HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Alaska Class Cruisers
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:22:20 GMT


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

In article <Bz20C9.89v@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Lee Short <short@asf.com> writes:
>"david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:
>>
>>OOH! Speculation! Fun Fun Fun Fun Fun!
>>I'll put my money on the Alaska. The Alaska actually had better range on
>>its 12" guns than the Renown had on its 15" guns. (38,500 yds vs 35,700 yds
>>if I remember my Dulin & Garzke correctly) 
>
>My reference [admittedly not the best, a wargame manual] showed an
>even greater disparity (40,600 yds vs. 29,000).  In fact, a majority
>of the heavy cruisers produced during the war outranged the Renown.  

I'll admit that I used data from the Vanguard for the Renown, but I believe
that the Renown got the same 30 degree elevation as the Vanguard had.
Perhaps the 29,000 yd range was derived from WWI data, assuming 15 degree
elevation? Dulin & Garzke are usually pretty reliable. Which wargame did
you get your data from?
>
>>Also, the Alaska's 9 guns were better
>>than the Renown's 6 for traditional fire control. 
>
>??????
>Explain, please!!!!
>Enquiring minds want to know.  
>
It is my understanding that with traditional fire control, (no radar) you
would give different gun barrels slightly different elevations so that
the shells would hit at a variety of ranges close to the target. Count
the splashes, and how many hit in front of the target, and how many hit
behind. From this, you could get the exact range of the target. Six guns
was considered the minimum number of guns needed to do this. More guns
worked better. If I'm wrong about any of this, I'm sure someone on the net
will correct me. There was a real good thread a while back on fire control
at Jutland. 

>>   Fire control radar might be a wash. While I'm sure the Alaskas were
>>quite good in this regard, the Renown probably had the latest British
>>fire control system by 1945,( I'll have to check my Raven & Roberts to see
>>which one) so it might not make any difference. 
>
>As I've stated before, I find it doubtful that the Brits bothered to
>upgrade the Renown's fire control systems past '43.  Given that they
>were confident enough in their naval supremacy to *give* the Soviets
>one of their _Vanguards_ as a Christmas present, it seems strange that
>they would bother with continued refitting of such an ancient ship as
>the Renown.  However, I don't know this, and would appreciate it if
>someone with a reference handy could verify or disprove it.
>
The Brits only had 1 Vanguard, (and that wasn't even completed 'till 1946)
so there was no way they were going to give it to the Russians. They DID
loan them an old "R" class battleship, which the Russians apparently abused.
When it was returned, it was in such bad shape that they had to scrap it
immediately. (of course, they were scrapping a lot of things by that point)
I still haven't had time to see what Raven & Roberts say about the Renown's
radars late in the war. I'll let you know.

				David R. Wells

DISCLAIMER: My own opinions, not AT&Ts.
From: jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Prussian Military
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:29:08 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University


From Jim Heath <jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu>

>From article <BzD4xB.J7t@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib):
> Hussars were light cavalry. Their duties included engaging other 
> cavalry and scouting. They could move fast and evade other units 
> if the need arose. They wore busbys (weird fur caps with a flap 
> hanging off to the side) and a heavy coat worn half on half off.
> (Wonder why!).
> 

The "600" of Charge of the Light Brigade fame were Hussars (if I'm not
mistaken).  I believe the coat was designed that way to leave their sword
arm free.
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: b14817@asbt01.gedlab.allied.com (JON W. PARKER)
Subject: Re: Rearwards firing missiles
Organization: ASAC, GED, Phoenix, Az
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:32:21 GMT


From b14817@asbt01.gedlab.allied.com (JON W. PARKER)

Why would the rocket have to pass through zero velocity?  Would the 'reletive'
velocities be what should be used?  Just slow it down enough so that the target
runs up on it.

-- 
JON W. PARKER    Allied-Signal Aerospace, Garrett Engine Division, Phoenix, Az
Aeronet: GED::ASBT01::b14817           Internet: b14817@asbt01.gedlab.allied.com
UUCP: ...!{hrc|mcdphx|asuvax}!gedphx!decnet!asbt01!b14817
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
******STANDARD DISCLAIMER******
He who hesitates, meditates in the horizontal position.  Edmund Parker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in post WWII)
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:30:41 GMT


