HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Random thoughts
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:03:24 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute


From gawne@stsci.edu

Hi fellow sci.military users.  

I've been gone most of the last week, and still have 165 articles in
this group alone to catch up on.  If there's something I wrote which
you responded to and were wondering why I hadn't replied please e-mail
it to me.

I'm going to be looking at automatic NBC Hazard Warning systems for a
while.  If anybody out in NetLand has any experience with these systems
I'd sure like to discuss them with you.  I have to finish the milestone
1 study by 15 April (and do my taxes too!) so the sooner you write the
more likely you are to have an impact on my ruminations.

On a personal note, you might eyeball the signature.  I got to reafirm my
oath of office just a little bit after President Clinton took his.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 MSgt USMCR
From: tscott@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Tony Scott )
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:59:54 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland


From tscott@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Tony Scott )


Don't forget that the nuclear blast would have an effect on the
electronic systems of the Carrier, and indeed on the task force in
general.  I'm not sure how well insulated a carrier's systems are to the
effects of an EMP, but I'm sure that it must be considered, as well as
the immediate effect of fallout, surface contamination, etc, etc
 

-- 

       Tony D. Scott                   |  "Everything you know is wrong"
       tscott@morgan.ucs.mun.ca        |                U2
       Industrial Engineering          |           Don't Panic!
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joshua Follick <follick%hydra.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu>
Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
Organization: Paintball Underground
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:51:07 GMT


From Joshua Follick <follick%hydra.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu>

In article <C0wo8H.Bxz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Jan Mattsson <janm@tirana.docs.uu.se> writes:
>
>From Jan Mattsson <janm@tirana.docs.uu.se>
>
>David Beard <beard@cs.unc.edu> writes:
>
>
>>From David Beard <beard@cs.unc.edu>
>
>>I have heard it suggested that 15 or 20 B2s, based in the United States,
>>and setup to carry conventional precision guided bombs, could replace
>>a number of our carrier task forces.
>
>
>Ah, The Recurring Myth Of The Strategic Bomber is with us again... ;-)
>If you have ground troops, or ships, in the area you must have fighters
>to cover them against enemy air attacks (think about the Falklands).
>I also doubt the survivability of the B-2 if it is confronted by a
>competent air defence system, even though it is "stealthy".
>A very small number of bombers (15-20) would also be vulnerable to sabotage.
>
>--
>Jan Mattsson, CS student, Uppsala University, Sweden
>janm@minsk.docs.uu.se
>

    In addition, one must remember that there are at least three different
types of bombing missions that might be run, tactical, strategic nuclear,
and strategic conventional. While a carrier can conduct tactical bombing,
quite effectively, useful for hitting small targets or ground support.
It is incapable in the strategic area. However, much of the hubbub
about the "effectiveness" of bombing in Iraq was basically that
tactical bombers were able to strike what used to be considered
strategic targets. 

   B2 bombers would hopefully be able to fullfill either
strategic role. Most of the debate in Congress focused (focusses)
on whether it is necessary to maintain our triad nuclear
deterrent at the cost of B2 bombers. They forget (or ignore)
that the B-52s which have gone beyond obsolesence and
are rapidly heading into non-functionality, are the only
strategic bombing capability we have left.

   My main answer to you is that the strategic bombing role
of the B2 is different for the air superiority/tactical
bombing role of the carrier, and that if we have learned 
anything from the gulf war, the strategic capability
of the B2 is more dispensable. Though I hasten to add that
I believe that the B2 is necessary if we intend to have a
capacity to do strategic bombing.
-- 
Old Jedi Master: Ah Joshua, he's more machine now than man, twisted and evil.
Paintball is the sport of the 90s, and Lipservice Crew is the Team!!!
                        Team Lipservice Crew Motto:
                            "They Suck, We Rule"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ewan M Munro IE90 <emunro@cs.strath.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: German nuclear research in WW2
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:52:23 GMT


From Ewan M Munro IE90 <emunro@cs.strath.ac.uk>


In article <C1D84A.989@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, aylwyn@maths.tcd.ie (Aylwyn Scally) writes:
|> 
|> From aylwyn@maths.tcd.ie (Aylwyn Scally)
|> 
|> [Stuff about WWII nuclear research deleted]
|>
|> Does anyone know of any evidence confirming or disputing the existence of a
|> German nuclear research programme? If there was one, was it very far
|> advanced by the time the war ended?

The BBC ran a "Horizon" programme about this topic, not so long ago - it was
called "Hitler's Bomb."

