HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dave Mak <dmak@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu>
Subject: Re:Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:23:57 GMT


From Dave Mak <dmak@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu>

>Newsgroups: sci.military
>From: ksw3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (KENNETH STARR WATSON)
>Organization: Lehigh University
>Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:07:49 GMT

>From ksw3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (KENNETH STARR WATSON)


>Why not add a 30mm GAU-8A cannon (the kind the A-10 carries) to the Bradley.  Supposedly
>its extremely effective against armor and would probably make a decent
>point defence weapon as well?  There's always the ammo problem, but if you
>took an M3 and removed the TOWs you would probably have more than enough
>room for ammo.  The only problem is that I don't know how effective the
>GAU-8A would be against missles and such.  Just a random thought.
	Ken Watson
	Ksw3@lehigh.edu

Sounds like an interesting idea, but the TOWs are stowed in the Troop
compartment on the M3 so the GAU-8 ammo will have to snake around into the
turret or you'll have to be able to quickly pass the ammo into the turret and
load the cannon.

Also, from what I understand, the GAU-8 is fairly large and long so you're
talking a major refit.

Seems that this isn't the proper role for the Bradley.  You're desinging a new
weapon system.  The Bradley (despite what Tankers think) is a vehicle for the
Cavalry (or Infantry in the M2 IFV version) where you don't want to use it as
a tank killer.  The reason being that it doesn't have enough armor to sustain
much battle damage (witness Desert Storm & incidents of 7.62mm penetrations
into turret).

The TOW launcher holds two tubes and must be loaded by traversing the turret
to 230 degree  (I can't remember exactly) and max elevated (60 deg), then
loaded by the eagles (scouts) in the rear from the troop hatch.

That's pretty awkward and will be slower than it takes a tank crewman to load
a MBT main gun.  That's why it's proper role is recon and infantry taxi.

Not to say the M3/M2 is ideal for those roles -- it's just not going to
perform other jobs any better.  I personally feel safer in a Humvee with
the 25mm gun or .50 cal.

-Dave Mak
 19D1PD3 Cavalry Scout
      ^^- Only recently.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Max Abramowitz <madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Infantry in square
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:31:43 GMT


From Max Abramowitz <madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>

In <BzzCr8.HL@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mike Campbell
<mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> writes: 

[lots o' stuff deleted]

>I have also read two accounts of Austrian Infantry at Dresden,
>Mesko's Divison on the far left of the allied line.  In one account 
>(the least reliable) the infantry formed square when confronted by 
>French cav, and were asked to surrender, as their muskets wouldn't 
>work in the rain.  The Austrian General is said to have replied that 
>the cavalry couldn't charge in the mud either, so he wouldn't
>surrender.  At this point the cavalry revealed a number of guns lined
>up on the squares, and the infantry surrendered (apparently Napoleon 
>had hitched every available animal to enable the guns to move in the
>mud). 

I always thought one of Napoleons military innovations was the use of
*MEN* to move artillery instead of animals.

max abramowitz
madmax@cs.uchicago.edu



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rdd@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.DaCunha)
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:28:28 GMT


From rdd@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.DaCunha)


In article <BzzCrI.L5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>[...]
>
>The top allied ace in the ETO drove a Thunderbolt. It was the diving
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I suppose you mean the top US ace in the ETO -- the top allied ace was
Wing Commander J.E. "Johnnie" Johnson RAF with 38 confirmed victories
all in Europe. As an interesting note, the MoD (RAF) will never say that
(even nowadays); there are no "aces" for the RAF, this being played down 
in favour of teamwork.
--
                                    Rudnei Dias da Cunha
                       Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury
                          Canterbury, Kent  CT2 7NF, United Kingdom

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Patrick H. McAllister" <fed!m1phm02@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks
Organization: Federal Reserve Board, Wash, DC
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:28:08 GMT


From "Patrick H. McAllister" <fed!m1phm02@uunet.uu.net>


In article <BzEzGM.FnM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:
> 
> From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
> 
> Daniel F. Boyd writes:
> #Why don't we have a canister round for the M-1?  It seems like such a
> #simple thing to not have!  How expensive could it be to develop a
> #canister round?
> 
> Because the "user" wants only two rounds: KE and HEAT-MP. Period.
> 
To expand on this a little, I believe the Army's doctrine follows from:

(1) tanks are never supposed to be on the battlefield alone; there will always be infantry present as well, with artillery, AA, etc. nearby.

