HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: 50 Years ago: Gen. F. Bradley at Yakutsk
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:24:26 GMT


From pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)




From pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)

MCGRATH.LDGVM1.vnet.ibm.com@LDGVM1.VNET.IBM.COM (Michael McGrath) writes:
>9 the ferry route ~ to Russia.  Even out own B-24 made a contribution after the
>Russians got it flying again.  In the official records of aircraft turned over
>to the russians during the war there are lots of fighters, light bommers,
>and transport planes, and one heavy bommer.  That was ours-a little
>monument to Bradley mission."

What about that B-29 that ended up on Soviet hands during the war?  I
think it aborted to Russia after a raid on Japan.  I saw a magazine
article that showed how the entire Soviet stategic bomber force from
WWII to the present could be traced to that B-29 starting with a bomber
that was an exact copy up through the Bear, which has a similar tail
and other similarities.  I seem to remember there was a stink about the
Sovs not giving it back, although they _eventually_ gave the crew
back.  Even then it seems, Stalin was more concerned about winning the
peace.

Wouldn't a B-29 count more as a "heavy" than a B-24?
-- 
Paul Tomblin, pt@geovision.gvc.com or {uunet,revcan}!geovision!pt
(This is not an official opinion of GeoVision Systems Inc.)
"No matter what you've lost - be it a home, a love, a friend - like the 'Mary
Ellen Carter' rise again." - Stan Rogers - "Mary Ellen Carter"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: depleted uranium
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:44:38 GMT


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




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


Bill Blackwell writes:
#4. The age old adage, "Never use the weapons of a defeated enemy" ;-)

So why is it that the Israelis kept large numbers of captured T-55s and
T-62s in service, even going so far as to re-engine and re-gun the 
former? Huh?

Just a question :) :) :)


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: depleted uranium
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:26:23 GMT


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

In article <Bsw0I6.LDF@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:

>Depleted uranium then differs a great deal from undepleted uranium.
>According to Webster's the most common isotope (U-238) has a melting point
>of 1,132 degrees celsius. If it's the "fine division" that allows it to
>burn at low temperatures, this is hardly pertinent with ammunition; that
>is, bullets and artillery shot can hardly be said to be "finely divided".
>What am I missing?

Oops... there goes my cast-it-under-a-reducing-atmosphere theory  9-)

I suspect it becomes "finely divided", not to mention very hot, 
when it hits a hard target and spatters. 

Bullets do tend to vaporise partially when shot into steel plates. 
A lot of it also turns into powder. 

Uranium is also very reactive in air.


 
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: RE:  USMC use of dumb bombs in SWA
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:36:37 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <1992Jul30.123956.16663@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
 portal!cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu@uunet.UU.NET writes:

[several pages of stats, especially Harrier stats, deleted]

> Marines concentrated on dropping huge volumes of dumb bombs - they
> were concerned that not enough conventional bombs were stockpiled,
> and were running short on some types towards the end of the campaign
> based on reports in Aviation Week ( Desert Storm special). Most tank
> kills during the ground war were from ground based fire from LAV,
> M-60 and HUMMV/TOW.

As the co-author (along with Capt Steve Kowalkoski and LtCol Paul Cibuzar)
of the report from which HQMC extracted most of the above, I'd like to thank
Arthur for providing info which I, due to particular security provisions, 
could not have released EVEN THOUGH it has become public domain.  Now I can
comment on it without risking my clearence.

I'd like to add that the reason the USMC used such a large number of Mk80
series bombs was simply because of availability.  The USAF kept all the 
nice smart stuff for themselves.  We used GP bombs for the same reason the
infantry guys used M16's.  That's all we had.  The F/A-18 pilots, and Harrier
pilots, would have LOVED to have laser guided bombs and onboard laser 
designators.  For that matter thay'd have liked it if they'd had enough FLIR's
so each plane could have its own.

-Bill Gawne, Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR    ...and yes, I work in Operations Research at Quantico VA

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rah@moat.pa.dec.com (Robert Holt)
Subject: Re: AF News Svc 07/27/92
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:20:09 GMT


From rah@moat.pa.dec.com (Robert Holt)




From rah@moat.pa.dec.com (Robert Holt)

 
 Evergreen does contract work for DEA and Calif. Dept of Justice doing
 anti-drug surveillance .