The show was partly based on secret recording that had recently been
declassified. British Intelligence gathered a group of German Nuclear
Physicists in a country mansion and recorded their reactions to the news
that the bomb had been dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At the beginning of the war German nuclear research was *AT LEAST* on a
par with America's or Britian's.

In 1941, German scientists were asked if the could produce a bomb. They said,
in theory, it could be done - but it would take about three or four years to do.
German generals were unwilling to commit themselves to such a long term project,
since it was generally believed that the war would only last a couple more
years, win or lose. Instead, scientific projects which offered more immediate
weapons, such as rocket research, were pursued.

This was in contrast to the American belief that it would take *MANY* years to
grind down Germany and her allies.

German nuclear research continued right until the end of the war, but the scale
was nowhere near as great as that of the "Manhattan Project." The research was
not funded by the military, but by the "Ministry of Culture" (!!!) and was
hampered by availability of Uranium & Heavy water.

The German goal appears to have been to produce a sustainable nuclear reaction
is a Uranium machine. I think that this was basically a large number of Uranium
cubes, suspended in Heavy Water. They got about 75% of the reactants that they
needed before the reactor was caopture by the allies.

An implication is that, since the Germans chose rocket research instead of
nuclear ( in fact these funding decisions were made by one man ), the Germans
could have procured the bomb instead of the missile, but not both. It is argued
that the Germans spent more on rocket research than was spent in the "Manhattan
Project."

Hope that this info is of interest.

-- 
#include <disclaimer.h>                    Internet: emunro@cs.strath.ac.uk
"You don't understand. If you do drop <the microprocessor> through a crack
 and lose it, then there are millions more where that came from."
        Robert Noyce : co-inventor of the integrated circuit.  

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:40:59 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <C17vrH.EwA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
> 
> 
> From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
>

[info on SLAM deleted to save space, thanks for the correction, Travis]
 
>   
> |> I thought that the Navy was talking about making Tomahawk air-
> |> launchable but I think its length does make it difficult to put 
> |> under a wing of A-6 or F/A-18.
> 
>  You'd be surprised at what they could put under a wing.  ;) 
> 
>  Length really doesn't have that much to do with it.  Those monster
>  fuel tanks must be 15-20 feet long!  A Tomahawk isn't that much
>  longer than a SLAM or HARM.
>  
>  The Tomahawk only weighs about 2,000-3,000 lbs and the A-6 can carry
>  several 2000 lb bombs.
> 
>  TRAVIS
>  hhtra@chevron.com
> 

If it is not weight, then there is another reason why Tomahawks cannot be
launched from aircraft.  Thinking about this, I may have come up with one
reason.  Currently, they are only launched from ships.  Ships have greater
computing power onboard than aircraft.  I do remember reading somewhere in
either an old Scientific American or USNI Proceedings that the steps that
must be performed prior to launching a Tomahawk are rather involved.  Stuff
like downloading the route that the missile is going to follow etc.  Could
it be that this is too much info to be downloaded to the Tomahawk's onboard
computer that it cannot be easily done on today's aircraft and it cannot
be done on the flight deck just prior to launching the aircraft?

It would seem to me that this problem, what ever it is, could be easily 
corrected.  Just makes me wonder more why it has not been.

Don Palmrose
"There are only two kinds of ships....  Those that project power onto shore
and those that either protect or support the power projectors."




========== 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: holthaus@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (James R. Holthaus)
Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
Keywords: B2s, Carriers
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:42:17 GMT


From holthaus@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (James R. Holthaus)

mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
>From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
>In article <C17w89.FrF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu> writes:

>Is this entirely true?  My readings about WWII indicate there there were
>one or two classes of targets against whic strategic bombing was effective,
>the first being refineries, fuel depots, oilfields, and such, and the
>second being large railroad yards, vital crossings, and bridges.  Aren't
>these still valid strategic targets?

Well, German industrial production peaked in 1944.  So much for the
strategic bombing idea.  Bombing supply lines is interdiction--a different
goal than strategic bombing.  

>In Iraq, the coalition disabled large parts of the electrical and telephone
>networks, apparently to some benefit.  Is this considered strategic or not?

Generally military organizations will have their own methods of
communication and power generation not connected to the civilian methods. 
Bombing the power grid certainly hurts the civilians, but the impact on
the military's ability to fight should be minimal.  Same, too, with
attacking the phone system.

