Tony_Buckland@mtsg.ubc.ca (04/12/91)
From: Tony_Buckland@mtsg.ubc.ca Several small items on different subjects: 1) How effective were the Patriots? By keeping Israel out of the war, they probably saved the integrity of the Coalition, and thereby changed the course of history. They were The Few (see Battle of Britain) of this war. 2) How effective were the Stealth fighters? If other planes were not subjected to effective AA, was this not because the Stealths and cruises got in first and dealt a suppressing blow to Iraqi AA from which it never recovered? 3) Horizontal and vertical range of artillery: I know the ocean slopes only locally, but ground targets can be very uphill; what are the most effective angles for hitting people who grabbed the high ground before you did (and can heavy artillery, naval or land, elevate to those angles)? Also, what about the need to hit some targets in mortar mode, from almost vertically? 4) A civilian observer like me can be surprised at the amount of stuff attached to the outside of tanks. I guess some of it is reactive armor. What are the tubes that look like truncated mortars for? Do tankers, like infantrymen, tend to work on the principle of taking anything along that could be useful, if it can be carried, and if so do they just tie it on outside? [If those replying could answer the questions separately and attach eaningful subjects on their replies I'm sure the readership would be grateful. --CDR]
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (04/12/91)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1991Apr12.055056.13916@amd.com>, Tony_Buckland@mtsg.ubc.ca writes: >2) How effective were the Stealth fighters? If other planes were not >subjected to effective AA, was this not because the Stealths and >cruises got in first and dealt a suppressing blow to Iraqi AA from >which it never recovered? This is myth. The "hole" in Iraqi Air Defence was created by AH-64 Apache helicopters using Hellfire missiles, with OH-58Ds used to illuminate the two key search radars. From there, various strike packages fanned out into Iraq to clean up town. Each strike package included electronic warfare planes (jammers) and defense suppression (Wild Weasel). If you can't see it, you can't shoot at it. Most of the radar-guided stuff was rendered ineffective by jamming and by the threat of anti-radiation missiles, such as HARM and ALARM. If you emit, you die. Most things which were shot at by cruise missiles were also designated to be bombed again by manned aircraft because planners didn't trust the cruise 100% (very difficult to get an after-action report from this first-generation missile :-). -- sysmgr@cadlab.eng.umd.edu
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (04/13/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >4) A civilian observer like me can be surprised at the amount of stuff >attached to the outside of tanks. I guess some of it is reactive >armor. What are the tubes that look like truncated mortars for? Do >tankers, like infantrymen, tend to work on the principle of taking >anything along that could be useful, if it can be carried, and if so do >they just tie it on outside? Those truncated mortars you saw were most likely smoke grenade launchers. There isn't much room inside a tank after you put the crew and ammunition for the main gun and the machine guns inside. Things like personal gear, rucksacks, extra track sections, spare road wheels, more ammo, etc. can be stored on various points outside. Reactive armor is pretty distinctive. On US tanks, look for many flat rectangular plates. On Soviet tanks, their blocks are more numerous, smaller, and more cubical in shape. -- Allan Bourdius [MIDN 3/C (Marine Option)/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity] ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or Box 4719, 5125 Margaret Morrison St., Pgh., PA 15213 The contents of this were mine, mine, all mine, got it?!
bjohnson@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson) (04/13/91)
From: bjohnson@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson) The tubes are smoke dispensers, something about the size of an infantry smoke grenade fits inside each one. They are electrically primed and fired from inside the tank. During peacetime operations they are not typically armed. The smoke is used for tactical engagements to obscure the tank/IFV. I don't think tear gas or other variants are available. Non-motorized/mechanized infantry doesn't carry anything they they don't absolutely have to (weapon, ammo, water, food, blankets, med pouches, grenades, explosives, radios, mortar rounds, machine gun belts, etc). Mechanized Infantry tends to hoard... ;) My unit in Germany had all kinds of stuff tucked away on our APC. Extra rations, books, FMs, AM/FM radios w/ cassetes players, cassetes, candy bars, etc -- Brett W. Johnson These opinions are mine and mine alone...
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (04/17/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) >From: Tony_Buckland@mtsg.ubc.ca >4) A civilian observer like me can be surprised at the >amount of stuff attached to the outside of tanks. The tubes are smoke grenade launchers (finally). Since your combat vehicle is going to be "home" for a few days - you tend to carry along with you a lot of "stuff". Inside is pretty cramped with operational gear - web gear, sidearms, radios, batteries, radio documents, maps, other documents and manuals etc - outside, and in the bustle racks or tied down all around are: Rations for 3 days Antenna sections Breaker bars Spare Track pads/shoes Ammo cans (some full of ammo - some with weapons cleaning stuff) Gas cans Water cans Canvas Camouflage nets and supports Slave Cables (like jumper cables) Personal gear ("A" bag and "B" bag [I never let Trains take my "B" bag]) - 3 day's worth of underwear, socks, uniforms, shaving gear. Tanker's Roll The 'Tanker's Roll' is a neat little sleeping roll configuration - tent half - blanket - air mattress (never inflated) - sleeping bag - poncho liner inside sleeping bag All snapped together, rolled up, and tied. Great in all weather. An observation: If you remember seeing all the video of the troops throughout the campaign - you saw very few 'sloppy' soldiers. Most, if not all, were clean-shaven (or only a days' growth), uniforms worn properly (zipped, buttoned, snapped) - all with proper headgear on - all wearing their LBE and carrying their weapons - and of special note: no 'unmilitary' writing on their helmets nor extraneous items being stuck in the helmet band - in a word: DISCIPLINED SOLDIERS. mike schmitt [ *Excellent* point! By the way, what's in an A bag vs. a B bag? --CDR]
jjb@sequent.com (04/19/91)
From: jjb@sequent.com sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >Most things which were shot at by cruise missiles were also designated to be >bombed again by manned aircraft because planners didn't trust the cruise 100% >(very difficult to get an after-action report from this first-generation >missile :-). The smiley at the end of this got me to thinking: what could you do to get an on-the-spot target assessment from a cruise missile? How about carrying your own drone, equipped with a TV camera and UHF uplink? Launch the drone, hit the target, drone can transmit the after-action report. Amateurs (me) usually seem to underestimate the important of intelligence (or lack of same); witness the number of war games that feature complete information (ie cardboard counters on map) but purport to be "simulations" (hah). Maybe the value of this information would justify the complexity/ expense of such a system? Is there an easier way? (I know, KH-1X pictures, but this is not a good answer. Coverage can't be guaranteed, clouds, etc). PS, in a previous post I described the Tomahawk as having a "pulse jet engine"...total nonsense, pulse jets are long obsolete. Mea culpa. -- Jeff Berkowitz N6QOM uunet!sequent!jjb | If you can't trust the comics, Sequent Computer Systems jjb@sequent.com | what can you trust? -Bullwinkle
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (04/20/91)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) jjb@sequent.com writes: >>(very difficult to get an after-action report from this first-generation >>missile :-). >The smiley at the end of this got me to thinking: what could you do to >get an on-the-spot target assessment from a cruise missile? How about >carrying your own drone, equipped with a TV camera and UHF uplink? >Launch the drone, hit the target, drone can transmit the after-action >report. Naw, too much technology involved. You could either use the SLAM approach (watch in real-time -- stereo requiring two missiles :) or just have the missile kick out a little package containing a CCD TV camera, a burst transmitter to send out the image(s) and a little balloon to raise the package above tree-top level before snapping the target image. Have the thing do a slow spin. Transmit a 360 degree picture, send it. Burn the camera. Alternately, you could have a loitering UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle) which could flit from target to target, but the presence of the UAV might give warning to untouched targets. -- sysmgr@cadlab.eng.umd.edu
scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) (04/23/91)
From: scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >>The smiley at the end of this got me to thinking: what could you do to >>get an on-the-spot target assessment from a cruise missile? How about >>carrying your own drone, equipped with a TV camera and UHF uplink? > Naw, too much technology involved. Actually ... there are already at least concepts of smart cruise missiles (as opposed to self guided). These would actually carry a cluster of rocket type weapons which fire out the side. The missile would acquire targets in some sort of visual fashion and open fire on them. It would loiter around the battlefield looking for targets and then would do the recon itself. I saw this in a magazine article somewhere (Air Force maybe?). Anyone know whether these ideas are under development? Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu
howard@uunet.UU.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) (04/25/91)
From: cos!howard@uunet.UU.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz)
[14 lines of unnecessary quoted text deleted --CDR]
There's an antiradiation weapon, I believe Tacit Rainbow, which has some
qualities of a brighter smart weapon. This system is a slow, but long
endurance, drone that senses electromagnetic emissions.
On one of its orbits around the battlefield, if it detects an appropriate
transmitter, it will stop orbiting and dive into the transmitter.
You say you can counter this by turning off the radar? :-) :-)
In any case, this system seems to be a very logical base for ELINT collection,
and certainly announcing that it is about to attack an emitter at
<coordinates> before it dives.
--
howard@cos.com OR {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!howard
(703) 883-2812 [W] (703) 998-5017 [H]
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Corporation
for Open Systems, its members, or any standards body.brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass) (04/26/91)
From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass) scott@xcf.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) writes: >The missile would acquire >targets in some sort of visual fashion and open fire on them. It would >loiter around the battlefield looking for targets and then would do the >recon itself. >Anyone know whether these ideas are under development? Nova featured some kind of project like this during this season. I can't remember if it was military weapons or computer inteligence. Anyway it showed a camera going over a model battlefield while the software was trying to recognize targets. Then I suddenly found the clicker in my hand and remembered a new episode of Star Trek was on. Does anyone remember the details of this episode? [Wasn't that the one where Picard ... oops, sorry! :-) --CDR] -- Brian Douglass brian@edat.uucp