HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
Subject: Re: Carrier Fighters (was: is the A-10 going bye-bye?)
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:33:26 GMT


From jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)

In article <BuBL67.FMG@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>With the demise of the US Navy's AX (?) program (the advance tactical bomber
>based on stealth technology), there will not be a replacement aircraft for the 
>venerable A-6.  All A-6's are coming up on their end of life due to the
>buildup of stress in the airframes making them more and more dangerous to 
>fly.  Whether the ATF (advance tactical fighter) will meet the same fate is
>not known.  If this program is cut due to budget or does not meet its time
>commitments, then there will not be a replacement for the F-14 when their
>airframes reach their limit.  So basically, the naval air community is in
>great dissarray over its future direction due to this clear danger for not
>having a modern fighter or bomber at the end of this century.

	I heard a few years ago from a reliable source that at some time in the
	early '90s the USnavy would start production of the " F14-D " and the
	" A6-F ", have both of these projects 'sunk'? 	If such planes are in 
	fact an improvement on the earlier models, then they would still be
	adequate for the carriers for the next ten years at least, that is 
	few planes would even compare with them even around the year 2000 odd.

>The Navy will also start loosing their E-2 Hawkeyes and there is no 
>replacement plane for this either.  The Navy may well become dependent on Air
>Force ACWS (?) planes for an air-borne warning system or hope that the Ageis 
>system is as good as the magazine ads say for the detection of low flyers 
>that, in the past, the air-borne radars were better at seeing.

	Also heard of a proposal called E7 to replace the E2, but maybe it was
	just wishfull thinking.
									jd.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)
Subject: Re: New Stealth Plane
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:35:04 GMT


From rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)


I remember reading in the Time magazine about a top secret stealth plane 
Lockheed was testing over California.  Does anyone know anymore information
about that plane.  Also the magazine said it was travelling at supersonic 
speeds making local residences homes shake.  Yet I remember someone telling me 
it was against FAA regulations to travel at supersonic speeds over the U.S.  
What am I missing?


				Rob
From: quirk%pioneer.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:05:49 GMT
Organization: Nit-Pickers for a Better Tomorow Afternoon


From quirk%pioneer.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk)

In article <BuBLLC.GB3@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:
>I have read a lot of articles about the V-2 rocket.  Wow!  I can't believe 
>those Germans could acquire space age technology.  I read articles about the
>mass destruction it did to London.  Why didn't the Germans just concentrate 
>all of their production efforts to building the V-2 and attacking London as
>opposed to even getting involved with a situation like the Battle of Britain.

Let's get some historical perspective here.

The Battle of Britain too place from May to September of 1940 as the
Luftwaffe tried to gain air superiority over the channel in order to
launch the invasion of the british isles.

If memory serves, the V-weapons weren't being designed until 1942 or
so.  By then the idea of invading England had been put off
indefinitely.

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  quirk@pioneer.unm.edu
 I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                          what I have now...
Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  French Battleships
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:25:33 GMT


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


Does anyone know of a decent reference dealing primarily or exclusively
with French preDreadnought battleships (DANTON class and earlier).

Language is not a problem for me. Thanks in advance.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
Protect the Second Amendment - boycott Ruger products
"That's not true," Bill hissed to his lawyer. "The facts are-"
"Don't worry about facts, Bill, no one else here does. Facts can't
alter this case."       -"Bill the Galactic Hero" Harry Harrison

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:33:05 GMT


From d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)


In article <BtyIKs.8zo@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:
>Why is the top of a tank still the weakest point?

  The thickness of different part of the tank is most not a question of 
"what do we want there" but "what *can* we put there" due to weight and other
limitations.
  Most modern tanks have very heavy armour on the glacis (front of the hull)
and the front of the turret, medium on the sides and light on top and bottom.
This is mostly due to weight constraints: having a 100mm thick glacis weighs
much less than a 100mm thick bottom, top side or back simply because the
top and bottom are large slabs while the glacis is small.
  The glacis is usually angeled so that a penetrator have to pass through
more than the 100mm in this example, and it isn't feasible to angle the top
or bottom(1) to defeat attack from above or below without making the tank
more vulnerable to 'normal' horizontal attacks.

  The total weight of the tank is a big issue too: It is one of the things 
that determines it's top speed and ground pressure. So a tank has to be made
as light as is possible to do while it still is capable of performing it's 
mission.

>With the advent of
>tank killing helicopters, airplanes, self- forging munitions, and
>Cessna pilots armed with Super-soaker water guns, I'd think that this
>would no longer be the case.

  It is probable that the top and bottom protection of tanks can be 
increased slightly by increasing the armour thickness and significantly by
adding things like reactive armour, but it will still be much thinner than
the frontal armour.

  One also have to remember that the top of a tank is usually a much harder 
target than the front (or the sides). Any old gun can hit the front, but
to hit the top you have to place the gun in a plane (A-10), or use a missile
or some other kind of smart munition. This means that armour protection
(passive or reactive) isn't the only way the top can be protected. We will
likely see an increase in AAA (to keep the aircrafts and choppers away)
and ECM and various countermeasures (to fool missiles and smart munitions).

>David L. Smith
>smithd@discos.com or davsmith@nic.cerf.net

-bertil-
(1) Yes, there are AT mines that use shaped charges to punch through the bottom
    of a tank.
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
"This is the famous Hasan B Mutlu-trigger, insert it in your .sig file today!"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Subject: Re: Expansionist China
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:36:53 GMT


From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)


In <BuDFCG.G8K@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> spencer@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Greg Spencer) writes:


:From spencer@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Greg Spencer)

:Reading the local papers here in Australia I am getting the feeling that
:the region is becomming more and more unstable. Tiawan has just bought a
:how pile of F-16`s china is buying heaps of Russian military equipment
:including fighters aircraft carriers etc etc.  Also the is a land dispute 
:over some small island between china Taiwan and Indinesia.  China has 
:allready stationed troops on them and claiming ownership and the dispute 
:could quite easily esculate!  The problem is that if it did, it would 

Agree, but I think any conflict would be only a limited one.  They are
disputing over the islands in the South China Seas because of possible
oil.  There had been conflicts before.  I remember when I was a kid in
Hongkong there were reports of South Vietnamese naval ships fighting
with Chinese ships.  

China's navy is still not a blue navy and I doubt if they really
wanted to get involve in any major conflict.  Another major point
you got to remember is that China is very dependent on investments
from countries such as Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore.  Yes, on the
surface China would scream and yell about the F16s but in reality
there is not much they can do.  China has a large trade surplus
with the U.S. and it would not in China's interest to increase the dispute over
the F16 issue.

--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Use of WWII Era Small Arms In Yugoslavia
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:09:19 GMT


From cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)

As quoted from <Bu9I0p.Gz4@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> by gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu:

> My Question is this : Are the MP-40'S, MG34 and 42 machine guns war surplus
>  or did the former Yugoslavian Federal Government take up production of
>  these designs after WWII? Or have they been imported from else where in
> the Balkens or central Europe ?

The MG42 is the standard GPMG of the former Yugslav Federal Army, cal. 7.92x
57.  The other things are reserve weapons reworked and put into storage by the
former Yugoslav government.  I own one of the "Preduzece 44" marked 98ks.  An
excellent rework job was done.  I wouldn't hesitate to trust my life to it...
assuming something newer wasn't available... I'd actually rather have it than
an M16A1.  A truly incredible trigger pull too....



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
"It's 11:59pm, do you know where your congressman's checkbook is?"
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Christopher Morton
{uunet|backbone}!ncoast.org!cmort                      cmort@ncoast.org

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Expansionist China
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:15:54 GMT


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <BuKo4A.9vJ@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rah@rampart.pa.dec.com (Robert Holt) writes:
> 
> From rah@rampart.pa.dec.com (Robert Holt)
> 
> How well do Oz and Taiwan get along? Maybe the Asean states,
> Oz, NZ, Taiwan, Vietnam, and South Korea need their own little
> 'NATO' to keep an eye on things.
> /*-------------------------------------------------------+
>  | Robert Holt - Digital Equipment Corp - Palo Alto, CA. |
>  | Internet: rah@rampart.pa.dec.com                      |
 
The PRC isn't historically expansionist.  Their adventures in Tibet, India, the
Soviet Union, and Vietnam all had good (to the Chinese) reasons, and they only
stayed in Tibet because they consider it part of historical China. (i think
that's why they were reluctant to condemn Iraq for trying to reclaim their 19th
province in Kuwait...)  i don't see this changing in the near future.
 
Taiwan isn't expansionist (apart from dreaming about the mainland) either, and
maintains reasonable relations with most of it's neighbors.

Besides the Spratley's, there really isn't much of a problem in SE Asia right
now.  Barring something bizzare happening, ASEAN shouldn't have to worry too
much about military adventures.  And even a short war in the Spratley's would
most likely be very short, and very decisive.  Since the PRC all ready has
people there, i would guess that the Spratley's are now de facto PRC territory. 
And i don't see anyone in SE Asia in a position to challenge that with any
seriousness, exept in court.  (That could change if Australia ever acquired a
real carrier and some amphibious shipping, i suppose.)

Just some random musings, feel free to flame away.  :)
 
James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cbarilleaux@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Cyberpreppie)
Subject: Re: Stealth power failure
Organization: The CyberSwamp
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:05:16 GMT


From cbarilleaux@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Cyberpreppie)

In article <BuBLKJ.G89@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
> In article <Bu9H6p.Euz@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:
>>Speaking about the stealth, I was wondering exactly how the F117 stealth 
>>flies.  Yes, I have heard that on board computers adjust the surfaces of the 
>>plane, but I don't understand what parts of the surface and what happens 
>>if there is an engine mailfunction and the power shuts down?  Sounds kind
>>of far fetched, but I am wondering.  Any answers would be appreciated.
> 
> The real details are probably classified, so I'll guess.
> 
> Modern computers don't consume very much power.  It would be a simple matter
> to build in a battery backup to run the thing for 30 minutes after a power
> failure.  
> 
> The problem you would have is what actually moves the control surfaces.  At
> a guess, I'd say it's hydraulics (but it could be electrical).  You can
[lotsa hydraulic speculation deleted]
I don't know either, but I think a precident was missed:
	
	The F-16 uses a fly-by-wire system like the F-117, though it is not
NEARLY as computer dependent as the F-117. So, a simple question is: what does
an F-16 pilot do if his power goes out.
	As I recall, the F-16's control surfaces are moved by electrical servo
moters. So, having power out is just a tad bit of a problem.
	If I remember correctly,  the A-6 has some sort of system wich
a "windmill" can be deployed to generate backup power. Am I right? Do other
aircraft use such a system.
	The poster also mentioned that it was probalby advisable to jump out
rather than land in enemy territory for security reasons. This reminds me of
something I read in victor Belenko's biography. The MiG-25 was equiped with
some sort of mechanism that would set off explosives in secret sections of the
plane. The pilot was supposed to press a red button, then eject--a delay was
placed to allow the pilot adiquate time to bail out. 
	At least that's what they told the pilots...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Charles Barilleaux III                 occasionally know at Miami Univ
CBARILLEAUX@MIAVX1.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU         as Cyberpreppie.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:55:03 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au


> Germany designed one monster during WWII which weighed 128 tons (der
> Maus??). About all you can say on its ability is that it *did* move
> under its own power. It never made production. But it moved with 1945
> era engines (if I remember correctly, they used a U-boat diesel).

>From memory three prototypes went into combat on the Western front.  It weighed 
approx 100 tons and had a 128mm gun.  It's top speed was 7mph and it used 3
U-boat diesels.  Due to its low speed and manouvreability it was easily
outflanked and destroyed at a later date.  Basically it was ignored because
everything else just avoided it.  I read somewhere that Rocket equipped
typhoons got one, some sappers with a demolition charge got another and the
third was abandoned.

> 
> If you're willing to make sacrifices in top speed, you can add plenty of
> armour.

As the Germans found in the Ardennes with their King Tigers this lack of speed
is extremely costly.  Modern warfare demands speed above all else - penetration
to rear areas, spread of confusion, breaking up the opposing forces defences. 
If you can't do this then you have a much harder fight on your hands.  Remember
the Iraqi's escaping the encirclement in Desert Storm?  The slower yougo the
less chance you have of either completeing your encirclement or alternatively
of withdrawing.  Maybe a lot of the current situation could have been avoided
if we had gone for the toital victory and not been halted by political
pressures etc.  With the advantage the Allied forces had they should have been
able to complete their encirclement.  Why they didn't is just so much
speculation.
 
> 

> The primary reason for the current limits on maximum tank weights are
> not technology limitations. Very simply, tanks, like other vehicles, move
> best by road, and neither European nor American roads will support loads
> greater than about 90 tonnes. In fact, most culverts and bridges in Germany
> are limited to 60 tonnes for tracked vehicles (at least, that's the most
> common figure I saw on the abahn signs).

