HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spencer@panix.com (David Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:37:55 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


From spencer@panix.com (David Spencer)

eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

>the environment is _very_ hard for ASW work. With a depth between 30
>- 100 meters, a lot of small islands, chasms, crags and brackish
>water the sonar performance is shot to hell. After you fired a weapon
>you have a hell of a time to re-acquire the target. The target can
>also lay down on the bottom, making it even harder to find it. All in
>all, it's not all that easy to find and kill something in
>archipelago.

In the WW2 submarine war against Japan, US sub commanders considered
shallow or restricted water to be suicide. Partly this was because,
until fairly late in the war, the Japanese set their depth charges too
shallow, so one could evade by going deep. But more important, because
Japanese subfinding technology was so primitive, the best tactic was
to run like hell as soon as the torpedo was out of the tube. Running
like hell is very difficult in shallow or restricted waters.

This is even more true now.  Now, the hunter at least has a chance of
acquiring the target in the first place. In WW2, the Japanese never
acquired it, in the current sense, at all. The subkiller would just go
to the general area and do an area-pasting for a couple of hours.
(Finding optimal searching and killing patterns was an important
impetus to early operations research; I believe von Neumann
contributed decisively to the Allied effort.)

I'm quite sure that _under wartime conditions_ the Swedes would have
gotten the sub. They'd have put in the same sort of effort that the
Japanese subkillers put in. The difference is that Japanese priorities
demanded that they spend a hundred depth charges in a systematic
effort to kill one sub. In the current environment, that would be
excessive for the Swedes.

Strategy is the extension of politics by other means, and politics is
the art of the possible. [Apologies to Clausewitz and Mayor Curley.]

dhs   spencer@panix.com
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>
Subject: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:32:48 GMT


From Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>


Discounting electronics and radar etc., just looking at the statistics and
performances in air show, one can easily believe that the Mig-29 has better
performance. Afterall, it is designed in response to the F16/F18 generation.
Aerodynamics-wise, the Russian is at least as good as anyone else.

As for how anything can be better than that coming out from the US terabuck 
industry, one should note that US put into their own SST (B2707) more than
twice as much as for the British and French to develop the Concorde and US
did not even produce a single flying prototype.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: paj <paj@gec-mrc.co.uk>
Subject: Dolphins at War?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:43:29 GMT


From paj <paj@gec-mrc.co.uk>


I have recently become involved in an argument on uk.misc about whether 
a dolphin might have been used in the Gulf War to blow up an Iraqi
oil installation.

I read a few bits and pieces about dolphins in military training many years
ago.  Does anyone know if this program ever existed, and if so has it
continued to the present?

Email me and I will summarise to the Net.

Thanks,

Paul.

Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: martin.briscoe@almac.co.uk
Subject: controversy over v-2
Organization: ALMAC BBS Ltd
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:35:28 GMT


From martin.briscoe@almac.co.uk



BH4Has anybody heard more detail?  Has the story appeared in print?

There was a lot in the press in the UK.  Partly because Germany in not
exactly the most popular country in the UK at present !

One BIG difference was that the V2 was built at the cost at many
1000's (if not 10,000's of slave labourers).  I just was watching the
report on TV news here of the "commemoration" ( as it is now called ),
and it said that despite promises there was still no recognition of the
people killed by the V2 and in its construction.

               Martin
---
 ~ 1st 1.01 #405 ~ Martin Briscoe - FORT WILLIAM - Inverness-shire - Scotland
--
ALMAC BBS Ltd. 0324-665371
Dos based USENET access,  call for details!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:36:21 GMT


From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>

checksix@EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) writes:

>"If you had only one plane to choose, and this plane had to 
> support all your air force functions, eg. CAP, CAS, surveilence,
> etc., what plane would you choose?"

All? Including transport? :-)

Seriously, what _sort_ of an air force should it equip, and
what budget would they have?

(>PS. They also asked for a couple of AWACS!!!

Most of us can't afford that, so I'd recommend buying Erieyes
and put on top of Metro III:s, Saab 340:s or Focker 50:s. (Now
I hear someone shouting: "Hey, that's AWACS too!". Not quite,
you have to take the 'C' for control away. But a flying radar
station is a good thing anyway.))

In any such case, when you ask "which is best?", you have
to specify the circumstances. Like:

What size and number of runways do you expect to have after
the shooting has started?
Which is most important: Low purchase price or low operating
costs?
Would you consider flying attack missions at 10 m, at night,
in bad weather: Necessary / Nice to have / Not needed ?
At what minimum range do you want to be able to see a fighter-
sized target by radar?
Have you a need for anti-shipping missiles.
Is air refueling capability: Needed / Nice to have / Not worth
the increased weight and cost ?
etcetera

So, you can't really say "best", unless you say "best for ... ".
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Info Request-Walter Soplata Collection
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:03:28 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


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

>From Greg Ervice <ervice@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
>
>Has anyone personally visited the Walter Soplata collection in Ohio?

