HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans..
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:39:35 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

"sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu" <Ops@raven.alaska.edu> writes:


>This has always intrigued me: Did the Germans treat Allied Jewish Pow's any
>differently to other allied Pow's? Or did they treat them as bestially as 
>the concentration camp victims... 
>Example: Jewish USAAF aircrew member downed and captured. What would have 
>happened to him?
>Hmmmmmm

	Perhaps a better question: how did the Germans know the soldier
or airman was Jewish in the first place?  It seems fairly obvious to me
that, if your name was "Issac Eisenstein," for example, that the Army
should issue ID tags with the name "Joe Smith" on them.  The serial number
could be cross-referenced to provide proper burial services or whatever,
but when going up against such an anti-Jewish foe doesn't it make sense
to obscure the more obvious signs?

[mod note -- The author of _A Blood Dimmed Tide_ is Gerald Astor (I
mentioned this book in my mod note in the original article.

He mentions of several Jewish POWs who had the appropriate military
abbreviation of their religion stamped on their dog tags.  However, several
POWs where were Jewish managed to get new dog tags issued that did not
indicate that they were Jewish

Dan's idea of leaving the religion off of the dog tags and cross
referencing the service # certainly bears merit

Steve ]

	I suppose speaking accents and being circumsised would be 
another clue, but with the latter being fairly common (though not
prevalent I'm told) and the former easily hidden given the language
barrier and the regional accents of the USA, how difficult could it
have been to hide a Jew?

	I've always wondered how one could tell the religion of
another anyway without explicitly asking or certain obvious features
such as a turban or such being displayed.

	Any books show how the Nazi's did it?  I suspect they didn't
particularly care if their methods were accurate.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:45:46 GMT


From Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>

These day, smoke is becoming less and less valuable as Thermal Imaging sights
spread.  I've seen the view, during the day, through an incendiary smoke screen,
using TI.  Resolution is nearly as good as eyesight.

				E

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rlbell@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships (edited response)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:26:38 GMT


From rlbell@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell)

In article <C0HvLG.Fo9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Dave Coder <dave@nucleus.immunol.washington.edu> writes:
>Is this correct? I seem to remember diagrams from the Renaissance that 
>depict the the maximum range to be an angle of elevation of 45 degrees. 

This is only true if your naval battle is being fought on an infinite plane
with no atmosphere.

In the real world, you have to account for air resistance and the coriolus
effects.  iuf we ignore coriolus effects, which are different at each 
latitude and vary with the direction of fire and only affect the aiming
point by 2-3 hundred yards anyway, we can examine the travel of the shell
in the vertical, and horizontal directions.  The maximum possible range for
a shell is limited by the point at which air resistance brings the shell's
horizontal velocity to zero, and it drops vertically down (striking the
deck armour).  The lower the muzzle velocity, the closer the maximum angle
will be to 45 degrees.  As the velocity increases, the elevation for maximum
range depresses.  


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Juan Carlos Barroux - Technical Consultant - Latin America <Juan.Barroux@corp.sun.com>
Subject: Re: Hovercraft in Somalia?
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:39:24 GMT


From Juan Carlos Barroux - Technical Consultant - Latin America <Juan.Barroux@corp.sun.com>

In article IAM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM, "Gregory K. Ramsey" <greg@anacapa.ncel.navy.mil> () writes:
>
>They are great for going over soft or marshy ground because the
>footprint is so soft.  The LCACs have on several occasions run over
>seals while hitting the beach with minimal damage to the animal.  I
>know of at least one occasion where they have run over a beachmaster
>(man directing traffic) with no significant damage.
>
  One other interesting use is to go over mine fields without mayor
problems. At least of the presure kind of mines. The Chilean military
is using some locally produced (CARDOEN) small hovercrafts (2 persons)
as small and fast recon units which can go over normal flat desert
(lots of it in the north of Chile), mine fields (idem), swampy area
(typical of the south of Chile), rivers and lakes (idem). Maybe you can
even do some interesting special operations things with those systems.

  Speaking for himself,

>Greg
>
  Juan Carlos




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Daniel Kuan Li Oi <doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: The University of Western Australia
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:42:31 GMT


From Daniel Kuan Li Oi <doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>

Dave Heisler <dheisler@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu> writes:


>From Dave Heisler <dheisler@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu>

>I had this idea the other day, lets say you have an airport
>or base that comes under sporadic sniper fire. How do you
>locate the sniper?

