HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:35:53 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


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


Anthony Lee writes:
#The German 37mm anti-tank gun was used widely in early part of the war.
#Were they scrapped in favour of bigger calibre ?


The 3.7cm Panzer Abwehr Kanone (PAK - anti tank gun) 36 first saw service
in the Spanish Civil War, where it waseffective against the few lightly
armored Republican/Communist vehicles encountered there. It saw little
use during the invasion of Poland, due to the relative scarcity of Polish
armor and the mobile tactics employed. It was in France that its
deficient armor penetration was first of significance. The 5cm PAK 38 was
already in the works, however, and began to replace the PAK 36 in 1941.
The PAK 38 was replaced by the 7.5cm PAK 40; it in turn was to be replaced
by the 8.8cm PAK 43 (and that in turn by the 12.8cm PAK 44), but the war
sort of ended. There were of course various experimental designs along
the way.

The 8.8cm FLAK (Flugzeug Abwehr Kanone - anti aircraft gun) were pressed
into service as ersatz AT guns, starting in 1940. Ironically, until the
introduction of the PAK 43 they outperformed the standard AT guns. It
was in mobility and size that the FLAK weapons were deficient in the AT
role.

The 3.7cm PAK 36 had sort of a new lease on life, with the introduction
of a large muzzle loaded HEAT projectile. This was similar in principle
to the rod-type rifle grenades, with a shaft that fit in the barrel and
a very large finned HEAT warhead at the end of it, outside the muzzle.
A special blank cartridge was used to fire it. The warhead worked, but
it had low velocity and thus short combat range, especially against
moving targets. The fact that a gunner had to come out from behind the
gun shield to load the thing also made follow-up shots difficult if the
enemy armor had accompanying infantry.

As an aside, the US copied the PAK 36 without paying royalties.

An excellent book on the subject of infantry AT warfare is John Weeks'
"Men Against Tanks".


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)
From: silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:39:16 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL


From "Ami A. Silberman" <silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

	Yes. The 37mm was used extensively through 1941 but was already being
replaced by a 50mm (using the same gun as on the PzIIIj, i.e., a long barrel
50mm gun.) Later, the PAK75 (75mm) was introduced, I believe that this was
the same gun used on the PzIV f through h models. I do not believe that
the longer 75mm gun used on the Panther was ever used as a towed AT gun.
(This gun was also used in some of the Jagdpanzers.)
In addition, there was a PAK28/20 which was used by the airborne troops.
It used a shell that was squeezed as it travelled down the barrel. (Soft
lead around a tungsten core perhaps?) and was 20mm wide at the barrel.
The 37mm AT gun was probably the same barrel as used on the 37mm FLAK, which,
however, was not very useful. Most light AA guns were in 20mm, often dual or
quad mounted, including some one PzIII chassis. There were two versions of
the 88mm gun. Both were employed as anti-aircraft and as dual purpose
anti-tank/anti-aircraft weapons. The shorter barrel one was the one used, I
believe, in 1940. It was also used on the PzVIa (Tiger). The longer barrel
version was the one used on the King Tiger (PzVIb) and Jgdpz V.
	Finally, the Germans made extensive use of captured equipment, including
numerous Soviet 76mm anti-tank guns. One interesting vehicle was the Marder.
The Marder came in various flavors. The chassis was either a PzIII chassis 
or a Pz38t (Czech model 38 tank) chassis, and the gun was either the medium
length 75mm or a captured 76mm.
-- 
ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
	silber@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Number Twenty-Seven in the Series--the Consolidated YP-27
Keywords: never built
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:50:35 GMT


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>

The Consolidated YP-27 was to have been a version of the Y1P-25 
two-seat monoplane fighter powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-1340-21 
air-cooled radial engine in place of the Curtiss Conqueror 
liquid-cooled, inline engine.  It was never built.  

Sources: 

  The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 
  1987.  

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:29:29 GMT


From Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>


From Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>

>From d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
>>... they have fewer moving parts and are thus
>>considered more reliable.  Their efficiency is *terrible*, grossly inferior
>>to a turbogenerator system...
>
> This is true for the US type RTG's yes, but whats the sizes and outputs from
>the Soviet reactors (which I assume is more similar to real reactors than to
>RTG's)?

