HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:42:56 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <Bvtp4K.6J7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ac579@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (G.C.J. Timm) writes:
> 
> From ac579@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (G.C.J. Timm)
> 
> 
> The Submachine gun is a personal defense weapon which has
> essentially the same mission as a pistol.  The advantage of
> the Submachine gun is that it is held with two hands and a
> shoulder.

Actually the SMG was invented to give the platoon the firepower that it lacked
when it was acting on its own, away from its heavy weapons support groups in
WW1.  The need for a high rate of fire and mobility meant that the design had
to be essentially a downpowered machine gun (remember that WW1 MG's were
usually watercooled and not highly mobile).  SMG's were designed as a trench
warfare weapon, where the rate of fire was critical due to the frantic nature
of such warfare.

Thus the advantage of the SMG is that it is essentially a "light" machine gun. 
Nowadays we use assault rifles in the same capacity that SMG's were designed
for, namely high rate of fire with portability, but the assault rifle has the
added advantages of accuracy and fires a larger round hence it has greater
stopping power.

The only remaining advantage of the SMG is its concealability, as demonstrated
when Reagans bodyguards were able to produce automatic weapons at great speed
when he was almost assassinated.

> 
> You must bear in mind that the pistol and the SMG "strike the
> same blow"

in terms of power perhaps, as SMG's use pistol rounds due to their lightweight
construction, whereas the heavier assault rifle gives a steadier platform and
so can fire a heavier projectile as it has more mass to absorb recoil etc.

>  and also that the pistol requires a GREAT deal
> of training and the SMG does not.

To use properly an SMG DOES require a lot of training.  Anyone can point a
pistol or bolt action rifle with relative ease, yet to control a SMG on full
auto requires both strength and practice.  

regs

Rob


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Nuclear powered satellites
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:42:57 GMT


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <Bvq4E6.Czp@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, P & S Ltd - Accounts Dept <pands@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes:
> A live fuel load was
> deliberately re-entered over the USSR at one stage to demonstrate that
> re-entry would dissipate the radioactives in such a way as to cause no hazard
> (that argument I *still* don't follow!).
> 
> Paul
> 
> 

If everything malfunctions and the space nuclear reactor is going to re-enter
the atmosphere, the designers only have two options: 1) design it so that it
stays in one piece all the way to the ground and have it survive impact by 
hardening or having some sort of system to soft land the reactor (parachute 
etc) or 2) by ensuring it will burn up high in the atmosphere.  

By burning up high in the atmosphere, no chunks land on the earth, the small
oxidized particles will float around and become very diluted in the upper 
atmosphere.  Basically the same results from an above ground nuclear weapons 
test.  Whether you think this is hazardous or not, I'll leave to the reader
;-).

BTW, the radionuclide thermal generators (RTG) that the US has used for space
power generation (such as used on the Pioneer space probes) are designed to
stay in one piece if they accidently return to the earth.

A very good article about nuclear power in space can be found in the November
1991 issue of _Nuclear News_ by John W. Lawrence entitled: "Nuclear Power
Sources in Space: A Historical Review".

Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."



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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Lawrence Crowl <crowl@jade.cs.orst.edu>
Subject: Re: Question about aircrew bailing out
Organization: Oregon State University, Corvallis Oregon
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:36:25 GMT


From Lawrence Crowl <crowl@jade.cs.orst.edu>


From Lawrence Crowl <crowl@jade.cs.orst.edu>

In article <Bw0os0.LtK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
barrongj@cs.curtin.edu.au (Greg Barron) writes:
>As for AWACS and other big jets, they will probably ditch in the
>ocean and over land I haven't the foggiest.

My father flew in the B-47 and he said the crew "didn't believe" the
ditching procedures were survivable.  The reason was that the engines
were mounted under the wing, and hence made nice sea anchors for
breaking up the airplane on touchdown.  The crew would get thrown
around and the airplane would sink very quickly.  It makes you wonder
about the usefulness of liferafts on similar civil airliners.  Could
someone post a brief history of jet-under-wing airplanes ditching?

