HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Rifled Barrels was Re: Civil War firsts
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:02:20 GMT
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa


From bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)

In article <1992Jul23.184221.20168@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>Subject: Re: Rifled Barrels was Re: Civil War firsts
>Date: 23 Jul 92 18:42:21 GMT


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

>In article <1992Jul22.171339.21624@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> John Lerchey <jl4l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>(of rifled barrels)
> 
>> Guess this wasn't an American Civil War first after all. :)

>Well, if the rifled barrel was in use before the Civil War, was
>the Minie Ball? Doesn't that count as a first?

Nope, Minie bullets issued with Enfield rifles to British Army in the 
Crimea 1852--, Frontier War (South Africa) 1852-3, and Indian Mutiny
1857.

>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
>Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
>Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: hyler@ast.saic.com (Buffy Hyler)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Request for picture: WWII Navy Liberator Bomber
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:42:08 GMT
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway


From hyler@ast.saic.com (Buffy Hyler)


Hi folks,
  I'm not a subscriber to this news group, but it looked like the
likely source to have an answer to this question:

My father flew a B-24 (not 100% sure on number) Liberator Bomber during
WWII for the US Navy out of the Azores.  He wanted to know if I could
use the net to find a source for pictures of this airplane.  In particular,
he is looking for pictures that show the airplane with dual US/British
markings.  At some point the British markings were painted out so it
wouldn't be easy to find these pictures.

Please email if you can, but posting is ok.  I'll monitor this group
for a few weeks.

Thanks in advance!


---
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy Hyler (hyler@ast.saic.com)
SAIC, Campus Point
San Diego, California
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: V-22 Osprey crash ?
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:11:05 GMT


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <1992Jul23.184745.20798@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan) writes:
> 
> 
> From manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)
> 
> 
> I caught the tail end of a local newscast about an Osprey crash, 
> killing 6 or 7 servicemen.  Since I haven't seen anything in the
> group about it, I was wondering about the the accuracy of a) the
> news item, and b) my hearing.   
> Anybody out there know anything ?  If true, I wonder what impact
> it'll have on the future of the whole program ...
> 
> Gerald M
> 
> 

This story is true.  It crashed on approach to the airfield at Quantico Marine
base in Virginia.  From what I heard on the news report, it was transitioning
from horizontal to vertical flight when something happened and it crashed into
the Potomic River.  It probably sunk so quickly that the crew did not have a
chance to get out.  If the problem was a part failure or human error probably
will not kill the program, but if it is a design flaw that caused this 
accident, then Congress may kill the program if the cost to fix it is too 
large.  What action will be taken will, of course, depend on the findings of 
the final accident report.

As a side note, the US Marine Corps really wants this plane *badly*.  It would
have to be a real major design flaw to kill this program in their eyes.

Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."


========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: pismobch@well.sf.ca.us (Ed Devinney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re:  M16A1 ammunition vs M16A2 ammunition
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:00:47 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link


From pismobch@well.sf.ca.us (Ed Devinney)

In article <1992Jul26.175836.27156@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson) writes:
>
>If you check out fm 9-13 page 159 appendix note 1 & 2
>it says "Heavy ball cartridge is not designed to fire in
>the A1" (it is even denoted by a green tip)
>"Light ball is authorized only for M16A1"

But does 'authorized' == 'safe'?  FM 23-9 (M16A1 and A2 Marksmanship), p. F-15,

	"The M16A1, with its 1:12 twist, does not put enough spin on the
	 heavier M855 bullet to stabilize it in flight, causing erratic
	 performance and inaccuracy for training or full combat usage...
	 Therefore, while it is safe to fire the M855 cartridge is the M16A1
	 rifles, it should only be used in a combat emergency, and then
	 only for close ranges of 91.4 meters or less."

Sounds pretty straightforward to me.
-- 
ed devinney						pismobch@well.sf.ca.us
	"I don't know what the world may need, 
	 but a V8 engine's a good start for me..." - Cracker
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MCGRATH.LDGVM1.vnet.ibm.com@LDGVM1.VNET.IBM.COM (Michael McGrath)
Subject: Re: 50 Years ago: Gen. F. Bradley at Yakutsk
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:52:20 GMT


From MCGRATH.LDGVM1.vnet.ibm.com@LDGVM1.VNET.IBM.COM (Michael McGrath)

