HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "Scott D. Young" <youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: Re: Iowa Upgrade
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:32:17 GMT


From "Scott D. Young" <youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca>


   The problem is, no one would ever attack an Iowa with only *1* fast
   patrol boat. Try 20 or so, supported by 150 fighter bombers (old and
   obsolete, perhaps, but still a lot). Syria or Libya might be able to
   field that many old MiG's (or new MiG's, soon?). The Iowa probably
   wouldn't sink, but lots of dead crewmen and loss of sensors and
   armaments are all the attacker really wants. If it can't shell the
   coast, the Iowa won't be very useful.

   Are there any studies of the results of such an engagement? I have
   run several Harpoon scenarios (computer version), playing both sides.
   Usually, the Iowa is damaged and several escorts are sunk, with the
   virtual annhialation of the attackers. Who wins?

   Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>
Subject: rapiers in usaf
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:25:45 GMT


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


>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?

As far as I remember, the USAF bought the Rapier to defend the F-111
bases in England. However, the deal included the British Army operating
the system.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
Subject: rapiers in usaf
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:20:05 GMT


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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Bruce Burden <bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>
Subject: Re: Yamamoto? (was Re: Battleship Diplomacy)
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:29:48 GMT


From Bruce Burden <bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>


In article <Bz9EzM.6nr@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> carlos@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Miguel Borges) writes:
>
>[mod note -- that one slipped by me.  From what I remember, there were 3
>BBs in the Yamato class -- Yamato, Musashi, and Shinano.  The Shinano was
>converted to a carrier (displaced something like 70,000 or 80,000 tons), and
>was sunk by U.S. sub in the Inland Sea on it's way to sea trials.  Can't
>remember the name of the sub that did the deed, but it's captain wrote a
>book about it -- _The Sinking of the Shinano_
>

	The Shinano was lost in much the same way the Lexington (CV-3?) was
    lost. The torpedoes cracked an aviation fuel line, and the fumes spread
    below decks. Once this was noticed, the captain ordered ventilation
    fans activated. However, the fumes were drawn into an arc-ing fan
    motor and exploded.

	This was from a two volume book that traced the history of US
    submarines during WWII. Unfortunately, the name escapes me.



								Bruce



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bruce Burden            bruceb@mpd.tandem.com         Tandem Computers Inc.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@d74sun.mitre.org>
Subject: info wanted : tank tactics used in post WWII
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:22:19 GMT


From "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@d74sun.mitre.org>


    It may be, but for now I'm sticking with it.  (I'll go see if I
can get more info now.) Incidently I know the Rhinemettal cannon was
tested with hypervelocity ammunition (>10000 fps!) as part of the
proofing tests of the American made guns.

     The only limit on the ammo is of course the amount of recoil the
tank can take. (Not the gun...)  The limit involves firing to the side
and slightly depressed while moving.  (You don't want to flip the tank
over.)  When the armor was upgraded by adding the DU, the extra low
center of mass weight made the tank much more stable and able to
handle a bigger kick.

    Looked in the library again, still can't find a muzzle velocity
for the 120 mm M829 APFSDS-T, just a reference (in the 1987-88 Jane's
book) to a third generation German round, "...which may have a muzzle
velocity of 1800 meters per second."

    Maybe you'd like to post a question on the net.  What I know
(American munitions for the M1A1) is:

    Type 	Model	Weight	   Muzzle velocity	Comments

    APFSDS-T	M827	19.73 kg   1650 m/sec		German round
    APFSDS-T	M829	18.7 kg    ???			American developed
    HEAT-MP-T	M830	24.2 kg	   1140 m/sec
    TP-T	M831	---	   ---
    TPCDS-T	M865	19 kg	   1700 m/sec		Practice
    TPFSDS-T	M866	---	   ---	
    HEAT	XM859	---	   ---


					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:40:08 GMT


From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)

>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.

While it probably will work it, the tank would hardly be able to move since the
phalanx weighs a couple (>5) tons. The Phalanx also costs more than the tank 
(around 5 million according to Jane's). Phalanx signature is also somewhat 
imposing (it's big as hell).

