HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: What are Katyusha rockets ?
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:33:35 GMT


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

I wasn't near any of my information before, so the information on the
Katyusha's was from memory. Anyway, what I have on them:
 
Manufacturer: Russia, C.I.S.
Dimensions: 
Length: standard rocket: 10 ft 7 in (3.23 m)
        short rocket: 6 ft 3 in (1.9 m)
Diameter: 4.8 in (122 mm)
Weights: standard rocket: 169.8 lb (77 kg)
         short rocket: 101 lb (45.8 kg)
Range: Standard rocket: 12.7 miles (20.4 km)
       short rocket: 6.83 miles (11 km)
Warhead: 42.8 lb (19.4 kg) types HE, fragmentation, incendiary, smoke,
         chemical, and submunition. 
Crew: 10
Reload time: 10 minutes
Users: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bulgaria, Chad, China, Cuba,
       Egypt, Ethiopia, Germany, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, 
       North Korea, Libya, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan,
       Poland, Syria, Tanzania, C.I.S., Vietnam, North and South
       Yemen, and Zambia (these are known users)
Notes:
Developed in WW II, the Soviet Union deployed these along the Eastern
Front against Germany. They are fired usually in salvos, and have the
greatest effect against infantry. They are cheap, simple, and while
not terribly devastating, they can cause a lot of damage, and are even
worse on morale. The original, BM-13, went to BM-24, and now BM-21
Katyusha. The current system entered service in the early 1960's
mounted in 40 tubes on the back of a URAL 375 6X6 truck, with a
central tire pressure regulator to allow the crew to adjust the
vehicle to the terrain. There is also a 36 round version mounted on a
ZIL-131 truck (NATO designation M1976) and a special airborne version,
12 rounds on a GAZ-66 4X4 (NATO M1975.) The only difference in the
rockets is the propellent size, which is solid. While low tech, these
are effective anti-personnel weapons.
Variants are: 
China: 40 round truck mounted Type 81
       40 round tank mounted Type 81
       24 round truck mounted Type 83
Egypt: 40 round reverse engineered 21 and 30 round, truck mounted, and
       Sakr-18 and Sakr-30
India: 40 round LRAR system
North Korea: 30 round truck mounted BM-11
Romania: 21 round on a Bucegi SR-114 truck
Czechoslovakia: BM-21 mounted on a TATRA 8X8 813, with a 40 reload
                between the launcher and the armored cab called RM-70
                (These were mostly export versions, I'm not sure in
                the Czechs used them.)
 
Operationally, they were to be fired in 18 unit battalions in the
Soviet Union, much as the BM-13 was used on the Eastern Front. Most
people have described them as "having a bark worse than there bite,"
that is, they will make a lot of noise, but unless against personnel,
not do too much. The Germans therefore called them Stalin's Organ.

-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Thursday, 5 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:17:41 GMT


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

Thursday, 5 November, 1942

Rommel attempts to organize a defensive position at Fuka but is unable to
stop the Allied advance.

Lt. General Eisenhower flies to Gibraltar to establish his command post 
for Operation Torch.  Admiral Cunningham will head naval operations during
the landing, while the air forces will be led by General Doolittle and Air
Marshal Welsh.

Australian troops attach the Japanese rear guard at Oivi, New Guinea.

On Guadalcanal, two battalions cross the Nalimbiu River in an attempt to
surround Japanese units near Koli Point.

The Vichy Governor-General of Madagascar surrenders the French forces on
the island.

Reporter: John D Hightower <75430.2176@CompuServe.COM>
Reference: "Soldiers Magazine"

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

"We will not stop fighting now.  We will wipe out all the Axis forces in
North Africa." - General Bernard Montgomery
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Best piece of Artillery you ever saw
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:50:36 GMT


From Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>

In article <Bxq1Lp.nJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>I don't officially know if nuke rounds are available
>for the 16" 50cals on the Navy ships. ;-)

They were in the 50's; Mk.23's, 15-20 kT, now defunct, according to Chuck
Hansen's way-cool _U.S. Nuclear Weapons_.  I seem to remember reading
somewhere else that the loadout was nine per BB.  I trust that it was just
force of habit, and not reflective of a notion to fire them in salvoes... 

