HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Subject: re: tank anti-missile (was Bradley AA)
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:17:06 GMT


From cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu

  The Russians have a system that is designed to shoot incoming anti-tank
missiles.  It comprises a small radar and several explosive boxes mounted on
the tank.  The radar senses a missile and then detonates one of the boxes which
are shotgun like in effect.  I think it's just a prototype but I also heard of
a similiar system using a .50 cal machine gun.  


-- 
---
Daemon E. Hobbs, Cadet, AFROTC
Senior, (Carto/RS/GIS) 
Cal Poly Pomona Geography Dept.
Email: cvalj001@csupomona.edu
Phone: 714-869-3590

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou)
Subject: Re: No Army Needed(
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:24:54 GMT


From fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou)

The following are "musts" for successful guerillar war:
1. Support, and willingness to sacrifice, of the population
2. Unwillingness on the occupier's part to "decimate" the whole population
3. Safe asylum, like N. Vietnam, or huge territory, like Russia
4. Foreign support (optional)
5. Others (i may have left out something here, feel free to add)

The first is absoluteily a must. Gevala's (sp?) failure is he didn't get the
support of the locals.

The second is also essential. It is hard to imagine any Jewish resistence
alone would eventually result in the Nazi's retreat from a (hypothetical)
Jewish state.

The third is important but you probably can think of an exception or two.
With the size of a country like China or Russia, no invader can effectively
control the whole country and population. THe sheer size alone is lots of 
protection for the guerilla. THe advantage of a safe haven is also obvious.

Foreign aids are important but not essential. Mujahadin (sp?) fought Soviets
for many years before Stingers came to the help. ANd it was not the Stingers
that won the war, lets not forget.

According to this short list, it's not difficult to see why VC and mujahadin
won their war. On the French resistence, I am not too sure because the
answer to the first two points are not so clear cut. 


Just my 2 cents.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:33:18 GMT


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

In article <Bzq2ou.4Fq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Emmanuel Gustin <gustin@evs2.uia.ac.be> writes:
>
>The P-47 was generally called 'Jug'. But it was (at least at first)
>shorthand for 'Juggernaut', an apropiate description of size, weight and
>power of this fighter. It was designed as an high-flying bomber
>interceptor; it is not surprising that the P-47 was inferior to the FW-190
>in dogfighting at medium levels. The P-47 was a good aircraft, a good
>concept, and was developed in a very successfull fighter; this is far
>better than can be said of some other aircraft mentioned here.

The top allied ace in the ETO drove a Thunderbolt. It was the diving
champion of WWII. Nothing could dive with it, or away from it. In it's
later varients, it was also the climbing champ, easily surpassing the
Spitfire. A huge engine with wings, the P-47 could rightly be called
a flying tank. It could take incredible punishment and keep flying.
It's primary role, however, was not as a bomber interceptor, but as
a bomber escort fighter. It's heavy armor and armament also made it
a good ground attack aircraft. When it encountered aircraft at medium
altitudes, the tactic was to rapidly pounce using it's superior diving
and climbing ability rather than staying level and engaging in a turning
contest.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Prussian Military
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:22:36 GMT


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

In article <Bzo8DD.BJ9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu> writes:

>The square was perfected by the Romans. With the advent of guns, the
>square became less useful as a defensive formation. Even if the enemy
>missed you, he was likely to hit your opposite number in the back.
>That's one reason the line tactic was developed, to reduce the depth
>of the target for musket fire and to allow all muskets to be mass
>fired at the same target.

By the time of Napoleon the Square had become the de facto way to 
deal with cavalry. Apparently horses refused to charge presented 
bayonets, and you couldn't outflank a square. 

Ney's Cuirassiers apparently came to grief at Waterloo against a 
network of squares arranged in echelon. 

The only type of cavalry capable of dealing with squares were Lan-
cers, whose long reach allowed them to attack without running their
horses onto bayonets.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:31:47 GMT


From regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)

In article <Bzq304.4yu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Isk
andar Taib) writes:
>
>From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>
>In article <BzEz4v.Ey6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Robert E George <regeorge@magnus
.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>
>>    Fiat G-50
>
>Hmmm...
>
>Wasn't it Robert Stanford Tuck who had the day off when his 
>squadron intercepted an Italian force consisting of slow bombers
>and Fiat biplanes? This was at the height of the Battle of Bri-
>tain. The italians were brave but the biplanes didn't do too well
>against Hurricanes.
>
[deletions to save space]

The Fiat G.50 was *not* a biplane -- the Fiat C.R. 42 (which was used
in the Battle of Britain) was a biplane, as was the Fiat C. R. 32
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: Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:20:34 GMT


From Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>

>From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
>    Alas, even by WWII, people STILL hadn't learned. 

I do agree with you, but the examples are not all that clear-cut.

> The Scharnhorst tried
> to play battleship against the Duke of York, and lost.

I don't think she tried.  When she encountered heavy opposition, she
retreated, and superior British radar allowed the Duke of York to
intercept her.

> The Kirishima
> tried it against the Washington and South Dakota, and lost. 

Good example.  It shows, however, that battlecruisers did indeed have
a chance if the got the drop on the enemy, since what saved the battle
was US numerical superiority.  Had the South Dakota been alone, things
would have looked different.

I would say Hiei is also a good example of battlecruiser
vulnerability, being effectively destroyed by the ships she was
designed to hunt, because she let herself be caught in a close-range
fight.

> The Hood
> tried it on the Bismarck, and lost (although I think in the case of
> the Hood, it may have been a lucky hit. Hood's armor wasn't THAT bad).

I think the deck armor was fairly weak.  (But indeed, by WWII
standards, any one hit that causes a battleship or equivalent to
explode must be called a lucky hit.)

--
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: CBU against ships?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:17:15 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

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

>If I were attacking a battle group, I would use a saturation attack. The
>trick is, of course, to attack the carrier group before it attacks you.
>Carrier planes have long legs. The best way is to remain undetected.
>Thus, the SSGN. Can you say "Oscar" boys and girls? To me this indicates
>that SOMEBODY thought about it, and thinks it might work.

	That somebody probably had a hand in the Kirov-class cruiser.
It just says, "He who shoots the most first wins."  Lord help it if
somebody survives, but that first punch is a knockout!

< 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: PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu>
Subject: Re: Frederick the Great, Bavaria and Ludwig II.
Organization: Amherst College
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:20:41 GMT


From PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu>

Joe Johnson (jjohnson%astroatc.UUCP@cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
: 
: Ludwig II (the "mad" king) was deposed by a group that included members of
: his own family, mainly due to his spendthrift ways. I don't recall the date
: offhand, but I think it was in the late 1880s. He had essentially
: bankrupted the state with his castle building program. Bismarck liked
: Ludwig and was sympathetic to his plight, but felt that he could not
: interfere in what was an internal Bavarian dispute. After Ludwig's death
: (suicide or murder?) he was succeeded by an uncle or maybe a cousin.
: 
A few additional notes.

1)  Ludwig was most certainly "mad".  Even his current fans admit that.

2)  The buildings may have been expensive, but they created jobs.  The result
was that he was a lot more popular with the people than with the government.
According to local lore, the first time the government tried to grab him, he
was in one of his castles in the south (I wouldn't even attempt to spell it)
and the locals all got together to block the gate of the castle.

3)  The government was also unhappy that Ludwig didn't back them in various
disputes with Prussia.  Ludwig's mother was Prussian and he had no complaints
against them himself.  The people liked the idea that he opposed going to
war with Prussia.

4)  Ludwig's death was ruled a suicide, but circumstances surrounding it were,
and still are, disputed.  It has probably generated more theories than the
Kennedy assignation.  If the government wasn't involved, it certainly was
unhappy.

5)  The Wittelsbach family still lives in Bavaria, or at least did when I
was there in the early 70s.  Still wealthy I believe.  And I believe they
have enough class not to go around claiming meaningless titles.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
Subject: <none> (was tanks in
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:57:50 GMT


From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>


JC>I don't think the MEUs are deploying with a tank platoon anymore. In
JC>there place the MEUs are attaching a reinforced Light Armored Infantry
JC>platoon. I'm not sure of the LAI platoon's exact composition.

Howdy..sorry to butt in, but...

I was watching one of the press conferences on CNN the other day, and some
sharpeyed journalist mentioned that he'd seen M1A1 tanks being offloaded
in Mogadashu (sp?) harbour.  The Marine general confirmed that they were
in fact M1A1s, but he said that at present there were no plans to use them
in the operation; rather, since the ship being offloaded was one of the
prepositioned supply ships based at Diego Garcia, the tanks were on board
as part of standard equipment, and had to be offloaded so other equipment
in the holds needed for the operation could be reached.  Apparently, at
present time the tanks are onboard a ship in the harbour, available with a
few hours notice.
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Napoleon's Guard
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:29:44 GMT


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

Sorry - forgot to give a reference or two to that last effort:

