twilight2000-digest Wednesday, February 24 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 016 The following topics are covered in this digest: Navigation Pole shifts Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Submarines Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Submarines Re: SV: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Submarines Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Submarines Fw: Navigation. EMP Re: Fw: Navigation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 18:16:14 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Navigation I remember reading a book that was written in 1943 on navigation for aviators and one possible source for navigation is AM stations. I seem to remember seeing old films and pictures from the 1920's through W.W.II where most planes, ships, and even subs had a loop antenna that was used to DF (direction find) longwave navigational beacons and AM stations to aid in navigation. AM stations, especially the 50,000 watt "blowtorches" and others that are higher power in the world could provide a good backup navigational aid however there could be some problems at night because AM radio bounces off the ionosphere for thousands of miles. I know in TW2K, there will be a lot of radio stations off the air but I'm sure there will be a fair number of them left among the military, government, private, and/or pirate stations that you'd see cropping up to fill the void of information (or disinformation) that would be out there. Nature abhors a vacuum. In a TW2K situation, you'd probably see a lot of non-computer based navigation aids pop up again. We'd see a return to something like the British DECCA system and LORAN-A. LORAN-A used part of the amateur 160 meter band from 1850 - 1950 kc. When I was a kid back in the 1970's, I remember hearing the distinct, spine-tingling buzz of LORAN-A on my shortwave radio at night when the skip came in. LORAN-A was discontinued in 1983, give or take. You have LORAN-C that operates at 100 kc, don't know a lot about that one along with various longwave stations from 150 - 530 kc that are still around. I pick up quite a few at night on longwave. There are (were) navigational aids on longwave called "confluence stations." Confluence stations broadcast differing times dashes (dahs) beamed in different directions. There is a narrow overlap where you hear the dashes merge into a single carrier which sounds like a constant beep meaning that "you are on the beam." I think there is a station left in Norway and some left in the old USSR. They were the main way to mark the pathways for aircraft back in the 1920's to the 1950's when VOR (VHF Omni Ranging) took over on VHF. As to subs, I know that many subs do have a system for spotting stars in their periscopes for celestial navigation according to the book, _The Way Things Work_ - Volume 2 - 1971 (originally a German book, published in 1967). Of course, there are inertial navigation devices that would be used, if they are in working shape, and there is always the old standby, dead reckoning, if you are really in a jam. Chuck DE KA3WRW "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been canceled. *************************************************************************** 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 18:28:53 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Pole shifts Been listening to Art Bell lately? B-) Hmmm, a good question. I know it would affect navigation aids that were based on using the Earth's magnetic field as a reference. If the poles would shift, I guess your compass needle would point south instead of north. The magnetic poles do change slowly over time. I have an old 1967 National Geography article that dates American Indian artifacts be comparing them to the historical changes of the magnetic poles. I think the poles have done complete shifts about a dozen times throughout the world's history or at least that's what I have read or heard. I don't think radio based navigation aids would be affected too much for direct line of sight use or groundwaves that follow the curvature of the Earth. It could affect radio waves bouncing off the ionosphere maybe although a lot of other things could factor into that from nuclear explosions to sunspots. Inertial systems based on some fixed point in a dead reckoning or radio system, I don't see any problems although if it is based on a compass tied to the magnetic field, it will until the error is compensated for. Celestial navigation, not, unless the Earth's axis changes too. BTW, Art Bell is a radio talkshow host who talks about various issues like Earth changes, the paranormal, UFO's, doomsday predictions, and so on. Good fodder to spice up any TW2K game. Chuck DE KA3WRW "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. - -----Original Message----- From: Mathias Köppen >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? > >Regards, > >Mathias Köppen *************************************************************************** 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 18:37:07 -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: >> 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. Oh, another point. There's no such thing as "the 1996 issue of _Jane's_". _Jane's_ is always published during the middle of the year, and carries a date listing both calendar years for which it's current. So there's a "1995-96" issue and a "1996-97", but no "1996". 