HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "Richard H. Miller" <rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu>
Subject: Re: WWII Battleships
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:23:05 GMT


From "Richard H. Miller" <rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu>

In article <Bxx2Kn.Jr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:
> 
> From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
> 
> 
> Richard H. Miller writes:
> #> Alaska (2), 34K/10K, 33kt, 9x12" guns arranged as above.
> #
> #These were never considered to be battleships (or even a battlecruser). The
> #Alaska class has always been considered to be large cruisers. Their type
> #designation was CB rather than BB or BC.
> 
> Actually "CB" for battle cruiser is consistent with USN cruiser nomenclature:
> "CL" for light cruisers and "CA" for heavy [formerly armored] cruisers.
> 
> I always felt that the ALASKAs were too big and too well armored to be
> considered merely heavy cruisers unencumbered by Washington Treaty limits
> on displacement and armament. IMHO the German Panzerschiffe qualified as
> "post-Washington" heavy cruisers because their gun size and displacement
> exceeded treaty limits while their speed and [lack of] armor was decidedly
> cruiser-like.
> 
> The ALASKAs are most comparable to SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU: well-balanced
> ships with meaningful armor, but with gun size from earlier generations.
> To bring back a pre-dreadnought nomenclature convention: Second Class
> Battle Cruisers?

That may be the best characterization. My argument is (and I will confirm it
by checking the Design series on both cruisers and battleships) that the
CB class of ships were upgunned cruisers and had the characteristics of 
a very large cruiser. The guns (12") were a new series rather than a
re-outfitting of some existing guns. As I remember also, they had some armor
but it was in the same design as the heavy cruisers rather than a battleship.
AS I remember, the armor was not designed to withstand fire from a comparable
ship (which was one of the primary characteristics of battleships). 

The navy always said the "CB" designation meant large cruiser not battlecruiser
and they did not have the same guns as the battleships which was one of the
characteristics of the 'true' battlecruiser.

Most of my references place them firmly in the cruiser family rather than the
battleship family and this was the point of my original post; they should not
be classed as a type of battleship. 

As far as the nomenclature issue, the USN designation for battlecruisers was
either "BC" or "CC". I will also check this out when I get home. I have a
vague memory that the original hull numbers for the Lexington and Saratoga
were "CC".

-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: scw@ollie.seas.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: The use of unguided rockets in WWII
Organization: UCLA School Of Engineering & Applied Science
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:46:18 GMT


From scw@ollie.seas.ucla.edu


In article <BxGrsF.75K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
>
>Recently, in one of the threads, there is a mention of the 
>use of unguided rockets as air-to-surface weapons, in particular
>to attack tanks.  My question, is how do the pilots aim these
>weapons, since they are unguided ?


The same way that they aim their cannon, with a gunsight.

Unguided rockets and shells are your basic fire and forget weapon (well once
the round is on the way you might as well forget it, you can't do much
about it).


-----
Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (310)-825-8614
UUCP: ...{ibmsupt,ncar!cepu}!ollie}!scw  Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
"Non, je ne regrette rien"--1er RE de Para 1963

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Re: Number Thirty-Eight in the Series--Lockheed P-38 Lightning (1 of 11)
Summary: OOPS!
Keywords: The Fork-Tailed Devil
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:43:40 GMT


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

In article <BxtK7s.1nF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com> writes:
> 
> The Lockheed design staff was headed by Hall L. Hibbard.  Working 
> with Hibbard was the soon-to-be famous Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson.  
> After studying a lot of different designs, Hibbard and Johnson finally 
> settled on a twin-boom design with each boom extending aft of the 
> engine and the pilot sitting in an enclosed cockpit in a central 
> nacelle.  Each boom was to house one of the new 1150 hp Allison 
> V-1710C twelve-cylinder air-cooled engine with an exhaust-driven 
		          ^^^

Oops! Make that *liquid* cooled.  Sorry about the mistake.  Thanks to
those who called to point this out.

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



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Ranks & Stuff
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:43:03 GMT


From athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)

Hi there,

I am writing a story that involves some military types and need to know a
few things...any help would be appreciated.

* What are the ranks in the different branches?
* What are the payscales for those ranks?
* Now many years does the average soldier take to get those ranks?

Thanks a bunch!



