HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:28:03 GMT


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

In article <BzMA51.1oq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ksw3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (KENNETH STARR WATSON) writes:
>
>    Why not add a 30mm GAU-8A cannon (the kind the A-10 carries) to the Bradley.  Supposedly
>    its extremely effective against armor and would probably make a decent
>    point defence weapon as well?  There's always the ammo problem, but if you
>    took an M3 and removed the TOWs you would probably have more than enough
>    room for ammo.  The only problem is that I don't know how effective the
>    GAU-8A would be against missles and such.  Just a random thought.

It's mainly a matter of geometry; there's plenty of room in the rear, of
course, but the ammo drum won't fit there; it has to be part of the
rotating mass, and might not even fit into the BFV turret basket.  Also,
fitting a big enough turret to hold the thing would create serious height
problems.  It's probably indicative that when GE (I think) proposed a
GAU-8-based DIVAD candidate in the '70's, they used an M-48 tank chassis,
about twice the weight of the Bradley.  For what it's worth, the
four-barrel version (GAU-13) is an option for the Blazer turret currently
on offer by GE for the Bradley, although the Army probably wants to stay
with 25mm, since it's in the Army supply system and the GAU-8/13's isn't.

The GAU-8 is perfectly fine against missiles, BTW; it's used in the
Goalkeeper system, which is the second most popular gun-based Western CIWS
after Phalanx.  
--
   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: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@oddjob.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: helos vs tanks
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:36:32 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


From "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@oddjob.mitre.org>

In article <BzEzGv.Fqw@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Eugene Heiss (GWD) <heiss@brl.mil> writes:

	>   TC:       Range to target
	>   Gunner:   1000 meters
	>   TC:       Forget it

 >  Cannister is quite effective at close range (150-200 meters) but is useless
 >  at the normal engagement ranges for helicopter vs tank (>1000 meters).  The
 >  japanese had cannister for their 460mm guns which proved to be useless
 >  against incoming aircraft.

 >   I agree, very good at short range but the velocity loss vs range for the 
 >  steel balls was tremendous.  They would never reach the helicopter.

     I'll check the effective range on the 90 mm cannister, but I seem
to remember 1200 yards published, and about that in real use.  The
projectiles were not steel balls but steel rods cut into about one
inch lengths, and the spin from the shell stabilzed them.

     Maybe that's why there is no 120 mm cannister!  The projectiles
could not be spin stabilized.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Craig R Albrechtson <craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>
Subject: Soviet Air force Sniper Pilots
Organization: Cyberdyne Systems
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:24:52 GMT


From Craig R Albrechtson <craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>

Recently I had a post where I need the words off a soviet aviators 
pin translated.  Thank you to everyone who replied.

The words read "Sniper Pilot" and from what I gathered it is 
some kind of elite group of fighter pilots.  But I have looked 
up that in several books on the Russian Air forces and I could 
find only one reference and that was on a chart of various aviator 
pins and what they meant.  But not any explaination was given.

If any of you can give me some back ground on this group of 
pilots in the russian air forces it would be appreciated.
-- 
************************************************************************
* Craig Reese Albrechtson (Slider) * University of Wisconsin Milwaukee *
* The usual meanless disclaimers apply * craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu       *
************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@oddjob.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:33:20 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


From "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@oddjob.mitre.org>

In article <Bzo8Iw.Bqz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Patrick H. McAllister" <fed!m1phm02@uunet.uu.net> writes:

   The conclusion is that the M1 needs to devote all of its limited capacity to storing ammo that will be useful against opposing armored vehicles -- that is, KE and HEAT rounds.


     Let's think this through...  If you fire two and sometimes three
rounds to get a tank kill, that works out to 15-20 tanks destroyed
without reloading.  (None of this, "But what about misses?"  It may
not have been the case in the desert with the M1A1, but in general
miss twice and the the tank destroyed is yours.  The possible third
round is in case the enemy is playing possum.)

     So force planning should be based on each tank destroy one enemy
company, then go home for lunch?  Give me a break.  If you are that
outnumbered, the enemy infantry is much more of a threat than the enemy
tanks.  (Tanks without infantry support are dead tanks, so defend your
local GI. :-)

     Adding a few rounds of cannister and smoke (white phosporous) to
a tank's basic load would do a lot for survivability, and only in some
fantasy world would it limit lethality.  During WWII there were many
tank battles in which tanks took on fuel and ammo during the battle.
Any Desert Storm vets out there know the story on our tanks?  I assume
they refueled and reloaded during the four days of combat.  And did
any single tank have more than a dozen armor kills?   In a single
engagement?



