HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: New Subject : Iraq vs. U.N.
Date: 23 Jan 1993 01:32:30 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1993Jan22.124315.1@vax1.umkc.edu> digdoug@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
>
>
>Anyway, how about we have everyone contribute current news about
>the Iraq mess so that people can keep current with everyones
>help.

How about you use the appropriate groups for current news. There are several
groups which will be discussing this; misc.headlines, talk.politics.mideast,
talk.politics.misc,alt.desert-storm to name a few. The last thing we need is
to add another place for the flames to live. (For the record, I do read the
referenced news groups and do participate; I just don't think it is appropriate
for this group.)
 

-- 
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
From: pearton@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za (Yak)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Drugs in Battle
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 13:49:04 GMT
Organization: Uni Natal
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc038.cc.unp.ac.za
Keywords: combat drugs,

I am interested in any references to the use of "combat" drugs in a battle 
field situation.  This could be in any era/war.

For example the Otomi, who were a Aztec ally, used various mushrooms before 
battle to enhance their fighting capability and resistance to pain.  Also, I 
don't know how true this is, but the story of the german paratroopers given 
amphetamines beforethe invasion of Crete (I think).  Was there not also a 
report on some desert storm troops tested on anti-fatigue drugs?

Any information would be welcome.

Yours
Dave
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: Which Planet Are we ON?
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:39:42 GMT

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>digdoug@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
>] 
>] Women are still not allowed to participate in actual combat.
>] That's probably a reason they don't bother to screen them.
>] What's the point if they can't fight.
>] For those few that could fight, write your elected representatives.

>Why do I hear the phrase "NUTS" rising
>in my Ears, and I think of the 'cooks and Bakers Corp'
>holding sections of are Ardennes....


>Now what was that you were saying 
>about "they can't fight" - is that
>in the Section of the AirLand Battle Doctrine
>about how Rear Areas will Always remain Secure,
>that at No Time will the Enemy Every Be able to
>make a Break through into the Rear Area.


>ciao
>drieux

drieux, bubbe, the entire arguement that women can't fight
is not the same as saying they shouldn't be fighting.
As you may recall - ManlyMen have WarGames|BattleFieldSimulations
TraditionalWayOfResolvingConflictsThatIncludeLotsOFMaleBondingRituals.
Women fight to prevent rape and defend the hearth (G-d forbid).

Any time I hear someone say that women will only be in the rear
areas I am reminded of the fact that 'getting into the rear
areas' is how wars have been fought from day two.  Mounted
infantry, paratroops, helos, etc were all to get the strike
force back where it can do some good, and not just get chewed
up battleing the enemies grunts.

And if you look long and hard at the Air-land Doctrine you
will notice that it is going to be hell on a stick
trying to figure out who has penetrated into who's rear area, and who is
about to be cut off and surrounded.  (wasn't in Arkansas, during
the Wahr, that the yankees were headed north and the confederates
were headed south when they clashed?)

>-- 
>MajorModernDayProblems: 

>sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
>and they may not be connected..... 
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Nothing says loving like a bun in the oven.
EOF
From: sstout@yukon.EBay.Sun.COM (Steve Stout, Mgr. Sales Negotiations)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: fighting females
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:20:37 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: sstout@yukon.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: yukon.ebay.sun.com

Well written, and valid.  Any military unit- small or large must include a diversity
of skills and/or capacities in order to respond to threats with the most qualified
member.  Commando type units are a good example although it extrapolates to
units of any size- each member is allowed/required to develop those skills which
are native to that individual.  It is the responsibility of the commander of that
unit to insure that he has as good  a blend of skills as available and to apply
them appropriately as the situation demands.  Any commander would be foolish
not to recognize that a woman can bring skills/capabilities into play which are
otherwise unavailable.  The question is not , "can she do everything a 200+ lb.
man can do?", the question should be, "what can she do that a 200+lb man can't
do and will it be of value?"

'Steve


Newsgroups: alt.war
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Drugs in Battle
Keywords: combat drugs,
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:55:20 GMT

In article <pearton.8.727796944@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za> pearton@unpsun1.cc.unp.ac.za (Yak) writes:
>I am interested in any references to the use of "combat" drugs in a battle
>field situation.  This could be in any era/war.
>
>Was there not also a
>report on some desert storm troops tested on anti-fatigue drugs?
>
>Any information would be welcome.

