HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Australia to buy US F111s
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:22:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia


From bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au

> From sedisrj01@cc.curtin.edu.au
>
>>From everything I've read, Australia only ordered 24 F-111's.  They
>> received some F-4's when the F-111's were in storage because of problems
>> before delivery was made.
>
> A few years ago, a RAAF person based at Amberly, QLD, told me that another
> squadron (12 planes), besides the publicised 24, were based at Butterworth,
> Malaysia, before the RAAF pulled out of there.  These were planes the then
> Government chose not to tell the public about.  Can anybody verify this
> information?

        Australia has had aircraft based at Butterworth, but I never heard
any mention of F-111's. Mirage 3's, GAF Sabres, and some Liberator bombers
during the "Malaysian Emergency", but not F-111's. Besides, what happened
to those extra 12 F-111's? If they were a secret then, they're still a
secret now, because the Govt hasn't admitted to having 36 F-111's.


> Now if we had bought the Invincible it might have been a different story.

        How would having an Invincible change things? The Falklands war
demonstrated that even with 2 carriers on station (HMS Hermes and HMS
Invincible) the British were barely able to defend themselves against
air attacks made by light jets from the Argentine mainland. Are you
suggesting that 1 Invincible could do better against more aircraft which
have a shorter distance to travel? The Invincible carriers are anti-sub
carriers. The reason why they have fixed wing fighters is because those
fighters are able to operate from facilities designed for helicopters.


           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: 106mm Recoiless Rifle - Rocket or Gun?
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:15:37 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <BxGrMr.6v4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:
> 
> From bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
> 
> In article <Bx97D9.1s3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com  
> (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>>  Over on the sci.physics newgroup, there was a discussion of 
>>  recoil and the subject of a recoiless rifle came up.  One
>>  person claimed it was a GUN, another said it was a ROCKET.
>> 
> 
> A rocket operates by expelling mass in one direction to cause the rest of the  
> rocket to go in the other. A gun operates by causing an expanding gas to push  
> the projectile out of the barrel. If you look at a recoiless rifle you have a  
> shell casing full of holes to let the gas out, but the rear of the casing is a  
> flat plate like a normal shell. The gas expands faster than it can exit the  
> rear of the gun which causes the shell to be pushed out the front, but enough  
> gas is expelled though the rear to counteract the recoil. 
> 
> --
> Barry Wise
> (bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
> 
> 

My brother was a recoiless rifle gunner when he was in the US army. The RR
had several interesting features. One was the "kill zone" behind the gun.
Apparently the exhaust was so intense that there had to be a clear area
behind the gun (you ever see a picture of one firing? BIG cloud of dust!)
& one of the functions of the asst gunner was to sit facing backwards with
a safety switch in his hand. If the area wasn't clear then he wouldn't
allow the gun to fire. Another feature was that the instant dust cloud
the thing raised blinded the crew many times but , presumably, would at-
tract alot of tank or AFV anti-personnel fire. RR duty assignments was
NOT something that was sought after. 

PHIL
p.s. I *did* think the jeep with 4 106mm RR's on it looked neat though!
What was it called? 'Ontos', maybe? Anyway, has anyone any experiences
with those they'd care to relate?
From: Herschel H Mayo <hhm@ihlpe.att.com>
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Summary: Lendlease
Organization: Chicago Home for the Morally Challenged
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:52:41 GMT


From Herschel H Mayo <hhm@ihlpe.att.com>


> 
> From Lee Short <short@asf.com>
> 
> 
> >Stalin would have
> >been hard pressed to continue the war when faced with the possibility of
> >loosing his aid from the west.  
> >
> 
> Strictly not true.  Lend-lease aid was a small part of the Soviet war
> effort.  The simple fact of the matter is that the Wehrmacht was
> defeated by Soviet troops, Soviet tanks, Soviet artillery, Soviet
> blood, and Soviet determination.  Anyone who thinks that either
> lend-lease aid *or* the Western Allies' invasion of France played a
> part in the defeat of the Wehrmacht is deluded.  They may have saved
> some Soviet lives and speeded up the end of the war, but they did not
> change the final result.  It was inevitable.  Evidence provided on
> request (i.e., my references are at home).  

