HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: What are Katyusha rockets?
Followup-To: sci.military
Summary: It's a girls name!
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:27:22 GMT


From Joseph Askew <jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>


In article <BxyupK.FBp@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:

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

>> From woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)

>The term "Katyusha" was originally a nickname given to unguided
>surface to surface rockets by Soviet troops in WWII.  Unfortunately
>I don't know what it means!  Another term used, by the Germans, was
> "Stalin's Organ", due to the sound made by the rockets in the air.

"Katyusha" is a Russian girls name. The original rockets were very very
secret (like just about everything else in the xUSSR) and so there were
no markings or anything else on the packaging or rockets except a large
"K" - indicating the Komsomol factory in Saratov (?Not sure about this!!)
made them. The Russian troops had no name for them and so gave them a
common Russian female name. Or so the story goes.

>The original rocket was 82mm, weighed 8 kg, with a 3.05 kg
>warhead, 1 kg of propellant and a range of 5500m.

I thought the original rocket was 120mm or there abouts?


Joseph Askew

-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  At dawn with staff in hand I climbed the crags,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  At dusk I made my camp amoung the mountains.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Only a few peaks rise as high as this house,
One China One Korea One Eire32  Facing the crags, it overlooks winding streams.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Terence R. Slywka" <TSLYWKA@ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: U.S. Army enlistment info needed
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:44:02 GMT


From "Terence R. Slywka" <TSLYWKA@ucs.indiana.edu>

Hello, all.  This posting may be somewhat off the normal subject matter
for this list, but I thought this was the place to go for straight 
answers about enlisting in the US Army.  First let me explain my
situation.  I have recently graduated from Indiana University.  I have
applied to and been accepted into law school beginning next fall.  I am
also thinking about joining the Army.  My first choice is to g 3 years 
in law school, then enlist (after I have received my J.D. degree).  This
may sound unusual, but I have always been interested in the military and
I think that if I don't serve I will regret it in the future.  Now, my 
questions are as follows:

How much of what a recruiter tells people can be believed??

They say they can put an MOS promise in writing.  How ironclad is that??

I understand the army has a student loan repayment program, where they
repay previous student loans during a 3-4 year enlistment.  Do they do this
for everyone and how tough are the qualifications?

I have been told I would get my choice of duty stations (generally, i.e. 
Europe).  How ironclad is that promise?

If I joined the Army I would want to do certain things, either be a tanker
in Europe, a member of an airborne unit like the 82nd or 101st.  BTW, since
I am a recreational parachutist I was told I may have an advantage when it
comes to joining such a unit.  IS this true?  Some kind of military 
intelligence work would also be good.  I speak French, some Russian and
a little German.  I would like to improve my language skills and learn a few
more in preparation for a job in international business law.

The recruiters say all this is possible and most can be promised by contract.
Is that true??  Since I would have many options when leaving law school I want
to know what I would be signing up for in the military.  Also, they said
Ranger school was an option.  How does that selection work??  

I appreciate any information anyone can give me about any of these concerns.

Sorry to everyone else for clogging the net, but this is a serious decision and
this seemed to be the best place to come for answers.

Thanks in advance.,

Terence Slywka
Indiana University (Grad!!)

P.S.  Please reply to me directly.  Thanks

Bitnet:  TSLYWKA@IUBACS
Internet:  TSLYWKA@UCA.INDIANA.EDU

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us>
Subject: MAD - In WWII ?
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:39:33 GMT


From "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us>

 I recently read the book "Take Her Deep!" by Adm I.J. Galantin 
and noticed something that I had never heard before. Near the end 
of the book, he says that the last attack by the Japanese on his 
submarine, the Halibut, which put that sub out of action for the 
rest of the war, was directed by a Japanese aircraft using a MAD 
(magnetic anomaly detector). I had never heard of MAD being used 
in WWII before, much less by the Japanese. As I recall, the first 
U.S. aircraft to be so eqipped was the P2V which was first flown 
about 1947 and even the early models of it did not have MAD.
 Does anyone know the history of MAD? Is it possible that the 
Japanese invented the system and were using it towards the end of 
WWII? All of his other descriptions of Japanese ASW matched what I 
have read many times before in that their ASW equipment was poor 
and relatively ineffective unless they could get on top of the sub 
very quickly before it went deep. 
 In any case, it's a good book if your interested more in the life 
of the submariners and not just looking for lots of action. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
             Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI -
                         gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Subject: Re: Isreal's Rocket Problem
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:27:02 GMT


From dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)

I would like to thank everyone for the replies sent to me about the
Israeli problem of rocket launches from Lebanon.
I was asking why radar was not used to locate the launching site and
then shell the spot.

