HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Misc. M1 info (DU)
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:08:03 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

All the talk about using DU as the penetrator in APFSDS rounds
spurred me to do some checking & here's some things I've found;

The current production model of the M1 uses DU within the matrix
of the Chobham armor. The result is a 10t increase in mass (55t
vs 65t) but a large increase in armor protection. Here are some
numbers.

basic M1 (105mm gun) - 2374 produced from '80-'84. Armor is rated
as equivalent to 350mm of hardened steel vs kinetic rounds & 750mm
vs HEAT.

improved protection (IP) M1 (105mm) - 894 produced '85-'86. Armor
is rated as 400mm/1000mm.

M1A1 (120mm gun) - 1500 produced '86-'88. Armor same as IPM1.

M1A1 (DU) - 2700 produced '88-'91. Armor beefed up by addition of DU,
(2 1/2 times density of steel) increasing mass by 10t. Armor rated as
600mm vs kinetic & 1300 mm vs HEAT. (a majority of the tanks used in
Desert Storm were reportedly of this type)

Here's some data on the test performances of some of the rounds used in
the 105 & 120 mm guns.

105mm L7 (M1)
	M-392 APDS   - 250mm
	M-735 APFSDS - 375mm
	M-833 APFSDS - 435mm (this round uses the DU penetrator)
	M-456A2 HEAT - 425mm
	
120mm (M1A1)
	M-829 APFSDS   - 525mm
	M-829E1 APFSDS - 650mm (uses DU penetrator)
	
I could find no data concerning a HEAT round for the Rheinmetall 120mm
used by the M1A1. Maybe only APFSDS is used for this gun?

The son of my brother-in-law was stationed with the Tiger brigade when
it deployed to the Gulf. He stated that the unit was equipped with M1's
armed with the 105mm gun. They didn't take those with them however. They
were issued M1A1's with DU armor after they arrived in the Gulf. He spe-
cifically mentioned "the uranium armor". An old high school friend of
my brother was stationed with the 1st Infantry Division's forward based
brigade in Europe when Iraq invaded Kuwait. According to him the brigade
had already stood down for transfer back to the US. He was transferred to
the Gulf to facilitate the transfer of the Divisions assets ( the 1st ID
was one of the 'dual-based' units so there was a enough equipment for the
entire division stockpiled in Germany) to the Gulf to re-equip Army units
transferring from the US. Premsumably, this is where the M1A1's with DU
armor issued to the Tiger brigade came from since the 1ID had only 2 bri-
gades worth of troops to transfer from the US.

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: John Tucker <john@phobos.sscl.uwo.ca>
Subject: Autofocus and the Stealth
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:34:41 GMT


From John Tucker <john@phobos.sscl.uwo.ca>

I work in a photo lab and have recently processed a bunch of airshow
pictures which were taken of the Stealth F/B. 

I know that they were taken using a garden variety compact autofocus
camera, and the pictures came out crystal clear in focus.

Given the Stealth's "stealth", how come a commercial autofocus system
can "lock-on" for a sharp picture?


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: propeller planee's anti-torque problem
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:44:59 GMT


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




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

In article <1992Jul28.130211.24398@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mat@uunet.uu.net!mole-end writes:
>
>From mat@uunet.uu.net!mole-end

>> All planes have this torque problem. In fact one of the reasons tail draggers
>> are harder to fly is that the torque from big engines and big propellers
>> makes them difficult to control on the ground. ...
>
>I have read that this `problem' was used by pilots of WWI aircraft, which
>had a Truly Huge rotating mass (the crankshaft was fixed; the `block'
>assembly turned) to perform maneuvers that were otherwise impossible, and
>these included using gyroscopic effects.
>
>Would anyone care to explain some of these maneuvers?

>From reading Biggles books I get the impression that planes 
like the Sopwith Camel turned five times faster one way than
the other. I believe the right hand turn was lightning quick
due to precession effects. 

I suppose quickly pulling the nose up would induce a strong 
yaw, so if you go with this induced yaw you'd turn very quick-
ly.





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM
Subject: sci.military article re-post
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:42:36 GMT


From steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM

We have resolved the nntp problems here, so following this message are
re-posts of the articles reposted last week.

I apologize for the problem, and appreciate your understanding.

