HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 22 JAN 93 17:52:08    

In article <C17tCn.4HA@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v111qheg@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
(P. VASILION) writes...
>>: I know that the GAU-8 is a very powerfull gun but I am not sure that
>>: its the most   powerful (Single) Gun. The German Hs-129 mounted a long
>>: barreled 75mm AT Gun which  would stall the Aircraft on the second  or
>>: third shot! I know that the B-25H also  mounted a 75mm Howitzer
				^^^^^

>	B-52 with a 75mm howitzer?
	BEE TWO FIVE.  WW II.  8)>>.  Won't swear to the model, without
	references, one of which is:

>Never heard of this. What is your reference?

	The Machine Gun
	George M Chinn, Lt Col(?), USMC,
	(don't ask me which volume of the 4 or 5...)

	The mission was the "point punch" eventually dealt with with rockets.
	This was a War Department development starting in the late 30s (pre war)
	which made it into limited service.  It was apurpose built piece, by the
	time it made it to service.  (Lt Col Chinn's definition of "machine gun"
	is pretty broad.  The piece in the BEE TWO FIVE had an automatically
	opening breech.  Fired forward, from roughly where the bombardier
	usually was.)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA	
01775				pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: geoffm@netcom.com (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Media mistakes (was Re: Iraq attacks U.S. Navy planes)
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Keywords: international, fighting, non-usa government, government, military
Organization: New World Odor
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:57:29 GMT



In article <C1DF8u.FB@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu 
(Stephen A. Creps) writes:

>   I'm not quite sure how an A-6 can be called a "fighter-bomber" when
>I don't think it's even capable of carrying air-to-air weapons.


It's understandable.  To your typical layman, a bomber is a large airplane
like a B-52.  An A-6, on the other hand, resembles a fighter to the casual
observer because of its size and configuration.  So when such people hear
about such  a fighter-like (to them) airplane dropping bombs, they assume
it must be a fighter-bomber.



Geoff

-- 
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +                Mountain View 
geoffm@netcom.com               + + + + + + + +                California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun) 
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 06:50:14 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <30751@castle.ed.ac.uk> ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk writes:

  > 
  > Wasn't there a Me262 varient with an enormous gun mounted on the nose -
  > I think it was a 40mm cannon. The thing looked ridiculous - its gun
  > projected straight out about 4m from the nose. But I don't have the
  > details - anyone care to elaborate?

The E had a 50mm MK 114 or 48 R4/M spin stabilised 50mm rockets.

Unfortunately this source doesn't have a picture, explanation or any 
other details :-(



Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop)
Subject: Re: Canadians leave CFB Baden-Soellingen
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:32:23 GMT

In article <003166j.22.727622729@axe.acadiau.ca> 003166j@axe.acadiau.ca (JASON WILLIAM JARVIS) writes:
>	So far as I can remember, the last CF-100 was grounded in 1982, but 
>as I don't have any of my books with me, don't hold me to my words.

If ye olde gray matter is working correctly, I saw a very
impressively painted CF-100 at MCAS El Toro, California in Spring
1984.  I believe it was painted with a bird (eagle?) format in
gloss black and light blue; I believe the aircraft was assigned to
a CAF experimental or test unit in BC(?).

And yes, the CF-100 did serve in Germany.  While passing through
Toronto or Ottawa Airport a number of years ago, I was smart enough
to buy a book that gave detailed information on every RCAF
operational squadron from 1918(?) up to the integration of the RCAF
into the Canadian Armed Forces.  If anyone is interested, I can
check tonight to determine the units that operated what version of 
the Canuck in Germany in what years.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: edhresko@hresko.eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC DAVID HRESKO)
Subject: Re: Trivia
Originator: edhresko@c00553-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu
Organization: Techno-Geeks Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:00:40 GMT



	I should comment that the Crusader has the honor of being the first
aircraft to land by itself (that is, made a perfect landing AFTER the pilot 
punched out!!!)

-- 


Eric

******************************************************************************
Eric Hresko		* Mail:  edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu                        
Kanki House of Steaks   * Voice: (why would you want to call?) 1-919-821-5168
Dishwasher 2nd Class    * HK Rules!!! (But a FAL will do in a pinch)         
DISCLAIMER:  I don't wear sandals, eat granola, or tiptoe thru the Tulips    
                                                                             
At what temp will a frog become a superconductor?                             
				-Me at 3 a.m.                                
******************************************************************************
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: CIWS vs Artillery
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:48:21 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <1993Jan18.100412@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>
> Someone posted awhile back about Close In Weapon Systems being 
> incapable to hit incoming shells.
>
> But, according to the WINGS program on the Discovery channel,
> the British CIWS SEA WOLF missile system "outperforms any other
> CIWS in the world".  It is capable of shooting down aircraft,
> missiles, and "even shells from 5.4 inch guns".
> 
>
> TRAVIS

