HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com (Bob McCormick)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:33:11 GMT


From bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com (Bob McCormick)

In Desert Storm, it appeared that no tank kills were made with the GAU-8
cannon on the A-10.  Is this correct?  Would this be an additional reason
to drop the A-10, since the F-16 can (I presume) handle Mavericks just
as well as the A-10?

(BTW, I hopt that they don't drop the A-10; IMHO it is a great asset
due to its survivalbility.)

=-=-=-=-=-
Bob McCormick, Systems Engineer           | bobmcc@tcs.com +1-510-649-3881
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc.    | bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com
2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA, 94704 USA | uunet!tcs!bobmcc

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Self-forged fragment munitions
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:49:10 GMT


From schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)

rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Rusty) writes:

[...description of sensor fuzed weapons deleted...]


>The part which makes the actual kill is a 5.25 inch diameter
>piece of flat copper backed by a shaped explosive charge. The
>plate reputedly captures most of the energy of detonation of
>the charge, which folds it into an extremely high-speed kinetic
>energy projectile, travelling at 6000+ ft/sec. Reactive armor
>is claimed to be useless against anything travelling this fast;
>the article says that it "punches through before the counter-
>measure can react effectively".

>	This technology is also used in the Army's proposed
>Wide Area Mine, unless I miss my guess. What intrigues me is
>that fact that something so small can be relied upon to kill a
>modern tank (the photographs I've seen generally show old
>Pattons and the like being blasted). 

I think the key point is that theses weapons are being fired
downwards into the *thinnest* armour of the Tanks.

The pictures I saw [On Nova I think] had most of the rounds
going down into the engine compartment [IR Sensors?].

I don't think there is much armour over top of the engines.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Subject: Re:  Re: Breaking in green submariners
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:35:27 GMT


From stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)


Lesher Timothy Darwin writes

+ In an Army transportation unit, I've heard of sending poor saps out looking
+ for a "trailer stretcher" as well...  keep them coming...

I originally heard this from a AF meteorologist - he sent a guy out 
looking for a radar beam.

James
From: Z_KUPKAMS@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (MICHAEL S. KUPKA)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: vision for helicopter pilots?
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:16:40 GMT
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway


From Z_KUPKAMS@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (MICHAEL S. KUPKA)

> From Dan <BXP5@psuvm.psu.edu>
> 
> Can anyone out there tell me the vision requirements for helicopter pilots
> in each of the services?  I understand that it is not necessary to have
> 20/20 to fly choppers?
> 
  Well that is true for the US Army, well at least in the regulations it
  states correctable to 20/20. In reality however, Yes You do need it
  I asked the same question when I had my flight physical. The Doc said the
  last guy he sent to Rucker, came back when the Chief Flight surgeon examined
  his eyes. He was close, and according to reg's he qualified, if he could get
  a waiver. Well Since this is peacetime, no war and more applicants than slots
  guess who they take first? Those with Good Eyesight, and those with Political
  influence. Unless you have 20/20 without stigmatism, or your Father is a
  Senator, it is unlikely that you will qualify. I passed my Physical, but as
  fate would have it, I Lost One eye to a CO2 pellet pistol. Well Gone was
  Flight School, and my Commision since I had not finished OCS. 
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Don Johnson <johnson@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>
Subject: Re: Self-forged fragment munitions
Organization: AMSAA/GWD, APG, MD 21005
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 12:08:04 GMT


From Don Johnson <johnson@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>


In article <BtHx6G.C0x@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Rusty) writes:
>
>From rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Rusty)

>	One thing which I found was a copy of the January 20th
>Aviation Leak, which contained an article on the Air Force's
>SFW, sensor fuzed weapon, program. 

(a good description of SFW deleted)

>	This technology is also used in the Army's proposed
>Wide Area Mine, unless I miss my guess. What intrigues me is
>that fact that something so small can be relied upon to kill a
>modern tank (the photographs I've seen generally show old
>Pattons and the like being blasted). Also, I recall having read
>a British antiarmor textbook from the early Eighties in which
>scornful things were said about this mechanism, claiming that
>it was a poor performer by comparison with the larger and
>heavier HEAT rounds normally employed against armor.

The SFW and other self-forging fragmenting munitions would be very poor
performers if the attacked the same areas as a HEAT warhead. The HEAT
remember is coming in at a fairly flat trajectory and trying to penetrate
the thickest line-of-sight of a vehicles armor. The self-forging fragments
are shot downward attacking the relatively thin top armor of a vehicle.
Penetration is much easier to achieve there.


-- 
W. Donald Johnson

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     Eugene Heiss (GWD) <heiss@brl.mil>
Subject:  Re:Smoothbore Weapons (was Re: DU)
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:49:22 GMT


From     Eugene Heiss (GWD) <heiss@brl.mil>



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

>In article <Bt4oI0.1v9@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell) writes:

>>Along this thread, there is also an APDS round made for shotguns, ala the
>>movie Alien Nation.  They are very good at penetrating things that don't
>>have hardened armor. 

>There was a program to develop a fletchette firing infantry 
>weapon that was to replace the M-14. It could supposedly also 
>fire other kinds of specialized ammunition. But the demands 
>of the Vietnam War caused the adoption of the M-16 and the pro-
>gram died.

The Special Purpose Individual Weapon had a point fire capability (flechettes)
and an area fire capability (grenades) similiar to the M16/M203 but the 
SPIW came first.  The SPIW was to replace the M1 rifle, the M14 was an interim
solution.  The SPIW weapon had a number of problems, some of which were not
easily solved, and the plug was pulled after spending a considerable amount of
money.  Essentially the same flechette was used in the Steyr and AAI weapons
in the Advanced Combat Rifle experiment.  The demands of the Vietnam War had
nothing to do with the demise of the SPIW.  





Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wb9omc@ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: response
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:12:46 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From wb9omc@ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)


John Tucker asks:

"Given the Stealth's "stealth", how come a commercial autofocus system
can "lock-on" for a sharp picture?"

John, we're talking apples and oranges here.

Since you evidently know something about cameras, you know that there
seem to be two predominant means of autofocus on cameras - infrared and
ultrasonic.  They like to have a solid object to bounce their 
respective signals off of in order to get a proper focus, and many
of them will go to infinity failing that solid object.

The F117A *is* a solid object.  "Stealth" does NOT mean that the
aircraft disappears, it merely means that it's design is such that
radar - that's RADAR, i.e., multi-gigahertz radio waves, do NOT bounce
directly back to the receiving antenna except at VERY close range.
What little *might* get back at operational ranges is very weak and
not present long enough to get an accurate fix on the aircraft.

At the short ranges that IR or Usonic focusing cameras operate at,
the Radar Absorbing Material (RAM) will indeed bounce back plenty
enough to get the camera to focus.  If you got back far enough that
the camera couldn't get a valid autofocus, you are most likely far
enough that the camera reads "infinity" anyhow.  I'd bet that this will
hold true for most, if not ALL lens openings and thus, depths of field.

RAM dissipates some percentage of RADAR waves.  It probably has 
a considerably lessened effect on IR beams (which are typically going
to fall into the 700 to 1000 nanometer wavelength) - and note that
in general, IR beams from typical IR Light Emitting Diodes have
a fairly short range, even when focused with optics.  If you can bounce
such an IR beam off an F117A, you could probably just as easily look out
your cockpit window, trigger your 20mm cannon and shoot the thing down.
(we aren't talking lasers here.....)

In general, "stealth" on something like an F117A is NOT designed for
IR-beam focusing cameras.  At an airshow, one has no need for a
defense against such heinous devices....   :-)

Duane
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dwight Jackson <jackson@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Origin of Sabot
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:30:35 GMT


From Dwight Jackson <jackson@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>

RE: Sabot origin...

||  From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
||
||      "Sabot" is French for "shoe" -
||      supposedly "saboteurs" got their name from carrying instructions around
||      in their shoes.
||
||	. . . <deleted>
||
||I think the strike I was refering to predates both Wars. I think that
||because the word is so obvious some rational explaination is required
||hence the fifty different versions. If I remember I'll look it up in
||the Greater Oxford Dictionary which is about 24 volume long and is
||about as definitive as you can get. Personally I'm not sure a shoe
||would do much damage to machinery and besides why would the Germans
||use a French word? It certainly pre-dates the Second World War because
||Stalin used it extensively 1929 etc. Now I'm seriously curious!
||
||
||Joseph Askew
||


It predates both wars, going back to the Industrial Revolution times.  The
workers in a textile mill struck, throwing their wooded shoes into their
looms, destroying them.  They were protesting the introduction of the first
mechanized looms - Jaquard Looms I think. (spelling?)  I seem to recall that
this was in Belgium, not France.

Source is a computing history book explaining the beginnings of mechinization.

...dwight

-- 
Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM ___| Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
Reserve sci.military moderator| "The airplane does not recognize attitude,
providing a maneuver is conducted at one G" -- A.M. "Tex" Johnston
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: Chinese fighters gain mid-air refuelling facility
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:18:48 GMT


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


>From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)

>anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:



>>One problem is that China's F-7 fighter cannot be adapted to in-flight
>>refueling. And it is uncertain if the longer-range F-8-2 is adaptable.

>Anybody know why?  Isn't an F-7 just a Mig21 varient?  Is there
>something about this plane that makes it impossible?

Yes, the F-7 is a MiG-21 copy (or looks liek one, anyway). I can't see 
anything special that makes a re-build to air-to-air refueling impossible.

--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"I've got LOT's of common sense. I just choose to ignore it." -- Calvin

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Breaking in green submariners
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:34:44 GMT


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


Tom Balent writes:
#Many new Navy guys (surface and subs) have been sent for: 20 feet of
#chow line, relative bearing grease, cable pullers, a bucket of steam,
#to look for sea bats, etc.


We always sent the guy for a hundred feet of Jersey shore line. A
bucket of prop wash was also a vital necessity when leaving foreign
harbors as well.

Our ship had a unique feature: an overflow on a condensate drain tank
whick looked exactly like an upside down light fixture, the ones that
have a glass dome with a metal cage. Many a new snipe was asked of
the whereabouts of the "hydraulic light bulb"; having him look for one
was even better :)


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Nuclear War in the Middle East - Soviet Nuclear Weapons Stolen?
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:08:58 GMT
Followup-To: sci.military,talk.politics.mideast
Organization: Murasami Labs


From stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)


In article <r8#ncrn.noring@netcom.com>, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I've been hearing rumors (the lowest form of information) that during the
> breakup of the Soviet Union, some of the Soviet tactical nuclear weapons were
> acquired surreptitiously by one or more Islamic countries, such as Iran, as
> well as some trained personnel to maintain and deploy these weapons.  In
> addition, I also heard (again just a rumor) that Israel believes that nuclear
> war between them and the Islamic country which acquired the weapons could
> occur in the near future.  Supposedly, Israel has about 100 nuclear weapons
> in their arsenal.
> 
> Of course, this is all hearsay, and I'd like to get feedback from the
> net.wisdom as to whether or not there is even a grain of truth in the above
> information.

I'm crossposting this to sci.military for factual assesment. Please
direct *political* points elsewhere.

As I understand the former Soviet mindset, all nukes where manned by
*Russian* troops. This was to prevent the local republics from using
them to bargin with...err, blackmail, Moscow. Further it was standard
policy to include intelligence officers (GRU/KGB) in most (all?) 
military units. I would imagine that this would be doubly true of
nuclear-armed units.

I know the KGB maintained their own military units - where these the 
ones in charge of tactical nukes?

Anyway, my point is: the Soviets where always very careful keeping their
nukes in reliable, dependable hands. I doubt very much any have gotten
away from them. And if one did, I'm sure that they would go after it.


James (aka K'Char)
[sci.military moderator: feel free to modify the followups line ;]
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Subject: Re: Light aircraft for CAS in Australia
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:34:28 GMT


From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)


In <BtJnKw.92x@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> conrad@pico.qpsx.oz.au writes:



I thought the F111C based at Amberley in Queensland 
could be used for CAS ?
--
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 Qld, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Richard McGee <dickmc@smoke.brl.mil>
Subject: Re: Phonetic alphabet correction
Organization: Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:19:19 GMT


From Richard McGee <dickmc@smoke.brl.mil>



In 1955 or so, I learned the following:

ABLE		NAN
BAKER		OBOE
CHARLIE		PETER
DOG		QUEEN
EASY		ROGER
FOX		SUGAR
GEORGE		TARE
HOW		UNCLE
ITEM		VICTOR
JIG		WILLIAM
KING		XRAY
LOVE		YOKE
MIKE		ZEBRA


Dick

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Gorkos John CDT <x35514e4@dean1.acd.usma.edu>
Subject: Re: Breaking in green submariners
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:06:34 GMT


From Gorkos John CDT <x35514e4@dean1.acd.usma.edu>

Since cadets are usually pretty gullible and always anxious to help, some of
the soldiers that help with our summer training have sent us on some wild 
chases:
  Quests for a "travel lock key"  (the travel lock hold the barrel of a 155-mm 
SP howitzer in place when it moves. No key required.)
  Level bubbles for the aiming transits (the transits have a fluid filled 
level, and you have to center the bubble to get it level....)
  Gridline (always a favorite)

Kind of along this line is a little incident that happened this summer.  My 
platoon was tasked with conducting some squad sized ambushes, and one of the 
kill zones was on a road that branched off of a "civilian" road.  Well, the 
squad set up a great ambush, complete with claymore simulators and trip flares.
Unfortunately, the left securtiy man got a little too comfortable and fell 
asleep (it was about 0100 or so, with no moon).  Since he was the only one in 
the group with night vision goggles, the rest of the ambush had no clue what 
was coming up the road.  About this time, about 6 local teenagers decided they 
would sneak off into the woods with a bunch of brews and have a good time.
Imagine their surprise when they tripped two claymores, a trip flare, an M-60
machine gun, a SAW, and 7 M-16s on full auto.  Very effective way to curb 
underage drinking....

John Gorkos
Cadet LT, USMA c/o 1993
x35514e4@dean1.acd.usma.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ac579@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (G.C.J. Timm)
Subject: Understanding Military Humor
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:40:31 GMT


From ac579@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (G.C.J. Timm)


To understand military humor, which is often considered, crude,
sick, disgusting, sexist, racist, offensive and socially 
unacceptable in any way, shape or form, by those fortunate
innocents who have never heard a bullet addressed "To Whom It
May Concern" pass close by their own personal ear, you must 
keep the following information firmly in mind.

The modern warrior, kneeling waste deep in foul smelling water,
in a filthy hole in the ground, too scared of making a noise to
clear his throat or blow his nose for fear of giving away his
position,  he can't remember the last time he was clean or warm,
or comfortable, he is hugging close to his filthy body enough
explosives to level a city block, enough ammunition for his 
personal weapon (the only thing about him even remotely to be
considered "clean") to shoot everyone in that city block at
least twice, he knows that out "there" in the dark are people
and things which intend to hurt and kill him, and, all things
considered he feels SAFE for the first time in days.

Now, do you begin to understand military humor?

Jeff
Ex-Staff Sergeant United States Army, never to be confused with
the Army of the United States (AUS)
;->  "Kill Friendly"  Unofficial Motto Third Corps, Ft. Hood
Texas c. 1974.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium -- Hydrogen Bombs
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:38:57 GMT


From merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)

>Usually the fission trigger is itself a plutonium implosion device, often 
>with a tritium booster, and the method of shock compression of the fusion 
>core is considerably more sophisticated than is commonly suspected. 
>[details omitted] 
>Under intense neutron bombardment, the lithium fissions to produce 
>more deuterium, and the U238 jacket around the fusion core is responsible 
>for up to 80% of the yield energy due to fast fission of the U238.

Why do you say the details are omitted?  You put a U-238 wrapper around
your fusion core -- and put the entire assembly in an intense neutron flux
environment (maybe something like a couple of feet from a fission device).

No necessary details have been omitted -- unless, of course, you buy off
on Howard Morland's Progressive Magazine design (x-ray radiation pressure
and/or exploding styrofoam instead of fast neutron induced implosion) --
if so, then I have prime farming land in Arizona I'd love to sell you.

>U238 is useless in a conventional fission reaction

A U238 blanket around a U-235 or Pu-239 fission device core provides both
passive inertia to hold the device together longer and active inward directed
pressure (a side effect of omnidirectional expansion caused by release of
energy in the form of fission events in the U-238).  Taken together both of
these effects make U-238 a much better 'tamper' than most other materials.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merlin                            Never let it be forgot
The Magician                      That there once was a spot
King Arthur's Court               For one brief shining moment
Camelot                           That was known as Camelot
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Osmium????? (Re: depleted uranium)
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:12:17 GMT
Organization: Rice University


From billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)

In article <BtC5CH.6sE@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
|> Once again... does anyone really use Osmium in tank shells? It must
|> be incredibly expensive, since it is a Platinum Group Element, which
|> are usually sold by the _ounce_.

As I posted earlier, I had heard that the DoD was looking to improve the
responsiveness of the M1 to the evolving efficacy of East Bloc armor.  They
conducted tests of various different rounds/metals in many different types
of ammo.  It seems that they ended up with the 120mm gun, and the APFSDS and
a HEAT round that came a little later.  This then became the M1A2.

Desperately trying to cool my poor fannie off...

-- 
Bill Blackwell             P H P <==me!   "A just request is to be met
billb@owlnet.rice.edu     F L L F       in silence, by the act."
Houston, Texas, USA          8       -Dante Alighieri "Inferno" XXIV ln.77-78
"My opinions are mine, no one else is that stupid"
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:17:00 GMT
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute


From Greg Finn <finn@isi.edu>


In article <BtAJDu.Cuz@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> john@phobos.sscl.uwo.ca (John Tucker) writes:

>I work in a photo lab and have recently processed a bunch of airshow
>pictures which were taken of the Stealth F/B. 
>
>I know that they were taken using a garden variety compact autofocus
>camera, and the pictures came out crystal clear in focus.
>
>Given the Stealth's "stealth", how come a commercial autofocus system
>can "lock-on" for a sharp picture?

Commercial AF systems are of three varieties that I am aware:

	1) Sonar
	2) Infra-red
	3) Optical correlation

They aren't optically stealthy.  Stealth aircraft can be easily seen
with the naked eye, so methods 2) and 3) will work fine.  Method 2)
often just paints the target so that method 3) works.  Method 1) is
used primarily at portrait distances, but unless the aircraft was
sound-wave stealthy, it will work fine also.  Of course, if you point
the AF sensor at a flatly colored surface with no contrast, then
method 3) won't work.  But that has nothing to do with stealth.
--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Newsgroups: sci.military