HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stoffel@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Stoffel)
Subject: Re: Navy News Service - 23 Dec 92
Organization: Annapolis Detachment, CARDEROCKDIV, NSWC
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:31:32 GMT


From stoffel@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Stoffel)


In sci.military, mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
(in part)

>> residents and agencies with flooding.  They worked throughout the
>> weekend using P-250 and peri-jet eductors, pumping more than 950,000
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> gallons of water.
>
>What is a `peri-jet eductor' ?  (For that matter, what is a P-250?  Some
>kind of pump, I'd expect ...)

Yes, the P-250 is a portable engine driven fire pump. An eductor is
basically avery simple device which uses a flow of water (such as in
a firemain) to create a suction/lift in an intersecting line. Don't
know what "peri-jet" means tho'. Sorry.
__________________________________________________________________________
Bill Stoffel              |  CARDEROCKDIV, NSWC  |First things first!     |
stoffel@oasys.dt.navy.mil |  Code 2759           | (But not necessarily in|
(410) 267-3825            |  Annapolis, MD 21402 |that order) - The Doctor|
_________________________________________________|________________________|

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:01:08 GMT


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

In article <BzD4rB.ItF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> kash1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz(Kemp Ashby) writes:

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

The Gladiator did sterling service in the defence of Malta. Three
Gladiators held off the Italian and German airforces until the RAF
managed to relieve them with Spitfires. Does anyone know if they 
were finally shot down? 

Remember that other great Biplane of the second world war: the Fairey
Swordfish. Slow, but did it fare any better than the US Avengers early
in the war? 

The Defiant actually did fairly well until the Germans caught on and 
started attacking head on. Not too sure how the I-16 did.

What about the early Fleet Air Arm types? The Fairey Fulmar, for in-
stance, was a widely used fighter on board ships such as HMS Ark Royal.

Then there were the P-26 Peashooters the Fillipinos flew against Zeros
in the opening days of the Phillipines invasion. I remember reading
that some Seversky P-35s and Curtis P-36 Mohawks were involved in the 
Phillipines and in the fight for Java.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  MLRS
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:17:09 GMT


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


Anybody have the full number of the -10 TM for the MLRS launcher?
Please E-mail. Thanks in advance.


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: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Uhlans
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:33:13 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>


> From Peter Cash <cash@convex.com>
> 
> On a (possibly) related note, I've run across mention of German cavalry
> used in WW I called the "Uhlans". Can anyone tell me what kind of units
> these were, and anything about their history? The name strikes me as
> peculiar--it has no meaning in German.


These units were Lance armed Cavalry.

 From the Osprey Men-at-Arms series "The Austro-Hungarian Army of the 
Napoleonic Wars":
"The Uhlan came to Europe by way of Turkey, for the word comes from 
the Turkish oghlan", meaning a child, and began its military use in 
exactly the same way as the Italian "infanterie".  From the border 
fighting Turkish light cavalry, the use of the word and the troops 
passed to the Polish army.....and from there it passed to Saxony and 
Austria.  In the Silesian Wars the Uhlan was often a mounted 
irregular, as the Hussar was before him."

The only firm date I have for adoption of the term Uhlan for regular 
cavalry is 1807 for the Russian army, when they re-orged their Lancer 
regts along more "traditional" Polish lines.  As might be expected 
Austria also used the term for its Lancers quite early on in the 
Napoleonic wars, by 1809 at least.

The Russian model apparently became the basis of the troop type 
throughout Europe in the 19th century, and all Uhlans wore the 
distinctive square-topped "Czapska"

-- 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: thornley@deca.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: A few questions about Soviet Military decorations
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:24:39 GMT


From thornley@deca.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)

In article <BzzD2F.yM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Craig R Albrechtson) writes:
>
>[I'm collecting Soviet stuff and need references.]
>
>Second question,  Among the pins I have collected is a soviet air force
>pilot wings.  The are supposed to belong to what is called a "sniper pilot"
>and that is supposed to be a elite group of pilots.  Has any one heard of 
>such a group within the soviet air force.
>
>From what I've heard, it's an award for really good pilots.  I might be
able to dig up more info.  They've been compared to USN Top Guns.

BTW, there are two organizations of the Soviet military that looked like
air forces:  the air force, tasked with providing air support for the army,
and the air defense force, tasked with defending the homeland.  I don't
know which one has sniper pilots (both, maybe).

