HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "Donald R. Newcomb" <dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu>
Subject: Re: Swiss military preparedness??
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:38:11 GMT


From "Donald R. Newcomb" <dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu>

In article <BzH50C.Aq2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler) writes:
>The second important point, is that your report has probably not shown you
>the very poor motivation and morale of swiss soldiers. Most young men are
>not motivated at all by the army, Even worse, there is a lot of anger
>against the army, mainly because of its fundamental lack of respect of 
>people.
>
>What you have seen is basically the propaganda of the swiss army. In real
>cases, Things would be much poorer than what you have seen.

What M. Baechler describes is probably the rule among militia defense
forces rather than the exception. As a noncom. in what can be described
as a semi-organized militia (the MS State Guard) I can assure you that
it is true here. From what I have seen watching Swedish conscripts
learning the basics of taking bearings on the pier in Kalmar, it must
be true there to. When troops train at home their "gardens" call to
them louder than their sergeants. The only exception is found when a
danger is perceived to be clear and present (e.g. the Natives just burned
the next village upstream; the Soviets are massed in Bohemia and could
sweep down through the Emmenthal to flank NATO forces in France).
The Soviets (and Americans when we conscripted) made a special point
to remove conscripts from their home territory for training so that they
could hear their sergeants calling.

The great advantage of the militia concept comes in its economics. All
other things being equal, a battalion of the Swiss militia could probably
be trained and equipped for the cost of keeping a couple platoons of the
USMC for a year.  They would, however, be totally useless to anyone with
dreams of imperial glory or "vital interests" to defend abroad.

-- 

Donald R. Newcomb                * Life only admits two states: 
dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu        * growing and dying. So what,
newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet            * if I've put on a little weight?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: A few questions about Soviet Military decorations
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:25:00 GMT


From Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>

In article <BzzD2F.yM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Craig R Albrechtson) writes:
>
[...]
>Second question,  Among the pins I have collected is a soviet air force
>pilot wings.  The are supposed to belong to what is called a "sniper pilot"
>and that is supposed to be a elite group of pilots.  Has any one heard of 
>such a group within the soviet air force.
>
>Maybe someone can tell me what the pilots wings are I will describe them 
>in the best detail possible.
>
>The wings are gold colored with a blue and gold sheild in the center.
>Behind the shield are a pair of crossed swords with only the hilts and 
>tips of the swords being visible from behind the shield.  At the top of
>the shield is a red star.  The shield itself has a blue background with 
>a gold border and some small decorations along the side.  In the center 
>of the shield is a non descript gold jet plane facing up and to the left.
>Below the plane is a small red band with two words in cryllic, one above
>the other.  I can't put russian words using this font but each word 
>is six letters long. 
>
>The first word I will break it down and describe it as best as possible
>It is six letters, the first letter looks like a cursive R, the next 
>two letters are ET, the fourth letter looks like a 4.  the next letter
>is a backwards N and the last letter is a K
>
>the second word is spelled CHANUEP, except the N is backwards and the U is 
>upside down.   

The words transliterate to "letchik snaiper", which, oddly enough, means
"sniper pilot".  Russian is full of neat cognates like that - it borrows
almost as freely as English - masked by alphabet and declension.  I never
heard of it being applied to the flying services, but it's consonant with
Soviet military usage, where "sniper" can refer to a particularly
proficient subunit (a designated tank in a company, say) tasked with
independent fire missions.  "Sniper" also carries an elite connotation for
Soviet-trained forces from WWII, especially Stalingrad, almost divorced
from the actual mission, like grenadiers in the Napoleonic Wars.  The
North Koreans, for instance, field elite light infantry battallions called
"snipers", even though they're not really anything of the sort.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:28:17 GMT


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

In article <Bzs8ux.LG6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dave@Cigna.COM (Dave Good) writes:
>
>Probably the main reason they would never do this is that anybody standing
>around outside when the Phalanx main radar was active would get cooked.
>This might not be too bad if the poor soul were an enemy ;-), but in the
>chaos of war, there would almost certainly be a lot of friendly infantry 
>wandering into the wrong areas...

