HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dwight Jackson <jackson@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Gyro Jet Rocket Pistol
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:42:02 GMT


From Dwight Jackson <jackson@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>

RE: Gryo Jets

||
||>BTW, a long time ago I heard somethign about a Gyro-Jet gun, using
||>small rocket slugs instead of bullets.  Whatever happened to this?
||
||	Expensive, unreliable, inaccurate.  Died young.  The surviving rounds
||	are now collectors items, as are the weapons.  (Full stability isn't
||	achieved untill full spin speed is reached.  Which is AFTER it clears
||	the muzzle.  Also, full kinetiic energy is not available at short
||	range.)
||
||thanks
||dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
||

Reasonably true.  The project was dead as a military item due to the above,
but they were sticking with the civilian side of things when they were forced
to retool from their 13mm diameter "normal" pistol/carbine load (greater than
the .500" as per the 1968 BAFT changes).  They had branched out into survival
loads such as flares and the like and were reasonably sucessful at that point.
There was a survival pistol with a .38 Spl revolver combined with a second
flare launching barrel (sort of a modern Le Mat pistol I suppose...).

(they had experimented with cartridges from about 1/16" diameter to about
 30 or 40mm or so.  They even had a 20mm version that was fired from a
 modified shotgun.  But the majority of their development energy went into
 the 13mm pistol and carbine loads.  A pistol cartridge is about 1.25" long
 -30mm- and the carbine load is about 2" -50mm-.)

As a side note, Dr. Mainhardt (the M in MBA & Associates who brought out the
designs) has recently retooled and done one lot of 20,000 Gryo Jet cartridges
and hopes to do another lot of 25,000 more.  Also, new manufacture pistols
($495) and carbines ($795) are now being offered again (how many, who knows).

...dwight

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Aircraft Carriers & In-flight refueling - what's so hard?
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:59:55 GMT


From bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au

> From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
>> From Mike.Hoffmann@sniap.mchp.sni.de (Mike Hoffmann)
>> So what makes in-flight refueling and AC's so special and difficult that
>> the Soviets never really mastered the latter and China just now managed
>> to get the former?
>>
>> I had thought it was more a matter of training and practise, but the
>> remarks made it seem as if it was also a problem that only the high-tech
>> West had managed to solve.
>
> Nothing hi-tech about it. It's a classic 'people-problem'. Before you can
> train someone to do something you have to be able to do it yourself &
> they don't know how to do it! Buying an a/c carrier doesn't teach you how
> to conduct air ops. You need years of experience & they don't have it. It's

        The USSR had help from India when it was developing it's air ops for
the Kuznetsov. While the USSR had been using VTOL Forgers on the Kiev class
carriers, operating CTOL aircraft on a carrier with a "skijump" launching
ramp was a whole new area which the USSR had no experience with. India has
been operating Sea Harriers on the INS Vikrant (ex-Royal Navy HMS Hermes)
for several years now, and was (at that time) probably the only country
willing to provide this sort of support to the USSR .

        Military trivia question of the week. Who's heard of "pycrete"
and the giant carrier made of ice (I kid you not!) that was almost built
by the Allies during WW2? Even Winston Churchill was promoting the idea
at one time.

[ mod note -- I've heard of it.  Even remember reading an article a few
years ago about it in either _Air and Space_ or the other magazine put out
by the Smithsonian Institution -- Steve ]


           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jwtlai@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Jim W "GrimJim" Lai)
Subject: Re: Osmium????? (Re: depleted uranium)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:17:25 GMT


From jwtlai@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Jim W "GrimJim" Lai)

In article <BtspJx.wt@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ahahma@utu.fi (Arno Hahma) writes:
>Tantalum would be an _excellent_ material for shaped charges, indeed.
>It is about the most ductile of the metals, very dense (almost as
>dense as uranium), inert like platinum (won't combust on hitting
>something), high melting (about 3000 oC, a great advantage). Tungsten
>is also very good for shaped charges, at least it gives a few tens of
>per cent increase in performance compared to copper. I am quite sure
>tantalum would outperform it.

Hm.  How hard does this stuff have to be?  My CRC gives a melting point of
2996 C and a density of 16.6 g/cm^3 for tantalum.  Tungsten melts at 3410 C
(+/- 20) and has a density of 19.35 g/cm^3.  What properties make tungsten
less desirable?


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych)
Subject: Re: Voice Powered Phones
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:27:58 GMT


From tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych)

leads51.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com!mcfar@leadsv (Randy McFarland) writes:


>From Randy McFarland <leads51.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com!mcfar@leadsv>


>Somebody mentioned voice powered phones on ships a while ago.  I
>was wondering how do voice powered phones work?  Are they just tubes 
>and purely mechanical or is enough electricity generated by action of 
>the michrophone to power a communication circuit?