It all depends on what you consider ethical in waging war.  Do you bomb
the sewage treatment plant to reduce morale by making civilians vulnerable
to cholera?  
-- 
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more * Jim Holthaus
complex, and more violent.  It takes a touch of    * james-holthaus@uiowa.edu
genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the   *
opposite direction." -- E. F. Schumacher           *

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stephen Jacobs <saj@chinet.chi.il.us>
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Summary: A legend
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:23:34 GMT


From Stephen Jacobs <saj@chinet.chi.il.us>

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned, in connection with the discussion of
whether military aircraft have actually been brought down by small arms
fire, that one of the versions of what killed Manfred von Richtofen
holds that he was hit by rifle fire fron the ground.  Please note that I'm
not claiming that it's true, only that people have said it before.

                                  Steve      saj@chinet.chi.il.us
From: oml@eloka.demon.co.uk (Owen Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Fuller's "Military History of the Western World"
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:57:00 GMT
Organization: Eloka Consultancy & Project Management


From oml@eloka.demon.co.uk (Owen Lewis)

In article <C1F6zC.KtI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> lioness@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes:

>Has anyone got J. Fuller's "A Military History of the Western World
>Vols. 1-3"?
>
>How accurate/good are the books' analyses?  Are there any better books
>out there that cover advanced strategy and tactics?
>
The books are masterly. Make sure you are buying facsimiles of the original
text and not a late and 'politically' edited edition.

Fuller was a brilliant soldier who became a Fascist and became Chief of Staff
to Sir Oswald Moseley the British Fascist Party leader. Accordingly, he was 
interned for the duration of WWII,during which time he wrote most of his 3-vol 
masterpiece.

To put it mildly, his political insight into the rise of fascism and the 
causes of the Second World War are contoversial and run contrary to generally 
received political education. Truth is a victor's perogative. While not 
supporting his thesis, I believe that it contains several unpalatable facts 
which we are encouraged to forget - as well as unproven fascist myth.

Later re-print editions bowdlerise Fuller's text, removing such 'contaminatory' 
material.
-- 
                               -= Owen Lewis =-
                                      @
Tele/fax     +44-(0)794-301731      ELOKA       Consultancy & Project Management
                            oml@eloka.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:41:41 GMT


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

>In article <C0utIH.JDH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
>David Beard <beard@cs.unc.edu> writes: 
>> 
>> 
>> I have heard it suggested that 15 or 20 B2s, based in the United States,
>> and setup to carry conventional precision guided bombs, could replace
>> a number of our carrier task forces. 
>
I've been reading through this thread, and I have to say I agree with most
of the other posters who state that carriers are still necessary. If you
accuse me of being biased toward the Navy, well, I guess I plead guilty.
Rather than repeat the arguments others have made about being close to
the action, I'm going to bring up historical precedent.
    This thread sounded VERY familiar to me. Back about 1949, the Air
Farce (Just kidding! :-) suggested pretty much the same thing, that with
the B-36's global reach, carriers were obsolete. In the short term, their
arguments were successful, and even got the carrier United States (CV-58) 
cancelled.  But then, war broke out in Korea. Remember how successful the 
B-36s were there? (Were they even used at all in the Korean War? Not to my
knowledge!) The carriers were used extensively in Korea, for exactly the same 
reasons we've been debating here. They were close, could react faster, had
shorter sorties, etc, etc, etc.
      In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "it's deja vu all over again".
(perhaps misquoted?)

				David R. Wells

DISCLAIMER: The same one as usual.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dehaney4905@mtroyal.ab.ca
Subject: Uranium depleted shells
Organization: Mount Royal College, Calgary, Alberta
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:38:16 GMT


From dehaney4905@mtroyal.ab.ca

Is there anyone reading this who may be (or know of someone who is) 
knowledgeable on the properties of depleted uranium shells? Specifically,
I'm writing about the A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) and its 30mm GE GAU-8 
seven barrel cannon. I believe the shells to be a composite mixture of HE 
and depleted uranium. With a muzzle velocity of approximately 3500 ft/sec
it would seem that 2 1/2 pound shells would just ram their way through 
various types of armor. But because of the shells composition, is it 
actually a fusion-reaction that would enable surprisingly deep penetration 
into armor?

Theoretically, only 7 of these shells would be required to disable a tank 
(such as the Russian built T-72) but even this seems a little unrealistic. 
Would a tank really have armor thin enough that an A-10 Gatling-like gun 
could be effective?

I would prefer E-Mail responses if possible.

