HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Felix Hack <felixh%sunspot.ssl.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Genie missile range
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:32:35 GMT


From Felix Hack <felixh%sunspot.ssl.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>

  Jack Broughton's book 'Going Downtown' discusses the
Genie a bit.  He did some test flights with the missile.
Apparently, it was quite temperamental, and the accuracy
was oftentimes terrible, they would often turn around
and fly off back behind the launching aircraft!
 
  The launch method was unique: the rocket motor fired
when a lanyard attached to the aircraft pulled taut.  Thus
you needed to drop the missile unpowered 
before it would start to go.  Broughton compared the
procedure to hunting ducks with a shotgun by tying a
string to the trigger.  When you see ducks, hold onto
the string and throw the shotgun at them!
 
-Felix

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Battleship Potemkin
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:29:05 GMT


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

> From Tony Buckland <buckland@ucs.ubc.ca>
>
>  In a review of a show of art from the Soviet period, I recently saw a
>  poster depicting the Potemkin.  If this was accurate, the Potemkin had
>  a turret - well, some sort of a housing - with at least four guns
>  _above_ the aloft fire control.  Hard to tell how big they were, but
>  they looked at least 10 cm.  I shudder to think of the stresses generated
>  by firing both of the guns on one side.  It also doesn't look like a
>  very stable gun platform, and that after all is what a battleship _is_.
>  Anyone know if this is the way the real ship was?  And if so, what the
>  point was?  The gain in range by lifting the guns that high seems
>  unlikely to be significant (and the problem of getting the ammunition
>  up there sounds big).  Of course, if you could depress enough, they
>  would be great for repelling boarders or attacking the dock you were
>  berthed at :-)

Off-hand I'd recommend you have a look in your local library for
copies of Jane'f Fighting Ships, 1914 or 1919 (both have been around
as reprints for a while).

The guns are probably 1 or 3 pounders (25mm or 47mm??).  these were
used in large numbers on Russian vessels of the time (EG Tsarevitch,
4x12", 12x6", 20x12 pdr (3"), 20 x 3 pdr, 8 x 1 pdr in 1904 - Fred
Jane, "The Imperial Russian Navy", reprint of 2nd edition by Conway), and
probably similar small guns were used by other nationalities also.

It really is difficult to imagine a use other than anti-personnel for
such small (in the naval arena) artillery.  Even torpedo boats were
100+ tons by 1904, so these wouldn't have been a lot of use against
them - the 12 pdrs are there for that task anyway.  Probably the
reason they are up high is that there isn't any room for them anywhere
else, and since the searchlight and sighting positions tend to be
quite large - why not put a bit of extra fire-power up there as well.
--
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: Tarl Neustaedter <tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com>
Subject: USSR carriers Varyag, Kuznetov & Ul'yanovsk
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:48:47 GMT


From Tarl Neustaedter <tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com>


There was a question earlier on this group about the disposition of the
russian full-deck carriers. I don't recall seeing an answer, so I'll quote
from the Naval Institute proceedings, Nov '92:

1) Kuznetov: Delivered to the northern fleet in Nov '91. As I recall, the
	formalities of its departure were a little neglected.

2) Varyag: Near completion, russia wants to assign it to northern fleet,
	Ukraine claims it's theirs. If russia & ukraine come to agreement
	on splitting up the black sea fleet (as seems likely), Varyag will
	almost certainly be russian. Russia is building a huge pier for it
	in Murmansk. 

	China and India have voiced interest in purchasing Varyag, we'll
	see how hungry the russians get this winter.

3) Ul'yanovsk: About 20% complete, started being scrapped 3 Feb '92.
	The Nikolayev shipyard needs the space for merchant ships.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Saab 32 Lansen
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:32:49 GMT


From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>

This aircraft made its maiden flight 40 years and a handful of days ago.

I'd like to know, does the book make clear if 1/4 had radars at delivery,
or all the time until retirement in 1976? (Some of other versions are
still in service.) That radars were in short supply at that time is also
evidenced by the fact that the first batch of the first version of Saab
35 Draken had neither sights nor radars -- but they were all rebuilt
later on, and did good duty to familiarize crews with the new aircraft.

If you plan on never attacking with fewer than four aircraft, the path-
finder concept can save some money. And the fewer aircraft in a mission
that uses radars, the less information you give away to the target.
Presumably the rest of the package kept at low altitude, and the path-
finder popping up to do quick radar sweeps, and if several widely 
separated aircraft make radar sweeps, the target cannot know from which
direction the real attack will come.

