HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Focke Wulf's in Europe (was:The Hawker Fury)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:46:24 GMT


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

In article <BxB87w.KF7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker) writes:

> I wrote:

>> Apparently the Mark IX was a shock to the Germans, too. For one thing you
>> couldn't easily tell one from a Mark V. 
>
>	Yes, the Mk VIII which was the "real" upgrade with a re-designed
>airframe had a retractable tailwheel.  The only obvious difference between
>a Mk V and Mk IX was extra length.  Many IX's were converted Mk V's.

The Mark XVIII didn't look considerably different, but was indeed the
intended "next model". I think most were sent to the Far East and the 
Middle East. Fighter Command stayed with the Mark IX because they needed
something quickly. 

You can tell a Mark IX from a Mark V from the number of exposed exhaust
stacks.. the Mark V was fitted with some kind of exhaust shielding and
two cylinders exhausted into one stack so you had three per side. Now 
I suppose its kinda hard to tell in a fight.

Quill has an interesting story to tell about when he took the prototype 
Mark IX to a fighter base...



















-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Genie AIR-2A
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:40:25 GMT


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

> From dvdyke60@ursa.calvin.edu (David Van Dyke)
>
> I was down in Ohio this weekend visiting the U.S.A.F. Museum in Dayton.
> As I was walking around in the modern plane hangar(the one with the XB-70 and
> all that), I noticed a large missile under one of the F-101s(I think).  The
> missile was called the Genie (I forget the designation), and the sign for it
> said that it had a nuclear warhead for taking out packed bomber groups.  Does
> anyone know what the stats on this missile are? (Range, warhead size, effectivekill radius, etc.)
>
> Also, my dad told me that this thing wasn't guided, it was just targeted for
> a general area and fired.  Not that I want to contradict my dad or anything,
> but it seems absurd for a missile with such an important job to basically be anunguided rocket.
>
> [mod note -- listen to your Dad -- the Genie was un-guided.  When it
> packing a nuke, you don't need pinpoint guidance -- just fire it into the
> general area where the target is.

Yup - Originally MB-1, later AIR-2A the Genie had a 1.5 kiloton
warhead.  Lethal radius over 1000 feet.

Stats: Length 116", Dia 17.5" (but the warhead was larger), fin span
40", launch weight 822 lbs, range 6.2 miles.

Carrried by F-86J, F-101B, F-106 and CF-101B (hang on - isn't that
Canadian??)

Apparently the Hughes fire control system tracked the target, told the
pilot when to arm, fired the missile, cranked the carrier into a steep
turn (range only 6.2 miles remember) to avoid the blast, and then
triggered the warhead - all for the first time in 1957.  Observers
stood at ground zero for a 15,000 ft launch on 19 July, 1957.
Detonation was by Ground command.

The AIM-26A was a nuclear version of the Falcon missile - 1900
produced, 5 mile range, same warhead as Genie, but with SARH guidance.
Total launch weight a mere 203 lb.  Production started 1960.

Source: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia of the Worlds Rockets &
Missiles, Bill Gunston (a snip in the remainder bin @ $3.99)
--
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: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: What are Katyusha rockets ?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:37:00 GMT


From wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)

In article <Bxo1DA.6L4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow) writes:
>
>From woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)
>
>Hizballah have been firing katyusha rockets from Southern Lebanon into 'Israel'
>over the last few days.

>Can anyone tell me more about these rockets ?  What are they - what sort of 
>warheads - how are they launched - what range do they have etc etc.


Hard to say. They could mean several different types. The original
"Katyusha" <also called the Stalin organ> was introduced in 1941
with the designation BM-13. The one most widely used today is the
BM-21, first introduced in 1964. The BM-21 is a truck with a traversing
platform on back carrying a bank of 40 tubes of 122mm caliber. The
rockets are unguided solid fuel with HE warheads. Other types are the
BM-14 <140mm>, the BM-24 <240mm with 12 launchers>, the BMD-25 <250mm
with 4 launchers>. The BM-21's 122mm rockets were often converted
to single tube unmounted launchings, particularly in Vietnam.
It's probable that the BM-21 is what is being used, but it could
be mortars or anything as the press likes the look and feel of
"Katyusha" and tends to apply the term to anything that goes "boom".

