HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Cal Demaine <demaine@ee.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Submarine related questions
Organization: University of Alberta Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:20:06 GMT


From Cal Demaine <demaine@ee.ualberta.ca>

Hello.  I've got three submarine-related questions which I'd like answers
for.  Posting to the group is fine, but you can Email if you wish.

1.  What is the shape of the tail/rudder on the 688 class and Ohio class
boats?  I have a large number of pictures of these subs, and not a one
shows either's rear end.  Is it a standard plus "+" configuration, or some
hybrid "H" or "double H"?

2.  What material is used for the sound-deadening coating of modern boats?
I have heard that sorbathane was developed for exactly this purpose.  Is
this true?

3.  There are two large American Subbases with the same name - "Bangor".
One is on the east coast and one is on the west coast.  Any reason for
the duplicate name?  What is the history of these bases?

Thanks in advance,
   - Cal

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  - Cal Demaine                   | "You shot him in the back!"                 
    (demaine@bode.ee.ualberta.ca) |    "His back was to me!"  - El Diablo    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Thursday, 21 January, 1943
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:34:28 GMT


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

Thursday, 21 January, 1943

Soviet forces capture Gumrak airfield in the Stalingrad pocket.  This was
the last airfield available to the German garrison, and further supplies
must be dropped by parachute.  The Red Army also liberates Voroshilovsk.

The American 1st Armored Division begins an attack in Tunisia's Ousseltia
Valley.

Montgomery receives an Ultra intercept of the German plans and changes his
axis of advance; the 8th Army is now to drive for Tripoli along the coast 
road instead of swinging to the south.

The British and American Combined Chiefs of Staff issue the Casablanca
Directive, setting the priorities for the Allied strategic bombing campaign
in Europe.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military@cbnews.att.com

"Before we got this gun [the M7 self-propelled 105mm] we were unable to
master the enemy tanks with our tanks... Then we came back with this new
development... Thanks be to President Roosevelt and the American arms
factories, we are getting all we want." - General Bernard Montgomery
From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:59:39 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


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


Jim Heath writes:
#Well, Michener in "The Bridges at Toko-Ri" (sp?) has a US Navy jet being
#shot down by a Chinese (?) soldier with a burp gun (submachine gun,
#machine pistol - uses pistol ammo).  'Course that was fiction, I don't
#know if it happened in real life. I doubt that a pistol bullet could get
#to the pilot, unless he flew into it at high speed.  I have heard that

That hypothetical Chinese soldier would most likely have been using a
PPSh-41 or a PPS-42/43, chambering the 7.62x25mm Type P Tokarev cartridge.
This is a high velocity, highly penetrative round, so maybe....


Robert (?) Scott, in "God is My Co-Pilot", has a particularly vivid
description of a strafing mission in his P-40. He had come upon a company
of Japanese in marching order on a road. As he proceeded to attack them,
instead of taking cover they stopped and began firing at him while still
in formation. After machine-gunning them he looked to see the results,
and saw only a few on their feet, still in formation, and still firing.
The Japanese 7.7mm Type 99 rifle had swing-out lead computing "wings" on
the rear sight for antiaircraft use, so this may have been expected.


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: Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:34:32 GMT


From Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu>

In article <C143J8.2wt@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>In article <C124wI.7op@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "John M. Wu" <johnwu@netcom.com> writes:
>>1)  When anti-aircraft shells go up, they have to eventually come
>>back down.  With a gun shooting 90 deg., the bullet will go up to
>>around 9000 ft. and then start coming down up to terminal
>>velocity (300 fps?).  At terminal velocity, the bullet can still kill a
>>person.  Do anti-aircraft weapons like those in Iraq cause large
>>ground damage and numerous casualties due to what eventually
>>happens to fired shells (eg. the Baghdad hotel damage)?  Seems
>>like a terribly inefficient way to defend a city from damage. 
>>Wouldn't not firing anything cause less damage to Baghdad?

Most AAA is of the explosive shell variety, so terminal velocity
is a rather unimportant part of the damage caused by falling
shells. The shells that are fuzed for air burst only rain down
shrapnel, which is subject to terminal velocity calculations,
but is not a major source of damage to property. But contact
fuzed shells can cause major damage when they strike the ground
at *any* velocity.

