HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)
Subject: Re: Armored Trains in the World Wars
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:24:17 GMT


From labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)


gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu writes:
: 
: Does anyone out there know of english language reference material
: that would discuss the use of armored trains during World war's one
: and two ? I'm looking for unit histories, description of capiabilities
: TO&E's, etc.
:
	Well looking at my library...From the Schiffer Military history
books by Wolfgang Sawodny, German Armoured Trains, WW II 1939-45.
Volumes I and II are both about the early track guarding trains of
captured stock all the way up to the culmination of the BP 44 with
panzerjager cars and the armoured rail cars w/panzer IV turrets and
their 7.5 cm KwK long's. Quite some interesting material really.
Lots of great photos and drawings. Makes you want to go out and
make a HO or O scale BP 44 complete with infantry and partisans in
the woods in the set. ...sigh....if only I had the money

	Ryan M. Gill 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Re: subs
Keywords: eric -nuclear winter
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:43:39 GMT


From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>


From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>

In article <BvxDun.MCu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, elada@eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC  LADA) writes...
> 
>From elada@eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC  LADA)

>	Hi agian.  I was just wondering what kind of self-defense/offense 
>mechanisms the boomers have.  Do they have any torpedos, or anything non-nuke
>that can go out and kill any ship or attack sub that following them, or is there
>only defense standing still and staying quite.  

All the Missle Boats that I know of (French, British, USSR, US, Chinese) have torpedo tubes 
and a large array of "avoidance" devices (such as noisemakers, decoys, etc). 
Theoretically, they should have no problem firing torpedoes or standard
sub-launched missles.  I beleive in most units there fire control systems are
comparible to that of same age attack boats.

The main mission is still avoidance though.   


>Also do todays subs really have any advantage over ships.

This is a question open to much debate and personal preference.  The same
question was raised prior to the start of WW II.  At that time some thought the
submarine to be inferior to surface boats.  The Germans U-Boats and the US
Submarines displayed the advantages submarines enjoy.

Personally, I feel this still holds today.  The USNI Proceedings had an
excellent article entitles "ASW Still Job One" <I'm not sure that is the exact
title>, that details the ongoing threat presented by submarines.  It is still
not easy to find a submarine and as much as aircraft are excellent ASW
platforms, they fall short when it comes to long term survailance of other
submarine units.  Submarines also make excellent forward units.  

I think it is important to remember that the Ex-USSR is not the only country to
have a submarine force.  Many other countries outside of NATO have quite
capable submarines.

>Can military satalites track the subs under-water?   

I don't think they can do so intentionally.  They may accidentally catch one
near the surface with an IR or Visible camera, but aside from a few rumors I
have never heard of such a device.

>What about that new SEAL underwater delivery vehicle(or something like)  Can 
>that be detected at all?   

Since I believe at least one of them is made out of an older boomer class it
should be easier to detect than either an LA or Ohio Class.  

>And finnally do subs still pop up under the polar-ice
>caps(now that the Soviet Union is no longer?) What kind of subs did/do this(
>boomers or attack)

Both the US and USSR have boats that can surface from under the ice (the
British Trafalgar might have the ability also).  Both our Ohio and LA class 
are supposed to have the ability and some of the Sturgeon class have surfaced
throught the ice pack.  As far as I know, only the Soviet Delta and Typhoon
classes can surface through the ice.  Other might be able to also, but I have
never heard of them doing so.

SJRD


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:35:57 GMT


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

In article <BvnELx.IDn@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:

>I think this is a good trade. The most obvious uses for American
>carriers is off the coast of third world nations.  Although many of
>these nations have sub fleets, it is much more common to have an air
>force.  Further, most nations (especially third world ones) put much
>more money into their air force than the sub fleet.  Finally, much of
>our ASW capacity was built to counter the soviet threat.  Now that
>this threat has dissapiated, we have room to cut the ASW capability.
>
>Also, notice that many ships (crusiers, distroyers, frigates) can
>carry helocopters, only the carrier can carry attack planes.

First point:  Even though the Soviet Union is no more, and global war seems 
less likely than ever, there are still several hundred ex-Soviet (now Russian, 
Ukranian, and just about anyone else's) submarines out there somewhere.  

