HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:31:53 GMT


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

>From driver8@night.Corp.Sun.COM (Albert Handa)
>[...something called "compression lift" for part of it's performance envelope
>-- Mary Shafer -- any comments on how compression lift works? ]

I'm not Mary, but I'll take a swing at this...  The shock waves from a
supersonic aircraft affect the distribution of air pressure over its
surface.  Juggle the design to get the shock waves in just the right
places, and they increase pressure underneath without much affecting
pressure above.  Presto:  lift!  In principle it can do wonders for the
L/D (lift/drag ratio, a basic measure of aircraft performance) of a
highly-supersonic aircraft.

In practice, well, it's tricky.  Despite an extensive test program, it
was never clear whether the B-70 got the full predicted benefits from
compression lift.  It would have helped if the second prototype hadn't
crashed; as I recall, the first was never cleared for Mach 3 because
it didn't have the definitive control system.

>...built in the 60's, was nuclear powered (not thrust)...

The only nuclear part of the B-70 was its intended weaponry.  There was
a nuclear-powered-bomber project at about the same time -- early in the
design phases the B-70 was also known as the CPB, Chemically Powered
Bomber, to distinguish it from the NPB that was also in the works -- but
that project was cancelled early.
-- 
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
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:29:13 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


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

>From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
>>...the efficiency of thermoelectric conversion also depends
>>on how big the temperature difference is, and space is a lot colder than
>>seawater.  I don't know the numbers, but it's not obvious that the system
>>would do better underwater.
>
>Shame Henry, space has no temperature...

Vacuum doesn't but space, for practical purposes, does.  The temperature
of the night sky is about 25K.  (The cosmic background temperature is a
lot lower, but the sky is full of stars and other warm objects too.)  Of
course, to get the benefits of this, you have to consider the presence
of the Sun and nearby planets too.  That tends to raise the effective
temperature to something like 70K.

>The question is whether convection
>or radiation (thermal) will put the cold plate at a lower temperature.

Agreed, and it obviously depends on details, like the heat flow involved.
With near-zero heat flow, a radiator radiating to 70K will get a lot colder
than a convector with fluid at 280-300K.  How things work out for realistic
heat flow, I'm not sure... hence the cautious phrasing towards the end of
my comment.
-- 
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: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 15:23:15 GMT


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

>From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
>Giving up a blue water navy can be costly, as the British found out in 
>the Falklands. They were lucky, and they know it, that the Argentines 
>weren't as aggressive as they could have been. If the fight had had to 
>be carried to the mainland, the British would have been helpless without 
>mainforce carriers. Note that the Argentines only made their move *after* 
>the Brits retired their last fleet carrier.

There's no evidence that the Argentines were particularly clever about
the timing in this regard.  In fact, they were very stupid about the
timing.  If they'd waited a little bit longer, plans to sell Hermes to
Australia would probably have gone through, and likewise plans to
mothball -- perhaps even sell -- Invincible as soon as Illustrious was
operational.

Nor would the British have been helpless without "mainforce" carriers
in a mainland war.  Note that Harrier performance is closely comparable
to that of the Skyhawk, which formed a large part of the USN's strike
force for a longish time.  (Admittedly, the shortest-ranged part.)

And the Argentines took the threat of Ascension-based Vulcan raids on
their mainland airbases very seriously:  immediately after the first
Vulcan raid on Port Stanley, the only Argentine squadrons trained and
equipped for air-to-air combat were pulled back to defend the mainland
bases.  (Part of the reason why the Harrier air-combat record in the
Falklands looks so good is because serious air-to-air opposition ended
when those squadrons left.)  The Argentines were overreacting, but from
their point of view it made some sense:  the British were behaving in
unexpected ways already, and who could tell what they might do next?

I do agree with one of Gary's points:  the British would have been in
considerable trouble if the Argentines had been more aggressive.
However, one of their two major vulnerabilities is shared by the USN:
not enough carriers.  (The other one was lack of radar aircraft, until
their first radar helicopters were deployed, too late for the war.)
They had only two carriers in the task force, and loss of even one would
have been a major disaster.  However, a USN task force probably wouldn't
have had more than two or three, and losing one would be almost as bad.