Present day pictures of attack Viggens show that seldom all four aircraft
in a flight have the same equipment. One or two carry countermeasures in
place of a few bombs, and one may have exchanged a pair of bomb racks for
Sidewinders.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)
 A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:48:45 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

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

>>	Certainly not invulnerable, but that battleship is a damned
>>big, slow, and easy target.  It's darned near impossible to sink without
>>large torpedos, but the battleship can expect to be attacked by any power
>>that can bring down a strike aircraft at 40K feet.  For the crew size and
>>cost of operating a battleship, too, we could probably have strike
>>aircraft loaded and on station 24 hours/day for the same price, and
>>they would have an additional benefit of range.
>>
>Could you really? A carrier takes 5500 men (including aircrew), a BB
>takes 1500. Carriers aren't exactly cheap either. I maintain that BBs
>are just the thing for shore bombardment.

	Don't get me wrong -- I *LOVE* battleships for hammering
shorelines!  Witness how well things calmed down in Beruit when the
New Jersey, I think it was, parked off the coast.  Witness 50% of
the Fortress Europe defenses taken out of action in about 25 minutes
during the invasion of Normandy.  Perfect for the job.  However, don't
overlook just the manpower cost (1500 people to crew the ship versus
how many to crew 12 strike aircraft for 2-hour flights?), but also
the fuel costs, maintainence, ordinance, more limited range (a big
benefit in some ways, less so in others).  To be honest, I wasn't
thinking of carriers here, I was thinking of land-based aircraft
flying sorties from nearby air bases.  The expense of a carrier blows
the cost to the moon and back for those aircraft, and the loss factor
should the carrier be hit would be astronomical.  Total agreement there.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:32:39 GMT


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

In article <BxGrs1.70M@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca> writes:
>
>From Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
>
>drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com ("david.r.wells") writes:
>: 
>: From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
>: 
>: >
>Then the chances are it is loaded with shore-based anti-shipping missiles as
>well.  French built exocets might not worry the captain of New Jersey too much
>because of smallish warheads.  But Russian ones have 500+ kg warheads which can
>smash a distroyer sized surface vessel with one hit.  And they are "cheap and
>many".  It would be a pretty exciting scene on the radar screen.  Even Aegis
>class cruisers would get their hands full by then.  Mind you, it's only 20-some
>miles off the shore.  You don't get much time to react. 
>

An Iowa class BB is hardly destroyer sized. Plus there's the armor to factor
in. I presume that the Russian SSM has an HE warhead. Probably far less
effective against armor. Anybody out there in net-land got any raw, unvarnished
data on how big an HE bomb you need to blow through 12" of armor? Also,
there are potential accuracy problems. By modern standards, old Russian SSMs
are fairly easy to confuse. Still, your point about SSMs is valid. I just 
think that the SSMs in question might be overrated. Hard stats are hard to 
come by. (especially for us civillians!) 
   There is some evidence though, that these SSMs might not be quite so
dangerous as thought. Our old friend Saddam fired some at the BBs, didn't
get any hits (whether due to chaff, inaccuracy, British missiles or Phalanx
guns, it may not matter). Again, hard data would be most welcome.
   By the way, if you want to make a stronger point next time, bring up the
SS-N-3/12/19 series. I believe they have 1000 kg warheads.

				David Wells
From: nadcward@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Kilo-class submarines
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:20:12 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From nadcward@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil

>Heard...that a FSU Kilo-class sub is due to be delivered to
>Iran in the next week or so, and that a U.S. Attack sub will be entering
>the Gulf in advance of that delivery....Is it enough of a threat that the
>kilo sub might suffer an "accident?"

What do you mean by the term "accident" ? I do not think we will start an
international incident over a Kilo regardless of the threat. Just stating
that we are sending one of our SSNs in open press may be warning enough to
Iran. We don't normally do this.

In open press the U.S.S. Topeka (SSN 754), a Los Angeles class
is the one entering the Gulf. The Kilo (from Jane's - 87-88) has
the following characteristics:

Displacement: 2500 t surf, 3200 t dived
Dimensions: 70x9x7 m
Speed: 25 kt dived, 12 kt surf
Complement: 45
Radar: Snoop Tray
Sonar: LF passive; active

The Kilo is of course diesel-electric.

James Ward
NAVAIRWARCENACDIVWAR
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - Technical Consultant - Latin America)
Subject: Re: Planes that fought on both sides in WW
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:31:50 GMT


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


  Do not forget a lot of the French planes that were used by the
Germans or their allies. For example, the Potez 630 familiy used by
the French and by the Romanians in the Eastern front.

