HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:23:33 GMT


From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>

In article <BzB9L8.zv@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:
>
>In article <Bz20C9.89v@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Lee Short <short@asf.com> writes:
>>"david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:
>>>
>>>OOH! Speculation! Fun Fun Fun Fun Fun!
>>>I'll put my money on the Alaska. The Alaska actually had better range on
>>>its 12" guns than the Renown had on its 15" guns. (38,500 yds vs 35,700 yds
>>>if I remember my Dulin & Garzke correctly) 
>>
>>My reference [admittedly not the best, a wargame manual] showed an
>>even greater disparity (40,600 yds vs. 29,000).  In fact, a majority
>>of the heavy cruisers produced during the war outranged the Renown.  
>
>I'll admit that I used data from the Vanguard for the Renown, but I believe
>that the Renown got the same 30 degree elevation as the Vanguard had.
>Perhaps the 29,000 yd range was derived from WWI data, assuming 15 degree
>elevation? Dulin & Garzke are usually pretty reliable. Which wargame did
>you get your data from?
>>
OOPS! Mea culpa time! I didn't remember my Dulin & Garzke terribly well.
the 36,700 yd figure for the Renown was from a table which listed elevations
up to 45 degrees. At 30 degrees, it was 32,100 yds. At 15 degrees, 21,800 yds.
At 25 degrees, it was 29,300. Perhaps that is the figure used in your wargame.
But the Renown did have 30 degree elevation. 
>
>>>   Fire control radar might be a wash. While I'm sure the Alaskas were
>>>quite good in this regard, the Renown probably had the latest British
>>>fire control system by 1945,( I'll have to check my Raven & Roberts to see
>>>which one) so it might not make any difference. 
>>
>>As I've stated before, I find it doubtful that the Brits bothered to
>>upgrade the Renown's fire control systems past '43.  Given that they

Actually, (according to Raven & Roberts) the Renown received her last
refit in December, 1944. This included radar upgrades. She had a set of
type 285s. (as well as some others.) Anyone have any performance data on
this radar set? Especially as opposed to the SG-1 surface search radars
and the mk 8 fire control radar on the Alaskas?

				David R. Wells

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Bill Darden < wdarden@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com>" <wdarden@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.comnewsgroups>
Subject: Re: Battleship Diplomacy
Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:40:04 GMT


From "Bill Darden < wdarden@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com>" <wdarden@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.comnewsgroups>


In article <BzB9L6.z2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (david.r.wells) writes:
>
>From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
>
>In article <Bz20HM.8E5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jbutt@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Butt) writes:
>>
>>From jbutt@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Butt)
>>
>>The Battleship "Yamamoto" was built with main guns which could elevate to 70 deg  rees. The idea was to let them fire huge AAA shells. So it can be done, no one has just decided to do it since.

stuff deleted

>There is a grain of truth here though. The Japanese actually did have anti-
>aircraft rounds for the 460mm guns. Apparently, it was supposed to work 
>sort of like a shotgun. The Germans had the same idea. Didn't seem to 
>help though.

To add my 2 cents.  My dad was the Damage Control Officer aboard the
USS Arkansas (BB33) during WWII.  He told me that when the Kamikazes
would attack by flying real low, they would use their main batteries
to shoot into the water to create a "picket" fence with geysers.  The
planes would hit them and be destroyed.  He told me that they once
hit one of the planes with one of their 14" shells with a lucky shot.
Apparently, when they were under attack by Kamikazes, they would
shoot with everything that fire a shell including rifles, because
those attacks scared them the most.

I wonder what the "hang time" was on the geysers. 

Regards,

BiLL....


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: HESH
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:29:10 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

 In article <Bz20n2.8nK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> S.Holton writes:

   >
   >
   >    Good point... I must admit, I was assuming ideal circumstances and
   > relatively simple armour.  I dont think HESH is used on main battle tanks...
   > It would tend to be more likely used on IFVs and APCs.  Once again, I am
   > getting somewhat out of my league... I'm just a ground-pounder at heart.

 Isn't HESH (or HEP if you prefer) also perfectly adequate as a HE
 substitute?


--
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: rapiers in usaf
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:39:54 GMT


From buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)

In article <Bz9EtI.67G@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com> writes:
>
>From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
>
>
>A friend maintains that a branch of the USAF uses the British Aerospace
>Rapier surface to air missle.  I dimly recall hearing something about
>this ten or so years ago.  Can anyone out there confirm or deny this?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Pat Eves
>--
>Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
>World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
>
While staioned in England (RAF Mildenhall) from 1984-87, I saw a number
of rapier systems. However, these were manned by UK personnel and were
not US equipment. There was a reciprical agreement where the MOD would 
assume ground SAM sites. The US would use its trained ground personnel
(the army) on mainland Europe.


-- 
Charles Buckley    buckley@ucsu.colorado.edu

Just another West Virginia exile in the land of make believe.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Bilal A. Bhutta" <bhuttam@woods.ulowell.edu>
Subject: Info req: Chinese M-11 missiles & more...
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:30:26 GMT


From "Bilal A. Bhutta" <bhuttam@woods.ulowell.edu>



Hello,

	The following article appeared in the Dec 12th issue of The Washington 
Post. It mentioned some stuff but did not give any more details. I would 
greatly appreciate if someone could post details. Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Bilal

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


U.S. Plans to Let China Purchase Jet Technology; Proposed Sale to
Military Raises Protests

The Bush administration plans to allow a sale to the Chinese mil-
itary of U.S. technology that China needs for jet engines to
power both its own training aircraft and a Chinese ground-attack bomber 
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[which one?]
that eventually will be exported to Pakistan, U.S. officials 
disclosed yesterday.

[unrelated stuff deleted]

Franklin's trip comes at an awkward moment for the administration
for another reason: U.S. intelligence experts recently detected
what one official described as "very strong circumstantial evi-
dence" that Beijing may have reneged on its promise last year not
to sell new medium-range, M-11 missiles to Pakistan.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                         [specs. please.]
                      


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: luginbu@ifi.unizh.ch (Andreas Luginbuehl)
Subject: Re: Private Semi-auto rifles in Switzerland?
Organization: University of Zurich, Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:30:30 GMT


From luginbu@ifi.unizh.ch (Andreas Luginbuehl)

About the "Swiss Reserve": Since we don't have a standing professional army,
basically everybody - except the top leadership and the pro instructors - is
"reserve". In Switzerland, one does 4 months of basic training at the age of
20, then 3 weeks "repetition course" every year till 32, then 2 week repetition courses at larger intervalls till 50. (This is about to change slightly now withthe armed forces reforms under way).

Since everybody keeps the basic personal equipment at home, all men doing 
military service, from the age of 20 until 50, have their personal weapon, plus
_sealed_ ammunition, at home. This is a SIG 9 mm pistol for officers and a
5.5 mm SIG automatic assault rifle (Sturmgewehr 90) for virtually everybody
else. (Officers can have a Stgw90 on loan, in addition to the pistol). There
still are units which are equipped with the older Sturmgewehr 57.

The personal weapon is on loan, but may be purchased at the moment that the
army gear is given back, at the age of 50.

By the way: There are mandatory shooting exercises to be done once every year.
This is done at the local shooting range, not during military service, and 
therefore, Swiss men usually have some privately purchased ammo around and the
weapons get used regularly.

Hope this helps...

Andy Luginbuehl, Nuclear/Chemical Warfare Protection Officer, Swiss Infantry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
luginbu@ifi.unizh.ch * Speaking for my employer/university ..?
luggin@ubilab.ubs.ch * They don't even know I exist !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jussi-Pekka Korkala <korkkari@clinet.fi>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Clinet, Espoo, Finland.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:30 GMT


From Jussi-Pekka Korkala <korkkari@clinet.fi>

Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:


>From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

>John Stoffel <john@sekrit.wpi.edu> writes:

>>How about adding some stingers on the outside of the tank for
>>automatic threat suppression.  Cheap, simple, and probably prone to
>>taking out your own choppers too.

>	Why not add a Phalanx?  Program it to kill at closure rates of
>30 knots or better, keep it on standby, and when your own aircraft aren't
>in the area flip it from standby to on.  Simple, existing, and nothing
>but ammunition and electricity required.

Why not? Here's couple of good reasons:
1) Phalanx is big, and it's ammunition requires a lot of space.
2) Phalanx is expensive.
3) It's range wouldn't be sufficient for helo's.

>	In addition to the anti-air capabilities, it would also work on
>incoming artillery shells and missiles.  I suspect this is a much
>greater worry than the helicopter itself, which is all the Stinger
>will be able to remove.

Artillery shells? Are you serious? Where did you get the idea that 
Phalanx can shoot down incoming shells? Have you got any idea what their
speed is, or does the radar have time to intercept them?

Most shells get to their targets in couple of seconds! 

And also, i think AT-3, AT-5 etc, are bit too small targets for phalanx.
-- 
 -- Jussi-Pekka Korkala     |"And if your head explodes with dark forbodings"
 email : korkkari@clinet.fi | too, I'll see you on the dark side of the moon"
 "Much is usually too much, but enough is allmost never enough. So more than
  enough should be enough for everybody!"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: claffey_jor@ccsub.ctstateu.edu
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:33:15 GMT


From claffey_jor@ccsub.ctstateu.edu

In article <BzB9w9.1E8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:
> 	Why not add a Phalanx?  Program it to kill at closure rates of
> 30 knots or better, keep it on standby, and when your own aircraft aren't
> in the area flip it from standby to on.  Simple, existing, and nothing
> but ammunition and electricity required.
> 

Sounds easy, doesn't it? The problem is that at 6000 rpm, you need a *LOT* of
ammunition. This translates into either a very limited supply of ammo (I
believe that the CIWS carries 1500 rounds, enough for 15 seconds of continuous
firing) or making a larger turret to hold your ammo in. This will probably mean
(if you don't take anything out) a higher profile, meaning a bigger target for
whatever enemy forces are out there.

