HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu
Subject: Recent Iraqi Events
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:44:57 GMT


From TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu

     I have two questions concerning the recent Iraqi fighting; please respond
 by e-mail, if you wish.

     Are Iraq's SA-3 "Goa" SAMs deployed on both fixed and mobile launchers?
 (Does this type of missile come in both versions?)  If mobile, are the mobile
 launchers tracked or wheeled? I have encountered conflicting data on this, and
 would like find further sources.  How many "Goa" launchers comprise a battery?

     Was the Iraqi fighter shot down on Sunday, 17 January 1993, a MiG-23
 "Flogger" or a MiG-29 "Fulcrum?"  Early reports indicate the former,  but a
 friend said he saw later news reports indicate the latter.

     Any info is greatly appreciated.  Thanx!


                                             T.Z.
                                 "Knowledge, was it worth such torment/
                                  To see the far side of shadow?"  G.T.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Harpoon and tactics.
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:52:37 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>

In article <C1F6tA.KF6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gorilla@cats.ucsc.edu (Christopher John Arnold) writes:
>
>First of all, does anyone have any idea if Harpoons have
>been mounted on navy helos?
>
>And are there any good books of us naval tactics out there?
>I've been trying to figure out how two O.H.Perry class frigates
>and a Ticonderoga Cruiser would defend against two soviet
>Kirov Class cruiser. Any suggestions?
>
>-Gorilla@cats.ucsc.edu

First, I've seen pictures of Sea Eagles (British anti-ship missiles, with a 
similar configuration and performance to the Harpoon) mounted on both Lynx ASW 
helos and on the EH-101 prototypes.  I cant think of any good reason a Seahawk 
couldnt carry a Harpoon instead of its Mk46 torpedo.  They are both about the 
same weight and size, and the Seahawk has all the avionics for the missile; one
of its major roles would be midcourse guidance updates for over-the-horizon 
shots with both Harpoon and Tomahawk.

Second, I would be very surprised if two Kirovs ever deployed together.  They 
are very powerful, expensive ships, and all three (four?) of the class have an 
integral flagship capability.  This means that they would deploy as the leaders
of a task force, with many excorts (Udaloys, Sovremennyys, and Krivaks).  Think
about how often we deploy two carriers in one task force.  While two carrier 
task forces might operate together, they are still usually hundreds of miles 
apart to reduce vulnerability.  

However, with the advent of the new Russian carrier, the Kirovs could be a 
prime escort, much the same as the Tico class are to the US Navy.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Navy and Desert Storm
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:06:40 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>

>From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
> In the recently published book "Storm over Iraq" by Richard P. Hallion,
> He felt that in a strategic war, as opposed to
> a single tactical strike, the carriers were not very effective. 

Wow, how fast people can forget.  Hallion must have been born after
the Falklands War.  The British were not happy about having scrapped
their last fleet carrier the year before.

Simply put, there are cases where *nothing* but carriers is available,
because you simply don't have the bases available, and nobody knows
whether those might not be in the majority in the future.  B-52 long
range strikes probably don't cut it for CAS.

--
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:07:31 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden


From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)

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


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

>In article <C17vrM.Exy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes...
>> It has been reported that the Iraqi's fired something like 100 Exocets
>> and numerous Silkworms, yet none are known to have hit any ships.  If
>> the CIWS didn't stop them, what did?

>Where did the number 100 come from???  Better yet, what was the Silkworm 
>number??

I want to know that as well.

>> Wasn't a British frigate or such credited with downing several missiles
>> with its CIWS while operating near that big island near Kuwait city?
>> Wasn't the Missouri also involved?

>Strange as it seems, it seems that is was British helocopters that 
>intercepted the only publicized close missle attack (this may be 
>inaccurate, but I think its correct).  Also,  I doubt anything ever got

>From what I've read the first silkworm was downed by Sea Darts, the second just
crashed.

cheers

--
     Erik Svensson
    Research Officer            National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
 Guided Weapons Division        Stockholm, Sweden      eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
 -- Hobbes
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: CBTCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:48:13 GMT


