HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: LAV Manufacturer
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:39:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr8.003956.10967
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.


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

In article 519@cbnews.cb.att.com, gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher) writes:
>In sci.military, tzeng@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes:
>>
>>BTW:  The LAV is a US made vehicle.  The manufaturer escapes me at the
>>moment.
>
>The 8-wheeled LAV family as operated by the USMC is made in Ontario
>Canada by General Motors-Canada.  This is an adapted design of the Swiss
>Piranah (sp?) 8-wheeled vehicle.


 Mowag, a Swiss company, is the original manufacturer of the LAV.

 They are build under license in Chile, for the Chilean military, by
FAMEA-Cardoen under the name Piran~a, in the 6 and 8 wheels versions.

 I do not know where the US ones are made.

 Speaking for himself,

 Juan Carlos
From: R.J.Collingham@newcastle.ac.uk (R.J.Collingham)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Any good books on the Gulf War?
Keywords: gulf war, books
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:43:12 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU


From R.J.Collingham@newcastle.ac.uk (R.J.Collingham)


Now that it's been over a year since the Gulf War, I have seen several recently
published books covering the conflict. I was wondering if anyone has
purchased any of these and/or can recommend any that give good and complete
coverage of the military operations (especially special forces operations)
during the war in the Gulf.

In a similar vein, what about books on the Falklands War? It has been ten
years since that conflict ended.

Many thanks in advance.

Russell

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell J. Collingham		
Artificial Intelligence Systems Research Group
Computer Science (SECS)	
University of Durham		email: R.J.Collingham@uk.ac.durham  
Stockton Road			phone: 091-374 2549 (2630 secretary)
Durham, England DH1 3LE		  fax: 091-374 3741
From: malc@pyramid.cs.unr.edu (Malcolm L. Carlock)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: F86??? Spotted in Ohio
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:46:44 GMT
Organization: Xinaian Tourist Bureau


From malc@pyramid.cs.unr.edu (Malcolm L. Carlock)


In article <1992Apr13.033144.3222@cbnews.cb.att.com> AI4CPHYW%MIAMIU.BITNET@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU writes:
-
-I was out today (Saturday) working on my car and I saw what I think
-was a F86 fighter.  It had cruciform wings (they were at a 90 degree
-angle to the fuselage, not swept at all) with a large football shaped
-object at each wing tip.

Sounds like an F-80 Shooting Star.

I think development on this jet finished up just after WWII ended.
--
Malcolm L. Carlock                      Internet:  malc@unr.edu
                                        UUCP:      unr!malc
                                        BITNET:    malc@equinox
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: urf@sluss.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)
Subject: Fixed-mobile coastal artillery
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:24:51 GMT


From urf@sluss.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)

Apart from anti-ship missiles, air defence assets &c, the Swedish
Coastal Artillery naturally also has conventional artillery.
Today, it is either fixed in armoured turrets, with the support
areas deep inside bedrock, or mobile howitzers. (The latest is a
125 mm version of the Army's 155 mm.)

The fixed installations have become increasingly vulnerable to
precision munitions; the mobile to area-covering weapons.
For the future, a proposal for fixed-mobile artillery, which
enhances protection while offering good tactical and strategic
mobility, has been made.

The guns would be mounted on either tracked or wheeled armoured
vehicles. Sketches show them to look rather conventional, only
sleeker, the wheeled have 5 close-spaced axles. Magazine capacity
is 40 guided rounds. 

The vehicles would be based bedrock garages. For simplicity, the
crews are housed in NBC-protected huts inside the garage. To each
garage would belong several prepared firing places a short drive
away, with some sort of protection, phone and electrical lines.
You can fire from anywhere, of course.

The doors would stop saboteurs long enough to let guards arrive,
even during peace-time. Getting through tens of meters of bedrock
is virtually impossible. Targeting the openings with PGM:s would
largely be futile as 1) they would be camouflaged 2) it's cheap
to build dummy openings (camouflaged too!) 3) even if you got the
door, the gun would be safe further inside.