(I doubt that there are two collections in the same area, so I'm
assuming that this is Soplata's collection.  I went to high school at
Newbury Park, CA, so the name Newbury, OH tends to ring a bell.)

Back in 1970 I flew from CA to NY in an Aeronca 7AC.  On the way back,
I stayed for a couple of days with friends near Cleveland, and they
took me out to Newbury to see the planes.

Everything out in the open, under trees, in and around some small
meadows.  I wouldn't want to make any bets on long-term survival of
anything I saw there, unless things have changed.

>Several references list him as having a fairly substantial collection, e.g,
>F2G Corsair, B-36 (incomplete), AD Skyraider, etc.  The collection has been
>pictured primarily in open fields near Newbury, Ohio.

I didn't see any (parts, even) of a B-36, but I do remember being very
impressed by an F-82 not too far from an F6F.

>I'm interested in an accurate list of his holdings and a short description
>of each a/c's condition.

Sorry, nothing useful, certainly not current.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ldoering@engin.umich.edu (Laurence Doering)
Subject: Aircraft fighting on both sides in WWII
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:49:39 GMT


From ldoering@engin.umich.edu (Laurence Doering)

In article <Bv3CoE.MrH@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu writes:
>
>From rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu
>
> 
>> 	2:  Is it true that this was the only a/c to have seen active
>> 		service on both sides of the war?  (Finland had some)
>
>It's true that Finland flew Buffalo's but they also flew some British
>aircraft and I think some of the other axis-minor countries flew British
>aircraft bought before the war.

I seem to recall that, during the Allied invasion of North Africa, there
was at least one dogfight between Vichy French and American P-40s.

Larry Doering
ldoering@caen.engin.umich.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jlsims@ucdavis.edu (Jonathan Sims)
Subject: New addition to McCllean AF base museum.
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:54:17 GMT


From jlsims@ucdavis.edu (Jonathan Sims)



   The air museum at McCllean AFB recently added an A-10 to the
collection but this is no ordinary A-10.  This particular A-10 is a
battle damaged verteran of Desert Storm with the Deser Strom markings and
 damage still visible on the aircraft. It's kind of fun to walk around
the plan and count all the holes.:) It's is amazing the plane made it
back to base let alone that is was made air-worthy again.

Jonatha Sims
jlsims@ucdavis.edu

P.S. Travis has also added a captured Iraqi Zsu-22 (I think that was the
designation) to its collection. Both museums are very nice (at Travis
you can stand under and look into a B-52).


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Lee Short <short@asf.com>
Subject: Re: Brewster Buffalo info
Organization: Hughes ASF, Minneapolis
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:36:54 GMT


From Lee Short <short@asf.com>


In article <Bv3CoE.MrH@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu writes:
>
>From rholmes@dhvx20.csudh.edu
>
> 
>> 	2:  Is it true that this was the only a/c to have seen active
>> 		service on both sides of the war?  (Finland had some)
>
>It's true that Finland flew Buffalo's but they also flew some British
>aircraft and I think some of the other axis-minor countries flew British
>aircraft bought before the war.
>

Others to be added to the list:

Yugoslavia (one of the Allies, albeit very briefly) had some Me 109's
and either some He 111's or Ju 88's.  I don't know for sure that any
of these actually got off the ground against the Luftwaffe.  

Various Italian aircraft types after the mainstream Italian forces
joined the Allies.  

Some French aircraft types used by Vichy forces against the Allies.
Included in this would be some of the Curtiss Hawk 75's sold by the US
to France.  

Quite possibly the axis minors that defected near the end of the war
used their aircraft against the Germans.  These would have included
a significant proportion of German-built aircraft.  

I realize this is a bit vague, but I have no references available.  

Lee
-- 
short@asf.com              I'll believe in Virtual Reality when they create 
Lee Short                             the first virtual beer.  
Software Janitor        I speak for none of the many steps in the food chain 
Hughes Training, Inc.         between myself and General Motors corporation.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: zrf00390@awssn7.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Michael Conz)
Subject: UN troops
Organization: Comp. Cent. University of Stuttgart (RUS), FRG
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:29:31 GMT


From zrf00390@awssn7.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Michael Conz)

Help !
I urgently need information about UN peacekeeping troops and where they are stationed througout the world.
Every information appreciated.
Please send your info to conz@rus.uni-stuttgart.de

Thanx a lot


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Conz
conz@rus.uni-stuttgart.de


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: sjameson@atl.ge.com (Stephen M Jameson)
Subject: Re: How Does Defcon system work?
Organization: GE Advanced Technology Laboratories
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:47:19 GMT


From sjameson@atl.ge.com (Stephen M Jameson)

In article <BvArtJ.9Ju@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> s462075d@edinboro.edu writes:
> 
> Can anyone out there tell me, is relativley laymans terms, how the U.S.
> DEFCON defense system works?  I know we start at DEFCON 5, but what happens
> at each level?
> 
> Also, whats the lowest we've ever gone, and when was it?
> 
> Does anyone know the names and number of steps the Soviets used?
> 
> What has changed now that we no longer keep bombers flying on alert
> constantly?
> 
> Thanks to anyone who can answer.