>I envisioned this: hundreds of self powered radio linked
>microphones scattered about the ground. A control unit that
>knows the position of all of them (relative to control unit
>or maybe use gps) and can calculate direction of sound orgin
>based on the timing of the received sound pulse as radioed by
>the microphones. (thinking about it maybe you could get by with
>2 or 3 sensor microphones)

>1) Combine direction of orgin with an overhead satelite view.
>2) Programmable microphone filter/amplifyer for detecting other
>   things like tanks, airplanes, etc.

>comments?

>dave

	I know that this has been done for mortar location but why muck
around with sound filtering gear and all that when you could use radar
combined with doppler filtering to directly track incoming bullets and
trace the trajectory to the sniper. 
	With sound location, the technique might be defeated with use of
sound suppression gear on the rifle. Although the bullets might be still
supersonic, the initial crack of firing would be reduced so that
pinpointing the source of the bullet might be too hard.
	
Anyother comments anyone?

					Daniel Oi
					University of Western Australia

Disclaimer:Hey, I'm only a first year (not for long). What's your
excuse?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:45:44 GMT


From Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>

Hate to break this to you, guys, but hitting an artillery shell in flight is
chancy at best.  The very small size and high speed o a round, combined with the
less-than-pinpoint accuracy of a vulcan (at 6000 rpm, how perfectly stable do you
think the gun is?) makes this improbable.  Even the smallest anti-ship missiles
are much larger than an artillery round -- and most have wings.  Also, unless the
vulcan is defending itself, its short range and the high crossing angles
generated would make tracking nearly impossible.  Radar, computer, gun slewing
servos, all would be highly stressed.
  Finally, there is a "tank" based vulcan -- the M163, which uses the M113 body,
but only has a range-only radar, unlike the R2D2 mounts USN uses.  It has proven
almost completely unsatisfactory in service due to its short range.

					E

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:26:28 GMT


From MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>

In article <C0JprA.8nx@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@qucdn.queensu.ca> writes:
>Why not set up an ejection seat with an altimeter, a drag orientation
>system, and a rocket, and fire it *forward* (and a little up?)

Too many problems for this to work. If you look at an Apache for example
there is a LOT of equipment in the way of going straight forward, and very
little room up, just a couple of feet. On the Euro attack helicopter the
rotor seems to only be a foot or two above the rear canopy. There just isn't
enough room to go up then forward, and that is what you would need to do,
of course that is impossible, and leaving at an angle is impossible due to
the requirements for armor protection and equipment, plus weight and size
limitations. You would need to jettison the nose, which adds a lot more 
complication. May as well go for escape capsule. Plus if the front seat fails 
the backseater is stuck...

No, the only practical way is to blow the rotors and go up. Going down is
feasible for design, but not use. Not with the altitude choppers fly at most
of the time. And ejection seats add a lot of weight. US favors designing
crashworthy cockpits, this can also incorporate armor and baffles useful
against enemy fire. Double bonus. I don't expect to see ejection seats on
a production helicopter any time soon.

One more thing, it is infeasible to armor a seat to withstand a rotor strike.
The KE imparted to the seat, basically perpendicular to the seats path, would
seriously hurt, or kill, the pilot. And since your going up anyway, it is
more logical to just blow the rotors off. Less weight, and less complicated, 
and safer.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Need info on laser designator wavelengths
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:43:10 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <C0E5v5.75u@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles J. Lord) writes:
 
> I need some info on infrared lasers used in weapon systems.  We are
> talking with the Army about a project and will need to detect the
> presence of IR laser energy from various laser designators, range-
> finders, etc (all nationalities).  

If your device isn't to be defeated by a ktp crystal (device that changes
laser wavelengths), you'll have to be able to detect across the spectrum
from soft UV out to mid-IR.  Tuning your detector to only the currently
fielded lasers wouldn't be all that wise.

Also, lasers being pretty well collimated, you're going to have to get a
direct hit onto your detector for it to do any good.  So you'll either
have to coat the outside of the vehicle with detectors or hope that the
user of the laser is kind enough to put the laser spot on your detector
long enough for you to get a reliable signal.

Moreover, you're going to have to overcome a big signal to noise problem.
Somebody can use an IR laser which puts a spot on your detector that has
LESS energy flux than the ambient thermal background at the same wavelength
and still detect the return reliably using lock-in amplifier techniques.
To separate that signal from background you'll need some sort of coincidence
gating technique.