############################################################################
Rick Eames                         Internet:      athos@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc.               CompuServe:    76666,2114
My Opionions are my own.           AmericaOnline: EamesR
"The Lord prefers common-looking people. That is why he makes so many of
them."  - Lincoln

"But you know what?  There's another point that I'd like to make: it's very
possible that Adolf Hitler kept a very nice check book.  You know?  I mean,
and that's fine."  -- Barbara Boxer, Bill Press Show, KFI, 10/24/92
############################################################################


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)
Subject: Re: Rickover - plus or minus / Thresher alos
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:29:55 GMT


From bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)

In article <BxvFFx.8r9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes...
> 
>Why the Thresher sank will never be truely known.  The best guess, since it
>susposidly happened on other subs which were able to blow tanks, was the
>brazing on joining some sea water piping failed and sprayed some electrical

What was the speed of the Thresher when she sunk?  I know she was down 
deep, but was she doing speed trials at the time or just diving.  The 
reason I ask is, might the Thresher been a victim of the high speed turning 
problem that plagues many US subs.  This is indicated by an article in the 
USNI Proceddings which tells of a sub being forced to greater depths when 
turns are made at higher speeds.

>people want to give him.  Technically, the program he set up was and still is
>the best the world has ever seen.  In

I very much agree with the above statement regarding Rickover.  He had 
great foresight and basically stuck to a constistant set of standards.  He 
also helped to focus the submarine service a great deal.

The rest of Don's post on him is really good and an accurate analysis of 
his demise towards the end of his career.  He was excellent at what he did 
but in the end he did begin to lose touch with reality.

SJRD


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: Iranian Kilo / Shallow water ASW / Submarine SAMs
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:34:11 GMT


From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>

I should add that the data is for the hand-held variants only. Also a
few more notes on the SA-16: C.I.S. designation Igla 1EH 9M313.
Original was 9M39, and max range is 3 km, altitude is 3.5 km, and min
10 m. Max speed is 680 m/sec, activation time is 13 sec, reaction time
from detection to firing is 4.5 sec. System weight is 16.65 kg.
Claimed probability of engagement against various targets: 
Aircraft           Head-on           Tail-on
F-4                  0.33              0.48
A-10A                0.15              0.19
F-15                 0.11              0.32
AH-1G                0.34              0.42
ALCM                 ----              0.20
They probably have named the SA-16 Strela-4.

-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Erich J Smythe <esmythe@atl.ge.com>
Subject: Re: Rickover - plus or minus?
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:55:54 GMT


From Erich J Smythe <esmythe@atl.ge.com>

>
>From drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond)
>
[Rickover lead-in discussion deleted]
>In short, did Rickover 
>deserve the engineering credentials he proclaimed?

I can't speak to Rickover's engineering credentials _per se_, but I
can comment on one of the legacies he left at Electric Boat.  He left
many legacies at EB, some good, some bad, but his best legacy is an
almost fanatical dedication to nuclear safety.  This permeated to EB
from the Nuclear Navy.  Part of the motivation was political: he knew
that one nuclear accident would be the end of the Nuclear Navy
(everything I've read about the _Thresher_ claims that it was probably
bad welds in a non-nuclear system that did it in, but I don't know of
anything definitive).  The other motiviation was a true dedication to
crew safety.

Containment of _any_ nuclear materials, no matter how low-level, is
the highest priority at the EB shipyard.  Every employee, from the
General Manager down, receives (or at least received when I was there)
annual "Rad Training."  This is partly to keep contamination off the
boats.  For example, improperly disposed clothing can leave material
on the ground.  This can be picked up by someone's shoes and tracked
into the non-nuclear spaces on a boat, possibly increasing the
exposure of the crew after the boat is put in operation.  Rickover
insisted that crews recieve NO unnecessary exposure, no matter how
slight.  This affected not only the design, but also construction
practices.

Reacter safety was paramount, and that included designs with large
safety margins.  That increases reacter size, weight, and efficiency.
Rickover was a tyrant in many ways, and was uncomprimising in safety
issues.  His legacy is the safety record of the Nuclear Navy.

-erich
-- 
Erich Smythe                                 esmythe@atl.ge.com
GE Advanced Technology Labs
Moorestown, NJ.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:46:20 GMT


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

In article <Bx5Cn5.ILn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:

|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.

Wow! No kidding? Perhaps its the BATF regs that have made it
rare.. while Arisakas, Mausers, FN FALs, SKS and the like are
readily available, I've only seen one MP-44. The owner uses 
it at outdoor exhibitions, along with other props - uniforms,
bandoliers, grenades... 

