HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: German nuclear research in WW2
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:23:40 GMT
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA


From "Eugene N. Miya" <eugene@nas.nasa.gov>

In article <C1D84A.989@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> aylwyn@maths.tcd.ie
(Aylwyn Scally) writes:
>It seems to be a commonly held view that by the end of the Second World War,
>German physicists were very close to developing their own atomic bomb.

No where near.

>However, Gleick, in his biography of Feynman, suggests that most physicists
>in Britain and the US at the time doubted the existence of a German atomic
>programme, on the grounds that there had been very little published research
>from Germany in this field.

You interpret this wrong.  America published little.  The German program
was known.  That knowledge got the US program going.

>While this may be the case, I do recall reading somewhere that the large
>heavy-water distilling plant (the name of which I cannot remember) in Nazi-
>controlled Norway was considered a serious-enough threat for them to try to
>destroy it.

Norsk Hydro plant in Telemark.  A popular film and a documentary exist
on its destruction.

>Does anyone know of any evidence confirming or disputing the existence of a
>German nuclear research programme? If there was one, was it very far
>advanced by the time the war ended? 

Visit a decent University library.  The history is documented.
The number of reference pages is in the dozens.
New documents are going to be published by the Engish shortly.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Associate Editor, Software and Publication Reviews
  Scientific Programming
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Seeking Books to buy:	Bongard, Pattern Recognition
			3 down 1 to go.
From: patrick.eves@canrem.com (Patrick Eves)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: af news svc 01/14/93
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:56:23 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


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


>>From the news I heard the Iraq simply turn off their radar this
>time and the HARMs missed their target.  Can anyone confirm this
>and if it is true then is there another way of knocking out
>the Iraqi's AA radars ?

Hi Anthony,

The HARM (High speed AntiRadiation Missle) was developed specifically because
the previous antiradiation missle, the Shrike, was found to be too slow to 
hit a given radar site before well trained operators could shut down and break
the missle's lock.  If the Iraqis (and presumably others) are now getting fast
enough to beat the HARM, then I suppose it's time to head back to the drawing
board and develop a faster missle.  Not much of a problem, really.  The HARM
is 15 year old technology, and it uses components originally developed for the
Shrike, an even older system.  A more powerful motor and faster lock-on would
do the trick, as well as adding a "home on last known position" feature, similar
to the one already used on laser guided GBUs.

Pat
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ Pardon me, but do you have any grey poop on?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: monsuez@genievre (Bruno Monsuez)
Subject: Re: carrier info.wanted !
Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure, PARIS, France
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:49:18 GMT


From monsuez@genievre (Bruno Monsuez)

In article <C1D89x.9GC@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Patrick Eves  
<patrick.eves@canrem.com> writes:
> 
> From Patrick Eves <patrick.eves@canrem.com>
> 
> 
> 
> Hi there.  I'll take a crack at this, with the understanding that there
> will probably be some errors, and others will no doubt delight in 
> correcting them...
> 
> SI>1) How many carriers do UK,USA and France have? (names if possible)
> 
> UK - 3 light carriers
> US - 14 fleet carriers plus 13 "helicopter carriers" called LHAs, that
> most other countries would consider light aircraft carriers (they actually
> do operate V/STOL Harriers).
> France - 2 light carriers (but bigger than UK's "light carriers") and one
> helicopter carrier. 
> 
> SI>2) What kind of aircrafts are they using at their carriers?
> 
> UK - Harriers, plus Sea King and Lynx helicopters.
> US - F-14s, F/A-18s, A-6s, S-3s, E-2s, Sea Kings, SH-60s...I dunno, lots.
> France - F-8 Crusaders, plus choppers and one other attack jet that I forget
> right now.
> 
Breguet Alizee, Etendard IV as a reco aircraft, and Super Etendard as an
attack plane, plus some helicopters. The F-8 Crusaders are still used
for Air Superiority !!! and are a bit out of date. 

> SI>6) Are there any major differenses between British,French and US carriers.
> 
> Many.  American carriers are big, very big.  The newest displace around
> 95,000 tons.
>  British and French carriers displace around 16,000 and 22,000
> tons, respectively.  This means many more aircraft, of many different  
varieties,
> are carried. 

French and American carriers are conventional carriers, operating
non VSTOL aircraft.
  
> As one fellow put it, "An American carrier air wing would make
> a great air force for a small country".

About 80+ aircrafts.

> British and French carriers carry
> smaller numbers of aircraft, of only one or two varieties.

