HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Claims of mathematical dependence
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:43:14 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <BtJnBo.8oJ@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
tedrick%whistle.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
> 
> As in land warfare, where an increase in mobility tends to
> increase the value of the unit proportionately to the square
> of the increased mobility (otherwise known as "Tedrick's rule of land
> warfare" :-) the great mobility of air units tends to outweigh
> other factors (and in the air their value tends to increase
> proportionately to the cube of the increased mobility :-)
> 

So, do you have data to support this claim of second order and third order
dependence?  Perhaps a semi-log graph?

My point here is that this looks to me like a case of using mathematical
language in a, shall we say, inexact way.

This practice is all too prevelant among the DC area "analysts", who foist this
sort of language off on DoD every day.  As a physicist with close ties to DoD I
wish people would be more careful. 

Yes Tom, I noticed the smiley face next to your "rule".  My concern is not
your whimsical naming, but your assertion of a proportionality.  If you have
data to support this, I'd be quite willing to look at it.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: <RHG@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: WWII OSRD Organizational chart query
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:23:13 GMT


From <RHG@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>

I wonder if anyone can lead me to an organizational chart of
the World War II Office of Scientific Research and Development
(OSRD), along with its divisions and institutions involved.
(It's for a book on torpedoes in World War II that I'm working
on.)

Thanks.  The relationships are really confusing.
======================================================================
Robert Gannon              |  Bitnet:    RHG@PSUVM
35 Burrowes Bldg.          |  Internet:  RHG@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Penn State                 |  Phone:     814 355-4800 or 355-0943
University Park, PA 16802  |  Fax:       814 863-7285

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: propeller planee's anti-torque problem
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:39:22 GMT


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

In article <BtGJ0z.oy@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:

| I write:

||.... My argument was that the yaw effect one sees before the air-
||plane starts to roll is due to propwash - the effects of a spiral-
||ling slipstream on the vertical surfaces of the aircraft. The reason
||I think P-factor isn't involved here is because the airplane isn't 
||moving at all, thus no relative wind!

|This is partially correct. When the aircraft is stationary and there's no
|wind, there's no relative wind and no P-factor effects. The problems with
|tail draggers occur mainly in the 10 to 40 mph airspeed range. Below about
|10 mph, P-factor is negligible. At about 40, the rudder becomes effective
|enough to overcome it. In between, though, you can see a big swing. However,
|the effects of a spiraling slipstream are relatively constant and the fixed
|control surfaces (vertical and horizontal stabilizers) are canted to cancel
|these effects out.

Accounts of takeoffs in Spitfires and Mustangs usually mention the
need to stamp hard on the rudder pedal when the airplane is sitting
still and the engine brought up to takeoff RPM. The air moved by the 
prop works on the rudder to keep the airplane from yawing. 

They also mention keeping the stick back while taxiing and during 
the initial part of the takeoff roll to keep the tail down.

Gyroscopic precession came into play upon landing whe  the tail 
drops. One had to be ready with the rudder when the airplane yaws.






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: rray@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com (Randy J. Ray)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Discovery Channel Programming
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:03:48 GMT
Organization: US WEST Communications, Inc. -- Denver, CO


From rray@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com (Randy J. Ray)

I have just gotten cable again, after a 7-month hiatus. I would like to start
adding programs like GI Diary, Carriers, War Chronicles, Firepower, etc. to 
my library of references. How many different episodes do these have? Short of
subscribing to their magazine, how can I know which is which when they come on?
I have a pretty complete collection of the Wings episodes, but for all I know,
they could have made more of them since I last had cable.

Randy
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Randy J. Ray -- U S WEST IT/CSD         rray@{lookout,uswat}.it.uswc.uswest.com
I'd rather talk religion with Charles Manson than discuss ethics with Congress.
     -me                                                   Phone: (303)595-2852
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SJ Roc D'Arcy, MBP)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:16:54 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo


From bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SJ Roc D'Arcy, MBP)

In article <BtAJDu.Cuz@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, john@phobos.sscl.uwo.ca (John Tucker) writes...

>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?

Not being an visible spectrum photo guru this answer may be in error,
but I believe that the automatic camera did not lock onto the 
plane at all, but simply was set at infinity.  After a certain
range the optics no longer focus and just set themselves at the
maximum range (which if configured correctly is well focused).  Some
of our kodak readers will probably give a better explanation.

If these photos are close ups I would guess that the
camera senses distance via sonar and not something EM.

SJRD
From: whitman@nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Rusty Whitman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Nukes in the Republics
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:12:11 GMT
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center


From whitman@nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Rusty Whitman)

Does anyone know which of the Republics of the former Soviet Union
currently have nuclear weapons?

Of those that have nukes, what kind are they (ICBMs or tactical, land
or sea-based)?

And, who controls the nuclear weapons in the Republics?

This became of interest to me when the Black Sea fleet was seized (I forget
which Republic it was), since these ships carry (or carried) nuclear
weapons. 

Rusty Whitman - Computer Sciences Corp - "I work for 'em, I don't speak for 'em"
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: How to spike a gun?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:42:59 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


From bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)

In article <BtHwyB.BL1@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR  
COMAN) writes:
> 
> >Hmmm... weren't cannon ball made of iron and a loose fit in the 
> >bore? A screw extractor wouldn't quite work, but I have seen mo-
> >vies where a piece was unloaded by tipping the barrel down. The 
> >projectile slid out.

I seem to remember something about heating the cannon ball red hot and dumping  
it down the barrel so it welded itself to the inside. 

--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:04:27 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)

>From bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
> In article <BtAJDu.Cuz@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> John Tucker  
> <john@phobos.sscl.uwo.ca> writes:
>> Given the Stealth's "stealth", how come a commercial autofocus system
>> can "lock-on" for a sharp picture?

Stealth technology helps against IR and Radar detection.  For simple
visible light, there's nothing better yet than the old camouflage
paint.

> Autofocus cameras usually use an active ranging mechanism such as an infrared  
> beam or sound.

Better cameras focus by measuring edge sharpness or contrast
differences on the resulting picture.  I.e., if you can see it in
focus, the camera can as well.  You could confuse that kind of
autofocus, though, by painting regular patterns on the plane.  (I have
experienced problems focusing on the glass fronts of modern office
buildings, with hundreds of completely regular glass panes.)
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:40:49 GMT


From HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)

In <BtspJF.uE@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> km4ba!alan@kd4nc.ampr.org writes:

> Even if the F-16 could replace the A-10, ( I still see the advantage
> for the A-10 in it's defined role) I think the army will keep the A-10.
> I remember a big issue about the army "owning" the close air support 
> role. US army VS USAF politics, and priorities when sorties are defined.
>  Alan Barrow  km4ba 

  I saw my cousin, who flies the A-10 and trains newbies in Wichata Falls, this
 weekend (8/30) and asked him what the deal was about replacing the Hog.

  He shrugged and said he had no idea.  Somehow I doubt anybody else knows what
the services will do either.  They probably can't decide.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium -- Hydrogen Bombs
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:26:45 GMT


From merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)

In article <> ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Seriously, if you want to know what's wrong with this approach do the
>math for what's happening at 15 and at 30 nanoseconds after fission
>implosion. You'll find that your fusion core goes phutt out the side
>of the device while the neutrons are still building alpha. Even if
>it didn't, you'd get an asymetric implosion because of the speed 
>of the prompt neutron flux and the geometry of the system.

Gary,

Take a look at Sandmeier, Dupree, and Hansen, Nucl Sci Eng 48:343 (1972)
-- fission based devices don't even begin to expand (disassemble) until 
about fifty generations -- about 0.5 usec -- AFTER PROMPT CRITICALITY --
this is a well known publically available source which you are free to
consult, describe, and/or critique.  In this context, it is obvious that
the fusion core does not go 'phutt out the side of the device' in 15 to
30 nanoseconds.  It takes significantly more time for prompt neutrons to 
escape and generate additional fission events in the U-238 wrapper of the
secondary fusion core.  You must be neglecting some fundamental physical
concept (perhaps interia) in doing your math for what's really happening.

My computational model indicates that while it is possible to optimize
the shape of the U-238 blanket of the secondary fusion core that as far
as simply generating an arbitrarily high yield such optimization must
have only marginal effect on the ultimate power of the device.  Indeed,
with an arbitrarily thick U-238 wrapper it should be obvious that there
is little relevance in the shape of the fusion core tamper.

Given this model -- and as a side issue, current experiments directed at
openly demonstrating the feasibility of fusion explosions without use of
any primary fission trigger -- I don't sleep very well at all.  The kind
of people interested in this very line of research are far too dangerous
to be taken lightly.

