HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dave Pierson <pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re:  Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:36:40 GMT


From Dave Pierson <pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com>

In article <Bxo1D0.6H3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
(Iskandar Taib) writes, in part:


>It suddenly struck me that throughout all this, the usual 
>American practice of expressing things in inches seems to 
>have been abandoned by the artillery people. While the Bri-
>tish stuck to their peculiar "how much does an iron ball 
>of this diameter weigh" measure, the American gunners seem 
>to have adopted millimeters while the rest of the country 
>was still thinking in terms of thousandths of inches, inches
>and cubic inches - I imagine a 76mm gun might be called a 
>6.08 caliber gun.. was this due, perhaps, to American sol-
>diers using French equipment during the First World War?

	hmmm?  25.4mm/inch.  a 75 mm gun is a 3" gun (more or less.).
	The next common US caliber is 105mm (4"), then 155 (6").  The 20mm/40mm
	etc are "strictly metric".  The odd thing, to me, os that so much of
	the world stayed "inchcentric": German 76mm, Russian 77 mm, German
	88 mm (~3.5"  3.46...").

	(rumor has that the 106mm recoiless was so named so that the logistics
	crew could, at a galnce tell the difference between 105mm (conventional)
	and 106mm (recoilless...) ammo.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass		01775	pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou)
Subject: Re: GPS vs "Friendly Fire"
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:23:09 GMT


From fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou)

miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
: 
: From miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
: 
: I'm curious.
: Did "every" vehicle in DS have a GPS unit? If so, how could GPS be used
: to prevent future "Friendly Fire" accidents?
: With digital encoding of radio signals, and GPS together, why couldn't
: all friendly units be tracked constantly, or at least "checked" before 
: fired upon? I know computer technology is there. Am I way behind here?
: Seems to me like a fire-system computer could do a .5 nano-second check
: on a target in aquisition. Of course I realize that in many cases, there
: is no time for anything other than kill or be killed.
: 
:
With so many units around (in the magnitude of thousands, and can be much more
had there been WWIII), I don't know it is technically feasible to track every
single vehicle and platoon on the ground.  A more feasible (IMHO) and probably
cheaper solution may be to equip vehicles and platoons with IFF devices.  Of
course, if that device is captured by the other side, it will fool youself.
There must be a way out.  All military a/c have IFF.  What do they do when
some are downed in enemy territory?  Are they coded and everyone has a
"signature"? 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: "jeeps"
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:59:22 GMT


From fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)

In article <BxvFFo.8ot@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dick.huddleston@yob.sccsi.com (Dick Huddleston) writes:
>
>From Dick Huddleston <dick.huddleston@yob.sccsi.com>
>
> JMM> I want to know what the names of the vehicles are that are commonly
> JMM> referred to as jeeps.  The vehicles I am talking about are officially
>
>Jason, the 'jeep' was the name of the little original Willys vehicle in the
>WWII era, very square and rugged.  

The *original* jeep was designed and produced by the Bantam Car company.
Willys (and some others) took to making them during the war because Bantam
couldn't produce enough to meet military need.

[ mod note -- According to Perret's Book _There is a War to be Won_, Bantam
did design the original Jeep as part of the design competition, as did
Willys and Ford.  Bantam's design met the design specs for weight, etc, but
was not mechanically reliable.  Willys design was much heaver, but was more
reliable and a better contractor.  The War Department choose the Willys
design over Bantam's and Ford's, and then convinced Ford to manufacture
according to Willys design

Steve]

>[...]generic name: next is the much larger "HUMV", affectionatly called
>Hum - Vees and they carry weapons platforms, ambulances, etc.  The jeeps

HMMV - High-Mobility Multi-purpose Vehicle.  A fellow locally is right
now driving one home from the factory...sort of an expensive toy.

(The above probably exhausts my total knowledge of automotive-related
information, except maybe for steam-engined cars.  I *hate* cars.  :} )
--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
-------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: RPG Combat Rules & Reality
Organization: student of numerical analysis at the University of Bergen, Norway
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:59:16 GMT


From ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)

>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:40:19 GMT, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) said:


	> It seems like if the vest distributes this over a wide enough area you
	> could void any damage at all.