At least three varieties,  and about 40+ aircrafts, in the french navy.
Landing on such a small and busy aircraft carrier is a real challenge. 

For the britisch, from what i red, 10 Harriers and 10 Sea Lynx are the
standard dotation.

> The newest American carriers are nuclear powered, 
> whereas British and French ones aren't, although
> the French are building two new nuclear powered ones.
> 
> 
> There, that's my bit.  Hope it was of some help.
> 
> Pat
> ---
>  ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #12341 ~ Ensign Pillsbury?  He's BREAD, Jim!
> --
> Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
> World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044


Bruno Monsuez (monsuez@dmi.ens.fr)
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:39:04 GMT


From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>

In article <C19nMn.2wn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Andre Molyneux <andrem@pyrman2.mis.pyramid.com> writes:
>
>
>The discussion of the nuclear test involving the Saratoga got me
>wondering about what shape the battleship Nevada was in after the
>test.  I had heard (don't know if it was accurate) that the Nevada
>was near the center of one of the blasts, but wasn't sunk during
>the test.
>
>Do any of the documents that have been quoted have photos or give
>a description of her condition?  Also, how was she eventually sunk?
>Torpedoes?

I don't have any documents handy, so all this is from my increasingly
inaccurate memory.

After getting nuked twice, they used the Nevada as a target for torpedo
planes. When that didn't sink her either, they sent in the Iowa and 
friends, which finally did sink her. (grumble, grumble grumble)

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

I hope they saved a few other relics besides the silver set. The ship
deserved a better fate than she got.

				David R. Wells

DISCLAIMER: My opinions, not AT&Ts.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Lewisite and Lyddite (was: Re: W.W. I chemical munitions dump 
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:44:54 GMT


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

In article <C0utnw.JLw@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Larry Schuette <schuette@roadkill.nrl.navy.mil> writes:

>	Why chemical weapons inside Washington D.C.?  Well, it is a 
>little known fact that my alma matter was responsible for Lewisite.
>Catholic University of America Professor Lewis, under contract to the
>USA, invented Lewisite at CUA in (around) 1917 (funny how the brochures for
>the school never mention this fact).  Apparently, the army had scientists
>at American University working on perfecting and building prototype
>chemical munitions in the Spring Valley area.

What was Lewisite? Was it a blistering agent?

A related question. After the thread on Jutland I read a few of the
books and there was mention of British AP shells filled with Lyddite.
What was Lyddite, and why did it stain everything (including splashes)
green?






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:26:50 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden


From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)

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

>That's what I was getting at. The original poster seemed to be questioning
>the effectiveness of antiship missiles due to the effectiveness of shipboard
>close in defense systems. My response was meant to ask "Effective against
>what?" There are many different threat levels, and the systems are meant
>to address them all, yet we've really only seen the lower end of the
>threat spectrum.

There are a lot of things you can do with the missile to essentially render
most of the current gun based CIWS helpless against wave attacks.

cheers

--
     Erik Svensson
    Research Officer            National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
 Guided Weapons Division        Stockholm, Sweden      eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
 -- Hobbes
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:51:13 GMT


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

In article <C17vLw.Eo6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Geoff Miller <Geoff.Miller@corp.sun.com> writes:
>drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (david.r.wells) writes:
>
>>But 5 meg bombs are awfully rare these days. Even US ICBMs don't carry
>>much more than 350k warheads. 
>
>Why are megaton-range weapons rare in this day and age?  Also, what are
>typical yields of the various nuclear gravity bombs still in inventory?

In a word, overkill.  Nuclear weapons effects scale up with yield on a
Y^(2/3) basis - most targets are effectively flat, while a nuclear
explosion is a decidedly three-dimensional phenomenon.  A 1MT weapon is
thus "only" one hundred times more destructive than a 1kT device, rather
than one thousand.  Larger weapons are thus inherently less efficient
against targets of most conceivable hardnesses. 

The large yields of older-generation weapons are more artifacts of
accuracy concerns and manufacturing economics (A 10 MT warhead is about as
complex as a 1MT, if not more so, and they use about the same amount of
special nuclear material - the big production bottleneck - so...) than of
tactics.

