HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dave Pierson <pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: Daisycutter and query an unrelated query on IRCM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:43:47 GMT


From Dave Pierson <pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com>

In article <Bxq1LI.L4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, hill@plains.NoDak.edu
(Andrew Hill) writes, in part:

>I was noticing on the most recent episode of _Firepower_ (Available on
>Discovery Channel [a U.S. cable TV network]) which focused on the
>U.S.A.F.'s 1st SOW, that they had some wartime footage (gulfwar) of
>a C-130 dropping a 15kt conventional device with an apx 2-3 foot fuse 
>extender.  The narrator mentioned that 17 were dropped on bunkers 
>during the war.

	Hmmm.  Thought he said 6.  Whatever.  (and, this reply propbably belongs
	in the B/BLU82 string, since daisycutter may be something else...8)>>)
	Anyway, some one had asked about the employment/purpose of BBLU/82, they
	interviewed an a/c commander:  (from memory)

		"... they were dropped on bunker complexes, to encourage the
		Iraqi troops to refrain from offering effective oppostion
		to breaching operations..."

	Yup.  "encourage.... to refrain".  YOU BETCHA.  (I may be off a word
	or two, but that was the flavor...)

	(I suspect, in passing, the the BBLU82 is LESS subject to stray
	detonation than most things.  Its REAL similar to commercial anfo, which
	is noted for its insensitivity.  BBLU82 fires about 3 feet above the
	ground, with a "nose spike" fuze, if memory serves...)

		

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com	|I am the NRA.
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: explosives question
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:43:54 GMT


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


CONRAD DANIEL LLOYD-KNIGHT writes:
#3) Exactly what energy (in Joules) corresponds to a ton of TNT (since

TNT heat of explosion is 4310 kJ/kg. Conversion to kt equivalent is left
to the student :)


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: morwyn!forrie@uunet.UU.NET (Forrest Aldrich)
Subject: Desert Shield/Storm Submarine Activity
Organization: Vision Graphics
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:27:13 GMT


From morwyn!forrie@uunet.UU.NET (Forrest Aldrich)


Does anyone know about Submarine activity during the Gulf war?  I understand
the USS Bluefish (SSN-675) may have been stationed for a time, but am not
sure.

-- 
	   -----------	      Forrest Aldrich	      -----------
	   -------     morwyn!forrie@unhtel.unh.edu	  -------
	   ----						     ----
	   --	     VISION GRAPHICS --	Dover, NH - USA	       --
	   ------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Wednesday, 11 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:40:18 GMT


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

Wednesday, 11 November, 1942

German and Italian troops begin occupying Vichy France.  Italy also
sends troops to Corsica.  Hitler pledges to respect Spanish neutrality.

Vichy French forces in North Africa cease resistance as an armistice is
signed.

U-boats sink three transports, totalling some 35,000 tons, off the coast
of North Africa.

The Eighth Army captures Bardia and Sollum.

German troops launch another effort to destroy the Soviet bridgehead on the
west bank of the Volga River in Stalingrad.

Two Japanese merchant raiders attack a British minesweeper and tanker in
the Indian Ocean.  Despite being heavily outgunned, the British ships sink
one of the Japanese raiders and drive the other away.

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

"Today news reaches us that Hitler has decided to overrun all of France,
thus breaking the armistice to which the Vichy Government had kept such
pitiful and perverted fidelity at the horrible cost even of sacrificing
their ships and sailors in firing on American rescue ships." 
- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Anthony Lee <anthony@cs.uq.oz.au>
Subject: Firing 0.5 inch Browning in B17 formation ?
Keywords: Defensive fire, Flying Fortress
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:05:56 GMT


From Anthony Lee <anthony@cs.uq.oz.au>


During the daylight bombing campaign by the USAAF in WWII, B17
bombers flies in box formation.  The reason being, each B17 has a
number of 0.5 inch MG and flying in a box formation increases the
volume of fire.  My question is, how do the MGs from each plane
avoid hitting the other B17s in the formation ?



--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Nazi Operations in Palestine During WW2
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:21:11 GMT


From dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)

I have read in the book "The Quest for the Red Prince", by Michael
Bar-Zohar and Eitan Haber, that during WW2 there was a Nazi plan
to poison the water of Tel-Aviv in Palestine. It failed as
paratroopers who tried to carry it out were captured by the
British authorities.