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

In article <Bz20nI.8t7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, grant@psych.toronto.edu
(Stuart Grant) writes:
|> 
|> From grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant)
|> 
|> This thread has quickly revealed that currently, helicopters cannot
|> entirely replace tanks.
|> 
|> Here is a more refined question. What sort of situation must a
|> nation
|> be in, to responsibly forgoe main battle tanks, and depend on other
|> systems?
|> 
|> 
 Switzerland would be a classic example, I would also think
England would have problems due to it's large amount of
wetlands. MBT's need large open areas to effectively operate
in and use ALL THEIR CAPABILITIES in. Just my $.02 worth.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
From: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: amtracs in Somalia
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:25:37 GMT
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona


From cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu

> line companies with four tracked vehicle platoons per company.  The AAV-P7 
> is an  amphibious cousin of the M113 APC, manufactured by the same folks
> at FMC Ordnance Division in San Jose CA.  The P7 used to mount
> the M-85 .50 cal MG, and has been upgunned with (I think) a 20 mm
> cannon.  When you read about "AmTracs" in the DoD releases these
> vehicles are what people are talking about -- Amphibious Tractors.
> 
> The Communication and Recovery versions ( AAV-C7 and -R7 respectively )
> both mount M60D .30 cal MG's.  I'd imagine any AmTrac on the scene has
> adequate firepower to take on the most sophisticated ordnance I've seen
> in Somali control from the film clips.  [For that matter so does a 
> Marine infantry squad.]
> 
> -Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
>  GySgt USMCR
>
    The AAV-P7 has been upgunned with a new turret with a M85 .50cal MG and a
MK-19 Mod 3 40mm grenade launcher.  They have also been uparmored with
applique' armor though I don't know what type it is. 
-- 
---
Daemon E. Hobbs, Cadet, AFROTC
Senior, (Carto/RS/GIS) 
Cal Poly Pomona Geography Dept.
Email: cvalj001@csupomona.edu
Phone: 714-869-3590
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Prussian Military
Keywords: books history prussia
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:47 GMT


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

In article <Bz9Ez9.6Ix@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:
>
>From fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home)
>
>There must be many books on the subject of the Prussian military, its 
>organization and the various units who were involved in various engagements.

>I would love to hear any opinions as to where I might look for a good 
>description during the 18th century. There were Cuirassiers and dragoons 
>who changed from heavy horses to lighter ones during this time for better 
>maneuverability. How does one find out which units existed and where?

Don't know about this particular (pre-Napoleonic) period but I 
don't recall that the Prussians had Cuirassiers. Dragoons were 
ostensibly mounted infantry (they were armed with carbines) but
were at the time of Napoleon used as heavy cavalry. From the war-
game tables one can tell that they were fairly poor as infantry 
but were fairly good heavy cavalry.

>Who were the hussars. What was their duty? Same with the dragoons and 
>grenadiers. The latter I presume were infantry which carried some kind of 
>grenades around.

Hussars were light cavalry. Their duties included engaging other 
cavalry and scouting. They could move fast and evade other units 
if the need arose. They wore busbys (weird fur caps with a flap 
hanging off to the side) and a heavy coat worn half on half off.
(Wonder why!).

Grenadiers were simply infantry chosen for their size. They were 
also more highly trained than the regular infantry of the line. 
As such they were used for shock effect and to shore up critical
places.

>Only 10 squadrons of dragoons swept
>6 battle hardened Austrian infantry regiments into disappearance.  They took
>66 unit flags and the Austrians lost 10,000 men wounded and killed.  This was
>the battle of Hohenfriedberg in June 1745 after which Frederick II (the Great)
>wrote his Hohenfriedberger March music.


I wonder what point of development anti-cavalry tactics were at 
this point in time. Weren't infantry still armed with matchlocks 
and pikes? Perhaps bayonets had just come into vogue and the square
hadn't been perfected yet. Or perhaps the Austrians were taken by
surprise and didn't have time to form square.




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Stuart Grant <grant@psych.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in post WWII)
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:32:14 GMT


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

In article <Bz9Ezr.6pD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu> writes:
>Tanks are also an aggressor's weapon of choice. 

I believe this, generally, anyway. Operation Desert Storm would have been
very difficult without tanks, as the desert leaves all of your forces 
exposed to enemy observation and fire. A country without tanks would have
to confine it's contributions to a coalition effort to rear-area tasks, when
in terrain such as deserts. Such a country might make front line 
contributions to coalitions operating in areas like mountainous jungles,
or other areas that severly restrict heavy vehicles, however.

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
their ability to vaporize the opposition's jeeps. Someting like
a Bradley, or other MICV seems like what is needed. Light, fast,
sufficiently armored, and with the ability to destroy anything the
oppostion has.

