HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: max@stacken.kth.se (Michael Stolz)
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Keywords: Bismarck
Organization: Stacken Computer Club, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:27:00 GMT


From max@stacken.kth.se (Michael Stolz)

  
The Bismarck was equipped with radar from the very beginning.
On photos from German sources these were often retouched away.

Both the Prinz Eugen and Bismarck had radar warning devices which gave
an approximate bearing to the active radar set.


Mullenheim-Rechberg quotes Captain S.W. Roskill (The war at Sea, London 1976)
(retranslation from German by me)
"Admiral Holland must have considered whether to fight the enemy 
(Bismarck & Prinz Eugen) on long or short distance. He did not know the
distances at which Bismarck was the most vulnerable to fire from his own 
ships (Hood, Prince of Wales). However, he did know that the Prince of Wales 
would be safe from severe damage down to distances of 12000 meter and that 
Hood would be increasingly immune at shooting distances down to 11000 meter 
and flatter trajectory. At longer distances the Hood, lacking heavy horizontal
armour, would be very vulnerable to heavy fire coming in at high angle. 
Therefore there were strong arguments for closely approaching the Bismarck and 
fight her at relatively small distances."


Verys short resume of the Island battle
May 24th 1941 05.45-06.09 German summertime
ought to be 03.45-4.09 GMT


At about 05.45 the masts of the British ships were sighted at a distance
of ~30000 meters against a horizon lit up by the rising sun.
At about 05.53 and a distance of ~20000 meters the British ships opened fire.
~2 minutes later Bismarck opened fire.
At 5.57 a fire started on Hood between her funnels.
At 06.01 the Hood blew up at an approximate distance of 18000 meters.
Prince of Wales continued the battle down to a distance of ~14000 meters.
After Prince of Wales turned away behind a smoke screen Bismarck stopped
firing at a distance of ~22000 meters.

Source:
Mullenheim-Rechberg, Burkard Frh. von:
Schlachtschiff Bismarck: ein Uberlebender in seiner Zeit
ISBN 3-550-07658  (German edition)

Neither of the parties used spot planes.
Unfortunately Mullenheim-Rechberg does not tell if the range was determined
with radar or only optical sights. He himself was observing the battle with
Bismarck's aft artillery post (optically). 
No word about use of radar or radar warners in this battle, sorry.


					/Michael Stolz
					max@nada.kth.se

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@oddjob.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in 
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:33:46 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


From "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@oddjob.mitre.org>

In article <Bz3v30.2v4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:

   Here's my question.  What is the correct way for a tank to deal with a
   helocopter?  If you're in a tank, and you see an oncomming enemy helo,
   what do you do?

   Depends on the circumstances.  Under current US combat doctrine,
probably report it and let the APCs have a go with TOWs.  In general
tanks should not reveal their position unnecessarily.  However, if
engaged with the enemy but with no immediate targets, a tank might use
a helicopter seen at long range for target practice with the main gun.
If the helicopter is at short range and equipped with anti-tank
missiles, use the tank commander's machine gun and hope.

   However, twenty years ago...

	TC:       Gunner, CANNISTER, helicopter!
	Loader:   Up!
	Gunner:   Identified!
	TC:	  Fire!
	Gunner:   On the way...
        Loader:   Up!
        Gunner:   On the way...
	TC:	  Target.  Cease fire.

   (Depending on range and crew speed the gunner may or may not get
that second round off before the first hits.  It is real hard to miss
with cannister, and as a friend who used to fly helicopters told me,
there are just too many moving parts.)

   But I don't think the US has any 90 mm main gun tanks left in
inventory, and 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.  (Twelve hundred steel projectiles each about the size of a
30-06 bullet, but with a slightly higher muzzle velocity.  The
ultimate in human wave assault breaking.  Also very useful for
clearing foliage so you can see who was shooting at you.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:39:59 GMT


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

In article <BzB9qG.13M@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mark Miller <msmiller@igor.rational.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
>From Mark Miller <msmiller@igor.rational.com>
>|> 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.
>
>Yet a pile of these were sent to Finland and they chewed up the
>Red Air Force with them. Go figure.

	Right, but look at the quality of the opposition.  What was the Red 
AF's main fighter at the time...the P2??   Short, dumpy little thing like 
the Buffalo's little brother, 2 mg's and postively lethal handling 
characteristics.  Also Red AF fighter control and tactics were, let's say,
....inappropriate.   
	Another point though is the superb skills and intense motivation of 
the Finnish pilots and ground-crews -- they were magnificent.