I was informed:
1.  The radar used to locate the site of artillery bases from
analyzing the trajectory of the shell is a lot more common than I had
supposed.

2.  With rockets, it is much more difficult to find the launch site
from trajectory analysis because of questions of burn time of the
rocket.

3.  Responses would be difficult anyway because the ability to
"shoot and scoot" is much easier for a rocket launcher compared to
artillery.

Again thanks to everyone for their replies.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                    Italian Wines are Fine                          +
+          I'd rather be on a Moto Guzzi in eastern Oregon.          +
+          Fourth gear curves at 7000 RPM are the greatest!          +
+dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re:  Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:55:45 GMT


From fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)

Basically all US artillery is based on the British system.
We use mills instead of degrees (6400mills vs 360 degrees).
Slowly but surely we are becomming more metric orientated.
[Now if they could just issue either metric or SAE tool
set for the "billy" gear on track draw I'd be a happy camper,
now it's "well its either a 13/16 or 19mm, they both fit]
All the small arms ranges are now in meters, maps are in
meters. And up until the advent of "BUCS" which is the
computerized version of the "wiz wheel" we even run our
FDC's (Fire Direction Center) the same way, only in the
past 5-7 years has it been changing (boy has it been changing)
some good, some not so good. The 107mm mortar is still 
refered to as a 4 deuce (4.2 inch) mortar but the 60mm and
81mm never got such a moniker. You gotta admit that
"Get those 4 deuces up" sounds better than "get those one oh
seven millimeter mortars up" over the radio, along with
shorter transmission time too :-)
{That may be a valid reason things get different monikers,
cause they sound "better", along the same lines that when
you put someone on a radio they immeadiately sound like they
are from "boondocks Alabama" even though they were born
and raised in Brooklyn NY}
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I by my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
Subject: Re: Jutland
Summary: How about more info ...
Organization: :
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:28:06 GMT


From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us

In article <BxM62I.580@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker) writes:
> From phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker)
 
> 	The British gunnery was pretty good actually.  ... the British
> [attacked] on a curving course involving high rates of change of bearing
> and range on their own ships.  The Germans were on a stable course.  ...
> the British ... had ...the Argo clock ... to predict the enemy's position
> given good observations, unfortunately this was not installed and the
> inferior Dreyer table used.  ...

Anyone care to describe these technologies?

> s...  The British ships all had, and used, director firing, the
> Germans did use a better gunnery technique of ladder firing which found the
> range very quickly.  ...

Or these techniques?
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Allan Hong-Kay Ng <ahng@ee.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: All this F-14 Strike stuff (kinda wordy)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:28:04 GMT


From Allan Hong-Kay Ng <ahng@ee.ualberta.ca>

With reference to the posting "All this F-14...".  I noticed in the Oct.12,1992
edition of AW&ST that a F/A-18 was fitted out with 10 AIM-120A's and a centre
line drop tank and 2 AIM-9L's (WoW!) for missile trails.  This is not a 
standard load of course but worthy of mention.

						A. Ng


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
Subject: Re: Best piece of Artillery you ever saw
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:24:43 GMT


From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>

In article <BxM686.5I7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> j724664s@edinboro.edu writes:
>From: j724664s@edinboro.edu
>Subject: Best piece of Artillery you ever saw
>Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:36:06 GMT
>
>From j724664s@edinboro.edu
>
>Just for the sake of new argument besides three million "RE:"'s...
>
>What is the most effective overall modern artillery piece on the planet?
>						Blackdog


The South African G3 and G6 155mm series.

Keith


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Condemning a research report on the basis of :  Dept of Management
 invalid and unreliable methodology is the    :  Rhodes University
 cheapest shot in the book."                  :  Grahamstown, 6140
                                              :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Friday, 13 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:40:23 GMT


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

Friday, 13 November, 1942

Admiral Darlan takes control of French interests in North Africa, and is
immediately recognized by the Allies.  Eisenhower flies to Algiers to meet
Darlan.

Axis forces begin taking up positions on the Mareth Line in Tunisia.
Sometimes referred to as the "African Maginot," the defensive positions
were built to protect the eastern border of French North Africa.

Two Japanese cruisers shell Henderson Field, but with little effect.

The RAF hits Genoa with a severe night raid.

Reporter: john D Hightower <75430.2176@CompuServe.COM>
Reference: "Soldiers Magazine"

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

"I invite the French Fleet to join the United Nations in the fight for
freedom and so hasten the day of Frances liberation...  The enemy is close
upon you.  Sail at once for Gibraltar and join us." - Lt. Gen. Eisenhower
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dick Winningstad <dickwin@sequent.com>
Subject: Isreal's Rocket Problem
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:18:03 GMT


From Dick Winningstad <dickwin@sequent.com>

When Isreal invaded Lebenon in 1982(?) I remember reading about a
radar built by Hughes that could quickly track incoming artillery
shells and compute their point of origin allowing friendly artillery
to shell the source and knock out the enemy guns.
With the recent rocket launches from Lebenon into the Northern
Frontier, why doesn't Isreal use the same system to shoot back at the
Hezbolla?
Did the system not work as well as originally reported?
Are the rockets being remotely launched?
Am I completely off base on the Hughes system?

thanks

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                    Italian Wines are Fine                          +
+          I'd rather be on a Moto Guzzi in eastern Oregon.          +
+          Fourth gear curves at 7000 RPM are the greatest!          +
+dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: Change of M17A2 mask to M40 mask?
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:43:38 GMT


From Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>

We also have the M-25 tankers mask which may be similar in
appearance to the M-40. Military vehicles that are tracked
have two methods of keeping occupants alive in an NBC
environment. Positive pressure, closed atmosphere or have
onboard filtration systems that the masks can plug in to.
both the M-113, FIST V, Bradley and I think I saw the basic
hardware on an M-1 I was scoping out this weekend at the 
HTTC center at Ft Dix. The canister plugs in to the onboard
system which supplies filtered air but allows you to disconnect
and move out when necessary without losing your filtration
system. We call them Tankers masks as up till a year ago
tankers were the only ones who had them. The full vision
lenses make wearing glasses a breeze for those who do and
allow you to sight normally using an M-16 instead of laying
the weapon on IT's SIDE to sight and shoot using the M-17
mask. The parallax is much better on the M-25 and you dont
trip on obstacles, the M-17 has double lenses that were a 
PIA in the woods and limit you vision by at least 60 percent
on side to side and up down (you have to look down to climb
stairs). The canister on the M-25 stays in the carrying case
untill it needs to be changed. Down side to this is that if
you sit up against something like a vinyl seat, you end up
sucking vacumn. It is not a good Idea to fall asleep
unless you are using the buddy system while wearing one.
Yes there are special glasses available for the M-17
protective mask that fit right inside and stay there even
when stored, the same is not true of the M-25.
None of the NBC stuff is comfortable, easy to wear, con-
venient or 100% effective. The handlers down at FT ****
wear Butyl suits with contained atmospherics under a
protective suit and they dont go to work if they have
any kind of open sore or scratch, he may have been
blowing smoke but it sounded sensible to me.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I by my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>
Subject:  Re:  WANTED:JANES BOOK ON MILITARY COMMUNICATION EQUIP
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:42:55 GMT


From     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>

>From Norman Gillaspie <ucsd!netsys.com!norman@uunet.uu.net>
>I am looking to purhase Janes book on military comm equipment.

I am guessing that you wish to purchase older edition(s) at reduced
prices, as opposed to the current one. If you wanted that, you could
just call up Jane's office and give them your chargecard number and get
one sent immediately... :-)

The Jane's annuals have been remaindered via several mail-order book
sources. The best prices I have gotten on the Military Communications
Annuals have been thru a firm which is now defunct, I believe, and via
Barnes & Noble. However, the latest B&N catalogs don't mention them. 

The following source has them at somewhat higher prices. I bought one
Jane's book from them last year. Their ad is in the Nov 20 '92 Shotgun
News, page 145.

Jane's Military Communications '88-'89, 9th Edition (List $225)
Stock # 14-89 , price $29.99

They have a number of other back volumes; the main one of interest to
this list probably is the '88-'89 "Infantry Weapons" one, at $49.99
(Stock # 14-44).

No mention of postage costs; their "special offer" of one of each of the
14 different editions they have for $299 says "postpaid", but the other
items don't mention postage surcharges.

Address & phone:

Global Sales, Ltd.
Airport Rd.
Minden, NV 89423-9030

702-782-4400 or 800-722-4400

Regards, Will
wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jeffrey K Ooi <ooi@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Jutland
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:43:49 GMT


From Jeffrey K Ooi <ooi@latcs1.lat.oz.au>

In article <BxID0D.LAD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Charles Meo <cm@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
>
>From Charles Meo <cm@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
>
>mmzn@rice.edu (Mark Mazina) writes:
>
>The whole battle was an accident anyway, because the Germans thought they
>were taking on just the battlecruiser squadrons and got a very nasty surprise
>when the rest of the grand Fleet turned up behind them. Similarly, the 
>battlecruisers were never intended to slug it out with the entire German
>fleet, though they were so pretty everyone thought they could...

Not quite an accident, the British knew what was going on...they intercepted
Hipper's Plans to lure a sizeable British squadron, preferably Beatty's
and lead it back into a trap set by 16 dreadnoughts and 6 others...quite 
an inconvience.  It was the result of this message that prompted the British
to set an near identical trap by the Grand Fleet - although they didn't tell
Beatty that!

>If an engine of war can be said to be beautiful then those battlecruisers
>(on both sides) will get my nomination.

  Beatutiful ...yes! but as far as surviveability goes....well,
I don't know ... those battlecrusiers took quite a pounding in Jutland
even the famous 'Lion' almost bought it, give me a dreadnought any day!
(or if period holds no bounds - a 'Yamato')

-- 
  Jeffrey (George bush) Ooi |   Ghostrider, you're instructed to land...    
  La Trobe University       |   Land Immediately!  What're you doin' Mav?
  Australia                 |   We ain't got no fuel for this...

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Battleship Potemkin
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:43:59 GMT


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


Iskandar Taib writes:
#Of what importance was the Potemkin to the Tsarist navy? Was it
#a flagship, a major capital ship, or a ship of lesser importance?
#Not having seen the movie I'm curious as to what the mutiny was
#about and when it took place. Was the movie a Soviet propoganda
#thing glorifying the Revolution?

POTEMKIN was a battleship. This makes her a "major capital ship" and
thus important to the Tsarist navy, as all battleships were to all
navies at that time.

The mutiny occurred after the end of the Russo-Japanese War. There was
major discontent in the navy WRT the incopetent leadership, which was
blamed for the decisive Russian defeat at Tsushima. The actual incident
whick sparked the mutiny in POTEMKIN and a destroyer was a delivery of
spoiled meat to the ships. I guess this was still more evidence of the
corruption of the Tsarist government.

The Communists evidently considered the POTEMKIN mutiny the spiritual
precursor to the October Revolution of 1917.


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: oyvinw@ifi.uio.no (\yvin Wormn{s)
Subject: Re: Rivet popping
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:40:02 GMT


From oyvinw@ifi.uio.no (\yvin Wormn{s)

In article <BxICv5.L66@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:
>
>From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
>
>
>German Type VIIC U-boats were welded. _Das_Boot_ used the popping rivets
>for dramatic effect. Somebody posted a lengthy dissertation on the
>story in alt.war mentioned this.
>
The popping rivets in Das Boot were not hull rivets.  The submarine
has a cooling system that pumps seawater through a number of
cooling pipes,  riveted together.  This was told to me by a friend 
who was on a similar submarine.  A closer look on the movie seems to
support this.

Regardless,  it's an excellent movie,  especially the six-hour-version.
Shudder.


Oyvin Wormnaes					oyvinw@ifi.uio.no


Newsgroups: sci.military