(2) the infantry, etc. have weapons that are optimized for killing opposing infantry, helicopters, and what have you, but tank guns are optimized for killing other tanks.

(3) the M1 has relatively limited storage capacity for the 120mm rounds (about 40, as I recall).

The conclusion is that the M1 needs to devote all of its limited capacity to storing ammo that will be useful against opposing armored vehicles -- that is, KE and HEAT rounds.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
Organization: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt 
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:31:34 GMT


From Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>

In article <BzM9oH.Lz3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>		     To speak disparingingly of "the worst allied fighter of
>the war" is unfair to those who held the line with inferior equipment until
>the realities of twentieth century combat caught up with the movers and shakers
>who decided our military destiny in the most critical period of this nation's
>existence.

I disagree!  If anything, great honour should go to those who actually managed
to use these "worst Allied fighters of the war", and do something useful with
them.

In article <BzM9tw.M9q@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>In article <BzD4rB.ItF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> kash1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz(Kemp Ashby) writes:
>
>>How about the Gloster Gladiator, Boulton-Paul Defiant, and Russian I-16?
>>I'm sure there are a host of others!
>
>The Gladiator did sterling service in the defence of Malta.

I think some distinction should be made between old fighters which were kept
in service long after they were obsolete, and new fighters which could not
match those old fighters.  The Gladiator definitely belongs in the first
category.

>Remember that other great Biplane of the second world war: the Fairey
>Swordfish.

Well, it wasn't exactly a fighter. :-)  The Swordfish actually outlived its
intended successor, the Fairey Albacore, another biplane which used a more
powerful and less reliable engine.

>The Defiant actually did fairly well until the Germans caught on and 
>started attacking head on. Not too sure how the I-16 did.

The I-16 is in the same category as the Gladiator, i.e. out of date.  It
actually pre-dated the Gladiator.  It was also probably one reason why the
Brewster Buffalo did well in Finnish hands against the Soviets.

>What about the early Fleet Air Arm types? The Fairey Fulmar, for in-
>stance, was a widely used fighter on board ships such as HMS Ark Royal.

Now that's the one that gets my vote for Worst Allied Fighter of WW2!  This
thing couldn't even outrun, outclimb or outmanoeuvre the Gladiator.  The
observer sometimes had a machine-gun in case an enemy aircraft got behind
him, but often his only weapons were packets of "Admiralty brown" - toilet
paper to be thrown out in the face of an attacking fighter.  Apparently
some enemy fighter pilots really were deterred, thinking it was a secret
weapon.

-- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cee
 UUCP: ..!uknet!cee.hw.ac.uk!adrian  |  ARPA:  adrian@cee.hw.ac.uk

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re:Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:24:43 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <BzMA51.1oq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ksw3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (KENNETH STARR WATSON) writes:
> 
> 
> From ksw3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (KENNETH STARR WATSON)
> 
> 
>     Why not add a 30mm GAU-8A cannon (the kind the A-10 carries) to the Bradley.  Supposedly
>     its extremely effective against armor and would probably make a decent
>     point defence weapon as well?  There's always the ammo problem, but if you
>     took an M3 and removed the TOWs you would probably have more than enough
>     room for ammo.  The only problem is that I don't know how effective the
>     GAU-8A would be against missles and such.  Just a random thought.
>         Ken Watson
>         Ksw3@lehigh.edu
> 
> 

Why not take the US Navy's Phalanx CIWS and mount it on top of a Bradley if
you want a gatling gun for AAW.  It has its own tracking and fire control 
system and the magazine can be modified so as to fit down inside of the 
Bradley so that it can shoot more than the 900 rounds on the Navy ships.
Besides it was designed for shooting down missiles and aircraft within 6000
yards and is of a modular design to boot (i.e. all you need is the proper
power supply and the connections for the operator's control panel).

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






========== 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: jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
Subject: Re: helos vs. tanks
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:22:34 GMT


From jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)

In article <BzM9oC.Lx6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com> writes:
>
>From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
>
>
>CJ>However, an interesting idea is a Bradley variant optimized for air defence.
>CJ>Anyone know of such a project in the works?
>
>I was thumbing through an old Jane's Military Review (from '86, I think) and 
>came across an article on new battlefield air defence systems.  There was a
>photo of a model of one proposed system - a Bradley mounting Rapiers.
>According to the caption, the system took the radar and electronics from the
>new, all-weather Rapier 2000 and the launch bins from the British Army 
>Tracked Rapier system and mounted them on the turret of a Bradley.  The missle
>bins went on either side of the turret, the radar on top (of course), and the
>control station/reloads into the rear compartment.  The Bradley still retains
>the 25mm/7.62mm armament, a potent backup/local defense combination.  Seemed 
>like a good idea, similar to the Marines' proposed mounting of the GE Blazer
>25mm Gatling/Stinger missle turret on LAVs.  (BTW, does anyone know if this
>system has been adopted yet, or what?)
>--

	A similar system already exists for both the US and Canada, in the
	first case mounted on a bradley the second an M113.
		It's the martin marietta "ADATS" consisting of 8 laser
	guided missiles. The guidence system is similar to that of the
	laser guided missiles of the apache helo.
		The missiles are equaly good against air and ground
	targets, and can take out enemy armour if needed.
	The canadian requirements where tough and for the Adats to
	win the comp ahead of other alternatives means it's a pretty
	good anti-air system as far as self-propelled air-defence
	systems go.




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Gladiators in WWII RAF service
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:24:51 GMT


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

> From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>

   <quite a lot deleted>

> Certainly no Glad squadrons feature in
> the RAF's Order of Battle after May 1940.


I seem to remember that there was a single squadron still equipped
with the type in 10 (?) Group (SW of England) during the "Battle of
Britain", August - September 1940.  The final delivery was only in
April 1940 (!!!!).

Any one know any other details?
--
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Floyd Low <ck442@cleveland.freenet.edu>
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Saturday, 12 December, 1942
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:24:56 GMT


From Floyd Low <ck442@cleveland.freenet.edu>



re col hans von luck...I read his panzer leader a while ago but gave it away to a friend. was this the story where he was impriosned in russia after having been captured around berlin? If so could you send me the title to ck442 on cleveland###



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: Cross-channel gunnery
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:36:30 GMT


From pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)

>From an (out of print) British book about the early days of RADAR.

A set was installed at one of the English poitions, offset a bit from the guns,
to presrve the electronics.  This was intended for gunlaying, but it was noted
that, with care, outgoing and incoming _shells_ could be tracked.  One day, this
was being demoed to a gaggle of visting brass, with both sides firing the odd
shell.  The operator would read off range and deflection, time of flight was
long.  All was mellow untill one round, from the German position, kept giving
a deflection of Zero-Zero, Zero-Zero....

After a few reports, people realized what THAT meant, and all dove for the
slit trench.  Dead hit on the radar.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA	
01775				pierson@msd27.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ksw3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (KENNETH STARR WATSON)
Subject: Re:Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: Lehigh University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:07:49 GMT


From ksw3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (KENNETH STARR WATSON)


    Why not add a 30mm GAU-8A cannon (the kind the A-10 carries) to the Bradley.  Supposedly
    its extremely effective against armor and would probably make a decent
    point defence weapon as well?  There's always the ammo problem, but if you
    took an M3 and removed the TOWs you would probably have more than enough
    room for ammo.  The only problem is that I don't know how effective the
    GAU-8A would be against missles and such.  Just a random thought.
        Ken Watson
        Ksw3@lehigh.edu

        

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: Bradley AA version (was Re:helos vs tanks)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:20:38 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


From bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)

In article <Bzo8oq.C5G@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Michael Gallagher  
<gallaghe@oasys.dt.navy.mil> writes:
> 
>......Also, as you remember from Desert Storm,
> when the AH-64 attacked land combat vehicles, it used its Hellfire missiles,
> not the 30mm.
> 
Well, yes and no. When the "friendly fire" incident took place between the  
Apaches and the Bradleys they used the Hellfire because the chain gun  
malfunctioned. 

--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Patrick V Kauffold <cga66@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Re: Use of small arms stored in homes
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:39:55 GMT


From Patrick V Kauffold <cga66@ihlpl.att.com>

>From article <Bzs8Jw.Kzv@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>:
> 
> From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
> 
> The Home Guard, whose very reason for existance is their short 
> reaction times, could not function if they didn't keep their 
> equipment at home.
> 
> When you reach your unit, some time might be saved by not having 
> to go through the process of issuing personal equipment, but if 
> this time is significant compared to the travel time, I cannot 
> say.