Just a guess, but it might work on the piezoelectric principle.  Sound waves 
striking a crystal produce an electric current, the frequency and amplitude of
which carry the voice information to the other end of the wire, where a speaker
turns it back into sound.  I know, the physics isn't right (I think it's a
voltage that is produced in the cell, which induces a current.  I don't really
remember it that well.)  Just a very much simplified explanation...

Tom Zych   tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Re: The Bf-109E: A Copy of The Spitfire?
Summary: Spitfire and Bf 109E evolved in parallel
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:53:15 GMT


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

In article <Bu9Hs9.GoE@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:
> I have always been a big airplane buff since I can remember.  I was reading an 
> article that claimed the famous german World War II fighter the BF-109E was
> a modified copy of the Spitfire...I dunno by looking at them but I would like
> to know if anyone had any information about this. 

No, the Bf 109 does not owe anything to the Spitfire.  True, they  are
both  single-engined,  low-wing  monoplane fighters powered by liquid-
cooled, in-line V-engines, but there the similarity ends.

The two aircraft were,  in  fact,  parallel  projects  which  appeared
almost  simultaneously on drawing boards in Germany and Great Britain,
and evolved more or less independently of each other.

The Bf 109 first appeared  on  the  drawing  boards  of  the  Augsburg
factory   of   Bayerishe   Flugzeugwerke  early  in  1934  to  meet  a
specification  drawn  up  by  the  *Luftwaffenfuhrungsstab*.   Drawing
heavily  on  experience  with  the Bf 108 touring monoplane, the first
prototype (designated Bf 109 V1, carrying civil  registration  D-IABI)
flew  for  the  first  time in September 1935 powered by a Rolls-Royce
Kestrel of 695 hp.  After many iterations, including the  substitution
of a Junkers Jumo and finally a Daimler-Benz engine, this aircraft was
to evolve in late 1938 into the famous Bf 109E variant which was to be
so  impressive  during  the  first  year of the Second World War.  The
first Bf 109E appeared in squadron service in the spring of 1939.

The  Supermarine   Spitfire   originated   in   Ministry   of   Supply
Specification  F  37/34 issued in July 1934 which called for a fighter
carrying eight machine guns.  The Supermarine Type 300  was  submitted
in  response  to this specification, and drew heavily on Supermarine's
experience with Schneider Cup seaplane racers.   The  first  prototype
(K5054)  flew  on  March  5, 1936 powered by a 990 hp Merlin C engine.
The Spitfire Mk 1 was to enter RAF service in August, 1938.

Sources:

  Bruce Robertson,  Spitfire--The  Story  of a  Famous  Fighter,  Aero
  Publishers, 1961.

  William Green, Warplanes of the Third Reich, Doubleday, 1970

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



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:23:47 GMT


From z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu

In article <BuBLLn.GC1@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Mark Miller <msmiller@ctbu.rational.com> writes:
> 
> The 262 had phenominal speed for the day, plus 4 30mm cannon. In short,
> it could not be caught if it didn't want to be and could bring down a
> B17 in a few seconds. Most of the kills recorded against the Me262
> were recorded while it was orbitting its base to land. This was the
> only time when the 262 was vulnerable and by war's end there were Me109's
> and Fw190's assigned to each Me262 base for protection of the jets during
> landing.

	The 262 had a top speed of about 520-540 mph, about 100mph faster
than the Allied front-line fighters.

> 
> Early and proper insertion of the Me262 into the skies over Germany
> would have almost certainly forced the USAAF to abandon daylight
> precision bombing. Even with the hundreds of escort fighters being
> sent up, the 262 was just too fast.
	
	Though the 262 was originally designed as a fighter, Hitler changed the
project to bomber. Eventually, he was persuaded to change it back, but a lot of
time was lost in the proccess.

> 
> It would not, however, have changed the outcome of the war. Only the
> amount of time it took.

	True. One aircraft cannot win a war.

> 
> One has to wonder, however, what sort of technology we'd be using
> today if large scale use of jet fighters and bombers had begun as
> early as 1943.

	I remember (on Wings, on the Discovery Channel, I think) it being
mentioned that the the Germans had plans for a long range jet bomber which
could have reached US airspace by the end of the war. They also had a stealth
fighter project that was years ahead of anything the Allies had envisioned to
that point.
	In a way, this was all part of the technological problems the Germans
had in the last few years of WWII -- they used precious rescources and
personnel on projects that could not have helped them win the war (the Maus
comes to mind here) or at least draw it out (note: the Me262 *was* a good
project).