>   However, while terminal velocity affects the Y-vector (vertical) of
>an object's velocity, it should not affect its X-vector (horizontal).
>Simple physics tells us (if I'm not screwing this up), that the higher
>the angle at which the projectile is fired, the larger its Y-vector,
>and the lower angle it is fired, the higher its X-vector.
>
>   Therefore, is it valid to assume that this kind of damage is not
>caused so much by the projectile _coming down_, but by it _continuing
>in the same horizontal direction_, where terminal velocity does not
>come into play?

Sorry, you're screwing it up after a fashion. Let's look at three
cases and use the 30-06 data of Hatcher.

1) The bullet is fired straight up. It will reach an altitude of 
   about 9,000 feet and fall back at a terminal velocity of about
   300 fps. Flight time is 30-40 seconds.

2) The bullet is fired horizonally. It has a flight time of about
   0.625 seconds and reaches a distance of about 500 yards. Remaining
   velocity is about 1800 fps. Note the bullet falls the height from
   the shoulder to ground level in 0.625 seconds. It's stopped by 
   impact with the ground.

3) The bullet is fired at an angle of 45 degrees above the horizon.
   Flight time is 30-40 seconds, range is about 8 miles. Impact
   velocity is nearly nil, <<200 fps. Essentially all the forward 
   speed is lost to air resistance during the flight and insufficient 
   altitude is gained to achieve terminal velocity during the
   descent.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:06:38 GMT
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <C17w89.FrF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu> writes:
> 
> 5) Logistic transport.
>    This remains a vital mission of the Air Force. In today's rapidly
>    developing military situations, the ability to rapidly deploy
>    troops and war material to remote areas is increasingly important.
>    And on today's high intensity battlefields, rapid *resupply* is
>    essential to continued conduct of operations. While pre-positioned
>    naval transport can meet some needs, a vastly upgraded air transport
>    system is badly needed.
> Gary
> --  

It is important to remember that if Desert Shield/Storm depended solely on
the Air Force to transport supplies, we would still be there today.  While
there was a literal "highway in the sky" from the US to Saudi Arabia, when
the first fast sealift ships arrived after about 30 days into Desert Shield, 
it had brought more tons of supplies *than the entire Air Force effort to
that day*!!!!  Once the sealift was in high gear, the Air Force transportation
effort paled by comparison.  Bottom line: Air Force can deliver the troops
fast, but their heavy equipment and supplies still must arrive by sea.

The US military sealift capacity is in more of a need of improvement than the
Air Forces' air transport system.

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




than *the entire
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: John Walker <walker-john@yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Yale University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:34:38 GMT


From John Walker <walker-john@yale.edu>

In article <C143uI.3F3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Apostolos Karmirantzos
<karmira@natinst.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From Apostolos Karmirantzos <karmira@natinst.com>
> 
>   I was watching the special news report about the tomahwak attack in Iraq, and I noticed 
> they said in more than one occasion that tomahwaks can be launched from submarines and ships 
> only. Isn't there an air-launched version also? I am almost sure that I have seen photograps
> but I can't remeber if it was just a prototype or a full developed system
> 	Thanks in advance
> 		Lakis
> 
> [mod note -- the USAF had (maybe still has) an Air Launched Cruise Missile
> (ALCM).  It is not based on the Tomahawk.  With all the START talks, I
> don't know if the ALCM was a victim of the reductions or not.
> 
> ALCM was deployed with some B-52 units.
> 
> Steve]
> 

1660 ALCM have been deployed, 200 ACM have been deployed (expected total
deployment is now approximately 500)

So far neither START I nor START II have specifically addressed ALCMs. 
START II does address counting rules for bombers, and counts the warheads
the bombers carry.  (START I counted a penetrating bomber with any number
of warheads as one "warhead.")

ALCM/ACM are currently carried by 40 B52G (12 each) but these aircraft are
scheduled to be converted to the conventional role or eliminated.

They are also carried by 94 B52H, with 12 or 20 ALCM each; and by 94 B1B (8
ALCM each).

Bomber loadout methodology is confusing and complicated, and is a constant
source of difficulty and disagreement in arms control negotiations.
 