If quick reaction time is important, then equipment must be kept very
close to the people who need it to carry out their mission.  I am
thinking mostly of reservists when they mobilize.  My experience with
this has been that getting a reserve unit equipped for mobilization is
a MAJOR problem, and is going to cause delay.

Planners, unfortunately, often assume that this will be an easy and
quick process, and that things will match up just like they do in
their various allowance lists.  In practice, the process generally
resembles a cluster f***.

The NATO Reforger exercises tended to show that getting stateside
reservists to their POMCUS sites and equipped took longer than would
be allowed, unless, of course, the advancing Soviets would stop to
help hand out the weapons at the POMCUS sites.  The Marines had
similar experiences when they deployed to Norway for exercises --
somebody forgot to get enough cold weather gear!  
PS -- the planners were warm and toasty in their Pentagon offices.

Of course, rifles and uniforms are easier to count and inventory
as they rot and rust in a warehouse. And there is the fun of discovering
how much of the stored equipment doesn't work when it is broken
out for use.

My personal perference would be to issue as much gear as possible
to the individuals, and maintain it by frequent exercises and in-
spections.  If you mobilize such a unit, all that you will need to
do is make up for a few shortages (there is always that 5% that 
doesn't get the word), but you will be ready to go a lot quicker,
and a lot more combat effective when you get to where you are going.

As for the Swiss, it is important to note that they don't just hand
out weapons and equipment and then forget about it.  They have frequent
exercises where they must make use of their equipment, and they are
encouraged to shoot at local ranges which are subsidized (much like the
NRA used to do with surplus M1s, Springfields, and ammo).

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
Subject: bradley aa version (w
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:18:54 GMT


From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>


GE>    Problem with 30mm weapon use is there is no AP round in service
GE>- the A-10 and Apache AH-64 helicoter use a dual purpose 30mm round
GE>that is slow and probably won't defeat the future threat land combat

Someone will probably have already pointed this out by the time my message
makes the rounds, but I thought I should mention to Gallaghe that the
A-10 and the AH-64 have different types of 30mm cannon.  Actually, the only
similarity is the caliber.

The GAU-8 Avenger used on the A-10 uses a special 30mm DU penetrator, on top of
a relatively enormous (roughly the size of a milk bottle) cartridge.  The
A-10 is the only platform to carry the Avenger cannon.

The 30mm Hughes chain gun carried by the Apache uses the NATO standard 30mm
round, a smaller round used mostly by the British, called by them the 30mm
ADEN, I believe.  British Harriers carry 30mm cannon chambered for this round,
and the Scimitar light tank uses the same round in its 30mm cannon.  Going way
back, I think the first use was in the Fox armoured car, but I'm not sure.
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Prussian Military
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:01:10 GMT


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

In article <BzH50K.AsH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jheath@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu (Jim Heath) writes:


>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.


I believe there were six regiments of light cavalry involved. Five
were Hussar regiments, one was a Lancer regiment. The British didn't 
have Lancers during the Napoleonic wars. I suppose the role of Napo-
leon's Lancer regiments at Waterloo made an impression. In the war-
games they were the only cavalry allowed to engage a 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: Rick Pavek <kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Helos vs. tanks (Was Re: info wanted : tank tactics used in 
Organization: Boeing
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:13:54 GMT


From Rick Pavek <kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>

In article <Bz3v30.2v4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
>
>Here's my question.  What is the correct way for a tank to deal with a
>helocopter?  If you're in a tank, and you see an oncomming enemy helo,
>what do you do?
>

When I was in the army (gunner for both M-60A1 and M-551) there were many
times when I would track helos with my main gun.  Given that the helo didn't
know I was there and that it wasn't doing any evasive maneuvers, the helo
is no different a target than any other.  If you know the approximate range
and you've taken time previously to examine the differences in size between
other tanks (trucks or other know dimensions) and the helos so as to better
estimate the lead necessary to hit the target, I say sure.  It can be
done.  High explosive would work best as these things are comparatively
fragile, much more than a tank.

Unfortunately, they didn't let us practice with live rounds...  8-9

Rick
-----


-- 
Rick Pavek                       | Never ask a droid to outdo its program.
kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com    |           
Seattle, WA                      |   It wastes your time
                                 |          and annoys the droid.  

Newsgroups: sci.military