I would be grateful for the citation of any other books or  
sources regarding this plot.

Thanks,

-Danny Keren.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: The use of unguided rockets in WWII
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:46:14 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <BxGrsF.75K@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Anthony Lee <anthony@cs.uq.oz.au> writes:
> Recently, in one of the threads, there is a mention of the 
> use of unguided rockets as air-to-surface weapons, in particular
> to attack tanks.  My question, is how do the pilots aim these
> weapons, since they are unguided ?

Assuming you are referring to the 3.5" (I think) rockets used by the RAF on
Hurricanes Tempests, Typhoons, Beaufughters, Mossies etc, it was quite simple.

You have a nice rudimentary sight that you line the target up with - then you
generally let loose with 4 or 8 rockets, the theory being that at least one of
the damn things must hit the target!  As you have surmised they were very
inaccurate and not particularly well liked by the pilots (except when they hit
- apparently they made some pretty huge explosions) as they caused a lot of
drag and made the aircraft handle like a pig.  Still they were a fore runner to
todays missiles so I guess it's like trying to compare the you beaut Apple ][
to a 486 or something.

regs

Rob

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Subject: Re: Ukraine to sell Tu-160
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:34:00 GMT


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

In <By4LHn.CtF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca> writes:


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

>According to Air International, the 19 Tu-160 Blackjack(?) strategic bombers
>in Ukrainian hands are literally unservicable because the Russian crews refuse
>to pledge loyalty to Ukrain and have gone back to Russia.  Ukrainian government
>is considering selling them.

>Who would buy them and what does this mean to international power balance?
>1. Russia.  The power balance is not really affected.  But do they want to?  Or
>perhaps more relevent, do they have the money?
>2. China.  The power balance in east Asia will be up side down.  Japan, Taiwan, 
>Indochina all the way down to Australia, and possibly India, will get very
>worried.
>3. India.  Then China, Pakistan will get very nervous.
>4. USA.  Only for research or "not letting falling into wrong hands".  But 19
>airframes are bit too many for research.

>Any comments?

   If the Ukraine can't service them, how will China or India? Do you think
   the Russian crews will pledge loyalty to China before the Ukraine? IMHO,
   Russia is the only viable buyer. (Unless you include the U.S.A...)

   Scott Young
   youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca
   All disclaimers apply.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rrg@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Rafael Rodriguez)
Subject: Re: Defining a Fleet Action
Organization: University of Melbourne
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:59:26 GMT


From rrg@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Rafael Rodriguez)

>From article <BxM5wL.4u4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (JHan):
> The battle of the River Plate (I believe that's the name) involved stopping a raiding force- hence a logistic maneuver.
> 
> 
I don't want to sound pedantic here, but the name of the place is
"Rio de la Plata" which means (roughly translated) Silver River. And
the battle is known (at least in spanish speaking countries) as
the battle of "Mar del Plata". That is the name of the sea where
the Rio de la Plata ends.

Regards,
Rafael Rodriguez


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Ranks & Stuff
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:27:08 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

Eric Chiang <schiangkw01@cc.curtin.edu.au> writes:

>What about the SEALs. Do they come under the Navy ranks?..

	Yes.  SEALs are Navy special forces, just as Green Beret's fall
under Army ranks since they are Army special forces.

	The Coast Guard follows Navy ranks, I believe, but the Coast
Guard is not part of the Navy.  They are part of the (get this!) Department
of Transportation.  In wartime, they fall in with the Navy I believe.

	Can any former members of the Order of the Orange Stripe lend
more information on this?  The Coast Guard tends to get overlooked when
thinking of naval power.

	Also, how does the US Merchant Marine rank, and under what
service do they fall in wartime?  They're really unknown, it seems.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hill@plains.NoDak.edu (Andrew Hill)
Subject: Re: Daisycutter
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:21:14 GMT


From hill@plains.NoDak.edu (Andrew Hill)

  In a recent post I mentioned that the weapon I saw on TV (Discovery chan-
nel, Firepower show) was "15kt".  _DDDUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!_  As several
people have pointed out to me through the mail this should have been 
_POUNDS_ not _TONS_!  

  I still don't know where my brain was at, but haven't ceased inquiring
its whereabouts at the time.  Sorry for the confusion folks.  I should 
have known better, but apparently didn't catch that screw-up in time.

-Andy Hill  (The Draken...  You figger it out!)


