HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:33:49 GMT


From Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu>



	As far as the concept of high alititude look down radar, what
	about the Navy's long standing idea of using a large Airship
	with the radar in the gondola or in the hull of the airship as
	a phased array??   This would be much cheaper than a hawkeye...
		Much longer staying power, don't need the carrier to
		refuel.. just drop a line to the fleet oiler and she can
		pump the fuel up...
				Ryan
		

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
Subject: Re: Prussian Military
Keywords: books history prussia
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:39:57 GMT


From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>

>Subject: Re: Prussian Military
>From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
>In article <Bz9Ez9.6Ix@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:
>
>>One of my ancestors was a 'Feldjaeger' in the Royal Prussian Army ...
>
>This would be light calvalry, similar to the British "lancers". Literally it
>means "field hunter".

	Request for a small point of information....  Wasn't a feldjaeger
a light *infantryman*, not a cavalryman?    I'd always associated "jaegers" 
with chaps having a distinct green element to their ensembles, edelweisse 
badges, and rifled (as opposed to smoothbore) firearms.  Sorta like the
German equivalent of Napoleon's skermishers (voltageurs?), or the British
"Rifle" regiments, perhaps?   (All those jolly, rustic hunters and innkeepers
foresaking the Black Forest with its bears, wolves, boars, and deer for the
thrills of a more dangerous, though cognate field of sport......(8-))
Cheers,
Keith Coman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Condemning a research report on the basis of :  Dept of Management
 invalid and unreliable methodology is the    :  Rhodes University
 cheapest shot in the book."                  :  Grahamstown, 6140
                                              :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Stalingrad airlift
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:40:02 GMT


From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>

In article <BzB9Kz.wK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill 
Thacker) writes:>From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
>
>The airlift to Stalingrad delivers 180 tons of supplies; a new record, but
>still far short of the 500 tons per day required by the 6th Army.

	It's on record that one shipment at some stage during this 
operation included (believe it or not) a ton of pepper and a crate of 
condoms.    Must rank one of the most notable contributions ever made by 
REMF's in Logistics and Supply to the health, well-being and victory-winning 
potential of the half-frozen men in their foxholes.
Cheers,
Keith Coman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Condemning a research report on the basis of :  Dept of Management
 invalid and unreliable methodology is the    :  Rhodes University
 cheapest shot in the book."                  :  Grahamstown, 6140
                                              :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: M-16A2/A3
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:22:13 GMT


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

In article <ByqwpG.FBF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:

>However, a problem has arisen with the AK-74s that were being counted
>on to provide an interim new assault rifle. It seems that (surprise :)
>these rifles are not proofed to WEstern standards, and are thus slightly
>less safe to use. This is apparently unacceptable, so the new game plan
>is to refurbish the G3s.

Just wondering whether the fact that the AK-47 (and presumably the 
AK-74?) doesn't have a bolt hold-open have something to do with this? 
I just feel nervous shooting next to someone whose rifle doesn't have
this feature.





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in 
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:25:48 GMT


From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)

edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy) writes:


>From edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy)

>Reasons.  (Reader's advisory: I'm a tanker, and thus am a wee bit biased.)

>1) Cost:  Attack helos cost ~10X as much as a tank.  Apache runs about
>20-30M$, M-1 series 2-4M$.  Helos also need more maintainence support
>than do tanks, adding cost both in trained personnel and parts.

That makes sense, although I *thought that Apaches were about $20
million, and M1A1's were more than $3 million.

Here's my question.  What is the correct way for a tank to deal with a
helocopter?  If you're in a tank, and you see an oncomming enemy helo,
what do you do?

-Thanks
From: eachus@oddjob.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: no cannister-was re:tank vs. helo
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:25:56 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Full-Name: News Service


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

In article <BzD4x9.J70@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

   actually there was a round for the 105 mm that fired a whole bunch of
   flechettes (sorta like real small darts) which were quite effective at
   shredding anything (soft) in their path. I imagine these would compare
   favourably to the cannister rounds you were reffering to. They did not
   bother to make such a round for the 120mm for some reason that I don't
   understand.