  My father fought (as a mechanitian and gunner) the first part of WW2 in
a heavy fighter squadron with Potez 630, a plane very similar to the
Me-110. The Squadron started with 13 planes and finished with 2 planes,
four months after. He was shot down twice.

  All the remaining planes were disarmed and stored. Later in the war,
the Romanians, who had bought the type before the war, asked for the
whole stock. The French Air Force, under orders form the Vichy
government, had to rearme the planes and send them to Romania. The
Germans had an "acceptance flight" where the mechanitians who rebuilt
the plane had to fligh in it, to avoid sabotages. What my father (he
was specialist in that particular plane) group did to sabotage the
planes was to put a spark plug at the bottom of the wings gas tanks.
When the gas tanks was full, it was completely safe, but when if was
nearly completely empty, as it tend to happen in normal combat
situations, it just made a big boom. The only thing to do is to be sure
that the gas tanks were full before the "acceptance flight".  The
Germans knew, obviously, that the planes were being saboted, but never
discovered how.

  Speaking for himself,

  Juan Carlos



--------------------------------- cut here -----------------------------

--
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: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Aircraft that fought on both sides of WWII
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:15:35 GMT


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

>
> From barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - Technical Consultant - Latin America)
>
>
>   Do not forget a lot of the French planes that were used by the
> Germans or their allies. For example, the Potez 630 familiy used by
> the French and by the Romanians in the Eastern front.
>
Also the Blenheim: -Yugoslav models (59 when invaded) ended with the
                    Croat Airforce
                   -Finland bought 18 Blenheim I's & 24 IV's and had
                    a licence to assemble them, making 40 until
                    production ceased in 1944
                   -14 were sold to Rumania

   Savio-Marchetti Sparviero (SM 79B) - the 2-engined version of the
   archetypal Italian Tri-engined bomber:
                   -Belgium
                   -Yugoslavia (at least 45)
                   -Russia

   Dewoitine 520 series fighters - production continued for Vichy and
Germany after the occupation of France (740 being made).  Germany
seized 411 in France, and passed them on to Italy, Rumania
and Bulgaria.

   In 1944 re-captured models were used to form GC I/8, which saw
action against German pockets in Southern France.

   Morane Saulnier 406 - Sold to Finland, and often re-engined with
captured Soviet  M-105P powerplants!  Also used by Vicy against the
RAF in Syria.

   The Polish PZL 11b was built in Romania as the IAR P.11f.

   The Italian surrender in 1943 bought large segments of that
nation's armed forces onto the Allied side.
> --
> 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: Jim Davies <jimd@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: WWI trench fighting (was: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:38:57 GMT


From Jim Davies <jimd@sfu.ca>

Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com> writes:


>From Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>

>I remember reading years ago when they still taught the
>older versions of world history how the german government
>threw fits over the first US Marines to deploy to the trenches
>in WWI, they were almost to a man equipped with Winchester
>Model 12 Pump 12ga shotguns which were ideal for cleaning out
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                I always thought it was the model 1897 Winchester

Jim Davies


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 1 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:05:14 GMT


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

Sunday, 1 November, 1942

US Marines begin an offensive on Guadalcanal.  Two regiments attack across
the Matanikau River while other units push toward Koli Point, where
Japanese reinforcements are expected to land.

German Army Group A captures Alagir, southeast of Nalchik in the Caucasus.

Soviet evacuation efforts have removed over 500,000 civilians from
Leningrad since the spring, using boats to cross Lake Ladoga.  

German figures claim that 5,150,000 Red Army soldiers have been captured
since the war began last year.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker   Moderator, sci.military  military-request@att.att.com
(614) 860-5294      Send submissions to military@att.att.com

"...the renewal of Hitler's sledge-hammer tactics to gain [Stalingrad] may
have been inspired also be his need of a place to quarter his troops for
the winter." - Maj. Gen. Stephen O. Fuqua, US Army, Ret.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mark Brown <mbrown@convex.com>
Subject: Re: Basic Training
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:29:11 GMT


From Mark Brown <mbrown@convex.com>

SEAN R MCINTOSH <srmcinto@eos.ncsu.edu> writes:


>From SEAN R MCINTOSH <srmcinto@eos.ncsu.edu>


>Hi! I am thinking of joining the Army and I have a few questions. I would like
>opinions on what to expect in Basic training.  I would also like so suggestions

If on Sundays your DI offers everyone the option of going to church or else
"just kick back on your bunk and take it easy", make sure you take the
go to church option. =;^)


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: j724664s@edinboro.edu
Subject: Best piece of Artillery you ever saw
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:36:06 GMT


From j724664s@edinboro.edu

Just for the sake of new argument besides three million "RE:"'s...

