HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)
Subject: Re: Naval trivia
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:43:41 GMT


From yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)

In article <BzB9L3.y8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> CJohn Mace <zcjm0f@hou.amoco.com> writes:
>
>From CJohn Mace <zcjm0f@hou.amoco.com>
>
>	[stuff deleted]
>
>[mod note -- I wasn't aware that the U.S. Navy had a Trident class sub.
>The 2 main classes I'm aware of at the current time are the Ohio, a Fleet
>Ballistic Missle (FBM) sub carrying the Trident D-5 SLBM, and the Los
>Angeles class attack sub 
>

They are one and the same.  The Ohio Class subs are sometimes called Trident
subs since they carry the Trident missile.

>Steve]
>
>Battlewagons: (heavily armored Iowa Class)
>	1) number produced by the US

	4 (Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin) with 2 hulls scrapped at
	about 50% completion (I can get the names).
	
>	2) date first set sail

	circa 1943 (again, I can check my book at home).

>	3) number active

	0

>	4) number scrapped

	0

>	5) number mothballed

	4 - but we're very fond of bringing them back when they're needed.
	I think the Iowa class BB's have been de/re-commissioned up to 4
	times each (some only once - I can't remember specifics).

>
>[mod note -- 4 Iowas were built -- Iowa, Missouri, New Jersy, and
>Wisconson.  First sailed during WW-II (early 1944 or thereabouts).  I thing
>that during the Reagan years all 4 were re-commissioned, none were
>scrapped, and all 4 are heading back to the mothball fleet.  On a side
>note, does anybody out there have any information on what the U.S. Navy has
>in mothballs in the way of surface combatants?
>
>Steve]
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
>any help is greatly appreciated!
>cjohn mace
>zcjm0f@hou.amoco.com
>	
>
>

- Craig

-- 
Craig Huffnagle				      	      yukyuk@yuck.lanl.gov
"My mom always said that rain was God crying,
	She also said it was because of something I did."      Jack Handey
------------------- Think of a disclaimer, it applies. -------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: seb@tadtec.co.uk
Subject: Rapiers in the USAF
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:43:33 GMT


From seb@tadtec.co.uk

The Rapier batteries deployed to defend the US forces in the UK are manned
by RAF Regiment soldiers, NOT the British Army.  The Rock Apes, as the
Regiment are affectionately known (from their long association with
Gibralta) are used to defend RAF stations.  It was part of the deal
involving the bases that the British would provide air defence, Rapier &
the RAF Regiment were selected to fulfill this requirement.  I believe that
the USAF paid for the Rapiers, however.

I also think you will find that the USAF bases are all called "RAF ..." eg
RAF Mildenhall, even though only USAF aircraft are based there.  That's
what I seem to remember from driving past the main gates & also local
newspaper comments (I'm at work, so I don't have access to my program from
the Mildenhall airshow of a few years back)

Steve Barber



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Robb Pryor <robbp@healey_haven.esd.sgi.com>
Subject: German Navy Surface Units in WWII
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:33:57 GMT


From Robb Pryor <robbp@healey_haven.esd.sgi.com>

The threat to commerce shipping posed by Germany's heavy surface units
tied up a lot of Allied Naval resources.  Several of Germany's surface
raiders were able to get past the British blockade and out into the 
shipping lanes, generating lots of press and achieving some measure of
success.  Other units of the Navy were employed in a manner that could
best be described as tentative, with poor results.  The successfull
cruises have been well documented in terms of number of Allied ships 
sunk and tonnage lost.

I'd like to know how they compared to average individual cruises by
U-boats.

Also, I'd like to know if Germany ever ran active U-boat campaigns
against Britian's Naval units like the ones it waged against commercial
shipping.

It would seem that if several British surface naval resources
were stretched sufficiently by such a campaign, the job of the German
surface raiders becomes easier and they would become more effective.
I do know that the Germans were able to torpedo a couple of large British
units, so it would appear that Britian's heavy units were vulnerable to
such attacks.
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
Robb Pryor			E-mail:robbp@healey_haven.sgi.com
VLSI Group, DSS			Voice: (415)390-1230
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		US Mail: 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.,
M/S: 1L-245			Mountain View, CA 94039




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: kash1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz(Kemp Ashby)
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Computer Science Dept. University of Auckland
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:33:11 GMT


From kash1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz(Kemp Ashby)

In <Bz9EzI.6M5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za> writes:


>From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>

>Prompted by the current fasinating history of the Bell Airacobra...

>I hereby nominate the following as the worst and most dangerous (to 
>their aircrews) fighters on the Allied side in WW2

>1. Brewster Buffalo -- so bad that it deserves a class all of its own.

>2. Bell Airacobra -- for all the reasons that Joe advances.