Fact is, in a modern war against a capable opponent, it's insane to
be vitally dependent on assets you can count on your fingers.  As the
USN's submariners will gladly tell you :-), the USN carriers are *not*
invulnerable.
-- 
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: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Subject: Re: Sparrows and the Turkish DD
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:38:59 GMT


From youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)

In <BvnFMu.K4q@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill) writes:


>From labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)


>	Can anyone tell me what guidance system the sea sparrow  has. I
>	understand at this point that it has radar, but is it command
>	control or  active? ( I don't have my janes handy here at
>	school) From what I saw from the news reports, two missiles hit
>	the DD in the bridge effectively eliminating the ship of its
>	brain. (pretty good shooting if you ask me... especially for a
>	surface to air missile a few modifications and the carriers now
>	have surface to surface reach.....;-)...)

>	Ryan M. Gill

>[ mod note -- I believe the Sea Sparrow is a "beam rider", where the
>launching platform keeps the target illuminated with it's radar, and the
>Sea Sparrow "rides the beam" to impact the target ]
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Yuck! So why didn't they turn the radar off when they realized the
   missles had launched?  Why was the weapon director in surface mode
   and locked on the Turkish Destroyer anyway? Is there something
   obvious I'm missing here? Or was the hit a fluke, and the radar
   wasn't really on? 

   Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: Air-to-ground text wanted
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:14:10 GMT


From thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)

In article <Bvq3vD.C8z@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> hammer@searchtech.com (John Hammer) writes:
>
>From hammer@searchtech.com (John Hammer)
>
>Is there an air-to-ground text that is complementary to Shaw's book
>_Fighter Combat_ on air-to-air.
>-John


If you find one, let me know.  The problem is that air-to-ground (air-to-mud,
as it is referred to by the glory boys) has always been the bastard step-child
of the fighter community.  There's no news value in bombing a truck park or a
tank, and Landing Zone preps don't sell cornflakes.  Somehow we never got the
point across that the two are mutually dependent.  Without effective air-to-air
there can be no air-to-ground, true.  But without air-to-ground, there is no
need for air-to-air.

TH

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
Subject: Re: Performance of Greek armour against Persian arrows.
Organization: :
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:36:44 GMT


From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us


From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us

In article <Bvwqxx.Jv7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson) writes:
 
> From pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
 
> And a question:
> A recent (nominally documentary) show on TV included acted footage of American
> Indians (Seminole?) in Florida (specificallly) using bows and arrows.  The
> thing that puzzled me was the arrows were recognizably bamboo, with bamboos
> periodic natural "joints".  Now it seems to me this would make singularly BAD
> arrows, both for accuracy and for strength.  Am i being hypercritical?

Actually I believe that bamboo is fantastically strong for its weight.
The question is one of volume, surface irregularities, and stiffness ...

But I didn't think that bamboo was native to the US.  Perhaps it was
another grass-like plant?
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cm9@prism.gatech.edu (MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.)
Subject: Re: New IR Jammer on Apache helicopters?
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:30:11 GMT


From cm9@prism.gatech.edu (MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.)


From cm9@prism.gatech.edu (MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.)


>
<
You can't jam IR!
  Well... I quess ya could.  What you'd need is a big bottle of liquid
  nitrogren and a spray nozzle mounted on top.  Then, when threatened,
  simply spray the liquid nitrogren all over you and presto...
  no more IR!
>
>

Depends on what you call jamming.  The Hot Brick used IR modulated at
a frequency that makes the IR seeker think the source is at a point
offset from either the actual source or the Hot Brick

.
-- 
MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:     ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!cm9
Internet: cm9@prism.gatech.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:43:03 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <Bvytpx.z2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, zo@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes:
> 
> From zo@maple.circa.ufl.edu
> 
> In article <BvvIsE.DFH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>Contrary to long-standing mythology, even in the desert most *infantry*
>>combat takes place at very short ranges.  And I suspect you'd find that
>>the Israelis issue Uzis mostly for urban warfare and the like, although
>>I don't know for sure.
>>
> 
> Remember, the UZI SMG is NOT the main battle rifle for the Israeli army.  They
> also use the Galil ( in 7.62 and 5.56 I believe ), which should be capable
> of longer ranges ( i.e. ranges in open desert ).