This brings up an interesting point, what's the electrical power requirement
of the Phalanx? If it's excessive, mounting on a vehicle is right out because
of the huge generators that would be required. I imagine that the inverse
square law would guarantee that troops wouldn't need to fear being cooked
if they were more than a few yards away. The peak pulse power of these
radars is immense, but the average power, that's what cooks you, is really
quite modest. And that falls off rapidly with distance.

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: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:24:54 GMT


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

In article <ByyB0p.8sJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>
>In article <Byw9B2.6oo@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Charles Meo <cm@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
>
>>By WW2 the battlecruiser was an obsolete specification since the kind of 
>>surface engagements envisaged never happened. Anyone who had battlecruisers
>>(British, Japanese, perhaps the Germans) used them as ersatz battleships if
>>they could get away with it, and often didn't. However, they could keep up
>>with fast carriers, so I suppose this was a plus.
>
>Just what was a battleship's role (vs. the role of a battlecruiser) any-
>how? My impression was that a battleship (heavily armored but slow) were
>used to counter other battleships in fleet actions. Battlecruisers were
>meant to run around in squadrons or independantly and have the speed for 
>commerce raiding and the countering of commerce radiers and other duty 
>where one is required to bring large amounts of firepower to bear without
>having to be subject to it oneself. The problem is you have to counter 
>battlecruisers with battlecruisers since you need speed to catch them and
>large guns to avoid getting destroyed before you can get within effective 
>range. Otherwise you'll have to try to trap them as was done at Jutland.
>So how were WWII battlecruisers used as battleships? My impression was that
>the opposite was true in some cases - battleships were used in hunt-and-
>destroy missions (the odds of the battlecruiser getting caught were higher
>due to the advent of aircraft and radar).
>
  The original role of the battlecruiser was to run around picking on
armored cruisers. They did that well. The problem was, people saw
those big guns, and thought "Fast Battleships!", and got into all
kinds of trouble. They were also good for commerce raiding.
   By WWII, most major powers moved away from battlecruisers (with
some notable exceptions!), but they appeared to be the thing to have
against German Panzerschiffen. (Of course, did any battlecruiser ever
CATCH one? NO! The Froggies burned out their turbines trying.)
   Alas, even by WWII, people STILL hadn't learned. The Scharnhorst tried
to play battleship against the Duke of York, and lost. The Kirishima
tried it against the Washington and South Dakota, and lost. 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).
Kirov vs New Jersey anyone?
   If battlecruisers had stuck to their role of beating up cruisers,
they might have worked better.

				David R. Wells

DISCLAIMER: My opinions, not AT&Ts.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Subject: Re:GAU-8A AA
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:14:05 GMT


From cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu

> 
> 
>     Why not add a 30mm GAU-8A cannon (the kind the A-10 carries) to the Bradley.  Supposedly
>     its extremely effective against armor and would probably make a decent
>     point defence weapon as well?  There's always the ammo problem, but if you
>     took an M3 and removed the TOWs you would probably have more than enough
>     room for ammo.  The only problem is that I don't know how effective the
>     GAU-8A would be against missles and such.  Just a random thought.
>         Ken Watson
>         Ksw3@lehigh.edu
> 
>         
     Several AAA systems use Mauser cannons that use the same ammunition as the
GAU-8A.  The Greek Artemis is one.  Also, there was an etry in the US Army's
DIVAD aka Sgt York competition that used a GAU-8A. The 40mm DIVAD won because
it's ammunition had proximity fuses even though it hit less targets than the
entries.> 
-- 
---
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: Juan.Barroux@Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - Technical Consultant - Latin America)
Subject: Re: WW2 BARRAGE
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:22:32 GMT


From Juan.Barroux@Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - Technical Consultant - Latin America)

  I remember reading about a balloon system used today for base defense.
The idea was to raise very quickly the balloon by inflating them with
helium gas under presure. The balloon will be placed in the preferred
flight path for attacking low-level planes. This is likely to ruin the
day for any Tornado pilot with a JP-23 bomb. The rising of the balloons
was remotely controlled by the base AA defense control room. It was also
part of a more complete system which included smoke generators, alarms
and shaff. Traditional missiles and gun systems will then take care of
the planes that had to go up. You can place those system so they can
help each others.

  Anyone has any hard data if this system was made operational or not?
And where?