-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 | Midterm Countdown-Bill and the Congress have to '94 to screw it up |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Back to the future? [ILyushin IL-102]
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:22:30 GMT


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

mgjblok@cs.vu.nl (Maurice Blok) writes:
: 
: From Maurice Blok <mgjblok@cs.vu.nl>
: 
: I just read a piece on CIS' newest tankbuster. Weird looking
: thing, it look like a Me-262 with a rear-gunner(!).
: And that what's so weird! A 21st century Tankkiller Jet with
: a rear-gunner??? Have they developed some kind of 
: to-the-rear firing missile?
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Actually, this rearward firing missile may not be a bad idea.  The guy chasing
after you will have to think twice before he really follows you.

: Any comments?
: 
: 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Subject: Re: Jutland
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:25:54 GMT


From mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)

john@sekrit.wpi.edu (John Stoffel):
> That is true, but remember that the British were very paranoid about
> letting the German High fleet out among their merchant shipping.  The
> german submarines were bad enough, but a Fleet (or even small groups)
> would have wreched tons of havoc.  Another influence is the british
> pride of not being successfully invaded since 1066, etc.  How would
> the british population react if the seacoast towns and villages were
> suddenly shelled by an enemy.  You would see lots of admirals getting
> tossed then.

Actually, shelling British coastal towns was the standard German way
of provoking the British, both before Jutland (I think this also led
to the Dogger Bank fight) and in the sortie that was mentioned
recently here, in August 1916..

> Please don't take the passage I quoted out of context.  I started at
> an arbitrary point and ended at an arbitrary point, so I could support
> my points about Jutland.  Please read the book (which is so-so in my
> mind.  Nothing really inovative as far as I could see.

I found The Face of Battle much better.  Your remark sums it up
nicely.

--
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Subject: Re: BLU-82/B What sort of bomb is it ?
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:39:38 GMT


From wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)


On FAE bombs:

What altitude are these weapons usually air-bursted at and how big is the
fireball when it detonates? I have heard these things described as super
incendiaries by people protesting the Gulf War, claiming that FAEs are 
illegal weapons of war and that they "incincerate everything w/in x feet and
use up all of the oxygen in that area," to paraphrase. How accurate is this?
(I don't take such claims at face value too often.) The impression I have of
FAEs is that most of its destruction comes from the overpressure caused by
concussive blast. I also think the shockwave is where people get the comparison
to nuclear weapons.

Anyway, could someone improve on this, please? Thank you.



-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us
#^%$!! Militarist          |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Herschel H Mayo <hhm@ihlpe.att.com>
Subject: Re: Basic Training
Organization: Chicago Home for the Morally Challenged
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:59:20 GMT


From Herschel H Mayo <hhm@ihlpe.att.com>


> >
> >>>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
> 
> Well, it's no summer camp and within 2 minutes you wil wonder that the
> heck you got yourself into and within 3 minutes you'll wish you were
> any where else but there. 2 pieces of of advice, keep your mouth shut
> and your ears open. More advice keep the lowest profile that you can
> while you are there. If you are in reasonable physical shape and like
> to run you got it made. Because you are going to be running a lot and
> doing hundreds of pushups. The  drill sargents are not going to shoot you 
> and they'll call you names you never even heard of. Most of boot camp
> is mental. They'll mess with your mind all the time. Best thing to do 
> is always remember it is only a mental game. Hope this helps!
> 
> Jeff
> 
> PS.  I hated boot camp, then again everyone does. 8-)


All good advice. Also, buy a good supply of Dr Scholl's foot pads and
mole skin, and heavy NYLON, olive drab socks. You can get them at most
surplus stores. Do whatever you need to do to smuggle them past personel
effects inspections. Put them in your pockets or shaving kit. You
will be issued WOOL socks and nylon screen footpads. These are crap.
Throw them away. They will blister your feet in no time. Before any long
hike, armor your feet with the moleskin, put the pads in your boots, and
wear the nylon socks. Never ask any questions, or assume that you will be
rewarded for doing anything. Always DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD, NOTHING MORE,
and NOTHING LESS.

                                                Larry Mayo

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Brian <brian@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:30:34 GMT


From Brian <brian@coombs.anu.edu.au>

Dave Pierson <pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com> writes:

>	(rumor has that the 106mm recoiless was so named so that the logistics
>	crew could, at a galnce tell the difference between 105mm (conventional)
>	and 106mm (recoilless...) ammo.

	No, it was to differentiate between the earlier 105mm Rcl. and the later
complete rebuild of the weapon after its failure which became known as the
106mm Rcl.  The 105mm Rcl was originally known as the T19.  It in fact used the
standard 105mm shell, attached to a much larger cartridge case.  The 105mm Rcl
was considered overweight and inefficient for its calibre.