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

Apostolos Karmirantzos <karmira@natinst.com> says:
>
>  I was watching the special news report about the tomahwak attack in Iraq,
>and I noticed they said in more than one occasion that tomahwaks can be
>launched from submarines and ships only. Isn't there an air-launched version
>also? I am almost sure that I have seen photograps
>but I can't remeber if it was just a prototype or a full developed system
>        Thanks in advance
>                Lakis
>
>[mod note -- the USAF had (maybe still has) an Air Launched Cruise Missile
>(ALCM).  It is not based on the Tomahawk.  With all the START talks, I
>don't know if the ALCM was a victim of the reductions or not.
>
>ALCM was deployed with some B-52 units.
>
>Steve]
>+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
>| Karmirantzos Apostolos         |E-mail: karmiran@natinst.com               |
>+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
>

Source:  Bonds, R. (Ed.).  1989.  _The Modern US War Machine: An encyclopedia
of American Military Equipment and Strategy_.  Crown Publishers, NY.

"The General Dynamics AGM-109 was one of the chief versions of the Tomahawk
strategic nuclear cruise missile, first tested in air drops from P-3 Orions
and A-6 Intruders in 1974.  It differed from the ship/submarine/GLCM
versions in having no rocket boost motor or launch capsule/box.  Main
propulsion, at first a J402, switched like other versions to a Williams
F107 turbofan in competition with the Boeing AGM-86B as the ALCM for SAC.
When the Boeing missile was chosen, Tomahawk was recast in different roles,
and eventually in 1981 the naval versions were all terminated, chiefly on
cost grounds.  GLCM continued as a tactical weapon for the Air Force,
and a completely new version, MRASM (Medium Range ASM) was launched in 1981
as a non-nuclear cruise missile for wide use by the Air Force arming many types
of aircraft beginning with the B-52 and the F16".

                 *****Several paragraphs deleted for space*****

"AGM-109I is a dual-role weapon proposed to the Navy for use by A-6E squadrons.
It has a large unitary warhead and both DSMAC II {digital scene-matching
area-correlation} and IIR (imaging IR) guidance for either anti-ship or land-
attack missions".

Well.  It looks as though the air-dropped Tomahawk existed, at least as a
test version.  This source is pretty old- does anyone have any info on whether
this critter ever saw the light of day as a production model?

Chris

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:34:54 GMT


From creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)

In article <C15yF6.KC1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov> writes:
>As for US Navy cruise missiles, only the Harpoon (50 NM range according to
>open literature) is air launchable and does not have a land-version (anti-ship
>only).  I thought that the Navy was talking about making Tomahawk air-
>launchable but I think its length does make it difficult to put under a wing 
>of A-6 or F/A-18.

   There's an ad by McDonnell Douglas on the back of the March 1992
UNSI Proceedings for a missile called SLAM (Standoff Land Attack
Missile).  It says that it "is produced on the same production line
and supported by the existing Harpoon logistics system."  It also
looks just like a Harpoon in the picture.

   I think this would qualify as a land-attack version of the Harpoon,
but I don't know whether it's in actual use or not.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: !welty@uu.psi.com (richard welty)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Scope of Action-US Military
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:00:26 GMT
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies


From richard welty <!welty@uu.psi.com>

In article <C15yLF.KtC@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Frank Kastenholz <samsung!ulowell!vax.ftp.com!kasten@uunet.uu.net> writes:
>There also are more recent examples, such as the Army's eviction of
>some WWI veterans from the Mall in Washington DC during the
>Depression (the vets were camping on the Mall, demonstrating that
>they should get money from the Government).  General MacArthur and
>then-Colonel Eisenhower were in charge of this operation.

the bonus army incident is not one of the more glorious episodes
in the history of the US Army; in fact, i'll wager that if Eisenhower
were alive, he'd be rather unhappy to be characterized as one of those
in charge of the operation.  Stephen Ambrose, in his biography of
Eisenhower, makes it clear that Eisenhower was exceedingly unhappy with
MacArthur's handling of the situation.

cheers,
  richard
-- 
richard welty        518-393-7228       welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
``Nothing good has ever been reported about the full rotation of
  a race car about either its pitch or roll axis''  -- Carroll Smith
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Organization: Chevron
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:42:29 GMT


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

In article <C1D8qt.A92@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes: 
|> In article <C19ns2.330@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com> writes:
|> 
|>>Also, back to fixed targets, there is another version of the TLAM that has
|>>cluster munitions instead of a fixed warhead.  
|>
|> This explains the cruise missile they were using for "smart weapon"
|> research - basically something with a brain sophisticated enough to
|> loiter above a battlefield and recognize enemy armor. When an enemy
|> has been recognized it attacked using cluster bombs. This was, I be-
|> live, in Nova on PBS.
|> 
|> What happens to the missile afterwards? I don't see why it can't be
|> programmed to turn around again and fly home for retrieval/reuse -
|> and if the range is too far, there would be a self-destruct option,
|> or it could be used without explosives on a second target. 