If anybody claims to know anything authoritative about such matters, and
actually provides such information, ignore it.  Specific information on DEFCON,
or whatever the real system is called, is going to be classified at an
extremely high level, and nobody who really knows anything is going to discuss
it in this forum.  DEFCON (as a generic term), is an extension of the general
Rules of Engagement category, which must be guarded more closely than most
technical information, for specific knowledge of such information can allow
your opponent to predict in advance precisely how you will respond to his
actions, something far more valuable than knowing the technical performance of
your radar or aircraft.  Example: suppose DEFCON 1 were the state at which we
were required to be in order to launch missiles, and the Albanians knew exactly
what the criteria were for going to DEFCON 1 and the limits of what action we
could take at DEFCON 2, and so on for DEFCON 3, 4, and 5.  Then they could, in
reasonable confidence, design their strategic weapons so that their
preparations for launch would keep us as low (close to 5) on the DEFCON scale
as possible, and thus achieve maximum possible strategic surprise.  This is the
greatest disaster imaginable to American military planners.

--
Steve Jameson                           General Electric Aerospace 
sjameson@atl.ge.com                     Advanced Technology Laboratories
                                        Moorestown, New Jersey              
****************************************************************************
**  . . . but I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow    **
**  for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.  I love only that   **
**  which they defend . . .                                               **
**    -- Faramir, "The Two Towers"                                        **
****************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: GLEN SEGELL <UDRJ004@ELM.CC.KCL.AC.UK>
Subject: F-16 VTOL
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:44:08 GMT


From GLEN SEGELL <UDRJ004@ELM.CC.KCL.AC.UK>

Two questions whose answers would be appreciated:

Rumour has it that a VTOL variant of the F-16 is being considered/developed,
is this accurate and at what stage is it ?

Are the US Marines planning to further develop their Harrier VTOL, or
replace them and if so what with ?

Glen Segell Department of War Studies King's College London
UDRJ004@ELM.KCL.CC.AC.UK

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Fleet effectiveness
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:36:08 GMT


From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>

This is a table that a comparision the German air force has done
to compare sugggested alternatives to EFA. "Fleet effectiveness"
is the number of aircraft that would be needed to do the same
job, "cost effectiveness" factors in the relative cost, and thus
shows "best buy".

It is unclear exactly what the requirement is, but it seems to
focus on air defence. As to what they mean with "cost", your
guess is as good as mine: Flyaway cost for a basic aircraft -- or
lifetime cost factored for its expected lifetime in service,
including pilot training and ground crew requirement, in which
case the expected attrition must be taken into account to
properly assign a "fleet effectivness" figure.

It should be no surprise that the EFA scores highest, as it was
designed to meet this requirement.

      Fleet   Relative  Cost
 effectiveness  cost    effectiveness

F-22    0.65    160%    1.04
EFA     1       100%    1
F-15F   1.1     106%    1.17  Still only a hypothetical aircraft
Rafale  1.23    100%    1.23
Tornado 2.35    100%    2.35  New radar/engines. Not as good as a F-4F even.
F-16C   2.75     57%    1.57
Gripen  3        64%    1.92  This low figure due to no radar AAM selected yet.
F/A-18E 3.38     87%    2.94  As you see, the -E is not that much better for
F/A-18C 3.86     73%    2.82  _German_ needs, and the -C "a better buy".
MiG-29  5.14     65%    3.34  Because it can only attack one target at a time.

On the face of it, it would seem like an aircraft with a "fleet
effectiveness" of 2, costing 50%, would be exactly as good a buy.
I would argue that it would be a _better_ buy, as you'd've
greater flexibility and less vulnerability to strikes when your
aircraft are on the ground, when their performance is irrelevant
(or maybe it isn't: Short turnaround times decreases
vulnerability, for example: <10 min for Gripen, 25 min for
MiG-29M). Or maybe this is already factored in...?

And if you think this is complicated: Remember it's only a brief
simplification of the numbers air staffs play around with, and
probably will not tell us about.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Info on India's military
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:44:38 GMT


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <Bv1IKq.2Eq@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, groy@ursp04.csb (Gautam Roy, CEB) writes:
> 
> From groy@ursp04.csb (Gautam Roy, CEB)
> 
> Hey guys, do anyone out there have some info on
> India's military. Statistics would be appreciated.
> Recommendation on books related to this subject
> would also be appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
See if you can find a library that recieves government documents.  There's a
publication called ``World Military Expenditures'' that will give you a good
statistical breakdown of what the Indians are buying and from whom.
 