	Miller> Well, yes but this is pretty tricky, I would think.
	Miller> And in answer to the question concerning about the
	Miller> shooter receiving momentum, consider that the shooter
	Miller> has shock absorbtion available (stocks, gas bleeds,
	Miller> the motion of the body or hands backwards, momentum
	Miller> absorbed by the mass of the weapon itself, etc.).  The
	Miller> target has to absorb all that kinetic force on a spot
	Miller> somewhat smaller than a dime...

...unless you're wearing a vest.  The point of using kevlar in vests,
as far as I understood it was that kevlar: a) Is tough/difficult to
penetrate, and b) is un-flexible, and thus will distribute forces over
a larger area.  (A more flexible plastic would be pushed into the
body, the way silk shirts were sometimes worn under armor in ancient
times) 

--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Phil Ngai <pngai@adobe.com>
Subject: Re: RPG Combat Rules & Reality
Keywords: rpg
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:22:37 GMT


From Phil Ngai <pngai@adobe.com>

In article <BxtK1y.1Ay@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick) writes:
>>Modern jackets/vests are fairly effective, but one thing most games ignore is
>>kinetic energy. Sure, so you got DAMN lucky and the .44 didn't punch through
>>your vest. Still, all the energy went somewhere. My roommate runs Cyberpunk,
>
>I've always wondered about this.  The person *shooting* the .44 had to
>accept just as much momentum when shooting as the bullet imparts to the
>recipient.

An elementary physics textbook will reveal that ENERGY and MOMENTUM are
two different things. The K. ENERGY of a moving object is given by one
half mass times velocity squared while MOMENTUM is mass times velocity.

-- 
Will Intel be the only X86 chip maker without a 586?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Dave Hall (Sverdrup" <tohall@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>
Subject: JDAM on B-2 (Cost Figures?)
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:46:09 GMT


From "Dave Hall (Sverdrup" <tohall@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>



 The following article really raised my eyebrows: 


&>Subject: DoD News - Contracts Nov 3-4, 1992
&>From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil>

&>	Northrop Corporation, B-2 Division, Pico Ricera, California, is being
&>awarded a $139,500,000 face value increase to a cost-plus-incentive-fee
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
&>contract for integration of the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) into the
&>B-2 aircraft.  Contract is expected to be completed July 1996.  Contract funds
&>will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  The Aeronautical
&>Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting
&>activity (F33657-81-C-0067, P00458).



          Is this $ figure a misprint? In my "former life" I worked as a
weapon systems engineer, including aircraft integration. I have a REAL hard
time imagining why they need $140 million to put ANY weapon on ANY airframe!
What the heck is a JDAM anyway? Seriously, here are some things that are
normally required for weapon/aircraft integration:

I) Stores carriage/Stores separation analysis. May need wind tunnel.
II) EMI/EMC analysis. May need Anechoic hangar facility.
III) Effects of weapon carriage on stealthiness (RCS). Anechoic hangar.
IV) Provide updated electrical and mechanical specs/drawings for
    aircraft/weapon interfaces.
V) Modify avionics software to allow targeting computers to talk to the
   new weapon. Includes copious documentation (MIL-STD-2167, etc).
VI) Add JDAM ground support provisions to B-2 logistics plans.
VII) Provide support for Ground testing, captive flight tests and test
firings. Lots of test plans/reports to write.

            OK, why is this a $140 million project? I am imagining a staff of
 perhaps 40-50 engineers (max) for 2-3 years. Their salaries should be about
$15 million or so ($100k * 50 people * 3 years). Add travel expense, computer
time, etc. It doesnt add up to $140 million in my mind! What did I miss?  

   The news blurb implies $140 million over 3.5 years. At $100k per man year,
that works out to a staff of roughly 400 people! What are they all going to do?

      These are my tax dollars at work! I wanna know what I am getting for my
money!

     Any other opinions out there?