John Walker          
Yale University      
walker-john@yale.edu       

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: System Administrator <tgeer@pro-gumbo.cts.com>
Subject: Re: Self-sealing fuel tanks
Organization: TGraphics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:47:46 GMT


From System Administrator <tgeer@pro-gumbo.cts.com>

> [mod note -- from what I've read about self sealing tanks, they are lined
> with either uncured rubber or neoprene.  When a bullet passes through, the
> hole is very small, and the action of the gasoline on the rubber seals the
> tear... [stuff deleted]

Probably not neoprene for two reasons:

1) Neoprene is fairly hard as far as rubber goes - generally in the 40-90
   durometer range.  Thus, it will not stretch much when the projectile
   passes through, leaving a hole nearly as big as the projectile itself.

2) Neoprene has a very good resistance to most petrochemicals and will not
   expand upon contact with gasoline except over extended periods.

Uncured rubber (ie. natural rubber, gum rubber) would work better since it
is relatively soft and stretchable (10-40 durometer), allowing for a small
entry/exit hole.  It does expand when exposed to gasoline but still not
fast enough to be of use in this application.  More likely, it is a special
blend of some very low durometer rubber compound which reacts very quickly
when exposed to gasoline, laminated to another compound which gasoline
does not break down.  I speak of a two-compound laminate because if the
inner surface were to react quickly enough to help seal the hole, it would
only be a matter of a short time before the gasoline attacked the rubber
sufficiently to completely break it down and allow further fuel leakage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ProLine: tgeer@pro-gumbo          Internet: tgeer@pro-gumbo.cts.com
UUCP:    crash!pro-gumbo!tgeer    Fidonet:  tom.geer@f20.n380.z1.fidonet.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't believe in astrology - We Scorpios aren't taken in by such things."


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Geoff Miller <Geoff.Miller@corp.sun.com>
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:34:44 GMT


From Geoff Miller <Geoff.Miller@corp.sun.com>


drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (david.r.wells) writes:

>But 5 meg bombs are awfully rare these days. Even US ICBMs don't carry
>much more than 350k warheads. 

Why are megaton-range weapons rare in this day and age?  Also, what are
typical yields of the various nuclear gravity bombs still in inventory?


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller			+ + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM	+ + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mppd5@syma.sussex.ac.uk (John Coley)
Subject: Re: Lewisite and Lyddite (was: Re: W.W. I chemical munitions dump
Organization: University of Sussex, five miles away from Brighton
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:51:01 GMT


From mppd5@syma.sussex.ac.uk (John Coley)

Iskandar Taib (ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: What was Lyddite, and why did it stain everything (including splashes)
: green?

	Lyddite was (is) picric acid,( bright yellow solid). I thought
it stained things yellow. The workers in Lyddite production plants were
nicknamed canaries because of the staining.
	Hope thats helpful.


John Coley

MAPS, University of Sussex
Falmer 
Brighton

Internet: mppd5@central.sussex.ac.uk
Path: noose.ecn.purdue.edu!sparkyfs.erg.sri.com!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!gatec\
	h!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
	From: mjwhite@engin.umich.edu (Michael White)
	Subject: Re:  Waterloo account in Les Miserables
	Message-ID: <C0o9o6.IHE@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
	Followup-To: sci.military
	Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
	Organization: The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
	Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:26:30 GMT
	Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
	Lines: 41
	

>From mjwhite@engin.umich.edu (Michael White)

In 24800 Kunal Taravade writes:

--> Napoleon lost because of a tragic accident involving a large battalion
which --> fell, both men and horses, into a ditch which the strategists had
--> failed to identify as a possible source of danger. There were
--> also some tactical misjudgements and of course, as is well known,
--> nature played no small part in sealing Napoleon's fate.

--> However, it appears from Hugo's portrayal of the battle that this
--> incident involving the fall of several men into the ditch was the
--> deciding factor in the battle.

Hugo's account of the battle of Waterloo in Les Miserables is one of the
better known fictional accounts of Napoleon's final defeat.  However, it
does contain
several innaccuracies, the "myth of the ditch" being most prominent.

The battlefield was clear of major terrain obstacles.  There were hedgerows
along some of the roads and paths and parts of the Nivelles road which
ran just behind and parallel to the Anglo-Dutch lines was partially sunken.
This offered the allied forces some protection against bombardment.
However,
However,
it was not deep enough to disrupt cavalry.

