HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PFAN000 <PFAN@music.lib.matc.edu>
Subject: RE: USS Abraham Lincoln
Organization: Milwaukee Area Technical College
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:28:12 GMT


From PFAN000 <PFAN@music.lib.matc.edu>

>Can anyone point me to information on the USS Abe Lincoln?  Is it a Super
>Carrier?  How big?  How old?
>
>[mod note - the Abraham Lincoln is a Nimitz class (therefor, probably in
>the Super Carrier ranks :-).  It was comissioned a year or so ago.  Don't
>know if it has gone on any deployments yet

Ahh memories...I remember when Abe was nothing but pieces of a puzzle
at Newport News Shipyard....back when I precommed the THEODORE
ROOSEVELT, we had to walk through the shipyard to get to TR, passing
the pieces that would one day form ABE.  For those who haven't seen
carrier construction in progress, it's a sight.

I believe that ABE, shortly after transferring to the West coast,
completed a WestPac, but don't quote me on that.  It is most
definitely a Super Carrier, as is TR, and now GEORGE WASHINGTON
(CVN-73).

Pete Fanning
Computer Operator
Office of Information Technology
Milwaukee Area Technical College

Internet: pfan@music.lib.matc.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:29:35 GMT


From MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu>

In article <Bzs8Jz.L0o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov> writes:
>Gee, I didn't know that these aircraft can withstand having about 100 deplete
>uranium shots hit them with the same shells that kill tanks.  ;-)

The major componentes on the AH-64 and A-10 are armored against 23mm AA rounds
such as those fired by the ZSU-23-4 air defense weapon. The cockpit on the 
A-10 is also arnored against 30mm AA rounds such as the ZSU-30 uses...

>Also, unless my memory has failed me, I thought Phalanx shoots 30mm shells 
>just like the GAU-8A and I thought that the Phalanx gun is a GAU-8A on a ship 
>platform.  If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

The USN Phalanx system aka the CIWS (Close In Weapons System) is a General
Electric M61A1 six barrelled 20mm Vulcan cannon in a modular unit with a radar
unit on top and a self contained ammunition feed. Thr overall shape has led
to the nickname R2D2.

The General Electric GAU8A seven barrelled 30mm Avenger cannon is part of the
similar Goalkeeper system used by a few European navies. It is a much larger
blockier structure, although still modular. 

For either you need to supply a mounting platform and power supply, the unit
is self-contained.

The Avenger is carried by the A-10 and the only other cannon I know which uses
the same shells are the single barrelled guns on the German GEpard air
defense vehicle.

The Vulcan is carried by the F-4, -14, -15, -16, -18... Some F-111s, the 
B-52H (tailgun), used by the M-163 (based on the M-113), as a towed unit for
area defense. I belive the F-22 will use it or the new 25mm GE weapon. ie it
is VERY popular and in enxtensive US service. One of the main reasons it was
choosen for the CIWS. Years of experience, whereas the Avenger is not nearly 
as wide spread.

###############################################################################
# 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: edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy)
Subject: Re: no cannister-was re:tank vs. helo
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:01:14 GMT


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

In article <BzH4v8.AnI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> eachus@oddjob.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>
>From "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@oddjob.mitre.org>
>
>In article <BzD4x9.J70@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>   actually there was a round for the 105 mm that fired a whole bunch of
>   flechettes (sorta like real small darts) which were quite effective at
>   shredding anything (soft) in their path. I imagine these would compare
>   favourably to the cannister rounds you were reffering to. They did not
>   bother to make such a round for the 120mm for some reason that I don't
>   understand.
>
>   Sounds like the Beehive round that was available for 105 mm
>howitzers when I was in, but I don't think it was converted for the
>M-60.  I'll check.  Beehive and cannister however are different in
>intended application, the Beehive is intended to cover a wide area on
>a relatively high trajectory, so the emphasis is on lots of (small)
>projectiles.  Cannister is much more of a low trajectory round
>intended to clear the field, so it has much larger projectiles, and
>does a great job of clearing jungle so you can see what is there.

Beehive does exist for the 105 used on the M60 and M1.  I'm not sure
if it's still issued, but we're told how to employ it and it's general
effectiveness. (Employ against massed troops, effectiveness very
high.)  Our version is a flat trajectory round, and acts more like the
cannister round described above.