While we have played games with hiding the importance of the Russian 
contribution to WWII, the Soviet counterpart has been to downplay Lendlease.
Stalins correspondence with Churchill indeed indicates that Russia badly needed
lendlease materials. Stalin constantly and bitterly accused the western powers 
of delaying critical shipments of materials to him., hardly the reactions of
someone not in need of them. Russia badly needed alloy steels for
armor plate, much of which came from the west. Russia imported nearly ALL
transport vehicles from the west. You will see virtually nothing except 
Studebaker and western made vehicles in pictures of the Soviet army. This
in itself was a critical contribution in the fact that Russia was able to
devote its vehicle manufacturing to tanks.  The lag time between the German
invasion, and the gearing up of Soviet industry was the most critical period
when nearly everything the Soviet Army used was augmented by western sources,
from fighter planes, down to uniform  buttons with a hammer and sickle stamped
on one side, and the name of the American manufacturer stamped on the other.
Soviet industry was freed of the vast burden of manufacturing requirements
that the Germans were saddled with.  Lend lease was a major factor in beating
the Germans. Without it, and Germany freed from a war with England, It is very 
likely that the worst that could have happened to the Germans would have been 
a stalemate. 

                                        Larry Mayo

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: 2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: F-117
Organization: school of Engineering UNSW
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:32:53 GMT


From 2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()

In article <BxB8J2.KxM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca> writes:
>
>From Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
>
>bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu ("Sean J. Roc D'Arcy") writes:
>: 
>: From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>
>: 
>: As to the F-117 I really can't guess what its original intent was (since 
             ^^^^
>: I'm sure its still classified).
>: 


  The reason I was told that it was given this designation (in a magazine called
Takeoff) was that the base where it did all of it's testing was also the base
where they tested all the captured Russian aircraft.(ie mainly given to them
from Isreal, Egypt, etc.).
  Now the reason that it got the F-117 designation was the Russian aircraft had
the designation up to F-116, and so they called it F-117 to "throw" off anyone
interested.

  Just what I'd heard.

Later,
Matthew.
From: th2_oate@csd.uwe-bristol.ac.uk (Tom Oates)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Torpex in WWII
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:23:31 GMT
Organization: University of the West of England, Bristol


From Tom Oates <th2_oate@csd.uwe-bristol.ac.uk>

As far as I can remember, Torpex is designed for use by naval forces. As
the name suggests it was used in torpedo warheads/depth charges and mines
etc. I do know that one of the components of Torpex was powdered aluminium 
to enhance the blast.

-- 
****************************************************************************** 
* Tom Oates (Univ. of West of England) * DISCLAIMER:I speak only for myself. * 
* Email to: th2_oate@uk.ac.uwe.csd     * PGP 2.0 Key available upon request. *
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re:  Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:05:33 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <Bx5CsC.IpH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:
> 
> The Sherman Firefly mounted a variation of the British 17 pounder AT
> gun, nominally of 77mm. There was also a US upgunned Sherman mounting
> a 76mm gun, a rough equivalent of the 17 pounder. Both apparently
> worked well.

Are you sure of this??  The Firefly had an actual 17pdr from memory, as the
turret ring was large enough to accomodate it and the turret could be modified
"out the back" as it were to account for the longer length.  The 17pdr was
actually a 76.2mm gun, the British measuring their  guns in terms of weight of
shot fired (a throwback to Napoleonic times?) rather than an actual calibre.

The 77mm gun you mention was a shortened version of the 17pdr and was used in
the British cruiser tank Comet.  It was slightly less powerful but was
significantly shorter (equates to easier handling in tank) and allowed a
greater number of rounds to be stored inside the hull.