The Soviets use a different approach -- thermionic rather than thermoelectric
conversion -- but my impression is that it's still basically a specialized
system that puts reliability ahead of performance.  Nobody has flown a
turbogenerator system that I know of.
-- 
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: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Number Twenty-Eight in the Series--The Consolidated YP-28
Keywords: never built
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:33:28 GMT


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>

The Consolidated YP-28 was to have been a version of the Consolidated 
Y1P-25 with a Pratt & Whitney R-1340-19 air-cooled radial engine in 
place of the Curtiss Conqueror liquid-cooled inline engine.  It was 
never built.  

Sources: 

  The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 
  1987.  
  
Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dave Pierson <pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: B70
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:32:58 GMT


From Dave Pierson <pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com>


From Dave Pierson <pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com>

In article <Bw0oMM.Ln2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU
(MegaZone23) writes, in part:


(much good stuff deleted...)

>>5. WINGS alluded to the fact the reason the XB70 production program was
>>	cancelled was monetary. (...)

>Basically correct, missiles were seen as cheaper to build and operate. As
>well as being quicker into service.  (...)

	Additionally, th XB70 was reported as having the biggest RCS flown.
	Considering that at this time low observables were already getting to be
	design goals, this probably influenced the decision.  (think of the RCS
	of that slab sided fuselage and those air intakes....)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
146 Main St			|I am the NRA.
Maynard, Mass		01754	pierson@msd27.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Anti-Satellite Weapons
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:38:50 GMT


From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)

In article <BvnEtC.Iu7@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ejr@cco.caltech.edu (Eric J. Raiten) writes:
>    Actually, the Soviet system was first tested in the late 1960's.  Your
>description of it as a coorbital system is esseentially correct, however.
>Terminal guidance was either by radar or by IR, though the latter was NEVER
>successful in its tests.  Also, all the tests were in a narrow range of
>orbital altitudes (between 500 and 1500 km) and inclinations (60-65 degrees).
>It is a curious fact almost no US satellite systems use this combination
>of altitude and inclination (the lone exception I believe is the Transit
>system, a now obsolete navigation system used primarily by the Navy).  Some
>experts have suggested that the system is really directed against Chinese
>satellites, though that conclusions is widely questioned.

With good reason: There shouldn't be much supprise at the Soviets doing
tests in low, 60-65 deg inclination orbits. These are the easiest
orbits to reach from the main Soviet launch site. By testing in
these orbits, they didn't have to waste a "big" rocket like a Proton.
The real question should be, is this system limited to only the
orbits in which it was tested? Or could it be placed on a larger launch
vehicle and reach more relevant orbits?

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu (Bob Turner)
Subject: Re: B70
Organization: Univ. of Dayton, School of Engineering
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 15:22:59 GMT


From turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu (Bob Turner)

In article <Bvq413.CF6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
>
>From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
>
>In article <BvnEtI.Iv0@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> driver8@night.Corp.Sun.COM (Albert Handa) writes:
>
>>I remember it mainly in my memory, and wonder if anyone can post or send me any
>>information on it.  I don`t have a bet riding on it or anything, but my coworker still
>>thinks I'm putting him on. 
>>
>>As I remember it:   It was built in the 60's, was nuclear powered (not thrust), was never
>>                                 built as it was supposed to be built (a very fast high altitude bomber),
>>                                 and came out as a compromised version. 
>

I hate these long threads of piling on. However to get some facts straight
from this thread:

1. The XB70 burned Hydrazine. Apparently real nasty stuff, reactive and
	toxic, not exactly what the ground crew wants.

[mod note -- Let's see some documentation on this -- All I've ever seen on
the XB-70 was that it burned "standard" jet fuel.  Even the SR-71 burns a
kerosene based fuel, and the U-2/TR-1 burns a kerosene based fuel ]

2. One XB70 crashed killing one of the crew. That pilot's capsule
	(similar if not the same as the crew capsules in the B58) didn't
	eject.

3. The other (and I believe the original ?) is at WPAFB in the new wing of the
	museum.

4. WINGS on TDC had a wonderful epsiode on the XB70. I think it rates in the
	top ten of epsiodes of the show. LOTS of great footage.

5. WINGS alluded to the fact the reason the XB70 production program was
	cancelled was monetary. The USAF could have either the XB70 or
	ballistic missiles (probably the minuteman). Plus increasing
	capabilties of Soviet Air Defense made killing the B70 the
	logical choice.

If I got something wrong (which is probably the case), apologies. I know
someone will correct it. The WINGS episode is WELL worth it.

 
====================================================================
Bob Turner                   	      System Engineer and Programmer
5134342738                           turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu
CommSys, Inc. 77 West Elmwwod Drive, Suite 101, Dayton, OH 45459

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: military@law7.att.com (Steve Bridges)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: In class this week -- postings delayed.
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From military@law7.att.com (Steve Bridges)

I'm in Unix V4 class this week, so the normal volume of postings will be
delayed somewhat.  I'll be caught up this weekend.  Keep the posts coming
in.

Steve
--
Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM   | Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
Reserve sci.military moderator
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: New IR Jammer on Apache helicopters?
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:40:14 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <Bvvwvq.G9o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>  
>   It's a IR or Laser DETECTOR!
> 
>   It lets the pilots know that they are either being scanned by active
>   IR or Laser. It may even detect the IR signature of an approaching 
>   missile.
> 
>   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!
> 

The first time I heard of an IR jammer was way back in '85! Until last
year I never ran across a description of how it worked but sometime 
early in the year I came across a magazine (can't remember the title)
that stated that the jammer was a LASER that would attempt to confuse
the IR sensor that was locked onto the target. 

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hybrid subs (was Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:14:08 GMT


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

>From grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant)
>during the discussion came the idea that a small submarine, could be
>fitted with a small nuclear reactor. The reactor was a derivative of the
>small Slowpoke reactor. It's output isn't large, I don't think it required
>circulation pumps, and it was a safe design (as shown by it's use in 
>small non-military sites for many years)...

Stuart understates the last point.  The Slowpoke design is one of the few
reactors known as "inherently safe", built to be naturally stable without
any help from control systems.  There is nothing you can do that will make
it melt down.  There's one at U of Toronto, smack in the middle of downtown
Toronto.  When the last experimenter of the day is done using it, he just
walks out and locks the door behind him.  It has no guards and no crew
on duty; none is needed.  You could wreck the controls with a sledgehammer
and nothing much would happen.

Unfortunately, while it's been popular as a small research reactor for
obvious reasons, the design does not scale up well.
-- 
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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Johnston Atoll/Chemical Weapons
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:27:40 GMT


From paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)

>>From s026779a@edinboro.edu
>>
>>Destruction of Johnston Atoll
>>
>>
>>	If anyone has any information on Johnston Atoll, located in Hawaii, or
>                       actually 350 miles southwest of Hawaii   ^^^^^^^^

Johnston Atoll is a possession of the US, and is not part of Hawaii.  The
atoll is administered by the US Navy on behalf of the Defense Nuclear Agency.
Portions of the atoll are also part of the Pacific Islands National Wildlife
Refuge.  A good sources of information on Johnston is the Smithsonian's
Atoll Research Bulletin.  The atoll is designated a Naval Defense Sea and
Airspace Reservation, and is closed to the public.

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  | "Just name a hero, and I'll prove he's a bum."
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          |  -- Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, USMC (ret)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rich@quik.clearpoint.com
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp, Hopkinton MA 01748
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:58:19 GMT


From rich@quik.clearpoint.com


One thing I forgot to mention about the plane is, yes it did use six jet 
engines. The were fondly known as the six pack. The motors I believe were 
General Electric J79 derivatives. The plane generated so much heat at high 
speeds that the white paint was burnt off on several flights. 


Rich
rich@jasmine.clearpoint.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: martin.briscoe@almac.co.uk
Subject: controversy over v-2
Organization: ALMAC BBS Ltd
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:32:23 GMT


From martin.briscoe@almac.co.uk



BH4Has anybody heard more detail?  Has the story appeared in print?

There was a lot in the press in the UK.  Partly because Germany in not
exactly the most popular country in the UK at present !

One BIG difference was that the V2 was built at the cost at many
1000's (if not 10,000's of slave labourers).  I just was watching the
report on TV news here of the "commemoration" ( as it is now called ),
and it said that despite promises there was still no recognition of the
people killed by the V2 and in its construction.