The guns would be hard to fire at the short times they spend
outside. Supposing the firing places are roofed over 1) unless
you saw it move there, how do you know which one to fire at 2) an
anti-tank round that hits the roof will hardly damage a vehicle
beneath 3) area denial mines will work, but unlike aircraft, the
guns can go places the mines aren't.

Mostly from an article in the latest MarinNytt, the Marine magazine.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se 'Reply' may not work.   I'm _not_ a spokesman!
 If you plan to read just one book this year...
 ...you read far too few books.
From: j724664s@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: M-60 gunners
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:31:30 GMT
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania


From j724664s@edinboro.edu

I am interested in M-60 machine gunners in general. Equipment, gear,
what they carry, how much ammo, what kind of ammo, standard procedures
for equip for operations, etc. Army and Marines.
REPLY by E-mail, only.
			    Captain Blackdog

			     /\
			 __/    \_____________ 
			|                     \\ 
			 \_\\\      _____     / \
			       \   /     \   /
				| |       \ |
				 ||       //
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: brims@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu
Subject: White Phosphorus
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:09:23 GMT


From brims@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu

The element phosporus occurs in two forms. Red phosphorus is relatively
safe since it doesn't ignite spontaneously on contact with air. White
(aka yellow) phosphorus has to be stored in water or otherwise kept
away from oxygen otherwise it bursts into flames. Phosphorus also has a
low melting point (44.2 Centigrade) so once it's on fire it also melts
and sticks to things. All in all an ideal material for incendiary devices.
  During WWII there was a British anti-tank weapon which consisted of a
glass globe filled with white phosphorus and water. It had a handle
attached and was covered in some kind of glue. Some brave soul was
supposed to stick it to a tank as it passed. I think I'd rather throw
it.... Don't know if they were ever used in anger but now and again old
stockpiles from the Home Guard turn up. 

George Brims
UCLA Astronomy

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Subject: Re: F-117 Air-to-Air
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:19:39 GMT


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

In <1992Apr8.230535.20605@cbnews.cb.att.com> johnhall@microsoft.com writes:
>Clancy's Red Storm Rising (Before the public unveiling of the
>F-117) had them open the war in Europe on precisely this
>mission -- nailing Russian AWACS over central Europe.

   ACtually, they were called F-19s, and were basically just the same concept
   and not the same plane.
From: gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: M1A1 vs. the squirt gun from hell
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:48:22 GMT
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD


From gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Michael Gallagher)


In sci.military, dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh) writes:
>From dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh)
>
>Consider a gun that fires 1cc water droplets at 5% c. What would happen
>if one of these droplets hit the frontal armor of a tank?
>
>Running through the numbers ...
>                  ~= explosive force of 20,000 kg TNT
>        which is more than enough to total a tank.


    Interesting question, but why stop at 5% of the speed of light,
lets do it at 3X the speed of light and get 72,000,000 kg of TNT.

    Or what if we just run Star Trek into a tank when its doing Warp
10?  1/2 m*v*v of this would be enough to wipe out all 8000 M1's.

    The moment you accelerate water to the dynamic pressures referred
to here, it will turn into steam.
From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: USSBN&USSN
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:44:32 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute


From megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MEGAZONE 23)

In article <1992Apr8.005951.15969@cbnews.cb.att.com> joar@stud.cs.uit.no (Joar Ankarstein Larsen) writes:
>By the way, I read Tom Clancys last book, "the ullimate of all
>fears." There they talked about the missilesubs as boomers.

That's how it translated? It was The Sum of All Fears in the US.

>Why are they called this? And another question, is the tecnicall

Basically they've been nicknamed boomers because of the fact that they carry
SLBMs. Which pack a lot of explosive power, *boom*.