/*-------------------------------------------------------+
 | Robert Holt - Digital Equipment Corp - Palo Alto, CA. |
 | Internet: rah@rampart.pa.dec.com                      |
 | UUCP:     ...!decwrl!rah                              |
 | DECnet:   TENAYA::RAH                                 |
 |                                                       |
 | "Conquer Tyrants. Fight Devils."                      |
 |                                                       |
 | Standard Disclaimers Apply...                         |
 +-------------------------------------------------------*/

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jwc@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (James W. Chandler)
Subject: Re: why velcrow insignia
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 17:52:21 GMT


From jwc@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (James W. Chandler)

In article <BsKCCs.DMo@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) writes:
> 
> From christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson)
> 
> In article <1992Jul30.125156.18302@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
>       carssdf!watson@rutgers.edu (- Self Empl. Sys.Integrator) writes:
> >
> >Why do air force flying uniforms seem to have all insignia 
> >attached by velcrow?   Is this a laundry consideration?
> >
> >John Watson
> >
> I was at an airshow near Kingston NY a while back.  I was standing
> next to a USN S-3 pilot, when a good-looking woman complimented
> him on the patch on his shoulder.  He immediately pulled it off
> and presented it to her.  One reason?
> 
A good reason but not the real one.  Patches are on velcro so that during a
conflict they can be removed.  If you look at footage from the Gulf War,
you will see that the pilots flight suits are 'sanitized'.  This is so that
if the aircrew member were to find himself somewhere where he does not want
to be (ie.  on the ground on the wrong side to the line), and captured then
the captures would not immediately know what unit he was from and what he
flew.

-- 
Jim Chandler, KD6IRV
chandler@beagle.uucp
chandler@netcom.com
jwc@sactoh0.sac.ca.us


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: propeller planee's anti-torque problem
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:10:47 GMT


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

In article <BszLDG.FMB@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:

>The "P factor" phenomna is simple. When an aircraft is climbing, it
|"mushes" through the air a little. The nose of the aircraft is above 
|the plane of the direction of travel. The air, however, is "traveling"
|backwards relative to the aircraft in the same plane as the direction
|of travel. This, by the way, is called the "relative wind".

|This tendency is countered by the pilot by use of the rudder. Taildraggers
|have a big problem because they experience P-factor when they first begin
|the takeoff roll. At this point, the rudder is useless. The tailwheel isn't
|much help either. Normal takeoff techniques to handle this vary from aircraft
|to aircraft. They include starting the takeoff run at an angle to the runway,
|getting the tail up ASAP, holding the tail *down* as long as possible (if
|the tailwheel is oversize), etc.

We had a huge discussion about this in rec.models.rc not too long
ago. My argument was that the yaw effect one sees before the air-
plane starts to roll is due to propwash - the effects of a spiral-
ling slipstream on the vertical surfaces of the aircraft. The reason
I think P-factor isn't involved here is because the airplane isn't 
moving at all, thus no relative wind!

As to why tail draggers have this problem, my guess is that 1) the
propwash effects are more pronounced in a nose-up attitude on the 
ground because the vertical stab sits lower (the airflow from the 
prop is essentially trapped by the ground and impacts the tail) and
2) a taildragger doesn't have the nosewheel for positive yaw con-
trol, i.e. the rear wheel is lightly loaded and is in fact not doing 
anything once the tail begins to rise.

Twins with the props turning the same direction will have a "critical
engine" due to P-factor.





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: pyrdek@edinboro.edu
Subject: Book on 57th FIS/667 AC&W history?
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:39:47 GMT


From pyrdek@edinboro.edu


From pyrdek@edinboro.edu

Does anyone know of a goood book that has the history of the 57th
Fighter Interceptor Squadron, (the Black Knights of the Artic) which
was located at Keflavik Iceland?

At the AF Museum bookstore there was a book regarding the F-102
in Europe but Iceland, although geographically in Europe, was
considered to be in North America for publication purposes
(determined by military organization chain of command).

My interest is especially in the 57th and the 667 Aircraft Control
and Warning Squadron which directed intercepts of the Soviet
Bombers coming out of northerrn Russia over the North Atlantic.

This combo probably logged more intercepts of U.S.S.R. military
aircraft than any other U.S.A.F. squadrons.

So, if you know of any good history books on this, please let me
know.