   Sounds like the Beehive round that was available for 105 mm
howitzers when I was in, but I don't think it was converted for the
M-60.  I'll check.  Beehive and cannister however are different in
intended application, the Beehive is intended to cover a wide area on
a relatively high trajectory, so the emphasis is on lots of (small)
projectiles.  Cannister is much more of a low trajectory round
intended to clear the field, so it has much larger projectiles, and
does a great job of clearing jungle so you can see what is there.

   The US Army had a series of regs during the Viet Nam war called
lessons learned.  One told of a tank escorting a convoy which ran over
a "MacNamara Special,"  a 500-lb. bomb dropped by the Air Force with a
defective fuse, and converted by the NVA or Viet Cong into an
anti-tank mine.

   The tank was lifted clear of the ground, the bottom armor buckled,
and all four crew members injured.  Some snipers in the trees started
firing at the convoy.  And since the TC couldn't operate the .50 cal
he called for cannister.  Seems there was a NVA regiment camped in the
jungle and the snipers were the sentries.  In any case, a few more
rounds of cannister (five total I think) and the battle was over, with
the regiment literally wiped out.

   The lessons learned?  Some had to do with tank procedures involving
injured crewmembers, but from my point of view the biggest was that a
sentry should never attract fire to the site he is protecting.  (And
unstated: an anti-tank mine can make a tank crew very angry.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
From: fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: WW2 BARRAGE
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:32:46 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada


From Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>

Do these balloons, nets, cables do any damage to modern low level strike
aircraft, like f-15e and tornado? or better yet, f-117 and b-2? given the
speed of those birds, i would guess the impact be quite serious, although
the idea looks positively low-tech. might even hang a few claymore to enhance
the effect. what do you think?

Just my 2 cents worth.

fengxi
Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 13 December, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:22:09 GMT


From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)

Sunday, 13 December, 1942

German forces withdraw from El Agheila, Libya.  The Eighth Army takes Mersa
Brega.

Allied aircraft attack five Japanese destroyers carrying supplies and
soldiers to New Guinea, but score no success.  Japanese troops on the
island again surround the Soputa-Sanananda roadblock.  Australian artillery
pounds Buna, and the remaining garrison of the town retreat by night.

Hitler appoints Dutch Nazi Party leader Anton Mussert "Leader of the
Netherlands People."  

Over 100 people die in a fire at the Knights of Columbus Hostel
at St. John's, Newfoundland.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military@cbnews.att.com

"... our highly destructive .50-caliber machine guns will seem like
peashooters compared with the firepower that we are putting into our newest
big ships." - Lt. General Henry H. Arnold, describing the USAAF's new
"aerial battle wagons"
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: execu!dont@uunet.UU.NET (Don Thompson)
Subject: F-16 flight characteristics
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pb.games
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:32:19 GMT


From execu!dont@uunet.UU.NET (Don Thompson)


	Please excuse the cross post but you folks in sci.military might
have better sources of info than we in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.   

	There are several questions concerning the F-16:

	1. What are it's stability characteristics? Is a fly-by-wire
	   system required to maintain control or is it a value added package?

	2. In the event of a flame out and subsequent failure to restart,
	   what emergeny electrical power provisions are there?

	3. If there is APU, what fuel is used to power it?

	If you have some authoritative sources of information that answers
these questions, we would much appreciate your response.
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Don Thompson                        |   I may be opinionated, but at least
Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com  |   my opinions are my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ross Smith <alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz>
Subject: Tank weight distribution
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:27:04 GMT


From Ross Smith <alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz>

Does anybody know what the "weight budget" of a typical modern tank
looks like? That is, if a tank weighs (say) 55 tonnes, how many tonnes
go into the armour, gun, engine, tracks/drive, etc?


...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......
   Mine is the ship bound for Alpha Centauri
   We must be out of our minds
   For though we are shipmates bound for tomorrow
   Everyone here's flying blind                          (Crystal Gayle)
--


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dave Mak <dmak@dec5120a.ccs.northeastern.edu>
Subject: no cannister-was re:tank vs. helo
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:34:05 GMT


From Dave Mak <dmak@dec5120a.ccs.northeastern.edu>

>Newsgroups: sci.military
>From: James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:45 GMT

>From James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>

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

>>>But I don't think the US has any 90 mm main gun tanks left in
>>inventory, and I don't think they ever developed a 105 mm cannister
>>round.  (I know there is no US 120 mm cannister.)  This seems sort of
>>stupid, as one reason M48s were so useful in Vietnam was the cannister
>>round.  (Twelve hundred steel projectiles each about the size of a
>>30-06 bullet, but with a slightly higher muzzle velocity.  The
>>ultimate in human wave assault breaking.  Also very useful for
>>clearing foliage so you can see who was shooting at you.)
>actually there was a round for the 105 mm that fired a whole bunch of
>flechettes (sorta like real small darts) which were quite effective at
>shredding anything (soft) in their path. I imagine these would compare
>favourably to the cannister rounds you were reffering to. They did not
>bother to make such a round for the 120mm for some reason that I don't
>understand.
>James Stepanek
>esp

The 82nd still uses the Sheridan "Armored Recon Vehicle" with cannister rounds
used as recently as Panama.

The Sheridan also fires the only tube launched missle (don't ask me how to
spell it :^) nor it's M- designator).

It's the only air-droppable "tank" in the U.S. inventory.

At NTC and JRTC, we used the Sheridans with fiberglass body panels as opposing
force (OPFOR) vehicles (ie: T-62s, etc).



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Number Thirty-Nine in the Series--Bell P-39 Airacobra (6 of 9)
Keywords: P-39N
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:26:58 GMT


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>

Up to this time, the Airacobra had been manufactured in relatively 
small numbers.  The first Airacobra model to be produced in really 
large numbers was the P-39N (Bell Model 26), 2095 examples being 
built.  The first 1100 P-39Ns were part of that order for P-39Gs which 
had been distributed among P-39Ks, Ls, and Ms, but the remaining 995 
Ns were new orders.  

All P-39Ns were powered by the V-1710-85 (E19) engine rated at 1200 hp 
for takeoff and 2215 hp at 15,500 feet.  The power rating was similar 
to that of the M- model's V-1710-83, but with a different propeller 
reduction gear ratio and an Aeroproducts propeller in place of the 
Curtiss Electric.  The Aeroproducts propeller was enlarged to 11 feet 
7 inches in diameter, an increase of six inches.  

After completion of the first 166 P-39Ns, the USAAF requested that 
four fuel cells be removed in order to reduce the internal fuel 
capacity from 100 to 72.4 Imp gal, and so to reduce the maximum 
permissible gross weight from 9100 lbs to 8750 lbs.  This kept weight 
down, but unfortunately it also restricted range.  Therefore, kits 
were provided that allowed the four fuel cells to be refitted in the 
field.  

The 500 P-39Ns were followed by 900 P-39N-1s.  These differed only in 
some minor internal changes which altered the location of the center 
of gravity.  

The last Ns were the 695 P-39N-5s.  They differed from earlier Ns in 
having the total weight of armor reduced from 231 to 193 pounds.  A 
curved armor head plate supplanted the bulletproof glass behind the 
pilot.  

The "O" letter was never used, lest it be confused with the number 
zero.  For some reason, the designation P-39P was never assigned.  

The serials of the P-39s were as follows: 

42-4944/5043   Bell P-39N Airacobra (originally part of P-39G order) 

42-8727/9126   Bell P-39N Airacobra (originally part of P-39G order) 

42-9127/9726   Bell P-39N-1 Airacobra (originally part of P-39G order) 

42-18246/18545 Bell P-39N-1 Airacobra 

42-18546/19240 Bell P-39N-5 Airacobra 

Sources:

  War Planes of the Second World War, Fighters, Volume Four, William Green,
  Doubleday, 1964.

  The American Fighter, Enzo Anguluci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 1987.

  United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and Peter 
  M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

  P-39 Airacobra in Action, Ernie McDowell, Squadron/Signal Publications, 
  1980.

  The Calamitous 'Cobra, Air Enthusiast, August 1971.

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stig-Lennart Soerensen <stigs@stud.cs.uit.no>
Subject: Secret Spy Plane
Organization: University of Tromsoe, Norway
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:25:54 GMT


From Stig-Lennart Soerensen <stigs@stud.cs.uit.no>

Time International, december 14, 1992, issue nr. 50

"SPY IN THE SKY. On the basis of radar sightings and strange sonic 'air quakes',
aircraft buffs have been speculating for years about the existence of a secret
U.S spy plane they call Aurora. The speculation is over, says Jane's Defence
Weekly. A definite report prepared by the British military-affairs journal
describes the stealthy craft as a triangular-shaped hypersonic jet fueled by
liquid methane and capable of cruising at Mach 8 (8.495 km/h), 2.5 times the
world record. Jane's key piece of evidence: the report of an aircraft-recognition
expert who actually saw the plane fly over a North Sea oil rig three years ago."