Brandon Cope
 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: propeller planee's anti-torque problem
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:49:39 GMT


From megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <Bu9I1M.H1M@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>Yes! This is a rather extreme form of P-factor, which gets worse and 
>worse as you add to the velocity of the relative wind. If you think 
>about it Airwolf was silly because eventually the airspeed would equal 
>the speed of the receding blade and you'd be producing lift off one side 
>of the rotor disk only. They could at least have made it a twin rotor 
>helicopter  9-)

aha! If you recall your Airwolf physics, the rotor was disconnected at high
speeds, set to a neutral pitch, and allowed to free wheel. The stub wings and
body provided all the lift while the boosters were in operation.

Hey, give them a break, it was just a Bell 222 with some extra fibreglas.

I don't think Sikorsky would lend them the ABC test articles to film a TV show.

Now, if someone could explain how it could fire Sidewiders, Sparrows, 
Durrandals, *COPPERHEADS*, and some nuclear missile (SRAM?) out of those little
tubes? (I think it had Mavericks and Hellfires too...)

Especially when Copperheads are a cannon round?

###############################################################################
# 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: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Chinese buy Russian Carrier & Arms sale to Iran
Followup-To: alt.war
Summary: possible Asian regional arms race
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:23:54 GMT


From bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au

dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:

> I just recieved my September issue of _Proceedings_.  On page 123 of "World
> Naval Developments" by Norman Friedman is the follow box article. Quote:
>
>                           CHINESE BUY RUSSIAN CARRIER

[ Note about China buying the unfinished Varyag, sister ship to the
Kuznetsov and 22 Su-27K navalised Flankers deleted ]

        I've been expecting to hear this ever since the USSR breakup.
China, Vietnam, Malaysia and The Phillipines have been arguing over
ownership of the Spratlay Islands for a while now, but none of them has
had the naval muscle to make the others back off (The Spratlay Islands
are roughly half way between Vietnam and the Phillipines).

        With China aquiring mid-air refuelling and a new (if incomplete)
carrier, the deadlock is broken. As I see it, a regional arms race is
highly likely. Taiwan and S Korea will not be happy at all. I also
expect China to either purchase or develop cruise missile technology,
possibly as part of an SSGN program. They already have an SSBN program,
and much of the sub technology can be carried over to SSGN's.

           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:23:34 GMT


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <BuKpI0.Bvq@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian) writes:

> >In addition to this, Eisenhower regarded the bombing campaign as a means
> >to eliminate the Luftwaffe as a threat to his forces on D-Day. The entire
> >series of raids known as the "Big Week" was designed to ground the German
> >fighters (at least temporarily). Without the daylight bombing raids in this
> >period, D-Day would not have occurred - ever.
> 
>   I must take issue with this also. The raids of the "Big Week" were intended
> to destroy the French and German rail transportation system, which they 
did.

The latest history books are agreeing that destroying the Luftwaffe was
the goal of "Big Week".  Forcing the Germans to abandon the airfields
in France, which pulled them too far from the coast to react to the
invasion was the desired effect, and this is what happened.  

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 6 September, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:15:25 GMT


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

Sunday, 6 September, 1942

The new German Me 210 fighter-bomber makes its combat debut over 
Yorkshire, where two are shot down by RAF Typhoons.

American B-17's attack the Rouen railyards, while the RAF's bombers 
stage a night raid on Duisburg.  The Eighth Air Force loses its first heavy
bomber when two B-17's are shot down over Meaulte, France.

Both sides reinforce their efforts at Stalingrad.

The battleship USS South Dakota runs onto a coral reef at Tonga and 
is forced back to port for extensive repairs.

Reporter: Dennis Sparks (sparks@caer.uky.edu)
Reference: R. Freeman, _The Mighty Eighth War Diary_
           D. Morris, _Aces and Wingmen II_

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

"Marshal Rommel's position might be compared to that of a man who is
holding on to a doorway with both hands in an effort to prevent his being
ejected." - The New York Times
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:35:22 GMT


From edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy)

In article <Bu0Cvx.5zF@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:
>
>From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
>
>>From davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith)
>
>
>>Why is the top of a tank still the weakest point?  ....
>
>Mostly because the MTBs now in production were designed in the late -70s
>or early -80s, when the top-attack threat wasn't so widespread. .....
>
>I suspect there would be problems with upgrading the top-armor, what with all
>the stuff stuck on the top of the turret.
>
>--
>Erik Svensson			Research Officer


Probably the simplest answer is weight.  Modern MBTs are already at
(over?) the maximum desirable weight for high mobility and transportability.
(M1A2, last I heard, is around 70! tons.)  Tacking on enough armor to defeat
top-attack SFWs and HEAT rounds would either require lessening the frontal
armor or breaking the torsion bars on the suspension.  (Add on extra weight
for the vastly upgraded turret hydraulics you would need as well.)

