HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:25:34 GMT
Organization: Cornell University


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

I just remembered something else.  The Army is apparently upgrading its tank
ammunition.  The new HEAT round will have a proximity fuze to improve its
capability vs. helos.  Apparently HEAT is the preferred round for such things.
Sabot will aledgedly pass through some helos without killing them.  (This
probably refers to passing hits on types with a cargo/passenger section)
Further down the road, there is a tank-fired top attack round called STAFF
that should have a meaninngful anti-helo capability using some sort of radar
seeker (MMW seems right.)  This was in a recent Armed Forces Journal
International article, I think.

-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Back off man.  I'm a political scientist!
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
Subject: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:23:42 GMT


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

Prompted by the current fasinating history of the Bell Airacobra...

I hereby nominate the following as the worst and most dangerous (to 
their aircrews) fighters on the Allied side in WW2

1. Brewster Buffalo -- so bad that it deserves a class all of its own.

2. Bell Airacobra -- for all the reasons that Joe advances.

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:     Eugene Heiss (GWD) <heiss@brl.mil>
Subject:  helos vs tanks
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:34:07 GMT


From     Eugene Heiss (GWD) <heiss@brl.mil>



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


>       TC:       Gunner, CANNISTER, helicopter!
>       Loader:   Up!
>       Gunner:   Identified!

        TC:       Range to target
        Gunner:   1000 meters
        TC:       Forget it

Cannister is quite effective at close range (150-200 meters) but is useless
at the normal engagement ranges for helicopter vs tank (>1000 meters).  The
japanese had cannister for their 460mm guns which proved to be useless
against incoming aircraft.

 

>   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.)

I agree, very good at short range but the velocity loss vs range for the 
steel balls was tremendous.  They would never reach the helicopter.         



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dave Chapman <dchapman@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Re: Cobalt bomb?  _What_ cobalt bomb?
Keywords: bomb
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:28:49 GMT


From Dave Chapman <dchapman@well.sf.ca.us>

In article <Bz3uxE.2nA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Gary Toshio Sunada <sunadg@rpi.edu> writes:
>
>	Just recently I encountered something interesting in a 
>	conversation concerning nuclear weaponry: the cobalt bomb.  
>	What in the world is a cobalt bomb, and why can't I find 
>	any references to it?

   The Cobalt Bomb is the most well-known member of a class of
nuclear weapons known as _enhanced-fallout weapons_, or as
_enhanced-radioactivity weapons_.  The general idea is that you use
a fusion bomb to create some kind of unpleasant isotope, which
contaminates an area.  Candidate materials include Flourine, with
a half-life of a few hours, sodium, with a half-life of a few days,
and cobalt, with a half-life of a few years.
   Doctrine on using these things is that they are for area denial,
similar to air-dispersed mine fields.
   In practice, they would be useless in a tactical situation, and
not much better in a strategic one.  This is because of wind, etc.
Also, note the term half-life.  Radioactive contamination of this sort
would persist for perhaps 100 times the nominal half-life, due to
the fact that fallout tends to settle into hot spots.

   It must be considered a pitiful oversight that the Geneva Convention
has not yet banned them.

-dave


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng)
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:27:02 GMT


From ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng)

Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:

>	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.

>	In addition to the anti-air capabilities, it would also work on
>incoming artillery shells and missiles.  I suspect this is a much
>greater worry than the helicopter itself, which is all the Stinger
>will be able to remove.

>[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

Hi
  Interesting idea but isn't the Phalanx system just a little bit too heavy
  to put on a tank.  Next the M-113 only carries 1100 rnds ready to fire.  
  Thats a scant 11 seconds and TIME OUT okay I have to reload.
		
  However I do the that rate of fire! 100 rounds a second Rock 'N Roll.

						A. Ng




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Jan Sparrendahl <d89-jsp@nada.kth.se>
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:22:22 GMT


From Jan Sparrendahl <d89-jsp@nada.kth.se>

In article <Bz06vI.F0M@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Tom Oates <th2_oate@csd.uwe-bristol.ac.uk> writes:
|> From Tom Oates <th2_oate@csd.uwe-bristol.ac.uk>
|> >In article <1992Dec3.223156.23027@news.nd.edu> ulick@gershwin.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) writes:
			...
|> >seems to be to maximise disruption with minimum injury.  So set small bombs, 
|> >give a very general, relatively short warning ...                  ^^^^^^^^^^^
|> The bombs detonated in Manchester weighed approx 2 pounds. The explosive
|> used was Semtex-H.
|>     ... comment on whether a 2lb slab of Semtex could do much
|> more than make people's windows rattle.

	I have very litte experience with plastic explosives but 
	I can clearly say that 1 kg (2lb) of the plastic explosives
	I have used would form a serious danger to the public. 
	I don't know the propertys of Semtex (anyone could mail me
	chemical contence) but the proportions are of interest.
	Safe distance from a 0.125 kg pentyl flegmatisised with 
	petroleum is something like 100m allthough no one farther 
	than 10 m could be injured by anything than shrapnel.  
	An offencive handgranade could hold about 0.3 kg of TNT
	and a 15 cm HE howitzer shell contains about 9 kg of Hexotol
	or soumthing like that..
	I would say that 1 kg of Semtex is about as dangerous as 
	8 cm mortar shell or a 7 cm HE gun shell. All comments 
	appreciated.
						Arthur
 

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 17:23:47 GMT


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

In article <BzD4rB.ItF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> kash1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz(Kemp Ashby)
 writes:
>
>From kash1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz(Kemp Ashby)
>
>In <Bz9EzI.6M5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za> writ
es:
[deletions]
>>I hereby nominate the following as the worst and most dangerous (to
>>their aircrews) fighters on the Allied side in WW2
>
>>1. Brewster Buffalo -- so bad that it deserves a class all of its own.
>
>>2. Bell Airacobra -- for all the reasons that Joe advances.
>
>How about the Gloster Gladiator, Boulton-Paul Defiant, and Russian I-16?
>I'm sure there are a host of others!
>                             Kemp.
>
>

The I-16 was a truly great a/c. The VVS just kept it in the front-line
about 2 years after it should have been withdrawn. (Keep in mind a
legendary a/c like the Mustang or the Spitfire would not have fared well
against a MiG 15.)
Likewise, the Gloster Gladiator was a victim of overly-slow development.
Had it gone into service on time, it would have been well-regarded.
Even at that it didn't do too badly in the Mediterranean theatre.

The Defiant was based on a bad concept, but it was a useful night fighter.
See William Green's "Famous Fighters of the 2nd World War" for details
of what I have said above.

I would say that the Westland Whirlwind was a very poor fighter (poor
engines). Ray Wagner's "American Combat Planes" ["Aircraft?"] has
a number of prototypes that never went anywhere, including one lightweight
fighter made by Bell.

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: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in post WWII)
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:40:11 GMT


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

>From Stuart Grant <grant@psych.toronto.edu>

>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
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Que? A tank has no road demands to speak of ( one of their best features:->)
or do you mean the road demands of tank transporters?

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
From: bruceb@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in post WWII)
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:35:58 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX


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


In article <BzD52z.JHH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) 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
>                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Que? A tank has no road demands to speak of ( one of their best features:->)
>or do you mean the road demands of tank transporters?
>

	A tank has road demands when it comes to crossing steeply banked
    rivers and other natural terrain features. Hence the great importance
    or railroad bridges for tanks in the 50+ ton region.

	Also, a tank is not a self-sustaining vehicle. Refueling/rearming
    vehicles need to get to the operational area least the tank expend its
    range in returning to refuel/rearm.



								Bruce



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bruce Burden            bruceb@mpd.tandem.com         Tandem Computers Inc.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stephen Harker <phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: Physics Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:33 GMT


From Stephen Harker <phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>

In article <Bz06vK.F1F@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> 
> From Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
> 
>>From "Terence T. Lung" <lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu>
>> In article <Byw95t.6Jq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> gregory_b@cubldr.colorado.edu (Brian Gregory) writes:
>>>at these ranges?  Without the benefit of radar (radar-ranged gunnery being
>>>used only by 1944, as I remember)
>             ^^^^^^^
>> Just a minor detail here...the Duke of York took out the Scharnhorst
>> with radar directed gunnery in December 1943.
> 
> 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 can't confirm this definitely, however from the following reference:

	"Loss of the Bismarck", V. Adm. B.B. Schofield, 
	Ian Allan, 1972 SBN 7110 0265 7

in discussing German radar it is stated that the Germans first put a Freya
air warning (D.T. Gerate) radar set on ships in 1939, while the Graf Spee
had a Seetakt gunnery radar with a 9 mile range.  At the time this book was
written it was not certain if the Bismarck had gunnery radar though search
radar was definitely carried.  However the accurate fire on the destroyers
at night is mentioned.  It was suggested that Bismarck probably did carry
gunnery radar as photos seem to show the appropriate aerial type.

	On the British side the first employment of radar is given as late
1938 when Rodney and Sheffield were equipped with type 79Y air warning
radar.  The same book listed the following radar types as carried by
British battleships during the Bismarck operation:

KGV & PoW:	281B, 282, 284 and 285
Hood		284
Rodney		281 and 284

Type 284 is a gunnery radar for the main battery.  A lot of other ships at
the time had various mixes of radar depending on when they had their last
refit on when they were finished.  At Matapan a month or two earlier the
only British battleship with radar was Valiant which only had search radar.

-- 
Stephen Harker			phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Monash University		Baloney baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chris Thompson <christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>
Subject: Military for sale (Was: Lockheed buys General Dynamics) 
Organization: City College of New York - Science Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:40 GMT


From Chris Thompson <christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>

In article <Bz20Bu.85A@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>
>From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
>
> Lockheed has bought General Dynamics' Fort Worth Division which
> produces the F-16 for $1.6 billion.
>
> Bye, GDFWD.
>
> Sniff.  :(
> TRAVIS
>

Interesting.  A friend of mine who works for GE (but no longer) told
me that GE has just sold the training facilities used to train
nucs (sub-type) along with the contract (I believe) to Martin
Marietta.  
Somehow, saying "The Lockheed Falcon" just doesn't sound right.

Is there a reason these companies are dumping their military contracts
onto the market?  If so, why are OTHER defense contractors picking
them up?

Chris Thompson

-- 
(Help!  I've fallen and I can't reach my beer!)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>
Subject: Re: German Navy Surface Units in WWII
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:30:35 GMT


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



> In article <Bz9FGL.7IB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Robb Pryor <robbp@healey_haven.esd.sgi.com> writes:
> 
> >Also, I'd like to know if Germany ever ran active U-boat campaigns
> >against Britian's Naval units like the ones it waged against commercial
> >shipping.

Unlike the Japanese, the Germans knew the value of the supply line. 
They did sink the occasional capital ship when they came across it if
circumstances permitted, they'd be foolish not to, but the main targets
were ships carrying supplies.  Without the sea convoys making it to
Britains shores, Britain could not have fought for very long. 
Astounding amounst of gas and oil are consumed while waging war.

Corky Scott
From: andyw@meaddata.com (Andy Welter)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Shooting bullets straight up
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:36:01 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH


From Andy Welter <andyw@meaddata.com>

In article IsD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM, "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com> () writes:
>
>From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
>
>In article <BzB9wM.1J2@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Ryan Montieth Gill <labrg@emory.edu> writes:
>
>>	What about the old Galilean priciple of acceleration is
>>not contingent upon the weight of the object dropping ??
>
>You're only considering that one principle (which is true, as you state
>it). This isn't the only factor, however. To quote my old Science teacher;
>"All objects will fall at the same speed in a vacuum." In the real world,
>air resistance or other friction is the speed limiting factor. More massive
>objects tend to be less affected by air friction than less, and of course,
>streamlining is a factor as well. I've been told that the human body tops
>out at a little over 100mph.

As an ex - skydiver, I remember the numbers as something like this...
With a relativly tight jumpsuit and a normal stable arch possition, 
terminal velocity is around 120 mph... In a streamlined tracking
body position, terminal is around 180 mph.


---
|Andrew Welter	     |  All views are mine and not |      (513) 865-6822   
|Mead Data Central   |    that of my employer      |      pd&o-ps-ts-dsp       
|P.O. Box 933        |                             |     andyw@meaddata.com
|Dayton, Ohio  45401 |          	           | ...!uunet!meaddata!andyw
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: Cobalt bomb?  _What_ cobalt bomb?
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:20:18 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <Bz3uxE.2nA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Gary Toshio Sunada <sunadg@rpi.edu> writes:
> 
> 
> From Gary Toshio Sunada <sunadg@rpi.edu>
> 
> 	Just recently I encountered something interesting in a conversation 
> concerning nuclear weaponry: the cobalt bomb.  What in the world is a 
> cobalt bomb, and why can't I find any references to it?
> 
> Gary				.----------------------------------.
> 				:    advertising space for rent    :
> 				:        pending .sig file         :
> 				.__________________________________.
>  
> 
> 

First, this is a way to make a nuclear bomb's long term effects much more
damaging.  One makes a layer of cobalt around the nuclear weapon just on the
inside of the bomb's casing.  When the bomb explodes, Co-59 is transmutated 
into Co-60 by absorbing a neutron (note: natural cobalt is 100% Co-59).  This
makes a lot of Co-60 and spreads it all over your enemy's land.  Co-60 has
a half-life of 5.258 years and a high energy gamma ray (1.333 MeV).  Thus,
it would cause alot more radiation deaths outside of the blast zone than a
nuclear weapon without the Co-59 cover and be a danger for the next 35 years.

Second, see the movie "Dr. Strangelove".  They mention it also in one or 
more scenes.

The trouble is that this stuff will also spread all over the world (like a
mini-Chernobyl) so if you use such a weapon, you can expect some long term
deaths in your population also.

Don Palmrose
"There are only two kinds of ships....  Those that project power onto shore
and those that protect the power projectors."





========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: CJohn Mace <zcjm0f@hou.amoco.com>
Subject: Naval trivia
Organization: Amoco Production
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:22:15 GMT


From CJohn Mace <zcjm0f@hou.amoco.com>


I am in the need of some naval trivia, or just the answers to these 
questions.

Submarines:  (two types, Ohio Class and Trident)
	1) approximate tonnage of displacement
	2) approximate dimensions
	3) classification  (boomer, attack, etc)
	4) date first set sail

[mod note -- I wasn't aware that the U.S. Navy had a Trident class sub.
The 2 main classes I'm aware of at the current time are the Ohio, a Fleet
Ballistic Missle (FBM) sub carrying the Trident D-5 SLBM, and the Los
Angeles class attack sub 

Steve]

Battlewagons: (heavily armored Iowa Class)
	1) number produced by the US
	2) date first set sail
	3) number active
	4) number scrapped
	5) number mothballed

[mod note -- 4 Iowas were built -- Iowa, Missouri, New Jersy, and
Wisconson.  First sailed during WW-II (early 1944 or thereabouts).  I thing
that during the Reagan years all 4 were re-commissioned, none were
scrapped, and all 4 are heading back to the mothball fleet.  On a side
note, does anybody out there have any information on what the U.S. Navy has
in mothballs in the way of surface combatants?

Steve]

Carriers:  (E class WWII)
	1) number produced
	2) number active at the end of the war
	3) number sunk in action

[mod note -- The poster is either refering to the Enterprise class, which I
think only 1 was built (the original U.S.S. Enterprise), but it may have
been a member of another class, or the Essex class.  If he is refering the
the Essex class, I don't think any of them were ever sunk in action

Steve]

I have heard contradictary information on the above and I figure that
you guys will probably be a better source than what I am getting.  :-/

any help is greatly appreciated!
cjohn mace
zcjm0f@hou.amoco.com
	


Newsgroups: sci.military