I think that Henry was pointing out that even in open desert the range at which
one fires is not as long as some would like to think.  The desert is not a flat
expanse of terrain, it is a series of rolling sanddunes that provide cover for
well trained infantry and armour commanders.  The Arabs have learned this to
their cost, whilst the Israeli's have made the most of superior tactics to
defensd themselves against a numerically superior enemy.  The Galil is
certainly a very effective rifle (as you correctly state) but it fills a role
that the Uziwas never intended to.  As for reliability the Uzi is very reliable
in the desert, it is not the most technologically advanced SMG but its'
strength lies in its simplicity and servicability in the arena that it was
designed for, namely desert warfare.  Where a more sophisticated weapon will
jam and be rendered ineffective the Uzi will keep going all day.  THAT is its'
greatest advantage.

regs

Rob


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:24:14 GMT


From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)


In <Bvtp4A.6Gs@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> cbj005@cch.coventry.ac.uk (The Mistress) writes:

>	Also, how widespread was the use of the Pz 1 and Pz 2 in the  German  in
>the  early  war  period, were they widely used or largely scrapped as the
>newer Pz 3 came into service.

A possibly related question:

The German 37mm anti-tank gun was used widely in early part of the war.
Were they scrapped in favour of bigger calibre ?
--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: TOP 5 ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD 
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:24:08 GMT


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

>From PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.EDU>
>: ... would guess that the 5 largest navies are
>: USA, UK, France, FUSSR, India (in no particular order)
>: 
>I seem to remember reading that UK Navy had fallen on hard times was now
>well down on the list, below countries such as Italy and Turkey.  That may 
>have been making the assumption that it got rid of the last of its carriers,
>which I believe was planned and never done...

That assessment may perhaps have been done during the interval when the RN
had retired its last full-size carrier and didn't have a Harrier force in
operation yet.  As far as I know, there's never been any plan to leave the
RN completely carrierless.

And in any case, I recall reading an assessment which pointed out that if
it lost *all* its major surface vessels, the RN would still be one of the
most powerful navies in the world, because of its nuclear submarines.
A few of those skulking around with hostile intent will make even a USN
carrier task force very nervous.
-- 
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: Scott Silvey <scott%fraud.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: F-14 as a strike bomber
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:32:53 GMT


From Scott Silvey <scott%fraud.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>


From Scott Silvey <scott%fraud.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>


%	   Does anybody have any better guesses as to why interceptors are
%   being fitted as bombers, how much ordinance they can carry, and what
%   (if any) modifications have been done to the avionics for this?


I believe it's because some people in the navy don't want an even more
expensive F-18 which and because they don't want the F-14's to age and
be replaced by something far less capable (there are already a couple
carriers with no TomCats I believe).  They want to demonstrate that it 
is feasible for the F-14 to function as a strike aircraft and that with
just a few modifications they could have a very capable and self-defensible
bomber.

I have to admit that that Proceedings article about the F-18E/F was 
pretty scary.  And the F-18 is nowhere near as capable as the TomCat 
when it comes to fleet defense.


Scott Silvey
scott@xcf.berkeley.edu
From: gwowen@utcs.utoronto.ca (George Owen)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Nuking the Reich?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:39:07 GMT
Organization: UTCS Public Access


From 	George Owen <gwowen@utcs.utoronto.ca>

In article <Bw2Jsu.AyF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> DWOLFF@res-c4.prime.com writes:
>
>Suppose the US had completed the atomic bomb early enough to use it on
>Germany, say mid-1944.  Would it have been used?  What would be the first
>targets?  Berlin is an obvious answer... but is it right?

    .... as I understand it, there was fear within the nuclear scientific-
   community at the time that the Nazis indeed had organized their own
   atomic weapon project. Therefore, yes, Nazi Germany was the intended
   target. It was only after the war the the dis-array and lack of central
   control & direction of Nazi R&D projects became apparent, particularly
   atomic weapons research, which was nowhere near the scale of the  
   Manhattan project.  Anyone want to add details ?


                       - G -

-- 
***************************************************************************
George Owen                              gwowen@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca  
University of Toronto 
Computing Services                             Phone: (416) 978-1506
Toronto , Canada                                 Fax: (416) 978-6620
***************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: groy@jasmine.csb
Subject: *********** SURVEY*************
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:43:14 GMT


From groy@jasmine.csb


From groy@jasmine.csb

Hi Guys,

		I am conducting a survey for my thesis paper on global
		military power.
		
		If you could answer the following questions, it would be appreciated:
		
		1) Please list and rank the TOP FIVE AIR FORCES OF THE WORLD
           
           1.
           2.
           3.
           4.
           5.
           