                             Regards, 


                                   Dave Hall

DISCLAIMER: These opinions are purley mine. They are not the official policy 
of any private company or government agency. 



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:33:19 GMT


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

In article <Bxq1Fn.5x@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Arthur Leung <arthur@eng.sun.com> writes:
>there has been a lot of discussion about how hard it is
>	1 - penetrate BB armor
>	2 - sink a BB
>	3 - repaint a BB
>given the average weapons of today.
>
>instead of trying to outright sink her, is there a reason
>why the opponents couldn't just try and drive her away?
>it is true that a BB's vitals are behind lots of hard
>stuff, but her topsides have lots of soft stuff.  radars
>and radios quickly come to mind.  as well as the tomahawk's
>ABL (which, despite being "armored," aren't as armored
>as the rest of the ship) and phalanx CIWS.  (and this
>doesn't even mention the captain's gig!  :o)
>
>a scenario might be for coast defence artillery to fire
>DPICM (cluster) and try and scrub the topsides.  while
>it clearly won't sink her, it will degrade her combat
>effectiveness for at least a little while since she
>won't be able to range her shot effectively or communicate
>with anyone/thing.  might even lose a UAV.  blind a BB
>and she loses a lot of her potency.

A valid point. In fact, that is sort of the strategy the FUSSR might have
been planning against carriers (i.e. damaging them is almost as good as
sinking them) But, I must point out the following:

1) the ol' 16"/50 can outrange just about any artillery piece (especially
if the rumors about the subcaliber munitions are true!)

2) anti-ship missiles tend to attack amidships, low (right on a BBs
belt armor! :-) ) rather than on the radars. This is a good strategy
for sinking destroyers, but a lousy one for damaging BBs.

3) Battleships still have optical rangefinders in case the electronics
go out. Not as accurate, but it might still be enough.


			David Wells

DISCLAIMER: My opinions, not AT&T's.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Eric Wu <ewu@qsun.att.com>
Subject: What makes these guns great?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:29:49 GMT


From Eric Wu <ewu@qsun.att.com>


In the discussion of "impressive artilleries", some have picked 
the G5, G6, etc. from South Africa.  One of the reasons given 
is that they can shoot very far.  I would appreciate that if 
anyone can describe what makes these guns great.

The TV program (Frontline?) on the guy who was behind these 
guns did not talk much about the technology.  For example, it 
didn't explain much about why these guns can shoot further than 
others.  What gives a gun extensive range?  What prevents others 
from coping these great guns?  Then can't be as complicated as 
an F-14, can they?

Another related question: is the Iraqi super gun project real? 
What is the theory that it's going to work?

Thanks in advance

Eric

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stephen Roberts <sroberts@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: info wanted : tank tactics used in post WWII
Organization: The University of Western Australia
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:30:36 GMT


From Stephen Roberts <sroberts@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>

Just a simple request is there anyone out there with information on tank
tactics used post world war two.
i) Large Town to City Engagements
ii) Small Town
iii) Open Field Engagements

A pretty open question, because I don't want to limit replies by placing
restrictions to types, numbers etc.

Thanks to any replies.
Ciao Steve 
--
\     /
o-----   "Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh"      Well it might just happen...    
/     \ 
        sroberts@tartarus.uwa.edu.au | robert_s@dropbear.cs.uwa.edu.au  

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jeffrey N Jones <jejones%ob1@onus.att.com>
Subject: Re: Basic Training
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:43:33 GMT


From Jeffrey N Jones <jejones%ob1@onus.att.com>

>
>>>Hi! I am thinking of joining the Army and I have a few questions. I would like
>>>opinions on what to expect in Basic training.  I would also like so suggestions

Well, it's no summer camp and within 2 minutes you wil wonder that the
heck you got yourself into and within 3 minutes you'll wish you were
any where else but there. 2 pieces of of advice, keep your mouth shut
and your ears open. More advice keep the lowest profile that you can
while you are there. If you are in reasonable physical shape and like
to run you got it made. Because you are going to be running a lot and
doing hundreds of pushups. The  drill sargents are not going to shoot you 
and they'll call you names you never even heard of. Most of boot camp
is mental. They'll mess with your mind all the time. Best thing to do 
is always remember it is only a mental game. Hope this helps!