During the Waterloo campaign, Napoleon had many opportunities to defeat the
Prussian-Anglo-Allied forces.  Numerous mistakes and incompetent
leadership undid every success.  If nature had anything to do with the
French defeat it was the torrential rains of the 17th which slowed the
French pursuit of Wellington's army and turned the battlefield into a
muddy mess on the morning of the 18th.

Hugo (and others) seized on the myth of the ditch as an excuse for the
defeat.  However, Napoleon once stated that the failure of the campaign
was due to the fact that no one, from colonel on up, did their job
properly.


##############################################################################\
##############################################################################\
##



































Thank You 

*********************************************
Kunal N Taravade
School of Electrical Engineering 
Purdue University
taravade@shark.ecn.purdue.edu                
*********************************************
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:03:11 GMT
Organization: Chevron


From hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)

|> I thought that the Navy was talking about making Tomahawk air-
|> launchable but I think its length does make it difficult to put
|> under a wing of A-6 or F/A-18.

 In the 1991 edition of HIGH-TECH WARFARE by Richardson, Gunston, and Hogg
 on page 38 is a picture of an A-6 in flight with a AGM-109 under its wing!

 The AGM-109 is the air-launched version of the BGM-109 Tomahawk.

 Since the missile is painted red with black panels on the nose and tail,
 I would guess this is some kind of test flight with a protype or such.

 Curiously, NO air-to-air weapons such as the AIM-9 appear, even though some
 ex-A6 jocks on the net have said that they have had Sidewinders mounted on
 their aircraft.

 See ya!

 TRAVIS
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ad absurdum per aspera <jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov>
Subject: Transport (was Re: B2s v. carrier task force)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:48:59 GMT


From Ad absurdum per aspera <jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov>

Don Palmrose writes {good points about importance of sealift and
the sorry state thereof deleted}...

>The US military sealift capacity is in more of a need of improvement than 
>the Air Force's air transport system.

Our strategic airlift capability may not be in the best of shape
either.  Back in the time frame of the initial (airlifted) Desert 
Shield buildup, I was hearing that it would pretty much be the
last hurrah for a lot of high-time C-141s.  Combine this with the
recent turbulence in the C-17 program and the overall unsexiness
of logistics as a peacetime budgetary priority... brr.

Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Re: V/STOL fighters
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:41:21 GMT


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <C15ywq.LG6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
Ross Smith <alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz> writes:

> Recently I've been reading and thinking about future fighter designs, and
> I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on the subject of V/STOL
> fighters.  I've always agreed with those who argue that anti-airfield
> weapons will sooner or later make horizontal take-off and landing obsolete
> for combat aircraft

There's no question that the technology works, the biggest problem I've
seen mentioned is that in the strictly vertical mode, they cannot lift
as much fuel and ordinance as they can with a horizontal takeoff.  So
if they are limited to only vertical takeoffs, their range and/or ammo
will be limited.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Andre Molyneux <andrem@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com>
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:37:35 GMT


From Andre Molyneux <andrem@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com>

The discussion of the nuclear test involving the Saratoga got me
wondering about what shape the battleship Nevada was in after the
test.  I had heard (don't know if it was accurate) that the Nevada
was near the center of one of the blasts, but wasn't sunk during
the test.

Do any of the documents that have been quoted have photos or give
a description of her condition?  Also, how was she eventually sunk?
Torpedoes?

My curiosity goes back to when I was a young lad in Nevada and
went on a field trip to Carson City.  While there (maybe at the
old state capitol?) we saw the silver set off the battleship
named for the state.  I remember being quite confused when we
were told that the ship had been sunk by the U.S.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andre Molyneux   KA7WVV     "Insert your favorite disclaimer here"       |
+-----------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|      -=-------- PYRAMID TECHNOLOGY CORP |Internet:                       |
|    ---===------ 3860 N. First Street    |  andrem@pyramid.com            |
|  -----=====---- San Jose, CA 95134      |Packet:                         |
|-------=======-- (408) 428-8229          |  ka7wvv@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na |
+-----------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

Newsgroups: sci.military