>[Description omitted, but medal has two Russian words.]
>
>The first word I will break it down and describe it as best as possible
>It is six letters, the first letter looks like a cursive R, the next 
>two letters are ET, the fourth letter looks like a 4.  the next letter
>is a backwards N and the last letter is a K
>
I need more info on the first and fourth letters.  If the first is symmetric
with six "arms", it's a Zh, the curviest letter in the alphabet.  If not,
could you give a more detailed description?  If the fourth letter has two
feet supporting a closed area with both straight and curved segments, it's
a D; if it has an upright with a curve to the left, it's a Ch.  My best
guess as to the pronunciation is Zhyetchik, and I don't have a dictionary
here so I can't look it up.

>the second word is spelled CHANUEP, except the N is backwards and the U is 
>upside down.   
>
This one's not difficult - the word is pronounced Sniper.  One guess what
it means.

If you're going to collect this stuff, I strongly suggest you invest in a
Russian-English dictionary.  You should be able to find one for not too
much money in any good University bookstore, which I assume from your
address you have access to.

DHT



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Subject: Re: open source intelligence
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:14:00 GMT


From cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu

     Another good source of intel is picking through trash cans. My former
Army Reserve unit in Orange County (at that time known to be frequent by
foreign agents)  threw hundreds of restricted and sensitive manuals in the
garbage dumpster for all to see or take.  It might not be much but a lot of
good data could be gleaned from those manuals.


-- 
---
Daemon E. Hobbs, Cadet, AFROTC
Senior, (Carto/RS/GIS) 
Cal Poly Pomona Geography Dept.
Email: cvalj001@csupomona.edu
Phone: 714-869-3590

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Naval trivia
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:24:41 GMT


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <BzM9zD.MHC@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
> 
> 
> From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
> 
> In article <BzD4rI.Ivu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
> 
> >They are one and the same (i.e. USS Ohio class subs *are* Trident missile 
> >subs).  You have confused the class name (Ohio) and the missile type (Trident)
> >they carry, alot of people do since the US Navy uses both interchangabily.
> 
> Was the same true of the earlier nuclear missile subs? They were often 
> referred to as "Polaris" and "Poseidon" subs - I distinctly remember a
> book with drawings of both. The Poseidons were a little bigger.
> 
> [mod note -- the Polaris was the first SLBM, and the Poseidon was a follow
> on (more range, more accurate).
> The first FBM (Fleet Ballistic Missile) sub class the the George Washington
> class, made by splitting a Skipjack hull and putting in a missile
> compartment.  The next class was the Ethan Allen class.  I don't remember
> if the George Washington's could carry the Poseidon, but the Ethan Allen's
> could.  The next class, I believe, was the Ohio class.  Any corrections are
> welcome to this 
> 
> Steve]
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
> Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
> Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
> 
> 

Yes the same was true of the subs carrying Polaris and Poseidon ballistic 
missiles.  Which is also why the confusion over the Ohio class and a Trident
missile sub.

If memory serves me right, all of the Polaris-carrying subs were upgraded to
the Poseidon missiles (at least an early version).  Due to the size of the
Trident missiles, no backfits of the older ballistic missile subs was possible.

Don Palmrose
"There are two kinds of ships....  Those that project power onto shore and
those that either protect or support the power projectors."



 
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:28:25 GMT


From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>



	If you wan't a divisional armoured air defense system to keep
	up with the tanks then do what the Germans did. Build it on an
	existing armour chassis (a MBT will make the engine mainanance
	easy for the mechs, just use the same body that the units
	generally get...It should be a new system...so use M1A1
	chassis..), Design a new turret with a search radar, and a
	target tracking radar, link this to multiple common based gun 
	systems with a common ammo supply feed and some optical sights 
	for back up...and you have the Gephard....or and american
	version....So take an M1A1 chassis...several 20 or 25mm
	guns...put them in a turret with a good set of air search
	radars sets...and get some decent optics.....voila!!!

				Ryan


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stephen Harker <phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: Physics Department
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:36:41 GMT


From Stephen Harker <phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>

In article <Bzq2uA.4ML@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> 
> From Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
> 
>>From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
>>    Alas, even by WWII, people STILL hadn't learned. 
> 
> I do agree with you, but the examples are not all that clear-cut.
> 
> [ various parts of discussion removed ] 
>> The Hood
>> tried it on the Bismarck, and lost (although I think in the case of
>> the Hood, it may have been a lucky hit. Hood's armor wasn't THAT bad).
> 
> I think the deck armor was fairly weak.  (But indeed, by WWII
> standards, any one hit that causes a battleship or equivalent to
> explode must be called a lucky hit.)