Jeff

PS.  I hated boot camp, then again everyone does. 8-)
-- 
 Jeff Jones  AB6MB         |      If we do not succeed,
 jeffj@seeker.mystic.com   |      then we run the risk of failure.
 Infolinc BBS 415-778-5929 |      Vice Pres. Dan Quayle

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: David Emery <emery@dr-no.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Best piece of Artillery you ever saw
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:33:55 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


From David Emery <emery@dr-no.mitre.org>

I've seen the G-5, and it's pretty impressive, for a towed howitzer.
Range isn't everything.   I'd like to propose some alternatives...

	1.  The M109A6 Paladin 155 SP.  This gun doesn't have the
range of the G-5.  But, it has everything else...  The neatest thing
is the on-board fire control system.  Basically, the gun can be
cruising down the road when it receives a mission.  It stops, computes
its current position (GPS or inertial navigation), computes the fire
solution, and shoots.  When the mission is done, it drives away.
There's no need to lay the gun or any of that other time-consuming
stuff.  The system also includes integrated NBC, etc, and a reasonable
Ammo load.  I think max range is still 30KM.  

The follow-on system (AFAS - Advanced Field Artillery System) will use
a combination of base-bleed, liquid propellants and other stuff to
achieve a 40KM+ max range.

	2.  The MLRS.  It took the U.S. a long time to come up with a
saturation fire weapon, and we did it right.  Just watching a single
rocket launch is pretty impressive.  Like the M109A6, it has on-board
fire control.  I think it also has on-board positioning, but I'm not
100% sure.  (If it doesn't, I'm sure we'll add it.)  Max range is
somewhere around 40-50KM.

	3.  The Soviet D-30 122 MM Howitzer.  Except for range, this
is still an excellent weapon.  It's light and easy to deploy.  Maybe
the U.S. should buy this to replace its current 105mm howitzers
(except for the ammo problems...)  I think max range is about 14KM.

				dave emery

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Best piece of Artillery you ever saw
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:56:04 GMT


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



Russ Teasdale writes:
#	The other note is a subtle one: the range of the gun when using
#base bleed projectiles is rumored to be substantially greater than that
#published. While at the museum, I noticed that the gun was pointed in
#a northerly direction, and asked where it was aimed. A big sergeant major
#laughed, and told me that it was targeted on the courtyard of the South
#African Defense Force's headquarters in Pretoria. Now, Pretoria is some
#distance from Johannesburg, and so I sat down with maps to ascertain what
#the range to the GHQ was. It's about 46km, substantially in excess of the
#claimed maximum range. And, I might add, I paced off the barrel length on
#the ground, did some trig, and concluded that the elevation was a few
#degrees less than the ballistically optimum 45 degrees...


The G6 is a superb weapon, but I suspect WRT to range the NCO was pulling
your leg. Unfortunately I can't go into particulars, but if you consider
the number of 45 and 52 caliber 155mm systems on the market today, all
claiming a range of 40 km +/-, any vendor with 5 km more range would
have an edge in a very competitive market and would advertise that fact.
If ARMSCOR didn't their less-than-scrupulous licensee Cardoen surely
would.

Another telling factor is the fact that you mention the tube elevation was
less than "the ballistically optimum 45 degrees." In fact, because of the
differences in atmospheric density with altitude, the real world
ballistically optimum elevation is actually about 53 degrees. So the G6
had its tube at an elevation substantially lower than that necessary for
maximum range.


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: Dave Pierson <pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: 106mm Recoiless Rifle - Rocket or Gun?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:42:49 GMT


From Dave Pierson <pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com>

In article <BxID61.LMH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
writes, in part:

>p.s. I *did* think the jeep with 4 106mm RR's on it looked neat though!
>What was it called? 'Ontos', maybe? Anyway, has anyone any experiences
>with those they'd care to relate?