     
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Secret Weapons Flops Flops
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:24:46 GMT


From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


Brian Douglass writes:
#>From dave pierson <pierson@empror.enet.dec.com>
#>
#>Back again, sniping at Secret Weapons Video.  Down to their usual form.  Subject
#>this week was "flops, weapons that failed....)
#>Lotsa misinformation about the Paris Gun of WWI (at minimum, their were two, not
#>one and NONE of the film footage appeared to  be of the actual gun.  That last
#>I would not mention, if that were all.  "Failed due to breech wear", nope,
#>failed due to counterbattery fire forcing moves, and loss of front line two
#>attacks.
#
#What I remember reading about this gun, is that Krupp determined what the
#barrel wear would be per shot, and cast shells of ever increasing size to
#match the increased bore size due to use.  Because of the tremendous
#breech pressures, and powder composition, the barrel wear was extensive.


There were three 21cm "Paris Guns". Barrel life was expected to be 60
rounds, and sequentially numbered projectiles of increasing size were
made for each of the tubes. Projectiles were forged and machined, not
cast. In addition to bore wear, there was substantial erosion at the
chamber throat, with the result that each projectile seated several
inches further up the tube than its predecessor. Ramming depth was
measured, chamber volume recalculated, and the propelling charges were
adjusted accordingly. One of the guns suffered a catastrophic tube
failure on firing, killing many of its gunners; I think it was from firing
a projectile out of sequence.

The "Paris Guns" were NOT a failure, in that they met their design
requirement of hitting Paris from behind German lines. Whether this was
a worthwhile goal is very debatable however.



#As to footage, apparently the Germans did an excellant job at destroying
#the guns, diagrams and any and all photos, save one or two.  That someone
#had found motion footage of the gun in action would have been a gold mine.


Actually quite a bit of documentation and photos survived. See "Paris
Kanonen: the Paris Guns and Project HARP", by Bull and Murphy.



Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: bradley aa version (w
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:34:52 GMT


From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


Patrick Eves writes:
#From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
#
#
#GE>    Problem with 30mm weapon use is there is no AP round in service
#GE>- the A-10 and Apache AH-64 helicoter use a dual purpose 30mm round
#GE>that is slow and probably won't defeat the future threat land combat
#
#Someone will probably have already pointed this out by the time my message
#makes the rounds, but I thought I should mention to Gallaghe that the
#A-10 and the AH-64 have different types of 30mm cannon.  Actually, the only
#similarity is the caliber.
#
#The GAU-8 Avenger used on the A-10 uses a special 30mm DU penetrator, on top of
#a relatively enormous (roughly the size of a milk bottle) cartridge.  The
#A-10 is the only platform to carry the Avenger cannon.
#
#The 30mm Hughes chain gun carried by the Apache uses the NATO standard 30mm
#round, a smaller round used mostly by the British, called by them the 30mm
#ADEN, I believe.  British Harriers carry 30mm cannon chambered for this round,
#and the Scimitar light tank uses the same round in its 30mm cannon.  Going way
#back, I think the first use was in the Fox armoured car, but I'm not sure.


You were doing fine until you mentioned the Scimitar and Fox :)

The GAU-8 uses a large bottlenecked 173mm long cartridge case. As used in
the A-10, three natures of ammunition are available: full-bore AP with
DU core, HE (these may be API and HEI; I don't remember), and TP.

When used in the Goalkeeper CIWS, the GAU-8 fires a tungsten penetrator
MPDS ("missile piercing discarding sabot" - I didn't make that up) round.

The 30mm Chain Gun used in the AH-64 uses ammunition based on the Aden/DEFA
family. This uses a very short cylindrical case. The service round used
with the Chain Gun is HEDP - High Explosive Dual Purpose, with a fluted
cone copper SC liner and a prefragmented steel body.