	That was the French, they gave some of their people in
	critical slots a  novel drug called Modafinil.  It's
	amphetamine-like but does not give rise to stereotyped
	behaviour typical of amphetamines.  Also, there does not
	appear to be a sleep-debt problem with it.  Reference:

	Lyons, T.J. & French, J.
	Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 62, 432 (1991).

	Also, during Operation Overlord, I remember that U.S. paratroops
	were given large doses of anti-airsickness medicines with the
	consequence that many of them landed and crawled into a quiet
	corner for a nap (I exaggerate slightly, but it did happen.).

	Alec Chambers.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Picklocks of biographers
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:11:13 GMT

The following quotation appeared late in the Burns series, describing
Robert E. Lee.  Could someone out there identify the source?

"For he will smile, and give you with unflinching courtesy, prayers,
trappings, letters, uniforms and orders, photographs, kindness, valor
and advice; and do it with such grace and gentleness that you will be
sure you have the whole of him, pinned down, mapped out, easy to 
understand.  And so you have.  All except the heart; that he kept a
secret to the end, from all the picklocks of biographers."

Thanks,
Chuck

-- 
D'Angelo Law Library         "The dogmas of the quiet past are
cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu      inadequate to the stormy present. . .
uclcjt1@uchimvs1              We must disenthrall ourselves. . ."
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Slavery in the Old Northwest
Date: 25 Jan 1993 04:34:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu

A few days ago, there was a little bit of discussion concerning
slavery in the northern states.  I've found two very interesting
papers which deal with slavery in Indiana and Illinois-- two Northwest
territory states that in principle should have been free states, but
in which slavery or "apprenticeship" existed for 30 or 40 years
after the Northwest Ordinance.  The papers are:

Paul Finkelman, "Slavery and the Northwest Ordinance: A Study in 
   Ambiguity", Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 6, p 343 (1986).
Paul Finkelman, "Evading the Ordinance: The Persistance of Bondage
   in Indiana and Illinois", Journal of the Early Republic,
   vol. 9, p. 21 (1989).

Illinois especially had a large slave population that was grandfathered
by the Congress and the Territory and the state's first constitution.
An attempt was made in 1823 to call a constitutional convention to
amend the Illinois constitution to make it a slave state, but it got
only 43% of the vote.

Lincoln's most racist remarks occured when he was speaking in the
southern region of Illinois where slavery had actually existed within
his lifetime.

--
Justin M. Sanders    "As the grandest mill in the world will not
Dept. of Physics      extract wheat-flour from peascods, so pages
Kansas State Univ.    of formulae will not get a definite result
Manhattan, KS         from loose data."  -- T.H. Huxley
From: afallen@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (E. Allen Arrington)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Civil War Calendar
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:04:00 GMT
Organization: 1st Kentucky Cavalry Co. C
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

January 27, 1962:  President Lincoln issues General War Order No. 1, 
ordering Union forces to advance.

E. Allen Arrington  
        Trooper, 1st Kentucky Cavalry, Co. C 
        Mounted Memorial Unit
From: dmr@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Daniel Rosenblum)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,rec.music.folk,alt.war
Subject: Re: Union Army recruitment song (lyrics)
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:44:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.war.civil.usa
Organization: Rutgers University, Graduate School of Management, Newark, N.J.

In <MARTIN.93Jan26091515@lyra.cis.umassd.edu> martin@lyra.cis.umassd.edu
 (Gary Martin) writes:

>Here are two songs about women surreptitiously going into military
>service.  [Jack Monroe deleted]

>WILLIAM TAYLOR (trad. - Oxford Book of Sea Songs)

[words deleted]

And "William Taylor" has been recorded by somebody English or
Irish lately and I keep hearing the recording on the local
folk music shows.  (I don't mind -- it's a good song IMHO.)
It might be Patrick Street who did the recording, but I'm
not sure.
-- 
Daniel M. Rosenblum, Assistant Professor, Quantitative Studies Area,
   Graduate School of Management, Rutgers University (Newark Campus)
ROSENBLUM@DRACO.RUTGERS.EDU                      ROSENBLUM@ZODIAC.BITnet
dmr@andromeda.rutgers.edu          ...!rutgers!andromeda.rutgers.edu!dmr
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Spotsylvania (was Re: How were cannon balls constructed?)
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:32:05 GMT
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan26.204709.20596@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> In article <1993Jan26.201247.8626@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne) writes:
>>I don't know about the ACW, but certainly in European battles in the days
>>of solid shot, solid shot was often used as an anti-personnel weapon.
>>When faced with a large army neatly laid out in ranks, the artillerists 
>>would fire the solid shot at a very low angle.  This low trajectory would
>>allow the cannon ball to skip across the ground 3-5 times before coming to
>>a rest, and the multiple skips could cause a great deal of carnage in the
>>enemy's ranks. 
> 
> In the Civil War formations usually had much less depth to them. Since the
> rifle was so much better, heavy formations could be broken up before they
> could reach enemy lines, so the heavy formations didn't get used for shock
> tactics like they did in Napoleon's days. (Spotsylvania Court House being
> the main exception.)
> Therefore, the value of skipping was reduced greatly, enough so that solid
> shot was generally not used for this purpose, unless shell was not available.
> 
> Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

I have wondered why Upton's use of massed formation was so
effective at Spotsylvania. Where the Conferderate so unaccustomed to
seening it that they failed to use the techniques described above
which had previously discouraged its use?

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: How were cannon balls constructed?
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:31:08 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1k8kc3INNbci@werple.apana.org.au>, fjc@werple.apana.org.au (Frank Copeland) writes:
> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
> 
>>In article <51430006@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>, tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com
>>> I'm not much into ordinance, and thought I might get a quick
>>> answer here and save a trip to the library...
>>>
>>> How were the civil war cannon balls constructed?  Were they just
>>> solid iron balls?  Were they filled with explosives and if they
>>> were, how were they fused etc?
[deletions]
>>>
>>> Thanks, all.
> 
> [deletions]
> 
>>Cannister and double cannister were similar to shells except the outside
>>shell itself was much thinner and there were iron pellets mixed in with the
>>explosive. Cannister was used for close-range fighting, primarily against
[deletions]

> I think you are confusing cannister with "spherical case" or "Shrapnel
> shell" which was invented by the British in the Napoleonic wars.  It was
> indeed constructed as you describe but was intended to be used at a distance
> in the same way as "common" shell.  To be effective it had to burst in the
> air just in front of the target, which was then showered with a hail of
> musket balls.  Needless to say, this required great judgement and skill on
> the part of the gunner.
> 
> Cannister was made up of a number of lead balls inside a cylindrical
> container made of thin metal.  It was in effect an enormous shotgun shell.
> An alternative to double cannister at close range was cannister and ball,
> which was very nasty against troops in dense formations.
> 
> My expertise is in the 18th Century and Napoleonic wars, but I believe the
> technology was the same.
> 
> [more deletions]
> 
> Frank Copeland
> 

Although I forgot to mention "case", I am more or less familiar with
the difference between case and cannister. I agree that my description
of the "container made of thin metal" was poor. My question is this, I
have conflicting information as to whether or not cannister contained
explosive and was fused. Bruce Hulse tells me that it contianed
sawdust mixed with lead balls, instead of explosive. If this is
correct, what was the function of the sawdust?

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: Back to Gibbon (was W. P. GPAs (was Artillerists))
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 21:43:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.195933.18235@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.115404.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>>Wasn't Gibbon chief of McDowell's artillery at 1st Manassas/Bull Run?
>>Maybe I am confusing him with another Gibbon, or maybe Gibson (Confederate?) 
>>Whoever was only a Major at the time.
>
>My Bull Run OOB doesn't say. It would have been a staff job. I have a dim
>memory that Gibbon went right from command of Battery B, 4th US to command
>of the Iron Brigade. I could probably be wrong too.

Gibbon was not ordered back from the West until October of 1861, and was
then assigned to be chief of artillery for McDowell's Division.  It was
from this job that he was promoted to brigadier, which was indeed delayed
(as someone observed in another post on this increasingly confusing thread)
by his having been appointed to West Point from his adoptive state of 
North Carolina.  His name having been submitted to the Senate for approval
of the promotion, and there being no senator from North Carolina to speak
on his behalf, the promotion was tabled until friends could pull some
strings and get a northern senator to push it through.
--Chuck
-- 
D'Angelo Law Library         "The dogmas of the quiet past are
cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu      inadequate to the stormy present. . .
uclcjt1@uchimvs1              We must disenthrall ourselves. . ."
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:22:21 GMT
Subject: How were cannon balls constructed?
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa

I'm not much into ordinance, and thought I might get a quick 
answer here and save a trip to the library...

How were the civil war cannon balls constructed?  Were they just
solid iron balls?  Were they filled with explosives and if they 
were, how were they fused etc?  

I have seen lots of civil war movies showing cannon ball explosions
but always wondered if they were just the result of impacting, or acutally
contained explosives... 

Thanks, all.
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: How were cannon balls constructed?
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:56:21 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <C1HD9I.Ero@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.204709.20596@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>
>>In the Civil War formations usually had much less depth to them. Since the
>>rifle was so much better, heavy formations could be broken up before they
>>could reach enemy lines, so the heavy formations didn't get used for shock
>>tactics like they did in Napoleon's days. (Spotsylvania Court House being
>>the main exception.)
>>Therefore, the value of skipping was reduced greatly, enough so that solid
>>shot was generally not used for this purpose, unless shell was not available.
>
>Agreed - The standard Civil War assault formation was the two-rank line
>(with skirmishers out front, of course), whereas the standard Napoleonic
>assault formation was a column -- at least six ranks deep, maybe more.
>
>However, another advantage to ricochet fire is that the zone of lethality
>of the ball had considerable depth.  That is, after the ball rebounded,
>most or all of its remaining travel would be at the height of a man or
>less instead of over his head.  This made errors in range estimation
>less important.  The ricochet also increased the total range of the
>ball.  Therefore, ball would be preferred to shell at very long ranges --
>assuming you wanted to expend the ammunition.
>
>- Gary Charbonneau
>  charbonn@indiana.edu


P.S.  I should have added that rifled artillery didn't fire spherical
balls and was basically unable to use ricochet fire.  Thus, the actual
range superiority of rifles over smoothbores was not as great as it
otherwise might have been.  The smoothbore remained popular in both
armies, but most sources seem to credit this to the smoothbore's
superior anti-personnel capability at close range, rather than to
its ability to use ricochet.  I believe that E.P. Alexander was one
gunner who thought poorly of rifles because of the tendency of rifle
bolts to dig in rather than bounce.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Slavery in the Old Northwest
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 01:01:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.161050.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>I remember something about the distribution of slaves in Missouri. There were
>supposedly more slaves (and pro-slavery sentiment) in the northern part of the
>state than in the south. This factoid seems to be in contratiction to the 
>way the fighting developed in that state. Does anyone have confirmation?

I can't confirm one way or the other, but I would note that the location
of the fighting was determined mostly by supply bases. Confederate supplies
had to come north from Arkansas, Union supplies came south from Saint Louis,
so not suprisingly most of the battles took place along roads or rail heads
leading south from St. Louis, except when the Confederates came north which
happened once resulting in the battle of Lexington (if I'm remembering the
name correctly :) in the northern part of the state.
   Guerilla warfare and assorted terrorism wouldn't have to follow this
pattern: I think most of it took place along the Kansas border without
much regard to north/south location. Not sure of that.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
Xref: sparky alt.war.civil.usa:1913 rec.music.folk:9410 alt.war:2411
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Catton (and Foote)
Date: 25 Jan 93 04:31:14 GMT
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1jpf26INNila@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>, rjs@citi.umich.edu (Robert J. Skrobola) writes:
> 
> Like a billion others, I've had my interest in the ACW sparked by
> the (not so now) recent PBS series. Since, I've read some of
> Foote's stuff, and liked it. Recently I've started on Bruce Catton.
> Read _Terrible Swift Sword_ and _Glory Road_. I think Catton writes 
> wonderfully, and his perspective is radically (IMO) different from
> Footes, I guess since he wrote 60-75 years earlier...
> 
> So I was wondering: What do people think of Catton? Who is more
> historically accurate, Catton or Foote? Sometimes being too close
> (temporally) to an event can distort things... I'd welcome any comments,
> posted or email.
> 			Rob
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Rob Skrobola      Institutional File Server Project
> Normal Disclaimer: I speak only for myself
> -----------------------------------------------------
-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: AotP Division insignia.
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:00:12 GMT

my stuff is taking awhile to get posted for some reason.

sorry,  dom
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa