HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Ops@raven.alaska.edu (sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu)
Subject: Whispering Death?
Organization: UACN
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:25:08 GMT


From Ops@raven.alaska.edu (sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu)

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.
Hmmmmm.
Bob Stratton
University of Alaska 
Fairbanks

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Re: Napoleon's Guard
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:25:04 GMT


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


Iskandar Taib writes:
#One of the more interesting WWI cavalry stories I've heard is that when
#the US entered the war they sent some cavalry riding off somewhere. They
#were waylaid by a couple German machinegun nests which they took care off
#with massed .45 ACP fire! Sounds apocryphal to me..


The US did use cavalry in the Great War. A primary task was recon patrols,
either mounted or dismounted, but they also performed screening/security
tasks during advances. The usual cavalry stuff :)

There's a nice account, "The Second Cavalry in the Meuse-Argonne", by a 
Captain Ernest Harmon, written in 1922 and reprinted in the May-Jun 85 issue
of "Armor". Nice description of an infantry/armor advance: "...the air
was filled with the smoke of the bursting HE and dust. Now a tank would be
hit; now a shell seemed to swallow a line of doughboys, and all the while one           e                     
one could hear the incessant "tack-tack" of machineguns..."

No mention of "massed .45 ACP fire" though.


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: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
Subject: AF News Svc 12/30/92
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:39:13 GMT


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>

972. Air Force criteria
by TSgt. David P. Masko
Air Force News Service
     WASHINGTON -- In an era when the military is facing drastic budget cuts,
the Air Force vice chief of staff thinks the force can get smaller and still
"do at least as good a job, if not better," because of improvements in
technology and quality people.
     "First and foremost, we're working on making sure we maintain a quality
Air Force, and we do that through quality people," Gen. Michael P.C. Carns
told students at the 1992 Princeton Model Congress in Washington Dec. 17.
     "We are very people-centered because people get things done, and it's
people that build teams and people that get things and give us our quality Air
Force," Carns said.
     However, he pointed out that about 70,000 more active-duty men and women
-- from the current force of 470,000 -- will have to leave the Air Force over
the next three years under a plan to reduce manpower by 25 percent.
     "We think we can get smaller, and we think we can deliver to you, the
citizenry, the taxpayer, quality forces....  We are committed, like the other
services, to make sure that you get the best military force you can for every
dollar of taxes that are spent."
     In addition, Carns believes technology, modernization, readiness and
training will be part of the new criteria for a force that is "first and
foremost" responsible for deterring war.
     Criteria highlights include:
     -- Stealth and precision-guided munitions are two key technology areas
because they have high payoff and high effectiveness in a time when the force
is getting smaller.
     -- Modernization will focus on the bomber fleet with the new B-2, and the
transport fleet with the addition of the C-17.  The fighter fleet will
modernize with the F-22, which, like the B-2 bomber, incorporates stealth
technology.
     -- For readiness and training, the aim is realistic training situations:
to make it as much like war as possible for greater effectiveness in real
world situations.
     Carns said the Air Force is deployed worldwide in support of U.S.
missions, with some 7,000 aircraft in the inventory.
     "We're organized into about 100 wings in order to do this job," he said.

--
     __________________________________________________________________
    |            Air Force News Agency (AFNEWS)                        | 
    |           Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA                       | 
    |               bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil                            |  
    |__________________________________________________________________|  



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)
Subject: Re: Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:49:07 GMT


From Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)

In article <C02wBD.GwE@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill) writes:
>
>	If you wan't a divisional armoured air defense system to keep
>	up with the tanks then do what the Germans did. Build it on an
>	existing armour chassis (a MBT will make the engine mainanance
>	easy for the mechs, just use the same body that the units
>	generally get...It should be a new system...so use M1A1
>	chassis..), Design a new turret with a search radar, and a
>	target tracking radar, link this to multiple common based gun 
>	systems with a common ammo supply feed and some optical sights 
>	for back up...and you have the Gephard....or and american
>	version....So take an M1A1 chassis...several 20 or 25mm
>	guns...put them in a turret with a good set of air search
>	radars sets...and get some decent optics.....voila!!!