Assuming you intend to use solid state detectors, I'd say you're looking
at a combination of Silicon (for UV and vis), Platinum Silicide or Indium
Antimonide (for near to mid-IR), and Mercury-Cadmium Telluride to cover
the mid to far-IR (8 to 20 micron) region.  This will put you in competition
with Hughes, Texas Instruments, Rockwell, and some other heavy hitters; so
you'll need to get all your ducks lined up if you're to have any hope of
success.

I'd strongly recommend you take this question to sci.optics.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR and MSc Physics

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Iowa Class Battleships
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:43:35 GMT


From Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>

In article <C0G11n.uK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:

>The Navy DID have an 18" L48 gun that they built
>after WWI for test purposes. In fact, I think Dahlgren still has it!

If they still have it, it's not an 18"/48 any more.  The indispensible
Norman Friedman, in _U.S. Naval Weapons_ (p.21, I love posting from a four
million volume library) says that the gun, ordered at 45 caliber and built
at 48 was lined and extended to 16"/56 after the Washington Treaty forbade
guns over sixteen inches.  In this form it was rejected because it weighed
too much and and because it shot so flat that plunging fire was impaired. 
After the Treaties were dead, BuOrd looked at the design again in 1938,
but decided that the 16"/50 with a new "super-heavy" shell would
outperform it.  This suggests that the 18"/48 armed _Montana_ was not a
serious contender, to say the least.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Hovercraft in Somalia?
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:29:27 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

 
>     The LCAC entered service, if I recall correctly, in 1985 or 86.  The Navy
> should be buying around 60-80 of them.  They are based out of Little
> Creek VA and Camp Pendleton CA.  They are transported in Navy Amphibious
> ships (LSD, LHA and LHD).



Any idea of their capacity? 

Their tactical deployment tactics? 

Are they armoured to an extent?

Could they perhaps be armoured and use their combined sea/land capability to
transport troops not only up to the beach itself but onto the beach and into
some form of cover thus avoiding the dash across generally exposed ground (as
most beaches tend to be?)

Any responses would be appreciated

Rob
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Infantry in square
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:39:22 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


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

In article <BzzCr8.HL@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> writes:

>The way to prpoerly deal to a square was to bring up the horse 
>artillery and let it have a few rounds of grape/cannister.  This would 
>generally disorder and demorilise it enough for the cav to be able to 
>ride it down.

Or bring up infantry and have them charge the square. The infantry
in square are pretty immobile (though I've heard of company-sized 
"running squares" used by light infantry when faced with small units
of cavalry) and can't run, neither can they break square, since the 
cavalry would charge when they were reforming. Their firepower would
also be considerably reduced since only a quarter of the battalion
would be facing in a direction.






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mark Benson 5-4228 <benson@colorado.med.ge.com>
Subject: Re: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:36:47 GMT


From Mark Benson 5-4228 <benson@colorado.med.ge.com>

Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com> writes:

>And on the ecjection seat.  From the picture, the cockpit isn't far enough 
>forward for the pilot not to get pureed (?) by windmilling rotors.  A brake
>perhaps?  But again, from the picture, on the ground both rotors have a
>blade almost directly over the cockpit.  A downward ejection?  That sounds
>like something out of a Road-Runner cartoon.  Wiley Coyote ejects out of his
>gunship only to get a rocket assisted head-plant in the ground.  And as he
>wobbles to his feet, a large shadow grows about him.  He looks up just
>in time to see the flaming wreckage of his Hokum plow him into the ground
>for a second time.

Well, Soviet designers may not have had much regard for crew safety in such
things as tank gun loaders, but in this case they did a fair job. AW&ST
recently did a workup on the Ka-50, which went into some detail on crew safety.
First, the seat is reinforced to survive forced landings (I think 20 - 30 Gs).
Next, the ejection seat does go up, BUT not before the rotor blades are 
severed (explosively).  This was indeed flight tested during development.  
Would I want to bet my life on it?  Not particularly.

It appears to be a nasty little beasty, and probably very annoying in its 
intended role.  But as for a fly-off, I'll take the Apache any day.