How about the Gloster Gladiator, Boulton-Paul Defiant, and Russian I-16?
I'm sure there are a host of others!
						Kemp.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:25:25 GMT


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

In article <Bz06Eq.E8M@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:
>
>
>#Much armour was sacrificed, but put back later, with the exception of the
>#decks, which was of course how she was lost. Consequently HOOD was rather
>#slow for a BC at 28 knots because of the extra weight (tacked on after
>#Jutland while HOOD was abuilding).

The Hood could crank up 32 knots in good weather. 30 was more realistic.

>
>HOOD was laid down on either 31 May or 1 June 1916, I forget which, but
>it was at the same time of the battle. Consequently she was a better
>candidate for design upgrade than RENOWN/REPULSE. She was probably as
>thin-skinned originally as they were.

The Hood had 12" sloped belt armor. Not bad at all, especially for the day.
The real problem was the deck armor. In WWI, they assumed low angle guns,
about 15 degrees of elevation. Deck armor was not a major consideration.
The Hood's deck armor was typical for a WWI BC, but hopelessly inadequate
by WWII, when battleships typically had 30-45 degree elevation. (And then
there's that small problem of aircraft!)
>
				David R. Wells

			(speaking only for himself)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Neil A Kirby <nak@cbvox.att.com>
Subject: M1 Ammunition - no beehive?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:30:43 GMT


From Neil A Kirby <nak@cbvox.att.com>

In article <BzD4Lv.ILD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd) writes:
>
>From Daniel F Boyd <boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu>
>
>In article <Bz9FGA.7EJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> eachus@oddjob.mitre.org
>(Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>> [...] I don't think they ever developed a 105 mm cannister
>> round.  (I know there is no US 120 mm cannister.)  This seems sort of
>> stupid, as one reason M48s were so useful in Vietnam was the cannister
>> round.
>
>Why don't we have a canister round for the M-1?  It seems like such a
>simple thing to not have!  How expensive could it be to develop a
>canister round?
>
>There are times when a 120mm smoothbore Rheinmetall cannon is really
>just a big shotgun.

Count the ammo stowage capability of an M1 and you get the answer fast.
When your job is killing T80's losing a sbot round for a beehive round
doesn't make lots of sense.  That Bradley near by is not going to be able
to kill T80's very well, but it can shoot up the thin stuff pretty well.

*IF* the M1 with 120mm had a larger ammo store, a variety of rounds make
sense.  120mm rounds are big.

Neil Kirby

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Saturday, 12 December, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:22:05 GMT


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

Saturday, 12 December, 1942

Field Marshal von Manstein launches Operation Winter Storm, the effort to
relieve the Stalingrad Pocket.  Spearheaded by the 57th Panzer Corps
attacking from Kotelnikovo, the attack achieves initial surprise and
makes good progress.

Italian frogmen and midget submarines sink four Allied transports in
Algiers harbor.

The Japanese navy recommends the evacuation of Guadalcanal, citing the
many ships lost in efforts to supply the troops there.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker   Moderator, sci.military  military-request@att.att.com
(614) 860-5294      Send submissions to military@att.att.com

  "Lieutenant, what would you say to our swapping you and your driver
for cigarettes?  We're a bit short at the moment."
  "Good idea," he said.
  "How many cigarettes do you think you are worth, what should I suggest to
your commander?"
   His answer came without hesitation: "A million cigarettes, that's
100,000 packets."
   My radio officer made contact with the Royal Dragoons, and I passed on
our offer.
  "Sorry, we're a bit short ourselves, but we could offer 600,000
cigarettes.  Come in, please."
   To my great astonishment, I received a flat refusal from the young
lieutenant.
  "Not one cigarette less than a million, that's final!" was his answer.
So the young man had to pay for the high value he set on himself with
captivity.

- Colonel Hans von Luck, describing negotiations with the British in Libywa
after his unit captured the nephew of an owner of the Player's
cigarette company
Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Battleship Diplomacy
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:43:36 GMT


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


Jan Mattsson writes:
#This reminds me that I read somewhere about Tirpitz firing its main guns
#against attacking bombers. Does anyone know the maximum elevation of
#Tirpitz' guns?

30 degrees. Found this in 3 sources.




David R. Wells writes:
#Further, (I'm assuming you are talking about the Yamato) the 460mm guns
#could NOT elevate to 70 degrees. 45 degrees, according to every source I've
#ever read. Have you got any documentation to back up your claim?

I suspect the original poster confused details of the YAMATO's main battery
with the fact that Japanese destroyer main guns (140mm?) could elevate to
70 degrees, apparently higher than most DP guns of similar size.