[mod.note:  I believe it's a double entendre; "boom" is also a natural
corruption of "BM," which abbreviates "Ballistic Missile." - Bill ]

>facts that Clancy is using right?

he does a fairly good job, but he can only use public info. And that;s isn't
always correct. But I will say that even though I have noticed some errors in
his books, they are the best damn books I've read in the field. Sometimes he
will changes things for the story, but that's artistic license. Being a part
time writer I can understand that.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
From: astroatc!nicmad!peterson@spool.cs.wisc.edu (Dennis Peterson x2495)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Phoenix vs. Scud ?
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:40:06 GMT
Organization: Nicolet Instrument Corp.


From astroatc!nicmad!peterson@spool.cs.wisc.edu (Dennis Peterson x2495)

I had this idea during the gulf war but never had the nerve to 
post what may be a DUMB question, but with all the post lately
about air to air missiles it again perked my interest in the 
question.


I was wondering if a F14 on patrol over the Scud launch area would
have been able to use a Phoenix  against the Scuds during the
early launch phase.  It would seem with the Phoenix long range and
very high speed and with a look-down, shoot-down radar, overlaping 
coverages could have taken out the Scuds in the early phase.  I
admit to ignorance on Scud launch acceleration and Phoenix 
accuracy but just a thought. 


 -- 
---Dennis Peterson

    Compuserve 70244,412@compserve.com
    UUCP: uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!peterson
Internet: nicmad!peterson%astroatc.uucp@spool.cs.wisc.edu
-- 

 -- 
---Dennis Peterson
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "a.j.s. nusbacher" <aryk@utcs.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Mini-Gun question
Organization: University of Toronto
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:30:38 GMT


From "a.j.s. nusbacher" <aryk@utcs.utoronto.ca>

In article <1992Apr15.234316.4166@cbnews.cb.att.com> yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.035139.7057@cbnews.cb.att.com>, CBTCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu writes:
In re the GE 7.62mm minigun
>>>I was wondering what you'd use this for. Too small to put in an
>>>airplane. Mount it in a helicopter? APC?
>
>Alright!  T2 weapon!  is it really possible to shoot a mini-gun like a M-60? 
>what about the god damn recoil force?
>SF

The recoil force? What about the god damn car battery?!

_____________________________________________________________________________
        Aryk Nusbacher                .. .. Celebrating the 20th Anniversary    
                                      ||_||  of Women Members of Hart House 
          Hart House                  | I |     || ||          || ||  ..    ..
Informal Education in the University  |   |   . ||_||__________||_||  || ___||
                                      | O |___|_|__________________|__| /  \ |
    aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca         |   |       o oo  oo  oo   o      |__| |
                                      |_A_|_______A_oo  oo  oo   A__^^^______|
_____________________________________________________`------------____________
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Miniguns
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:48:42 GMT
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH


From cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)

As quoted from <1992Apr13.040612.9122@cbnews.cb.att.com> by gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy):

> I do not have any info on a 5.56mm version of the "minigun", in 
> fact, I'am not sure such a thing exists. The basic Army "minigun" 
> is the M-134, does anyone know of a model number for a 5.56 
> weapon?

There is.  The commercial name for it is "Sixpak" I believe.  I don't know if
the military here ever bought any.  It'd be handy during a banzai charge.... :)


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
"It's 11:59pm, do you know where your congressman's checkbook is?"
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Christopher Morton
{uunet|backbone}!ncoast.org!cmort                      cmort@ncoast.org
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Low Altitude Flight
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:27:25 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From PCD <duggan@siam.org>
>I had been under the impression that the B-52 was
>originally made for low altitude flight, flying under
>radar, but that its mission changed after Gary Powers was
>shot down, since that proved that the Soviets had
>supersonic surface to air missiles...

Vice versa.  The B-52 was built for high-altitude penetration.  When
the growing vulnerability of high-altitude bombers to SAMs gradually
became clear -- the Powers incident was just the last straw -- the later
B-52s got extensive structural strengthening and some other changes to
give them limited low-altitude capability.
-- 
ISDN, n:  Incredibly Slow and Dumb      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Networking                              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: shahar@shum.huji.ac.il (Shahar Brovender)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Low Altitude training, airforces
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:03:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From Shahar Brovender <shahar@shum.huji.ac.il>

@sluss.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)
>The Swedish air force in recent years raised the limit for over
>water low flying from 10 m to 20 m, so it must be one of them.
>The over land limit used to be 20 m, so I _guess_ it must have
>been raised to 30, to keep 20 m over treetops. (I'm sure the
>minimum altitude under combat conditions is secret.)
>
>*If* there are only two, the other must be the Israeli.
>--
> Urban Fredriksson    Speaks for himself only

A colonel (rtd) of the PVO (Air Defence) air force of the (ex) Soviet
Union emigrated to Israel about a year ago. In an interview to Yediot
Ahronot (an Israeli daily) he said (quoted from memory):

	We have tried to emulate Israeli training methods for many years,
	especially low level flying. However, the loss of pilots and
	machines was and is very high.

This, it would seem, there are THREE air forces training for low level
flying :-).

Marc A. Volovic
via
Shahar J. Brovender
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte)
Subject: Re: Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:05:08 GMT


From checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte)

In article <1992Apr15.042917.10405@cbnews.cb.att.com>, biman@turtle.ee.queensu.ca (Aapoolcoyuz) writes:
>
>I was under the impression that only
>the Su-27 did "Pougachev's (sp?) Cobra".  I didn't think the 
>Mig-29 did (or was capable) of doing it as well.
>
>I could however be totally wrong about this....anyone
>care to enlighten me on this ?
>


While I was at the Salinas air show last year, thay had two Mig 29s
and one of their giant air transports.

During the show, the single seater performed the "Cobra" manuever
for the crowd.

The Navy pilots were impressed to say the least!

Al Conte
From: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Subject: Re: M1A1 vs. the squirt gun from hell
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 00:47:11 GMT


From ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)

>>>>> On 15 Apr 92 23:02:52 GMT, dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh) said:

dep> The talk of crowbars from space brings up an idea for another weapon
dep> (one that is probably theoretically impossible to build unless we get
dep> some new theories).

dep> Consider a gun that fires 1cc water droplets at 5% c. What would happen
dep> if one of these droplets hit the frontal armor of a tank?

[math deleted]

dep> I suspect, however, that the droplet would probably punch a small hole
dep> through the armor. Two questions:
dep> 	Would the exit hole be significantly larger than the entry hole?
dep> 	What would happen to the armor in the path of the drop ... would it
dep> 	be displaced to the sides or driven into the tank?

Assuming that friction with air doesn't completely vaporize the ``pulse''
of water, the kinetic energy of the impact would convert to heat, causing
the drop to almost immediately vaporize. Where it vaporizes in relation to
a tank's armor is a very interesting question, however.

--Rat

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: accidental nuclear detonation
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:32:14 GMT


From Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>


> I've never hear of an electronic neutron generator.  How does it work?
> Is it a deuteron gun?


Yes (one type, anyway). Tritium & deuterium are accelerated
electrostatically & collided. They fuse, releasing neutrons. The
advantages are that the neutrons appear in quantity, in an accurately
controlled pulse with a fast rise time. This encourages high &
predictable fission yields.

An external initiator also allows the centre of the pit to be used
for a tritium fusion chamber.

The first electronic initiators were tested in Nevada in 1952, during
the Tumbler-Snapper Fox & George shots. These were large devices, a
couple of feet in diameter & length. Production devices, smaller &
more robust were stockpiled in 1953 & tested in Operation Teapot in
1955.

Modern initiators are hand-sized, and operate on what has been
described as a "ferroelectric" principle. I know nothing more about
such devices, and believe they are still classified. Anyone care to
prove me wrong ?

In the UK, the development of external initiators was troublesome.
After the 1957 fire at Windscale, one of the secrets kept from
everyone *especially* the Americans, was that reactor usage at
that time had included polonium production for internal initiators.
The UK weapons developers didn't wish it known that they were still
relying on what was now obsolete technology.

          Andy Dingley    dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk
From: Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com (Steven.Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Class VS Imp Los Angeles Class (Q)
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:33:41 GMT
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.


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

The Los Angeles-class SSNs weren't originally capable to surface
through ice, as the sail mounted diving planes couldn't rotate or
retract, and the sail wasn't hardened. Starting with the U.S.S. San
Juan (SSN 750), retractable bowplanes were added, as well as the
hardened sail. They have continued this is all subs after the San
Juan. They are reffered to as 688I, I for improved, or the San Juan
class. Yes, the Russians have been placing lots of stuff into service
while taking ships out. They have a lot more subs than we do, althogh
theirs aren't all nuclear powered like ours are. They have many that
our in storage and unreliable, so they don't have all of theirs is
service all the time. They are scrapping many, many obsolete ships,
and replacing them with newer, more reliable ones, although not on a
ship-for-ship basis, so the fleet is dropping in number, and improving
in quality. I don't know why it has never come to light.

-- 
Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com
Leader, Military and Arms topic, Hobbies Conference, Exec-PC BBS (414)789-4210

"Eternal peace lasts only until the next war."-Old Russian Proverb
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Basement Cruise Missiles?
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:20:48 GMT


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From <TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu>
>     A recent _New York Times_ op-ed piece (1 April 1992, "Offshore Threat--
> Cruise Missiles," p. A25) by Kosta Tsipis, the director of MIT's science and
> technology for international security program, claims that simply built
> cruise missiles armed with a GPS (Global Positioning System) homing devices
> and fired from offshore could render the U.S.'s SDI effort pointless.

This is the equivalent of claiming that attack submarines render antitank
missiles pointless.  Tsipis is fond of making such, uh, statements.
Ballistic-missile defences stop one form of attack:  ballistic missiles.
Against other forms of attack, you need other forms of defence.

Defending against cruise missiles is basically a slightly harder version
of defending against manned bombers.  In either case, compared to ballistic
missiles, the big loss from the defender's viewpoint is that they are
much harder to detect, and the big win is that they are slow.  The worst
problem of ballistic-missile defence is the terrible shortage of time,
especially given that it's hard to build interceptors that are much faster
than the targets.  Bombers and cruise missiles take hours, not minutes,
to reach their targets, and it's feasible to build interceptors that move
at several times their speed.  The down side is the difficult problem of
reliably detecting small, low-flying aircraft at long range.

>  QUESTION:  How easy would it be to build a cruise missile with the follow-
>             ing specs? (These are taken from the article).
>                ** accuracy to within ten feet of target when fired from a
>                ** use of GPS/gyroscopic homing with an autopilot
>                ** could be fired from a range of 300 miles offshore

Pick a light aircraft with adequate range, and buy it with a good equipment
fit including autopilot, radar altimeter, GPS, and inertial navigation. 
Add a guidance computer to look at the sensor data and give the autopilot
orders.  It's ready.  With an off-the-shelf GPS receiver it may not quite
meet the accuracy spec, but GPS receivers are getting better and a nuclear
warhead doesn't *need* that kind of delivery accuracy.

Note that all GPS really adds to this is better accuracy.  You could get
adequate accuracy for a nuclear attack on a soft target with just the
inertial system.  That's been possible for a decade or two now.

The light aircraft is bigger and more conspicuous than it needs to be
for this job, and most light aircraft are slow even by cruise-missile
standards.  A custom design using a small commercial turbofan engine,
a composite airframe, and commercial avionics could be rather faster and
much harder to spot.  But it would take a lot more time and effort, plus
a fair bit of technical expertise.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry