HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: AA guns in direct-fire role (was Bofors 40mm)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:35:58 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <Bw2Jsy.B02@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson) writes:
> 
> From pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
>>88mm AA gun as a tank killer and I wonder if the British did the same.
> 
> 	Not exactly the question, but i stumbled on a reference to the US Army
> 	using _their_ 90mm in an Antitank role.  Dunno what the UK equivalent
> 	would have been.  (And assuming that someboy had AT shells for an AA
> 	gun....)

The US 90mm AA gun (M1? M2?) was officially a ``triple threat'' gun: it was
meant to be an anti-aircraft, anti-ship (coastal defense), and direct fire
artillery/anti-tank gun.  Armor piercing shells were produced for it, but the
gun didn't make as big of an impression as the German 88mm (i think that is
mainly because the Germans used more 88mm in anti-tank/direct fire artillery
roles than either the Americans or British, not because of a quality or
capability difference).  However, the same gun was used on the M-10 tank
destroyer, and i believe a ``super-heavy'' design whose designation escapes me
(M-26, or M-34, or somesuch.)  So the anti-tank possibilities weren't ignored.

(the thought of a `super-heavy' tank with a 90mm gun is pretty funny though, in
light of the Soviet 122mm main guns on `heavy' tanks, and 100mm for `medium'
tanks in 1945.  The Germans were on the verge of upgrading their 88mm to 128mm
guns also.  Why were American and British tanks so lightly armed in WWII?) 

The British 3.7inch (about 94mm) AA gun also had armor piercing shells
produced, but it was used in a direct fire role even less than the American
90mm for doctrinal reasons.  i'm not sure if the British ever got around to
mounting the gun on any kind of tank or tank destroyer chassis, but i remember
a 3.7 inch / M3 halftrack combination reference, apparently used in the desert. 
Whether or not that was a production model, or an ad-hoc modification, i don't
know.

All in all, i think the only reason the German 88mm is so famous as an
anti-tank gun is because the Germans saw the possibilities early, and used the
gun for that purpose continuously throughout the war.  The Allies, for some
reason, never got around to using their AA guns to the same scale as the
Germans in the direct-fire role.  So Allied troops in Italy would hate the 88mm
because it's shells were supersonic- the exploding shell would be the first
warning, *then* the gun's report would be heard.  German troops always had that
split second in which to duck when subsonic howitzer rounds barrelled in.  A
small, but no doubt very important advantage to the rifleman on the ground.

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Military Cuts (Was Re: New Carrier Plan)
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:30:06 GMT


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <Bvyqqp.5vt@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
> 
> 
> - Few people seem to think that the military needs to be cut that
> much.  Perhaps a program here, or a program there, but not any major
> forces.  This seems to be a huge mistake to me.  IMHO, the total
> budget *will* be cut substancially no matter who the next president is.
> 
> -Randy
> 
>

The problem, Randy, is that the force structure HAS TO BE TAILORED TO THE
COMMITMENTS OUR GOVERNMENT MAKES!

I served as an officer in the US Navy in the late 1970's and early 1980's and
saw first hand the problems that were created by cutting the military after
Vietnam (mainly under Carter, but Congress started during Nixon/Ford) and
not reducing our overseas commitments.  The stories about ships not being able
to get under way due to not having the money to buy spare parts and ships
going on a nine month deployment, back home for three to five months, and 
back to another nine month deployment were true.  It was running the US Navy,
at least, into the ground.  Regan changed that and it was literally like the
difference between night and day.

If Congress and the next President wants to cut the military drastically like
you think may happen, they better get us out of several international
agreements (NATO, SEATO, UN, Persian Gulf, etc.) or it will be just another 
repeat of the 1970's.

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.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Talos SAM
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:32:46 GMT


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


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

In article <Bw0oGw.LDK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>I can well believe it!  For those who aren't up on the old USN missiles,
>Talos at launch was thirty feet long and weighed nearly four tons.  It
>was the USN's heavy long-range SAM, with a rocket booster and a ramjet
>upper stage, and range exceeding 100 miles.  It was eventually retired
>mostly because the USN was no longer building ships big enough to carry
>it (it simply wouldn't fit on destroyers, and in the 50s and 60s the
>USN gradually stopped building cruisers).