	Perfectly true, the Hood did have weak deck armour.  Maurice
Northcott discusses the various changes in the armouring of the Hood during
its building.  This resulted in a ship that was very well armoured by WW1
battlecruiser standards, even comparable to some WW1 battleships.  However
when the British conducted tests in 1919 on mockups of the protection over
the magazines it was found that a 15" shell would penetrate them.  The
result was a recommendation that would have seen an additional 500 tons of
deck armour, this was at first accepted but later it was decided to see
what was needed to protect against 16" shells.  This needed an additional
1000 tons of armour and could not be compensated for.  As a result nothing
was done.  

	If the British government between the wars had not been so
parsimonious Hood might have been modernised, as it was other ships needed
modernisation even more and time did not allow anything to be done to Hood. 
There were plans for modernisation to begin in 1942, again see Maurice
Northcott for what details are available.  These plans would have seen an
extra 2" added to the upper deck (2.75" aft of B turret).  The result would
have been to make Hood a reasonably protected ship.  As it was she must
have been in serious danger from bombers as well as battleship shells given
the relatively weak deck armour, especially over the machinery and
secondary armament magazines.

	Hood, Man O' War 6, Maurice Northcott
	Arms & Armour Press (Originally Bivouac Books 1975)

-- 
Stephen Harker			phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Monash University		Baloney baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil>
Subject: Army News 12/21/92
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:34:48 GMT


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil>

  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>
  <<>>   U.S. Army Public Affairs                                        <<>>
  <<>>                                          December 1992            <<>>
  <<>>      ARMY NEWS SERVICE           Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat      <<>>
  <<>>                                           1   2   3   4   5       <<>>
  <<>>       - - - - - - -               6   7   8   9  10  11  12       <<>>
  <<>>                                  13  14  15  16  17  18  19       <<>>
  <<>>   MONDAY, DEC. 21, 1992          20  21  22  23  24  25  26       <<>>
  <<>>                                  27  28  29  30  31               <<>>
  <<>>   Courtesy of Air Force Reserve                                   <<>>
  <<>>        * * * * * * * *                                            <<>> 
  <<>> Comments or suggestions pertaining to the Army News Service       <<>>
  <<>> should be directed to SFC Rob Williams, SFC Darrell Cochran or    <<>>
  <<>> Mary Whipple at A/V 225-3101 (202) 695-3101.                      <<>>
  <<>>                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                   <<>>
  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>
 
Supply ships set sail for Somalia
 
    WASHINGTON (ARNEWS) -- Soldiers of the 10th Mountain 
Division (Light Infantry) have made it to Somalia and begun 
their humanitarian assistance. But to continue their mission, 
these quickly deployed troops are relying on the Navy to 
deliver equipment and supplies.
    Supply ships of the Navy's Fast Sealift Squadron are 
sailing for Somalia to support Operation Restore Hope there.
    The U.S. Navy Ship Pollux sailed Dec. 17 from the Bayonne 
Military Ocean Terminal in New Jersey. The USNS Algol has also 
taken to the seas, from Beaumont, Texas, laden with equipment, 
helicopters and ground vehicles for the deployed troops, 
according to officials with the Military Traffic Management 
Command in Falls Church, Va.
    The voyage for each Fast Sealift ship should take about two 
weeks, an official said.
    The ships were loaded by servicemembers, Defense Department 
civilians and contractors. Three other ships -- the USNS 
Altair, Belatrix and Capella -- are being loaded and should be 
sailing in a few days.

-- 
         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \\  {*}  //                   bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil  
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     / 



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Norman Yarvin <yarvin@cs.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: No Army Needed( was: Swiss military preparedness?)
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:28:00 GMT


From Norman Yarvin <yarvin@cs.yale.edu>

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>	I'll start.  An armed populace will undermine morale, kill
>any popular support, and force soldiers to kill far more than what
>the US considers necessary or justified.  Thus, it is a losing
>battle no matter who wins so far as the Army is concerned.  Can
>you refute this?

In WW2, the Germans in many places had a policy of reprisals: for every
German soldier killed, they would execute ten of the local population.  In
addition if they knew a spy was hiding in a village, they would punish the
village unless the spy was caught.