>|> 2. Bell Airacobra -- for all the reasons that Joe advances.
>
>The Russians loved the P-39 for ground attack and low-level ops'.
>Of course, they also loved the fact that the P-39 had a radio
>and a cabin heater.

	Agreed, but then many of the surviving pilots probably thought 
many years later that the Moskvitch and Lada were first-rate motor cars!!

BTW:  An e-mail contributor has just added to the list....

	Boulton-Paul Defiant
	Me 210
	Blackburn Roc
	Fiat G-50
	Morane-S. 335(?) -- Sorry, can't recall exact #.

Cheers,
Keith Coman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Condemning a research report on the basis of :  Dept of Management
 invalid and unreliable methodology is the    :  Rhodes University
 cheapest shot in the book."                  :  Grahamstown, 6140
                                              :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: davidl@bonnie.ics.uci.edu
Subject: Numbers in Desert Storm
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:27:06 GMT


From davidl@bonnie.ics.uci.edu



	Hello, can someone answer these questions ?

	a) how many US servicemembers gave their lives in Desert Shield/Storm ?
	b) breakdown on US force deployment (x USAF,  x USN, etc)

	Thanks.

	Sincerely,
	David Lee
	davidl@bonnie.ics.uci.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: German Navy Surface Units in WWII
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:40:06 GMT


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

In article <Bz9FGL.7IB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Robb Pryor <robbp@healey_haven.esd.sgi.com> writes:

>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.

The British carrier Ark Royal was torpedoed by a U-boat. Can anyone
think of any others?




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jac54@cas.org
Subject: Re: open source intelligence
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:40:15 GMT


From jac54@cas.org

In article <Bz3uwu.2Hu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> you write:
>
>  In the Wide-Wide-World of Intelligence the Soviets relied heavily on
>  the printed word (documents) as their 'A-1' source.  The U.S., however,
>  always relied on the Human Source (HUMINT) and the Mark 1 Eyeball as the
>  prefered choice of 'A-1' data.

	The U.S. has depended most heavily on "National Technical Means"
	i.e. satellites.  Robert Gates (DCI) has criticized the U.S.
	intel. community strongly for its weak performance in getting
	human agents close to sensitive targets and he wants to expand
	HUMINT operations.  NTM leads to an excellent assessment of
	capabilities but can be way off on intentions.  Casting the
	entrails of Pravda and the Peoples Daily took on an air that
	would have had practitioners burned at the stake a few
	centuries ago.

	The Soviets on the other hand worked like a giant vacuum cleaner
	and used any and every source they could get.  The paranoia of
	the state led to everything obtained as being classified.  This
	would include things like aviation maps obtained from local
	airports, even being reproduced with "with the compliments of the
	Governor" still present.

	I should also add that the general figure is that 80-90% of
	all intelligence is obtained from open sources.  As an excercise
	I searched our database for papers on organophosphorus chemistry
	from institutions in Iraq.  There was actually a disproprtionate
	number and they were from only two establishments, one of which
	was a chemical plant.  Bearing in mind that a nerve gas plant and
	an insecticide plant look the same from several hundred miles up,
	this could be useful piece of information.

	Alec Chambers
From: "My name is..." <brett@digits.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: Secret Spy Plane
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:29:05 GMT


From "My name is..." <brett@digits.enet.dec.com>


In article <Bz9F4v.6s1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Steve Williams <swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil> writes...
>Air Force officials have denied such reports for years, with more
>pointedness than the "I-have-nothing-for-you-on-that" nondenial denials 
>used in reply to queries about other classified subjects.
> 
>"The Air Force has no such program, period," said Capt. Monica Aloisio,
>an Air Force spokeswoman.  She also denied yesterday a suggestion in
>Jane's that the Air Force would like to cover up the secret plane.
>"Air Force public affairs doesn't knowingly participate in any disinformation
>programs," she said.

And the Capt. would probably be telling the truth.  Someone like the CIA, or
the NSA, or the NRO, or the ... could easily be the owner; and 99.999% of the
Airforce personel would be totally unaware of the existence of the project.

Security is obtained by NOT TELLING PEOPLE, not by telling everyone preceded
with a 'dont tell anyone else'.