He only fires blanks in it - its so rare, he says, he'll never
stress it with live ammo. He loads his own, forming the cases 
out of .308 using a set of RCBS forming dies. 

I've heard it was the inspiration behind Tv. Kalashnikov's fa-
mous invention.






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Socks and Footwear for marching(was Re: Basic Training)
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:19:01 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <Bxyuuw.FGp@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
Herschel H Mayo <hhm@ihlpe.att.com> writes about socks, footcare, etc...:
 
> All good advice. Also, buy a good supply of Dr Scholl's foot pads and
> mole skin, and heavy NYLON, olive drab socks. You can get them at most
> surplus stores. Do whatever you need to do to smuggle them past personel
> effects inspections. Put them in your pockets or shaving kit. You
> will be issued WOOL socks and nylon screen footpads. These are crap.
> Throw them away. They will blister your feet in no time. Before any long
> hike, armor your feet with the moleskin, put the pads in your boots, and
> wear the nylon socks. 
>                          Larry Mayo

Well, I'll disagree here.  I hate the nylon green socks, and I have gotten
more blisters from them than the wool sort.  I'd recommend the thin poly-
propolene socks available at most sporting goods stores as liners with the 
wool issue socks outside of them (that's how I do it these days).

I do agree that the little screen footpads are a flawed idea and are best
replaced with a set of shaped inserts of the sort sold by Dr Scholl's or 
New Ballance in most PX's.  (Even Dr Scholl's "air pillow" insoles are better
but not much).

I suppose from Larry's comments that it is possible to smuggle such effects
past Army boot camp inspections.  I wouldn't know, but I don't recommend 
anybody try hiding anything from a Parris Island DI.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu%portal@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Soviet C-5 Clone (AN-124?) at Moffet Field
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:21:25 GMT


From cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu%portal@uunet.uu.net

It's Sun Nov 15, and there's a Soviet (whatever) AN-124 C-5A Galaxy
clone parked where they normally put a C-5. C-5's come by all the time
to pick up stuff from the Lockheed plant or for NASA Ames. I just noticed
that it was white instead of Europe-One drab without a T-Tail, and it was
surrouned by a bunch of big crates that had been offloaded from its tail,
with its nose in the up position.

Is the USAF or NASA contracting with the Soviets to use their aircraft
because C-5 time is in short supply, or does anybody think it was delivering
something to or from the Commonwealth?

(talking about Moffet Field, Sunnyvale CA, the one with the big dirigible
hanger)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: robichau@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Paul Robichaux)
Subject: Re: desert storm operations
Organization: New Technology, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:36:08 GMT


From robichau@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Paul Robichaux)

In <BxGrsK.776@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gawne@stsci.edu speaks truly:
>It is very easy now to 
>be monday morning quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight, but I know that
>if the Iraqis had wanted to make it hard for us they could have made the
>breaches very costly.  They didn't fight back because they were starving
>and demoralized.  But many Iraqi guns were operable, and laid in to fire
>for effect on the breach points, with plenty of servicable shells laid out
>in the gun emplacements when we captured them.

One component that most of the "Monday morning" crowd ignores is the
network of Iraqi beach defenses. 5th MEB was used primarily as a fake
landing force to tie up Iraqi troops/materiel along the expected
coastal line of attack.

As it turned out, no amphibious landings were necessary. However, if
the initial phase of the ground war had been less successful, an
amphibious assault against heavily defended beaches might have been
necessary. Such an assault, as any historian (or Marine!) can tell
you, is expensive in terms of men and gear, and should be avoided when
possible.

-Paul Robichaux
 Sgt., USMCR


-- 
Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG              | May explode if disposed of improperly.
Mission Software Development Div.   | Printed on recycled phosphors.
New Technology, Inc.		    | ** PGP 2.0 key available on request **
From: ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: RPG Combat Rules & Reality
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:40:14 GMT
Organization: student of numerical analysis at the University of Bergen, Norway


From ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)

>>>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:42:57 GMT, eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) said:


Erik> From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)

>How effective are kelvar jackets or similar armour? In one Game I play nothing
>but Assault Rifles (or heavier weapons) could penetrate kelvar jackets and
>even then the target got only a light wound !

Erik> That depends on the caliber of the weapon and the ammunition
Erik> fired. A shotgun firing shot will not penetrate while magnum
Erik> loaded .44 magnum shells w. copper nosed teflon bullets will (I
Erik> know, we tried). The question is really to general to be
Erik> answered easily.

How about phrasing it more specifically, then:

What kinds of body armor exists (kevlar vests, plate insert jackets,
helmets etc etc) and what will they stop?

I particular, how effective will they be concerning shotguns, 5.56,
7.62, 4.7 (caseless G-11), fragmentation grenades, 'raw' explosive
blasts (not splints/fragments), sharp weapons (knives, arrows etc)
and so forth.

(Note that the original question wasn't mine, though I would like to
know as well.  Thanks in advance!)

--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: 106mm Recoiless Rifle - Rocket or Gun?
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:36:44 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <Bxo0wB.5p3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
 (Iskandar Taib) writes:
> 
> 
> In article <BxID61.LMH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
> 
>>would attract alot of tank or AFV anti-personnel fire. 
>>RR duty assignments was
>>NOT something that was sought after. 
> 
> Col. Hatcher, in his Notebook, mentions the Recoiless Rifle 
> favorably, saying that it gave infantry the power of artillery
> in a weapon that had about the same accuracy as a '06 Spring-
> field and could be handled by four men. 

The outfit my brother was in did not have JEEP mounted RRs.
The weapon had to be assembled in position.
According to him , RR duty was considered to be something of
a "suicide" assignment because of the expected enemy response
once it opened fire.

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pfloyd@titan.ucc.umass.edu (BlackWing Restorations, Ltd.)
Subject: Re: M-16A2 Testing
Organization: Old Pink, care of the Funny Farm, Chalfont
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:40:24 GMT


From pfloyd@titan.ucc.umass.edu (BlackWing Restorations, Ltd.)

>
>I'm curious about how the three round burst mode of the G11
>compared to the burst mode of the other weapons. Since the
>whole raison d'etre for the G11 was to provide tighter groups
>in burst mode and to increase the probability of at least
>one hit in this mode. I wouldn't expect the G11 to perform
>as well as the M16A2 firing single rounds because of the
>lighter bullets. It would also be interesting to know how
>tight the burst groups on the G11 are compared to other
>weapons are at various ranges.
>


From various reports and testings of the G11K2 from Heckler & Koch
(now purchased by and operates under the direction of Royal Ordnance
of the UK), this is what I've heard...

Since the cyclic rate of the burst mode is so high (c. 2200rpm or
36.67 per second), the recoil from the first round (which should be
somewhat light) would be felt after the third round has already passed
the muzzle. Therefore, the groups at ranges up to 300m should be
rather tight, depending upon the level of marksmanship of the shooter.

However, when the firing mode is selected down to full automatic, the
cyclic rate decreases to about 600rpm, and the groups will not be as
tight as the burst mode.

Just my five bursts' worth...

pf



-------------===========**********===========-------------
	       BlackWing Restorations, Ltd.
            Investigations, Personal Security
               and Restorations a specialty

     Can be reached via the following Internet address:
		pfloyd@titan.students.umass.edu

No case to easy, no fee too large, no ammunition expenditure
too gratuitous. no body count too high... call now for an
inexpensive consultation.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Subject: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:29:44 GMT


From rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)

Well, I checked my references, primarily Friedmans book on US cruiser design 
and found out some more facts.

Part of the genesis of the Alaska class was the 'pocket battleships' of the
German Navy. In fact there were some proposals to re-arm the US heavy cruisers
with 10" guns (3x2). There were also reports of cruiser killers being developed
by the IJN. 

By the late 30's and early 40's the Navy felt that the threat of the IJN 
cruisers to the lines of communications as well as the carrier forces required
a response. Thus a heavier gunned cruiser killer was felt to be an attractive
escort ship for the carrier force. In fact Adm. King displayed some enthusiasm
for this type of ship for the escort role. (Remember at this time the carriers
where part of the scouting force and would operate independently from the
battle force. In addition, the carriers needed a high speed escort and the
battleships could not keep up)

Thus, although the German ships did have an influence on these ships, they
were conceived to satisfy an express purpose for the anticipated Pacific war.
So although they had the same type of guns as some of the older battleships, 
their roots are fimly planted in and they sprung from the design of cruisers.
They were never envisioned as battlecruisers or commerce raiders. Friedman very
specifically states that the "B" does not mena battle but does state that they
were a mixture of battleship and cruiser features. For more details, please
read Friedman's book. In fact his entire series is an outstanding reference
for US ship design.


-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030

Newsgroups: sci.military