the bow in the direction that the Sun comes up
in the morning, or whatever, and praying to Neptune that you don't go
so far off course that you do not recognize the land that you reach.
When hugging the coast you could navigate by various landmarks
(hills, towns, etc).

If my memory serves, "Mapmakers" (a history of mapmaking) talks a bit
about this in the context of what ancient maps had on them, what they
were used for, etc, etc, etc.

--
Frank Kastenholz


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Subject: Re: FYI - According to WINGS ;-)...
Organization: Chevron
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:38:57 GMT


From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)

In article <C19o3F.3pB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene) writes:
|> In article <C143J3.2v6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes: 
|>>
|>> 72 F-16's were equiped with the LANTIRN pod during DS.
|>
|> I did't think we had this many LANTIRN sets; they're still in low-rate
|> production.

 I know LANTIRN has been available on the F-16C's for (5?) years.  I was
 working at General Dynmaics and watched them fitting the AFTI F-16 with
 a LANTIRN pod way back in '84-'85. 

 Remember, LANTIRN comes in two parts: the NAV pod and the TARGETING pod.
 While the NAV pod is relatively widely available, the TARGETING pod is
 not.

 Some sources say that only a handful of F-15E's had both pods during DS.
 Now, whether all 72 F-16s had both pods - I dunno.

 One source says:

 "When the F-15Es arrived in the Gulf, they were equiped with the LANTIRN
  navigation pod, which carries a radar and IR sensor.  Technical problems
  delayed deliveries of the associated targeting pod, so training on this
  system did not being in the US until several months after the Iraqi
  invasion of Kuwait."

 "Teamed with the high-resolution air-to-ground modes of the APG-70 radar,
  LANTIRN gives F-15E crews the ability to deliver ordnance at night with
  pinpoint accuracy.  Even without the targeting pod and its x17 magnifac-
  ation FLIR, crews had already demostrated an ability to toss a bomb to
  within 35ft (11m) of the target from a range of several miles, or perhaps 
  as close as 10 ft (3m) - the exact figure is classified - if prepared to
  overfly the target."


|> Don't believe everything you see on the Discovery Channel!

 Oh, I dunno...
 I tend to believe it a little more than alot of the "stuff" I see here! ;)
 Sometimes I'm even surprised by some of stuff that I write! ;)

 See ya!

 TRAVIS

 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jfb@ihlpl.att.com
Subject: Number Forty-Seven in the Series--Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (2 of 9)
Keywords: P-47C
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:31:00 GMT


From jfb@ihlpl.att.com

The P-47C was the next production version of the Thunderbolt.  It began 
to leave the production lines in September of 1942.  It was externally 
similar to the P-47B, but had the forward fuselage extended 8 inches 
at the firewall and was provided with a new engine mounting.  The 
rudder and elevator balance system was completely redesigned.  The 
forward-slanted radio antenna mast of the P-47B was replaced by a 
shorter upright mast.  Overall length was increased from 35 feet 3 1/4 
inches to 36 feet 1 3/4 inches.  Perhaps the most important change was 
the provision of under-fuselage shackles which permitted a 166.5 Imp.  
gall. drop tank to be carried.  This extended the range to 1250 miles 
at an altitude of 10,000 feet and a cruising speed of 231 mph.  

The P-47C-1-RE production block was powered by the same R-2800-21 
engine which powered the P-47B, but the P-47C-5-RE block had the 
R-2800-59 engine which could be provided with water injection 
capability, permitting a war-emergency power of 2300 hp to be achieved 
for a brief time at an altitude of 27,000 feet.  

602 P-47Cs were delivered by February 1943, when the improved P-47D 
replaced it on the production line.  

Serials of the P-47C were as follows: 

41-6066/6177 	Republic P-47C-1-RE Thunderbolt 
41-6178/6305 	Republic P-47C-2-RE Thunderbolt 
41-6306/6667 	Republic P-47C-5-RE Thunderbolt 

Specs of the P-47C-5-RE: 

Maximum speed was 433 mph at 30,000 feet, and 353 mph at 5000 feet.  
Initial climb rate was 2780 feet per minute.  An altitude of 15,000 
feet could be attained in 7.2 minutes.  Service ceiling was 42,000 
feet.  Range at maximum cruise power was 640 miles at 335 mph at 
10,000 feet.  Range with a 166.5 Imp. gall. drop tank was 1250 miles 
at 10,000 feet at 231 mph.  Weights were 9900 pounds empty, 13,500 
pounds normal loaded, 14,925 pounds maximum.  Wingspan was 40 feet 9 
3/4 inches, length was 36 feet 1 3/4 inches, height was 14 feet 1 3/4 
inches, and wing area was 300 square feet.  

Sources:

  American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 
  1982.  

  The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 
  1987.  

  War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William 
  Green, Doubleday 1964.  

  United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and 
  Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian, 1989.  

  Famous Fighters of the Second World War, Volume I, William Green, 
  1967.  

  Thunderbolt!, Robert S.  Johnson and Martin Caidin, Ballantine Books, 
  1958.  

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548

Newsgroups: sci.military