What is the most effective overall modern artillery piece on the planet?

P.S. For those of you who wanted the Tweleve military hot spots of the world
today...I lost it, sorry, but I don't think I can post it...it may come
under sci.military.political.
						Blackdog

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stig-Lennart Soerensen <stigs@stud.cs.uit.no>
Subject: Horten-9
Organization: University of Tromsoe, Norway
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:12:19 GMT


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

Last saturday, 7 september, I saw a science-show called Equnix, with the title:
The Art of Deception, on the european Discovery channel.

In this very interesting program, they showed several examples of the technology
and history connected to the development of radar-evading airplanes, or
stealth as it called today.

One of the earliest examples of trying to construct a plane which would render
itself virtually invisible to a radar, was the german fighter-bomber (?) Horten-9.

The Horten-9 airplane was a revolutionary design, buildt by nazi scientist in the
last months of the second world war.

It was a delta-shaped aircraft, with its two jet-engines hidden inside the wings
to prevent radar-detection. It was buildt primarly of wood, and used a glue which
according to rumours was less detectable to radar. Its shape was not unlike the
american B-1 (the stealth plane of today), with a very low flat shape and the
cockpit hidden inside the 'wing' shape of the plane.

The germans buildt two prototypes, one which chrashed test-flying, and the other
one ended up in the Washington aerospace museum (I belive), where it is stored
today.

According to the program, the germans planned to build a large, six engine bomber
model, which could deliver an (if the germans won the bomb-race) atomic bomb over
the USA. This plane was also delta-shaped.

Now I would like to know if there is anyone who has some more data on this plane
which surely could have changed the history if put in production early and
produced in large numbers.


********************************************************************************
* 'This is a small step for man, but a great leap for anyone with shorter legs *
*  than me...'								       *
*			    						       *	
*              You may mail me at this following adress			       *	
*	      								       *	
*	      		stigs@stud.cs.uit.no				       *
*                                                                              *
********************************************************************************


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Neil A Kirby <nak@cbvox.att.com>
Subject: Re: Questions
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:38:42 GMT


From Neil A Kirby <nak@cbvox.att.com>

In article <Bx5D3p.JCy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Gordon C Smith, IBM Greenford, UK." <GORDON@ukcevm1.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>From "Gordon C Smith, IBM Greenford, UK." <GORDON@ukcevm1.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> I have three questions where someone on the net may be able to help...
>
> 2) At 'The Last Moffet' show, there was a two seat A7 in the static
>    park. It had the refuelling probe extended, NAWC on the tail and
>    a red star on the intake cover. The serial number is so low-viz
>    that I can not decipher it, does anyone know what it is/was?
>

SOunds like the A/C I saw at the last Rickenbacker Airshow - it's a Navy
agressor, probably out of Miramar (sp?).  THey also use A4 and F5.

Neil Kirby
From: drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (david.r.wells)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:25:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T


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

In article <Bx3oKt.2t8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:
>
>From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
>
>Joel Upchurch <joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com> writes:
>
>>It isn't obvious to me that the the acceleration and jolt that a shell
>>experiences in 16 inch gun would be higher than that of say a 155mm
>>field gun. It might not even be as high. The pressures on the base of
>>a 16 inch shell must be something incredible, but I'm not sure to what
>>extent that would effect an electronics package on the front of the
>>shell.
>
>	The accelleration rate has to be higher if you're going to get
>it to fly 20+ miles (compared to 3/4 of that in a 155, let's say).  That
>
Greater muzzle velocity, yes. Greater accelleration, I'm not so sure. The
16" shell has a longer barrel to reach muzzle velocity in. I wish I had
the exact barrel length of the 155 mm so that I could confirm/dispute
your claim. (the 16" should have a barrel length of 50 calibers, or about
66 feet, 8 in.)

>	Certainly not invulnerable, but that battleship is a damned
>big, slow, and easy target.  It's darned near impossible to sink without
>large torpedos, but the battleship can expect to be attacked by any power
>that can bring down a strike aircraft at 40K feet.  For the crew size and
>cost of operating a battleship, too, we could probably have strike
>aircraft loaded and on station 24 hours/day for the same price, and
>they would have an additional benefit of range.
>
Could you really? A carrier takes 5500 men (including aircrew), a BB
takes 1500. Carriers aren't exactly cheap either. I maintain that BBs
are just the thing for shore bombardment.

				David Wells

DISCLAIMER: My own opinions, not AT&Ts.