Napoleonic Armies, A Wargamer's Campaign Directory, 1805 - 1815; Ray 
   Johnson (all the info on numbers of units came from here)

Uniforms of the Retreat fom Moscow;  Blandford Colour Series

The Face of Battle;  John Keegan
-- 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Patrick T. Homer" <patrick@cs.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Yamato
Keywords: sister ships
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:31:36 GMT


From "Patrick T. Homer" <patrick@cs.arizona.edu>



I got around to digging out a reference over the weekend on the Yamato and
her sister ships.  To add to the discussion held previously:

There were five ships planned.  The first three -- Yamato, Musashi, and
Shinano -- have already been discussed.  The fourth, No. 111, was laid down
on 7 November, 1940.  Construction was stopped in March 1942.  The
contract was cancelled in September, 1942, and the hull was broken up.
The fifth ship, No. 797, never had a contract awarded.

There were plans for two additional classes of ships.  No. 798 & 799 are
described as super Yamato-Class and were planned under the 1942 Programme, but
the contracts were never placed.  The book only lists 70,000 ton approximate
displacement and 6 x 20 in armament.

No. 795 & 796 were officially described as Super Type A crusisers, and not as
battlecruiser editions of the Yamato.  No contracts were awarded.  The
original plan called for 9 x 12 in 50-cal, 16 x 3.9 in 65 cal DP,
8 x 24 in Torpedo Tubes.  The plans were revised to 9 x 14 in and no TT
as a result of knowledge gained about the American Alaska class.  They
were to be 34,800 tons full-load displacement, 160000 SHP, 33 knots.  No
contracts for construction were awarded.

This information comes from
_Warships_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_Navy, 1869-1945.
Hansgeorg Jentschura, Dieter Jung and Peter Mickel
translated by Antony Preston and J. D. Brown
U. S. Naval Institute Press (U.S. Publishers)
1977


	Patrick Homer
	patrick@cs.arizona.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Yamamoto? (was Re: Battleship Diplomacy)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:20:49 GMT


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

In article <Bzo8Iu.Bq4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us> writes:
>
>
>"david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:
>
>> I think you're thinking of the Taiho, not the Shinano. Shinano was kind
>> of top heavy, what with her concrete flight deck and all, and she rolled 
>> over and sank, but she didn't explode to my knowledge.
>
>Well, I've seen several versions of what happened to the Shinano 
>so I looked it up. According to "Warships of the Japanese Imperial 
>Navy" US Naval Institute Press, ISBN 0-85368-151-1, the Shinano 
>was torpedoed 29 November 1944 by the Archerfish and sank ... "as 
>a result of uncontrolled flooding, the watertight doors for the 
>extensive sub-division having not been fitted". It also noted that 
>the flight deck had 3.15 inch armor, but nothing about concrete or 
>being top heavy.
>
Everything you say is true. The lack of watertight doors was a major factor
in the sinking of the Shinano. However, I still think the ship was topheavy,
and this contributed to (but was certainly not the sole cause of) her 
demise. Also contributing to the disaster were the untrained crew, and the
captain who didn't slow down after taking the hits.
   I'm fairly certain that the Shinano's flight deck was at least partially
concrete. Dulin and Garzke have a remarkable cross-section plan of the 
Shinano, so I can check that to confirm. Apparently, by late in the war,
the Japanese were running short of steel, and therefore became quite 
adept at substituting concrete. I'll check my sources to confirm this.

				David R. Wells

	(who actually DOES read other books than just Dulin & Garzke)

DISCLAIMER: My opinions, not AT&Ts.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: German WWII Carrier aka Graf Zeppelin
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:13:42 GMT


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

In article <Bz3v2s.2sp@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Paul Ayotte <payotte@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> writes:
>
>
>    The Graf Zeppelin was later captured by the Soviets and used as 
>.. was 
>
   It was my understanding that she hit a mine while being towed back to 
the USSR. Can't cite any sources though. Someone else on the net claims
that she sank due to shifting cargo. Whoever that is, can you cite a 
source? I'd love to know for sure what the exact fate of this ship was.

				David R. Wells

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Nigel Tzeng <stxtnt@rs733.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:24:35 GMT


From Nigel Tzeng <stxtnt@rs733.gsfc.nasa.gov>

In article <BzD52x.JGo@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

[phalanx discussion deleted]

>>[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

Why anyone thinks that hitting med/high altitude fast moving aircraft
with a gun is trival activity is beyond me.  Sgt York was a very
ambitious project that didn't quite payoff (although the rumor mill
had it the Colonel left holding the bag actually got the sucker to
work more or less...when the project head slot goes from being a two
star to a colonel you know that it's on its way out no matter what
happens).