Janes' Fighting Ships for 1992 will give you the entire Indian Naval register,
i'm not sure where you would go for land forces however.  Poke around in the
government docs a little though, and i'll bet you will find a DoD or State
report on the military balance in the region.  The taxpayers pay people to know
this stuff, and all of the non-classified material gets sent to Federal
Depository Libraries across the country (mainly at Land, Sea or Space Grant
Universities like mine.)  Might as well use it, since you payed for the
research to be done.  :)

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bhanafee@deimos.ads.com (Brian Hanafee)
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mountain View, CA 94043, +1 (415)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:28:50 GMT


From bhanafee@deimos.ads.com (Brian Hanafee)


In article <BvE5J9.2I6@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>Another thing, the soviets were clearly superior to us in a number of
>metallurgical innovations not the least of which was their titanium hulled
>submarines. We never did develope a matching capability there so I would
>think it's a *least* one example of where the soviets were superior to
>anything the West had.

   While I don't disagree that the Soviets are ahead of the US in some
areas of metallurgy, the particular example you chose is off the mark.
The simple reason that the Soviets have been able to put out titanium
subs is that the Soviet Union has large titanium deposits.  The US
doesn't, consequently titanium is much more expensive here.
   I believe that powder metallurgy is (or was) a better example of
Soviet technological superiority.

-- Brian
--
Brian Hanafee                         Advanced Decision Systems
bhanafee@ads.com                      1500 Plymouth Street
(415) 960-7300                        Mountain View, CA 94043-1230

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: v-2 other missiles
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:38:39 GMT


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

In article <BuoGG8.8yy@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> donner!ejdath@uunet.UU.NET (25832-dath) writes:
>
>From donner!ejdath@uunet.UU.NET (25832-dath)
>
>After reading all this stuff about the V-2's I remembered seeing a film about
>a pilot guided (bombadier guided?) cruise type anti-shipping missile that the
>germans used.  It even said that some of these had television cameras in the
>nose..ala some modern missiles.  Does anyone have any details?  
>
Perhaps you refer to the FX-1400, A.K.A "Fritz X". This was a glider bomb.
It was a big thing, on the order of 10000 pounds. Sank the Italian 
battleship Roma as it was on its way to surrender. (probably a lucky hit,
which started a fire, & detonated the magazine.) Damaged the old British
BB Warspite, and an American cruiser. It was radio controlled from the
mother aircraft. Once the Allies learned to jam the radio frequency, it
lost all its effectiveness.

				David R. Wells

DISCLAIMER: Any opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those
of AT&T (or anyone else for that matter)
From: bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Advanced WWII German Tanks
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:42:33 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX


From bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden)


In article <BvAsEF.AF0@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> akula@ecst.csuchico.edu (Guo Han-Zhang) writes:
>
>From akula@ecst.csuchico.edu (Guo Han-Zhang)
>
>I've never seen any of these tanks in any books. In the game's data, the E-50
>has a 88mm/L71 main gun and is faster than the Phanther, the E-75 has a 128mm 
>gun , seemed like the one used on Jadgtiger. The Panther II also has the same
>88mm/L71 used on King Tiger. Could anybody tell me where can I find the refer- 
>ences of those tanks /* if they really existed */ ? Any help will be appreciated.

	Aside from the E-100 and the Panther II, I don`t believe that any
    of these designs were produced. The E-100, I believe, Is the Maus.
    The Panther II was an up-gunned Panther, with increased commanality 
    with the Tiger II components.

	I believe that Schliffer Books "The Panther Family" and "German
    Heavy Tanks" will describe these tanks. Also check out "The Tiger
    Family" by Schiffer Books. 

	A good plastic model hobby store will carry these books at about
    $8.00 US each.




							Bruce



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bruce Burden
  bruceb@mpd.tandem.com
  Tandem Computers Inc.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Black Sea Fleet question
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:32:12 GMT


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

Hi there,

	I need a little information on the current status of the former Soviet
(now Russian/Ukrainian) Black Sea Fleet.  I'm working on a paper on the likely
outcomes of the costody dispute (final settlement of which has been postponed
to 1995) and I need to know what kind of condition the Fleet is in. 
Particularly, I remember hearing that several major surface comatants have been
laid up due to lack of spares, crews etc.  Can anyone give me more details?  I
would really like to have a source that I can cite and/or quote.   
Please respond by e-mail.  

Thanks in advance.
-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Whenever you're holding all the cards why does everyone else turn
out to be playing chess?"

Newsgroups: sci.military