Steve
--
Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM ___| Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
Reserve sci.military moderator| "The airplane does not recognize attitude,
providing a maneuver is conducted at one G" -- A.M. "Tex" Johnston
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: why velcrow insignia
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:25:32 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu




From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <1992Jul30.125156.18302@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, carssdf!watson@rutgers.edu (- Self Empl. Sys.Integrator) writes:
> 
> From carssdf!watson@rutgers.edu (- Self Empl. Sys.Integrator)
> 
> 
> Why do air force flying uniforms seem to have all insignia 
> attached by velcrow?   Is this a laundry consideration?
> 
> John Watson

A former brother-in-law of mine ,who is an AF fighter pilot, told me
that it was to allow the removal of unit ID insignia. The idea was
to keep that info from the enemy intell people in case the pilot was
downed behind enemy lines & captured. They still wore the minimum
required by the Geneva Convention.

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU
Subject: Re: Scots Greys at Waterloo
Organization: UCLA School Of Engineering & Applied Science
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:53:14 GMT


From scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU


In article <BsKCBF.DIs@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> M.J.Rooth@lut.ac.uk (Mike Rooth) writes:
[... long defense of the Scot's Greys ...]
>
>To spike a cannon you have to hammer a spike(or nail) into the
>touch hole,and then file it off flush with the barrel. If you dont
>file it off,the first farrier to come along can remove the spike.

Actually what one did was to drive a headless nail into
the touchhole, until it was flush with the barrel, then the loading
ramrod was used to bend the spike over, this made extraction VERY
difficult.  Remember that at this time the majority of field pieces were
cast from brass.  One would expect that it would take an experienced armourer
several hours to remove the spike and then rebush the touchhole (a touch
hole 8-12mm across is not going work very well, in addition it will erode
very rapidly.

[mod note -- I thought that brass would have been too soft of a metal to
cast a cannon out of.  I would have thought they would have used bronze --
Steve ]

>I dont think that course of action was *really* available to a
>guy trying to hold a maddened warhorse in the other hand,surrounded
>by hostiles and not issued with the necessary tools:-)

-----
Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (310)-825-8614
UUCP: ...{ibmsupt,ncar!cepu}!ollie}!scw  Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
"Non, je ne regrette rien"--1st Para, LE 1963

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: birmingh@fnalf.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Aurora
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:44:16 GMT


From birmingh@fnalf.fnal.gov


In article <Bsw121.FD@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ad207@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brett Kollar) writes:

> Has anyone heard any more info on the Aurora lately?  I found an
> interesting article on it.  LOTS of good stuff lately...

         At the air show in West Chicago last weekend, the announcer
    mentioned a little bit about Aurora. He didn't mention the name, but he
    said that people had heard some strange noises and seen weird
    contrails, and that the Skunk Works was up to something (this said
    during the F-117 fly-by.)

-- 
 Phillip J. Birmingham   birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov  
 I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough...

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Re: Interesting Sub Item
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:39:40 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


From lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)

In article <Bsw16n.vJ@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart) writes:
>	My Dad served aboard the USS Snook (Skipjack class SSN).  He told me
>that the fastest the sub went was 30 knots on trials, but they never took it
>over 24 knots after that.  The problem is that the propeller shaft would 
>twist up to 1.5 times ahead of the screw rotation.  In other words, the 
>propeller was turning up to 1.5 revolutions *later* than the shaft.  Sailing
>at 25+ knots could "wring" the propeller right off the shaft the same way
>a farmer wrings a chickens neck!  He also told me that another submarine,
>whos name I've forgotten, actually did wring the propeller, and had to be
>tugged back to harbor.  This is only a problem with nuclear boats I would
>imagine, since conventional boat's propellers won't need to turn as fast.

Wow.  Serious design flaw.  

As any mechanical engineer learns in Strength of Materials, you cannot put
force on metal without bending it.  If you put a torque on a drive shaft,
the shaft will twist.  Exactly how much is dependant on a number of
variables, including shaft length.  But it's OK.  Each type of metal has a
point at which the bending eventually becomes permanent ("metal fatigue"). 
As long as you design your shaft with a large enough diameter so that the
engine cannot put enough torque on it to bend it past that point, it will
return to its normal shape undamaged.

With the sub you mention, either:

    The engineers screwed up and didn't make the shaft and blades thick
    enough to begin with,

or

    An engine was installed which was more powerful than the original spec.

Think about it next time you consider putting a V-8 in your Toyota.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
Well, I can see by your coat, my friend, that you're from the other side.
There's just one thing I've got to know; can you tell me, please, who won?
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium -- Hydrogen Bombs
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:38:26 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

In <Bsw0L1.Lpu@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:

>U-238 is a primary component for use in constructing thermonuclear
>weapons -- fusion boosted, hydrogen, and neutron bombs.  It can be
>used also in the construction of nuclear driven shaped charges for
>boring instant tunnels through mountains.