----
Mark Benson	benson@med.ge.com   | Don't blame me....
GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI   |		I didn't vote for him.
----

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:23:08 GMT


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

 In article <Bzo8IM.BnA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker) writes:
 >
 [Stuff about Alaska vs. Renown deleted]

 [Stuff about UK 15"/L42 performance deleted]

 >	Major factors involved in the range are clearly the elevation,
 >aerodynamic form (crh), speed of shell and its mass.  Newer guns had
 >greater elevation as well as better aerodynamic shells, I think the KGV
 >class 14" guns had shells that were 8crh (see Peter Hodges book for
 >definite information).  On the whole the British preferred heavy relatively
 >slow shells, the major exception being for the 16" designed for the G3
 >(1921) battlecruisers and used on Rodney/Nelson though cut down from L50 to
 >L45.
 >
 >>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 >
 >	The Big Guns - Battleship Main Armament 1860-1945
 >	Peter Hodges, Conway Maritime Press 1981 (reprinted 1989)
 >	ISBN 0-85177-144-0
 >	also US Naval Institute Press 1981
 >
    My sources generally concur with yours. Dulin & Garzke only mention
 the 1920 lb shell as being obsolete, and list no further data. They 
 agree with your supercharge data.
    I never understood why the British changed from their slow/heavy shell
 formula which worked so well. By the way, does Hodges say that the G3
 battlecruisers had L50 guns? I never recall seeing this. Parkes says nothing
 on this, Raven & Roberts say it was a 16"/L45. (perhaps I'll have to order
 Hodges too. WHERE'S MY NAVAL INSTITUTE CATALOG????) I'm trying to build
 a model G3 out of Nelson parts, and I want it to be right.
 
 				David Wells
 
 Disclaimer: My opinions, not AT&Ts.
 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Gregory K. Ramsey" <greg@anacapa.ncel.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Navy News Service - 23 Dec 92
Organization: Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:35:31 GMT


From "Gregory K. Ramsey" <greg@anacapa.ncel.navy.mil>


In article <BzzCwp.or@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
>What is a `peri-jet eductor' ?  (For that matter, what is a P-250?  Some
>kind of pump, I'd expect ...)

A P-250 is generic name for a variety of portable firefighting
and dewatering pumps.  Nominally rated at 250 gpm they have
come in a slew of styles over the last fifteen years starting
with 25hp OMC 2 cycle engine (really a modification of a very
old Johnson 25 hp outboard engine) and including a
electrically started 25 hp engine modified from a Kawaski jet
ski (the P-250E), a gas turbine and I think one of the latest
is a diesel.

The peri-jet eductor is water powered jet pump with no moving
parts used almost exclusively for dewatering.  I'm not going
to explain the theory of operation of this other than to say
that it makes use of converging and diverging nozzles to
create a vacuum.  

The standard method of operation for portable dewatering of
spaces with nonvolitle fluids would be to have the P-250 take
a direct suction and then discharge to the eductor which would
also be drawing from the flooded space effectively doubling
the the pumps discharge volume albiet at a great loss of
discharge pressure.

Greg
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Whispering Death?
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:39:42 GMT
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa


From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>

In article <C0E5pw.71o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Ops@raven.alaska.edu (sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu) writes:
>From: Ops@raven.alaska.edu (sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu)
>Subject: Whispering Death?
>I have seen more than one aircraft known to the Japanese as "Whispering 
>Death". The Bristol Beaufighter most commonly, but also the F4U Corsair.
>Were there any others? Were both of these aircraft actually known as such, or
>has some author got his facts wrong.

	Re the Beaufighter: the commonly attributed reason for this Japanese
inspired nickname was on account of it sleeve-valve radial engines.  
Apparently this meant that the a/c had a distinctive sound-signature that, on
occasion, was almost inaudible until the 'plane was right on top of you...by
which time there was some *heavy* firepower in-coming.
	Personally, I 1st came across this nomenclature some 30-plus years 
ago in the glossary of a book titled "Zero" by Martin Caiden(?).  In the 
interim, having read some of this author's other works, I couldn't help but
wonder whether all he was doing was uncritically repeating something that
had no foundation in Japanese reality.  The name "Whispering Death" 
positively reeks of the ostensible morale-boosting "creative licence" so 
characteristic of the WW2 rear echelon press liaison officer : "Right 
you chaps, today a trip's laid on for you to visit a Beaufighter squadron.  
You know what the Japanese call these planes?  Whispering Death, that's 
what.  (Want me to spell that?) ....etc. etc.".    (The other parallel is the
claim that the Germans commonly used to refer to the P-38 as "The Forked-
Tail Devil".)	
	(Or am I just being silly and cynical??)
Cheers,
Keith Coman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we pay dogfood salespeople more than we   :  Dept of Management
 do teachers, we should not be surprised if   :  Rhodes University
 our dogs eat like kids, and our kids end     :  Grahamstown, 6140
 up reading like dogs."                       :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.military