Perhaps someone else can say how effective these were in general, but there
was at least one incident of a spy giving herself up so that a village would
not be punished.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
Subject: helos vs. tanks
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:57:48 GMT


From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>


CJ>However, an interesting idea is a Bradley variant optimized for air defence.
CJ>Anyone know of such a project in the works?

I was thumbing through an old Jane's Military Review (from '86, I think) and 
came across an article on new battlefield air defence systems.  There was a
photo of a model of one proposed system - a Bradley mounting Rapiers.
According to the caption, the system took the radar and electronics from the
new, all-weather Rapier 2000 and the launch bins from the British Army 
Tracked Rapier system and mounted them on the turret of a Bradley.  The missle
bins went on either side of the turret, the radar on top (of course), and the
control station/reloads into the rear compartment.  The Bradley still retains
the 25mm/7.62mm armament, a potent backup/local defense combination.  Seemed 
like a good idea, similar to the Marines' proposed mounting of the GE Blazer
25mm Gatling/Stinger missle turret on LAVs.  (BTW, does anyone know if this
system has been adopted yet, or what?)
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:24:33 GMT


From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>


viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
: 
: From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
: 
: John Stoffel <john@sekrit.wpi.edu> writes:
: 
: >How about adding some stingers on the outside of the tank for
: >automatic threat suppression.  Cheap, simple, and probably prone to
: >taking out your own choppers too.
: 
: 	Why not add a Phalanx?  Program it to kill at closure rates of
: 30 knots or better, keep it on standby, and when your own aircraft aren't
: in the area flip it from standby to on.  Simple, existing, and nothing
: but ammunition and electricity required.
: 
: 	In addition to the anti-air capabilities, it would also work on
: incoming artillery shells and missiles.  I suspect this is a much
: greater worry than the helicopter itself, which is all the Stinger
: will be able to remove.
: 
: [mod note -- I though the Army already had an AD weapon -- it's a 20mm
: Vulcan mounted on an M113 chassis.  Might not be quite able to keep up with
: an M1A1 running flat out, but it's better that the Sgt. York
 
	Well I suppose you could start to design a MBT like the old Pre
	WWII russian tanks with multiple turrets on them....Hmmm

		Lets see... Main 120 mm Smoothbore...2 .50 Hvy MG's....
	a Phalanx on top in a low profile turret with a brace of TOW's
	added to the turret...hummm...this makes for a larger
	chassis... well then we make the engine bigger...but now we
	have a larger tank... so then we can add a MLRS system to the
	back... and put a 30mm chain gun in place of one of the .50 Hvy
	MG's....	well we now have the modern equivalent of the
	ancient Elephant Mounted Shock Troops (fanfare ensues...)


			Any Comments from the Tankers of the Net???

					Ryan


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Emmanuel Gustin <gustin@evs2.uia.ac.be>
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:19:04 GMT


From Emmanuel Gustin <gustin@evs2.uia.ac.be>

gustin@evs2.uia.ac.be (Emmanuel Gustin) writes:
:
: The story about 3 Gladiators defending Malta is widely spread, but not
: correct; it was a larger number. I don't remember how many exactly.

I checked it out: there were 7 Sea Gladiators, and none of them had the
famous names Faith, Hope and Charity. Eight others were used for spares.
(Aeroplane monthly, may 1992)

Speed may not be the most important characteristic of a fighter, but is
surely essential. These are some that were slower than 500km/h:

Name			Country  	Top speed in km/h
====            	=======		=================

Blackburn Roc		GB		315	(two-seat fighter)
PZL P.11c		POLAND		378	(parasol monoplane)
Avia B-534		CZECH.		394	(biplane)
Gloster Gladiator II	GB		402	(biplane)
Fairey Fulmar I		GB		412	(two-seat fighter)
Polikarpov I-153	USSR		444	(biplane)
Fiat C.R.42		IT		450	(biplane)
Seversky P-35		USA		454
Fokker D.XXI		NL 		460	(fixed undercarriage)
Nakajima Ki-27		J		470	(fixed undercarriage)
Fiat G.50		IT		472
Koolhoven FK.58		NL		475
Curtiss	P-36		USA		483
Bouton-Paul Defiant I	GB		488	(two-seat fighter)
Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 F		488
Polikarpov I-16 Type 24	USSR		489
Nakajima Ki-43c		J		492

The Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo was credited with 517km/h. The Finnish ones, if
they were really lighter with same power, must have been faster.

Emmanuel gustin
gustin@uia.ac.be

Newsgroups: sci.military