The Scimitar and Fox use the 30mm Rarden gun, whose ammunition is based
on an Oerlikon 30mm round (KCB?) more powerful than the Aden/DEFA but
not quite as good as the 30x173 of the GAU-8.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Re: Uhlans
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:24:58 GMT


From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


Mike Campbell writes:
#The Russian model apparently became the basis of the troop type
#throughout Europe in the 19th century, and all Uhlans wore the
#distinctive square-topped Czapska"

I thought the Western lancers were modeled after the Polish units
used by Napoleon. "Czapka" is Polish for cap or cover (headgear),
and the Polish army used the square-topped headgear for all
branches. In modified form it is retained to this day.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: parkhill <parkhill@email.sp.paramax.com>
Subject: Re: Jutland
Organization: Paramax -  Eagan, MN
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:24:38 GMT


From parkhill <parkhill@email.sp.paramax.com>

> >Speaking of Dreadnoughts - where was the Mother of all Dreadnoughts
> >(sorry - couldn't resist  9-) ) - HMS Dreadnought - when all this was
> >taking place? She wasn't that old - 9 years or so if I remember right.
> 
> In May of '16, the 3rd BS under Admiral Bradford; including all the pre-
> _Dreadnoughts_, plus the _Dreadnought_ herself; was in the Thames Approaches.

>From page 17 text from _Jutland an Analysis of the Fighting_ by John
Campbell describing why certain ships were not available for the
battle:

"..The Austrailia of the 2nd BCS, was also absent as a result of a
 colision with the New Zealand in thick fog on 22 April, while the
 Dreadnought was refitting and on completion would join the 3rd
 BS, ceasing to belong to the Grand Fleet."

 
        Jutland: An analysis of the fighting, N J M Campbell, 
        Naval Institute Press, 1987, ISBN 0-87021-324-5 
 









Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Iowa Upgrade
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:20:45 GMT


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

In article <BzBA1t.1pC@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Scott D. Young" <youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca> writes:
>
>   The problem is, no one would ever attack an Iowa with only *1* fast
>   patrol boat. Try 20 or so, supported by 150 fighter bombers (old and
>   obsolete, perhaps, but still a lot). Syria or Libya might be able to
>   field that many old MiG's (or new MiG's, soon?). The Iowa probably
>   wouldn't sink, but lots of dead crewmen and loss of sensors and
>   armaments are all the attacker really wants. If it can't shell the
>   coast, the Iowa won't be very useful.
>
Remeber how well the Syrian navy and AF did against the New Jersey off
Lebanon? Real effective, weren't they? They didn't stop the shelling for
one second.

>   Are there any studies of the results of such an engagement? I have
>   run several Harpoon scenarios (computer version), playing both sides.
>   Usually, the Iowa is damaged and several escorts are sunk, with the
>   virtual annhialation of the attackers. Who wins?
>
I consider reality an excellent study. (see above) But I admit, I play
Harpoon too. Both manually and by computer. In Harpoon, we've found that
the computer doesn't play too well, and a reasonably skilled player
(who has mastered the human computer interface for the thing, I can
never get the missiles & aircraft to OBEY ORDERS) can defeat the computer
fairly well. I must assume that machine ran the Iowa poorly). Also, much
depends on the Iowa's escorts. Did it just have a couple of Knoxs, or 
were there some Ticonderogas, Kidds, Burkes, etc in the mix?

    By the way, have you played the scenario off Norway where you run into
a Sverdlov battle group, and all you've got is a bunch of frigates? When
we played this one, we'd already used up all our SSMs on patrol craft,
and the Sverdlov & co. were closing in fast. I said to my brother,  
"You know, I could REALLY use a battleship right about now." Alas, none
was available, so the Sverdlov closed in, and cleaned us out. (so much 
for the reasonably skilled players!!! OOPS!!!)

				David R. Wells

Disclaimer: My opinions, not AT&Ts

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Prussian Military
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:24:49 GMT


From Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>

In article <BzEz50.Ezs@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> silber@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>From silber@cs.uiuc.edu
>
>
>
>I wonder what point of development anti-cavalry tactics were at 
>this point in time. Weren't infantry still armed with matchlocks 
>and pikes? Perhaps bayonets had just come into vogue and the square
>hadn't been perfected yet. Or perhaps the Austrians were taken by
>surprise and didn't have time to form square.