The US 76mm gun was used on the HVSS "easy eight" Sherman from memory but I'll
have to check this one out as well.

regs

Rob

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>
Subject: Re: transport planes as bombers
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:29:23 GMT


From "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>

In article <BxICv0.L4K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:

> IMHO a machine gun pod, like FNs 7.62mm TMP, would be infinitely superior
> in terms of lethality and survivability, and could be adapted to 
> virtually all the same aircraft that could use a PJ-1. Am I missing
> something?

Where does the pod mount?  If it's close to or on the fuselage, how do
you get around the problem of sawing off the propellor?  If it's out on
the wings, will they take the shock of the recoil?

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Austers (and Biggles)
Keywords: Typhoons/ground attack role
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:29:26 GMT


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

In article <Bx7CJt.ELH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za> writes:

>BTW, British Army Co-Operation was a special branch of the Army -- not the
>RAF.  Their main job was spotting for divisional heavy artillery, and not
>so much to provide the small-scale tactical support delivered by the RAF
>ground-attack squadrons.  (The a/c used were mainly Austers (delightful 
>plane to fly) -- originally a licence-built 1930's American Ryan design.)   

I recall reading somewhere that the Auster was a British built
Taylorcraft, though I might be wrong.. Both the Piper Cub and 
Taylorcraft were used by the US Army.

I remember the Auster as being Biggles' favorite airplane (anyone read 
Biggles anymore? I'd heard he'd been banned in Australian school li-
braries and you NEVER find british war fiction in the US. Similarly, are 
those British war comics still being printed much these days?)






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: AA guns in direct-fire role (was Bofor
Organization: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:48:51 GMT


From Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>

In article <Bwy40M.DDE@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ipc@zoo.bt.co.uk (Ian Coleman) writes:
>
>In article H1p@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM, ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au () writes:
>  
>>This principle was also used by the Allies in the B-26-H (from memory unsure if
>>this is correct numerical designation) where a 75mm was mounted in the nose.

I do not know if any B-26's were modified that way, but there was a version
of the B-25 Mitchell with a 75mm gun in the nose.

>Don't forget the use of AT weapons on British Hurricanes (40mm?? anyone
>care to confirm).

The Hurricane Mk. IID did indeed have two 40mm guns, one in a pod under
each wing.  It could even knock out a Tiger tank (I've seen a photo of
a Tiger which found this out).  I think they were mostly used in the
desert.  Presumably the use of rockets made the 40mm gun redundant.

There was also a version of the Mosquito with a 57mm gun in the lower
fuselage, replacing the four 20mm cannon usually carried by fighter/
bomber versions.

And going in the opposite direction from the original post about AA guns
used against ground targets, the Germans mounted a 50mm anti-tank gun in
some versions of the Me410 in order to attack American bombers from long
range, so they didn't have to face the bombers' .50 machine guns.  The
problem was the recoil of the heavy gun.

-- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cee
 UUCP: ..!uknet!cee.hw.ac.uk!adrian  |  ARPA:  adrian@cee.hw.ac.uk

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman )
Subject: Re: 'von' as part of german names
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:16:47 GMT


From miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman )

Tomas Eriksson <tomas_e@link.physchem.kth.se> writes:

>Actually, that's not completely true. At least in the very early 20th 
>century, German officers of non-noble origin were allowed to call 
>themself "von <their surname>". To distingusih between this kind of 
>names, and hereditary noble names, this "von" was written as "v.".

>Considering the NSDAP's and Hitler's dislike for the old German 
>establishment, I'm rather certain that this habit had been discontinued
>at the outbreak of WWII. I don't know when, though. Could have been any 
>time between approx. 1900 and 1939.

	I recall reading some time ago that a large number of "von"s
	were created in the 3rd Reich's Army as a sort of status
	award.  Sorry, can't remember any more.