	I believe this to be incorrect.  My understanding is that U238
is a poison (nuclear engineers have such vague terms, huh?) to the
reaction process.  U235 is the isotope needed to produce the neutrons
necessary for fission.  U238 is a neutron absorber (hence poison), and
mainly an alpha emitter with some gamma emmissions as well.  For a
fission weapon, you use 98% enriched uranium, or 98% U235, and for a
fusion weapon you use plutonium, which is "ignited" by a fission weapon
in the most simple version.  For the enhanced radiation weapons, you
will add an element that will enhance the radioactivity of the weapon.
I believe Cobalt is one that might be used, but there could be others.

	DISCLAIMER: I _have_ to include this.  I was a nuclear
engineering major at ISU for three years, at which time they disbanned
the department and I moved out.  This was a few years ago, and I have
no references available to check right now.  I have never built a bomb,
was never taught now to build a bomb, and probably won't be building
them in the near future.  The radioactive properties of the uranium I
am fairly certain about, but the bomb part is from the reading of
unclassified information and related stories about the people who
were working on the Manhattan Project and their work from a former
professor who knew some of them.  The technology has changed enough
since WW2 that there might be other ways of building them, and I make
no claims of knowing much of anything about them as they are made now.
As for radiation enhancement, this is speculation based upon what I
remember from various labs on the subject of radionucleides and is
purely speculation on my part.

	It's a crying shame that I have to include that, isn't it?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)
Subject: Re: depleted uranium
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:45:52 GMT


From arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)




From arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)

I mention the safety issue in relation to radiation in tanks hit w/ DU because
a couple of months ago I saw picture from the Gulf War of American tanks
hit by American Warthogs w/ DU rounds. The pictures showed the tanks cordoned
off (I thought for investigation purposes) but apparently it was for radiation
(had little radiation signs all over). 
Aaron
Aaron Wininger                               Columbia Plasma Physics Laboratory
arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu                                 Columbia University
wininger@cuplvx.ap.columbia.edu                              New York, NY 10027
      'That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.'  -Nietzche

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Vietnam era ammo sabotage
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:40:17 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <Bsvn5J.E23@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ulowell!usl.edu!jab0684@samsung.com (Boudreaux Jean A) writes:
>
>I friend of mine tells me that back in Vietnam, Americans would sometine
>sabotage 7.62x39 mm ammunition.  The method was to take a shell,
>pull the bullet, and replace the powder with a bit of c-4.  The 
>american would then load the 'doctored' shell in a full ammo clip
>and leave it for some unsuspecting charlies to find.  Hopefully
>the primer would detonate the c-4 and neutralize charlie.
>Can anyone confirm or add detail to this method of sabotage.
>Also, please add any other interesting American booby traps, as I hear
>much of VC ingenuity, but little in terms of US sabotage etc.

I don't know about whether the trick was used in Vietnam, but it's
quite common at home. People load compressed charges of Bullseye
behind a 158 grain round nose and then toss the finished 38 Specials
in undesirable neighborhoods. It tends to make a hand grenade out
of a Saturday Night Special. I wouldn't be surprised to find that
the same sort of thing was tried in Vietnam.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mcgp1!flak@nwnexus.wa.com (Dan Flak)
Subject: re: light aircraft in attack mode
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:14:46 GMT


From mcgp1!flak@nwnexus.wa.com (Dan Flak)

As a former O-2A (drafted Cessna Skymaster) pilot, I have more
than 2 cents to contribute to this discussion.

The O2 had a gunsight, and 4 stations upon which one can hang:

    7 tube rocket launcher
    parachute flare launcher
    marker "logs"
    mini-gun pods
    CBU canisters

I've seen pictures of O2's dressed up with gun pods, but I've
never heard of them actually being used in combat. I think the
plane could carry about 3 seconds worth of ammunition. "Just
enough to get you in trouble, and not enough to get you out of
it". Likewise for the CBU (cluster bomb units).

Mostly the O2 went out with 2 pods of rockets armed with WP heads
to mark targets for the fighters. They carried logs and flares
for night operations.

Our maintenance troops once took empty BLU-27 (750 lb canister
of napalm) and hung one each off the wings of an O2. I have a
picture of it, but I wouldn't want to take off with the empties,
much less the real thing. (Under the right weather conditions, it
might be possible, but definitely not safe).

I know that if you can place a WP rocket in the back window of a
truck will set the cab on fire (my one lucky shot in 2 1/2 years
of flying them). I've also heard stories of FACs shooting out the
windows with their M-16's. But, generally the O2 wasn't very
offensive.

Some SE Asian countries used T-26 trainers which are essentially
light aircraft, although not civilian by design. Another light,
but not civilian aircraft, was the OV-10. The USAF used them
mainly as the successor to the O-2, and idn't do much in the line
of CAS with them, however the Marines did (still do?).