You might also remember that DIVAD (Sgt York) has a different mission
than the Vulcan...as the divisional air defence platform it's supposed
to hit all thouse things that the smaller platforms couldn't.  It was
supposed to complement the Patriot as a cheaper (per shot) weapon.

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

Nope...what a late 60's early 70's vintage vehicle?  The M113 family
may not be very hot on the performance end but there sure are a lot of
variants and vehicles out there...not to mention dirt cheap prices.

>cheers

>Erik Svensson			Research Officer

Nigel
--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
Subject: Re: Navy News Service - 23 Dec 92
Summary: What is this?
Organization: :
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:36:25 GMT


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

In article <Bzs8v3.LHs@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ttaylor@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes:
> ...
>      The following day, guided missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG 60), 
> training frigate USS Bowen (FFT 1079) and guided missile frigate USS 
> Clifton Sprague (FFG 16) provided dewatering teams to help local 
> residents and agencies with flooding.  They worked throughout the 
> weekend using P-250 and peri-jet eductors, pumping more than 950,000 
			  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> gallons of water. 

What is a `peri-jet eductor' ?  (For that matter, what is a P-250?  Some
kind of pump, I'd expect ...)
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "William M. Aldo" <nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil>
Subject: Sheridan
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:31:39 GMT


From "William M. Aldo" <nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil>

>From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>
>In article <BzEzGt.Fq3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dmak@dec5120a.ccs.northeastern.edu (Dave Mak) writes:
>
>>The 82nd still uses the Sheridan "Armored Recon Vehicle" with cannister rounds
>>used as recently as Panama.
>
>I think this was the Shillelagh missile. If I'm not mistaken it was 
>fired out of the main gun somehow. 
>
>What _is_ the Sheridan's main gun? How capable was the Shillelagh?
    
The Sheridan's gun is a 152-mm conventional gun/launcher. The Sheridan's desig-
nation used to be AARV, I don't know if that has changed over the years or not.
AARV for (correct me if I'm wrong;-) Armored Assault Reconnaissance Vehicle....
but then, I guess that could be Airmobile Assault Recon Vehicle.

The 152-mm gun/launcher was also the main weapon installed on the sh*tty piece
of junk that was called an M60A2. At least they wised up for the M60A3 and
went back to the 105-mm.

On the Cannister/Beehive issue: although they existed for the 105-mm in our
M60A1, they were not part of our combat load when I was in Germany...not really
needed at the time. We were more concerned with being outnumbered tank-to-tank,
so our 63 maingun rounds were HEAT, APDS, and HEP...mostly HEAT.

--

Mark Aldo   UUCP: (osu-cis)!dsacg1!waldo   INTERNET: waldo@dsac.dla.mil
"...Hotel Quebec Six Six...You are clear to begin your night run on
Range Eight Zero....Good luck, good shooting...Tower, out" -- radio
transmission from Control Tower - Range 80 at Grafenwoehr,Germany (TCQC 8/72)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dave pierson <pierson@empror.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Secret Weapons Flops Flops
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:04:35 GMT


From dave pierson <pierson@empror.enet.dec.com>

Back again, sniping at Secret Weapons Video.  Down to their usual form.  Subject
this week was "flops, weapons that failed....)
Lotsa misinformation about the Paris Gun of WWI (at minimum, their were two, not
one and NONE of the film footage appeared to  be of the actual gun.  That last
I would not mention, if that were all.  "Failed due to breech wear", nope,
failed due to counterbattery fire forcing moves, and loss of front line two
attacks.

Credited the ZRS Akron & Macon woth bomber role.  Nope, scouting only.
(and to call any ariship "secret"  !!!!).  Ignored other work on hook on planes
(UK & Germany...)

First Rate No Prize to footage of the UK developed Grand Panjandrum identified
as a GERMAN weapon.  (Each Grand Panajandrum was a pair of oversize, armored,
rocket driven pinwheels (10 feet or so high).  The intent was to load them
with demolition charges and fire them across the beech, thru shallow water
or whatever poor traction might prevail against the "Atlantic Wall".  It turned
out Normandy had no wall, to speak of AND the things were uncontrollable.)

Their calling the UK MarkI-MarkIV tanks flops is, perhaps a judgement call, but
IMO, wrong.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA	
01775				pierson@msd27.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military