	- Michael Goldman

-- 
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have
exhausted all other alternatives." - Abba Eban
	Disclaimer:  All views are solely my own & not the views of Acuson.
	<sun!sono!miklg>  or  [miklg@acuson.com]

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: michael andrew duvernois <duve@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: XUSSR Hardware
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:08:04 GMT


From michael andrew duvernois <duve@midway.uchicago.edu>

Someone asked a couple of days ago if XUUSR military gear was appearing in 
American stores.  Well, earlier today I was at an indoor flea-market
(4100 S. Ashland for Chicago types) where one dealer a bunch of different
items.  Among the things for sale were XUSSR army night-vision goggles
(looked kinda cheesy) for $100, one piece winter camo suits (very heavy
material) for $40, AK-74 clips, an offensive/defensive grenade (removable
sheath, safed), and lots of little doo-dads (official technical term).

I settled for buying a cap and a couple of pins.  If anyone knows about
Soviet decorations, I can email a description of the pins, one of which
looks like some sort of commendation.

Michael DuVernois
m-duvernois@uchicago.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Herschel H Mayo <hhm@ihlpe.att.com>
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Organization: Chicago Home for the Morally Challenged
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:16:51 GMT


From Herschel H Mayo <hhm@ihlpe.att.com>

In article <BxB8oq.L7q@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "David W. Levine" <dwl@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> 


> To be honest, I question the assumption that Hitler can put together
> peace in the
> West just by not siding with Japan. He's still siting on France, He's
> still sitting
> on the netherlands, He's still occupuying Scandanavia,  he's engaged in Africa.
> You need to believe that he's willing and able to settle all of these issues,
> can get Churchill to dicker with him over Poland, since after all, the reason
> England and France Declare war on Germany is because Hitler invaded Poland to
> begin with...

He doesn't need peace, all he needs to do is to cool the war off into another
period of sitzkreig. Churchill was banking on American participation in the
war. With this possibility gone, he would have been strongly pressed to end
the fighting one way or another. Surrender was unlikely, and total victory 
would have been unlikely without the support of the U.S. Neither Germany, or
Britain had the resources on their own to deliver a knockout to the other. 
American opinion would have made further covert aid to Britain rather unpopular 
in the political arena. 


                                                  Larry Mayo

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: WW 2 PENETRATIONS
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:05:23 GMT


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

> From Brian <brian@coombs.anu.edu.au>
>
> Patrick Jonke <jonke@BRL.MIL> writes:
>
> >> Panzerfaust 100       HEAT    200 200 200  200  x    x        @90 Deg.
> >
> >> Panzerschreck 43      HEAT    209 209 209  209  x    x        @90 Deg.
> >
> >> 8.8cm Raketenwerfer   HEAT    100 100 100  100  100  x        @90 Deg.
> >> (Puppchen)
>
>                                       Weight
>                             Warhead       Filling(HE)
> Panzerfaust 30 (Klein)      3.25lbs       1.5lbs
>             30/60/100       6.75lbs       3.5lbs
> Panzerschreck 43            1.4lbs        -
> 8.8cm Raketenwerfer
> (Puppchen)                  1.5lbs        -
>
>
>         As you can see, the Puppchen's warhead is slightly heavier than
> the Panzerschreck's (and I'm afraid to tell you that the Puppchen is _not_
> "simply a Panzerschreck mounted on a carriage" - its an almost completely
> new weapon, with a much heavier round to give an increased range.  The
> designation of the two rounds is respectively, "RP.Gr.4322" whilst the
> Puppchen's is, "RP.Gr.4312".) and this would account for the differences
> in penetrations for those weapons.  As for the Panzerfaust's penetration,


While I have no figures for the penetrations of the Panzersschrek vs
the Puppchen, the following is taken from the "WW2 Factfile" series on
Anti-tank weapons by Peter Chambelain & Terry Gander:

               Projectile Wt   Warhead Weight   Projectile Designation
Puppchen:         2.6kg            .684kg         RP Gr 4312
Pnzrshk 43        3.27kg           .65 kg         RP Gr 4322
Pnzrshk 54        3.27kg           ???            RP Gr 4992

The only penetration figure given for any of these is 8.25 inches for
the Gr 4322.