	Ontos was 6 106mm recoilless on a full track, lightly armored chassis.
	Intended to be airmobile(?) and allow the USMC(?) some serious
	antiarmour punch.  If memory serves, there was a 0.50 cal sighting
	gun, dunno if it was M2 or single shot.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
pierson@msd27.enet.dec.com	|I am the NRA.
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede)
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Shallow Water ASW
Organization: SCTC
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:36:37 GMT


From beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede)

>Nuclear submarines can't just like that turn off their reactor since it
>takes time to turn it on. They are also much larger and hard to manoevre in
>tight spaces.

I just got done reading ``Cold is the Sea'' by Edward Beach.  He was a
submarine commander, if I recall correctly.  Unfortunately, I recall
from a _long_ time ago.

Anyway, the impression I got was that a nuclear sub (early 60's
vintage) could run on batteries to avoid turbine noise.  Also, I got
the impression that you could go from convection-mode operation (no
coolant pumps and very low steam production) to full power in a short
time.  ``Short time'' == maybe two-three minutes.

Is this anything like reasonable?

	Mike

[mod note -- I've have met Captain Beach.  He was the guest speaker at the
Purdue Military Ball in 1985 -- I was in charge of the affair when I was in
AFROTC, he gave me a first edition autographed copy of _Cold is the Sea_.
The battery time that I think you remember was in reference to driving a
small "outrigger" electric motor that was used to give maneuveribilty to
single screw subs for use in mooring.  

Captain Beach was indeed a "nuc", and commanded the U.S.S. Triton on the
first submerged circumnavigation of the globe.

Captain Beach is a very interesting speaker.  I've seen him on several PBS
shows about submarines, covering the period from WW-II to the early days of
the Polaris deployments

Steve]
-- 
Mike Beede         Secure Computing
beede@sctc.com     1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100           
------------------ Arden Hills, MN  55112
                    (612) 482-7420

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>
Subject:  Re:  WANTED:JANES BOOK ON MILITARY COMMUNICATION EQUIP
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:27:56 GMT


From     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>

For those who care and who want to buy Jane's books' back issues at
remaindered prices, I was purging my Barnes & Noble catalogs this past
weekend and ran across the following Jane's books listed in both current
and recently-expired catalogs:

Current listing:

Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1989-90   Stock # 1698034  $49.95

Older listing (catalog # 44B, early 1992):

Jane's Fighting Ships 1988-89  91st Ed.  Stock # 1697705  $69.95
Jane's Fighting Ships 1986-87            Stock # 1731660  $69.95 (*)
Jane's Military Training Systems 1988-89  Stock # 1766492  $49.95 (Paper)
Jane's Weapon Systems 1988-89  19th Ed.  Stock # 1708635  $69.95
Jane's Military Logistics 1988  9th Ed.  Stock # 1766484  $69.95
Jane's Military Review 6th Ed.           Stock # 1699222  $7.95
Jane's Fighting Ships of WWI             Stock # 1668086 $29.95
Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWI          Stock # 1668078 $29.95
International Defense Directory 88       Stock # 1766500 $39.95
Jane's American Fighting Ships of the 20th Century Stock # 1742287 $34.95 (x)
Jane's American Fighting Aircraft of the 20th Century Stock # 1742279 $34.95

[(*) These both are on the same page of the same catalog, yet they charge
just as much for an older edition as for a newer. It makes no sense to
me either... :-(]

[(x) These two look to be full price. Also, I wonder about "Fighting
Aircraft of the 20th Century" -- a book of "Fighting Aircraft of the
19th Century would be pretty slim... :-)]
^^^^
So you'll have to call B&N to check on the availability of those items in
the second list. 

Barnes & Noble
126 Fifth Ave. 
New York, NY 10011

201-767-7079 or 800-242-6657

Special note: B&N do NOT publicize this 800 number in their current
catalogs; it was in some catalogs a few years back and they no longer
show it. But it does still work, as of the last time we ordered. SO SAVE IT! 

Regards, Will
wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil

Newsgroups: sci.military