Merlin                        Never let it be forgot
The Magician                  That there once was a spot
King Arthur's Court           For one brief shining moment
Camelot                       That was known as Camelot











Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium -- Hydrogen Bombs
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 12:12:09 GMT


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
>Why do you say the details are omitted?  You put a U-238 wrapper around
>your fusion core -- and put the entire assembly in an intense neutron flux
>environment (maybe something like a couple of feet from a fission device).

I will content myself with observing that merlin's opinions on this are
not universally shared.  For one thing, some of us think it rather odd
that a lot of very smart physicists took so long to notice this:  the
early history of the US hydrogen-bomb project was 100% blind alleys,
and it took a significant insight -- novel enough to be patentable --
to break the logjam and produce something workable.  There is ample
testimony that nobody really thought the early schemes would work; the
advent of adequate computing confirmed this rather than revealing it.
The Teller-Ulam invention, whatever it is, makes a huge difference:
according to Herbert York, when it was explained to him -- he was a
fission-bomb designer already -- his reaction was "yes, that should
work".  I have trouble believing that a simple U-238 wrapper was it.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ahahma@utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
Subject: Re: Osmium????? (Re: depleted uranium)
Organization: University of Turku
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 12:04:44 GMT


From ahahma@utu.fi (Arno Hahma)

In article <BtpCJG.Lq6@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates) writes:

>From th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates)

>For those of you who aren't in the know, certain people have been 
>taking an interest in a metal called Tantalum. Details are scarce but
>I *think* it's being used experimentally for HEAT liners. Perhaps someone
>else can confirm. 

Tantalum would be an _excellent_ material for shaped charges, indeed.
It is about the most ductile of the metals, very dense (almost as
dense as uranium), inert like platinum (won't combust on hitting
something), high melting (about 3000 oC, a great advantage). Tungsten
is also very good for shaped charges, at least it gives a few tens of
per cent increase in performance compared to copper. I am quite sure
tantalum would outperform it.

>*  Tom Oates  (Bristol Poly, England)    *   DISCLAIMER:-               *

ArNO
    2




Newsgroups: sci.military
From:         Mike Long <MLONG@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject:      Hazing and Question on DU
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:19:01 GMT


From         Mike Long <MLONG@uconnvm.uconn.edu>

One of our favorites was to send the new guy after the metric adjustable wrench
or some elbow grease. One guy actually did come back with some elbow grease
once and we never did find out exactly what it was but boy did it stink!


Following the thread on Uranium Oxide,(forgive me if this is a stupid
question), What happens when DU armor is struck by an incoming projectile?
Is there a hazardous release of toxic dust that surrounding troops should
be concerned with? Others have mentioned the potential hazards of entering a
a vehicle soon after being struck by a DU munition but other than the side
effects of the incoming round itself will the DU armor produce a similar
hazard?

Mike Long  MLONG@UCONNVM
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Photo -- clearing mines in Bosnia
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:12:29 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Independence


From packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)

Apparently mines are being laid on the surface nowadays. A photo
in the NY Times Friday, credited to "Brogi/Contrasto/Saba"
is captioned 

  "United Nations forces clearing mines last week in the town
   of Banja Luka, Bosnia."

It shows seven mines resting on a street, arrayed in a circle about
15 feet in diameter. A soldier has picked up one mine. Another
soldier is bending doen to pick up another. The mines have 
convenient handles for carrying.

This accords with a story I saw last week about a the driver
in a relief supply vehicle who, at a checkpoint, asked the
soldiers to "clear the mines" so he could proceed, and
they obliged.

As far as I can tell, mines are not placed with signs next to
them that say, for example, "This is a mine."
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: SAS use tungsten coated 9mmclo
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:12:52 GMT
Organization: Cornell University


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

In article <BtC4yr.674@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell) writes: 
> 
> From billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)
> 
> In article <BtAJop.EKo@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Rick Lafford <lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM> writes:
> |> 
> |> 
> |> Would there be any advantage to intermixing two types of ammo in the same
> |> clip, say saboted subcaliber penetrators with hollowpoint? Even if the
> |> hollowpoints won't go thru the body armour, they still can hit with 
> |> enough punch to knock you down.
> |> 
> This is a point that is quite valid, but not good tactical doctrine.  The
> problem arises when you get down to that last bullet: will it work on
> the target given?  
 The real problem would be that the dissimilar rounds would almost certainly
have different ballistic performance and thus different points of aim beyond a
few feet.  Not good for accuracy when half the rounds are going one way and
half the other. ;-)

> As far as a hollowpoint goes, it
> isn't the greatest as far as expanding rounds go.  There are much better 
> rounds to achieve the same effect.
WHat would be better? (This is not a flame, just curiosity.)  The hollowpoint
rounds commonly in police use are turning in 80+% one shot stops.  [courtesy of
Wayne Evans' shooting statistics]  That would seem to be pretty d*mn good. 

-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Whenever you're holding all the cards why does everyone else turn
out to be playing chess?"
Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Friday, 28 August, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:26:38 GMT


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

Friday, 28 August, 1942

Fighting continues across New Guinea.  At Milne Bay, the Australians hold
firm, but the Japanese gain some ground inland over the Owen-Stanley Range.

German troops begin an attack on Novorossiysk.

RAF bombers raid Nuremburg and Saarbruecken.

A seaplane from the Japanese submarine I-25 drops incendiary bombs on a
forested region of the state of Oregon.

References:
C.Argyle, _Chronology of World War II_
R.Dupuy and T.Dupuy, _The Encyclopedia of Military History_
R.Goralski, _World War II Almanac, 1931-1945_
J.Keegan, ed., _The Times Atlas of the Second World War_
C.Messenger, _Atlas of World War Two_
J.Piekalkiewicz, _Tank War 1939-1940_
J.Rowher and G. Hummelchen, _Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-1945_
Royal Institute of International Affairs, _Chronology of the Second 
	World War_
C.Salmaggi and A.Pallavisini, _2194 Days of War_
Brig. P.Young, _The World Almanac of World War II_
The New York Times, daily editions
Time magazine
Newsweek

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

"Never before has the Fuehrer faced such a situation as that now
confronting him in the Caucasus, where his success hung on such short and
thin threads of time, and never before has he thrown so much of his
manpower and equipment into local battles and taken such risks." 
- Maj. Gen. Stephen O. Fuqua, US Army, Retired
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Neil A Kirby <nak@cbnews.att.com>
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:06:56 GMT


From Neil A Kirby <nak@cbnews.att.com>

In article <BtLC7D.578@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com (Bob McCormick) writes:
>
>From bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com (Bob McCormick)
>
>In Desert Storm, it appeared that no tank kills were made with the GAU-8
>cannon on the A-10.  Is this correct?  Would this be an additional reason
>to drop the A-10, since the F-16 can (I presume) handle Mavericks just
>as well as the A-10?

My understanding is that no tank kills were made with cannon.

The reason being that the standoff range of Hellfires and other missiles is
much greater than the kill range of the cannon.  There was a BIG effort
made in DS to minimize threats faced by personell.  A number of M1 crews
were less than thrilled at being held back from engaging tanks; the air
guys (fixed and rotary) were chewing tanks without returned fire.  The
commanders (correctly) kept the tanks back as long as the missile supply on
the air assets held out.  It also helps keep the tanks out of areas where
they could suffer frinedly fire casualties.

Remeber the picture of the A10 that lost one third of a wing and all but
one of the multiple-redundant main wing spars?  (Was he the guy who
ingested crud into an engine, shut down the engine then restarted it after
it spit out the debris?)   There was good reason to stay at standoff
range.

There was one helo kill made with the cannon.  The helo just disintegrated
when brought under fire.

One could say that "When the F16/A16 can handle eleven hardpoints worth of
stuff plus cannon, then it *might* replace the A10."  But things aren't
that simple.

>
>(BTW, I hopt that they don't drop the A-10; IMHO it is a great asset
>due to its survivalbility.)

I agree.  But - and there are always such flies in the ointment - Fairchild
isn't building A10's anymore.  To be effective you have to have sufficient
numbers of aircraft.  It's not like the case with the B52 that there were
zillions of them made, either.  In the future, will we have enough A10's
left to do the job?  What is the most cost-effective follow on?  Do we ask
General Dynamics to make more electric jets, or do we ask Fairchild to get
back into the A10 business?  Or do we take the oppurtunity to spend a ton
of money designing a new one from the ground up?

Neil Kirby

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr))
Subject: Re: Light aircraft for CAS in Australia
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:19:38 GMT


From swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr))

anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
: 
: I thought the F111C based at Amberley in Queensland 
: could be used for CAS ?

I think it would not be economical to risk these aircraft against
such low value targets as  small pockets of troops. They would be most 
usefully employed in an anti-shipping role and on long range, terrain 
following flights against high value strategic targets.

perry morrison


Newsgroups: sci.military