 Typically, they would do one of the following after dispensing
 their load of submunitions:

    Nose over and auger in.

    Nose over and attack, if dispension based upon detection.

    Become aerodynamically unstable and crash.


 TRAVIS
   

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Friedrich BROHS <fbrohs@email.tuwien.ac.at>
Subject: Re: How much does this equipment cost? (Southern Watch)
Organization: Technical University of Vienna
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:47:53 GMT


From Friedrich BROHS <fbrohs@email.tuwien.ac.at>

Hiya everybody!
I don't know about resupply with tomahawks, but an episode about the
French Foreign Legion during their Indochina campaign. There was about a
small Company of FFL and about a company of Coloniale Troops on the
opposite end of the town. Through some misfortune (explosion and fire)
the Coloniale lost all it's tobacco. As no troops were permitted to
resupply the Coloniale (tobacco wasn't worth the risk of getting several
people shot) the FFL removed the explosives of some mortar shells,
filled them with cotton approximately the same weight as the tobacco and
zeroed in. Then they sent the tobacco the same way, too.

				F.Brohs

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Re: FYI - According to WINGS ;-)...
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:47:39 GMT


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

In article <C143J3.2v6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes: 
> 
> From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
> 
>  Just a bunch of bits collected from the several WINGS programs on the 
>  Discovery channel this weekend which seem to answer some recent posts:
Note on all of following: Wings is not exactly an authoritative source.
> 
> 
>  MISSILES:
> 
>     Iraq fired over 100 EXOCETS during Desert Storm with no hits.
This seems pretty unlikely.  The only publicly discussed Iraqi anti-ship 
missile firings were 2 Silkwors intercepted by RN Sea Dart.  The 100+ may refer
to the "other Gulf War" with Iran.  Large numbers of ASMs were used during the
"Tanker War."
> 
>     The British CIWS SEA WOLF missile system "outperforms any other CIWS
>     in the world" and is even capable of hitting "5.4 inch gun" shells.
This is purely manufacturer's hype.  Sea Wolf has been in action in the
Falklands and did very well but other systems may be as good or better, there's
no easy way to tell.  The "4.5inch shell intercept"(not 5.4) was during tests
and hardly reflects an operational capability.> 
> 
>  F-16:
> 
>     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.
> 
>     Due to the higher number of dedicated air-superiority aircraft
>     in Desert Storm, the F-16 was used in the ground attack role
>     almost exclusively.
True.

>  A-10:
> 
>     The A-10 accounted for something like 90% of all Iraqi tank, 
>     artillery, and military vehicle losses in the Kuwaiti Theatre
>     of Operations.
These numbers may be subject to change.  Again, Wings will probably tell you
that three different planes were each responsible for 90% on all kils in the
KTO; you do the math. ;-)

Don't believe everything you see on the Discovery Channel!
> 
-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with
America"  	President William Jefferson Clinton
		January 20, 1993
From: oml@eloka.demon.co.uk (Owen Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Tornado F3 replacement
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:56:54 GMT
Organization: Eloka Consultancy & Project Management


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

In article <C1F6tE.KG8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au writes:

>
>From brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
>
>In sci.military you write:
>        What about the Squadron of Phantoms based at Ascension Island during
>the conflict?

Well, what about them? A gesture unwittingly demonstrating the inadequate 
limits of land-based airpower? BTW, do you know of the story that, in the 
political negotiations that lead effectively to the demise of the Fleet Air
Arm, the RAF contrived to 'move' an island 2000 miles (was it Ascension?) to 
make their case??

>> ....had waited/expected the to supply CAP, as promised you can bet the 
>> damage to the task force would have been much heavier than it was. 
>
>        Which it was never intended to do.  Its amazing what a selective view
>you seem to have of events IMO. 
>
Isn't this the nub of the matter? The Navy feel that the Air Force were 
dishonest in their undertakings to the government of the day as to what cover 
they could effectively give, if made responsible for the air defence of the 
Fleet. IMO, the Navy have the right of it.

