HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: triremes
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:59:45 GMT
Organization: Me?  Organized?


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

> From prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov
> 
> 
>    Does anyone know if ancient warships (triremes and the like approx 
>    300bc-300ad) sailed the open sea, or just crept along the coastline?  
> 
> few real sailors creep along the coastline.  too many dangers; shoals,
> fast currants, rocks, etc.  deep water is safe water.

Keep in mind that a Trireme (or the larger Quads, Quins and Hepts) 
were packed full of crew - no room to sleep/rest, and not much food 
storage.  Such fleets usually pulled onto a beach in the afternoon and 
sent out scout/forage parties.  The ships would be beached stern 
first, which is why they all have rounded sterns.

A wall might be hastilly thrown up around the beached fleet for added 
defence if there was a danger of attack.  Beached fleets were very 
vulnerable to attack from land and sea.  A hostile army would be 
better suited for land war, obviously, while an enemy fleet could 
grapple individual ships, tow them out to deeper water then board and 
capture or ram and sink them at leisure.


>    I know merchant ships of this period had the capability of sailing
>    from Rome to Alexandria in favorable winds, but I would have thought
>    that this kind of trip would be impossible or unbelieveably
>    foolhardy for a fleet of triremes.
> 
>    Another fact I have in the puzzle is that Rome lost 2 seperate fleets
>    during the Punic wars just sailing from Siciliy to Carthage, so I would 
>    guess this would be about the longest open sea voyage that ancient
>    naval commanders would attempt.  But Im guessing.

Triremes were not particularly sea-worthy, being very long and thin, 
with relatively high centres of gravity.   A trireme fleet would beach 
its sails and masts before fighting, because carrying them, on deck 
rather than set, made them too vulnerable by raising the C-of-G even 
further.  A Trireme caught with its sail up would be dead meat if it 
couldn't out-run its opponents.  

The Roman Fleets were caught by storms.  Bearing in mind my comments 
above re seaworthiness, many fleets of galleys were destroyed by 
storms.  In any sort of high sea the rowers couldn't row, and putting 
the sail up made the ship more unstable.

If anyone has info on the Trireme built in Greece recently I'd be 
interested to see it, as the comments above are from extensive, but 
not particularly authoritive readings.
-- 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stephen Jacobs <saj@chinet.chi.il.us>
Subject: Re: Iraqi bagpipers?
Summary: Bagpipes are everywhere
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:27:04 GMT


From Stephen Jacobs <saj@chinet.chi.il.us>

Ranging far away from military science, I can confirm that bagpipes are
native to just about anyplace you can think of.  Iraq and Turkey, especially.
I recently heard a concert of Italian traditional bagpipe music.  Marching
to pipe music seems Northern European, but I wouldn't bet heavily on that.

                                 Steve          saj@chinet.chi.il.us
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:06:29 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


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

In article <C19ns2.330@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com> writes:

>Also, back to fixed targets, there is another version of the TLAM that has
>cluster munitions instead of a fixed warhead.  It's typical attack profile is
>against targets that you want to maintain area denial, ala, an airfield.
>Let one fly the length of a runway spitting out cluster bombs, and it
>will take the enemy quite a while to clear the strip, by which time you
>should be able to crater and cluster again.

Ah..

This explains the cruise missile they were using for "smart weapon"
research - basically something with a brain sophisticated enough to
loiter above a battlefield and recognize enemy armor. When an enemy
has been recognized it attacked using cluster bombs. This was, I be-
live, in Nova on PBS.

What happens to the missile afterwards? I don't see why it can't be
programmed to turn around again and fly home for retrieval/reuse -
and if the range is too far, there would be a self-destruct option,
or it could be used without explosives on a second target. 

Also, (to bring up a previous thread) this version would be more 
suitable for dropping MREs over friendlies - preferrably with small 
parachutes - than the version with the warhead (for obvious reasons). 



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: John Walker <walker-john@yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:20:09 GMT


From John Walker <walker-john@yale.edu>

> The SLAM is steered by the A-6's Bombadier/Navigator (BN) by means of a small 
> CRT and joystick in the cockpit.  He lines the crosshairs up on the intended 
> target and the missile flies toward it.  This keeps tha the launch aircraft out
> of harms (SAM's) way, and can deliver an extremely accurate 500 lbs of 
> destruction.
> 
> Chad Wemyss
> Worcester Polytechnic Institute

How jammable would this guidance be?  Presumably the defender might be able
to jam the control signal, or force the controlling aircraft to abandon
control.