In <1992Jul28.131339.26257@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> pstinson@pbs.org writes:
>From pstinson@pbs.org
>
>50 years ago this September, Gen. Follett Bradley completed the final
>technical negotiations in Moscow that permitted the Alaska - Siberia
>air route to be established.
>
>As the general flew along this route towards Alaska, his B-24 was disabled by
>minus 30 degree weather at Yakutsk and had to be left behind.
>
>Does anyone know how Gen. F. Bradley got back to the United States?
>Was this originally a two plane operation?  If so, the crews could have doubled
>up, but I have no clear evidence there was a second plane involved from the
>start.  If the general's plane was on its own, then was someone sent after him
>or did the Russians fly him into Alaska?
>

Generall Bradley did return to the United States, in one piece.  The plane was
unable to fly from Yakutsk.  They did take off, but it fas too cold,
and they had engine trouble.  They also only had the one plane.

The Russians araranged for a cargo plane to fly him, and his crew out.  There is
an interesting IBM side to this story.  The aide-de-camp to General Bradley,
as well as co-pilot, was Thomas J. Watson Jr.

The Alaska-Siberia ferry route was a great success, as he (Thomas J. Watson Jr)
notes in his memoir 'Father, Son & Co.':-

"....-by the end of the war nearly eight thousand planes made their way along it
9 the ferry route ~ to Russia.  Even out own B-24 made a contribution after the
Russians got it flying again.  In the official records of aircraft turned over
to the russians during the war there are lots of fighters, light bommers,
and transport planes, and one heavy bommer.  That was ours-a little
monument to Bradley mission."

So there you have it|

I hope this helps,

Michael McGrath
mcgrath@vnet.ibm.com
****************************************************************
* This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM *
****************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Subject: Re: Mac's return as Vicksburg.
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:25:17 GMT


From mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)

>From hcobb%fly2.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry J. Cobb)
> 	MacArthur's reconquest of the Phillipines offered the same result as
> Grant's capture of Vicksburg.  The enemy was split into two weaker pieces that
> could not easily recombine.

> 	The reestablishment of the oil embargo upon the Japanese doomed their
> fleet to immobility, and so the heavy assets that had been carefully hoarded
> since Midway were exposed at last to the iron rain of American air power.

The oil supply had been smashed by US submarines long before the
reconquest of the Philippines was achieved, and the conquest of the
Philippines had no direct effect on it.  At the time of the invasion
of Leyte, most of the Japanese ships were already stationed at
Singapore or in the Netherlands East Indies, because these were the
only places where the fuel supply could be guaranteed (since that was
where it was produced).  The Imperial Navy chose Leyte Gulf as the
site for the decisive battle against the US Navy.  It would even have
been advantageous for the US if the battle had occurred farther north
instead of in the Philippines, because the Japanese would then have
had to travel further, and would have been whittled down more by the
US air attacks en route to their chosen battle site.  The US would not
have cared if the decisive battle had occurred later, since slow
attrition worked into their hands.  Still, after Leyte Gulf, the
Japanese Navy was beaten, not merely divided, but effectively
shattered.  The capture of Luzon did not matter in that regard.

--
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Altered history of warfare
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:01:26 GMT


From egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)

In article <1992Jul20.134124.27197@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>
>A quick hypothetical question I was asked the other day:
>
>How would the history of warfare have developed if we did not have horses or a
>suitable substitute?
>
>4) would individual countries be smaller due to this extra time needed to
>patrol ones lands??  How would one control the far flung parts of the empire. 
>I am trying to think of a Roman equivalent (I know they had cavalry I was just
>wondering what they would do)?

One may consider the Inca and Aztec empires.  I'm not sure about
details, but they did not have anything like horses.  Llamas could
not carry the weight.




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Michael Chui <mchui@tope.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Phalanx Ammo [was Re: Tracers]
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:40:34 GMT


From Michael Chui <mchui@tope.cs.indiana.edu>

	Can anyone confirm a US decision to switch to tungsten from
depleted Uranium?  Reason cited: environmental effects - aka health
risks from machining the rounds.

Michael Chui
mchui@cs.indiana.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: propeller planee's anti-torque problem
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:09:30 GMT


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

In article <1992Jul26.180428.27983@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> asp+@pitt.edu (Anandeep Pannu) writes:

>All planes have this torque problem. In fact one of the reasons tail draggers
>are harder to fly is that the torque from big engines and big propellers
>makes them difficult to control on the ground. Most propeller planes have thier
>fins offset so that at cruise power the torque is counterbalanced. This is 
>equivalent to using rudder to offset torque. 