Uh, be careful here: remember, M48A5 chassis + stock Bofors 40mm/70's
+ APG-66 (F-16)-derived fire-control radar = SGT. YORK, a system made less
than the sum of its parts by bad interfaces.  Bad politics, too, but its
scrapping wasn't a total hatchet job by any means. 
--
   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: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: helos vs tanks
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:39:13 GMT


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

In article <C0171K.35r@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:

>"Canister" is a bit more generic than you realize. It refers to a 
>projectile which breaks up into or produces large numbers of antipersonnel
>subprojectiles upon muzzle exit. The subprojectiles are most typically
>steel balls, but they can be steel rods/cylinders as in the 90mm M336
>cartridge described above (max effective range 200 yds). They can even be
>flechettes, as in the 90mm M377 (Caution! Flechette does NOT always
>mean "Beehive". If the projectile functions at the muzzle without fuzing
>it's a flechette canister round; if it has a time fuze alowing muzzle
>action function as well as function at a distance from the weapon it's
>"Beehive"). What makes it "canister" is that it works by distributing
>a pattern of subprojectiles intended for close-in antipersonnel work.

Going back in time, wasn't "canister" named for the packaging? In 
the days of muzzleloading cannon they first used loose musket balls 
loaded between wads - called "grapeshot" I think. Later, for sake 
of expediency, the shot was packed into a canister, which made loading
much quicker. The canister was designed to disintegrate as it left the 
barrel. Beehive almost sounds like Shrapnel - the British "secret wea-
pon" during the Napoleonic Wars. The idea was an exploding shell which
would release a shower of projectiles over massed troops. I think true
Shrapnel wasn't used in WWII, but was in WWI.





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Apache vs Werewolf (Hokum)
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:43:13 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

> From Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>
> 
   <stuff deleted>
> 
> 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.

The Werewolf's ejection system uses explosive bolts to blow off the 
rotors a very (- like .5 seconds or something) short time before the 
pilot is dragged out of the cokpit by a rocket.  It IS NOT AN EJECTION 
SEAT!!!!  The ejection rocket connects to the pilot's seat by a 
lanyard, and, literally, drags it out of the cockpit!! (All from 
memory of FLIGHT articles from about the time of Farnborough).

As to the fly-off, it would undoubtably be interesting in the 
extreme!!  The Hokum is reputed to be extremely manouvreable, and well 
armoured.  It is also very small.  The 30mm cannon has no (or almost 
no) traverse, but can elevate/depress a bit, being fixed to fire 
forwards.  The pilot would certainly have a lot of work to do (but is 
that a disadvantage for the F-16, F-15, Mig-29, etc over 2-seat 
fighters???).  How about for A-4's and F-5's in the US agressor 
sqn's????????

Longbow is the millimetric-wave radar isn't it?  Going to be used to 
designate targets for BRIMSTONE (love that name :-))?  I guess then it 
would be useful for locating small, fast moving objects against 
considerable background clutter - but nothing ever seems to allways 
work the way it's supposed to, does it :-)

Yup, would sure be most interested to hear about such a fly-off!!!
-- 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu" <Ops@raven.alaska.edu>
Subject: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans..
Organization: UACN
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:28:27 GMT


From "sxrbs@orca.alaska.edu" <Ops@raven.alaska.edu>

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
Bob Stratton
University of Alaska.

[mod note -- I just finished reading _A Blood Dimmed Tide_ (can't remember
the author).  It covers the Battle of the Bulge, including the stories of
some members who were captured.  There is reference to U.S. ground troops
who were Jewish that were captured.  They were sent to concentration camps.