Furthermore, can more than one missile be simultaneously guided?  Or must
an entire flight of attack aircraft loiter 60 miles out from the target
while the SLAMs fly in (at a measly 500 kts...)

Comments?  Info?

Walker

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: triremes
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:38:03 GMT


From prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov


 mathers@sibelius.trl.OZ.AU (Steven Mathers) writes:

   Does anyone know if ancient warships (triremes and the like approx 
   300bc-300ad) sailed the open sea, or just crept along the coastline?  

few real sailors creep along the coastline.  too many dangers; shoals,
fast currants, rocks, etc.  deep water is safe water.

   I know merchant ships of this period had the capability of sailing
   from Rome to Alexandria in favorable winds, but I would have thought
   that this kind of trip would be impossible or unbelieveably
   foolhardy for a fleet of triremes.

keep in mind that the lateen-rigged ships typical of the southern cultures
could sail into the wind quite well.  not as well as a modern yacht, but
surprisingly good for such ancient times.  people always think ships could
only sail downwind until the 19th century, but that is not true.  even
the 18th century square-riggers could sail slightly into the wind (i.e.
80-90 degrees off the wind's eye).  thus winds need not be all that
favorable for a merchant ship.

I seem to recall the trireme-type ships only had relatively small
squaresails, so it would be slow going without some oar-work.  also,
you have to consider the season and location.  the Med has some seasonal
and local weather phenomena with extreme winds.  there may be routes/times
when these could be avoided. 

   Another fact I have in the puzzle is that Rome lost 2 seperate fleets
   during the Punic wars just sailing from Siciliy to Carthage, so I would 
   guess this would be about the longest open sea voyage that ancient
   naval commanders would attempt.  But Im guessing.

only in the Med.  consider the merchant voyages of the Arabs (from Africa to
southeast Asia).  not to mention the Vikings.  in terms of fleet operations,
maybe only the Chinese going after Japan would qualify.



--
 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Devon Prichard                    "Don't worry about people stealing |
 | Lead Follower                     your ideas.  If your ideas are any |
 | Lockheed Eng. & Sciences Co.      good, you'll have to ram them down |
 | prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov      people's throats."    Howard Aiken |
 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||






                                 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: holthaus@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (James R. Holthaus)
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:42:19 GMT


From holthaus@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (James R. Holthaus)

Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk> writes:
>From Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>

>Yes, but not just for the above reason.  What I heard on TV was that the U.S.
>admitted it was a cruise missile which hit the hotel, after the missile had
>been hit and knocked out of control by AAA.  Not firing means that all the
>missiles go where they are intended; firing AAA means that most of the missiles
>go where they are intended, and a few go somewhere else.  Of course, if that
>"somewhere else" happens to be a civilian building, then Iraq gets some free
>anti-U.S. propaganda (well, not free, there's the cost of the shells and the
>cost of the building, neither of which bother Iraq much).

I think this analysis needs a little work, ok?

It seems to me that your attitude is a little too cynical to square with
reality.  Implying that Irap should let the missiles go through to
minimize damage to the city is a little far-fetched and, frankly, sounds
quite a bit like blaming the victim.  "If he had tried to dodge my blow I
wouldn't have had to hit so hard," said the bully.  For another
perspective, look at the scuds shot at cities in Saudi.

Most of the fatalities from Scuds, I believe, were actually caused by
falling wreckage of Scuds.  Who is responsible for those fatalities?  The
Irapis who fired the Scuds or the Americans who shot down the Scuds? 

My point: it is natural for a nation to attempt to defend itself.  When
that defense causes some of the attacker's force to go awry, it is still
the attacker's force that did the damage.

Disclaimer: this is not a statement on US policy in the region.
-- 
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more * Jim Holthaus
complex, and more violent.  It takes a touch of    * james-holthaus@uiowa.edu
genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the   *
opposite direction." -- E. F. Schumacher           *

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: French Carriers, Charles de Gaulle class
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:30:17 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>

Does anyone have any hard data on the French carriers?  I have some information
that states that they will carry around twenty-thirty aircraft, and will have 
a top speed of 29 knots (a little slow for a nuke carrier), but this info is 
over two years old.  