--
Brian Ross_____Brian@Coombs.anu.edu.au________________________________________
	"Three discoveries are essential to the contented and civilised life -
sex, wine, and bookshops, by no means necessarily in that order."
_________________________________Tony Baker, Adelaide Review, October 1992____

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jbutt@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: AA guns in direct-fire role (was Bofors 40mm)
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:22:20 GMT


From jbutt@kean.ucs.mun.ca

In article <BwsKD6.H1p@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
> 
> From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
> 
>> From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
>> 
>> 	I cannot believe it, so it is either divine intervention or a
>> batty newsfeed, but nobody has mentioned those incredibly ugly Junkers
>> Ju-88 (?  Stuka's for short) dive bombers with the glorified AA guns
>> under their wings.  Supposedly, they were quite good as an anti-armor
>> weapon, though nobody ever called them pretty or worth a darn in a dogfight.
> 
> 
> The gun used was a standard Pak 35/36, which was a 37mm AT gun.  It was a use
> designed to give an obsolete design new life.  In practice they were useful for
> at least 2 reasons:
> 
> 1) You boost the muzzle velocity by the speed of the aircraft.
> 
> 2) More importantly you are firing down on the tank.  Hull deck armour is one
> of the weaker parts of a tank (after all, how many things actually shoot down
> on you)  so the shell was actually hitting one of the weakest parts of the
> armour.  Also given the high speed and manouvreability of a plane (even a
> Ju-87) you can choose your angle and direction of attack.  Nothing (except
> enemy air cover and some good AA) can prevent you getting a shot into the rear
> when your opponent moves at a fraction of your speed.
> 
> This principle was also used by the Allies in the B-26-H (from memory unsure if
> this is correct numerical designation) where a 75mm was mounted in the nose.
> 
> [mod note -- it was the B-25 that had the 75mm gun ]
> 
> regs
> 
> Rob
>from JBUTT@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Rember that the Spitfire and the ME109 had both tried putting cannon 
in the wings earlier in the wear. However to maintain muzzle velocity, 
you have to keep barrel length. These guns would not fit into the 
wings properly (actually, the Germans had to conduct another design 
shange to the wing of the 109 which decreased its performance) so the 
barrells were trimmed. Another problem is the weight of ammunition 
which can be carried. Usually giving less firing time.
JB
 
> 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Re: Battleship Diplomacy
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:50:42 GMT


From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


Doc Benzene writes:
#the city--it's hard to call 16" salvos in reply to
#sporadic light artillery shelling "counter-battery" work. 


Why? The purpose of counterbattery fire is to silence the other party's
indirect fire assets, either by destroying personnel and materiel or
otherwise convincing them that there are safer things to do than continue
their firing. In a nutshell, you point out in a direct way that his
artillery fire will be more costly to him than to you. In that respect
16" salvos are an ideal counterbattery weapon in that the opposing 
artillery gets the point real fast whether they're on target or not.
Additionally the BB is out of range of most of the artillery being
suppressed and is relatively immune to those systems that can reach.

Similarly in Desert Storm, the MLRS rockets fired in a counterbattery
role may have had a greater cost than the materiel they were used
against, but one dose of "steel rain" was usually all it took.....


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:33:13 GMT


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

In article <BxB8D9.KL3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes:
>
>>>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!  [Dan's excellent historical citations deleted]

Then join me in their verbal defense!! :-)

>
>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.
>
You should be thinking of carriers for this comparison. You can't always count
on a nearby airbase, especially in these days of base closings! Even if
you could, aircraft are even worse fuel hogs than BBs. Keeping them in
the air 24 hours a day would be a maintainence nightmare. I doubt you 
could keep 24 hour a day flights going for very long, especially with only
12 aircraft. You'll run out of pilots real fast. That doesn't even begin
to figure in any combat losses.
   Anybody have any good data on how much it costs to run one sortie
of, say, an F-16, including fuel, munitions, etc? I'll bet it doesn't
run cheap. By the way, I was just talking to an Air Force friend the
other day, and he was saying that he works at a "small" airbase, only
5000 people. The 1500 man crew of the BB is looking better all the time!