#There is a grain of truth here though. The Japanese actually did have anti-
#aircraft rounds for the 460mm guns. Apparently, it was supposed to work
#sort of like a shotgun. The Germans had the same idea. Didn't seem to
#help though.

It was an incendiary shrapnel projectile. Following functioning of a time
fuze the incendiary fragments were propelled forward like the balls in a
shrapnel munition. Sort of like a shotgun :)


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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Cobalt bomb?  _What_ cobalt bomb?
Keywords: bomb
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:20:25 GMT


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

In article <Bz3uxE.2nA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Gary Toshio Sunada <sunadg@rpi.edu> writes:
>	Just recently I encountered something interesting in a conversation concerning nuclear weaponry: the cobalt bomb.  What in the world is a cobalt bomb, and why can't I find any references to it?

It's fairly evil and malicious, so I doubt anyone ever (officially) made
such a device: There is no real tactical or stratigic benefit, only the
long-term poisining of the target. If cobalt is in close proximity to a
nuclear bomb, the neutron flux will convert it to a radio-isotope with
a half-life of ~5 years, which slowly produces Iron 60, a long-half-life
radioactive. The human body naturally absorbs iron, and if the iron
in the environment is Fe 60, that will be picked up and encorporated into
the body. 

As a net result, a nuclear bomb including a large amount of cobalt
will produce fallout which for a period of decades will produce a 
dangerous radioactive element. Exposure to this will result in absorption
and long-term exposure to the radioactive. All in all, a cobalt-cased
nuclear bomb is an excelent way to poison an entire area for decades,
but serves little military purpose.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>
Subject: Re: F-14 program (was Re: Iowa Upgrade) 
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:23:50 GMT


From David Spencer <spencer@panix.com>

I said:
>>Sure, the F14 is a better fighter. Any single-role tool is going to be
>>better at its design role than a dual-role tool. But if the dual-role
>>tool is adequate at both roles, why have a single-role tool? 

s5umws@fnma.COM (Michael Stalnaker) replied:

>ARRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Ever hear of a debacle called the F111?? I wound up being a damn nice strike
>aircraft, but was intended to be a fighter.

>Ever hear of the F-4? Wound up being a damn good strike a/c, and in the hands
>of a *capable* pilot, a pretty darn good fighter too. but every mig in existance
>at the time, except the Mig-25 could out turn it. 

>They're about to pull another McNamara on us.. Oh.. one A/C can do all jobs...
>*sigh*

The F-18 is not as good a fighter or interceptor as the F-14. But
that's not the issue. Is the F-18 adequate to contend with the likely
threat? *If* it is, get rid of the F-14.

When the likely threat was the USSR, the F-14 was arguably necessary.
When the threat is Saddam Hussein or another tinpot, the F-14 is a
needless luxury.

Sure, it's nice to have a whiz-bang interceptor, but everything has a
cost. Face the facts: the military budget is, and must be, limited.
What's the best expenditure of limited money?

dhs   spencer@panix.com


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless)
Subject: Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in post WWII
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:20:28 GMT


From pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless)

In response to post:
>From Allan Hong-Kay Ng <ahng@ee.ualberta.ca>

> Hi,
> 
> Now first all you Army guys don't get mad.  I have another supplemental
> question about tank tactics.  Do we need MBT's (remember don't get mad...)
> ?  Consider the advances in helo design.  They can now carry heavier
> payloads, bring heavier weapons to bear and move faster.  Could a campaign
> be run using vertical envelopement only be feasible?  Disembarked troops
> from transport helos could hold ground while gunships and airpower beat
> up on hard targets.  (I hold no opinion just asking.)

Here are some questions to ask yourself:

1) How long can a helo stay on station? Remember, you can *park* a tank
   along your forward line.

2) Can you guarantee good flying weather 24-hrs/365-days anywhere around the
   world? If not, then who supports your front line when the enemy tanks
   come a-knocking?

3) What % of helos do you want to lose to ground fire? Going toe-to-toe
   with ground troops and acting in a primary infantry support role
   exposes helos to much more fire than their normal hit-and-run tactics.
   They also have a LOT less armor to withstand direct fire than a tank does,
   and cannot benefit from any hard or soft cover or concealment.
   Superior speed helps offset this considerably, but not entirely.

4) How much do helos cost compared to tanks? How much fuel do they consume?
   What are the differences in support manpower and time for maintenance of
   the vehicles? (An open ended question for a few good debates...)

I agree that people should not get upset with your questions. Just as
questions arose in the past about replacing huscarls with horsemen, and
pikes with muskets, and cavalry with tanks, etc., etc. -- I don't think that
making "sacred cows" serves the military analyst well.

However, my questions above should show that there are still reasons why
a 60-ton, 120mm-gun-armed MBT makes good sense. The best situation, of
course, is to have both tanks and helos to fulfill different but mutually
supportive roles.