Any info, such as size, displacement, air wing, defensive armament, 
performance, probable date of commissioning, etc, would be greatly 
appreciated.

If anyone has any new information, please post it, because I'm probably not the
only person who is wondering. 

Chad Wemyss
From: NETOPRBL@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Brian Lane)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Space based combat--the next frontier
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:52:50 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University


From Brian Lane <NETOPRBL@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu>

ok....here's a question for all you military buffs out there...
This is actually for a story i'm writing but I figured that the military
folks here could give me a good estimate...
If we consider combat in space in say...the next 50 years...there are three
limitations: the effectiveness of the weapon, the effectiveness of sensors
to detect the target , and the effectiveness of fire control to aim the
weapon so it can hit the detected target.
Let's say that two sides have somehing the size of a naval destroyer out in
deep space somewhere. how close would they have to be before radar could
pick the other ship up, how about passive sensors (what kind of sensors
would they be?)?  How close would they have to be to get an adequate fire
control solution? (I assume the energy weapon they'r using (laser or some
other energy weapon) would have a longer range than the fire control.)
 
I'd appreciate it if replies were sent in e-mail (and i'd post a edited
compendium of the results), as I don't get on here often enough to avoid
the reader's clearing of messages.
 
thanx!
Brian
Netoprbl@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu
Raleigh, NC
From: phil@rahul.net (Phil Gustafson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: triremes
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:03:51 GMT
Organization: Famed Parquet Floor


From phil@rahul.net (Phil Gustafson)

In article <C1D8LJ.A4F@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gawne@stsci.edu writes:
>
>Back a few years ago (no more than 5) some modern day Athenians actually
>built a trireme using plans from some of the old boat houses still in the
>harbor and such historical records as they could find.  

I remember this.  It was a kick to see a trireme powered by young men and 
women in jogging clothes.

>As somebody else has pointed out, the Ottoman-Turkish Empire continued 
>to use rowed war ships into the 19th century.  

The United States Navy had rowed warships in the 19th century.  Thomas
Jefferson saw the Navy as a tool for harbor, coast, and river defense,
not for international power projection. (My terms are anachronistic --
Mahan wasn't born yet.)  

Jefferson's administration built about 177 gunboats.  These were typically
50-60 foot boats carrying two large guns -- 24 or 32-pounders.  They 
carried a variety of often whimsical sailing rigs, but in light airs
and in combat were moved about by sweeps.  (A sweep is just a big oar.)

The idea was that a bunch of the boats could provide adequate
defense against a few larger invaders.

The shoal-draft design of these little vessels, the bulk needed to carry
the guns, and the necessary concessions to rowability made them lousy
sailers, but a few made it to the Mediterranian to help deal with the
Dey.

I have made quite a few simplifications to save typing time and the
mod's patience with a slightly off-topic subject.  Please see Howard
I. Chappelle's _History of the American Sailing Navy_, 1949, available
as a Bonanza reprint.

Chappelle's comments about Jefferson are quite scathing.

Phil


-- 
|play: phil@rahul.net
|work: (Under Construction)              | Phil Gustafson 408-286-1749      |
|         Opinions outside attributed material are mine alone.              |
|        Satirical matter is not necessarily identified as such.            |
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:41:36 GMT


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

In article <C0syvK.66v@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dans@bigbird.llnl.gov (Dan Simkins) writes:
>I find your contention that rifle silencers work by decelerating the bullet to subsonic speeds

>My arguments against:
>1) The most significant factor in the report of a firearm comes from supersonic gases escaping at
>    the muzzle, not the shock from the bullet.  The 45 ACP is always subsonic, yet produces alot of
>    noise.

That's a pistol round. Your quite correct to say most of the report from
a _pistol_ is gas escaping the muzzel. However, the shockwave from a
supersonic rifle bullet is a large part of a rifle's report. 

>2)  In the case of a 223 Rem, it has a muzzle velocity of about 3200 fps generated in a 24" barrel.

I suspect many calibers couldn't be silenced effectively. I've never 
heard of a silencer for an M-16, or anything else firing .223 Rem.
I _think_ silencers which slow the bullet to subsonic speeds are generally
for submachineguns and carbines whose bullets are normally only slightly 
supersonic. Alternately, it might be possible to silence .223 Rem, if
a reduced powder load was used (of course, this probably wouldn't 
cycle the action...)