And we need to go off road to fight.  Have you ever seen a photo of the King
Tigers lined up before the Ardennes offensive?  They had already started to
sink into the ground (about 6" or so) and with a tempting target like that they
would not have been there too long or else the figther bombers etc wouldhave
attacked them.

regs

Rob


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:00:32 GMT


From skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)

umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian) writes:


>From umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian)


>   During the early days of the strategic bombing campaign against Germany
>during WWII, the USAF did not have fighter aircraft with sufficient range
>to escort the B17s and B24s on deep penetration missions. Did the concept
>of in-flight refueling ever occur to anyone back then? It wouldn't have
>been too difficult to stick some bomb bay tanks into a '17 or Lib and let
>the P-38s and Thunderbolts take a drink now and then. I think someone must
>have thought of the concept as far back as the 1920s or 30s and yet, at least
>in the USAF, the earliest experiments to my knowledge took place in the
>1950s. Anyone care to share some insight on the origin of in-flight
>refueling (and why it wasn't used during WWII) ?

>Curt

I am not sure about other nations but the US did conduct in-flight
refuelling experiments in the 30's using (naturally) propeller driven
planes - though I don't know the extent of these trials. The refuelling
plane would fly parallel and atop the other whilst dropping the hose
over the side and the replenishment would occur in the aft section. I
seem to recall a picture of a two-seater with the gunner/observer doing
the work.

--

=================================
skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca
St. John's, NF, CANADA
From: eclipse@unixland.natick.ma.us (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: 40mm grenades (was Re: Let's talk REAL..)
Followup-To: rec.games.frp.misc
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix & Think_Tank BBS
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:26:40 GMT


From eclipse@unixland.natick.ma.us (Mark Urbin)

In article <1992Sep13.161452.918@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>	There are a boatload of different munition types for the 40mm grenade.
>There is either a HEDP or HEAT (I think the first) that has some effectiveness
>against *light* armor, like a APC. There is (or was, before the M203 launcher)
>a 'shot' round, which made the grenade launcher (M-79) a big shotgun. There
>might even be 'stun bags' (sealed first-sized bags filled with sand or
>something similar) for very special purposes.
   I noted that the flechette round for the 40mm GL was missing from TW:2000
rules.  From what I've read, such rounds were popular with M-79 users in Viet-
Nam.  Does the US military still issue such a round.  If so, what are the
stats for such a round?  Range, munition dispersal and what not.
  Please note cross posting to Sci.military with follow set to 
Rec.games.frp.misc.
>
>Brandon Cope
>


-- 
eclipse@unixland.natick.ma.us  a.k.a. Mark Urbin  These Opinions are mine.  
"There are going to be situations where people are going to go without
assistance.  That's just the facts of life." ex-LA Chief of Police, Gates.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: Use of WWII Era Small Arms In Yugoslavia
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:59:28 GMT


From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)

In article <Bu9I0p.Gz4@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu writes:

>My Question is this : Are the MP-40'S, MG34 and 42 machine guns war surplus
> or did the former Yugoslavian Federal Government take up production of
> these designs after WWII? Or have they been imported from else where in
>the Balkens or central Europe ?

I can't speak for all of these designs, but Hogg & Weeks says that the
MG42 is manufactured in Yugoslavia as the Mitrajez M53.

  "During the second world war and afterwards the Yugoslavian Army
   acquired numbers of German MG42 machine-guns. They were so satisfied
   with these that when they began to wear out they simply copied them,
   called them their M53, and have continued to use them ever since."

One of the other two machinegun designs listed (the Mitrajez M72) is an
apparent adaptation of a Kalashnikov design, but the Pusko Mitrajez Models
65A and 65B appear to be home grown.

The Yugoslav assault rifles listed are based on the Automat Kalasnikov; the
Automat 64 being a direct copy and the 64A, 64B, and 70 models containing
slight modifications to the design.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    |
George Patterson -  | Americans are crazy. They drive on parkways
                    | and park in driveways.
                    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: engp1186@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau)
Subject: Re: Bikini Islands
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:26:09 GMT


From engp1186@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau)

Robert L Williamson (rlwst8+@pitt.edu) wrote:
: 
: From rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)
: 
: 
: I use to love reading about the Bikini islands tests in the mid 50's and
: the early part of the 60's.(what a great way to let out our frustrations 
: on the Japanese and Germans).  I' am not a big proponent of nuclear warfare
: howver but i was wondering what ever happened to the Bikini Islands?  Are they 
: still dangerously radioactive?
: 
There is an article in a recent issue of the "National Geographic" magazine.
I think it is the May issue.  The radiation level is quite low now.

Won-Soon Lau
-- 
VLSI DESIGN & CAD LABORATORY          \  Internet: engp1186@nuscc.nus.sg
Dept of Electrical Engineering         \  Bitnet:  ENGP2065@NUSVM.bitnet      
National University of Singapore        \  Phone:  (+65) 772 6319       
10, Kent Ridge Crescent. Singapore 0511. \______________________________

Newsgroups: sci.military