-Peter Corless.
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: <None> (was tanks/terrain)
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:25:43 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <Bz9FB8.7Bu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@oddjob.mitre.org> writes:

> 
>   Right answer, wrong logic.  Modern MBTs have very low ground contact
> pressures and excellent climbing ability.  Aside from the Aleutians
> and deep snow in mountain passes, there are very few terrain
> impediments to tanks in Alaska.
> 
I wish i could post a few gif's of the terrain i'm talking about.  Imagining
armor operating under combat conditions in all but a very few locations in
Alaska is difficult.  There are of course lots of places you could stand and
say `this is great armored country'-- however, it would be a small island of
tank country in a sea of unsuitable terrain that your armor could not move
through, LGP or no.  Your armor would either be encircled and engaged in detail
by ATGW based in areas just out of your reach, or else simply bypassed by an
enemy that knows you cannot follow him.  I stand by my original statement-
Alaska simply is not suitable for armored operations beyond a highly localized
scope of defending a particular village or town for the majority of the state,
or a strip of heavily forested but relatively dry country in the eastern
interior (a box from Fairbanks to the Canadian border south to the St. Elias
Mtn. Range and the Copper River delta.) 

>   However, miles and miles of miles and miles make helos much more
> cost effective.  (And environmentalist would probably object to tank
> training maneuvers on the tundra, but I digress.)  You have to
> consider system costs.  A few tanks would be very useful for taking or
> holding ground, but you would need planes (C-5As) and airports, ships
> and harbors, or tank transporters and roads to get them near to
> (within 100 miles of) their objective, while helicopters could self
> deploy anywhere in the state.

Distance isn't a factor, and system cost is a direct function of terrain. 
Remember that the original question was something along the lines of `under
what conditions would a nation find it more effective to rely on helicopters
instead of armor?'  Because of Alaska's terrain, not distances involved,
helicopters are the more efficient-- armor needs specialized support equipment
simply to move from point A to point B in most of Alaska, and so therefore
isn't a valuable combat tool.

> 					Robert I. Eachus
> 

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: Cobalt bomb?  _What_ cobalt bomb?
Keywords: bomb
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:20:16 GMT


From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>

In article <Bz3uxE.2nA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Gary Toshio Sunada <sunadg@rpi.edu> writes:
>
>	Just recently I encountered something interesting in a conversation concerning nuclear weaponry: the cobalt bomb.  What in the world is a cobalt bomb, and why can't I find any references to it?

The cobalt bomb was basically a hydrogen bomb wrapped in a cobalt casing.
The idea was to create a very "dirty" bomb. Cobalt has a long half life
and breaks up into a fine powder. You'd get lots of fall-out. According
to my father, who was an atomic health physicist at Oak Ridge, we made a
few of them in the '50s. They were never used or tested and were removed
from the arsenal when it became obvious how far the fallout would actually
travel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | Try to live your life so that you wouldn't be
George Patterson -  | afraid to sell the family parrot to the town
                    | gossip.
                    |                            Will Rogers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
Subject: Re: Naval trivia
Summary: Enterprise
Organization: :
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:30:18 GMT


From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us

In article <BzB9L3.y8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, CJohn Mace <zcjm0f@hou.amoco.com> writes:
 
> From CJohn Mace <zcjm0f@hou.amoco.com>
 
> Carriers:  (E class WWII)
> 	1) number produced
> 	2) number active at the end of the war
> 	3) number sunk in action
 
> [mod note -- The poster is either refering to the Enterprise class, which I
> think only 1 was built (the original U.S.S. Enterprise), but it may have
> been a member of another class, or the Essex class.  If he is refering the
> the Essex class, I don't think any of them were ever sunk in action

I recall reading years ago in a book about the current Enterprise that
she is the sixth ship in the service of the US to bear that name, the
first being a Hudson River sloop during the Revolution.
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:28:52 GMT


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


>From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>

>	As far as the concept of high alititude look down radar, what
>	about the Navy's long standing idea of using a large Airship
>	with the radar in the gondola or in the hull of the airship as
>	a phased array??   This would be much cheaper than a hawkeye...
>		Much longer staying power, don't need the carrier to
>		refuel.. just drop a line to the fleet oiler and she can
>		pump the fuel up...
>				Ryan

But an airship takes a long time to get to station and would cover less
area than a faster moving platform.

As reported in AW&ST, Boeing is developing a diamond wing EX for E-2
replacement. The joint wing is excellent for smart skin radar antenna
and would avoid the shadow of the fuselage in configurations like
the E-2. Boeing did not claim any aerodynamic performance benifits
for the unconventional wing platform which is generally supposed to
reduce induced drag, e.g. great for loitering.