>3)  A subsonic rifle bullet would seem to defeat the operation.  The trajectory would be radically
>    different.  In fact, such a rifle bullet would have a trajectory that is more like a .22 long rifle
>    than a high-power rifle.  The energy of a bullet is a function of the square of the velocity, hence
>    a subsonic is very low. 

I don't think anyone said a silencer didn't effect the ballistics...
If there wasn't a major price to pay for using a silencer, wouldn't
they be a common feature on military rifles? Also, I think a subsonic,
silenced rifle round would be more like a pistol round of the same
caliber, not a .22LR (I.e. .223Rem would be like .22LR, .308Win roughly 
like 9mm/.357, .50BMG like .44) I think it's because of these
disadvantages, that military snipers rarely use silencers.

                                        Frank Crary
                                        CU Boulder                    

Xref: sparky sci.military:12792 soc.history:10924
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 24 January, 1943
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:52:46 GMT
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


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

Sunday, 24 January, 1943

The Casablanca conference ends.  Roosevelt and Churchill announce that the
Allied offensive strategy for 1943 has been set, with the goal of the
unconditional surrender of the Axis nations.  Secret plans have been made
for the completion of the North African campaign and Operation Husky,
an invasion of Sicily scheduled for June or July.  Also planned are the
reconquest of the Philippines and offensives in China and Burma.

Field-Marshal von Manstein requests that Hitler order General Paulus to
surrender his surrounded 6th Army, arguing that its continued suffering is
of no value to the Germans.  Hitler refuses.

Soviet forces under Vatutin capture Starobielsk.

Sixteen German motor torpedo boats attack a British convoy off Lowestoft,
but are turned back by the destroyers HMS Mendip and Windsor.

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

"Surrender is forbidden... 6 Army will hold their positions to the last man
and the last round." - Adolf Hitler, in a communication to General Paulus
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Tony Buckland <buckland@ucs.ubc.ca>
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago, January 20, 1993
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:37:32 GMT


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

 It's great to see 50YA back with us.  Concerning the bombing of
 London, specifically the bombing of "The Lewisham school":  this
 sounds suspiciously like the bombing of an elementary school
 just off Burnt Ash Road between Lee and Catford, not that far
 from the Lewisham shopping area.  I recall this because only a
 day-long intestinal problem kept me from being one of the casualties.
 My second-floor classroom ended up as empty space 5 m above a pile
 of bricks and bodies.  The situation resonates oddly with recent
 events in Baghdad, or at least speculations about those events;
 in the Burnt Ash Road case, the ARP (Air Raid Precautions) had the
 bad judgement to use the convenient space in the schoolyard next
 to the middle of the school to build their post for some area or other.
 Such posts were obvious targets, to reduce the ability to deal with
 air raids and their consequences in an organized fashion.  Considering
 the technology of the time, the Luftwaffe's aim in this incident was
 remarkably accurate.  10, 20 m the other way, and all that would have
 happened to the school would have been caving in the wall and blowing 
 all the windows across the classrooms.  Somewhat fewer dead, more
 wounded.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dave pierson <pierson@empror.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:41:28 GMT


From dave pierson <pierson@empror.enet.dec.com>

	Well designed AAA and similar missiles/rockets do not come down, at
	least not "live".  There is a delay, and, if nothing ELSE triggers the
	warhead, it self destructs.  I was looking at a Sidewinder(like?)
	missile on dsiplay at the CFB BOWDEN museum this summer and the sign
	said 45 seconds, as i recall... 

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA	
01775				pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Scope of Action-US Military
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:56:00 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <C15yFB.KDn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Rex A. Buddenberg" 
<budden@trout.nosc.mil> writes:
> Depends on what you mean by 'operate'.  DoD forces cannot exercise
> direct law enforcement authority against US citizens but other
> operations are certainly allowed (like hurricaine disaster relief). 
> This restriction does not apply to National Guardsmen under state control.

So what were those Marines doing in Los Angeles during the riots last 
summer?  They didn't appear to be on liberty.

I *think* that President Bush used the "and such other actions as the
president may direct" clause from the Marine Corps charter of 1798 in
this case.  If shooting looters doesn't come under "direct law enforcement"
then I don't know what does.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 MSgt USMCR