        2) Please list and rank the TOP FIVE ARMY OF THE WORLD
          
           1.
           2.
           3.
           4.
           5.
           
        3) Please list and rank the TOP FIVE NAVY OF THE WORLD
        
           1.
           2.
           3.
           4.
           5.
             
		4) Please list the countries who you think can fight a 
		   nuclear war... (don't include countries who are 
		   rumored to possess nuclear arsenal)
		   
		   
		5) Please list the countries who you think can fight a
		   lenghty war (over 9 months) with the United States
		   
		6) Please list the countries who you think are 
		   geographically helped (such as terrain, desert, mountains,
		   waters etc) in connection to a war...
		   
		7) Please list the countries who you think indigenously built
		   their satellites..
		   
		   
		   
		   Please email me at the following address:
		   
		   groy@nlm.nih.gov
		   
		   
		   IF THERE IS ENOUGH RESPONSE I WILL POST THE RESULTS IN THE NET
		   
		   
		   *************************************************************
From: cbj005@cch.coventry.ac.uk (The Mistress)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:00:10 GMT
Organization: Coventry Poly/Uni(Take your pick)


From cbj005@cch.coventry.ac.uk (The Mistress)

	During early WW2 in the French campaign, the British Army  at  the  time
used  the  Bofors  40mm  gun  as  an  Anti Aircraft weapon on a cruciform
mounting, what I am trying to find out is whether the British  Army  ever
used  this AA weapon as a weapon against ground troops. The Germans used their
88mm AA gun as a tank killer and I wonder if the British did the same.
	Also, how widespread was the use of the Pz 1 and Pz 2 in the  German  in
the  early  war  period, were they widely used or largely scrapped as the
newer Pz 3 came into service.

Thanks for any info.




-- 
|  The /\/\istress of /\/\anipulation   |      cbj005@cch.cov.ac.uk     |
|           Big Red Lobsters and Purple Hedgehogs unite!                |
|         "Shoot first, fingerprint the corpse later..."  2xs           |
|      Cannot recover from virus....rm: remove /freshers/all (y/n)      |
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:39:51 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <Bvtp4A.6Gs@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, cbj005@cch.coventry.ac.uk (The Mistress) writes:
> 
> From cbj005@cch.coventry.ac.uk (The Mistress)
> 
> 	During early WW2 in the French campaign, the British Army  at  the  time
> used  the  Bofors  40mm  gun  as  an  Anti Aircraft weapon on a cruciform
> mounting, what I am trying to find out is whether the British  Army  ever
> used  this AA weapon as a weapon against ground troops. The Germans used their
> 88mm AA gun as a tank killer and I wonder if the British did the same.

	Yes, the rate of fire of the Bofors was often utilised against ground
troops by the British army.

	On the subject of the 88mm, this was in fact a desperation move by the
Germans in the Spanish Civil War.  A battery of 88 AT's was about to be overrun
and as a last resort fired at the advancing enemy tanks.  Their success was
astonishing - somewhat obviously - and the Germans laernt from this.  At the
start ofthe war in France the only gun capable of defeating the Matilda
(British Infantry tank) was the 88mm.  When captured the British crewmen
expressed their disgust at the "ungentlemanly" and "unsporting" use of AA guns
against land targets.  This ridiculous attitude may also explain why the 3.7"
AA gun the British possessed was never used in a significant AT role, even
though it was found (after the completion of the war) to have a superior armour
penetration to the original 88mm the Germans possessed.  Yet another
demonstration of the rigid system the British army displayed all through the
war.

 
> 	Also, how widespread was the use of the Pz 1 and Pz 2 in the  German  in
> the  early  war  period, were they widely used or largely scrapped as the
> newer Pz 3 came into service.

The earlier model I and II's were prominent in the early campaigns and were
phased out as the better models became available.  The Mk I was basically used
for initial training of the Wermacht and in the Polish campaign.  The Mk II
entered in significant numbers during the Polish campaign and Mk III's made a
significant entrance during France.  Obviously there was some overlap to allow
vehicles to be phased out, some Mk I's were even used in Russia, and many were
converted to specialist vehicles such as the PzKpfw Luchs which was a
flamethrower equipped vehicle used in about 1942.

	I'll look up my sources at home tonightand post a more definitive
answer tomorrow.

regs

Rob