I think we are confusing torque and propwash effects here. Torque
will cause the airplane to _roll_ opposite to the prop rotation. 
_Yaw_ effects are caused by other factors, usually prop wash but 
under certain conditions P-factor. 

I find it strange that jets would exhibit these effects. Can any 
jet pilots out there elaborate?





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Peter Shyvers)
Subject: Surrender is Risky Business (was Re: Why execute spies?)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:04:58 GMT


From pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Peter Shyvers)


In article <1992Jul20.133556.26692@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> tiirola@utu.fi (Timo Iirola) writes:
>
>>From sun330!ur-guh.com!smith@uunet.UU.NET(Russ Smith)
>>Why is there a "tradition" of executing spies caught during
>>wartime? What makes a spy sufficiently different from any other
>>soldier that the spy should be killed?
>
>I was told in the Finnish Army that spies aren't soldiers because
>they don't wear uniforms. And because they are not soldiers they
>don't have the soldiers' rights.
>
There seems to be a military tradition of respecting captured combatants,
either (a) because the captors would like a similar extension of courtesies
should the tables be turned, and/or (b) because the treatment of captives
(at least in Western tradition) seems rooted in the chivalric tradition of
ransoming the most important prisoners. 

Note that even military prisoners are at risk, depending on the culture and
the time; at Agincourt the French prisoners were slaughtered as the English
believed themselves at risk from another attack, and the French captives thus
posed too great a threat in relation to the ransom they promised. The Japanese
had a rather, ah, cavalier attitude towards prisoners in WWII; civilians on
both sides probably murdered quite a few downed airmen during the the bombing
offensives. Recall also the treatment of American POW's in Hanoi 20 years ago...
In the Six Day War of 1967, Israeli soldiers acknowledged that they fought
harder because they know they would likely not survive capture by Arab troops.

Surrender is a risky business.

Spies, of course, are not extended any of the courtesies extended to uniformed
combatants. They pose a greater threat, and by virtue of their subterfuge,
place themselves in an underclass which is not so protected...

And the likelihood of death is both a great deterrent and a marvelous
inhibitor; even if you are spying, the threat of execution would make you
more cautious and ineffective.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Subject: Re: propeller planee's anti-torque problem
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:13:27 GMT


From sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)

Phoenix writes
> 
> From twh18@isuvax.iastate.edu (Phoenix)
> 
> 	If chopper needs a TR to counter the torque, how come the
> problem driven plane doesn't?
> 	If anyone could reply in by replying by mail, I would
> really appreciated it, thanks in advance!
> 				Ming
> 
It does have this problem.  However, torque depends both on force, and distance  
from center of rotation.  The plane's prop is much smaller, so the torque isn't  
as great.

What torque there is is usually handled by trimming the plane.  E.g. you set  
the controls so that their normal position balances the torque.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Paul A. Byers"  <PAULB@saturn.uark.edu>
Subject:  Facklerite: Col. Martin Fackler
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:52:33 GMT


From "Paul A. Byers"  <PAULB@saturn.uark.edu>

Who was Col. Martin Fackler? And what is Facklerite? I think it has
something to do with killer arrows vs. wimpy bullets.

Paul A. Byers

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates)
Subject: Re: Operation Names
Organization: Bristol Polytechnic, England
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:13:03 GMT


From th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates)

British military operations have names which do not describe the objective.
For example, the successful attempt to retake the Falkland Islands back in
1982 was called "Operation Corporate". The British Military knew the
Gulf War not as "Desert Storm", but as "Operation Granby".

During WW2 it was rumoured (among servicemen who were being asked to
volunteer) that operations with soft names eg. "Operation Daisy" were
the really tough ones and likely to get yourself killed. It was just
a superstition, like Friday the 13th or breaking a mirror.

-- 
*************************************************************************
*  Tom Oates  (Bristol Poly, England)    *   DISCLAIMER:-               *
*  JANET: th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk    *   I speak only for myself.   *
*************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Subject: Re: Marines, are they needed?
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:18:07 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


From emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)

The closest thing to the U.S.M.C is the British Royal Marine
Commandos, which are organized for both standard light infantry and
also coastal raiding, etc.  The Royal Marines were major contributors
to the British victories in the Falklands.
				dave
p.s.  Soviet/Russian Naval Infantry is not, to my understanding,
really trained and equipped for amphib landings.  The Soviets would
probably use the Paratroopers (e.g.  Red Storm Rising Iceland
Scenario) for this.
From: djbailey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Altered history of warfare
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:55:07 GMT
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center


From djbailey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com

In article <1992Jul26.182213.27@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Peter Shyvers) writes:
> 
> From pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Peter Shyvers)
> 
> 
> In article <1992Jul22.170140.20249@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mike.Hoffmann@sniap.mchp.sni.de (Mike Hoffmann) writes:
>>
>>From Mike.Hoffmann@sniap.mchp.sni.de (Mike Hoffmann)
>>
>>In article <1992Jul20.134124.27197@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>>
>>>How would the history of warfare have developed if we did not have horses or a
>>>suitable substitute?

> Considering the predominant portion of any Hellenic, Crusades, European, or 
> modern army is based on foot soldiers, we've probably already seen the tactics
> and strategy of infantry-only armies. The key tactical change associated with
> mobility appears to have occurred in 1936, with the invention of Blitzkrieg

I agree 100% that ancient warfare is the best place to analyze the effect of
horses. While I haven't read the details, I believe Alexander the Great was
known for effectively combining cavalry with infantry for offensive action.

    Out on a limb speculation:

The effect of horses on the history of combat is to provide a short range,
high speed, mobile force with different capabilities from standard infantry.

In a world without horses or equivalent, you would probably see their 
war functions approximated by light, fast infantry. One could have fun
imagining a primitive army attacking downhill and flanking the enemy with 
their secret weapon, steerable wheeled carts!

-- Donald J. Bailey
   Honeywell Inc.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: B52 Question
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:06:39 GMT


From "Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu>

Concerning water injection, it was used in early turboprops, too.  The
Allison T-56-10's on the P-3A "Orion" used it (a water-alcohol mixture,
actually), and the extra power was very handy getting out of hot humid
places like Cubi Point in the Philippines.  Ironically, though, a P-3A
once crashed there when dry cleaning fluid was mistakenly substituted
for the water-alcohol solution.  Shortly after liftoff all four engines
overtemped and two (at least) failed, causing the plane to ditch in
Subic Bay, a couple of miles from the airport.  I can't remember the
exact numbers, but I believe ten out of about twelve people on board
survived.  I talked to the pilot a few years after the fact, and it was
quite a feat getting the plane over the water and ditched with some
control still remaining.
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Tracers
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:35:16 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


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

In article <1992Jul22.171910.22358@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM| gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy) writes:

|From gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)

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

|| An interesting application of "tracers" would be the Phalanx.. I
|| read somewhere that the fire control radar can "see" the outgoing
|| projectiles and adjust the gun's aim accordingly.

|That system is pure radar, nothing in the shell itself helps the 
|radar track it, but remember, the shell is going directly away 
|from the radar and is therefore easier to track.

Yes true but the concept is the same, except that there 
isn't a human being in the loop and the radar that does 
the aiming doesn't need anything other than the metal in
the projectile. Do they use lead or is it some exotic 
metal in the Phalanx projectiles? 




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ewartd@emu.insted.unimelb.edu.au
Subject: Stealth planes show up on OTH radar?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:18:35 GMT


From ewartd@emu.insted.unimelb.edu.au

Ok, I'm sorry, I usually take a copy of the interesting posts to read
later, but I was out of disk space.  Does anyone have the info on
over-the-horizon (ionosphere bounced) radar being probably quite
good at detecting stealth planes?  There were two or three great posts on
this a few weeks back.

Many thanks
Don
(My field's termites, but hey, this is *interesting*!)
ewartd@emu.insted.unimelb.edu.au


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Muskets and Archery
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 13:23:46 GMT


From Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>



> >       At the banquet accompanying the opening of the Suez Canal in
> >1869, the dignitaries of the first rank ate off of aluminium plates.
> >Those of the second rank had plates of mere gold.
> 
> 
> Wow! I knew it was expensive, but I didn't think it was _that_ expen-
> sive.


You bet. Before electrolytic aluminium smelting was developed, it was
produced by "bomb" reduction. A charge of ore is mixed with a
powdered metal (often magnesium) inside a thick steel container, then
heated in a molten salt bath. At the right temperature, the mixture
flashes over and the ore is reduced to a lump of molten netal.

The process is still used today, for uranium & titanium, which is one
reason why these metals are still so expensive.

          Andy Dingley    dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk

Newsgroups: sci.military