The thing to remember is that the Wehrmacht had responsibility for ground
troops captured, and the Luftwaffe had responsibility for aircrew who were
captured.  From comparing the descriptions of conditions of the POW camps,
the POWs held by the Luftwaffe were better treated, and had somewhat better
conditions than those held by the Wehrmacht

Steve]
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Edward V. Wright" <ewright@convex.com>
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:21:41 GMT


From "Edward V. Wright" <ewright@convex.com>

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

>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. 

If the existance of the device becomes know, it would be
vulnerable to counter-countermeasures.  Simply put, the
sniper could wait until a plane was taking off and use
the noise to mask the shot.



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ahahma@utu.fi (Arno Hahma)
Subject: Re: Liquip Propellent Gun
Organization: University of Turku
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:42:53 GMT


From ahahma@utu.fi (Arno Hahma)

In article <C0E5K8.6rK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca> writes:

>gun? Almost all guns are fired by solid explosives. I understand GE or FMC is
>studying the possibility of liquid fired guns. Reportedly, it has higher

That is right, many companies study such guns. GE already has working
models, if not already in production/field use. Rheinmetall is
planning to get one into production soon.

>Questions:
>1. Why higher muzzle velocity than solid gun?

Because you can adjust the pressure-time history of the firing. Just
adjust the propellant feed and try to maintain a constant pressure in
the tube. That is _very_ hard to do with solid propellants - the
Germans tried it during the WW2 with little success (V-3
"Hochdruckspumpe", planning to shoot some 200 km from France to
London).

In addition, the liquid propellant has a higher specific impulse than
the solid propellants. The liquid propellant is much less erosive than
high energy powders (lower combustion temperature). All of these give
rise to a better performance.

>2. How about rapid firing? (2 step loading!)

No problem, as the propellant is fed with pumps. Load the ammo, close
the breech and fire, just like before. Pumping the propellant is done
very fast, there is a small initial volume and additional propellant
is fed during combustion, like in a diesel engine. This is usually
done using the gas pressure in the tube.

>3. Any disadvantages compared to solid propellent guns?

Yes: much more expensive. Both the gun and the propellant. It has been
estimated, that the liquid propellant costs about 10 times more than
the present solid propellants. Still, the liquid propellant gives so
many advantages, that it is considered cheaper (easy transport, storage
and waste disposal, no cartridges, no factories for loading the
cartridges, far safer and less vulnerable, etc).

>Fengxi Zhou
>fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca

ArNO
    2

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Geneva Convention (was Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans)
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:37:03 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <C0G124.10t@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
dchapman@well.sf.ca.us (Dave Chapman) writes:
[Concerning being captured by German forces during WWII.]

>    It also mattered what kind of uniform you were wearing.  The Soviet
> Union had never signed the Geneva Convention, and captured Red Army
> personnel were frequently worked to death, while US and British
> prisoners were treated (usually) correctly.

Not to dispute the conclusions, but the US didn't sign the Geneva Convention
until 1974.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Trevor German <tjgerman@53iss6.waterloo.NCR.COM>
Subject: SNIPER DETECTION.
Organization: Imaging Systems Division, NCR Corp, Waterloo, Ont., CANADA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:29:29 GMT


From Trevor German <tjgerman@53iss6.waterloo.NCR.COM>


	As an electrical engineer it appears to me that the suggested
	method of detecting the direction of a sniper by using microphones
	is not as difficult as some have suggested.

	To sense the direction only three microphones would be reqired 
	positioned at the corners of some defined triangle. The triangle 
	would not need to be large and could be anything from a foot  or
	so on the edge up. Since it should be portable this is a definate
	asset. 

	The signal processing would be designed to select noises with sharp
	attack angles (speed of volume increase) and would recognise similar
	noise shapes from each three sensors within the time that sound can
	travel the distance between them. By time dating the arrival of a 
	sound at all three sensors it is a simple matter of geometry to
	determine the direction in which the sound originated. 

	Granted, the noise made by the projectile striking its target would
	also have to be dealt with, esp since that would be heard first.
	However, these problems are those of how to display the information
	now how to detect it. 