/Bevin

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Subject: Re: rapiers in usaf
Organization: Chevron
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:33:13 GMT


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

In article <BzB9qx.19B@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) writes:
|> From Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>
|> >From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
|> >A friend maintains that a branch of the USAF uses the British Aerospace
|> >Rapier surface to air missle.  I dimly recall hearing something about
|> >this ten or so years ago.  Can anyone out there confirm or deny this?
|> 
|> As far as I remember, the USAF bought the Rapier to defend the F-111
|> bases in England. However, the deal included the British Army operating
|> the system.

 Is it RAPIER or ROLAND that defends the F-111 bases?

 Either way, I don't think the USAF actually bought them but is
 sorta just "renting" the systems and their crews, ie: paying all
 operational costs.

 TRAVIS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Schmitt <shuksan!major@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Subject: Re: open source intelligence
Organization: Man Machine Systems Technology
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:22:05 GMT


From Mike Schmitt <shuksan!major@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>

: >   WASHINGTON, Dec. 1   -- In an era of declining budgets and 
: >more widely scattered, as well as diverse, policy problems, 
: >the U.S. intelligence community is coming to grips with
: >using openly available, public information in the intelligence
: >process....

  In the Wide-Wide-World of Intelligence the Soviets relied heavily on
  the printed word (documents) as their 'A-1' source.  The U.S., however,
  always relied on the Human Source (HUMINT) and the Mark 1 Eyeball as the
  prefered choice of 'A-1' data.  


-- 
Mike Schmitt - Disclaimer: These opinions are not my employer's.  My opinions 
are protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America. 
"Professionals are predictable, it's the amateurs that are dangerous."

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Re: US subs in gulf war
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:29:34 GMT


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

In article <Bz9F5B.6xo@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou) writes...
> 
>From Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>

>the warships around shipping to iraq was impossible (except thru jordan). So
>why so many subs in the region? 

I think a of part of this is that many of these submarines were already on 
patrol in the areas or at least close.  Also, they make a very nice 
deterant to any potential shipping around Iraq and/or to any potential new 
advesaries who have naval assetts.  In the med, they also can keep an eye 
on potential little problems like Lybia.

>BTW, was it really necessary to use sub launched
>tomahawks? Stealth probably was not the issue because iraq could not detect the
>launch anyway. Probably just sort of showing "we navy can do something, too"
>or a live fire test.

This was probably two fold.  One, that the system could use testing and 
that TLAMs are not the primary armament of most surface vessels.  Therefore 
the only remaining Tomahawks to launch may have been from submarines.  It 
also adds another vector for the attack to come from too.

I highly doubt is was a "we navy can do something too <sic>" type of 
exercise, since we all know they are capable of much more.

SJRD

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:30:46 GMT


From Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)

In article <BzD4rG.Iv1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> claffey_jor@ccsub.ctstateu.edu writes:
>
>In article <BzB9w9.1E8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:
>> 	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.
>
> [Phalanx CIWS is too big as it stands]

Actually, a British company, Marconi, has come up with a teensy Phalanx
Phor Tanx called TAMS (Tank Anti-Missile System).  It's built around a set of
millimeter-wave radars derived from the company's MMW homing head for
Hellfire and a pair of 7.62x51mm Chain Guns <tm[!]> (~600 rd/min and 300
rd/gun).  The whole thing weigh about 100 kg lightly armored, and
installation is apparently more or less bolt-on.  It's supposed to be good
against missiles and even mortar rounds closing at up to 400m/s.  Given
the armament, I assume that it's not meant to take on aircraft.  Of
course, it still adds to the tank's silhouette, and I assume the armor
community is reluctant to add an active radiator to their tanks.  If I
were a tank commander, I'd also have some searching questions about what
safety arrangements obtained while while the tank was running unbuttoned... 

>IMHO, it isn't possible to significantly improve the air-defence capability of
>the M1 series without significantly impairing its ability to perform as an MBT.

Right now, the Army's doing some work to upgrade the fire control and the
HEAT-MP round to do just that.  There are, of course, money questions.

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

Right now the heavy divisions are replacing their M163 (20mm Vulcan on
M113) systems with stock Bradleys carrying Stinger teams instead of
infantry squads as an interim measure following the apparent collapse of
the ADATS program (which also would have used the BFV chassis).  GE wants
to equip the BFV with a variant of their Blazer turret (25mm GAU-12
Gatling @2250 rd/min, 4-8 Stingers, possibly Hydra 70 rockets), but so far
that's just talk and a spiffy-looking demo model, which graced the cover
of _Jane's Defense Weekly_ a few weeks ago. 