The round has a time fuse on the front of it, which can be set
for various bursting distances.  Upon bursting, a cloud of 5000 darts
spreads out in a cone about 300m wide at 300m after opening.  The
darts look like nails with small razor blades as fins.  The comment by
our instructors was that anything in that cone won't even look human.
The darts are light enough that they won't do much to anything armored
or under cover.


>
>--
>
>					Robert I. Eachus
>
>with Standard_Disclaimer;
>use  Standard_Disclaimer;
>function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Donald R. Newcomb" <dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu>
Subject: Re: Swiss military preparedness??
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:29:32 GMT


From "Donald R. Newcomb" <dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu>

In article <Bzs8Jq.KxF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> durin!huntsville.sparta.com!valle@uunet.UU.NET (Tony Valle) writes:
>I think the driving issue of an armed militia versus a true modern
>army is one of logistics. 
[snip]
>As Dan Sorenson pointed out -- the invading army would control the
>roads. And by extension, they also control the ports, the airports,
>and the manufacturing facilities. And while it is true that going out
>in small groups into the surrounding countryside might prove unhealthy
>for the invaders, direct frontal assault on military encampments would
>be suicidal for the militia. WIthout the ability to dislodge an 
>occupation force from key production areas, it's only a matter of
>time before shortages in ammunition, fuel, parts, and food render the 
>militia militarily ineffective.

In the  context of the  Swiss militia, I believe that most planning
presumes that they will continue to hold their national fortress in
the core of the Alps no matter what. Given a relatively secure area
of retreat and resupply and the widespread idea that  those Alps are
hollowed out and stuffed with war materials, could go a long way toward
aleviating the problem of supply. During the American Revolution, even
though the British troops were superior in most respects, there were
places that they could never penetrate  due to a strong militia (e.g.
central Connecticut). These formed the supply base for Washington's
army, and made a war of attrition unwinable.
-- 

Donald R. Newcomb                * Life only admits two states: 
dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu        * growing and dying. So what,
newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet            * if I've put on a little weight?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>
Subject: Re: Rearwards firing missiles
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:24:47 GMT


From Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>

In article <Bzq2JE.49H@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> scw@ollie.seas.ucla.edu writes:
>
>From scw@ollie.seas.ucla.edu
>
>
>In article <BzD4x0.J3s@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> megazone@buckaroo.wpi.edu (MegaZone23) writes:
>>
>>Oh, how quaint. He dropped a rocket in my path. *dodge*....
>>
>>You need something that has sufficient velocity to vector in on a high
>>speed agile target. A smart pilot won't follow a straight line.
>
>I think that you miss the point, *dodge* OPPS, there went my carefully setup
>attack, just as was getting into gun-range/missile-lock/IR-tone.
>Damn now were'd that SOB get to, Hmmm, better bug out.

Like the wingman of the plane you're attacking doesn't already suffice for
this.  Now big and slows a slightly different problem (i.e. AWACS), but
they're already strongly defended.  And when it comes to the penetrating
bombers, again maneuvarability is their asset.  And in a dog-fight, ranges
are in the 2-10 mile range.  By the time your dropped missile deploys,
scans, targets and attacks, you're DEAD.  An AIM9-L can be up your pipe
before you know it, with the shot not even having to come from directly
astern.

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



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Michael Gallagher <gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Subject: Somalia - USMC/TOWs/Amtracs
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:38:09 GMT


From Michael Gallagher <gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil>


Several clarifications / additions to postings on Somolia:

    The AAV7A1 is not a cousin to the M-113.  The AAV is much larger,
carries more, is fully amphibious, and the USMC has never operated the
M-113. The only relationship is that both were made by FMC.

    The AAV with the upgunned turret mounts the Mk-19 40mm grenade launcher
and the M2HB .50 cal.

    The AAV mounts two type of armor applique - the ones seen in Somolia
is the Enhance Armor Applique Kit (EAAK), which is spaced steel plates and
obliquity (corrugated pattern) to defeat incoming rounds.  AAV's during
Desert Storm mounted the AAK which is spaced, flat steel plates.

    Yes, a TOW could probably destroy any USMC vehicle in Somolia with
the possible exception of the M60 with reactive armor.  Its probably classified
whether the armor will defeat the TOW.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stephen Harker <phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Iowa Class Battleships
Followup-To: re: naval trivia
Organization: Physics Department
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:36:36 GMT


From Stephen Harker <phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>

In article <BzH510.AxB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle) writes:
> 
> The Iowa-class Battleships were designated 'fast battleships' capable
> of speeds up to 33 knots.  The 'slow battleships' were to start with
> BB 67 of the Montana class.  The Montana class would have carried the
> 18 in. turrets available at the time and would be capable of speeds
> up to 27 knots.

	18 in. turrets?  Do you mean 18 in armour or guns?  Every source I
have read has described the Montana class as being designed for 12 (4x3)
16 in guns of the same type as were installed in the Iowa class.

-- 
Stephen Harker			phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Monash University		Baloney baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: helos vs. tanks
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:28:15 GMT


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


>From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>

( Stuff deleted)
>Yeah, I'm familiar with the ADATS.  It's always a subject of controversy, what
>with the Canadian Armed Forces always having to squeeze blood out of a stone
>come budget time.  It seems like a great idea, but there are a few nagging
>problems that come to mind.

>First, it started out as a Bofors system.  Martin Marietta bought the rights

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. ADATS was developed by Oerlikon
from Switzerland. 

cheers


--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"Another casualty of applied meta-physics!" -- Hobbes

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: patterso@ADS.COM (Tim J. Patterson)
Subject: land based Phalanx
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:24:01 GMT


From patterso@ADS.COM (Tim J. Patterson)

>Why not take the US Navy's Phalanx CIWS and mount it on top of a Bradley if
>you want a gatling gun for AAW.  It has its own tracking and fire control 
>system and the magazine can be modified so as to fit down inside of the 
>Bradley so that it can shoot more than the 900 rounds on the Navy ships.
>Besides it was designed for shooting down missiles and aircraft within 6000
>yards and is of a modular design to boot (i.e. all you need is the proper
>power supply and the connections for the operator's control panel).

>Don Palmrose
>"There are only two kinds of ships....  Those that project power onto shore
>and those that protect or support the power projectors."


Several people have proposed this idea in one variant or another.  I
would guess though that the tracking radar used to track the shells
might have substantial problems if used in many land environments.
The ocean is one of the cleanest possible radar environments even in
heavy seas.  When the clutter is compared to that found in many types
of terrain, I would not be supprised to see the performance degrade to
be unacceptable.

Tim


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mnelson@oin.cis.udel.edu (Mark Nelson)
Subject: Re: Believe it or not
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:28:16 GMT


From mnelson@oin.cis.udel.edu (Mark Nelson)

In article <C0171t.393@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:

>The 11/92 issue of Military Technology contains a large advertisement
>for the MiG-31. The specs they publish are:

(lots of interesting specs deleted)

>Take-off run                              1,200 km
                                                 ^^

This sounds optimized for Russia.  I guess they shouldn't count on
selling any to small countries?  (:-)*
-- 
This function is occasionally useful as an argument to other functions
which require functions as arguments.-- Guy Steele Jr. CLTL

Mark Nelson                                       mnelson@cis.udel.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Max Abramowitz <madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:27:56 GMT


From Max Abramowitz <madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>

In <BzMA51.1oq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ksw3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (KENNETH
STARR WATSON) writes: 

>From ksw3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (KENNETH STARR WATSON)


>Why not add a 30mm GAU-8A cannon (the kind the A-10 carries) to the
>Bradley.  Supposedly its extremely effective against armor and would
>probably make a decent point defence weapon as well?  There's always
>the ammo problem, but if you took an M3 and removed the TOWs you
>would probably have more than enough room for ammo.  The only problem
>is that I don't know how effective the GAU-8A would be against
>missles and such.  Just a random thought.
>
>        Ken Watson
>        Ksw3@lehigh.edu

Mounting a 30mm GAU on a ground vehicle probably would not work.  At
least if it did work it would not be as effective as the same weapon
mounted on an airborne platform.  

The A-10's GAU is effective, because it targets the thinner top armor
of tanks and armored vehicles.

In addition, the planes airspeed increases the relative muzzle
velocity.  Does anybody know if this is a significant factor to the
effectivness of the GAU on an A-10 (or any airplane for that matter)

max abramowitz
m-abramowitz@uchicago.edu




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: CBU against ships?
Organization: Chalmers Tekniska Lekskola, G|teborg, G|taland
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:33:15 GMT


From Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>

In article <BzH50y.AwI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
>a saturation CBU attack

>Good idea?  Fatal flaw?  Simulated and shown not to work?

  At least one type of cluster bomb uses a ground bounce to slow the bomblets
down and to make them explode at a certain altitude, that type would be 
eminently unusable against ships. The anti-armour types on the other hand
should have quite an effect. 

  Some accounts of the skirmishes in the Gulf of Sidra claim that the USN
used Rockeyes against the Libyan FFL's.

>Joe

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Subject: Re: No Army Needed( was: Swiss military preparedness?)
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:22:23 GMT


From adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)

In article <Bzo8uF.CFq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu> writes:
>
>From PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu>

>A small legal point.  A civilian can not shoot a member of an invading
>army.  To do so is legally murder and the invading army would be quite within
>its rights to try and execute the civilian.  This actually makes sense.  If
>we write the rules so the soldiers can't deliberately shoot the civilians, 
>it's only reasonable that it works both ways.

In that case, was it illegal for Afghanis to shoot Soviet soldiers?
That doesn't make (much) sense to me.  It seems that people should
have a right to defend their homes.

Could you provide some sort of a legal pointer so I could do some
reading on this?

Thanks,

Adam



Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Number Forty in the Series--Curtiss P-40 (5 of 11)
Keywords: P-40G, P-40J
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:24:49 GMT


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


The designation P-40G was given to 44 existing P-40s that were fitted 
with H81-A2 Tomahawk IIa wings that carried four 0.30-inch machine 
guns.  These retrofits took place between August and September 1941.  
Company records refer to these conversions under the designation Model 
81-AG.  Serials of P-40s retrofitted were as follows: 

  39-162,176,181,187,190,191,196,197,204,206,209,217,220,221,226,235,238, 
  248,257,263,267,275,276,279,288 and 
  40-292,297,299/301,303,309,315,318,320,323,331/333,335/338.  

For some reason, P-40 Ser no 39-221 was unofficially designated XP-40G 
(company Model 81-AG).  

Some sources have at least some of these P-40Gs being assigned new 
Army serial numbers after these modifications were completed.  These 
new serial numbers included: 

42-14261/14274 		Curtiss P-40G Warhawk 
42-14277/14278 		Curtiss P-40G Warhawk 
42-14281 		Curtiss P-40G Warhawk 

However, these numbers conflict with those assigned to an order for 
P-40L-30-CUs which was cancelled.  

Sixteen of these P-40Gs were shipped to the USSR starting in October 
1941.  All those examples remaining in the USA were redesignated 
RP-40G in October 1942, where the R meant "restricted from combat 
use".  

39-221 was shipped to the USSR in 1943.  

For some reason, the designation P-40H was never assigned.  The 
designation P-40I was never assigned in any case, lest the letter "I" 
be confused with the number one.  

The designation P-40J was given to a projected version of the P-40E 
which was to have a turbosupercharged engine.  This study was 
abandoned in May 1942 without anything ever being built.  

Sources:

  War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,
  Doubleday, 1964.

  The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

  United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter 
  M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

  Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 1979.

  The Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk, Ray Wagner, Aircraft in Profile, Volume 2,
  Doubleday, 1965.

  The Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawk I-IV, Ray Wagner, Aircraft in Profile, 
  Volume 6, Doubleday, 1969.

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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Norman Yarvin <yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Swiss military preparedness??
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:24:58 GMT


From Norman Yarvin <yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu>

emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:

>The guerilla doesn't need fuel, because he has no heavy vehicles to
>slow him down. Nor does he need parts that aren't available on the
>local economy.

If a guerrilla war were waged in a country with as many cars and trucks as
the US, and if civilians were allowed to possess vehicles, there would be
little obstacle to guerrilla use of cars and trucks.  And if civilians were
not allowed to possess vehicles, the economy would be destroyed.

> The 
>guerilla is like the sea, he flows gracefully away from strong forces, 
>but comes back again and again eroding away the enemy's strength in 
>tiny nibbles and bites.

This strategy almost assumes omniscence on the part of the guerrilla.  How
is a guerrilla force to know that a strong enemy force is coming, so that it
can "flow gracefully away"?  By the time he has collided with the enemy
force, it is too late.  Just running away won't work.  The invader's forces
will have far greater mobility, since they can use helicopter transport.

The Vietcong habitually sent a man or two to follow each US detachment and
report on its position.  Indeed at least one of our units made a regular
practice of ambushing these followers and leaving boobytraps for them.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military