Actually, I believe the real reason the Talos was retired was the advent of the
RIM-66/-67 Sandard series of SAM's.  The RIM-67A SM-1 ER (Extended Range) is 27
feet long, and weighs upwards of 3000 lbs.  It's range is more than 50 nautical
miles, which is adequate for area defense, and it's warm-up time is a mere 5 
seconds, compared with nearly 30 for the Terrier/Talos generation of SAM's.  
The advent of the RIM-67B SM-2 ER in the early 70's once again gave the USN a 
truly long-range SAM.  Due to an improved inertial mid-course guidance system, 
the SM-2 ER has a much more efficient flight profile than the SM-1 ER, and the 
newer SAM has a range of 92 miles.  The RIM-66 family is carried on the USN's 
nuclear cruisers and the larger conventional classes.

The RIM-66 series of SAM's are the MR (Medium Range) counterparts to the RIM-67
family, and are carried on the smaller cruisers, most USN destroyers, and on 
the Perry class missile frigates.  The RIM-66 is between 15 and 20 feet long, 
and has a range of 18 miles for the SM-1 version and 25+ for the SM-2 version

I will post the actual prformance and dimensions of the Standard series of 
naval SAM's, along with any information I have on the Talos/Terrier family at a
later date.  I dont have any of my source books with me, and what I just posted
came from memory.

Nothing in this post came from classified sources.  All information is readily
available to the public.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
From: stoffel@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Stoffel)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: the "bouncing bomb"
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:42:40 GMT
Organization: Annapolis Detachment, CARDEROCKDIV, NSWC


From William Stoffel <stoffel@oasys.dt.navy.mil>



The following is a portion of the moderator's excellent answer to Craig
Garnett's question re: "bouncing bombs";

>A good book on the subject is _The Dam Busters_ by Paul Brickhill
>
>Steve ]

Many, many years ago I remember watching a movie about this. I believe
it was also called "The Dam Busters", or something like that. As I recall
it was produced in the UK and appeared to reflect their typical attention
to historical detail. If you ever see it in your local listings it's
probably worth a look. - Bill

__________________________________________________________________________
Bill Stoffel              |  CARDEROCKDIV, NSWC  |First things first!     |
stoffel@oasys.dt.navy.mil |  Code 2759           | (But not necessarily in|
(410) 267-3825            |  Annapolis, MD 21402 |that order) - The Doctor|
_________________________________________________|________________________|
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:40:18 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <Bvwqy0.Jw2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:
 
> Oh dear, there are two issues here. One is optical resolution and the
> other is an artifact of the NTSC scanning process.  

(excellent explanation deleted, thanks Gary!)
> So field news cameras
> don't use this mechanical shutter and suffer from motion blurring and
> temporal scan displacement artifacts. Those artifacts mean that rapid
> motion, such as missile intercepts, can't be imaged truthfully over
> time intervals that represent at least 100 meters of target motion.
> 
> Gary

This explanation pretty much sums up what riles me the most about the
"Patriot bashers". They apparently did just enough research to come
up with data to support their preconceptions & then didn't bother to
check to see if their analysis was actually performed with valid data. 
Which it seems was NOT the case. This is really lousy science, to say the
least!

PHIL

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dunger@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Dallace Unger)
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 4 October, 1942
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:29:57 GMT


From dunger@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Dallace Unger)


From dunger@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Dallace Unger)

In article <Bvwr70.KAv@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) writes:
>
>From swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
>
>
>>>General Paulus opens a new series of attacks in Stalingrad.  Combat
>>
>>Shouldn't his proper title be "Von Paulus" ?
>
>What does "Von" denote?  Is it a title of respect like the British "Sir"?

If I remeber my German right, 'von' translates to 'of' in English.

Dallace Unger
DUnger/CSU-CS@RandD.FS.ColoState.Edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: 2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:37:42 GMT


From 2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()

In article <BvE5rp.2sy@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE (Tomas Eriksson) writes:
>From tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE (Tomas Eriksson)
>
>In article <BvAruy.9nA@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:
>>
>>... Since most of the subs are pretty small (around 30 meters or so) 
>>I don't imagine that they are nuclear.
>
>Let's assume that these submarine activities against Sweden, Norway and a 
>few other places were given high priority and a lot of resources. Remember
>that crew saftey had *low* priority, and remember that the Soviet Union 
>produced satellites with nuclear reactors. If the intruding subs are 
>indeed 30 m long (I think I've heard slightly smaller numbers - a 
>Swedish 1,000 ton submarine is about 50 m long), this is probably
>sufficient to install a small nuclear reactor.

  But for a nuc reator to be installed, you also need extensive cooling,
which means pumps. And on a 1000 ton sub, there ain't gonna be barely any
sound dampening devices, so the sucker's gonna be loud. eg an alpha.
>
>I've never heard any official speculation to the effect that those damn 
>elusive subs are nuclear propulsed. But that may well be to avoid 
>demands from environmentalists that the navy should stop their ASW 
>activities...
>
>Tomas

Matthew
UNSW,SYDNEY.
Australia.

  --reality is the illusion created by those who cannot handle drugs--
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier operating limitations
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:29:15 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From danderer@chopin.udel.edu (Dave Anderer)
>Much was made of the fact that during the Falklands the British were
>able to operate Harriers in weather that "no other carrier aircraft
>could operate in."  ...
>I know that 20 years ago work was being done on automatic landing
>systems.  My impression is that they're widely available now...

The ultimate limits are not navigational, but mechanical.  The crucial
advantage of a vertical-landing aircraft is that it can land at the
middle of the deck, where pitching movements are minimal, rather than
at the extreme rear end, where they are at their worst.

Vertical landing also has somewhat relaxed visibility requirements,
because there is no particular time pressure on the pilot.  If he has
trouble sighting the carrier, he can simply slow down his approach,
to a walking pace if necessary.  (Of course he'll run out of fuel
*eventually*, and he may be in a hurry for secondary reasons, but in
general a vertical landing offers more flexibility.)
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppl@athena.mit.edu (Paul Podvig)
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Keywords: Patriot, effectiveness, media
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:28:29 GMT


From ppl@athena.mit.edu (Paul Podvig)

In article <BvnEst.Irs@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
>
>In article <BvE5Bx.25M@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>>
>>The critics hauled out videotape purporting to show misses of 100
>>meters plus. Raytheon hauled out a video that showed network videotape
>>machines can't capture images moving as fast an intercept occurs.
>
>Standard NTSC video records one frame, of two fields, every 1/30th of
>a second. The half resolution fields are recorded at a rate of 60 per
>second. So if succeeding fields are used, the missiles could close by
>100 meters *during* a field if their closing rate was 6 km/sec, or about
>13,000 MPH.  If they were single linewidth  dots on the raster, they
>would be resolved, but if the image took up a large part of the field,
>they would be motion blurred.

Whether or not you see a motion blurred image depends not only on speed
of the object, but also on how far from the camera the object is. If
the missiles are, say, 10 km from the camera (and magnification of the
camera is not very large, which is true since the field of view is
large), you will see the missiles as if they are not moving during
the frame at all.

>
>There are other problems with standard broadcast TV gear, however. The
>effective shutter speed of the camera is 1/60th of a second. Rapid
>motion is very blurred at such a slow shutter speed. Special cameras
>with rapidly rotating mechanical shutters have to be used for sporting
>events like car races and slow motion replay of golf swings. Effective
>shutter speeds of less than 1/1000th of a second are commercially 
>available. The cameras used by NBC, and I assume the other networks
>as well, were *not* these special sports cameras, however. They were
>ordinary newsgathering cameras without the special mechanical shutter.
>Therefore, they couldn't *resolve* an object moving at 6 km/s to less
>than 100 meters. 
>
>Gary
>

You can't *resolve* an object that is far enough (which means you won't
see fine details of its structure etc.), but you can resolve its motion
(which means its motion from frame to frame as it seen on the screen is
very small, so you don't miss events that happened between frames). The
claim of Raytheon is that if an intercept orrurs between frames you
can't see it. I think it is not true.


--
Paul Podvig
ppl@athena.mit.edu
DACS, MIT
(617) 253-3846

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: New IR Jammer on Apache helicopters?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:26:08 GMT


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


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

In article <Bvvwvq.G9o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:

>  You can't jam IR! 

>  Well... I quess ya could.  What you'd need is a big bottle of liquid
>  nitrogren and a spray nozzle mounted on top.  Then, when threatened,
>  simply spray the liquid nitrogren all over you and presto...
>  no more IR!

You can fool it though. A few flares do wonders...





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: wernick@cpoint.clearpoint.com (Rich Wernick)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp., Hopkinton MA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:28:37 GMT


From wernick@cpoint.clearpoint.com (Rich Wernick)


My father worked on the radar for the XB-70 Valkyrie. Only two were built
and one crashed during a test flight. An F-104 was sucked into the jet
stream during the flight, causing the F-104 to roll across the back end of
the Valkyrie. The chase pilot was killed, while the Valkyrie crew did
eject. I don't remember if any of the Valkyrie crew was killed. My 
father has pictures and docmunted history on the plane. It really was an
amazing craft. It had a top speed in excess of mach 3, and did as you 
mentioned use compression lift at high speeds. The planes landing gear were
nealy thirt feet in the air. But the coming of the Mig 25 did make the 
Valkyrie obsolete. There was speculation it could be used for reconasense,
but the SR-71 already had that role. The plane did gather much needed
information for high speed, high alititude flight. A lot of this information
was used later in the B1-A project. 



Rich 
wernick@venus.clearpoint.com


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Curtis Gibson <curt@quest.uucp>
Subject: Question about aircrew bailing out
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:32:34 GMT


From Curtis Gibson <curt@quest.uucp>


I have been wondering about the AWACS, Crystal Palace, Looking Glass,
and other such type aircraft with large crews of radar/radio operators,
controllers and decision makers aboard.  My question is do they have
parachutes and an excape hatch?  I ask this because in the bad old days
if the ballon had gone up there would not be very many airfields that
a 707 based aircraft could safely use left to use.  Did the entire crew
plan on ditching on I-90 or I-70 with the aircraft or could the aircraft
commander tell them "Good luck guys, now hit the silk" and reduce the 
number of people at risk?  Just one of those things the commute to work
gives me time to think about.  Thanks to anyone who helps scratch this
itch.

Curtis S. Gibson   curt%quest.UUCP@cs.umn.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: New IR Jammer on Apache helicopters?
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:24:19 GMT


From megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <Bvvwvq.G9o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>  It's a IR or Laser DETECTOR!

Nope, it is a jammer. (If it is the same one I've seen.)

>  You can't jam IR! 

Yes you can. Most IR jammers either use bleed heat from the engines or their
own heating elements. The idea is to radiate strong pulses of IR, actually
stronger than the normal signature. The pulses are carefully controlled to
spoof IR seekers. It's like having a strobe light flases in your eyes, it
overwhelms the seeker and causes it to break lock on the engines. Then you
stop the pulses and evade the missile. 

Or you can run the jammer, pop a flare, kill the jammer and suddenly the flare
is the best target in the air.

Hmm, ok, you can't jam IR radiation, but you can screw up the IR homer.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: US SEa Sparrow hits Turkish Destroyer
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:58:05 GMT


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


cup.portal.com!Wingnut%portal@uunet.UU.NET writes:
#While the missile is designed to shoot down incoming airplanes it seems that
#it is certainly possible to use this as an anti-ship weapon. It would be just
#the thing to take out a small patrol boat.


British Aerospace used to offer the Sea Dart as an antiship missile for
FPBs. The missiles were to be carried in on-deck box launchers like those
of Exocet MM.38, but smaller of course. A new, simpler guidance radar
completed the package. I can't recall if the system retained its AA
capability in that configuration.

A friend from a previous career served in a DLG (before they became CGs)
off Vietnam during the McNamara we-don't-need-no-stinkin'-guns-on-ships
era, and recalls having to put down a threatening speedboat with an AAM
(Talos I think). It didn't detonate, but the boat was never the same.
This was the period during which NV speedboats/FPBs were able to chase
USS LONG BEACH away as a result of her nonexistent close in armament (aka
a gun).


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:33:35 GMT


From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)


From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)


In <BvvL9H.E4w@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:


:The Uzi is probably more effective in dry climates than in wet ones,
:like most personal weapons, water is not their friend. Range is not
:an issue since the Uzi is used for commando and street fighting, not
:long range sniping duels. The compact Uzi is much better for clearing
:a room than a long, awkward rifle. Naturally, Israel has assualt and
:battle rifles as well as submachineguns. The SMG is a specialized
:weapon for specialized missions, not a general issue piece.

I recall seeing a video of Israelites attacking the Golan Heights.
They were clearing out some trenches and using Uzis to do it.
I guess, in the closed confines of a trench the Uzi would be 
excellent.
--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

Newsgroups: sci.military