Thanks.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com (Bob McCormick)
Subject: Re: depleted uranium
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:21:19 GMT


From bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com (Bob McCormick)




From bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com (Bob McCormick)

In article <1992Jul30.123927.16492@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
|> 
|> >From arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)
|> >Question:what are the advantages to using depleted uranium in ammunition? 
|> 
|> It is extremely dense, much denser than lead. 

Isn't it also very hard?  Lead needs a steel jacket to allow it to penetrate,
but I get the impression that DU is very hard/stiff, in addition to
being dense.  However, it can't be too brittle, or it would shatter
on impact instead of penetrating.  Fodder for sci.metallurgy?

=-=-=-=-=-
Bob McCormick, Systems Engineer           | bobmcc@tcs.com +1-510-649-3881
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc.    | bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com
2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA, 94704 USA | uunet!tcs!bobmcc

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ulowell!usl.edu!jab0684@samsung.com (Boudreaux Jean A)
Subject: Re: depleted uranium
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:27:46 GMT


From ulowell!usl.edu!jab0684@samsung.com (Boudreaux Jean A)




From ulowell!usl.edu!jab0684@samsung.com (Boudreaux Jean A)

On the topic of DU, I seem to recall a CNN report some time ago during
desert storm.  This report showed video of US soldiers painting a
radiation hazard symbol on a disabled M1 tank. The commentator said that
this was due to the radioactive DU rounds contained on board.
Perhaps the brass feels the advantage of DU outweighs any potential
exposure threat(if any)?

jean@usl.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Subject: Re: Altered history of warfare
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:44:31 GMT


From sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)




From sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)


One of the effects on early use of horses (Roman period) was the lack of the  
horse collar.  This is why the roman chariot had 4 horses pulling it.  A horse  
that pulled hard, choked itself.

This too was one of the reasons the Romans didn't expand much into northern  
Europe.  The soil there is much heavier; they didn't have the means to plow it.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: depleted uranium
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:18:51 GMT


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




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

In article <1992Jul29.130354.22585@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>
>From creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
>
>>How long until succesfully destroyed targets can be scrapped or cannibalized?
>
>   If you mean how long before it's safe to do so, as soon as the targets
>have stopped burning long enough to cool down, and nobody's around to shoot
>at you.  Depleted uranium means uranium that has already gone through
>radioactive decay, so I believe it is not radioactive anymore.

Nope... DU is radioactive all right.. just not intensely so. 

Its called "depleted" uranium because the ^235^U has been extracted,
leaving behind ^238^U which is by far the more common isotope. Nuclides 
heavier than a certain atomic weight are all radioactive, ^238^U lies
beyond that weight. Its half life is in the millions of years so it 
isn't intensely radioactive. On the other hand it takes millions of 
years before any significant portion of it turns into its final non-
radioactive byproduct, ^206^Pb.

Rick Lafford wrote to tell me that DU, even if were _not_ radioactive, 
is still a toxic heavy metal, and that given its propensity to quick-
ly oxidize (ie. burn) the result of a strike would be finely divided 
uranium oxide dust - breathable stuff I'd imagine. Not very healthy.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: propeller planee's anti-torque problem
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:44:03 GMT


From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)

In article <Bsw1pJ.2vG@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> asp+@pitt.edu (Anandeep Pannu) writes:

>.................................................. I believe the P-factor
>that Isakandar was talking about is the effect of one side of the prop
>rotating faster than the other thus causing yaw effect. I would like
>to hear more about the P-factor.

The "P factor" phenomna is simple. When an aircraft is climbing, it
"mushes" through the air a little. The nose of the aircraft is above 
the plane of the direction of travel. The air, however, is "traveling"
backwards relative to the aircraft in the same plane as the direction
of travel. This, by the way, is called the "relative wind".

The propellor is thus attacking the air at an angle to the direction of
the relative wind. In turn, this means that the angle of attack of the
prop blade(s) which are traveling downwards is steeper than the angle of
attack of the blade(s) traveling upwards. The downwards-traveling blades
thus take a bigger bite out of the air and produce more thrust than the
others. This uneven thrust produces a tendency for the aircraft to turn
in the direction of the upwards traveling prop blades.

This tendency is countered by the pilot by use of the rudder. Taildraggers
have a big problem because they experience P-factor when they first begin
the takeoff roll. At this point, the rudder is useless. The tailwheel isn't
much help either. Normal takeoff techniques to handle this vary from aircraft
to aircraft. They include starting the takeoff run at an angle to the runway,
getting the tail up ASAP, holding the tail *down* as long as possible (if
the tailwheel is oversize), etc.

I once saw a Stearman use an interesting takeoff technique. He taxied out
and lined up with the nose pointed 180 degrees away from the direction
of takeoff. He then stood on the brakes and ran it up to full power. That
brought the tail up. Then he relaxed brake pressure on one wheel and spun
the plane 180 degrees and departed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    |
George Patterson -  | I don't know if I believe in love at first sight.
                    | I've never seen a Porshe full of money.
                    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium -- Hydrogen Bombs
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:14:17 GMT


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <BtAJuM.FAp@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
> 
> 
> From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
> 
> In article <Bt4oB5.1Kt@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Arthur Sparrendahl) writes:
> 
> >	I do not claim to have merlins expetise but according to 
> >	'General and nonorganic chemistry' by Gunnar Ha"gg U-238
> >	(in natural uranium) is vital in very powerfull temonucelars.
> 
> 
> Yup.. I've seen the diagrams. You basically surround a ^235^U fission
> bomb with a LiD or LiH jacket which will produce a fusion reaction. 
> The fusion reaction produces a huge flux of _fast_ neutrons which are
> capable of causing ^238^U to fission. 
> 
> ^238^U doesn't fission in usual reactor conditions because the neutron 
> fluxes are much less and slow neutrons predominate.
> 

Even in commercial nuclear power plants, some of the U-238 "fast" fissions.
The neutrons from fissioning of U-235 have about 2.5 MeV of kinetic energy.
If some of these "fast" neutrons are absorbed by U-238, they will cause it
to fission as well.  Once the fast neutrons start to collide with the H in
the water coolant, they start to loose kinetic energy and can no longer cause
the fast fissions.

Thus the fast fission factor (ratio of the total number of fission neutrons 
produced by both fast and thermal fissions {ie in U-235} to the number
produced by thermal fission alone) for reactors fueled with natural or 
slightly enriched uranium ranges from 1.02 to 1.08 [J.R. Lamarsh's 
_Introduction to Nuclear Engineering_ pg 204]

Also the fast neutrons from the fusion process start with about 14.7 MeV of
kinetic energy assuming a Deuterium-Tritium fusion process.

Thought you might like to know.

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

Xref: sparky sci.military:8588 soc.history:7504
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Wednesday, 19 August, 1942
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:35:48 GMT
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


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

Wednesday, 19 August, 1942

A large amphibious raid is staged against Europe when 6,100 Canadian troops
British commandos, and US Rangers, escorted by 30 tanks, land at Dieppe, 
France.  The force is pinned down on the beach and captures no important 
objectives, although the RAF downs 48 German aircraft destroyed over the 
area.  The destroyer Berkeley is badly damaged by German bombers and later 
is scuttled, and 33 landing craft are lost.  By noon, the raid is 
abandoned; over half the troops and all of their heavy equipment are left 
behind, and 98 British fighters are lost.  Fewer than 400 German troops 
are killed.

The North American P-51 Mustang fighter makes its combat debut at Dieppe.

General von Paulus orders his 6th Army to assault Stalingrad.  Soviet
forces evacuate Krasnodar.

Soldiers of the Australian 7th Division land at Port Moresby.

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

"This is the first time the British have had the courtesy to cross the sea
to offer the enemy a complete sample of their new weapons." - Adolf Hitler,
commenting on the Dieppe Raid
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Smoothbore Weapons (was Re: DU)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:26:34 GMT


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

In article <Bt4oI0.1v9@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell) writes:

>Along this thread, there is also an APDS round made for shotguns, ala the
>movie Alien Nation.  They are very good at penetrating things that don't
>have hardened armor. 

Also available to the general public (at least it was three years 
ago when I kept up with such things) was something called the Sabot
Slug. You fired this out of a 12 gauge shotgun (you could even get 
rifled barrels with rifle sights for some shotguns). The projectile 
was a .50 caliber dumbell shaped, hard lead slug encased in a dis-
carding sabot. The warned you not to fire it out of a choked barrel
as the slug would split in half at the narrow waist.

This was for deer hunting, not for warfare.






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