Space is another one.  Great pains were taken to reduce the height of the
M1 series. (Driver prone, etc..)  The frontal armor on tanks is literally
feet thick: I'm not certain you'd want to increase the silhouette that much.

Note that with current MBT designs, you'd also still have weak points in the
armor: hatches, vision blocks, etc. 

Reactive armor would help with the HEAT rounds and not weigh too much, but
we've still got a lot of 30mm armed planes around...

Basically, you can't armor the whole tank: tradeoffs have to be made.

***WARNING: Unscientific opinions ahead****

Personal view: The modern MBT design is a dead end.  Tanks need a radical
redesign to be effective many years in the future.  Weight needs to be 
reduced drastically, as does size, all while keeping armor protection and
the big gun.  One obvious possible solution: put a 2-3 man crew in the hull,
turret consists only of gun and autoloader w/ minimal armor.  Use advanced
ceramics and laminates on the wedge shaped hull: the front of the wedge
would act as both frontal and top armor.  The TC would have to get some
serious optics so he could see the battlefield effectively: GPS recievers
and computerized maps could help command and control.  (The TC's going to
miss his high, panoramic view of the battlefield...) I could go on for hours, 
but I'll stop here...

**** End unscientific opinions ****

Any comments?  




-- 
Eric R.      edremy@d31ha0.Stanford.EDU       Department of Chemistry
                        -1/2\nabla^2\psi_{T-72}

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Fighter escorts (was Re: The German V-2 Rocket)
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:19:18 GMT


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <BuKosn.Asv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:

> As far as I recall, the German fighter commanders wanted to do it like
> this in the Battle of Britain (i.e., hunt the British fighters on
> their own), but were ordered to stay close to the bombers.  I've seen
> several references to this over time.

This is true Markus, the German fighter pilots felt they were hamstrung
by the orders to stick close to the bombers.  This tactic negated their
previously enjoyed advantages of height and speed.  With the new "stick
to the bomber tactics," even though the German fighters outnumbered the
British defenders significantly, they were unable to inflict the
significant rate of attrition they needed to win the battle because
they could no longer seek out and attack the British.  The loss of the
initiative for battle is what some battle analysts considers to be the
significant aspect of the fight.  For the aggressive German fighter
pilot, waiting to be attacked greatly affected moral.  Military
historians will forever wonder at the change of tactics which
effectively lost the battle for the Germans on the verge of winning it,
"snatching defeat from the jaws of victory", as it were.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
Subject: AF News Svc 09/19/92
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:27:01 GMT


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>


718.  F-16 crash
719.  Reservists training
				   &    &    &
718.  F-16 crash
     INCIRLIK AB, Turkey (AFNS) -- The pilot of an F-16 safely ejected from
his aircraft before it crashed about 150 miles east of the base Sept. 8.
     Lt. Col. Don Snelgrove, 86th Wing, Ramstein AB, Germany, was on temporary
duty in support of Operation Provide Comfort.
     Provide Comfort forces fly fighter and reconnaissance missions over
northern Iraq to ensure security of Kurdish citizens in that area.  Forces
from France, Turkey, England and the United States make up the combined task
force.
     The Air Force is investigating the accident.


719.  Reservists training
     HOMESTEAD AFB, Fla. (AFNS) -- Reservists from Homestead will have a unit
training assembly Sept. 12 and 13 at the base and at Kendall-Tamiani Airport,
Fla., officials said.
     People assigned to the 482nd Fighter Wing, including subordinate units,
will meet in hangar 194, at 8 a.m., Sept. 12.  The 301st Rescue Squadron will
meet at the same time at the airport.
     Commanders are allowing a liberal excuse policy for reservists with
pressing family matters, however, unit members must reschedule and complete
their training by the end of September.
     Additionally, reservists without serviceable uniforms may attend the
training in suitable work clothes.  Heavy shoes and long pants are
recommended.
     More information is available by calling toll-free 1-800-354-9886.
Members of the 301st Rescue Squadron may also call (305) 253-8670.

-- 
         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \\  {*}  //                   bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil  
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     / 



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:26:25 GMT


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

In article <BuDEyA.FM3@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:


>Remember that everyone thought that the aircraft would stay fast and
>only missiles would work and there would be no more furballs.  The
>F-104 is the living embodiment of this theory.  It doesn't turn worth
>a damn, even though it does have a gun.

What about even earlier interceptors like the F-89D which was armed 
with a large number of rockets which were fired in salvoes? The idea
was to make beam attacks, not attacks from behind...



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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