HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan)
Subject: Re: BLU-82/B What sort of bomb is it ?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:35:40 GMT


From jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan)

The "Big Blue" was an FAE used in Vietnam to clear sites for Firebases.  With one bomb.  (Considering they had to drop the sucker from a C-130, that gives you an indication of the szize, and how much "Boom" was in the thing.)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  AGM-130
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:08:57 GMT


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


Just got a brochure from Rockwell on the AGM-130. Strange looking item -
a GBU-15 with a rocket motor slung underneath.

I seem to recall a similar Navy system - an LGB with a rocket motor
in back. Which leads to my question - what are the problems (and
benefits?) associated with the AGM-130's configuration, with the
center of thrust so far from the center of mass?

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: rdd@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.DaCunha)
Subject: Re: The Dambusters
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:36:18 GMT


From rdd@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.DaCunha)


In article <BxICp7.KtK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes:
>[...]
>In article <Bwu9FF.Axy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
><re: 633 Squadron>
>>
>>I wonder where all those Mossies came from when they were 
>>filming it. I didn't think there were very many flying ex-
>>amples left.
>
>I expect most of them were models.  I hope so anyway, otherwise there were
>even fewer flying examples left after the end of the film! :-)

Unfortunately some of them weren't models. I don't remember exactly if it
was on ``633 Squadron'' or ``Mosquito Squadron'', but in one of these movies
there is a scene where a Mossie is destroyed when a fuel bowser collides
with it. Believe it or not, it was a flyable Mossie. I have the details 
in an issue of ``Aircraft Illustrated'' where the author gives serial numbers,
known locations (current), etc. If anybody is interested I can find
at home...

>Incidentally, were the German aircraft used in the film Me 108's?  As far
>as I know, the Me 108 was a light transport aircraft, similar in appearance
>to the Bf 109.  (For that matter, should it be Bf 108 as well?)  The main
>differences between the two were the different engine, the larger cockpit
>and the lack of guns in the Me 108.

Yes they were Bf 108 Taifuns. Another difference was the wider distance
between the undercarriage legs.
--
                                    Rudnei Dias da Cunha
                                        rdd@ukc.ac.uk
                       Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury
                          Canterbury, Kent  CT2 7NF, United Kingdom

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles Meo <cm@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Subject: Re: AA guns in direct-fire role (was Bofor
Organization: Solbourne Computer Australia
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:12:16 GMT


From Charles Meo <cm@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>

Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk> writes:
>some versions of the Me410 in order to attack American bombers from long
>range, so they didn't have to face the bombers' .50 machine guns.  The
>problem was the recoil of the heavy gun.

Also the Henschel 123 was fitted with a 50 or 75 mm anti tank weapon and 
used to devastating effect (and in miniscule numbers) against the Soviet
Union. Its survivability against the Western Allies was not rated high.

The Germans were planning even heavier gun armaments, based on recoilless
systems, when the war ended. These schemes were fairly pointless due to
the small number of rounds that could be carried.

Chuck
-- 
Chuck Meo
Solbourne Computer Australia
cm@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
'SYS5R4: I am Your Density'

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Existence of THAAD (Was: Re: Need help finding datalink simulations (THAAD contractor))
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:35:24 GMT


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

In article <Bx5Cy3.J1K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca> writes:
>: The winning team on THAAD had Lockheed as the prime, and Litton
>: Data Systems (of which I am an employee) as one of the subs (I
>: don't know if there are other subs).  Basically, the program is
>: to develop an area missile defense (where the Patriot is a point
>: missile defense).  We are supposed to intercept ballistic missiles

>Does that violate Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty?  

No: The treaty allows for development of new systems, and the deployment
of ABM batteries at two (2) locations. The Russians have (I believe)
an operational battery of nuclear-tipped Galosh (sp?) ABMs at 
Moscow.

>Is it part of SDI?  

Yes.

>Is it
>for "strategic" air defence or a bigger and better umbrella for advancing
>ground forces or both?

The current design calls for a fixed launch site able to defend
targets within several hundred miles, so I guess it's a strategic
air defence system.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Thomas R. Kimpton" <tom@dtint.dtint.com>
Subject: Wingtip vortices (was Re: B-70)
Organization: Digital Technology, International
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:48:38 GMT


From "Thomas R. Kimpton" <tom@dtint.dtint.com>

"Wingtip vortices are dangerous." I believe someone said.

