twilight2000-digest Tuesday, February 23 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 015 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: SV: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Submarines Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Submarines GPS/EMP Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Submarines Bundeswehr Questions Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Submarines ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:51:54 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: SV: T2K nuclear exchanges At 10:31 AM 2/23/99 +0100, Mathias Köppen wrote: >Hi guys! > >What if the poles changed (as it does from time to time) which would mean that north became south on a compass. How would this affect all modern navigation equipment which doesn't use satellites? > It would affect compasses, but it wouldn't affect gyroscopes or other inertial navigations systems at all. (That being said, I think a sudden and unexpected shift in the poles is rather unlikely, even during a nuclear war.) Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:53:57 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: Submarines Hii Mark! Trying to kill the keyboard, marko@syslogic.com produced: [without sonar and inertia navigation] > Sub to sub combat would be very tricky (if possible at all) Well, you wait till one sub is surfaced, then let rip your torpedoes. The English did use subs as sub hunters in WWII (and did a couple of kills). The US develloped an air-dropped torpedo with homing capabilities. The Germans develloped the same, but sub launched, to kill destroyers and so on (but they more often than not hit the quickly develloped noise buoys in tow). > I admit but > attacking a surface target would be a case of quick application of trig to > get a firing solution and then firing a spread down that line. I used to > have to solve similar problems during my school years. Use a torpedo that criss-crosses the target's path several time. Develloped in Germany, WWII. That's easier on your torpedo supply :-) - -Wolfgang - -- PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. How to dominate the Internet/WWW/etc? Destroy the protocols! See: http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:47:29 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Hi, Scott! Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: > At 04:55 AM 2/23/99 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: > >True, and especially submarines should carry them (as do planes > >... magnetic compasses tend to swing in too slow if you turn > >fast). But inertia navigation needs some computer power and > >working gyroscopes & assorted gear ... both of which may or may > >not be aviable or accurate. > Well, if the computers aren't working, taking the submarine underwater in > the first place isn't a good idea (especially since you use computers for > tracking with sonar and firing the weapons--the latter you might be able to > pull off without the computers; the former would be virtually impossible). Well, you know, many of the (most successful) WWII subs had no digital computers at all, an analog model for calculating torpedo angles at guessed course and speed of the target ship was considered standard (and that probably was not even there in WWI, where you *did* happen to have successful submarines). So there can be sonar without computers, it just needs a skilled operator and the right gear aboard. You don't need sonar for navigation, either, use dead reckoning (and echolot, if you don't mind being noisy). And sonars + computers capable to track ships well enough to torpedo them without periscope were aviable only in 1945 (German side), in the last days of the war. So say they became common in submarines in 1955. > >Finally, just assume that you do not trust the inertia navigation > >(and probably want to test it). Then the best method[1] is the > >old and proven sextant one. > No, sorry, I'm not gonna make that assumption. U.S. submarines have a > very, very sophisiticated inertial navigation system (especially the > boomers, of course)--it's not a gyroscope exactly but it's the same > principle (spinning balls of some exotic metal, as I recall). It's 3 gyroscopes for the 3 axes (turning) and 3 more for movement (up/down, forward/backward, sideways). You can add more for redundancy and accuracy. > And since it > has to be stable, as I recall it's mounted in the kind of housing that's > not going to break unless the rest of the submarine is trashed. You need to maintain them never the less. And you need computing power *and* programs to make them work. > No, it's not perfect, and requires occasional corrections (and subs have > GPS gear, and used NavStar satellites before GPS was available). You assume the GPS and NavStar satellites are still in working order. I would belive knocking them out to be a priority target. Stop your enemy from knowing their positions well, especially in your waters. After all, the US *did* remove most buoys in WWII. > Yes, you > would want to make those corrections, though I don't think using a sextant > by hand would do the trick--it's probably not any more accurate--the best > bet may be geographic references at points of landfall. A sextant can be pretty accurate. More than an average bearing or 3 on the coast. Unless you line up 2 items each and are where they cross each other. > For that matter, > in relatively shallow waters you could orient yourself using maps of the > ocean floor in combination with the sub's low-frequency sonar (which is > designed for that sort of thing, as well as detecting mines and other > close-in objects). Maps of the ocean floor can supplement, but unless it is very structured *and* non-changing, it won't be very usable. > However, the inertial navigation systems are _exceedingly_ adequate for > getting a submarine across the ocean to within a few dozen yards of its > planned landfall, or for navigating the English Channel without surfacing > (critical for avoiding a French patrol in one of the modules). This feat (navigating the channel) has been done more than once. Without gyroscopes. All you need is a map, a good tidal chart (and an almanach showing the current state of tide), a reliable compass of some sort, a way to measure your speed (and hopefully, distance travelled) through water, a qualified helmsman and knowing how to navigate by that. I know I could do it, given the above. Even though the channel is not exactly easy water. And then there are periscopes. Even in the modern subs. Useful things, these. No need to surface. > With an inertial navigation system, it should either work or not--and it's > not going to be one of the first things that breaks. It may have been opened for service, or the computers are not yet yonnected/reprogrammed. > And, I should stress here, even if it doesn't work, a gyroscope, carried by > every merchant ship in the world, would to the trick quite nicely, as long > as you don't plan on launching ICBM's or something similar that requires > precise positioning (which of course the _CCC_ wouldn't do, not being a > boomer). I doubt that the evil one had access to an old, functioning merchant ship with that gear. And even then, you will want to double check your position. > I commend your efforts to salvage the modules in question, but the fact is > that they were written by someone who was completely ignorant about ships, > and there's really no way to reconcile them to the facts other than by > changing the inaccurate parts. So you call knowing the fact that the Boomer has 3 pressure hulls 'complete ignorance'. Naah. Maybe ignorant about some facts. > Another example is in the color text, where > a character looks up the name of the Soviet boomer in > _Jane's_Fighting_Ships_--when the modules were written, _Jane's_ didn't > list the names of Soviet subs, and in fact still didn't do so as late as > the 1991-92 _Jane's_ that I have on my shelf, for the simple reason that > the Soviets didn't reveal those names. Reading page 5 (right next page after your colour text): "The Barrikada mentioned in the message is recorded in the 199_6_ issue of Jane's ...". So 1992 does not count. Actually, everything including and past 1995 does not count, since the alternative time line begins in 1995 ... meaning they can prolly well do what they want there, well, almost. > Inertial navigation is considered so vital that _every_ ship has it and in > fact has had it since like the 1920's. And like I said before, it's not > like it would be hard to yank a gyroscope off a merchie. 1920 sounds dead wrong for me. AFAIK WWII subs still had to rely on more manual methods of navigation (crossed radio beacons ... like the one in Stavanger(sp) they shut down a few years ago, sextant, etc.). I seem to remember that the US and British air force did use these methods (e.g. crossed radio signals) as well, even for precision bombing and their scouts. The gyroscpic compass was in devellopment for fast fighters in 1943 in Germany. Now, even today not every small (private/pleasure) plane has an inertial navigation system (though it seems you can get them), nor do pleasure crafts nor sailing yachts (45 feet class) have them, even if they come with DECCA, GPS, electronic compass and/or RADAR. I don't even know where else inertia navigation is not commonly used, but I guess, there are quite a few. So I guess your estimate is wrong. I would even say that many merchant vessels would rely on GPS rather than on inertia navigation. But that is a wild guess. - -Wolfgang - -- PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. How to dominate the Internet/WWW/etc? Destroy the protocols! See: http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:29:59 -0000 From: "Mark Oliver" Subject: Re: Submarines - -----Original Message----- From: Scott David Orr To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: 23 February 1999 17:07 Subject: Re: Submarines <<< Submarines then were designed to be run without computers. Yes, you could take one underwater and sail it around I guess, but that's about it. >>> The submarines in WW2 did a bit more than 'sail it around'. What they did was limited to primarily actions against suface vessels and they appear to have had very little impact on other submarines. <<< No, it doesn't work like that quite like that. In the first place, you'd have to find the enemy submarine, which isn't possible without the sonar, which won't work _at_all_ without the computers in WWI and WWII, all they had for passive sonar was "hydrophones" >>> They had ASDIC which was a not very memorable name for active sonar. Looking at the old war films that's the pinging. As such they would have access to both active and passive sonar. I agree with your point about operator skill, without computers to help process the sound and deal with the accoustic problems (CVs, layers etc.) that the sea generates tracking would have been a nightmare. <<< Second, most countries don't use straight-running torpedoes anymore >>> I think that they still do. I believe that in the Falklands conflict the British navy sunk the Belgrano with conventional straight running torpedos. For some reason they didn't use the modern weapons they had, there was some tactical reason for this not just sheer bravado. Weren't there homing torpedos introduced in the latter stages of WW2 by some combatants? May be totally wrong on this issue but if there were then it might be a bit more rugged and easy to manipulate compared to a computerised system. To conclude a can't see sub to sub combat being an issue in the T2K world but anti-shipping and anti-harbour missions would be possible as they were in WW1 and WW2. Remember that the anti-sub defenders would be limited back to WW2 level technology as well (active+passive sonar and depth charges). Mark Oliver-Macklin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:29:51 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Cook Subject: GPS/EMP Continuing with the subject of GPS systems, how feasible is Tomorrow Never Dies' idea of hacking the GPS satellite system to give wrong information? I believe GPS satellites (as well as NAVSTAR???) are more likely to survive the war then say, reconnaisance satellites, because they are in a much higher orbit. This does two things: First, it makes it more difficult to remove them with anti-satellite weapons; and secondly I think that they'd be less likely to be affected by the EMP effects. Unfortunately, you'd still have to have a working reciever, and the system would probably be beginning to fall apart as a result of the fact that it doesn't have any control stations or anything like that. If you did have a working GPS reciever, the coverage would be pretty spotty at best, but better than nothing i think. On the subject of EMP, does anyone know what effects water has on EMP? Does it magnify it? Michael Cook _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:56:57 -0400 From: trustno1 Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges >> in relatively shallow waters you could orient yourself using maps of the >> ocean floor in combination with the sub's low-frequency sonar (which is >> designed for that sort of thing, as well as detecting mines and other >> close-in objects). > >Maps of the ocean floor can supplement, but unless it is very >structured *and* non-changing, it won't be very usable. If I'm not mistaken, by the late 80's the USSR had accurately mapped more of ocean floor than the rest of the world's countries combined... reminds me of that whole high speed run through 'Red Route 1' in the Hunt for Red October... Somewhat off topic, this sea floor mapping was done by special oceanographic ships in the Soviet navy. In particular, the "Keldysh" (which also carries two small submarines) did some of this Cold War work, I've been told. It is also the only ship in its class, I believe. During the making of the mega-film Titanic, the Keldysh is featured as the research vessel in the movie; and it was also the platform used for the filming of the actual wreck (the helicopter deck on the front of the ship is fake, btw). Being on board her during the filming has got to be one of my post Cold War highlights, as this ship would probably never have been allowed anywhere near the world famous Halifax harbour during the Cold War, what with all her highly specialized sensors, etc. Even during the filming of the movie, sensitive sections of the ship were very strictly off limits to the film crew, due to "security" reasons... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:11:40 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Submarines At 04:53 PM 2/23/99 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >Hii Mark! > >Trying to kill the keyboard, marko@syslogic.com produced: >[without sonar and inertia navigation] > >> Sub to sub combat would be very tricky (if possible at all) > >Well, you wait till one sub is surfaced, then let rip your >torpedoes. The English did use subs as sub hunters in WWII >(and did a couple of kills). > >The US develloped an air-dropped torpedo with homing capabilities. > >The Germans develloped the same, but sub launched, to kill >destroyers and so on (but they more often than not hit the >quickly develloped noise buoys in tow). > >> I admit but >> attacking a surface target would be a case of quick application of trig to >> get a firing solution and then firing a spread down that line. I used to >> have to solve similar problems during my school years. > >Use a torpedo that criss-crosses the target's path several time. >Develloped in Germany, WWII. That's easier on your torpedo >supply :-) > And there are modern versions of all of these--the problem with them, if you want to assume that the computers are all dead, is that the modern versions all use computers onboard the torpedoes. I think on the whole you're best off assuming that while the satellites are all gone, some of the computers on the ground survived. (Heck, doesn't everyone assume that at the very least the targeting computers in the group's combat vehicles survived?) Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:24:48 -0400 From: trustno1 Subject: Bundeswehr Questions Not sure how many people are on this mailing list, nor the diversity of nationalities, but I'm hoping I can find someone out their who can help me find some answers, as I'm having some difficulty in creating a German civilian TW2K character. I'm here in Canada, and I don't speak or read German worth a damn (unless its phrases like "Schnell! Schnell!" and "Achten Minenfeld!" ). So it makes for doing research about the Bundeswehr rather difficult. I did however find an excellent site (http://babelfish.altavista.com/cgi-bin/translate?) that translates in & out of several languages, both text and http websites ! Very cool. However the grammer goes all to hell, as you might imagine... I'm trying to find some information on : - What qualification does someone need to become a civilian nurse in Germany (particularly in the former West during the 80's) ? I've read something about needing to graduate from a Nursing School, but I can't figure out if this would be considered a university undergraduate degree program (with medical skill as a major)[this is what is required in Canada, btw], or more of a technical school program. - Also the Bundeswehr seems to operate a bit different than the "generic US based model" that the game system rather strictly follows. Are German military nurses Enlisted personnel or Officers ? - I was reading the Bundeswehr home page (http://www.bundeswehr.de/) about the role of woman, in particular woman and weapons, but the darned translation software makes things quite muddy to understand; Can female soldiers carry weapons ?? - And are the medical and music branches the only ones that allow woman ? - Can woman be nurses in the Bundeswehr, or is it men only ? - Also these terms don't translate very clearly/accurately: Krankenschwester (a type of nurse?) Krankenpfleger (another type of nurse ??) Krankenpflegehelfer (?) Krankenpflegepersonal (?) Sanitätstruppe (a medical unit?) Sanitätsdienst (the medical branch ?? Hope someone can help me with all this... 'Vielen Danke' in advance... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:02:49 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges At 04:47 PM 2/23/99 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >Hi, Scott! > >Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: > >> Well, if the computers aren't working, taking the submarine underwater in >> the first place isn't a good idea (especially since you use computers for >> tracking with sonar and firing the weapons--the latter you might be able to >> pull off without the computers; the former would be virtually impossible). > >Well, you know, many of the (most successful) WWII subs had >no digital computers at all, an analog model for calculating >torpedo angles at guessed course and speed of the target ship >was considered standard (and that probably was not even there >in WWI, where you *did* happen to have successful submarines). > Two points. First, these subs didn't attack using sonar, other than a few very rare cases. They did indeed have analog systems for calculating torpedo firing solutions, but it was all done using visual data. Second, these submarines were _designed_ to use visual sighthing and analog gear to make their attacks. Modern subs aren't: they can make visual sightings quite well, but they don't have the analog gear to make targeting calculations (and while the procedure is simple enough that even a scientific calculator can do it, it's not something you want to try without some computing support, at least not in real time). In addition, their sonar operators would have zero experience with the by-ear-only methods of sonar tracking that WWII sonarmen used. Also modern subs wouldn't be very good at attacking on the surface, as WWII subs did most (though by no means all) of the time, because they can't dive quickly and they can't run at high speed on the surface in order to escape. >So there can be sonar without computers, it just needs a skilled >operator and the right gear aboard. No, for targeting purposes, this simply is not true. Except in a handful of cases (I could probably literally count them on one hand) all attacks in WWII were visual. >You don't need sonar for >navigation, either, use dead reckoning (and echolot, if you >don't mind being noisy). > For the most part, you're right. Navigation using the low-frequency sonar would be much more difficult without computers to map the ocean floor. You could take fathometer readings to get depth directly under the keel and you could measure the depth of particular spots off to the side using directed sonar pings, but you woudln't have the instant mapping of the immediate surroundings. Interestingly, though, you do NOT need computers for basic navigation, and you don't need to go back to dead reckoning: inertial navigation systems, in the form of gyroscopes, were around for decades before computers were invented, and they're still carried on all ships. Therefore, assuming that all the computers on the sub have been destroyed accomplishes exactly the