>[mod note -- I though the Army already had an AD weapon -- it's a 20mm
>Vulcan mounted on an M113 chassis.  Might not be quite able to keep up with
>an M1A1 running flat out, but it's better that the Sgt. York

Oh yes, the M-163 system. With a Vulcan gun and range-only radar. Not a very 
modern system.

cheers




--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"Another casualty of applied meta-physics!" -- Hobbes

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Robert E George <regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:26:55 GMT


From Robert E George <regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

In article <BzD52n.JD9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.z
a> writes:
>
>From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
[deletions]
>
>BTW:  An e-mail contributor has just added to the list....
>
>    Boulton-Paul Defiant
>    Me 210
>    Blackburn Roc
>    Fiat G-50
>    Morane-S. 335(?) -- Sorry, can't recall exact #.
[deletions]

    I mentioned the Defiant in an earlier posting.
    Me 210 was not good, but it also was not an Allied fighter :-)
    Blackburn Roc, and the Fairey Fulmar -- the FAA's reconnaissance
fighters left a lot to be desired. Poor concept. Too slow.
    The Fiat -- another Axis fighter, maneuverability over firepower,speed
    The Morane-Saulnier M.S. 406 was the main French fighter in 1940 --
low-wing monoplane, speed about 300 mph. Not very effective.

Robert George
(speaking only for myself)

"The very essence of individual freedom is equal justice under a rule of
law, a law to which every man shall be subject and which no executive
can modify."
    Senator Robert Taft , March 11, 1944

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:27:14 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

	Apologies here, and I'll not reply publicly to queries on this
unless I figure they raise points not mentioned herein.  Anyway...

	I posted a concern here regarding the pressure upon the fuel and
the altitude of the airship.  After a bit more calculation, and a few
mailings asking what I was talking about, my speculation was that the
fuel would vaporize or otherwise boil as it was pumped into the airship.
Furthermore, remember that latent heat of vaporization stuff from chem
and physics?  If common oxy torches need to be shut off in a particular
sequence to avoid the lines blowing up in your face due to the pressure
differentual from torch head to atmosphere, I figured gasoline being pumped
a few hundred feet and then dumping into a tank might pose a fire hazard.

	Naturally, I've not experimented with this, and there are quite
a few ways around this problem.  I had intended to point out a possible
problem with the idea, and had hoped for a bit of discussion on ways
around it as well as the complaints about speed, launching platforms,
armament, and the like.  I had thought I implied that, but this being
finals week I fully accept that I may not have.

	Anyway, my apologies for not making myself more clear as to
my concerns and intentions.  When (not if!) I screw up again, please
feel free to mail me concerning this fact.  I am a layman in these
matters so far as I'm concerned, and I suspect many of us here are.
In my opinion, the greatest feature of this forum is that laymen and
experts may exchange ideas freely.  Somebody gets to thinking due to
this, and hopefully it has an impact upon those able to reject or
implement our ideas.  As any engineer knows, the dirt farmer who has
pondered the problem while watching Gilligan's Island might have a
better solution than the Chief Engineer of NASA, and it is this sort
of exchange that prompts consideration and solutions.

	Again, apoligies if I have not defined my presence, reasons,
and concerns over this idea adequately.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: andy@green.la.asu.edu (Andy Vaught)
Subject: AFRES vs ANG?
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:50 GMT


From andy@green.la.asu.edu (Andy Vaught)


Someone recently posted a list of units that had been activated for
"Restore Hope".  Air Force Reserve units as well as Air National Guard
units were listed-- I had thought that they were the same thing.  Can someone
explain the difference?

  Thanks,
     Andy

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
     Andy Vaught (Fuzzy Andy)   |    Just another field hand on
      andy@green.la.asu.edu     |    the plantation of science.
   Arizona State U.  Tempe, AZ  |

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gelwasser@stsci.edu
Subject: WWII East Front German Pioneer units
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:32:23 GMT


From gelwasser@stsci.edu


Request For Information regarding WWII East Front German Pioneer Units

Could someone please provide me with a TO&E for German Army Pioneer units
serving on the Eastern Front 1941-45 ? 
I'm particularly interested in company and platoon level organizations
during the Stalingrad campaign in '42.

I'd also be interested if anyone could point me in the direction of 
some english language books or studies with regard to the same.

Also I've got a few general questions on the subject :

1. Did the Waffen SS have pioneer units and if so, did they have the same
   TO&E as Army units ? Same question for Luftwaffe paratroops.