Thank you in advance..
Leigh Dehaney
                ,&&&&..      ,,$$$$$$$$$,   ..$$$$%:..           ,,$$$$$:$:.  
    ###.*.     &&:..  ''    ;$'      '$$$: .$$%$%$%%%:'$$%$%:.  ;$&&&&&&&&$$:. 
###M####.*.*    ''&&&&&..   $:        $$$: $%%'  `$%$%%%~~%%%%. $&'    `:&$$:.
 ##MM###*+*.*         '&&&, $     ,,,,,$$: '%      `$%'    `$%: $.       `:$$: 
 ###MM###+#### |       ,&&. ;$,,''   '$$:'  %       `:      .%: ;$.       $$:' 
  #MM      `### &.     ,&&... $'       ,::   :       +      :%'   $&:.    .::'  
                 '&&&&&&&..'  |       ,$'     :            /       `~'$$''~~   
                   ~~~~~~'                                                     
             __......--------~~~~~~~~~~--------....._____                 
       (~~~~~                                            ~~~---.__            
               Samohi c/o [1991] Santa Monica, CA                ~~-._       
                   Dehaney4905@MtRoyal.Ab.CA                          ~-_)
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: P-47 and Paddle Bladed Prop; from fighter series
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:10:40 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <C1H2o8.Eo8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
jfb@ihlpl.att.com writes:

> Production batches from the P-47D-20-RE onward were fitted with a 
> "universal" wing which could carry a variety of drop tanks or bombs.  
> These batches also introduced the R-2800-59 or -63 engine with an 
> increased war emergency power of 2535 hp.  Beginning with blocks 
> D-22-RE and D-23-RA, a larger (13-foot diameter) paddle-bladed 
> propeller was fitted to accommodate this increased power.

Finally, an explanation for why the paddle bladed P-47's climbed so
much better.  It wasn't just the addition of the prop, but the increase
in engine power that made the difference.  I've been mystified by this
seeming anomoly for 20 years.  It just didn't seem possible that the
simple switch of props could make so substantial a performance
difference.  It didn't in other aircraft.  Robert Johnson mentions
outclimbing a Spitfire using the new prop.  What he wasn't saying was
that he was using all that extra power as well.  Even though he wasn't
in combat and just playing at the time, I don't doubt for a minute that
he used every horse available to him so as not be be embarrassed during
the encounter.  Thanks for the info Joeseph.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com>
Subject: Re: Red mercury
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:41:38 GMT


From John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com>

Peter Trei <ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org> writes:

>* Despite the overwhelming evidence, the show never admits that RM is
>  almost certainly a con man's hoax. 

Actually they did at the very end where you might have missed it as 
you turned your TV off in disgust.  I almost did.  They admitted that
"red mercury" is either a hoax or a code word used to refer to Plutonium.
Applying the name "Discovery" to what comes out of that channel is
a total oxymoron.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Palmer T. Davis" <ptd2@po.cwru.edu>
Subject: Re: Tornado F3 replacement
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:45:57 GMT


From "Palmer T. Davis" <ptd2@po.cwru.edu>


>But the RAF has the logical plane to fill their needs right under
>their bloomin noses.  The harrier!  
>[N]ot only in the Falklands, but in 'topgun' type
>exercises, the Harrier has proven itself over and over again
>as a powerful interceptor...
>I could go on for hours about the Harrier...and what an effective fighter
>it is...

Last night (or this morning, depending on where you are), the BBC World
Service aired an interesting program entitled "Task Force Orient",
detailing HMS _Invincible_'s deployment to the Far East last year.  The
program included an interview with Lt. Cmdr David Braithwaite (sp?),
CO of 800 Squadron, _Invincible_'s Harrier force.  Braithwaite (who 
flew a Harrier in the Falklands) had this to say about the Harrier's
value as an interceptor:

"...[T]he media has said quite a bit, but the truth is that the turning
ability of the Harrier simply isn't as good as more modern aircraft....
As for dogfighting, it may sound cowardly, but... we prefer to stand off...."

(The above quotes are approximate; I didn't record the show, so this is
from memory twenty hours later.)  The gist was that the FRS.1 is of
strictly limited value as an interceptor.

-- PTD --
-- 
Palmer T. Davis      ___
<ptd2@po.cwru.edu>   \X/   cthread.  cthread_fork().  Fork, thread, fork!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Christopher John Arnold <gorilla@cats.ucsc.edu>
Subject: more ?'s about seacobras
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:20:18 GMT


From Christopher John Arnold <gorilla@cats.ucsc.edu>


Does anyone know if it is common practice for the USN to use 
Sea Cobras on their ships, apart from Marines using them as
support gunships. Do Cobras ever play a role in anti-ship warfare?

-Gorilla@cats.ucsc.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military