IMHO, it isn't possible to significantly improve the air-defence capability of
the M1 series without significantly impairing its ability to perform as an MBT.
However, an interesting idea is a Bradley variant optimized for air defence.
Anyone know of such a project in the works?

================================================================================
"Indiana" Joe Claffey                 = Disclaimer: All non-quoted opinions 
CLAFFEY_JOR@CCSU.CTSTATEU.EDU         = expressed are my own, and anyone else 
Quote: "Make no small plans."         = trying to take credit for them is in 
                  - Daniel Burnham    = big trouble!
================================================================================
From: sasrns@unx.sas.com (Neal Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Prussian Military
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:29:10 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


From Neal Smith <sasrns@unx.sas.com>


In article <BzEz50.Ezs@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, silber@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
|>
|> From silber@cs.uiuc.edu
|>
|>
|>
|> I wonder what point of development anti-cavalry tactics were at
|> this point in time. Weren't infantry still armed with matchlocks
|> and pikes? Perhaps bayonets had just come into vogue and the square
|> hadn't been perfected yet. Or perhaps the Austrians were taken by
|> surprise and didn't have time to form square.
|>
|> The infantry were armed with flintlocks and ring-bayonets. The primary
|> differences in tactics between Napoleonic warfare and that of the
|> 7 years war (and the War of the Austrian Succession) are as follows:
|>

   ...rest deleted...

  A very good intro book on this subject and development of tactics
up to Nappy times is Anatomy of Victory.  I can't remember the author
but the title should be enough.  It discusses in graphic detail the 
distances between companys/zugs when in column.  The debate between
receiving cavalry in line vs. square, the debate between cavalry charges
halting to fire before "going in", etc.


Later
Neal Smith
sasrns@unx.sas.com
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>
Subject: Rockwell XFV-12A Supersonic VTOL fighter
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:25:47 GMT


From Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>


>From portal!cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu@uunet.uu.net
>
>Anybody know what ever became of the Rockwell XFV-12A Naval Supersonic
>V/STOL experimental fighter? ...

The last thing I remember was that the thrust augmentor which was supposed
to boast the thrust to 1.3 actually "boast" it to 0.8, i.e. a loss, when
installed. They said it was due to the augmentor flaps stalling. I think
they attempted a fix which didn't work and it went down with the rest of
the many US jet VTOL projects as history.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Re: The Argument For Tac Nukes
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:23:48 GMT


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

In article <Bz3uwJ.2FC@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net writes: 

> Now that it appears that use of a nuclear weapon no longer poses the threat
> of provoking a full-scale nuclear exchange, is there a difference in the
> attitude we should take towards tactical nuclear weapons?
> 
> For example, what if the opening salvo in the U.N.-Iraq war had used nuclear
> weapons?  This might have been important for EMP effect alone.  A nuclear
> air burst at a high altitude -- over 50,000 feet -- isn't going to kill
> anybody on the ground, though it might blind them if they happened to be
> looking up at that moment.
> 
> But it would certainly scare them.  It would certainly scare me if a small
> nuclear bomb was detonated ten miles above me.  This might have achieved a
> negotiated settlement which would have avoided a war which -- though not
> costly in lives (the military loses a similar number of people in training
> exercises, an astonishingly large proportion of deaths being caused by
> being run over by a tank while sleeping) -- was very costly in dollars.
> A small bomb might have saved the U.S. taxpayers hundreds of millions of
> dollars, and saved the Iraqis the loss of thousands or tens of thousands
> of lives.

Please try to remember that warfare is first and foremost a POLITICAL EXERCISE. 
In the court of world opinion a NUCLEAR WEAPON IS A NUCLEAR WEAPON.  US first
use of nuclear weapons against a force which stood little chance of standing up
to our conventional forces without major provocation would have shattered the
coalition to pieces and psobably led to Saudi Arabia withdrawing their support
from the operation.  Even the use of other weapons of mass destruction (ie
chemical weapons) on Coalition Forces probably would not have warranted a
nuclear strike unless MASSIVE casualties were inflicted.  Nuclear weapons, for
reasons that have nothing to do with their direct effects are not considered an
acceptable weapon.
  