2. Pioneer units seem to emerged in post war histories as experts in 
   urban combat operations. Prior to the siege of Savastopole and the
   Stalingrad campaign, was this role part of thier original mission and 
   training ? 

3. How did Pioneer units differ from analogous organizations in the Red
   Army or amongst the Western Allies ? Were they "combat engineers"
   who also filled a heavy assault infantry role ?


Any information woul be appreciated.

Thanks,

Perry
  






Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Shooting bullets straight up 9-) (: Firing 0.5 inch Browning in B17 formation ?)
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:29:10 GMT


From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>


gt7797a@prism.gatech.edu (Travis Works) writes:
: >several things - a .30 caliber projectile is fairly small in the scheme
: >of things. A .50 Browning projectile would have considerably more ter-
: >minal velocity. I don't know if it would reach 140 mph or not.. in any 
: >case its a small fraction of muzzle velocity.
: 
: In my last post, I posted my calculated terminal velocity for a .50 BMG
: (140-150 mph). 


	What about the old Galilean priciple of acceleration is
not contingent upon the weight of the object dropping ??

			Ryan

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Marine Air squadrons deploy with carriers
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:30:23 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

As you may have seen in recent Navy News postings, several Marine
squadrons are going to be integrated into US Navy carrier air wings.
Since there are a few folks out there who might wish to make more of
this than it really is, I thought I'd set the record straight.

VMFA-314 (F/A-18C fliers) has been assigned to the USS Abraham Lincoln
(CVN 72) as part of the Lincoln's Carrier Air Group (CAG).  VMFA-312,
also a F/A-18 squadron, has been assigned to USS Theodore Roosevelt for
similar duties.

Additionally, VMFA-431 out of Beaufort SC is slated to become a carrier
squadron in FY-95 along with VMAQ-1, the Marine Corps' only EA-6B Prowler
squadron.

Quoting the December Marine Corps Gazette, "The concept of putting Marine
air squadrons aboard aircraft carriers is nothing new."

These Marine Air assignments coincide with the Navy's plans to stand down
four squadrons -- VF-114 and VA-65 in FY-93, followed by VF-33 and VAQ-137
in FY-95 -- to meet budgetary obligations and downsize into a smaller force.

The affected squadrons are (will be) deploying to NAS Fallon NV to plan 
missions and test procedures.  They will also undergo 10 days of sea trials
where the Marine aviators renew their carrier landing skills.

The Lincoln and the Roosevelt are both scheduled for deployment in spring 1993.

I think the Navy VF squadrons fly F-14's, the VA squadron flies A-6's, and
the VAQ flies EA-6B Prowlers.  I'm sure the sailors of our group will 
correct me if I'm wrong.


-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Naval trivia
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:32:36 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


From creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)

In article <BzEyz6.EoF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Dave Cole <dmc@oddjob.uchicago.edu> writes:
>The Enterprise of WWII fame was in fact a member of the Yorktown
>class (which comprised Yorktown, Hornet, and Enterprise.)  Both
>Yorktown and Hornet were sunk during the war.  As for the Essex
>class, none were sunk during WWII although the Franklin was so
>badly burnt out by kamikazes that I believe it was scrapped.

   The Hornet was considered to be in its own class, although
basically a repeat of the Yorktown Class.  There was also Wasp, which
was somewhat smaller than Yorktown, but otherwise pretty much the same
design.

   By the way, in my previous article, I omitted three Essex carriers:

CV-45  VALLEY FORGE (conv to LPH-8:61) ESSEX Class
CV-46  IWO JIMA (c:8/12/45)
CV-47  PHILLIPINE SEA (d:59)

   This would add 2 to the totals I gave before (not 3, since Iwo Jima
was cancelled).

   If anyone is interested, I have available my own list of US
carriers, giving somewhat more detailed (although still not complete)
information on the carriers.  E-mail me if you would like me to send
you a copy.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Prussian Military
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:46:47 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <Bz9Ez9.6Ix@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:
> 
> From fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
> 
> Who were the hussars.

Light cavalry on fast horses.  From memory they have Hungarian origins but I
could be wrong.  Their main use was scouting, although they did fight, the 11th
Hussars being in the charge of the Light Brigade for example.

> What was their duty? Same with the dragoons

Dragoons started of as mounted infantry who dismounted to fight.  They carried
all the equipment of a regular cavalryman as well as a musket for use when
dismounted.  By Napoleons time they were more usually used as heavy cavalry
having discarded their muskets, although the British had what they called a
light dragoon who was closer to a Hussar than a heavy cavalryman.