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: G-6 (Was: Best piece of artillery...)
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:47:26 GMT


From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>

>From Rusty <rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu>

>The other note is a subtle one: the range of the gun when using
>base bleed projectiles is rumored to be substantially greater than that
>published. 

Rumours are exactly that. But, if the specified range concerns
sea level firings, you can get slightly more range than that in
the thinner air at higher altitudes.

>And, I might add, I paced off the barrel length on
>the ground, did some trig, and concluded that the elevation was a few
>degrees less than the ballistically optimum 45 degrees...

This optimum is only valid in a vacuum. In an atmosphere, 
maximum range is obtained with lower elevations.
--
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  LTV N-2???
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:59:28 GMT


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


At a recent postcard show I picked up an extremely interesting card:

The picture is of a submarine, apparently an unmodified GATO/BALAO (?)
class, firing a vehicle which closely resembles a V-1 ("buzz bomb")
rearward from a ramp.

The V-1-lookalike is basically white, with red and yellow wide
single
bands around the nose. The pulse-jet unit is dark gray.

The caption says "LTV-N-2 Being Launched from Submarine". It's a fairly
old card, as the printer's address has no ZIP code.

Any information would be appreciated.

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: Stefan Kronkvist INF <skronkvi@aton.abo.fi>
Subject: What are Katyusha rockets ?
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:06:02 GMT


From Stefan Kronkvist INF <skronkvi@aton.abo.fi>


Respond to Steven Schultz.

You forget one user: Finland.

I am not an expert on the Stalin's Organ,but I have seen them in action.
During my time in the artillery we once were on a 3 weeks training camp 
to Lappland.The last day we were able to watch a show were another artillery
brigade took care of the program.

First they were shooting a couple of shoots with soviet-made 122 mm
cannons (the same kind I have seen being used in Yoguslavia),then with 
155 mm Tampella cannons (max range about 40 km).

The most impressing was,however,when they used 6 Stalin's Organs
to launch 240 rockets in about 16 seconds.The target area was about 600 *
200 m.It was not much left of the woods there...

When the finns were about to buy the launchers it was ment to put them on 
finnish-made RASI SISU trucks,but when the launchers arrived they were 
already mounthed on URAL 6x6 trucks.The deal was that if we bought the 
launchers we would get the trucks for free.

Russian-made trucks are,however,in general very good off-road trucks.The
machine is not first class,but once you get it started it will take you 
almost anywhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan V.Kronkvist
skronkvi@aton.abo.fi                               19.11.92
Abo Akademi University 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: foxtrot-class ex-soviet sub ?
Keywords: what specs ?
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:33:27 GMT


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

Foxtrot-class 
Project 641
Manufacturer: Sudomekh Shipyard No. 196, United Admiralty Association,
              St. Petersburg, Russia, C.I.S.
Number of units: approx. 40
Years built: 1958-1973
Displacement: 1,950 tons surfaced; 2,400 tons submerged
Length: 295 ft 3 in (90.0 m) waterline
        300 ft 2 in (91.5 m) overall
Beam: 24 ft 7 in (7.5 m)
Draft: 20 ft (6.1 m)
Propulsion: 3 37D diesel engines in early units and 2D42 diesel
            engines in later units; 6,000 b.h.p.; 3 electric motors, 
            5,300 s.h.p.; three shafts 
Speed: 16 knots surfaced; 15.5 knots submerged
Range: 20,000 n. miles surfaced at economical speed; 11,000 n. miles
       on snorkel at 8 knots
        350 n.miles submerged at 2 knots
Depth: 985 ft (300 m)
Complement: 78 (8 officers and 70 enlisted)
Missiles: None
Torpedo tubes: 10 21 in (533 mm) M-57: 6 bow + 4 stern in early units
               later units have 4 15.75 in (400 mm) tubes stern
Torpedos: 22
Mines: 44 can be carried instead of torpedos
Radar: Snoop Tray
       Snoop Slab refitted in some units
Sonar: Herkules medium-frequency
       Feniks passive
EW systems: Stop Light 
Endurance: approx. 70 days
Users: 59 for Soviet Union (40 believed in service with C.I.S.)
       3 for Cuba, ex-Soviet transferred in 1979, 1980, 1984
       8 for India, Kursura-class, first delivered in 1968
       6 for Libya, Al Badr-class, ex-Soviet transerred 1976-1983 
Notes: 
These subs were designed as a successor to the Zulu-class, and the
second largest conventional attack sub built by any nation since WW
II. Some estimates have said production was 80. There is no way,
cuurently, to varify. Some may have been lost. The subs are
double-hull configuration, with the pressure hull diameter approx. 13
ft 2 in (4 m). There are several different limber-hole configurations.
Fuel capacity is 360 tons.
Some units have been converted in oceanographic research. When they
have been, they have been seen with "star" names on their sail, which
include: Globus, Saturn, Sirius, and Regul.
Names: 
Known Soveit names were to honor young Communist groups (Komsomol):
Chelyabinskiy Komsomolets; Komsomolets Kazakhstana; Kuibishevskiy
Komsomolets; Magnitogorskiy Komsomolets; Ul'yanovskiy Komsomolets;
Vladimirskiy Komsomolets; Yaroslavskiy Komsomolets. 

-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)
Subject: Re: Nimitz class carrier names
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:35:58 GMT


From yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)

In article <BxKAnu.Et5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Ernest Cline <@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu:cline@cs.scarolina.edu> writes:
>
>From Ernest Cline <@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu:cline@cs.scarolina.edu>
>
>Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu> writes:
>
>[stuff deleted...]
>
>The CVN 74 is now building and is supposed to be named after some
>Congress-critter but IMHO should be named CVN 74 Thomas Jefferson
>so that CVN 71-74 have all four of the Mt. Rushmore Presidents covered.
>Ships have changed names before being commissioned, so there is hope!

The name for CVN-74 is John C. Stennis.  Apparently he was in the Senate
forever.  I also think he was chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

>
>The CVN 75 United States is planned for, but might just go the way of its
>antecedent the CV 58 United States and not get built at all.
>
>-- 
>Ernest Cline	cline@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu	TheUSC
>


-- 
Craig Huffnagle       			yukyuk@yuck.lanl.gov
"It takes a big man to cry,
	And a bigger man to laugh at him."	Jack Handey
------------- Think of a disclaimer, it applies. --------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: P-38's armament arrangement (was "Number Thirty-eight....)
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:06:08 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

I believe that the Bf-110 had an armament arrangement
similar to the P-38's & was flown well before the Lightning. The Bf-
110's armament could even be considered superior since even the early
models had 2-20mm cannon & 4-7.7mm machineguns. Later models went all
the way up to 2-30mm & 2-20mm cannon in the nose & 2-20mm "Schrage
Musik" upward-slanted cannon in the fuselage.

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Mark A. Natola" <natola@coos.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: MIG 21
Keywords: Information wanted
Organization: D.M.S. Section of Neurology
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:29:51 GMT


From "Mark A. Natola" <natola@coos.dartmouth.edu>

I am looking for information on the Mig 21 two seat trainer variant.  Any 
suggestions???

thanks  Mark

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Saturday, 7 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:17:47 GMT


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

Saturday, 7 November, 1942

Axis submarines begin attacking the Torch convoys.  The transport Thomas
Stone is torpedoed and badly damaged; the troops aboard are taken off on
landing craft.

French General Giraud, who earlier escaped a German prison, is rescued from
the French coast by the submarine HMS Seraph and taken to Gibraltar, where
he meets with General Eisenhower to discuss his role in Operation Torch.
Giraud initially believes he has been called to lead the entire operation
and only reluctantly agrees to oversee the civil administration of French
Northwest Africa after its conquest.

References:
C.Argyle, _Chronology of World War II_
R.Dupuy and T.Dupuy, _The Encyclopedia of Military History_
R.Goralski, _World War II Almanac, 1931-1945_
J.Keegan, ed., _The Times Atlas of the Second World War_
C.Messenger, _Atlas of World War Two_
J.Piekalkiewicz, _Tank War 1939-1940_
J.Rowher and G. Hummelchen, _Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-1945_
Royal Institute of International Affairs, _Chronology of the Second 
	World War_
C.Salmaggi and A.Pallavisini, _2194 Days of War_
Brig. P.Young, _The World Almanac of World War II_
The New York Times, daily editions
Time magazine
Newsweek

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

"At that moment, only four tanks were ready for action..." - Colonel Hans
von Luck, in _Panzer Commander_, describing the situation in North Africa
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Spy Satellites for the UAE?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:06:17 GMT


From kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)

In article <BxvFLL.90o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Stephen M Jameson <sjameson@fergie.dnet.ge.com> writes:
>From Stephen M Jameson <sjameson@fergie.dnet.ge.com>
>
>I heard on the news this morning a report that the US is considering selling a
>"Super-Secret Spy Satellite" to the United Arab Emirates.  Does anybody know
>any more details than this?  I am primarily interested in the rationale and
>logistics for such a sale, as I don't expect details of the satellite itself to
>be available.

	I could not concieve of selling a top of the line satellite to any 
nation ( except maybe Britian). I would be dubious about even an older 
model. If they were to help out the UAE, I would think it would be in the 
form of selling information. That is, the USA keeps the satellite and 
devotes a small team to spy upon Iraq, Iran, etc for the UAE. The UAE tells 
them what they want looked at, and the team does so. Then, they just give 
the UAE the information, not the technology. It would also be much more cost 
effective, as the UAE would not have to duplicate all the recieving 
stations, computer support, etc. 

	If for any reason, in the future we loose our "friendly status", 
they can not sell the technology to others. 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jbutt@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Pearl Harbour was not first!!!
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:19:18 GMT


From jbutt@kean.ucs.mun.ca

To all of you who think that the U.S. ws the first to be taken by 
surprise in port. examine the following.
Tatanto 1941 (?) RN launshed Fairley Swordfish Torpedo bomnbers and 
managed to pretty much put the Italian Navy pout of comission for the 
duration of the war.
Cruxhaven Dec 25, 1914
Royal Naval Air Service  While trying to distroy the Zepplin sheds at 
Cruxhaven were foiled by fog. Moved to secondary target at Imperial 
german naval base Wilhelnshaven and proceeded to bomb both the dock 
facilities and the ships at anchor. As can be expected, 20lb bombs 
will not do much damage, but the Germans were forced to expend a great 
deal of effort to protect this base. Much of which would have better 
served the German war effort on the western front.

Jonathan D. Butt


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Change of M17A2 mask to M40 mask?
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:24:36 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <BxM5x3.50E@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
92vanatter@gw.wmich.edu writes:

> The new M40 seems like a step back, with the filter attached from the 
> side of the mask.  I feel the M17A2 was more ergonomically designed 
> with the filters integrated within the mask.  Thus your mask would not
> catch on as many things, more freedom of movement.

In addition to Don Palmrose's pertinent comments about the "nerd from 
outer space" look, there is the small matter of trying to look thru the
sights of a rifle while wearing an M17 mask.  That inch thick filter 
really gets in the way, requiring the user to adopt a goofy stock weld
where your head is laying sideways across the top of the stock.  Great fun
and loads of laughs every year when we "qualified with a gas mask", but
I don't want to be shooting at targets who are shooting back under these
circumstances.

From what I've been told, the M40 will have a left and right handed version
that will allow the user to have the filter on the side opposite his rifle.
Between this capability and the allowance for wearing glasses that Don 
mentioned, it may be possible to deliver accurate fire while wearing this
gas mask.  Certainly more possible than with the M40.

Oh, the M17 gold ring filters could be rendered useless by 15 minutes of
exposure to Cyanogen Chloride.  Try changing those filters while holding
your breath!  (The green ring filters had the same exposure limit to CK,
but had a longer shelf life than the gold ring filters.)  The four hour 
value refers to "normal" operations thru areas of chemical contamination
assuming the contaminants were non-persistent nerve agents under conditions
of standard temperature and pressure.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Re: Discussion Of Shallow Water ASW
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:47:09 GMT


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

In article <BxKAzI.FH0@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy) writes: 

> First, it is my understanding that shallow water does not allways 
> deteriorate sonar perfomance.  A lot of this depends on the sea floor and 
> the local conditions of the water.  I have seen a few submarine books t 
> (along with a few "attemped" computer simulations) make shallow water sonar 
> performance to be nill.  While the ability to use long array devices and 
> some convergence zones may be lost, I still wouldn't say that sonar 
> performance is "severely degraded."  
> 
> Some forms of active sonar do very well in shallow water (medium freq. hull 
> mount I think).  Again a lot would depend on the geography.  It is probably 
> a lot easier to find a submarine in the perisan gulf than off the coast of 
> Norway.
One of the problems the USN has is that its hull sonars have tended to be LF
rather than MF in recent years to improve deep water range and so forth.  I
understand that the LF active sonar tends to penetrate bottom mud and so forth
and either be absorbed or create multiple echoes.  (This is from memory so I
may be way off here)  As to towed systems they tend to ride relatively deep,
especially at slow speeds, and don't function well when bent (when the towing
ship maneuvers).  This would badly undermine their utility.
 
> In shallow water other ASW devices besides sonar excell.  IR and actual 
> visual spotting come to mind.  MAD should still retain most if not all of 
> its effectiveness.  Also, I would think surface wakes produced by the 
> submerged boat would be much more prominant.
The problem with these is that spotting ranged are much worse than with
acoustic systems, requiring lots of platforms to cover an area like the Gulf.
 
> I think one of the major problems in shallow water ASW is the performance 
> of ASW torpedoes.    How well would a Mk-46 fare in a shallow water 
> situation?  In many shallow water situations depth charges might be more 
> effective.
> 
This was (is?) a problem for several reasons.  One big one is that the
batteries on many torps don't activate until they hit seawater and in real
shallow situations they would bottom before the prop kicks in.  Also the ttack
sonar is more likely to be confused by bottom debris, currents etc.  I
understand that this is one reason that the new French Murene can track
multiple targets, to help sort real targets from junk. 

-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Back off man.  I'm a political scientist!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Emmanuel Baechler <baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch>
Subject: AUG (Was M16A2)
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:30:40 GMT


From Emmanuel Baechler <baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch>


>>but the Steyr design has now won out over the M-16 in a lot of 
>>countries.
>
> Oh, is that right?  How many?  Name them?

The Steyr AUG has now been sold to more that 20 armies. I don't remember all
of them, but I remeber that it has been sold to Australia, to several arabian
countries and to the Netherlands.

Many police or border services have also adopted it. If memory serves me, a
US service (something like border guard or custom unit) did so.

Emmanuel Baechler.                        | Tel.: ++41-21-693-2732
Laboratoire d'Intelligence Artificielle   | e-mail: baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne  |     or: baechler@liasun6.epfl.ch
MA-Ecublens                               | Standard Disclaimer
CH-1015 Lausanne	Switzerland

Ban the bomb. Save the world for conventional warfare.

Newsgroups: sci.military