A US use of nuclear weapons against a third world power would blow a gaping 
hole in the US position that those states should not be allowed to develop
those weapons.  After all, they woul now have a legitimate self-defense need
for them since the US could freely use nucs against them.

For the purposes of this discussion it dosn't really matter how the nuc is
employed. The use of nucs of any sort is likely to have political
ramafications that far outweigh their utility on the battlefield unless your
very national survival is a stake.
-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Back off man.  I'm a political scientist!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
Subject: Somali Surface/Air Engagement?/
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:27:09 GMT


From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>


	Does anyone have details about the reported engagement of the
	three american Choppers that destroyed the Somali vehicles?
		Were they technicals? Tanks? Jeeps?

					Ryan
From: pepke@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Subject: Re: TECH: Projection screen with stereo glasses?
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:29:36 GMT


The Cave, done by those fine folks in Chicago, uses three rear-screen 
projection walls and one front-screen projection floor along with flip 
glasses to do VR.  It is a VERY effective system, much better than walking 
around with a couple of low-res LCD's on your face.  There are some 
problems with image resolution on the corners of the box, but they seem to 
have made them pretty minimal.

Eric Pepke                                    INTERNET: pepke@scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET:   pepke@fsu
Florida State University                      SPAN:     scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052                    BITNET:   pepke@fsu

Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
From: TJR122@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: INFO?: Anyone has Toshiba Glasses?
Date: 18 Dec 92 23:18:46 GMT
Organization: Penn State University
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu


If anyone answers Peter's question about the Toshiba glasses, I'd
REALLY appreciate it if they'd post it here (as opposed to or in addition
to EMAILing him privately)...I haven't heard about these Toshiba glasses,
but would love to hear about them!

Thanx....Tom R.
From: kaugust@caip.rutgers.edu (karin august)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: MISC: V R A S P Chat
Date: 20 Dec 92 03:15:04 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu



On the fourth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:
   four Flocks of Birds, three Fastracks, two Power Gloves and a high rez HMD.

V R A S P Chat Tuesday, December 29th at 7 PM at the Cafe Newz located
at 52 Easton Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ.

Meet neat people.  Eat great pizza (or pastry).  An evening dedicated to VR.
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
From: Andy Kossowsky           <AKOSSOWSKY@TURBO.kean.edu>
Subject: Re: INFO?: VR directional sensor functionality
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 14:42:48 GMT


       I recently had the pleasure of using the Dactyl Nightmare VR game system
with a friend of mine.  Ever since I tried this I have been plagued with the
question, how does the system detect head and hand movements.
        The hand interface is not a glove, instead it is a gun.

        Is a field generated somewhere in the room and the head and gun sensors
react to it? or is everything based on magnetic north and gravity?  I would
love to know this.

                                        Thanks in advance,
                                        pgoudas@faline.bellcore.com

--- Reply by Andy Kossowsky :

The Virtuality system, As far as I know is based on a magnetic
position detector similar to the Polhemous, the magnetic field
is generated fron the ring that surrounds you and is picked up
by the helmet and 'gun'.  Virtuality, by the way, is based on an
Amiga with a suped-up graphics system and CD-ROM storage.

Andy
VRASP
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
From: digdug@iastate.edu (Doug V Tran)
Subject: Re: TECH: Powergloves available
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:53:31 GMT


Check your local K-mart store.

My had one powergove left for $49.99.

later,
doug
From: jlb31348@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jim Brain)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: INFO: Midnight Engineering Sub
Date: 12 Dec 92 23:06:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec13.030250.13732
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu


Many people have asked me about our article in Midnight Engineering.

John Williams can answer really technical questions, but it is
basically a mag for all the people who start their own technology
selling business, like 3DTV and other such small companies.  The
mag subscription can be had for $19.95 by sending that amount 
with your name and address to:

Midnight Engineering 
1700 Washington Avenue
Rocky Ford, CO 810647-9900

They will take VISA or MASTERCARD, or check


-- 
Jim Brain                           "If you build it, they will come."
brain@cs.uiuc.edu
Senior, Computer Engineering                                    Field of Dreams
PowerGlove Serial Interface Designer and Co-Project Leader.                     
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign       Dox available on request
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
From: Andy Kossowsky <AKOSSOWSKY@TURBO.kean.edu>
Subject: APPS: VR word proccesing?
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:58:49 GMT


Has anyone heard of a VR app that creates a virtual keyboard,
and lets you accuratly type?

ApK

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 |      / |^\        /| |^^^\ |^\            Andy Kossowsky
 |    /   |___\    /  | |____ |___\          On-Line Services Manager
 |  /     |\     /----|      ||              AKOSSOWSKY@TURBO.Kean.edu
 |/       |  \ /      | \___/ |
 The Virtual Reality Alliance of Students and Professionals___________