  Speaking for himself,

  Juan Carlos


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Juan Carlos Barroux - Technical Consultant - Latin America <Juan.Barroux@corp.sun.com>
Subject: Re: Swiss military preparedness??
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:22:21 GMT


From Juan Carlos Barroux - Technical Consultant - Latin America <Juan.Barroux@corp.sun.com>

  This thread is very interesting, but I believe that we should extend
it and consider the other famous countries with a similar concept in
militia; that is Israel and Cuba.

  Maybe someone with more knowledge can draw a baseline comparison
between the Swiss and Israeli militias.

  Actually, a discussion of the merits and disadvantages of a professional
militia, a "popular" militia (Swiss) and a mix militia (Israel and
Cuba) would be most interesting.

  What are the tactical implications? What are the strategic
implications? The economic implications? The equipment implications?
Training implications? Warning system implications? Was Switzerland not
invaded in WWII because of his militia? Has Israel being military
successful because of its popular reserve militia? Has Cuba not being
invaded by the US because of its militia? Etc?

  Speaking for himself,

  Juan Carlos 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Napoleon's Guard (Re: Prussian Military)
Keywords: books history prussia
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:24:06 GMT


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

In article <BzM9zp.MLD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Neal Smith <sasrns@unx.sas.com> writes:

>  The funny thing is that hussars probably never left their horses, except 
>to start fires, loot, etc.  A hussar who left his horse was easily captured
>because of the nature of his work, and his need to range over large areas of
>territory.  

And go to sleep I suppose 9-)

>  I think you are making a minor mistake by inferring too much from the pictures
>of these troops.  What kinds of things would one expect of troops dressed in 
>bearskins?  Would they be elite guardsmen?  Well there were a lot of troops 
>dressed in bearskins during the Nappy wars that were pretty bad troops, but some
>would say that they had to be good troops just because they wore a funny hat and
>were titled "guard".  

I've always wondered about this. Napoleon's Grenadiers of the Guard 
(the "Old Guard") were undoubtedly very good, but how variable was the
quality of the other Guard units? I'd heard that the Young Guard 
had deteriorated to pretty bad by Waterloo, when they tangled with 
the Prussians on Napoleon's flank. 

How did the Chasseurs a'Cheval differ in mission from the Hussars? They
were (according to the tables) somewhat better light cavalry than your
garden variety hussar..



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Iowa Upgrade
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:34:54 GMT


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

In article <Bz06q1.Etp@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu> writes:
>
>
>In article <ByyB0K.8qx@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill) writes:
>>
>>	How is this in keeping with the concept of coastal
>>	engagements...If you are protecting a surface group off the
>>	waters of some small nation like syria with lots of small
>>	attack and gun boats, wouldn't a little close in armament be
>>	good to have that can lay down some heavy fire? Little boats
>>	come in and I  see it being triky to expend all those expensive
>>	harpoon rounds when a couple pops out of the lighter (6"?? 8")
>>	guns would work just as well if not better...I can't see using
>>	the 16" guns to hit the little things if they are going at full
>>	tilt...of course if you did the boat wouldn't even feel it...
>
>Remember that they're already fitted with Phalanx systems. 6000 rpm
>DU projectiles shred small gunboats real well. A 6 inch 45 is most
>useful against close in destroyer class vessels. The solution is to
>not let them get close in. Take them out at 20 miles with a 16 inch
>shell.
>
Phalanx guns don't have enough range to hit the small attack craft. Most
light units of potential adversaries would have big ex-Soviet SSMs, and
would never close down to the very short (1 mile?) range of a Phalanx.
They probably wouldn't even close to the range of a 6" or 8" (unless
you're using some REALLY exotic shells). Even the big 16" guns would
have a hard time, not so much because of range, but because of accuracy.
Hitting a moving target that small with a slow gun could be a difficult
problem. (Though once again, exotic shells could help). A Harpoon shot
may be necessary.
   On the other hand, look how well Syrian patrol craft did against the 
BBs in Lebanon in 1982-83. Can you say "no effect"? Whether this was
due to escorts, carrier air cover or whatever may not even matter. The
fact remains, the patrol craft could not get rid of the BBs
   My conclusion is that the secondary gun battery of a BB is largely 
irrelevant today. The space could be put to better use. In fact, the next
battlecruiser for my hypothetical Imperial Navy will have no secondary
guns, except for those that have capabilities against sea-skimming missiles.