So, I think that at least in some situations, tanks aren't necessary,
and are not even the best choice of weapon system. For our hypothetical
country, if it is relatively safe from invasion itself but wants the
ability to contribute to coalition efforts in foreign lands, it 
might be able to get away without tanks.

(I don't mean to imply that Gary Coffman said that tanks were _always_
the best weapon. He didn't. I'm just interested in fleshing out how
much a country can do without tanks, and what it loses by forgoing them.) 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Andrew L Reibman +1 908 949 1930 <alr@hoqas2.att.com>
Subject: British Regimental Standards in AWI
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:29:39 GMT


From Andrew L Reibman +1 908 949 1930 <alr@hoqas2.att.com>

I'm painting up 25mm regiments for American War for Independence
and am working on standards. I have E. Richardon's "Standards and Colors of
the American Revoluation" which is a beautiful book
and an excellent reference.
I also have Mollo's book on Uniforms and Standards.
According to this and other sources British Regiments
had Kings Colors and Regimental Colors. The Kings Colors 
for this period was the Union Jack with the Regiment Number
(Roman Numeral) in the Middle. 
If the Regiment had an "Ancient Badge or Symbol",
it goes in the middle with the number in the upper left corner
(in yellow on most of the examples I've seen.)  
The Regimental Colors had the Union Jack in the Corner,
a Field Matching the Color of the Uniform Facings for the Regiment,
and the "Ancient Badge or Symbol" on the Field.

At the moment I'm looking to find out if there were badges or
symbols for two Regiments that are painted except for their standards  
- the 4th Regiment of Foot (King's Own)
- which I expect had one, and the 42nd Scots Highlanders (Black
Watch) - which I expect didn't have one at this time
as it was a relatively new regiment at this time (Established 1740 I believe).
Can anyone identify the symbols/badges for these regiments
and/or point me a standard reference that gives them and
their year of adoption for British Regiments?

Do kings and regimental colors still follow the same pattern today?

An interesting aside: colors for Hessian Regiments that faired poorly
in the conflict are documented well - many of them were captured 
and are still visible in museums here. Others are lost and mostly unknown.

Thanks for info
Andrew Reibman
alr@hoqaa.att.com



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chris Polk <polk@tarzan.pms.ford.com>
Subject: Re: Dueling Battleships
Organization: The Ministry Of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:29:46 GMT


From Chris Polk <polk@tarzan.pms.ford.com>

In article <Bz3ux4.2KK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov> writes:
|> 
|> From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
|> 
|> In article <Bz06pL.Enx@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rollhaus@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Charles Rollhauser) writes:
|> > 
|> > 
|> > From rollhaus@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Charles Rollhauser)
|> > 
|> >
|> > Before the war, battleships used range clocks, and markings on the turrets,
|> > so all the battleships in a squadron could aim at a target that only
|> > one ship could see. Anyone care to explain how that worked?
|> > 
|> > Chuck
|> >
|> 
|> I'll take a stab.
|> 
|> I would think that the range clock would give the range by giving the time of
|> flight of the shot.  You know the muzzle velocity of your rounds so the other
|> ships could deduce the range that way.
|> 

As I sit here looking at a picture of the North Dakota (BB29), numbers on the
range clock only go from 0-9.  Methinks that the range clock gives the distance
in 1000 and 100 yard increments.  They appear to have two hands...

|> For the direction in which to aim came from the markings on the turrets.  By
|> knowing the firing ship's course and speed (which every ship should know by 
|> signal flags ;-) ) and by reading the degree markings (or what ever), the
|> other ships could back calculate the firing ship's gun fire solution.
|> 

Correct, I think.

|> I would think this had alot of inaccuracy involved.  I guess they felt that
|> any shot down range, even if all of them are scattered, that might hit at
|> long range would damage the enemy ship(s) enough for you to win the battle.
|> 
|> Remember, the above is speculation on my part.

I always thought that battleships operated in groups and tried to concentrate
their fire on a few designated targets.  In this way, the range clocks would be
useful.  Another benefit, if multiple groups or individual battleships
were targeting multiple targets, it would be possible to tell what another
ship had designated as a target by spotting the range clock/turret markings.

I would suppose that the inaccuracy would have to do alot with the quality
of the rangefinding equipment used on the lead ship.  I still think it took
a couple of salvos to accurately dial in the guns.

Speculation on my part too.

Chris Polk
Ford Motor Co.

Not a spokesman for Ford.
From: drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (david.r.wells)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Naval trivia
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:32:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T


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

In article <BzB9L3.y8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> CJohn Mace <zcjm0f@hou.amoco.com> writes:
>
>
>I am in the need of some naval trivia, or just the answers to these 
>questions.
>
>Submarines:  (two types, Ohio Class and Trident)

Ohio and Trident are one and the same.

>	1) approximate tonnage of displacement

About 18,000 

>	2) approximate dimensions

About 560' long

>	3) classification  (boomer, attack, etc)

BOOMER

>	4) date first set sail
>
>
>Battlewagons: (heavily armored Iowa Class)
>	1) number produced by the US

4. Shoulda been 6. The last two were not completed.

>	2) date first set sail

BB-61, USS Iowa, Commissioned 22 Feb 1943
BB-62, USS New Jersey, Commissioned 23 May, 1943
BB-63, USS Missouri, Commissioned 11 June, 1944
BB-64, USS Wisconsin, Commissioned 16 April, 1944
BB-65, Illinois, construction suspended 11 August 1945
BB-66, Kentucky, launched 20 January 1950

>	3) number active

0

>	4) number scrapped

2. Illinois was broken up on the slip. Kentucky was scrapped ca. 1958.

>	5) number mothballed

4

>
>Carriers:  (E class WWII)

Note: I'm assuming Essexes here.

>	1) number produced

24 (of a projected 32!)

>	2) number active at the end of the war

Depends what you mean by active. Oriskany was not completed till 1950.
Franklin and Bunker Hill got chewed up pretty badly by kamikazes, and 
while both were repaired, neither ever returned to service.

>	3) number sunk in action

0

>
>[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, 

The WW II Enterprise, CV-6, was a member of the Yorktown class. 3 ships.

David R. Wells,
as usual, speaking only for himself.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dave Cole <dmc@oddjob.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Naval trivia
Organization: Astronomy & Astrophysics @ University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:23:30 GMT


From Dave Cole <dmc@oddjob.uchicago.edu>

In article <BzB9L3.y8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> CJohn Mace <zcjm0f@hou.amoco.com> writes:

   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]

The Enterprise of WWII fame was in fact a member of the Yorktown
class (which comprised Yorktown, Hornet, and Enterprise.)  Both
Yorktown and Hornet were sunk during the war.  As for the Essex
class, none were sunk during WWII although the Franklin was so
badly burnt out by kamikazes that I believe it was scrapped.

Dave Cole
dmc@otto.uchicago.edu





Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca>
Subject: US subs in gulf war
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:27:11 GMT


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

According to A&E's "Brute Force" this week (in case you missed it, it will be
aired again on Sat morning, Nov, 12), US had as many as 13 nuclear attack subs
deployed to med, red sea, etc, on recce mission and two of them (Lousville and
???) lauched tomahawks to iraq. Iraq has never had a serious navy and with all
the warships around shipping to iraq was impossible (except thru jordan). So
why so many subs in the region? BTW, was it really necessary to use sub launched
tomahawks? Stealth probably was not the issue because iraq could not detect the
launch anyway. Probably just sort of showing "we navy can do something, too"
or a live fire test.

fengxi

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: sdr57@cas.org
Subject: Re: This Favorite Lie Again.
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:29:08 GMT


From sdr57@cas.org


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 don't have specific information on the relative effectiveness
of Semtex-H (I left all that stuff behind when I left the
service - for those curious, relative effectiveness is measured
relative to TNT = 1), but, in general, it is safe to presume
that a plastic explosive will have a relative effectiveness
somewhere between 2-3 times that of commercially available
dynamite, which I choose for comparison because dynamite is
known more widely than most other explosives. This means that
2 pounds of plastic explosive is the rough equivalent of 8-12
sticks of dynamite.

Whether or not this would do more than make windows rattle
depends, of course, on how far away from the explosion the
windows are. The (US) Army regards the "minimum safe distance"
for a charge of the above strength to be 900 feet or 274 meters
when the charge is placed on bare ground (from FM 5-25, Explosives
and Demolitions).

(This doesn't mean that if you are at 899 feet you will die -
you can be considerably closer than this and survive, and under
freakish conditions you might be injured at greater distances -
the primary hazard here is from projectiles propelled by the blast,
not concussion. Blasts are fairly unpredictable under any but ideal
conditions, and may leave a person a few feet away from the blast
unharmed but for ringing ears while killing someone else hundreds
of feet away - this is not as likely with plastique, which produces
a very uniform detonation front, as it was with earlier explosives,
but it can happen.)

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley Roberts


Newsgroups: sci.military