Under ideal conditions, in a smooth sea state, yes, it has been done.  However,
in combat, on a typical North Atlantic day, it will be nearly impossible to do.
The shells have such a small radar signature that, while it is possible, it is 
not at all likely that one will be hit by a Sea Wolf.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Subject: Re: F/A-18 - afterburner in take off?
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:15:53 GMT

l115130@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Lehtonen Tero) writes:

>How are the French doing with their new carriers, then? I think Rafale M just
>finished its carrier landing/take off testing program so they obviously have  
>a suitable type of airplane, but what about the ships (two of them, wasn't it?)
>themselves? They were supposed to be nuclear powered and bigger than current
>Clemenceau-class, but what will they actually be like - or is the whole program
>already cancelled?

No, it is not cancelled, but I don't think the second ship
has been funded yet, but I think it will, since even at
FF 15 billion it is not the most expensive French defence
project currently.

The Rafale M prototype has completed the first of three
series of catapult and arrest trials in USA, all on land. The
reason they don't do it at home is that Rafale is the first
French aircraft to have nose gear catapult attachment, and
Charles de Gaulle the first carrier to have such equipment.
(Does this mean that Crusaders in US service didn't have nose
gear catapult gear too? Incidently, the first one recently
returned from Dassault after refurbishing.)

She will enter service in 1998, and a sister ship (which I have
forgotten the name of) ten years later. The carriers they will
replace, Clemenceau and Foch, which entered servide in 1961-63,
have a displacement of 32 000 tons. The nuclear carriers will be
slightly larger at 35 000 tons, but in most respects have about
50% greater capacity, and a speed of 27 kt. Personell aboard 
will be 1950 including pilots.

Normal complement will be 35-40 aircraft of 20-24 tons. Typically
20+ Rafale M, 2 Hawkeye and 10-15+ helicopters. The flight deck
will be 260 x 65 m in size, which is enough for 20 aircraft,
which can be launched in the space of 10 min.

The two catapults are 75 m and the same as US ones, only 15 m
shorter. Both the one on the angled deck and the one on bow
intrude on the angled deck, so it's not possible to launch and
recover aircraft at the same time. Rafale M has an extensible
nose gear strut, which pushes the nose up powerfully at the end
of the take off run. The three arresting cables are also variants
of US designs. They'll stop a 23 ton aircraft landing at 130 kt
in 100 m.

With 20 aircraft on the deck, they have to be moved between bow
and stern to make way for operations. Two lifts with a capacity
of 36 tons can each take two aircraft at a time. There is a
separate ammunition lift.

The ship has an interesting stabilizing system, which can be
optimized either to keep the bow or stern stabilized. It predicts
large movements that cannot be compensated for, and can thus
several seconds in advance give the signal to abort landings.
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:57:46 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <81261@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and Mighty Confused) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan21.132623@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
|> > Huh, really?  It generates enough recoil to negate the thrust of
|> > two turbo-fan jet engines?  Can someone else confirm this?
|> 
|> Yes, it does.  Per "Modern Air Combat" by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick, pages
|> 36-37...I quote, with deference to the authors (this is from a caption):
|> 
|>      "A firing run by a Fairchild A-10A can be devastating, though the
|>       gun's recoil is enormous and quickly slows the aircraft."
|> 
|> Is that authoritative enough?

 Yep, thanks.

 Travis
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: AIM-9 on A-6's
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:58:17 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <1993Jan19.102515.22720@syma.sussex.ac.uk> mppd5@syma.sussex.ac.uk (John Coley) writes:
>	I am an air-wargamer, playing Air Power-The Speed of Heat (great
>game by the way :-) ) and I have a query. In the game (and its
>predecessors), the A-6 is listed as able to carry AIM-9 sidewinders.
>None of my sources show Intruders with any form of ATA capability. So
>can anyone tell me;
>	1/. Was (is) any mark of A-6 wired for AIM-9
>	2/. If so, were any ever actually carried operationally
>	3/. Have they ever been used.

It doesn't take much to wire an aircraft to fire the AIM-9.  While it is very 
possible that the various models of A-6 can carry the Sidewinder, it is equally
as unlikely that they would enjoy any success versus other aircraft.  While it 
is rather maneuverable for a bomber, it is just that, a bomber, and one of the 
best ones in the world.  

Incidentally, in the cancelled A-6F program, one of the possibilities being 
considered was the use of the AIM-120A AMRAAM.  This missile requires little 
more than a small radar to give it an initial steer toward the target, and then
the inertial and active radar guidance take over.  This would make a hell of a 
self defense weapon.  

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pwg25888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Patrick W. Grady)
Subject: Re: The Gattling Gun
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:39:47 GMT

tz10956@meibm20.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
annon, 

>>The GAU-8/A Avenger 7-barrel 30mm gatling gun is also produced by GE. It's
>>sole aircraft use was on the A-10 Thunderbolt II. It can fire between 7,000
>>and 8,000 rpm, but is normally limited to around 4,000. The Avenger forms the
>>basis for the Goalkeeper CIWS used by a few navies. 

>The GAU-8's ROF is pilot selectable at 2100 or 4200 rpm.  Goalkeeper was 
>designed by (I think) the Dutch, and the Soviets, er, Russians also have a
>Gatling 30mm CIWS on their ships.  The Russian version is only six barrels
>if I remember correctly, and lacks the autonomous track-and-fire capability
>of Phalanx and Goalkeeper.

>>There is also the Minigun 6-barrel 7.62mm gatling gun used by the USAF in 
>>several Gunships, such as the AC-17, AC-119, and AC-130. It has also been
>>mounted on helicopters, such as the UH-1 Huey and on various HH-3s, MH-53s, etc

>>There is also the GEPod, a gatling gun pod which has a scaled down GAU-8/A, 
>>I believe the GAU-13... with 3 or 5 barrels, I'm not sure....

>>GE is currently supposed to be developing a 25mm Gatling for use on the F-22
>>and future fighters, I'm not sure of the designation.

I thought the F-22 was supposed to use the GAU-12, the 25mm Gatling that
is close to the physical dimensions of the M-61 and is (possibly) installed
in the AV-8B.

>>There are other gatling types, a 3 barrel weapon I THINK the M197 mounted on
>>the chin turret of AH-1 Cobras. The AV-8B Harrier carries a 25mm gatling in
>>US service.

>The Harrier carries a single barrel 25mm, not a gatling, doesn't it?

>There is also a 5.56mm gatling, I don't know the designation. (Or if it was
>even anything more than a demonstration model...)

Yes, the M-136 Six-Pac, used from tripod or helicopter mounts.  It supposedly
has a variable fire rate because if it is being carried by infantry, because
ammo is heavy.  This is the gun that was used in both Predator and T2 and
when the fire rate is lowered, you actually can fire it from the hip as 
shown, although the ROF is down to around 750 rpm.
 
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Tom Zych   tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu   The University of Illinois           |
>|           tz10956@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu       at Urbana-Champaign...           |
>|  The University may have all my money, but the opinions still belong to me. |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|  None of you understand.  _I'm_ not locked up in here with _you_.           |
>|    _You're_ locked up in here with _me_! - Rorshach                         |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Patrick


-- 
Patrick Grady               |  I express my opinion,
                            |  I express your opinion
email: p-grady2@uiuc.edu    |  for large sums of money.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: georgep@emr1.emr.ca (George Pachulski)
Subject: Military Aircraft Gif's
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:59:36 GMT

 I hope this is not a FAQ, I'm new to the internet but,
is there a place on the net were military aircraft gif's or other       
graphic format pictures are avalible ?

Thanks 
George
From: v111qheg@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (P. VASILION)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:47:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>: I know that the GAU-8 is a very powerfull gun but I am not sure that
>: its the most   powerful (Single) Gun. The German Hs-129 mounted a long
>: barreled 75mm AT Gun which  would stall the Aircraft on the second  or
>: third shot! I know that the B-25H also  mounted a 75mm Howitzer
>: (converted but basically low pressure) in the nose with   equally
>: detrimental affects to air speed. I know of rumorse that the AC-130s
>: mount  a 105mm weapon but this is side firing.     I will concede that
>: the GAU-8 is the most powerfull gun in terms of KE on target  in 10
>: seconds (what is the maximum burst from an A-10 anyway). But single
>: shot no way.

	B-52 with a 75mm howitzer? Never heard of this. What is your reference?
As for the AC-130, yes, it does pack a 105mm Howitzer. The gun is unmodified
and is fired via the fire control computer, which deflects the rudder some 
10 degrees or so at the moment the un fires to cancel the yawing effect the 
recoil induces. The AC-130U, in addition to the 105mm, carries one 40mm Bofors
cannon, two 7.62 mini-guns, and two 25mm M-62 (? -- cant remember the desig-
nation). It can also drop the 15,000 pound BLU-82 bomb.  The two 25mm 
vulcan cannons can destroy a regiment of troops in less than 10 seconds. 