-- 
  Lawrence Crowl		503-737-2554	Computer Science Department
			   crowl@cs.orst.edu	Oregon State University
	      ...!hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!crowl	Corvallis, Oregon,  97331-3202
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Question about aircrew bailing out (B-26 and others)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:42:44 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


From "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>

This question about how crew managed to bail out of aircraft reminds me
of the B-26 Martin Marauder, the information I've gotten both in
reading and in discussions with a former pilot indicate that bailing
out for the pilot wasn't much of an option because of the difficulty of
reaching the escape hatch from the cockpit.

Chuck Yeager would have had a bit of a problem had he needed to exit
the Bell X-1 because the hatch was bolted from the outside.  He had to
land it and wait for someone to come and let him out.  Sheesh.

Corky Scott
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US SEa Sparrow hits Turkish Destroyer
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:29:20 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


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

>From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
>... recalls having to put down a threatening speedboat with an AAM
>(Talos I think). It didn't detonate, but the boat was never the same...

I can well believe it!  For those who aren't up on the old USN missiles,
Talos at launch was thirty feet long and weighed nearly four tons.  It
was the USN's heavy long-range SAM, with a rocket booster and a ramjet
upper stage, and range exceeding 100 miles.  It was eventually retired
mostly because the USN was no longer building ships big enough to carry
it (it simply wouldn't fit on destroyers, and in the 50s and 60s the
USN gradually stopped building cruisers).
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Energy Tank Killers
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:35:40 GMT


From Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>


In <BvnF6L.JB2@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> lesher@coral.bucknell.edu (T. Lesher) wrote:
>In article <BvE5KC.2L0@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu> writes:
>>
>>I am not familiar with the jelly donut or explosives conversion, but 75kg is 
>>like a 120mm tank gun shell and 1650 m/s is far higher than its muzzle
>>velocity. So if a 120mm tank gun is enough of an anti-tank weapon, surely that
>>smart missle too.
>>
>
>Correct, Raymond.  But we are talking abouta a _kinetic_ weapon here,
>ie, one that doesn't use explosives in the warhead.  It relies on the
>kinetic energy of the projectile itself, similar to the firing of a
>rather lareg bullet.  A 120mm tank gun shell is, I think, a good
>antitank weapon; the question we're addressing is, can you have a good
>antitank weapon of the stated size _without_ the charge in the
>warhead?

The most effective anti-tank shell for a 120mm gun is still the solid
shot, ie. kinetic penetrator (maybe you have heard about DU APDS).
Explosive warheads or shape charge warheads are mainly used by missiles
and recoiless guns. Kinetic impact can knock off chunks of armour ON
THE OTHER SIDE even without penetration( e.g. extreme range hit
on frontal armour). So there is no difference. The stated size is
well above the need.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: TOP 5 ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:35:58 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <Bvq4q6.DIo@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
 (david.r.wells) writes 
> India might seem surprising, but keep in mind they have two carriers,
> (they are old, admittedly) and they had (past tense) a nuclear submarine.
> (evidently, the Charlie class the Russians sold them leaked radiation so
> badly that the Indians returned it!) They've got some new Kresta II cruisers,
> plus some other Russian designed ships. They also build their own frigates.
> For several years, they were the fastest growing navy in the world. I half
> expected them to buy the Varyag. Perhaps now that she has been sold to China,
> the Indians will put in a bid for some Kievs?
> 

There's also the Ul'yanovsk. According to the _Guide_to_the_Soviet_Navy_
(Polmar,1991,USNI) it's a carrier with 10,000 tons more displacement
than the Kuznetsov/Varyag, was laid down at Nikolayev (south) in Dec 1988
(after the Varyag was launched) & was expected to be launched in 1991.
It's also supposed to have a Combined Nuclear And Steam (CONAS) propulsion
system. I wonder if anyone has been bidding on this baby?

PHIL



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: Best ASW platform
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:39:44 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <Bw2JC6.AAM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, hards4@evans.ee.adfa.oz.au (Brad Hards) writes:
> 

I have deleted most of Brad's post since I do not disagree or cannot say
whether his % are right or wrong.  However.....

> 
> If you find him on a towed array with a surface ship, then he is likely 
> to be close - probably within torpedo range (at least his, frigates have
> lighter torpedos with shorter range). By that time you are effectively
> toast. 
> 
> ----
> Brad Hards      
> 

This statement above is clearly wrong.  With towed arrays, they can get below
the thermal layers, and, especially in deep ocean, with the proper conditions
a sub can be detected 50 to 200 miles away.  This is due to what are known
as convergence zones.  A convergence zone occurs when the water is deep enough
that the sound coming from the sub that heads down is bent back to the 
surface due to the increasing water pressure with depth.  When the sound
reaches the surface, it is reflected back down and the process repeats.  Thus,
there are "rings" at certain distances away from the sub that these 
convergence zones can be used to good advantage by a surface ship, especially
with a towed array sonar.

I have heard stories of a US ship with a towed array following a sub for 
several days by keeping inside one of the convergence zones.  This ship would
then send the sub's location to another US ship who was riding on top of the 
sub.  The ship on top of the sub would occassionally turn on his active sonar 
and ping on the sub.  Needless to say, the sub commander was probably 
wondering how this surface ship was able to stay on top no matter what he 
tried. :-)

Towed arrays of the type used on US ships today have greatly helped surface
ships to be better ASW platforms.  However, the water conditions really 
determine who has the advantage.  Since a sub can fully exploit the water
conditions and the surface ship must try to work around them, the overall
advantage is still with the submarine.

I hope this helps.

Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."




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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:36:11 GMT


From jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)

Bill Yenne, _SAC_ (Presidio Press, circa 1984) has a good, brief
discussion of the XB-70 Valkyrie and some pictures, including a
photo sequence of the F-104 removing its tail.

Chuck Yeager, in _Yeager_, is rather less diplomatic about the
midair than Yenne, and claims that the F-104 pilot (Joe Walker?),
a civilian, had insufficient formation-flight experience and thus
had no business being up there.

The ill-fated flight, incidentally, was a publicity photo stunt
featuring planes that had GE engines.

Memory doesn't provide me readily with a link between the XB-70
program and the various concepts for a nuclear airplane.  I seem
to recall that they predated the XB-70 by a decade or more, and
came from an era when nuclear anything was received with enthusiasm.
(Compare the current atmosphere, in which the plans for just testing
"Timberwind" were received with outrage.)  The XB-70 was a big jet
designed to go like stink at very high altitudes.  It was built out 
of cubic money -- somebody adjusted for inflation and GNP and called
it the B-2 of its era.  SAMs and interceptors to counter it could be
built out of less cubic money, hence its cancellation on the verge
of production.

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:36:02 GMT


From gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher)


In sci.military, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:

>realities will *require* substancial cuts in defence budgets.
>
>Here is my latest hair-brained idea.  From what I read, a modenr
>carrier has about 16 ASW helocopters aboard.  Why cannot we replace
>these with F-18's (there seem to be enough).  This woudl trade ASW
>strength for air power.

    Your logic is really hair-brained!

    How are we going to save $$'s (implied by your statement to make
"substantial cuts") by throwing away perfectly useful and needed equipment
(ASW assets) for more F-18s?

    Do you know of a stockpile of F-18s available free for the taking?

    The submarine threat has not gone away (note Irans purchase of 3
surplus diesel subs from Russia).


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Piston engine experiments (Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Followup-To: sci.military
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:30:13 GMT


From geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)


From geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)



In article <Bvwr6n.K7K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
(Iskandar Taib) writes:

>Were there any Tempests fitted with a turboprop? I kind of recall seing 
>a picture of such a beast, but it may have been one with the radial. 

I believe you're thinking of the Westland Wyvern, a large turboprop
fighter of the late Forties and early Fifties that saw combat in the
Suez crisis.  


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: elada@eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC  LADA)
Subject: subs
Keywords: eric -nuclear winter
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:47:11 GMT


From elada@eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC  LADA)


`

	Hi agian.  I was just wondering what kind of self-defense/offense 
mechanisms the boomers have.  Do they have any torpedos, or anything non-nuke
that can go out and kill any ship or attack sub that following them, or is there
only defense standing still and staying quite.  Also do todays subs really have 
any advantage over ships.  Can military satalites track the subs under-water?   
What about that new SEAL underwater delivery vehicle(or something like)  Can 
that be detected at all?   And finnally do subs still pop up under the polar-ice
caps(now that the Soviet Union is no longer?) What kind of subs did/do this(
boomers or attack)
From: ketil@fossekall.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Airplane fuel
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:32:37 GMT
Organization: student of computer science at the University of Bergen, Norway


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


Some friends of mine and I are going to start playing a game that
takes place during WW3, or around year 2000 (It's Twilight 2000, for
those who want to know.)  Now, the setting is in the middle of Poland,
or thereabouts, the war has gone on for a few years, and fuel
(gasoline) is scarce.  For vehicles, this isn't much of a problem, as
they can often be converted to run on alcohol (ethanol or methanol) or
some other substitute.

I was just wondering if something similar could be done for aircraft?
(According to the rules, airpower is almost nonexistent.  This
probably works well in the game, so I won't try to change anything,
but out of curiousity..)

I thought most helicopters and propeller aircraft were powered from
gas turbines, are they picky about the fuel?  How about jets?

Any comments appreciated!

-ketil

--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Carrier operating limitations
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:29:22 GMT


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


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

In article <Bw0oGn.LAB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:

>I cannot quote you specific ranges, since I was a "snipe" when I served on USS
>Enterprise (the real one, trekers ;-) ).  However, if the sea state was enough
>so that the deck at the bow and aft was moving more than 50 ft vertical move-
>ment, flight ops would not happen.  It would ruin a pilot's day to be launched
>right into a wave creast ;-).

FIFTY FEET!!!!!!?????

Wow! Thats about six stories.. Imagine going up and down a
fast elevator six floors.. Imagine trying to land an airplane 
on a deck that moves 50 feet...

How tall is a carrier from waterline to flight deck?

We had a humorous thread going in rec.models.rc a while back..
a ship modeller wanted to know if anyone had launched quarter 
scale model planes off a scale carrier  9-)




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:28:33 GMT


From swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)


In sci.military, driver8@night.Corp.Sun.COM (Albert Handa) writes:
>
>I was in a recent discussion with another co-worker, and I mentioned 
>some things about the B-70 Bomber that was built (I believe one or
>two prototypes), and it being a reason for the Mig 25.  Then, the co-worker 
>disagreed that the B-70 ever existed, and that no plane ever had any 
>atomic power capabiltity so far.

>[ mod note -- your friend is partially right and you are partially right --
>the B-70 existed (2 were built for flight testing), and one still exists --
>right here in Dayton Ohio at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB. 

The XB-70 (I believe that's the correct designation) was named Valkyrie.
Both prototypes were painted white, and they really were beautiful.
The sad thing was the prototype crashed.  It seems that a jet engine 
company wanted a publicity shot of the XB-70 in air along with four 
different types fighter planes using company-manufactured engines. The 
photographer couldn't get all of the formation, so an Air Force general 
ordered the formation to tighten up.  Unfortunately, one fighter plane 
"jumped ahead" and clipped off the XB-70's vertical stabilizer. The 
bomber eventually went into a spin and crashed.  The general consequently
was fired.

I hope I remember correctly since it has been a long time when this 
accident happened (in 1963?).

One unusual design (there were several, though) was its wing tips that
folded down at high speed.

No, the XB-70 wasn't nuclear powered.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: urf@ki.icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Mustard gas & other junk in the Baltic
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:32:18 GMT
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.


From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>

It is not at all unknown that stocks of German mustard gas was
dumped in the Baltic and sea to the west of Denmark after the
war. I can recall reports of fishermen getting burns because
their nets had been contaminated since as far back as I read
started to read newspapers in the 1960's.

The dumping areas are clearly marked on the charts, so fishermen
have avoided them, but it seems like the diminishing catches have
prompted some of them to trawl in those areas now, which has made
the coast guard concerned, as it is not at all nice to pick up a
rusting mine in your trawl.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)
 Knowledge is power: Read books!
Newsgroups: sci.military