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: cimshop!johnk@uunet.UU.NET (John Kelleher)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: open source intelligence
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:35:53 GMT
Organization: Consilium, Inc.


From cimshop!johnk@uunet.UU.NET (John Kelleher)


Re: open source intelligence

In article <Bz3uwu.2Hu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mike Schmitt,
shuksan!major@bcstec.ca.boeing.com writes:
>  In the Wide-Wide-World of Intelligence the Soviets relied heavily on
>  the printed word (documents) as their 'A-1' source.  The U.S., however,
>  always relied on the Human Source (HUMINT) and the Mark 1 Eyeball as >
 the prefered choice of 'A-1' data.  
 
Sorry to disagree, but in my experience, HUMINT was generally close to
the bottom of the reliability list, with a very few notable exceptions. 
The vast majority of US intelligence has been from IMINT (nee PHOTINT)
and ELINT (including SIGINT and COMINT).  
 
There have been a few great scoops thanks to human intelligence, but the
scarcity of American intelligence personnel skilled in foreign languages
makes other open source literature of extremely limited value -
regardless of how good it _could_ be if properly exploited.
 
In addition, the advances of _national technical means_ have been by
various individuals and corporations whose personal and financial futures
were tied to their particular program.  And like it or not, a photo is
worth a score of reports, and is invariably called upon to confirm the
other in reports in any event.
 
Don't get me wrong - I don't necessarily agree with the lack of
utilization of the HUMINT angle.  But I think the original article was
posted to help make us aware of how much intelligence our open society
can provide to potential adversaries and, in our global economic warfare
of the 90s, to competitors.
 
John
johnk@consilium.com
- I get paid for writing - not opining. -
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Shooting bullets straight up
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:33:25 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <BzB9wM.1J2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu> asks:

> 	What about the old Galilean priciple of acceleration is
> not contingent upon the weight of the object dropping ??

It's perfectly true.  But unless you're dropping things in a vacuum
the net acceleration depends both on the local gravitational field
and on friction.  Friction occurs because of the interaction of the
atmosphere with the falling object, with the drag being proportional
(typically) to the square of the instantaneous velocity.  The amount
of atmospheric drag produced by a bullet depends on its shape and its
density.  If its falling and tumbling it produces more drag and 
reaches terminal velocity faster than if it's moving in the direction
of its long axis as it does when fired out of the gun barrel initially.

Try dropping a hammer and a feather at the same time from the same 
hight.  If you do it on the moon (as some astronauts did once) both
will hit the ground at the same time.  If you do it here on Earth
you'll get a different result.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Battleship Diplomacy
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:22:18 GMT


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

In article <Bz20HM.8E5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jbutt@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Butt) writes:
>
>From jbutt@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Butt)
>
>>: True, but for GUNS (as opposed to Howitzers or mortars) the
>>: effect is the same.  BB (and tank) guns can't be elevated high enough  
>>: to give high angle fire.  
>>:  
>>: In general, high velocity guns can't elevate to high angles.  (the
>>: major exception to this is AA guns.)
>
>The Battleship "Yamamoto" was built with main guns which could elevate to 70 deg  rees. The idea was to let them fire huge AAA shells. So it can be done, no one has just decided to do it since.
>
Flame on:
THERE WAS NO BATTLESHIP YAMAMOTO! Yamamoto was a Japanese admiral (and a pretty
clever one) but Japan did NOT name a battleship after him. I presume you
are talking about the Yamato. Please at least try to get the names straight.

add afterburner:
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?

Afterburner off:
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.

Flame off:
   Sorry to get so upset, but I can't stand things like this.
I have plenty of holes in my own knowledge, and sometimes they even show
up on the net, but this is pretty basic information here. When there is
something I'm not sure about, and I don't have my reference library handy,
I try to at least admit that I don't really know. I also make outrageous
claims occasionally, (look at the tempest I stirred up by saying that
battleships are good for shore bombardment!) but I at least try to have 
some data to back them up. If you have evidence of 70 degree elevation,
I'd sure like to see it.
   Again, sorry for the outburst.

				David R. Wells

DISCLAIMER: AT&T has nothing to do with the rantings and ravings in this
article. (they know better)

Newsgroups: sci.military