PV
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Subject: Re: "Our Century" on A&E
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:12:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.033755.20575@sol.UVic.CA> whelal@engr.UVic.CA (Wael   
Helal) writes:
> 
> There is also Brute Force the History of Weapons at War.
> Its on every thursday 11:00pm and 3:00am Friday eastern
> time also on A&E.

Hmmm, it's on Thursday 10PM and then later at 2AM on A&E
in my eastern zone...

--
Nathan Janette
PPP link from hilbert.csb.yale.edu

Please reply to: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (NeXT)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: Vulcan (was Re: B-1B)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:11:27 GMT

A Vulcan in flight is like a flying football pitch... doggone impressive!
Makes quite the racket, too.  At one show, after a 'spirited' flight
demonstration by the pilot, I asked one of the other crew  members (who resided
within the cramped confines of the tiny cabin below and behind the 
cockpit) how he and his fellow systems operators enjoyed these shows.
He just grimaced...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Analog Kid)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Memphis Bell & the Movie
Date: 28 Jan 1993 15:31:19 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

	The "Memphis Belle" movie from 1990 was an attempt to re vitalize the
1940's documentary of the same name.  If you'll look closely in the credits, 
you'll see that it was directed by Catherine Wyler, who is the daughter of 
William Wyler, the director of the original war documentary.
	Of course, when watching this movie, it is possible to pick out 10,000
different problems with it.  Like, why are there P-51D escorts in 1942?  The
one item that makes me truly believe that this was a totally fictionalized
version of the story for ENTERTAINMENT only, is the fact that on their 25th
mission, the Belle actually went on a milk run into France, NOT into Flak-city
Bremen in the heart of Der Vaterland.  Obviously, the story had to be made more
exciting for today's audiences.  
	I just tend to take the story for what it is, and enjoy the great 
aerial photography and the dogfights between the Hispano Bf-109's and the
Mustangs.  I'm kind of biased, though, because I work at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, and "our" B-17 (N17W) was the only REAL B-17F to participate in the
filming of the movie.  It was quite a treat to see her on the big screen.

Randall Haskin
L-17 N77BH
strega@u.washington.edu

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: asrgf@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Re: WAS GLIDE BOMBING
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 14:05:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.190948.20362@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, acura@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (james.r.feeney) writes:
> In article <C15nA7.7py@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan19.174339.10389@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
>>mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy) writes:
>>
>>> To totally change the subject.  I read an account of Battle of Midway 
>>> where this technique was used to NO effect.  The squadron attacking the
>>> Japanese Fleet was almost completely wiped out...
>>
> 
>>This was a flight of Vindicators from Midway Island. Often called "Wind
> 
> *****stuff deleted
> 
>>could handle a true dive bombing attack. I'm not completely sure, but I
>>don't think these pilots had even had the opportunity to drop a bomb in
>>practice.  So they glided in as a group hoping against hope to hit
>>something.  They didn't.  This group of attacking American aircraft
>>actually faired better against the Zero's than, for instance, the
>>torpedo planes but only because the Zero pilots had been up all morning
>>and were worn out and perhaps low on ammo.  A number of Vindicators
>>still got shot down.
>>anything.
> 
> ******more stuff deleted
> 
>>
>>Corky Scott
> 
> If I remember correctly, in the book "Incredible Victory" about the battle
> of Midway, the Vindictors of Torpedo Squadron 8 (from the carrier Hornet I
> think) were all shot down in their attack on the Japanese carriers. None of
> the planes got close enough to release their torpedoes. I believe that they
> were all shot down by Zeroes. The only survivor was one pilot, Ensign George
> Gay, who spent the entire battle floating in the water in the middle of the
> Japanese ships. He had to pretend he was dead because he was real sure he
> didn't wan
  ^^^^^^^^^
 Actually Gay was picked up by a PBY5 Catalina, see the book PBY or the movie
Midway!

        
 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward)
Subject: F-22 nickname (real, not official)
Followup-To: All the F-22 articles
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:55:08 GMT


The F-22 got a nickname during flight testing from the General Dynamics engineers.
They all called it the "Flying Tail" both for its shape and for its relationship
to the B-2 "Flying Wing" stealthy features.

The Lighting was a wonderful and innovative aircraft, one of the best WWII birds
on any side.  It's sad to see the F-22 "Flying Porkbarrel" handed such a proud
name.

**********************************************************************************
*Matthew Ward, formerly McDonnell Douglas F-15E program                          *
*            , formerly General Dynamics F-16A/B program                         *
**********************************************************************************

                                     _|_ 
                   \ /          --==(\V/)==--
		--=o0o=--          !  !  !
                   ' ` 
                     \_____/
               ---===<o(V)o>===---
                    '!  !` !`
**********************************************************************************