Current gravity bombs yield between 50kT and 1MT, often in the same
device, courtesy of modular nuclear components and "dial-a-yield" schemes.   
--
   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: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
Subject: Re: Missle Destroyers 
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:40:47 GMT


From yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)

In article <C15y9u.K5r@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, jeff stump <austlcm.sps.mot.com!jeffs@austlcm.sps.mot.com> writes:

>   I read a report saying one of the ships used to
> fire missles the other day was the U.S. Stump. 
> Does anyone know more about this ship ? Why did
> they pick this name ? What type 'class' is it ?

Sounds like a Improved DD963.  I think they carry Tomahawks in their Mk-41s.  I
have also seen pictures of DD963 with ABLs.

SF
bvc

-- 
******************************************************************************
*           "I didn't think I ate that much!"                                *
*                                       -- Ding Chavez                       *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*                yuqian.bvc.edu		    the Suicidal Freshman            *
******************************************************************************
From: Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:41:08 GMT


From Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov>

In article <C17vx9.F80@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Stefan Kronkvist INF <skronkvi@aton.abo.fi> writes:
> 
> I am looking for general aircraft-carrier information.
> 
> 1) How many carriers do UK,USA and France have? (names if possible)

For US carriers, I'm not quite sure how many are left but I'll give it a shot
(I don't have a Jane's Fighting Ship handy)

Saratoga,  Forrestal,  Enterprise,  Ranger,  Kitty Hawk,  Independence,  
Kennedy,  Nimitz,  Vinson,  Eisenhower,  Roosevelt,  Lincoln 

Am I missing 2 more?  Lexington may only be used for training now.

[mod note -- Lexingtion is going to be de-commissioned (or may have been
already, and Forrestal is taking her place.

You missed the Constellation (part of the JFK/Kitty Hawk class)

Midway was on it's way back from Japan to be de-commissioned

Steve]

> 2) What kind of aircrafts are they using at their carriers?

US naval aircraft are: 
F-14  interceptor
F/A-18  fighter/bomber
A-6   bomber
EA-6B  electronic countermeasures
S-3   ASW turbojet aircraft
SH-3  ASW helo
SH-60  ASW helo
E-3   early warning radar plane
C-2   cargo/transport plane

> 3) What kind of defensive weaponry is usually fitted on a carrier (exept
>    for the planes of course)?

US carriers have:
Phalanx CIWS
NATO Sea Sparrow
Older ships might have 2 to 4 5"Mk48s if they have not been removed

> 4) Did UK use their carrier(s) at the 'Falklands-War'? 

Yes

> 5) When is the average western carrier built (-50:s -60:s ...)?

All US carriers are now from the mid-1950's and later.

> 6) Are there any major differenses between British,French and US carriers.

Yes, the US carriers are much bigger coming in at about 96K tons fully loaded.

>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stefan Kronkvist                                    skronkvi@aton.abo.fi
> Abo Akademi University
> Finland
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

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



========== 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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Snipers at Stalingrad
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:38:07 GMT


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

In article <C15y9p.K44@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> z_kupkams@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>    Also, John Denver ( Yes the Singer ) was a sniper in Vietnam, and I believe
>that he had 70+ confirmed kills. 80 to 100 does sound reasonable for
>Stalingrad.

>[mod note -- I asked Michael for confirmation of this, and he replied that
>he had read it in a non-military publication.  Can any other readers out there
>verify that John Denver was a U.S. Army sniper? 

I don't know anything about Denver, but I have heard of another famous,
unlikely personality who was: Dr. Ruth (the sweet, grandmotherly, sex
"expert"/therapist/whatever) was a sniper in the Isreali army in the
early 1950s)... (Yes... I do have a source: P. J. O'Rourke's interview
with her...)

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: 1st Infantry Div. in Desert Storm
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:00:20 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

  John Keegan in a review of a book on the Gulf War :
         
>    The Gulf Conflict,1990-1991:Diplomacy and War in the New World Order
>    by Lawrence Friedman and Efraim Karsh     pub. Faber
> 
> states : "In particular, the success of the US 1st Infantry Division's
>           engineers in opening a way through the minefields, which
>           professionals think as remarkable as anything done in the air
>           war is not discussed at all."

And what about the Marine Combat Engineers?  Seems I recall hearing Stormin
Norman say something like "absolutely superb" about their breaching operation.

Not to take any glory away from the big red 1, but the USMC did one heck of a
minefield breaching job there too.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 MSgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stephen M Jameson <sjameson@hannibal.atl.ge.com>
Subject: Scope of Action-US Military
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:27:02 GMT


From Stephen M Jameson <sjameson@hannibal.atl.ge.com>

>
>Please return your article after editing, and I will be happy to post it.
>Thanks.