> and grenadiers. The latter I presume were infantry which carried some kind of 
> grenades around.
> 

Exactly.  They were the biggest and best trained men of the regiment and
usually formed the flank companies when the battalions assembled.  They were
later amalgamated to form units such as the Grenadier Guards due to their
superior training.  By this time the grenade concept had been generally
abandoned so their size and training made them a formidable opponent.  One of
Frederick the Greats requirements for grenadiers was that they must be 6'2"
tall, which is quite an exacting standard for 18th century Europe.  They also
had pointed hats so the rim would not interfere with the throwing action of the
grenade.

> The reason I would like some more information and maybe find pictures of the 
> various uniforms etc is because of genealogy.

Try your local wargaming store - they have a huge range of books allowing all
us fools to spend countless evenings painting each and every unit from our
chosen army in all their glorious detail.....

> One of my ancestors was a 
> 'Feldjaeger' in the Royal Prussian Army 

>From memory again, this makes him a light infantryman, someone who excels in
woods etc and did not form closed ranks and so on.  They were skirmishers whose
main job was harassment, not out and out firepower.


> This fellow's father also a dragoon from
> Ansbach-Bayreuth.  It may have been these units who for the first time proved
> superior to the Austrian cavalry, after the above mentioned lighter horse
> switch, during battle in Silesia in 1745. 

Quicker yes, but less shock power for exactly the same reason.

> Only 10 squadrons of dragoons swept
> 6 battle hardened Austrian infantry regiments into disappearance.  They took
> 66 unit flags and the Austrians lost 10,000 men wounded and killed.  This was
> the battle of Hohenfriedberg in June 1745

This I'll have to check, and will postdetails when I check my sources.


regs


Rob






Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in post WWII)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:23:51 GMT


From Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>

In article <Bz20nI.8t7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant) writes:
>
>From grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant)
>
>This thread has quickly revealed that currently, helicopters cannot
>entirely replace tanks.
>
>Here is a more refined question. What sort of situation must a nation
>be in, to responsibly forgoe main battle tanks, and depend on other
>systems?

Tanks, like battleships, can always be useful, but like battleships
there are situations where they aren't ideal. Tanks thrive on maneuver.
In a salt marsh or very rugged mountains, tanks are of less use because
their mobility becomes severely limited. Tanks are also an aggressor's 
weapon of choice. Situations where you have to dig in and hold specific 
pieces of ground are not ideal tank situations, though tanks can be very 
effective defensively if allowed to establish ambush lines followed by a 
fallback to a previously prepared position in order to do it again.

So if your nation has poor roads, extremely rough or soggy terrain,
no intentions of ever going on the offensive, or very shallow lines
of defense, then the tank can be responsibly foregone in your military
purchases.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: <none> (was tanks in Somalia)
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:33:22 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <BzBA1r.1oJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
Stuart Grant <grant@psych.toronto.edu> writes:
 
> Other times, tanks may be "too much of a good thing." In Somalia,
> for example, are any tanks being used? They are probably too much
> trouble, in terms of maintainance, fuel, and road demands, for
> their ability to vaporize the opposition's jeeps. Someting like
> a Bradley, or other MICV seems like what is needed. Light, fast,
> sufficiently armored, and with the ability to destroy anything the
> oppostion has.

The Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) has a platoon (4) of tanks -- M1A1's;
and a platoon (10) of Assault Amphibian Vehicles.  The full Marine 
Expeditionary Force (MEF) has a battalion of each consisting of four
line companies with four tracked vehicle platoons per company.  The AAV-P7 
is an  amphibious cousin of the M113 APC, manufactured by the same folks
at FMC Ordnance Division in San Jose CA.  The P7 used to mount
the M-85 .50 cal MG, and has been upgunned with (I think) a 20 mm
cannon.  When you read about "AmTracs" in the DoD releases these
vehicles are what people are talking about -- Amphibious Tractors.

The Communication and Recovery versions ( AAV-C7 and -R7 respectively )
both mount M60D .30 cal MG's.  I'd imagine any AmTrac on the scene has
adequate firepower to take on the most sophisticated ordnance I've seen
in Somali control from the film clips.  [For that matter so does a 
Marine infantry squad.]

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR