HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Rick Lafford <lafford@clpd.Kodak.COM>
Subject: Re: F-4's still in service
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:16:31 GMT


From Rick Lafford <lafford@clpd.Kodak.COM>

I was recently out at Hill AFB in Utah for a remanufacturing seminar
and went thru the refit plant. The nice people giving us the tour remarked
that they had just torn down the F-4 refit docks and stored the
tooling when Desert Storm came along and lots of F-4, RF-4 and F-4G
hours were flown. Afterward hey had to pull all the tooling back out and 
run major overhauls on loads of F-4's that were supposed to be retired.
When we were there, they had three F-4's (don't know the models) in
fixtures with major components missing. One had the M-61 cannon under
the nose. The installation looked like original equiment, not an add-on.

Our tour guide indicated that the USAF was planning to continue using
the F-4 until both the RF-16 and Weasel version are implemented.

	Regards,
	Rick

--------------------
Rick Lafford			|"Jackhammering along thru the turbulence at
Eastman Kodak Co.		| 200'... well I'd be lying to you if I said I
lafford@serum.kodak.com	| it wasn't the greatest." - F16 pilot
==========================================================================


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Jason M. Mccloskey" <jmmst53+@pitt.edu>
Subject: "JEEPS"
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:32:44 GMT


From "Jason M. Mccloskey" <jmmst53+@pitt.edu>


I want to know what the names of the vehicles are that are commonly referred
to as jeeps.  The vehicles I am talking about are officially called 1/4 ton
trucks.  They have a non-DOT certified fully independent suspension.
Further, I have heard them being referred to as M-38's and M-151's.

Any other ideas?

Thanks.
Jason
From: grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Supply convoy safety
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:23:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto


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

>>>Hypothetically speaking, if you have a 4 lane highway which is vital as a 
>>>supply route and is heavily wooded on both sides, (tropical forest like 
>>>vietnam) and is about 500+ miles long, how would the US Marines and/or the
>>>US Army secure it?

The standard answer seems to be that the trees should be cut back a few
hundred meters from the road. This seems reasonable, as anyone trying to
mine the road would have to cross a large expanse of open ground, and
any ambushes would have to be conducted from long range. However, 
woundn't this provide an nearly ideal opportunity for the convoy to be
attacked with short or medium range atni-tank weapons? The ambushers
can sit on the edge of the woods, and fire at the long, exposed convoy.

What if you left a narrow strip of trees along each side of the road,
perhaps a strip of trees 5-10 meters wide? This would provide cover
from ATGMs, air and ground launched. Being very narrow, it would
be quick and easy to search from the road by a lead elements. It would
be narrow enough to partially see through, but the trees would make 
hitting a moving vehicle very difficult. The convoy wouldn't
be able to return fire very effectively, but then, this is a supply
convoy.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Subject: Re: Kilo-class submarines
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:11:34 GMT


From youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)

In <Bx97DG.1vM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M Ryan) writes:


>From kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M Ryan)

>In article <Bx5D3M.JC5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@u.washington.edu> writes:

>>	Heard on the radio news that a FSU Kilo-class sub
>>is due to be delivered to Iran in the next week or so, and that
>>a US Attack sub will be entering the Gulf in advance of that
>>delivery.
>>
>>	Can anybody post known characteristics of the Kilo-class
>>sub and does anyone know what vintage/characteristics the US
>>attack sub might have?

>the Emmerite states. However, since the gulf is not very deep, and is rather 
>limited, sophisticated anti-submarine aircraft, as well as US naval 
>submarines would most likely not have too much of a problem. [ Have we sold 
>the Saudi's any ASW helicopters, such as the P3 Orion, S3, SH-3 etc? ]

   Just ask the Swedish about how easy shallow-water ASW is. 

>	The kilo class is powered by a Diesel engine (2) with an electric 
>one. Does anyone know if Iran has the capability of mantaining such a ship?

   Diesil engines are pretty easy to maintain. Lots of things have them, like
   trucks, tanks, etc. While I am admittedly ignorant of the differences
   between them and a sub engine, they probably aren't too dissimilar.

   Besides, there are lots of out-of-work FUSSR techs around.

   Scott Young
   youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Collins Class?
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:18:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia


From bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au

> From Mark McCullough <mccullou@cae.wisc.edu>
>
> What is this Collins class sub people are talking about?  I don't
> have access to a copy of Jane's so could someone post/send me
> some information on it, like approximate year it started production,
> country(s) that operate it, some very basic idea about how good it is,
> etc.
> :)M^2

        I don't have any references at hand, so all of this is from
memory.

        The Collins class sub is a conventional sub based on the
Swedish Vastergotland class design. The main differences are that
the Collins is larger (25%?), has fewer torpedo tubes (6, the
VatsterGotland has 10), and will have a different sensor outfit
to suit Australian hydrographic conditions. From a visual
perspective, the Collins and Vastergotland are almost identical
(except for size).

        The first 2 are under construction in Adelaide (Australia)
with a total of 6 to be built. Since none have been launched yet,
it's a bit hard to say just how good they are, but there have been
some comments that the Collins will have similar performance to
the British Upholder class subs. Australia is the only country at
present to order Collins class subs (the Collins class was designed
as a submission for the Australian navy, to replace our Oberons).

        The proposed weapons fit will be a mix of Mk 48 torpedos
and Sub-Harpoon missiles. There has been speculation of adding
Tomahawk cruise missiles, either torpedo tube launched, or in a
vertical launcher located in the sail. Projected underwater
speed is 25+ knots, with a maximum diving depth of approx 400
metres. The Collins is expected to be *very* quiet. There are
no plans to use Stirling engines in the Collins class. They will
all be diesel-electric drive.


           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Adam <acgetche@taco.engr.ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Need help on explosives, etc
Summary: Energy release of C-series, gunpowder
Organization: College of Engineering - University of California - Davis
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:45:14 GMT


From Adam <acgetche@taco.engr.ucdavis.edu>


	I am requesting information on the energetics of fuels and
explosives.  Specifically:
	How many joules/gram does C-4/C-wonderful plastic explosives
liberate?  How long does this take?
	How many joules/gram (or BTU/grain; I'll convert ;-) does
typical gunpowder charges liberate?  In what timespan?
	Are there better explosives out there (e.g. flaked hexogene?)
that liberate more energy/faster?
	Are there tricks to give explosives more bang per buck (e.g.
using factory dust to cover demolition charges)?

	What is the energy release rate per mole of propellant?
By "propellant" I mean typical fuels in use today.  Specs on Space
Shuttle fuel would be fantastic!

	My humble thanks.

           -- Adam
+--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell |Surgery-Radiation Oncology    GETCHELL@radonc.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu|
| acgetchell   |ez000270@chip.ucdavis.edu        acgetche@taco.engr.ucdavis.edu|
+--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>
Subject: Re: Japanese Strategy in WWII
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:55:31 GMT


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

In article <Bx7CK2.Eov@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:

> The problem was mooted by the use of the ultra-heavy bombs such as the 
> Grand Slam and Tallboy

What is meant by the word "mooted"?  I had the impression that no bomb
successfully penetrated the sub pens and that they are still in use
today.

Corky Scott
From: fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: F-14 as a strike bomber
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:18:37 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada


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

jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan) writes:
: 
: 
: The USAF still maintains F-4 units in both the Reserve and Guard.  As a
: matter of fact, the only dedicated Wild Weasel squadron in the USAF flies
: the F-4G ]
:
Not any more.  Recently they switched to F-16 variants.
From: jonke@BRL.MIL (Patrick Jonke)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: re: WW2 Shaped Charges
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:28:45 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From Patrick Jonke <jonke@BRL.MIL>

> ...german armour was generally face hardened and that of
> the British was homogeneous (at least of the pre- and early war period).

Face hardening is generally only practical with (comparatively) thin
sheets of steel. German armors moved away from face hardening as the
war progressed due to the additional manufacturing time & expense and
the difficulty of hardening thick pieces of armor.

In addition, German steel declined in quality (e.g., toughness) as the
war progressed as the result of shortcuts in the steel-making process
and the shortage of additive materials. Molybdenum was in particularly
short supply, if I recall correctly. The decline in steel quality can
often be seen in late war photographs of damaged German tanks, which
show extensive radial cracking in the low-toughness steel when
perforated by a round.


> The Germans did all sorts of research on SCW throughout the war and
> tried many different materials used in the manufacture of SCW as well as
> many different types of charge weight and shape.


Yes, they tried steel, sintered iron, copper, aluminum, and zinc liner
materials, as well as conical, hemispherical, ellipsoidal liners, et al,
(would you believe a kaiser helmet-shaped liner?). As one correspondant
to me noted, the panzerfaust had a hemispherical liner.


> If they did not use copper as the liner material in the field
> ammunition, it may have been because of the limitation on the supplies
> of copper.

Agreed. I only intended to point out that the panzerfaust was not an
optimized design.


> Once you do have an SCW of suitable penetrative effect, then you want
> to maximise the its effect on what is behind this armour.  By
> defocussing your shock wave slightly, you can punch a larger hole in the
> armour, but with lesser penetration.


I am not certain what you mean by "defocussing the shock wave". The 
pressure wave coming from the explosive is not really focused (unless
you consider the confinement to act as such) but gradually collapses the
liner as the wave travels forward. Since the liner is tapered in some
way, this has the effect of accelerating the liner material towards the
axis of symmetry. The geometry of the liner (cone angle, radius, etc) is
the major factor in determining the trade-off of hole size vs depth of
penetration. In addition, only a fraction of the liner mass goes into the
jet, most of the mass goes into a slower-moving lump called a "slug"
that follows behind. Changing the geometry affects the ratio of jet to slug
mass.

Another interesting aspect of jets is that the jet material is not molten,
it is solid. It is a solid undergoing extremely high rates of strain, but
it is solid nonetheless.
From: fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: desert storm operations
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:18:40 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada


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

while talking about desert storm, i somehow feel it is not as huge a victory
as it sounds,  iraq. though armed to teeth, isn't a first class military
power.  their training and tactics are primative, never mind their logistical 
support.  in an air show, i talked to a guy who flew f-15e in iraq.  he said
if russian involvement was more, for example, they, or better yet, east
german, manned the a/c and air defence systems, the war would be quite
different.  i think a more adequate analogy probably is german condor legion
against spanish communist rebellion in the 30's.  even that is not quite
proper.  what about cortez's march against aztecs only with hundred times more
manpower?
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Subject: Re: Japanese Strategy in WWII
Followup-To: sci.military
Summary: World War One was a 7 seas war
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:32:14 GMT


From jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)


In article <Bx3ovy.3FK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan) writes:

>From jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan)

>1)  Word War I was not a fleet action on both oceans.
>World War I was a continental campaign- after Jutland,
>there was convoy battle, but not a fleet action (and
>there is a BIG difference between the two- a convoy
>battle involves attacking logistics, a fleet action
>involves attacking combat elements)

Wow that was a long sentence!

Still, from what I remember World War One defintely involved a major
battle at the Falklands :-) Furthermore there were a number of isolated
battles between Commerce Raiders and British (and other) ships. These
streched right around the world. The Second World War on the other hand
involved much less fighting between Combat elements and more convoy
attacks - except in the Pacific. Clsoe enough to a One Sea War.


Joseph Askew


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  At dawn with staff in hand I climbed the crags,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  At dusk I made my camp amoung the mountains.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Only a few peaks rise as high as this house,
One China One Korea One Eire32  Facing the crags, it overlooks winding streams.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Crazyman Pan <pan2765@seas.gwu.edu>
Subject: Subs in Shallows (was Kilo-class submarines)
Organization: I have none...
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:09:02 GMT


From Crazyman Pan <pan2765@seas.gwu.edu>

In article <BxEvzC.1Hx@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ppl@athena.mit.edu (Paul Podvig) writes:

>It is usually MORE difficult to find a submarine in shallow water. And
>it is almost impossible to find a diesel submarine with passive sonar.
>You have to wait till the sub will sink somebody and then quickly deploy
>a lot of sonobouys around. Diesel submarunes are more dangerous than they
>seem.

If it's more difficult to find a sub in shallow water, then why do subs
dive deeper to evade detection?  What about all of that thermal layer stuff?
Why is it more difficult at shallow depths?

						-- Crazyman Pan


(I'd rather be playing guitar...)
"I don't need no doctor, all I need is my LOVE machine!"
				-- W.A.S.P., Live...In The Raw, Love Machine




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: The Dambusters
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:12:07 GMT


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

> From awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Al Crawford)
>
> Well, not really - remember that the Lancaster was originally a *medium*
> bomber (albeit a large one) derived from the twin-engined Manchester
> (powered by two Rolls Royce Vulture engines - although given RRs penchant
> for naming engines after birds and the success of this engine, Rolls Royce
> Turkey might have been more apt). Standard "official" bomb load wasn't much
> greater than that of the Manchester at 12,000lbs. Over shorter-ranges it
> could carry 14-15,000lbs. Didn't the B-29 come in at about 20,000lbs? I'm
> sure the B-29 would have had the *load carrying* capacity to take a Grand
> Slam, but I doubt it had a large enough bomb-bay (the Lancaster being
> equipped with one long bay rather than the two smaller bays of the B-29).

Some B-29's did carry Grand Slams.  These were used, after the war, to
"test" German fortifications on deserted Baltic Islands.

Apparently some were modified to carry TWO Grand Slams (for a total of
44,000 lbs), one under each inner wing.  Presumably they would have
had some test flights, but were not used operationally.

Sources:   Famous Bombers of the Second World War, William Green
           Encyclopaedia of Combat Aircraft, Bill Gunston

Didn't the Americans fly some missions in Korea which were designed to
show the Nth Koreans how easy it would be to nuke them?  I seem to
remember that they dropped single large bombs on various strategic
targets.



> > Makes you wonder about its follow-on, the Lincoln, or what would have
> > been the result of fitting RR Griffons or Crecys to the things.
>
> It doesn't take a great deal to imagine what a Lincoln with Griffons would
> have been like - didn't the Shackleton (Lincoln wings and tail married to a
> new fuselage) have Griffons? If you follow the Shackleton branch of the
> family tree, you can even imagine what a jet-powered Lancaster would have
> been like :-) (some later Shackleton MR.3s has an approx. 2500lb thrust
> turbojet in each outer nacelles).
>

The Shackleton was finally paid off in British service this year - the
last flying examples were auctioned.  I think at least one went to a
restoration society, so hopefully it'll be around for a while.


--
 Mike Campbell,
 mike@alyosius.equinox.gen.nz
 I have long since stopped being surprised when anything I say is
 soon shown to be a load of cobblers'!
--
Mike Campbell,
mike@alyosius.equinox.gen.nz
I have long since stopped being surprised when anything I say is
soon shown to be a load of cobblers'!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: All this F-14 Strike stuff (kinda wordy)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:52:14 GMT


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

bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu ("Sean J. Roc D'Arcy") writes:
: 
: From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>
: 
: In article <Bx3oKz.2v8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes...
: >Consider that the USAF seems allergic to the 'A' designator. The F-111 is NOT a
: >fighter by any leap of the immagination. It should be A-something. Same with
: >the F-117. The Nighthawk is not a fighter, it is designed for attack. The USAF
: >only had the A-7 because it was a Navy plane first. And the A-10 they want to
: >get rid of. About the ONLY consideration for the USAF's F-111 was ground 
: >attack. The same for the F-117.
: 
: I may be mistaken here, but wasn't the F-111 originally designed to be a 
: fighter/interceptor and tat it failed miserably at that task. I thought its 
: experiences in vietnam converted it to an attack plane.
: 
: As to the F-117 I really can't guess what its original intent was (since 
: I'm sure its still classified).
: 
: SJRD
:

Whatever it was, it was not for air-to-air mission.  It has no radar, no gun
(not that crutical, you may say), can't carry any AAM.  The best and only
weapon in an AA engagement is stealth.  Once seen and locked on (very
difficult, but impossible?), it is more or less dead already.  Those are what
i learned in an air show through talking to a guy who flew this thing in the
gulf war.  Comments in the braces are mine. 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Rivet popping
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:05:37 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

> 	Now this got me to wondering, and while trying to imagine a hit
> on a bolt head sending the bolt flying about inside the tank, my mind
> went back to the movie Das Boot, where the rivets in the bulkheads were
> being sheared and flying about the ship.
> 
> 	Question: does it happen? 


Not exactly an answer but along the same lines.  One of the early ways to take
out a tank was to fire a shell against it that hasn't got a snowballs chance in
hell of killing it.  This would often cause molten globs of metal to spray
around inside the tank killing or wounding the crew (would you perform at your
best with molten metal over you?) and generally causing havoc.

Later model tanks certainly fixed this problem, although I can't give you a
date on this.  As late as WW2 this was still a reasonably common occurence.

It also forms the basis of the theory behind HESH (high explosive squash head)
where an amount of HE is pressed up against a tank by the force of the round
then it explodes and sends metal fragments and molten globules throughout the
interior to take out the crew.  From what I have been told the results are not
a pretty sight.

regs

Rob


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cmr@cvedc.prime.com (Chesley Reyburn)
Subject: Re: Japanese Strategy in WWII
Organization: Computervision R&D, Beaverton OR
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:25:29 GMT


From cmr@cvedc.prime.com (Chesley Reyburn)

jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>have so easily turned out wrong (as it did) If the Japanese were
>gambling on the US lacking the will to fight then it was a very stupid
>bet! I do not believe that any nation goes to war on the basis of a

That is the other half of the institutional racisim factor in
the beginnings of the war.  Many Japanese at the time thought
that the Americans were soft and lacked the will to fight.
This attitude was surprisingly like the Amercian image of the
typical Japanese which was that they lacked the will to fight.

Chesley Reyburn cmr@cvedc.prime.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Subject: WWII Battleships (Was: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii)
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:16:37 GMT


From rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)

In article <BxGrMC.6pH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
> Alaska (2), 34K/10K, 33kt, 9x12" guns arranged as above.

These were never considered to be battleships (or even a battlecruser). The
Alaska class has always been considered to be large cruisers. Their type
designation was CB rather than BB or BC.

-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030

Newsgroups: sci.military