Edited article follows:

****************************************************************************

>
>>.........  Could the US President (as C-in-C) order Federal troops to
>>operate within US Territorial borders?  
>>
[...]
>Of course he can. Lincoln even sent troops into the Maryland State
>legislature to prevent the state from voting for secession. That action
>is considered illegal, but the Civil War has generally been accepted as
>having set the precedent for the right of the President to use the US
>military within the United States.
[...]
>There are other examples; Kennedy sent troops into Alabama in the 60s.

Another example is the time when Douglas MacArthur, as Army Chief of Staff
(early 1930's, I believe), used Federal troops to drive the "Bonus
Expeditionary Force" from Washington.  This was a group of a few thousand WW1
soldiers, many of whom had fought under MacArthur, who, having fallen on hard
economic times, came to Washington, camped on the Mall (I think), and demanded
that Congress provide them with a promised "bonus".  I don't recall the history
or justification of their claim to a "bonus", but MacArthur organized the Army
and drove the (unarmed) men out of the city.

Closer to the present day, look at the LA Riots and the aftermath of Hurricane
Andrew.  Congressional consent was neither sought nor (presumably) required in
these cases. 
--
Steve Jameson                 General Electric Aerospace / Martin Marietta
sjameson@atl.ge.com           Advanced Technology Laboratories
                              Moorestown, New Jersey              
****************************************************************************
**  . . . but I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow    **
**  for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.  I love only that   **
**  which they defend . . .                                               **
**    -- Faramir, "The Two Towers"                                        **
****************************************************************************


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Harry Bloomberg <hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Carrier Pigeon Photo Recon
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:54:43 GMT


From Harry Bloomberg <hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu>


   {Aside to moderator:  I'm not making any of this up!]

   This month's issue of Camera & Darkroom contains an article that may
interest sci.military readers.

   Thurman F Naylor owns the world's largest private collection of
cameras.  Anong the 31,000 items in his collection are:

   - a camera built by the Germans in WW I that was designed to be
strapped to a homing pigeon for photo recon missions behind French
lines.  The article contains a photo of a stuffed pigeon wearing this
camera on his breast.  The camera was operated by a timer.

   - a garter-belt holstered camera used by Japanese female agents
during the end of WW II.  The accompanying photo shows a pink lace
garter with the camera built into the clasp.  Alas, unlike the pigeon
camera, there's no illustration of the camera in actual use. :-)

   I'm curious as to the operational effectiveness of either camera.
How could one accurately predict the direction and speed of a homing
pigeon (and why am I reminded of a riddle from a Monty Python movie?)?
Wouldn't the photo analysts find photos mostly of statues and park
benches? :-)

   As to the garter camera, wouldn't a lady raising her skirt to take a
photo call too much attention to herself?  And if she was already
disrobed during an encounter with the object of attempted blackmail,
wouldn't it likely be too dark for a useable photo?  Of course, I
suppose those Japanese geniuses of minaturization could have designed the
camera with a built-in flash, but I suppose that would ruin the undercover
maneuvers.  :-)

Harry Bloomberg
hpb@vms.cis.pitt.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: British armour/sonic snipers
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:51:22 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>

In article <C124wK.7pI@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Joshua Follick <follick%hydra.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu> writes:
>
>In article <C0Hvws.G8o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> chc30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com writes
>>
>>The armour on the British "Warrior" APCs is I think Chobham and according
>>ne report I heard can withstand any artillery round up to 155mm. I think
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>     This seems like very effective protection, considering that it
>seems the top of the line US APC, can't handle an RPG 17. How comprehensive
>is this armor? Are there large gaps?
>

A direct hit from a large caliber artillery shell or rocket will waste any APC 
in the world, and tanks will be out of commission for a while, while the 
crew tries to recover their senses, assuming they are still alive after the 
shock.  

What the report probably said was that the armor would withstand the fragments 
of any artillery round up to 155mm.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gorilla@cats.ucsc.edu (Christopher John Arnold)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Harpoon and tactics.
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:19:58 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz


From Christopher John Arnold <gorilla@cats.ucsc.edu>


First of all, does anyone have any idea if Harpoons have
been mounted on navy helos?

And are there any good books of us naval tactics out there?
I've been trying to figure out how two O.H.Perry class frigates
and a Ticonderoga Cruiser would defend against two soviet
Kirov Class cruiser. Any suggestions?

-Gorilla@cats.ucsc.edu