The penetrations given for the Panzerfaust seies are:

               Bomb Diameter   Bomb Weight    Pen (@ 30 deg)
Model 30 (Klein)    100mm       3.25lb           140mm
Model 30            150mm       6.75lb           200mm
Model 60 & 100 as the model 30.

 Mike Campbell,
 mike@alyosius.equinox.gen.nz
 I have long since stopped being surprised when anything I say is
 soon shown to be a load of cobblers'!
e
--
Mike Campbell,
mike@alyosius.equinox.gen.nz
I have long since stopped being surprised when anything I say is
soon shown to be a load of cobblers'!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Monday, 26 October, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:52:07 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <Bx7C2F.Dnx@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes:
> 
> From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
> 
> Monday, 26 October, 1942
> 
> A major naval battle develops in the Guadalcanal vicinity.  Aircraft from 
> the Japanese carriers Shokaku, Zuikaku, Zuiho, and Junyuo attack the US 
> carriers Enterprise and Hornet.  
> [.....................................................................] 
> The American counterstrike damages the carriers Zuiho and Shokaku, along
> with the destroyer Chikuma.  
           ^^^^^^^^^
The only "Chikuma" I've heard of ,in the Imperial Navy in WWII, was a 
heavy cruiser.

PHIL
From: Charles Meo <cm@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Jutland
Organization: Solbourne Computer Australia
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:12:13 GMT


From Charles Meo <cm@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>

mmzn@rice.edu (Mark Mazina) writes:

[Jutland was]
>much like Coral Sea - the strategic victor was not the tactical victor. 
>This makes for a much less satisfying "victory" than, say, Midway.  Hence
>the critics come out. 

Agreed. Nothing short of an impossibly decisive rout of the Grand Fleet 
would have changed anything--if that.

The High Seas Fleet was intended by Tirpitz to contest an opponent and
seek decisive battle with the it (i.e. Britain) but never quite 
got big enough to do it. Hence, it was effectively confined to port as
opportunities to inflict a series of small but crippling blows never arose.

The whole battle was an accident anyway, because the Germans thought they
were taking on just the battlecruiser squadrons and got a very nasty surprise
when the rest of the grand Fleet turned up behind them. Similarly, the 
battlecruisers were never intended to slug it out with the entire German
fleet, though they were so pretty everyone thought they could...

If an engine of war can be said to be beautiful then those battlecruisers
(on both sides) will get my nomination.

Chuck
-- 
Chuck Meo
Solbourne Computer Australia
cm@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
'SYS5R4: I am Your Density'

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jim Heath <jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: BLU-82/B What sort of bomb is it ?
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:52:46 GMT


From Jim Heath <jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu>

>From article <Bx5CyC.J4s@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by Gregory L Yantz <ranald@athena.mit.edu>:
> 
> From Gregory L Yantz <ranald@athena.mit.edu>
> 
> In article <Bx1GCs.IHF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, chc30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com writes:
> |> 
> |> From chc30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com
> |> 
> |> 
> |> I saw a reference to the BLU-82/B bomb which said it was known by the
> |> nick name Big Blue and Daisycutter. The delivery system used was said to
> |> be pushing it out of the back of a Hercules C130. I don't know what type
> |> of weapon this and what it is intended for (apart from going boom), anyone
> |> know what it is ?
> |> --
> |> chc30@amail.amdahl.com
> 
> This is from memory, not a reference source, but I believe the bomb you
> are refering to is a very large (10,000 lb) bomb that was used to blast
> landing sites for helicopters. Drop it on an area with a thick tree 
> canopy- the trees go away and you have a nice little landing site.
>

I remember one veteran telling about having dazed VC coming out
of the tunnels for quite a while.  I think he was with a unit
called "The Queen of Battles", maybe 88th infantry.. 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)

Newsgroups: sci.military