-- 
            Don't try to answer 1990's problems with 1960's answers.
       Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 5400 Carillon Point
  Kirkland, Wa 98033-7397, 206-828-8006, (usenet: flak%mcgp1.uucp@nwnexus.com)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Scots Greys
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:36:16 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

The lineage of the regiment runs like this;

1681 - Royal Regiment of Scots Dragoons
1707 - Royal North British Dragoons
1751 - 2nd or Royal North British Dragoons
1877 - 2nd Dragoons (Royal Scots Greys)
1921 - Royal Scots Greys (2nd Dragoons)
1971 - amalgamated with the 3rd Carabiniers (Prince of Wales's Dragoon
       Guards) to form the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards
       
(it seems that as the Napoleonic Wars the regiment was , in fact, designated
as "North British". However it's current recruiting area is Scotland with the
RHQ at Edinburgh Castle. The dragoon designation could account for the report
of fighting dismounted.)    

PHIL

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hards4@ee.adfa.oz.au (Brad Hards)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: vision for helicopter pilots?
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:22:18 GMT
Organization: ADFA Vortex


From hards4@ee.adfa.oz.au (Brad Hards)

In article <Bt4oJC.212@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Dan <BXP5@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> Can anyone out there tell me the vision requirements for helicopter pilots
> in each of the services?  I understand that it is not necessary to have
> 20/20 to fly choppers?

In Australia, helo pilots have the same requirements as other pilots. 
I am also 90% sure that it does NOT have to be 20/20. I recall 6/9 unaided,
but that might be some other category.
From: steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)
Subject: Sci.military articles re-posted
Organization: NCR Corporation, Corporate Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:42:29 GMT


From steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)


From steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)


Sci.military articles for the week of Aug 3-7 were re-posted on Monday,
August 10.  There were approximately 150 articles posted on 10 August, and
15 articles posted on 11 August.

If you did not get these articles, please let me know.  The articles did
leave NCR to our internet connection (PSI).

Steve
-- 
Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM ___| Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
Reserve sci.military moderator| "The airplane does not recognize attitude,
providing a maneuver is conducted at one G" -- A.M. "Tex" Johnston

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Saturday, 1 August, 1942
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:19:53 GMT


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




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

Saturday, 1 August, 1942

German troops reach the Kuban river and capture the Salsk station on the
Stalingrad-Novorossiysk rail line.  Heavy combat continues near Kalach and
Kletskaya.

The Royal Navy's Eastern Fleet commences Operation Stab, a sortie into the
Bay of Bengal intended to divert Japanese attention from the Solomons.

Axis bombers strike at Cairo.  Ground combat in North Africa is limited to
patrols and a few artillery duels; both sides are trying to rebuild their
strength for another attack.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"Not one more backward step!" - Josef Stalin
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu
Subject: Chromalloy AeroServices to Pay $770,000 to Settle Foreign Military Sales Dispute
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:51:26 GMT


From Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu

I thought that sci.military readers might want to see the following press
release from the U.S. Department of Justice.

 Chromalloy AeroServices to Pay $770,000 to Settle Foreign
Military Sales Dispute
 To: National Desk, Defense Writer
 Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, Public Affairs, 202-514-2007

   WASHINGTON, Aug. 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Department of Justice
today announced that Chromalloy AeroServices International Ltd.,
a Texas corporation, will pay the United States $770,000 to settle
a civil qui tam action alleging, among other things, unauthorized
use of foreign parts and labor in a contract with Egypt financed by
the U.S. Defense Security Assistance Agency (DSAA).
   Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Gerson, head of the Civil
Division, said, "This settlement demonstrates the government's
commitment to ensuring that government funds spent overseas will
be used to benefit the U.S. economy by encouraging the export of
U.S. goods and services."
   The United States said Chromalloy provided unauthorized
foreign parts and labor to Egypt under a $32 million Foreign Military
Sales Program (FMS) contract that required the firm, unless it obtained
approval from DSAA to do otherwise, to use U.S. goods and
services in providing helicopter repair and related services to the Egyptian
Air Force.
   The qui tam action was filed by James Longhofer, a former
Chromalloy employee, on his own behalf and on behalf of the
United States under the False Claims Act.  Under the False Claims Act, a
private person bringing such a suit receives a portion of the
money recovered for the government.  Longhofer will receive $120,000 as
his share of the recovery.
   Gerson said the agreement resolves both common law and
statutory claims the government could have filed, including civil penalties
and multiple damages under the False Claims Act.
   Gerson said Chromalloy and its former president, Arnold Prill,
also pleaded guilty to a federal criminal charge in U.S. District
Court in Alexandria, Va., in the same case.
 -30-


Newsgroups: sci.military