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jumper@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham)
Subject: electro-magnetic gun makes another step foward
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NCSU, Raleigh
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:21:20 GMT


From jumper@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham)


[paraphrased from ARMY, Nov 92,"High-Powered Electromagnetic Gun Sets Energy
Velociy Records", p55]

U of Texas Center for Electromagnetics used a electromagnetic gun to fire a
5.25 lb package to 8963ft/s(2732m/s). In comparison the standard Army tank
round has a muzzle velocity of 5276ft/s(1600m/s).  Muzzle energy of the
electric gun reached 8.8 MJ while a standard tank round produces about 11 MJ.

He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool;
and he who dares not is a slave.      --- Sir William Drummond

Michael Lanham       mjlanham@eos.ncsu.edu   &  jumper@catt.ncsu.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: Jutland
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:06:12 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <BxtKIu.221@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
> 
> From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
> 
> In article <BxM62I.580@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker) writes:
>> From phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker)
>  
>> s...  The British ships all had, and used, director firing, the
>> Germans did use a better gunnery technique of ladder firing which found the
>> range very quickly.  ...
> 
> Or these techniques?
> -- 
>  (This man's opinions are his own.)
>  From mole-end				Mark Terribile
> 
>  mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
> 

Another thing I find very interesting is that while the "old-fashioned"
technique of "ladder firing" had been discarded by the British in favor
of the centralised gun director, most accounts I've read credit the Ger-
mans with significantly better gunnery. I also find it interesting that
every other navy I've read about adopted director gun-control during/af-
ter WWI ( The British were the first to do so. When the war started most
of their battleships/cruisers hadn't been converted yet. The BC's used
in the Falklands being one example of non-centralised capital ships.), 
INCLUDING the Germans!

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: GPS vs "Friendly Fire"
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:18:55 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <Bxx2F4.C0@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>
>I'm curious.
>Did "every" vehicle in DS have a GPS unit? If so, how could GPS be used
>to prevent future "Friendly Fire" accidents?
>With digital encoding of radio signals, and GPS together, why couldn't
>all friendly units be tracked constantly, or at least "checked" before 
>fired upon? I know computer technology is there. Am I way behind here?
>Seems to me like a fire-system computer could do a .5 nano-second check
>on a target in aquisition. Of course I realize that in many cases, there
>is no time for anything other than kill or be killed.


I don't think every vehicle had GPS. At least I know that the Army bought
thousands of civilian GPS receivers and turned off the selective availability
degradation on the GPS satellites for the duration of the war so they could
use them. That indicates to me that they didn't have enough military capable
receivers. Now those civilian receivers couldn't be integrated into a central
tracking system. Also the entire GPS satellite constellation is not deployed
yet so there were times when the receivers didn't know where they were.
This affected the timing of some attacks, including the opening attack
from the air.

On the subject of digitally encoded radio. The Army bought amateur radio
TNCs on the open market to give them a digital communications capability.
These operate at 1200 baud on VHF and 300 baud on HF. Since they're half
duplex and operate an ARQ protocol, their thruput is effectively less than
half their baudrate. With the thousands of vehicles present, there simply
wasn't enough communications capability to update vehicle positions in
anything like real time. Besides, in a combat operation, total radio
silence is SOP until mainforce units are fully engaged. The radio signals
could give away your location to the enemy.

In addition, Iraqi amateur radio operators had this equipment too, and
in at least one documented case an Iraqi joined the network and sent a
query about the health and welfare of a relative in the battle area!!
The possibility of intercept when using such unsecure communications to 
send sensitive information like current vehicle positions should be 
clear. 

Finally, even assuming full availability of GPS and secure military
digital communications, sub-nanosecond fuzzy logic database searches 
aren't reality even in the fastest research computers. Fortunately,
such superfast searching isn't required, but the entire system should
be able to respond to a weapons system IFF query in under a second
to be useful in battle. That's way beyond the capabilities of anything
in military service at present.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us>
Subject: Re: WWII Battleships
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:34:04 GMT


From "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us>

"Richard H. Miller" <rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu> writes:

> The navy always said the "CB" designation meant large cruiser not battlecruis
> and they did not have the same guns as the battleships which was one of the
> characteristics of the 'true' battlecruiser.
> 
> Most of my references place them firmly in the cruiser family rather than the
> battleship family and this was the point of my original post; they should not
> be classed as a type of battleship. 
> 
> As far as the nomenclature issue, the USN designation for battlecruisers was
> either "BC" or "CC". I will also check this out when I get home. I have a
> vague memory that the original hull numbers for the Lexington and Saratoga
> were "CC".

  I guess this discussion really centers on the use of the term 
"battlecruiser". The book "Battleships, United States Battleships 
in WWII", printed by the Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Md. 
ISBN: 0-87021-099-8, details the Alaska class the same as it 
details the other battleships of WWII, and says the following....
"Although the ships were officially designated 'large cruisers', 
the traditional term, battlecruiser, will be used here, as their 
design was typical of that type of ship."
  This book also terms these ships as "white elephants" and 
credits their construction "largely the result of President 
Roosevelt's desire for ships to counter the raiding threat of 
Japanese cruisers and the German Shcarnhorst and Gneisenau."
  BTW, the arthors of this book are two naval architects, one of 
them a former naval officer, the other works for the navy, and the 
drawing for the book were done by the Curator of ship models of 
the Naval Academy Museum. 
  Although not "officially" correct, the term "battlecruiser" does 
seem to have been applied to these ships in practice by the naval 
experts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
             Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI -
                         gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: RPG Combat Rules & Reality
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:40:19 GMT


From HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)

In <BxtK1y.1Ay@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> billmcc@seanews.akita.com writes:

> 
> From billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)
> 
> In article <Bxq1G2.At@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MegaZone23 <megazone@hikita.wpi.edu> writes:
> >Modern jackets/vests are fairly effective, but one thing most games ignore is
> >kinetic energy. Sure, so you got DAMN lucky and the .44 didn't punch through
> 
> I've always wondered about this.  The person *shooting* the .44 had to
> accept just as much momentum when shooting as the bullet imparts to the
> recipient.
> 
> It seems like if the vest distributes this over a wide enough area you
> could void any damage at all.

  Well, yes but this is pretty tricky, I would think.  And in answer to the
question concerning about the shooter receiving momentum, consider that the
shooter has shock absorbtion available (stocks, gas bleeds, the motion of the
body or hands backwards, momentum absorbed by the mass of the weapon itself, 
etc.).  The target has to absorb all that kinetic force on a spot somewhat
smaller than a dime...


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Monday, 9 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:17:53 GMT


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

Monday, 9 November, 1942

Admiral Darlan and Lt. General Mark Clark discuss a ceasefire in French
North Africa, as General Giraud enters Algeria to urge support for the
Allies.  Fighting meanwhile continues, with heavy combat taking place near
Oran and at Port Lyautey.

Vichy France breaks off diplomatic relations with the United States and 
Canada.

German troops are landed by aircraft in Tunisia; French forces there do no
oppose the invasion.

New Zealanders enter Sidi Barrani, pursuing Rommel's forces.

US Marines surround Japanese units at Gavaga Creek, Guadalcanal.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker   Moderator, sci.military  military-request@att.att.com
(614) 860-5294      Send submissions to military@att.att.com

"Our Algeria, our Morocco, our Tunisia, are to be made the jumping-off
ground for the liberation of France." - General Charles de Gaulle
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: RPG Combat Rules & Reality
Keywords: rpg
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:43:46 GMT


From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)

In article <BxtK1y.1Ay@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick) writes:
>I've always wondered about this.  The person *shooting* the .44 had to
>accept just as much momentum when shooting as the bullet imparts to the
>recipient.

>It seems like if the vest distributes this over a wide enough area you
>could void any damage at all.

>Am I missing something?  The only thing I can think of is that it's
>the v(elocity) component that makes the difference of E=mv^2.

In comparisons of ammunition, the energy not the momentum is 
usually tabulated, and many state hunting laws require a 
minimum bullet energy (to avoid wounding instead of killing game.)
I think it's energy not momentum that would reflect the damage a
bullet does. 

As for spreading out the energy over a greater area, that certainly
helps, but the real question is over how large an area? A punch
delivers on the order of 50 ft-lbs spread out over the area of the
fist. That's about a tenth the energy of a pistol bullet. Even if the
vest distributes the bullet's energy over a similar area, it would 
still be an order of magnitude worse than a punch. Since punches 
occasionally result in broken bones, I'd think a bullet stopped by
a bullet-proof vest has a reasonable chance of doing the same.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boudler


Newsgroups: sci.military