Second point:  While it is true that every carrier embarks several ASW helos, 
and that most other American ship classes can also carry them, the carriers 
have some things that the others do not.  First, the carriers also carry S-3 
Viking ASW aircraft, a fixed-wing partner to the SH-3 and SH-60 helos carried.
Working together, these two aircraft form one of the deadliest ASW combinations
at sea.  Second, only the carriers have the space needed for the extensive 
ASW control centers. These centers are vital for a coordinated ASW operation.
From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Performance of Greek armour against Persian arrows.
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:42:42 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


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


Dave Pierson writes:
#An interesting point.  In some reading on WWI personal armor, it seems
#the British experimented with "many layers of linen (or was it silk?)"
#in a throat defense (perhaps also as a vest....)).  The reports were
#that it was quite effective, reasonably light but...  Very expensive and
#impossible to keep clean, sanitary and rot-free in the trenches.
#Perhaps the origin was with some classical scholar.

The throat defense Richard mentions was used from 1915 onward, and several
thousand were made. It was made of silk, and could stop a .45 ACP ball
bullet at all but the closest ranges. 

There was also the "Chemico" protective vest, made of very thick layers
of scrap linen and other cloth tightly bound together. It offered somewhat
less protection.

THick cloth armor stayed in use as long as armor was used and then some.
I recall some colonial incident where European troops wore such armor as
it stopped or reduced the penetration of the natives' arrows, whereas the
arrowheads would shatter on plate and cause multiple fragment wounds.

A good reference on Great War armor is "Helmets and Body Armor in Modern
Warfare", published circa 1920. Full bibliographic data on request.


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: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
Subject: Re: WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Organization: :
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:36:46 GMT


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


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

In article <BvxpGr.1nJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
> 
> From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

> No wonder the title for the book "Miracle at Midway".

> ... the Japanese withdrew slowly, turning back several times to attempt
> battle but could not catch the American fleet which cannily backed off in
> an almost prescient fashion under the orders of the now in charge Admiral
> Raymond Ames Spruance.  ...

Does anyone have more information, or a good reference on Spruance?  _MaM_
mentions that he was a gunship admiral who took over a carrier fleet and
made excellent use of it.  Was this the shining point of his career, or was
it one of end-to-end excellence?
-- 
 (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: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: who knows
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:32:19 GMT


From smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)

>From maxc0452@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Legene)
> 
>>I was in a recent discussion with another co-worker, and I mentioned some things about
>>the B-70 Bomber that was built (I believe one or two prototypes), and it being a reason 
>>for the Mig 25.  Then, the co-worker disagreed that the B-70 ever existed, and that no
>>plane ever had any atomic power capabiltity so far. 


Specs from Page's "Valkyrie":

length:                 189 ft.
height:                 30  ft.
wingspan:               105 ft.
max t.o. weight         550,000 lbs.
empty weight            128,000 lbs.
projected max ceiling   95,000 ft. (74,000 ft. attained)
projected max range     7,600 naut. mi.
projected max speed     Mach 3.2 (Mach 3.08 attained)
powerplant thrust rating 30,000-pound thrust class, each (6 engines)
projected payload        50,000 lbs. in two-part weapons bay
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:42:38 GMT
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <Bw2JHB.AD4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
> 
> 
> Does anyone have more information, or a good reference on Spruance?  _MaM_
> mentions that he was a gunship admiral who took over a carrier fleet and
> made excellent use of it.  Was this the shining point of his career, or was
> it one of end-to-end excellence?
> -- 
>  (This man's opinions are his own.)
>  From mole-end				Mark Terribile
> 
>  mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
> 
> 
>

I would also like a good reference on Spruance.  Mark's point has also been
taken up in other books and movies that I remember reading long ago.  Several
senior aviators back then complained to Nimitz that since Spruance was not
one of them, he didn't understand the proper use of carriers.  Boy, did he
prove them wrong. :-) :-)   The only critizism I remember about his handling
of the fleet at Midway was that he wasn't agressive enough the few days after
the sinking of the Japanese carriers and "let" the rest of the IJN get away.
But from everything I read, Nimitz did not want him to push the issue and
potentially loose any US carriers now that it was clear on how big of a 
victory Midway was going to be.  Spruance went on to be one of the major
task group commanders of the Pacific War.  He is credited with perfecting
the defense-in-depth circular formations of large (>1000 ship) task forces
that swept through the Island Campaigns of 1944-45.