	If three such arays were used seperated by a couple of meters in
	a similar triangle, not only the direction but also the distance
	of the noise source could be calculated. A screen display could then
	be plotted to show all noise sources.

	Having done all this automated retaliation would obviously be the
	next step.

	The sizes I suggest are just guestimates and without doing any maths
	I could be wrong by an order of magnitude either way. It also
	depends on the level of accuracy you require. The more the seperation
	the more the timing accuracy. 

	Actually, three groups of 3 is probably overkill. One group of 4
	might do the whole thing if seperated enough. The three groups of 
	three might be more preferable though since the single group of 3 
	would still give direction info if one or both of the other two
	were not available or damaged. Connecting 3 together would be
	simple.

	Just my 2Cents worth
--
       >|  "Only average people            | Trevor J German BSc    |<
       >|        never make mistakes."     | NCR, Waterloo, Ontario |<
       >| tjgerman@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM | Canada.                |< 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  WW2 Aircraft Bombs
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:26:03 GMT


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


Can anyone recommend a good reference on the subject. I'm particularly
interested in:

     Soviet Ptab-1.5 and Ptab-2.5
     German SD-4 HL

These were both small pseudo-cluster bombs, with fragmenting casings
and shaped charges. Basically forerunners of Rockeye albeit bigger.

Thanks in advance.



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: dgd@kcbbs.gen.nz (David Dix)
Subject: WW2 German aircraft carriers
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:39:05 GMT


From dgd@kcbbs.gen.nz (David Dix)


Over the last few months I have seen various postings about the WW2 German 
carrier 'Graf Zeppelin'. I also noted that someone mentioned a fourth
heavy cruiser of the Prinz Eugen type (Seydlitz?) that was 95% completed in
1942 when conversion to a 'light' carrier was started.
When was work on these carriers abandoned? It seems that the Graff Zeppelin
must have been pretty close to completion in late 1942/early 1943

Can anyone recommend a good reference text with details of these two carriers
perhaps including design details, specifications and maybe even details of the
proposed aircraft that were planned to operate from these ships? 
Is there any information available on what the Germans planned to do with
these carriers when completed? Was there to be a carrier battle group?

Also does anyone have any photographs of either? that could be posted as
GIF or JPEG images?
What exactly was the fate of both these carriers? Were both scuttled?
or scrapped?
I have read that Graf Zeppelin was eventually sunk in 1946 after hitting
a mine or after a load of railcars shifted and she foundered in bad weather.
Does anyone know exactly what happened?



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Subject: Claribel Fire Direction Indicator
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:42:58 GMT


From cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu


   According to a book I have, a company developed a fire direction indicator
for the British Army.  It's called the Claribel Fire Direction Indicator.  It
uses for radar heads and has a scope that shows what direction the shot came
from.  Ideally it's mounted on vehicles or observation posts.  There's a man
portable version called the Aries which has the radar heads secured to a flak
jacket.

-- 
                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Daemon E. Hobbs, C/LtCol, AFROTC
                 Senior, (Spatial Information Systems)
                          Cal Poly, Pomona
                            **Commander**
                602D Air Force ROTC Cadet Squadron (ATC)
                Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

         "My ramblings represent no one's opinion but my own."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Napoleon's Guard
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:45:51 GMT


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

In article <BzzCLI.6C@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:

>The (Guard) Cavalry consisted of: Empress Dragoons (7 sqn), Horse Grenadiers 
>(5 sqn), Guard Lancers (5 sqn), Chasseurs a Cheval (6 sqn), Elite 
>Gendarmes (2 companies).

Who were the heavy Guard cavalry with the brass-colored cuirasses and red
plumed helmets? I've heard them referred to as Carabiniers a'Cheval but 
were they perhaps Horse Grenadiers or (this would make more sense, since 
Carabinieri in Italian = Gendarme in French = Police in English) the Elite 
Gendarmes? Were they used as heavy cavalry units or were they indeed used 
as military police? 




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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