                               -= Owen Lewis =-
                                      @
Tele/fax     +44-(0)794-301731      ELOKA       Consultancy & Project Management
                            oml@eloka.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Michael J. White" <ci590@cleveland.freenet.edu>
Subject: Re: Napoleon's Guard
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:47:44 GMT


From "Michael J. White" <ci590@cleveland.freenet.edu>

Isakabdar Taib writes:

>Were there any differences in uniforms within Light Infantry battalions?
>I remember that in a battalion of the Line the Fusiliers and Grenadier
>companies wore blue coats, white lapels and white trousers while the Vol-
>tiguers wore blue coats, lapels and trousers. The Grenadiers wore red 
>piping and crests, the Voltiguers yellow and green. 

As Elting said, "there are three sorts of uniforms for every period of
history: those described in the uniform regulations; those shown by 
the artists of that period; and what the soldiers really wore!"

If French light troops went "by the book," voltigeurs in line
battalions would have dressed like the fusiler companies but with
yellow or buff collars and turnback designs, yellow and green 
epaulettes, and yellow/red or yellow/green shako plums and cords.

Light battalions wore blue throughout.  Voltigeur companies had
distinctions similar to line voltiguers while carabiniers (light
grenadiers) wore uniforms which resembled those of line grenadiers.
Another major distinction between light and line troops was footwear.
Lights wore hessian boots (low-cut boots with fringe and tassles) 
while line soldiers wore gaiters.

Of course, during the Napoleonic period inadequate supply systems,
the personal preferences of officers and an unstandardized
manufacture system produced an endless variety of uniforms.  Often
soldiers in the same unit might wear a number of different styles
of uniforms.  At Waterloo, the 4th Regiment of Guard Grenadiers
wore shakos, bearskins and chapeaus.
>
[deleted stuff]
>
>Wasn't there a British regiment called the Royal Fusiliers who
>wore Dragoon type helmets? I remember that Bruce Quarry's tables
>gave them somewhat better ratings than regular Line Infantry. 

There were four regiments of fusilers.  They wore bearskins in
dress uniform and stovepipe shakos on campaign.

-- 
Michael White				mjwhite@engin.umich.edu
Engineering Library		  michael.white@um.cc.umich.edu
The University of Michigan          ci590@cleveland.freenet.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Scott Olson <sdo@email.sp.paramax.com>
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: Paramax -  Eagan, MN
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:27:06 GMT


From Scott Olson <sdo@email.sp.paramax.com>

"patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com> writes:
> 
> Some are, some aren't. Typically anything under about 40mm is contact
> fused. They'd be throwing 88s at a B-17 - it's the only shell that could
> get that high.
> 
	Well, no, more likely they were 105mm or 128mm flak.  The 88's
were field heavy flak, not the big stuff used for defending fixed
targets.  The Germans even were working on, but never put into production,
a 150mm flak gun.

			Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: Geneva Convention (was Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:26:55 GMT


From wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)


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

The Geneva Convention on the the treatment of POW's was the 1929 treaty.
There have a number of Geneva Conventions going all the way back to
1864. I believe the US signed the 1929 treaty. I do know that the US
refused to sign the Hague treaty for years.






























-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 | If the media interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way they do the 1st |
 +----------------we would be REQUIRED to own guns!-------------------+

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: triremes
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:41:18 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

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.

	They tried this and were often successful.  They also tended
to lose a lot of ships even in coastal waters.  I'd imagine they had
gotten better at it by the time they reached Britain, but in the
period you describe the general tendency was to use the triremes
as glorified taxi's for the soldiers.  Ben Hur wasn't too factual
in this regard.  They did travel about the Med well enough, but the
Romans never did seem to become adept seamen.

>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.

	Rome wasn't known for learning from its mistakes.  Were that
the case, they would have quit trying to beat up their neighbors,
and losing, long before Rome became a military power.  Note also
that such defeats were at the hand of the sea, not the enemy, so
the Roman generals had little reason to quit the practice since
Poseiden or whoever was obviously displeased at one of the sailors
and it wasn't Rome doing something rather silly.  At least, that's
how I suspect a general would think in that period.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >



Newsgroups: sci.military