				David R. Wells

Disclaimer: The opinions and wild fantasies expressed in this article
are not necessarily those of AT&T.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Sun
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:40:00 GMT


From fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)

In article <Bzs8Js.Ky9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gustin@evs2.uia.ac.be (Emmanuel Gustin) writes:
>
>The Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo was credited with 517km/h. The Finnish ones, if
>they were really lighter with same power, must have been faster.

The only reference I have credits the F2A-3 with a 300mph maximum speed
(about 480 kmph).  Also a full-up weight of 7,160 lbs.

The Finnish version was given at 5,160 lbs.  Even if it wasn't faster
in level flight, it should have climbed a lot better.  Not so many
engine fires up north, either.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Escalator on Carrier
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:07:53 GMT


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

In article <BzEyzH.EsA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Andre Molyneux <andrem@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com> writes:
>
>
>While touring the Yorktown, I ran across something that surprised me.  On
>the way back down from the flight deck and superstructure, the tour path
>took you down an escalator (looked just like one in a mall or department
>store).  I assume that it belongs there and wasn't added after the carrier
>was de-commisioned (since it was non-functional, after all).
>
>Due to the path that the self-guiding tour takes you on, I wasn't sure
>what level I was at when I ran across the escalator.  My wife asked me
>why it was there, and the only thing I could figure was to take loaded-down
>flight crews from the ready-room level to the flight deck.  Makes more
>sense than an elevator, since you can still climb up by yourself if power
>fails.
>
>Can anyone tell me if my guess was on the money?  Does anyone have an idea
>when they started putting these things on carriers, and if the practice still
>continues?
>
If it's the structure I think it is, it was probably added in the 1950's
at the same time as the HUGE hull bulges and the angle deck were added.
Again, if we're talking about the same structure, the bottom of the
escalator is on the hull bulge, so there's no way it was added before the
bulge. For the record, I always thought that structure was an ordinary
set of stairs!

				David R. Wells

DISCLAIMER: My own opinions, not AT&Ts.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:35:05 GMT


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

In article <Bz06vK.F1F@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>
>I remember reading somewhere that the Bismarck used radar-directed
>gunnery on the British destroyers in the night before she was sunk.
>Didn't hit any, but shot well enough that they did not get into
>torpedo range.  That was in 1941.  Can somebody corroborate or
>disprove this?

I also believe that the Bismarck had radar, although I belive that it 
was a fairly fragile set. The only source I can think of off hand that
talks about this is Mullnheim-Rechburg's (sp?) book "Battleship Bismarck:
A Survivor's Story". I'd be willing to bet that the Scharnhorst & Gneisenau
had radar too. (and I'm not normally a betting man)

				David R. Wells

Disclaimer: My beliefs, not AT&Ts.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: CBU against ships?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:22:17 GMT


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

In article <Bzq2os.4Ex@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>"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!
>
   As much as I admire the Kirov, she is not assured of a knockout punch.
Those SS-N-19s are big and mean (in the grand Soviet tradition), but their
guidance system may leave something to be desired. Further, some will
get taken out by the target ship's defences. Also, remeber that 
carrier planes have long legs (at least until we replace everything with
F-18s! :-) ), far greater than the missile's range. With all those radars,
I can't believe it would be hard to find. Just lob in a huge bunch of 
Harpoons, and watch it explode (in the grand British tradition). Of
course, those pesky SA-N-6s are a REAL nuissance (grumble grumble grumble)
(pun intended), but if you saturate it with enough ASMs, one of them
will get through, triggering the famed "Hood Effect". A friend of mine
did this in a game of Harpoon, using a bunch of P-3s loaded with every
Harpoon they could carry. Certainly not proof of reality, but something
to think about.
    Anyhow, that's pretty much why I'd use Oscars to attack a CVBG instead
of Kirovs. In a word, DETECTION.
    (No flames implied or intended. I'm really not picking on you, Dan.)

				David R. Wells

P.S. Does anyone out there know how to say "there seems to be something
wrong with our bloody ships today" in Russian?

Disclaimer: My opinions, not AT&Ts.

Newsgroups: sci.military