They are indeed, and can be dangerous quite a ways from where
they were generated.  From personal experience:

A friend of mine flew the four of us to Las Vegas, from Provo,
Utah.  On arriving we were in the pattern to land about 30
seconds after a 7?7 landed on the parallel runway (about a
quarter mile apart?).  The wind was from our left front.
We were about 300 feet above the runway when the plane was
thrown violently 90 degrees clockwise, and shortly after
135 degrees counter-clockwise (probably because of compensation)
during which we lost about 150 feet of altitude.  He quickly
put it down, and then started shaking.

As an aside, always wear your seat belt!  I had my right arm
resting on the arm rest of the right door.  The door handle
is a major part of the arm rest.  When we went over, and down,
I automatically grabbed the arm rest, and the handle pulled
up. The door flew open, giving me a bird's eye view of
the runway!

-- 
---
Tom Kimpton                            tom@dtint.dtint.com
Digital Technology Int.                (801)226-2984	
500 W. 1200 South, Orem UT, 84057      FAX (801) 226-8438

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Tony Buckland <buckland@ucs.ubc.ca>
Subject: Battleship Potemkin
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:45:23 GMT


From Tony Buckland <buckland@ucs.ubc.ca>

 In a review of a show of art from the Soviet period, I recently saw a
 poster depicting the Potemkin.  If this was accurate, the Potemkin had
 a turret - well, some sort of a housing - with at least four guns
 _above_ the aloft fire control.  Hard to tell how big they were, but
 they looked at least 10 cm.  I shudder to think of the stresses generated
 by firing both of the guns on one side.  It also doesn't look like a
 very stable gun platform, and that after all is what a battleship _is_.
 Anyone know if this is the way the real ship was?  And if so, what the
 point was?  The gain in range by lifting the guns that high seems
 unlikely to be significant (and the problem of getting the ammunition
 up there sounds big).  Of course, if you could depress enough, they
 would be great for repelling boarders or attacking the dock you were
 berthed at :-)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Number Thirty-Six in the Series--the Curtiss P-36 Hawk (Part 4 of 6)
Keywords: 4 of 6     The Hawk in Norwegian Service
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:08:09 GMT


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


In the autumn of 1939, the Norwegian government ordered twelve Hawk 
75A-6s with 1200 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S1C3G Twin Wasp radials and 
four-gun armament.  This order was later supplemented with an order 
for twelve more, to bring the total to 24.  Deliveries began in 
February 1940, but only a few A-6s actually got there before Norway 
was overrun by the Germans.  The Germans captured most of those 
received in Norway (some had not yet been taken out of their shipping 
cases) and sold eight of them to Finland.  

These Hawk 75A-6s for Finland were supplemented by 36 
partially-completed Hawk 75As that had been seized by German forces 
from France at the time of the Armistice and assembled in Germany.  
These participated in the war on the Axis side when Finland entered 
the war against the Soviet Union on June 25, 1941.  These gave a good 
account of themselves, and some Hawks remained in service in Finland 
until 1948.  

Norway ordered an additional 36 Hawk 75A-8s with 1200 hp Wright 
R-1820-G205A Cyclone engines just before the German occupation.  The 
German occupation caused the A-8s to be impounded by the US government 
before delivery.  Six were delivered to Free Norwegian forces training 
in Canada in February 1941 and the remaining 30 were requisitioned by 
the US Army as P-36G, as previously described.  Wingspan was 37 feet 0 
inches and length was 28 feet 6 inches, and wing area was 236 square 
feet.  Weights were 4675 lbs empty and 5880 lbs gross.  Maximum speed 
was 322 mph at 15,200 feet and an altitude fo 15,000 feet could be 
attained in 6 minutes.  Service ceiling was 32,350 feet, and range was 
650 miles.  Armament was four 0.30-in and two 0.50-in machine guns.  

Sources: 

  Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 
  1979 

  The Curtiss Hawk 75, Aircraft in Profile No.  80, Profile 
  Publications, Ltd.  1966 

  War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William 
  Green, Doubleday, 1961.  

  Air Enthusiast, Volume 1, William Green et al, Doubleday, 1971.  

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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Former Soviet Navy Posting Number 5:  Hotel III class SSBN
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:36:17 GMT


From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)


Hotel III class SSBN

Type:  Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement:  5000 tons surfaced and 6350 tons dived
Dimensions:  Length 130 m, beam 9.2 m, draught 7.6 m
Armament:  6 vertical launch tubes for 6 SS-N-8 'Sawfly' SLBM's
	6 533 mm bow torpedo tubes for a maximum of 16 Type 53 dual-role 
	torpedoes.
Electronics:  One 'Snoop Tray' surface-search and navigation radar, one 
	'Herkules' high fequency active/passive bow sonar, one 'Feniks' bow 
	sonar, one 'Stop Light' ESM system, one 'Quad Loop' direction finder, 
	one satellite navigation system, one 'Cod Eye' navigation system, and 
	various communications systems.
Propulsion:  Two pressurized water-cooled reactors supplying steam to two sets 
	of geared turbines delivering 22,500 kW (30,175 hp) to two shafts.
Performance:  Maximum submerged speed 26 knots, diving depths unknown.
Complement:  90

Number Built:  1 converted for Soviet Navy

Comments:  One of eight Hotel I class built between 1958 and 1962 with three 
	surface-launched SS-N-4 SLBM's, this is the only unit left in SSBN form
	after being modified between 1969 and 1970 as the sole Hotel III 
	evaluation platform for the SS-N-8.
	SS-N-8 'Sawfly' Model 1:  Range 7800 km; CEP 1410 m; warhead, one 1.2 
		Megaton RV; guidance, stellar-inertial
	Type 53 dual-role torpedo:  Since my sources give no performance data 
		on this weapon, I can only assume that it is similar to the US 
		Navy's Mk. 48 533 mm torpedo.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mmzn@rice.edu (Mark Mazina)
Subject: Re: Jutland
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:31:54 GMT


From mmzn@rice.edu (Mark Mazina)


In article <Bx5Cxz.Izy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Peter Shyvers) writes:

|> 
|> According to what reading I've found on Jutland, the strategic assessment of
|> Jutland was that Jellicoe had failed dismally. Admittedly he was undermined
|> by the dismal performance (qualitatively) of the British battlecruiser
|> squadron; but at the same time,
|> 

Would you care to cite which readings?  My understanding is that the strategic
situation at sea did not change after Jutland.  Jutland was
much like Coral Sea - the strategic victor was not the tactical victor. 
This makes for a much less satisfying "victory" than, say, Midway.  Hence
the critics come out. 

Mark

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Phil Abel <pca8c@virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Pearl Harbour attack - did the US know?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:52:32 GMT


From Phil Abel <pca8c@virginia.edu>

From what I have read of Pearl Harbour, the US was not
deliberate in allowing the attack to happen, rather they were
negligent.

The government was told to expect hostilities from the empire
of Japan against Hawaii. The aircraft carrier was a new
development, and it was utterly unfeasible to think Japan
could even get remotely close to Hawaii. They figured that
sabotage against ships in port was the likely outcome, and
merely doubled the guard.

Then, as the attack wing approached the island, they were
picked up on radar. However, the report was disregarded as
being a flight of B-17s expected from California. Despite the
radar man's insistence that this formation was huge and
approaching from the NW, the officer who took his call wrote it
off. Had this been taken seriously, the navy and air corps
would have had fully an hour to get the fleet moving and get
the fighters in the air.

Moreover, a message sent on the 7th warning the commander of
Pearl Harbour of impending attack, despite its urgency, was
sent via Western Union. It arrived several hours after the
attack began.

Adding up all these tidbits, I am left with the conclusion that
an oversecure United States, unfamiliar with the new age of
warfare that had recently evolved, was taught a bitter lesson
in keeping your guard up.
From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Date: 3 Nov 92 15:35:29 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


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


Iskandar Taib writes:
#Actually I was thinking more in terms of the rare MP44, which fired the
#equally rare 7.92mm Kurz round. While the FG42 was a true selective fire

Rare???!!!

The MP43/MP44/StG44 series of 7.9mm assault rifles were made in rather
large numbers. Following the war they were used for a long time by East
German second-line forces and were given to various revolutionary
movements as well.

Ammunition was produced in East Germany at least until 1961. Semi-
unlimited quantities are available in the US civilian surplus market
for about $0.25 a round.


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,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Tuesday, 3 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:05:20 GMT


From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)

Tuesday, 3 November, 1942

As Montgomery's armor breaks through the Axis line at Alamein, Hitler
orders Rommel to hold his ground.  Some units continue to retreat despite
the order, while others halt.  The Allied pursuit is unable to take full
advantage of this confusion, however; the few lanes cleared through the
mine fields have become congested.  Still, the defeat has cost the Axis 260
tanks and as many guns destroyed or captured, and 9,000 soldiers have been
taken prisoner, including many senior officers.

About 1500 men of the Japanese 230th infantry regiment land near Koli
Point, east of Henderson Field.  Elements of the 228th infantry regiment
are landed near Kokumbona to the west of the airstrip.  The American
attacks halt in light of these new developments.

Chiang Kai-shek promises to place 15 more Chinese divisions under General
Stilwell's command for the recapture of Burma.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"In the situation in which you find yourself there can be no thought other
than to resist, not to yield a single step, to throw into the battle every
man and every weapon still available... Despite their superiority, the
enemy too are at the limit of their resources.  It would not be the first
time in history that the stronger will triumphed over the stronger enemy
battalions.  You can show your troops no other road than that which leads
to victory or to death." - Adolf Hitler, in an order to Field-Marshal Rommel
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M Ryan)
Subject: Re: Kilo-class submarines
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:32:04 GMT


From kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M Ryan)

In article <Bx5D3M.JC5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@u.washington.edu> writes:

>	Heard on the radio news that a FSU Kilo-class sub
>is due to be delivered to Iran in the next week or so, and that
>a US Attack sub will be entering the Gulf in advance of that
>delivery.
>
>	Can anybody post known characteristics of the Kilo-class
>sub and does anyone know what vintage/characteristics the US
>attack sub might have?

Kilo class
Patrol Submarine (SS)
Built from 1976+
Displacement: 2500 tons surfaced
	      3200 tons submerged

Dimensions: Length  70m
	    Beam    9m
            Draught 7m

Propulsion: 12 knots surface, 16 knots submerged.

Known weapons include:

	6 533mm Torpedo tubes
		a mix of free-running, wire-guided and homing torpedoes.
		SS-n-15/16 may possibly be carried
		various mines.

Sensors: 1 LF bow Sonar, 1 fin mounted radar.

Most were built at the Amur Yard at Komsomolsk.

Complement: 55 to 60 

>	Does this kilo sub pose a real threat to surface
>vessels in the Gulf?  Is it enough of a threat that the kilo
>sub might suffer an "accident?"

	The submarines pose less of a danger to USN ships, than to the 
commerical ships. If another war between the arab states broke out, and 
attacks upon civilian oil tankers/cargo ships commenced, they would most 
likely be undaughted by the various smaller surface ships Saudia Rabia or 
the Emmerite states. However, since the gulf is not very deep, and is rather 
limited, sophisticated anti-submarine aircraft, as well as US naval 
submarines would most likely not have too much of a problem. [ Have we sold 
the Saudi's any ASW helicopters, such as the P3 Orion, S3, SH-3 etc? ]

	The kilo class is powered by a Diesel engine (2) with an electric 
one. Does anyone know if Iran has the capability of mantaining such a ship?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Re: Opinion on Japan being "forced" to attack
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:16:35 GMT


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <BxGrGr.6G7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au> writes:

> As Marcus
> Stumpeter (sorry about the spelling) very intelligently pointed out the
> cause of the War might be that the US wanted to keep the Imperialist Club
> all white by excluding Japan (well, he didn't exactly say that it is just
> my interpretation of what he said). In which case it is the US that had
> the problem not Japan - you cannot expect Japan to respect a colour bar
> now can you?

In a quote from the new book "Tennozan" by George Feifer is the
following paragraph illustrating that Japan is not blameless in it's
attack on Pearl Harbor.

"The causes of the Pacific War were less clear-cut than most Americans
believe.  During the preceding decades, Washington and individual
Americans had sometimes scorned Tokyo and individual Japanese with
haughty insensitivity and racial prejudice, and few Japanese forgot the
insults.  Resentment nourished their determination to strike at America
in 1941.  Still, the attack on Pearl Harbor, not to mention the earlier
aggression against fellow asians in Manchuria and China, went beyond
anything that could conceivably have been a justifiable reaction.  It
was chiefly an expression of national self-interest, a "need" and
"right" to grab other nations' land and food.  Even in defense, as on
Okinawa, Japan was a brutal aggressor.  It is now clearer than ever
that a Japanese victory in the war --- closer to a right-against-wrong
war than most other --- would have been a calamity to her possessions
and captured territories; probably also to the militarist homeland
itself."

This paragraph comes very close to describing how I feel about the
Japanese and their attack on Pearl Harbor.  We didn't have clean hands,
but that kind of over-reaction was not called for. It remains, as I've
stated before, the most calamitous misjudgement in the history of
warfare.

Corky Scott