The square was perfected by the Romans. With the advent of guns, the
square became less useful as a defensive formation. Even if the enemy
missed you, he was likely to hit your opposite number in the back.
That's one reason the line tactic was developed, to reduce the depth
of the target for musket fire and to allow all muskets to be mass
fired at the same target.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Escalator on Carrier
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:04:39 GMT


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

In article <BzEyzH.EsA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Andre Molyneux <andrem@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com> writes:
>
>While touring the Yorktown, I ran across something that surprised me.  On
>the way back down from the flight deck and superstructure, the tour path
>took you down an escalator (looked just like one in a mall or department
>store).  I assume that it belongs there and wasn't added after the carrier
>was de-commisioned (since it was non-functional, after all).
>
>Due to the path that the self-guiding tour takes you on, I wasn't sure
>what level I was at when I ran across the escalator.  My wife asked me
>why it was there, and the only thing I could figure was to take loaded-down
>flight crews from the ready-room level to the flight deck.  Makes more
>sense than an elevator, since you can still climb up by yourself if power
>fails.
>
>Can anyone tell me if my guess was on the money?  Does anyone have an idea
>when they started putting these things on carriers, and if the practice still
>continues?

You're right.  _Essex_ class carriers gained these escalators when they
were modernized after WWII.  The air wing's ready rooms had originally
been on the gallery deck, that is, above the hangar deck armor.  WWII
experience, especially _kamikaze_ attacks, suggested that this was a Bad
Thing since it endangered the most sensitive and hard-to-replace element
of the ship's weapons system; the pilots.  At refit time, the ready rooms
were moved below and the external escalators were added.  Of the later
carriers, I assume that at least the _Midway_ class didn't have them,
since the flight decks were armored; I don't know about the rest.

For details, see Norman Friedman, _U.S. Aircraft Carriers_
(Annapolis: Naval Institute ,1983).

--
   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: "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:31:36 GMT


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

In article <BzzCrI.L5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu> writes:

> It could take incredible punishment and keep flying.
> It's primary role, however, was not as a bomber interceptor, but as
> a bomber escort fighter.

While it's true that the P-47 was initially used as a bomber escort
fighter, that wasn't what the Thunderbolt was designed for.  This was
establised a year ago in a flury of postings.  Emmanuel Gustin was
correct in saying that the big fighter was designed as a high altitude
bomber interceptor, that's how the concept developed.  You are correct
in saying that it was never used in that fashion and had to adapt to
the ETO concept of fighter escort.  That it was able to do this so
effectively is due to the inherent structural integrity of the design,
the firepower, the decline of the German pilot skills and conversely
the improvement of American pilot skills and fighting techniques, but
not to it's design intent.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Infantry in square
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:28:11 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)


Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> writes:

>3. As you have pointed out, the cavalry were also in conflict with 
>their horses.  There are accounts from Waterloo of French horses 
>refusing to advance closer than 20 yds from one of the Foot Guards 
>squares, and again of horses refusing to advance over the corpses of 
>previous attacks.

	Just to add a bit of information, a war-trained horse will not
only advance across dead bodies, he will employ hooves to help you in
killing them.  This applies only to well-trained horses, but a horse
can be made to go wherever you want if it has had good training.  An
old nag used to haul cannon around might not move if bodies are in the
way.  Modern horses and cattle generally stay away from bodies.

	In addition, remember Hannibal and the fearsome War Elephant.
When confronted with a phalanx of pointed sticks, the elephant
rightly decided his charging such a line wasn't worth the benefits
given and headed towards safer areas.  A horse is little different in
judging self-preservation, and it is unlikely that a horse will
charge a line bristling with pointed sticks or even guns and swords.

	The square was a formidable defense, being a phalanx without
the benefit of mobility but keeping all the firepower.  As a defensive
position, it is doubtful that many animals would have charged it.

< 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: jac54@cas.org
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:19:06 GMT


From jac54@cas.org

In article <Bzq304.4yu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> you write:
>
>Wasn't it Robert Stanford Tuck who had the day off when his
>squadron intercepted an Italian force consisting of slow bombers
>and Fiat biplanes? This was at the height of the Battle of Bri-
>tain. The italians were brave but the biplanes didn't do too well
>against Hurricanes.
>

	According to Tucks biography (I think it was "Fly for Your
	Life") this was the case.  The British press, and the
	Daily Express in particular, seemed to think he was in the
	air that day and attributed a lot of disparaging remarks
	about the Italians to him that he never made and that he
	considered unjustifiable in the light of the reports of the
	rest of his command.  His pilots were impressed with the
	manoeuvrability of the Fiat and the skill of the pilots
	in handling in it.  Tuck never did get the affair cleared up.

	Alec Chambers

Newsgroups: sci.military