opposite of what the module author was attempting: rather than making navigation hard but not affecting combat, it would make combat impossible but would barely affect navigation. >And sonars + computers capable to track ships well enough to >torpedo them without periscope were aviable only in 1945 (German >side), in the last days of the war. So say they became common >in submarines in 1955. > I'm not familiar with this equipment, but I doubt it works anywhere near as well as the modern gear--I imagine subs in that era would still have been reliant primarily on the periscope for making attacks. At any rate, the problem is that they _weren't_ available in 1995 or 2000. They had long been replaced by digital computers. They aren't made anymore, though a few would be in museums (but it would probably be easier to install a new digital system if the old one were damaged by EMP). >> >Finally, just assume that you do not trust the inertia navigation >> >(and probably want to test it). Then the best method[1] is the >> >old and proven sextant one. > >> No, sorry, I'm not gonna make that assumption. U.S. submarines have a >> very, very sophisiticated inertial navigation system (especially the >> boomers, of course)--it's not a gyroscope exactly but it's the same >> principle (spinning balls of some exotic metal, as I recall). > >It's 3 gyroscopes for the 3 axes (turning) and 3 more for movement >(up/down, forward/backward, sideways). You can add more for >redundancy and accuracy. > No, it's not a normal gyroscope. They may carry normal gyroscopes as backups, but the system that U.S. subs use (at least the "Ohio"-class SSBN's, which is the only type I've ever been aboard) is different from a normal gyroscope, though the principle is the same. >> And since it >> has to be stable, as I recall it's mounted in the kind of housing that's >> not going to break unless the rest of the submarine is trashed. > >You need to maintain them never the less. And you need computing >power *and* programs to make them work. > No, you don't. Gyroscopes were used for decades before computers were around. Specific systems will be dependent on computers (indeed, some INS systems, which rely on measures of strain on computer chips, are completely computerized), but AFAIK contructing a non-computerized gyroscope system isn't that big a challenge. >> No, it's not perfect, and requires occasional corrections (and subs have >> GPS gear, and used NavStar satellites before GPS was available). > >You assume the GPS and NavStar satellites are still in working >order. No, I don't. I don't see anything in any of my posts that would lead you to believe that. >I would belive knocking them out to be a priority target. There may not even be weapons capable of destroying satellites directly, but I'm sure the EMP would have done the job. >Stop your enemy from knowing their positions well, especially in >your waters. After all, the US *did* remove most buoys in WWII. > Yes, and that's important in a channel or in shallow coastal water (which is the only place you have buoys), where a difference of a few yards could be critical. Other than that it's not a big deal--I would imagine the main goal of the U.S. action was to keep submarines from penetrating harbors. >> Yes, you >> would want to make those corrections, though I don't think using a sextant >> by hand would do the trick--it's probably not any more accurate--the best >> bet may be geographic references at points of landfall. > >A sextant can be pretty accurate. More than an average bearing >or 3 on the coast. Unless you line up 2 items each and are >where they cross each other. > Well, yes, you would want to triangulate, though if you have an accurate map, a submarine periscope is capable of determining range by combining an image's apparent size with knowledge of how big it actually is. You're essentially doing things by hand in either case, I suppose, but once you correct your position the INS will be okay for weeks or even months (depending on how much precision you need). The problem with the _Last_Submarine_ modules is that the author apparently was simply ignorant of the existence of gyroscopes or INS systems, and therfore assumed that the sub would have to navigate using dead reckoning. This is simply dead wrong. >> For that matter, >> in relatively shallow waters you could orient yourself using maps of the >> ocean floor in combination with the sub's low-frequency sonar (which is >> designed for that sort of thing, as well as detecting mines and other >> close-in objects). > >Maps of the ocean floor can supplement, but unless it is very >structured *and* non-changing, it won't be very usable. The ocean's floor doesn't change very quickly in most circumstances, and the Navy is very big on keeping current maps, especially of heavily frequented arreas like the cost of Great Britain. > >> However, the inertial navigation systems are _exceedingly_ adequate for >> getting a submarine across the ocean to within a few dozen yards of its >> planned landfall, or for navigating the English Channel without surfacing >> (critical for avoiding a French patrol in one of the modules). > >This feat (navigating the channel) has been done more than once. >Without gyroscopes. All you need is a map, a good tidal chart >(and an almanach showing the current state of tide), a reliable >compass of some sort, a way to measure your speed (and hopefully, >distance travelled) through water, a qualified helmsman and >knowing how to navigate by that. I know I could do it, given >the above. Even though the channel is not exactly easy water. > >And then there are periscopes. Even in the modern subs. Useful >things, these. No need to surface. > So you're agreeing with my point? I bet you were so wrapped up in the argument you didn't even realize that. :) >> With an inertial navigation system, it should either work or not--and it's >> not going to be one of the first things that breaks. > >It may have been opened for service, or the computers are not >yet yonnected/reprogrammed. In that case, it doesn't work. Are you under the impression that somehow your statement above disagrees with the statement quoted above it? Please, I can live without your manufacturing areas of "disagreement" just to prove that I'm wrong, even when we both think the same thing. >> And, I should stress here, even if it doesn't work, a gyroscope, carried by >> every merchant ship in the world, would to the trick quite nicely, as long >> as you don't plan on launching ICBM's or something similar that requires >> precise positioning (which of course the _CCC_ wouldn't do, not being a >> boomer). > >I doubt that the evil one had access to an old... No, it doesn't have to be old. ALL ships carry these things. >...functioning >merchant ship with that gear. And even then, you will want to >double check your position. > The module begins in a port. Are you of the opinion that it will be impossible to find a merchant ship in a port? >> I commend your efforts to salvage the modules in question, but the fact is >> that they were written by someone who was completely ignorant about ships, >> and there's really no way to reconcile them to the facts other than by >> changing the inaccurate parts. > >So you call knowing the fact that the Boomer has 3 pressure >hulls 'complete ignorance'. Naah. Maybe ignorant about some >facts. > Yes, I call it complete ignorance. The author dug up a couple of random facts but had no basic knowledge whatsoever on the subject. >> Another example is in the color text, where >> a character looks up the name of the Soviet boomer in >> _Jane's_Fighting_Ships_--when the modules were written, _Jane's_ didn't >> list the names of Soviet subs, and in fact still didn't do so as late as >> the 1991-92 _Jane's_ that I have on my shelf, for the simple reason that >> the Soviets didn't reveal those names. > >Reading page 5 (right next page after your colour text): >"The Barrikada mentioned in the message is recorded in the 199_6_ > issue of Jane's ...". >So 1992 does not count. Actually, everything including and past >1995 does not count, since the alternative time line begins in >1995 ... meaning they can prolly well do what they want there, >well, almost. Check the copyright date on the modules: 1988 and 1989. They were written before 1992. I don't know if the 1996 _Jane's_ actually included Russian sub names, but it certainly didn't include _Soviet_ sub names, which is what the author makes reference to; if it did the Russian names, it was because Communism had collapsed in Eastern Europe and the USSR had broken up, leaving a Russian government that was much more open than its Soviet predecessor. The module was written before the revolutions of 1989, meaning that the author had no reason whatsoever to assume that the information on Soviet subs would be any more extensive in 1996 than it was in 1988. The problem was probably that the author had never bothered to look in a copy of _Jane's_. >> Inertial navigation is considered so vital that _every_ ship has it and in >> fact has had it since like the 1920's. And like I said before, it's not >> like it would be hard to yank a gyroscope off a merchie. > >1920 sounds dead wrong for me. AFAIK WWII subs still had to >rely on more manual methods of navigation (crossed radio beacons >... like the one in Stavanger(sp) they shut down a few years ago, >sextant, etc.). > >I seem to remember that the US and British air force did use >these methods (e.g. crossed radio signals) as well, even for >precision bombing and their scouts. The gyroscpic compass was >in devellopment for fast fighters in 1943 in Germany. I don't recall how subs navigated in WWII, but I think the reason planes didn't carry gyroscopes is because they were still too big and heavy at the time to put on such a small vehicle. The same may have been true of WWII subs as well, but remember that not only has the equipment gotten smaller, but a 688 attack sub is twice the size of a WWII sub (though admittedly, some of the smaller modern patrol subs, like say the German ones, are actually smaller than some of the older ones). Please don't respond to this message unless you plan 1) to avoid disagreeing just for the sake of disagreement--that wastes my time and yours--and 2) to actually learn something about the way modern submarines (and ships in general) work. I really don't mind debating things, but it wastes both of our time if I'm forced to respond to stuff that you make up based purely on speculation from the little bit you know about the subject (and I confess here that I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I at least know a little bit about it). I mean, that's okay to an extent to speculate based on a little knowledge, and I do it myself, and by no means should you trust the word of experts without questioning them, but when someone who knows more about a subject than you do tells you you're flat wrong about something, either just accept that you're wrong, or else try to find the points on which you think the person responding to you is on really shaky ground or is vauge or confusing, and ask questions about those areas; don't try to refute every single point the person makes. > >Now, even today not every small (private/pleasure) plane has an >inertial navigation system (though it seems you can get them), >nor do pleasure crafts nor sailing yachts (45 feet class) have >them, even if they come with DECCA, GPS, electronic compass >and/or RADAR. I don't even know where else inertia navigation >is not commonly used, but I guess, there are quite a few. > >So I guess your estimate is wrong. I would even say that >many merchant vessels would rely on GPS rather than on inertia >navigation. But that is a wild guess. > >-Wolfgang > >-- > PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". > Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. > How to dominate the Internet/WWW/etc? Destroy the protocols! See: > http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:19:39 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Submarines At 05:29 PM 2/23/99 -0000, Mark Oliver wrote: > >From: Scott David Orr > ><<< Submarines then were designed to be run without computers. Yes, you >could take one underwater and sail it around I guess, but that's about it. >>>> > >The submarines in WW2 did a bit more than 'sail it around'. What they did >was limited to primarily actions against suface vessels and they appear to >have had very little impact on other submarines. > Those were WWII submarines, and they were designed to do that. Modern subs aren't. ><<< No, it doesn't work like that quite like that. In the first place, >you'd have to find the enemy submarine, which isn't possible without the >sonar, which won't work _at_all_ without the computers in WWI and WWII, all >they had for passive sonar was "hydrophones" >>> > >They had ASDIC which was a not very memorable name for active sonar. >Looking at the old war films that's the pinging. As such they would have >access to both active and passive sonar. I agree with your point about >operator skill, without computers to help process the sound and deal with >the accoustic problems (CVs, layers etc.) that the sea generates tracking >would have been a nightmare. > "ASDIC" (the British acronym) and "SONAR" (the American acronym) refer only to active sonar. Subs had it, but you probably wouldn't use it against another sub, since it gives away your position. "Hydrophones" were the equivalent of what we now call "passive sonar". These were useful to determine general ship types and to get their speeds and some guess about range (all based on operator skill), but firing on hydrophone data alone was very nearly hopeless (there are a handful of instances where this was tried and actually worked, but it was a very rare thing). Actually, I don't think that WWII subs even had sonar that was powerful enough that they would have had to worry about things like convergence zones or ducting. ><<< Second, most countries don't use straight-running torpedoes anymore >>> > >I think that they still do. I believe that in the Falklands conflict the >British navy sunk the Belgrano with conventional straight running torpedos. >For some reason they didn't use the modern weapons they had, there was some >tactical reason for this not just sheer bravado. > Yes, I think you're right. I don't remember exactly, but it may have been because the old British Tigerfish torpedoes (which they were using while the U.S. was using the early versions of the Mk48) were completely inadeuqte, since they were slow and short-ranged. But that was more than 15 years ago--the British have since upgraded to the much more adequate Spearfish (probably the best torpedo in the world), and I don't think they use straight-running torpedoes anymore. The U.S. certainly doesn't. >Weren't there homing torpedos introduced in the latter stages of WW2 by some >combatants? May be totally wrong on this issue but if there were then it >might be a bit more rugged and easy to manipulate compared to a computerised >system. > Yes, you're right. And no, they didn't use computers. But I doubt there are any left around anymore. >To conclude a can't see sub to sub combat being an issue in the T2K world >but anti-shipping and anti-harbour missions would be possible as they were >in WW1 and WW2. Remember that the anti-sub defenders would be limited back >to WW2 level technology as well (active+passive sonar and depth charges). > Well, if you want to assume all the computers are broken, I think you'd be right--BUT, you'd have to manufacture all the old equipment, such as straight-runing or analog homing torpedoes, again. And I'm not sure anyone is up to that. At any rate, I think it would be much harder than finding a few working sonar and targeting computers and modern torpedoes, or at worst fixing some. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #15 ************************************