BTW, the same reasoning used against Spruance for commanding the fleet at 
Midway is still used today to keep non-aviators from commanding modern 
aircraft carriers.  IMO this is ridiculous and as an example of this, both
the COs I served under on USS Enterprise (CVN-65) endangered the ship.  The
first CO ran her aground in San Francisco harbor (April 1983).  The second
(after I left active duty) by colliding with an underwater shoal off the 
California coast (1985-86?).  BOTH WERE STILL PROMOTED TO ADMIRAL, AND ONE IS 
STILL SERVING AS A COMMANDER OF ONE OF THE MAJOR US FLEETS!!  Don't figure to
me.

Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."





========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:32:18 GMT


From megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <BvnEtI.Iv0@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> driver8@night.Corp.Sun.COM (Albert Handa) writes:
>plane ever had any atomic power capabiltity so far. 

He is correct in that no aircraft has flown using atomic propulsion. (At least
none that anyone talks about... (Hey, atomic Aurora. :-)  )

But as has been said, the B-70, or XB-70 Valkyrie used GE jet engines to 
achieve Mach 3 flight. the aircraft existed, but it wasn't a nuke.

Three prototypes were ordered, two completed and flew, the second crashed 
after a midair collision with an NF-104 on a photo op. flight.

>As I remember it:   It was built in the 60's, was nuclear powered (not thrust), was never
> built as it was supposed to be built (a very fast high altitude bomber),

The B-70 wasn't a compromise as far as has been said. Actually it was fairly
advanced for its time.

Now, about nuclear aircraft....

I did my research project on the USAF atomic powered aircraft program last
year. The X-6 program, the program was canncelled before completion, but a
reactor was carried aloft and powered up on several occaisions by an NB-36H
that was HEAVILY modified. I have the paper on DAT if anyone really wants it,
or I can post it again. (I posted it last spring.)

It's not the best paper, I only had 7 weeks and I spent most of that waiting
for resources to show up. I ended up with a 'B'. :-)

###############################################################################
# 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: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier operating limitations
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:29:11 GMT
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <BvxDv6.MJ3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, danderer@chopin.udel.edu (Dave Anderer) writes:
> 
> Which leads to the question:  Just what are limiting weather conditions
> on large-deck US carriers?  What's the minimum visibility, what's
> the maximim sea state?
> 
> I know that 20 years ago work was being done on automatic landing
> systems.  My impression is that they're widely available now.  What
> type of limits do they have?
> -- 
>     Dave Anderer        danderer@brahms.udel.edu       (302) 831-8805
> Instructional Technology Center, University of Delaware, Newark, De.  19716
> 		"Sinners can repent; stupid is forever."
> 
> 
>

I cannot quote you specific ranges, since I was a "snipe" when I served on USS
Enterprise (the real one, trekers ;-) ).  However, if the sea state was enough
so that the deck at the bow and aft was moving more than 50 ft vertical move-
ment, flight ops would not happen.  It would ruin a pilot's day to be launched
right into a wave creast ;-).

It was also my impression that the automatic landing systems could be used in
all weather conditions that CAG (Commander-Air Group) felt it safe to fly.
In other words, the motion of the deck and the safety of flight deck personnel
dictated flight ops in bad weather.

Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."



========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gavin.Dodds@newcastle.ac.uk (Gavin Dodds)
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:35:48 GMT


From Gavin.Dodds@newcastle.ac.uk (Gavin Dodds)


In article <BvI71n.M9s@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
>
>
>Here's an interesting question.  Why is a celebration of the first
>flight of the V-2 ( a significant scientific achievment that later
>killed thousands) more contraversial than the statute of "Bomber"
>Harris, who in part killed hundreds of thousands.
>
>Is there anythig besides who won or lost?
>
>-Randy

  Speaking as somebody born, bred and still living in England, I would like to put my opinions on this rather "sticky" subject.