               Martin
---
 ~ 1st 1.01 #405 ~ Martin Briscoe - FORT WILLIAM - Inverness-shire - Scotland
--
ALMAC BBS Ltd. 0324-665371
Dos based USENET access,  call for details!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:36:57 GMT


From miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)


From miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)

zo@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes:

>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 ).
>Brian

Actually the 5.56 is the only Galil officially issued by the Israelis.
The 7.62 is not.
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: DEFCON 1
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:33:21 GMT


From HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)


From HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)

In <BvyqqH.5t5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> colombo@bronco.fnal.gov writes:

> 
> From colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab)
> 
> 
> I just saw a show on TDC about nukes.
> They said that the USA went to DEFCON 1 four times:
> 
> 	1) The U2 incident
> 	2) The Cuban missile crisis
> 	3) The Middle East crisis in 1973
> 	4) The Reagan assassination attempt (why? Beats me!)

  Beg pardon, but isn't DEFCON 1 basically supposed to mean "fire at will", 
i.e., a shooting war has begun?


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: nathan@hilbert.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: F-14 as a strike bomber
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:39:13 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From "Nathan F. Janette" <nathan@hilbert.biology.yale.edu>

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

> Talk about the last bomber anyone would want to intercept....
> Interceptor pilot: What!!?? I'm getting lit with a target
> acquisition radar!!! He's launching a missle!!! He can't have the
> range!!!
> 

> BOOM!!!
> 

> Need I say more ??

Yes.  How about: how much of a bomb load do you think it still
carry while slinging those long-range phoenix missiles?

--
Nathan Janette
PPP link from hilbert.csb.yale.edu

Please reply to: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (NeXT)
From: pands@cix.compulink.co.uk (P & S Ltd - Accounts Dept)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Nuclear powered satellites
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:39:41 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From P & S Ltd - Accounts Dept <pands@cix.compulink.co.uk>

Someone asked about nuclear powerd satellites in space,  so here's a brief
synopsis.

The Soviet Union launched a number of Ocean-radar imaging satellites (a type
of military recon system designed to keep track of US and NATO surface
vessels) which needed a huge amount of power.  Solar panels were inadequate
for the power density (also,  during eclipse,  the power available would be
reduced and imaging would suffer) so the Romashka reactors were developed for
space use (the precursor to Topaz).

Cosmos 954 was the first time that these satellites became 'visible' to the
public when it re-entered over Canada and caused an enormous amount of fuss.
Not surprising when you consider the quantity of nuclear material spread over
a large area of Canada - 110 lbs of enriched Uranium 235.

The idea was that at the end of the mission,  the orbit would be raised to
keep the core from re-entering for 10,000 years or so.  Most of the time
that worked,  with Cosmos 954 it didn't.

Following that minor (!) problem,  the Soviets redesigned the reactor and
the rest of the satellite.  The posibility of a launcher malfunction
doing a far worse job than Cosmos 954 did,  meant that the new satellites
had the fuel held separate from the reactor core,  and the reactor wasn't
"loaded" until the whole setup was in orbit.  A live fuel load was
deliberately re-entered over the USSR at one stage to demonstrate that
re-entry would dissipate the radioactives in such a way as to cause no hazard
(that argument I *still* don't follow!).

2 years after Cosmos 954 the programme restarted with the new design and
things went more or less OK from then on.  When manoeuvering fuel ran out,
the superfluous imaging system was forcibly de-orbited and destroyed (to
prevent the West getting bits of it),  a solid fuel rocket boosted the 
reactor into a high orbit where it would fester until 12,000 AD or
thereabouts.  There are a dozen or so reactors up there now,  all waiting
patiently,   glowing a delicate shade of blue (forgive the imagery,  they
obviously won't do any such thing!)

Paul

--------------------------< Who 'zat >-----------------------------------
    Paul Wilson,  P-and-S Ltd, P O Box 54, Macclesfield, SK10 5EH, UK
                     pands@cix.compulink.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:43:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: law7.Bw2Jsw.Az9
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA


From labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)


From labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)


: >	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 ?


	88's? ie the anti aircraft guns. Great muzzel velocity!!!

		Ryan
Newsgroups: sci.military