			David Wells

DISCLAIMER: My opinions, not AT&Ts.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: What are Katyusha rockets ?
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:33:30 GMT


From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>

During WW II, the Soviets developed artilery rockets that were
fin-stabilized nd mounted on the back of trucks. They were called
BM-13, and known as Katyusha rockets. The next generation was the
BM-24, which was sold to many nations. Israel is the only current user
of the BM-24, which they captured from the Egyptians in 1967, however
they are now firing a locally produced rocket. BM-21, the current
Katyusha, is used by many nations, and in many conflicts. The rockets
are usually fired in salvos, and while not teriiblly devastating, they
are cheap, simple, and devasting morale wise. (The Viet Cong used them
in Vietnam.) Soviets deployed them in divisional artillery regements
(18) and some other groups had six attached. The rockets are 77 kg,
have a range of 21 km, and are mounted in tubes totaling 40 on the
back of a six-wheeled, 11.5 ton vehicle. They are manned by a crew of
ten, and take ten minutes for a full reload. As I said before, they
are not to devasting, but enough. They are very effective against
infantry forces in salvos, for example, Iraq fired these at Iranian
infantry in the Iran-Iraq war with devastating effectiveness, just as
the Soviets success with them on the Eastern Front in WW II. (This was
Stalin's Organ, which Germany copied.)

-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Dr.Lutz Massonne" <LMASSONN@esoc.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Battleship Potemkin
Organization: mbp Software&Systems GmbH at ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:06:10 GMT


From "Dr.Lutz Massonne" <LMASSONN@esoc.bitnet>

Fortunately Eisenstein's film "Battleship Potemkin" aired some weeks
ago on German TV.
It is a milestone of film history (I think it was one of the first films
produced with "modern" techniques like cuts) and today a document
of "naval life" on a 1905 warship.

The plot is about a seamen's uprise on the ship, which starts because of
bad food and humiliation by the Czarist officers and leads to a massacre
of the supporting civilians in Odessa by Cossack troops.
The film ends with the seamen on the Potemkin hissing the red flag of the
revolution and crossing the line of the admiral's squadron, with the sailors
of the other ships applauding ...

Apart from the propaganda parts, the scenes aboard are worth seeing the film.

Regards, Lutz

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Rauno Tamminen <rautammi@utu.fi>
Subject: Re: Story of MiG-21F & BIS
Keywords: loss rate
Organization: University of Turku
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:06:04 GMT


From Rauno Tamminen <rautammi@utu.fi>

Christer Olsson <co@chrom1.mednet.gu.se> writes:
>In article <Bxo176.62K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
>|> 
>|> From skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF)
>|> 
>|> 
>|> Finland has got an Air Force consisting of only 60 planes (about 30 Draken
>|> and 30 MiG:s).This means that almost 1/4 of all the MiG:s bought from the
>|> former Sovjet Union have been destroyed in crashes.
>|> 

>How many Drakens has been lost? 

	None. 

	And to correct Stefan's information. We have ( had :-) ) about
	40 Drakens and 20 MiGs.

--
Rauno Tamminen,  Computer Science,  University of Turku,  Finland
Internet:  rautammi@polaris.cc.utu.fi     GPS:  60  27' 17" N
Bitnet:    rautammi@firien.bitnet               22  16' 25" E


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Peter Shyvers)
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:26:27 GMT


From pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Peter Shyvers)


In article <BxvFLG.8z1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
>
>From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
>
>In article <BxM62r.5B8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Peter Shyvers <pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com> writes:
> 
>> Anyone know if what I recall is true: I seem to remember that the Tiger (I)
>> didn't have direct-drive to the front sprockets. Instead, the engine drove
>> a generator, and the drive sprockets were powered by electric motors.
>
>Why are the front sprockets driven instead of the rear?  I would think
>that would put the entire length of the track under tension instead of
>just the lower half, require more machinery to carry the power forward,
>and make the mesh-and-release of the track with the sprocket more vulnerable
>to mechanical stress from being shaken as the front of the track rides over
>the rough ground.
>

I echo these questions. The drive-line-under-the-turret-basket problem is
an obvious downside of putting the drives in the bow, and putting the sprockets
in the rear of the vehicle also protects them from both head-on enemy fire and
possible damage when the vehicle crests an obstacle and comes down hard. There's
also the issue of weight-distribution, though I imagine the drive portion is
a small percentage of the total vehicle weight.

The Soviets copied rear-drive from Christie and used it on the BT-series and
T-series - and maybe the JS-1,2, and 3...and I remember that at least one
author I read commented on the Germans' efforts to copy the T-34 as having
manifested themselves in a more "German, front-drive configuration" in the
Panther.

What gives?

pete
 

Newsgroups: sci.military