  Mr. Appleton seems to put a rather good point (above), but unfortunatly, fails to see the implications of celebrating the V-2 rocket (I'm afraid the distinction between the reserch vehicle and the actual weapon is not made over here).  This "celebration" is seen, generaly, over here as an insult to the people of London and it's surrounds, who  weathered the full brunt of this indiscriminate weapon (true 'Bomber' Harris' methods were indiscriminate too, but more of that later).

  The celebration of a weapon is much like the celebration of a war (not the rememberance of the dead - that should be expected of a country).  I think your opinions would be different if the Japanese decided to mount a celebration of Pearl Harbour, or the North Vietnamese of that conflict (I may be on unsafe ground here, but that is how the Blitz is thought of in England).

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: s026779a@edinboro.edu
Subject: Johnston Atoll/Chemical Weapons
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:35:32 GMT


From s026779a@edinboro.edu

Destruction of Johnston Atoll

	I'm doing research on America's aging stockpile of chemical weapons and the effect that burning such weapons has on the environment.  To that point I am looking for any information in regards to the various types and amounts of
chemicals weapons stockpiled by the U.S. since WWI.

	If anyone has any information on Johnston Atoll, located in Hawaii, or
The Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System, please forward to:

	S026779A.edu Edinboro University of Pennsylvania


Thanks..

***************************************
*                                     *
* The immortal words of Socrates:     *
*     I Drank What?                   *
***************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:30:16 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <BvyqqE.5s9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>
>The Valkyrie at Dayton impresses you with its immensity. The huge air in-
>takes are arrayed in a row under the wing. The bottom of the aircraft 
>looks totally flat except for these huge angular intakes. The whole thing 
>is painted white.

When I was at the museum two years ago, the Valkyrie was sitting outside
on the ramp next to an A10 and near missile row. It would take your breath 
away, it was so beautiful sitting there looking like it was going Mach 3. 
Closer inspection, however, showed it to be a sadly deteriorated hulk with
birds nesting where the engines used to be and the paint streaked and flaking. 
I hope they've done some restoration on it since they moved it inside.

If you want to talk immense, the B36 inside is immense. Wow! The SR71
was a lot bigger than I expected too.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 4 October, 1942
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:37:48 GMT


From swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)


>>General Paulus opens a new series of attacks in Stalingrad.  Combat
>
>Shouldn't his proper title be "Von Paulus" ?

What does "Von" denote?  Is it a title of respect like the British "Sir"?

How many (or what percentage) of WWII German generals had "Von" in their 
names?

If I remember correctly, Paulus' (or Von Paulus') first name was Frederick.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: the F-18L
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:42:59 GMT


From megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <Bvq3uK.C50@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
>I just saw a reference to the F-18L.  What is an F-18L?  I've heard of
>A-E, but not this one.

The F-18L was Northrops version of the F-18 intended for land basing. It lacks 
the heavy naval gear in favor of more fuel, more payload, and a longer range.
The F-18 evolved from the YF-17, a Northrop product. The idea was McDD made 
the naval version and Northrop made land versions. But McDD got aggressive and
now a lot of AFs fly naval aircraft.

>F14a+ costs?  It must be more expensive than the F18E, or did
>Congress/Bush do something *really* weird?

The F-18 costs a lot more than it was supposed to. It was supposed to be a 
cheap alternative to the 14, and it ended up in the same price range.

BTW, the last F-14 was the F-14D, the A+ was the reengined 14s with the old
electronis, the 14D was all new stuff.

###############################################################################
# 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: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:24:22 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <BvxDur.MEG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>	Most accounts place the timing at coincidence.  I'm not so
>sure, looking back on it, that it was.  Could this have been planned?
>In any event, may the flyers of Torpedo 8 R.I.P.

Attacking a fleet target over water with sketchy intel, both sides
maintaining radio silence, and crude navigational aids on the aircraft
almost guarantees that the timing was coincidence.

Gary 


Newsgroups: sci.military