Is there someone who has the article or any additional information concerning
this Aurora spy-craft?

Mail to:

stigs@stud.cs.uit.no
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: USS Abraham Lincoln
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:32:32 GMT
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.


From athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)

Hi there,

Can anyone point me to information on the USS Abe Lincoln?  Is it a Super
Carrier?  How big?  How old?

[mod note - the Abraham Lincoln is a Nimitz class (therefor, probably in
the Super Carrier ranks :-).  It was comissioned a year or so ago.  Don't
know if it has gone on any deployments yet

Steve]

Thanks!

******************************************************************************
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Boxer.
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Greg Pierce <pierce@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Subject: North Amercian Special Forces (Canada)
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:29:05 GMT


From Greg Pierce <pierce@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>

Sorry for the use of SAS when referring to Canada's Special Service Force
(SSF).  Canada's Special Service Force is part of Canada's Mobile Command
located at St. Hubert, Quebec and is organized as a light brigade.
Members of Canada's SSF wear the patch with a winged sword and the motto
"Osons" (We Dare) dervied from the Brit's SAS (Who dares Wins).
They trace thier history to the US/CANADA 1st Special Service Force of
WWII fame.  Hope this sets the record straight.

Greg Pierce
Fossil from Above.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:25:36 GMT


From prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov


 eric remy <edremy@leland.stanford.edu> writes:

   Depends on distance: If he's within 2500m: "Gunner, sabot, chopper..."
   The sabot round arrives in ~1 sec, his missile takes 5-10 sec.  It is
   hard to hit choppers due to their speed, but they have to hover to fire
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   a missile (Or, like the Hind, fly straight towards you.)  The laser
   guided Hellfire, provided the chopper has someone on the ground to
   designate the tank, makes this strategy much harder.  The wire guided
   TOW and Sagger make the chopper a sitting duck.

say what?  all heli-borne missiles I can think of are intended for use
in forward flight.  the AH-64 has an off-axis firing capability, as I 
recall.  also, everyone is forgetting that most attack choppers have a 
sizable gun.  having seen a video of the 30mm chain gun a la AH-64 chewing 
on a surplus tank, I imagine the chopper could grind off enough sensors 
and such to push the tank into retreat.  

another thing lost in this thread is that modern attack helicopters
have IR suppression on the engines.  thus, Stinger-type missiles have
a much smaller IR image to try to lock onto.





--
 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Devon Prichard                       I haven't lost my mind;         |
 | Senior Gofer                         its backed up on tape somewhere.|
 | Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.                                  |
 | prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov                                         |
 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>
Subject: Re: WW2 BARRAGE
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:30:31 GMT


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

In article <BzD4rK.Iwn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
jeff stump/lml2 <jeffs@austlcm.sps.mot.com> writes:

> I have a question concerning barrage balloon's used during WW2.
> I don't think I quite understand how they worked. Did they have multiple
> purposes ? Were they effective ? 
>   I have always wondered this ?

The balloons were not only tethered with steel cables, many of them
hung extra steel cables from several thousand feet up.  If you were
tooling around in your WWII aircraft, you definately did not want to
fly into one of those cables.  Many balloons were flown off the sterns
of ships in channel convoys.  This was supposed to cause the dive
bomber to alter it's dive in order to avoid hitting the balloon cables.
 Did it work?  It definately kept aircraft higher up.  The Germans
sometimes used the balloons for target practice, I recall seeing a
photo of a Messerschmitt climbing away from a burning and crumbling
balloon.  But was it effective?  Hard to say.  Let's just say that it
was just one more thing for the enemy to worry about while conducting
operations.  It definately did not stop the Germans from attacking the
Channel convoys but not all of them flew balloons.  As for the cities,
I recall one photo that showed a sky positively filled with balloons. 
It definately didn't look safe to fly through and they could be winched
up to considerable heights.

Corky Scott 

Newsgroups: sci.military