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 19:37:08 -0400 From: trustno1 Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges >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. Here in Canada, were we operate 3 of the world's oldest submarines in current use; Ojibwa 'Oberon Class' Submarines from the 60's (although they have been upgraded since then, of course). In a very recent documentary I saw, it *appeared* that they was still capable of making torpedo 'firing solutions' via the use of the secondary Attack periscope and some math. However, the wire guided Mk 48 torpedoes would certainly need a computer to control them to maximum effectiveness, I would think. I'm new to list, and I missed the start of this thread, so I'm unsure of what class of submarines is being talked about here. *************************************************************************** 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 15:55:07 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: Submarines - ---Scott David Orr wrote: > > "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. > Active Sonar is however, very useful when you know that the enemy knows where you are. It evens everything up. It is also useful for travelling through waters that you don't have proper, up to date maps for, or if you believe there might be a submerged minefield in the area. Of course, like you said, you're broadcasting your position to everyone in the vicinity. > "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). > With the fact that any surviving subs (and surface ships, don't forget them) are back to simple hydrophones, i think active sonar would be much more important. However, since sub to sub combat would be next to impossible, it's uses would be limited to a more navigational/surface attack roll. > 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. > I don't think it would be that difficult to modify existing torpedoes to run straight. However, the difficulty would lie in the fusing for it. Unless you have very accurate range/speed/etc. data, a timed fuse or remote fuse (this might or might not be possible to rig... i don't know) would be taking a pot shot at best. A proximity fuse would be much more useful, but this becomes much more difficult to do. I remember reading about the proximity fuses the Germans were using at the beginning of WWII, and how much difficulty they initially had with premature/non detonation, though they eventually got it right. If you could find their old plans (good adventure hook maybe) it probably wouldn't be that hard to put together, but without them I think it would be very difficult. So with the right equipment and knowledge, i think you could jury-rig Mark-48s or whatever into straight-running, proximity fused torpedoes. Just my take, i could be completely wrong i guess. 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 19:18:42 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges At 07:37 PM 2/23/99 -0400, trustno1 wrote: > > Here in Canada, were we operate 3 of the world's oldest submarines in >current use; Ojibwa 'Oberon Class' Submarines from the 60's (although they >have been upgraded since then, of course). In a very recent documentary I >saw, it *appeared* that they was still capable of making torpedo 'firing >solutions' via the use of the secondary Attack periscope and some math. >However, the wire guided Mk 48 torpedoes would certainly need a computer to >control them to maximum effectiveness, I would think. > I'm sure you could use either periscope, and the math is doable in theory without a computer, though you'd need not only a slide rule but trigonmetric look-up tables. > I'm new to list, and I missed the start of this thread, so I'm unsure of >what class of submarines is being talked about here. > The submarine in questions was the _City_of_Corpus_Christi_ (_CCC_ or "C-cubed"--they had to add the "City", or they would have been naming a weapon of war "The Body of Christ" :), a "Los Angeles"-class attack sub which appears in the module trilogy _The_Last_ _Submarine_, published in 1988 and 1989 (before the 2.0 rules and new timeline). I don't remember all the specifics (I think some of the really spiffy modern equipment was destroyed or deteriorated and was replaced by less sophisticated stuff), but the module posits, among other things, that because the GPS system was destroyed during the war, the submarine must surface and use a sextant to navigate (in addition to dead reckoning of course, but I'm not sure the author knows enough about navigation to realize that you need to do this as well as use the sextant). The author seems to be wholly ignorant of the existence of inertial navigation systems, including simple gyroscopes. My pointing this out was what started the thread. 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 19:26:01 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Submarines At 03:55 PM 2/23/99 -0800, Michael Cook wrote: >> >Active Sonar is however, very useful when you know that the enemy >knows where you are. It evens everything up. It is also useful for >travelling through waters that you don't have proper, up to date maps >for, or if you believe there might be a submerged minefield in the >area. Of course, like you said, you're broadcasting your position to >everyone in the vicinity. > Yes; at any rate, I don't think it was ever used by submarines to make an attack--they rarely used it at all in WWII, and I'm not even positive they were equipped with it (I've never read an account of one using it). >>"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). >> >With the fact that any surviving subs (and surface ships, don't forget >them) are back to simple hydrophones, i think active sonar would be >much more important. However, since sub to sub combat would be next to >impossible, it's uses would be limited to a more navigational/surface >attack roll. Probably. But still, I wouldn't want to assume that subs were back yo simple hydrophones. >>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. > >I don't think it would be that difficult to modify existing torpedoes >to run straight. However, the difficulty would lie in the fusing for >it. Unless you have very accurate range/speed/etc. data, a timed fuse >or remote fuse (this might or might not be possible to rig... i don't >know) would be taking a pot shot at best. A proximity fuse would be >much more useful, but this becomes much more difficult to do. >I remember reading about the proximity fuses the Germans were using at >the beginning of WWII, and how much difficulty they initially had with >premature/non detonation, though they eventually got it right. If you >could find their old plans (good adventure hook maybe) it probably >wouldn't be that hard to put together, but without them I think it >would be very difficult. So with the right equipment and knowledge, i >think you could jury-rig Mark-48s or whatever into straight-running, >proximity fused torpedoes. Just my take, i could be completely wrong i >guess. The U.S. also had fuse trouble, even with their contact fuses. But yes, I suppose it could be done. Still, I don't see a need to do this: I know that the original TW2K background says that all the computers died to EMP. However, it was always the case in the game background that hardened military computers, such as targeting computers, often survived, and this would probably apply to submarines as well. But I think another point is that the game was originally written before they started putting computer chips in _everything_, right down to protable radios. If _every_ silicon chip in the world went bye-bye, practically NOTHING would work. While this would be an interesting game world to play in, I don't think it would really match the game world that the TW2000 authors had in mind. Therefore, I think I'd back off any insistence that EMP destroyed every computer on the face of the planet. 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 18:17:45 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: SV: T2K nuclear exchanges Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: > At 10:31 AM 2/23/99 +0100, Mathias Köppen wrote: > >What if the poles changed (as it does from time to time) which would mean from time to time is a couple of thousand years ... :-) > > that north became south on a compass. How would this affect all modern > > navigation equipment which doesn't use satellites? Since you happen to have deviation (local mispointing of the magnetic field) there is already an adjustment possible. You would just set the deviation to ~180° and all should work (actually you might need a software update). > It would affect compasses, but it wouldn't affect gyroscopes or other > inertial navigations systems at all. *nod* Much more fun can be had near the magnetic poles anyway ... no usable (magnetic) compass readings. During the time when the magnetic field disappears nearly completely (while switching sides) this effect will be everywhere ... but that's at least 1k or 2k years away, IIRC. The loaded particles which will bombard the earth increasingly will be much more 'fun', tho'. > (That being said, I think a sudden and unexpected shift in the poles is > rather unlikely, even during a nuclear war.) No nuclear war will change much permanently with the earths magnetic field. Unless you blow out mayor chunks of the earth itself. - -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 18:55:03 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: Submarines Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: > 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, ... when it's submerged. Not a given in all cases. But remember that the *Last* Submarine is probably really about the last one (the Boomer is about the last Boomer ... and not operable). > which won't work _at_all_ without the computers. In WWI and WWII, all they > had for passive sonar was "hydrophones", which basically relied on the Well, modern subs use the same basic stuff (just advanced by computers and 30 or 40 years of devellopment). The second you switch on your active sonar you do the equivalent of a soldier sneaking through high grass with potential enemies crawling or walking all around him, suddenly leaping op in the air, shouting "HERE AM I!", sounding a powerful foghorn, having a dozend spotlights highlighting him, firing flares by the sixpack and so on ... So you use it just when you know you are invulnerable (very close behind the enemy (would hurt itself with a torpedo)), when you need an exact position and don't care alerting everything and everyone many miles around you, or when you are already pinpointed and locked on. But I take it you know ASIC(sp?) (basically a rotating sonar on destroyers and so on). Aviable early in WWII. > skill of the operator and were only useful for getting a bearing and maybe, > with a lot of skill and effort, a target track--but attacks using passive > sonar alone were exceedingly rare, and successful attacks even rare; Actually, until the last weeks of WWII it would not have been possible (unless you really got really lucky), but then a system was aviable that: - - could track ships from 50 meters submerged - - was mounted on a sub type more than twice as fast as the ones it replaced - - managed to make a (well, mock-)attack against a warship, without the warship noticing the sub at all. It did not fire torpedoes as the cease-fire was already in force. That does not include torpedoes that had accustic automatic steering (and some were develloped to be used against diving and submerged submarines). Aviable late 1943, IIRC. Today's equivalent would be the ASROC (though these were plane-launched, not rocket launched). > attacks against submerged submarines were rarest of all (I've heard of > maybe one successful one, in WWI, though it's possible it happened once or > twice in WWII). Well ... sub against submerged sub ... that probably has not happened. But surface against submerged sub was common ... and much more successful than the submariners liked it. ASIC and passive hydrophones were often good enough to pick the sub up. (However ASIC did not work well very close to the destroyer, so subs would just make a sharp turn to avoid the water bombs ... hopefully.) Then you have water bombs, the hedgehog (24 or so contact bombs) thrown quite some distance ahead of the sub destroyer. Thus not breaking the contact with needless explosions and you get to have a bearing while you fire. Air and sub launched homing torpedoes (non-computerized, of course). > Second, most countries don't use straight-running torpedoes anymore: they > use homing torpedoes, which means that the weapon itself has a computer > onboard, which it uses to process data from its own sonar and to track the > target. Yes, but you need no computer for it, it has been done without. Mostly they run on hydrophones as well. Only if you have a full-blown sonar or if you need to distinguish clever spoofings you will want a real computer. A cheap weapon that does the job means you get more of them. - -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 19:53:44 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: > So you call knowing the fact that the Boomer has 3 pressure > hulls 'complete ignorance'. Naah. Maybe ignorant about some > facts. > I thought it was two hulls, one inner, one outer. *************************************************************************** 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 19:53:29 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges The Corpus Christi (called "CC" so far in this thread) is a Los Angeles class. The boomer from "Boomer" is a Typhoon class. trustno1 wrote: > >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. > > Here in Canada, were we operate 3 of the world's oldest submarines in > current use; Ojibwa 'Oberon Class' Submarines from the 60's (although they > have been upgraded since then, of course). In a very recent documentary I > saw, it *appeared* that they was still capable of making torpedo 'firing > solutions' via the use of the secondary Attack periscope and some math. > However, the wire guided Mk 48 torpedoes would certainly need a computer to > control them to maximum effectiveness, I would think. > > I'm new to list, and I missed the start of this thread, so I'm unsure of > what class of submarines is being talked about here. > > *************************************************************************** > 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 20:01:46 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Submarines Perhaps its just that I'm in Silicon Valley, but computers are everywhere and having everyone break seems unrealistic to me. And how does it damage chips and such? they are cleared by exposing them to a UV light. Certainly with enough radiation you would lose all data stored on magnetic storage devices, but this would have to be very strong (remember that radiation gets exponentially weaker with distance). More likely I would say would be damage to data. Even if all your data got wiped out it wouldn't destroy the drive or disk. And then you have to remember all the data on solid state electronics (ssd hard drives, embedded systems, palmtops that use pcmcia cards, optical disks, etc etc). As for power for computers, if you have gasoline it would be as simple as building a DC-DC power supply that would take input from a car cigarette lighter. Or raid a store and steal one. But that gets away from the main point :) Scott David Orr wrote: > At 03:55 PM 2/23/99 -0800, Michael Cook wrote: > >> > >Active Sonar is however, very useful when you know that the enemy > >knows where you are. It evens everything up. It is also useful for > >travelling through waters that you don't have proper, up to date maps > >for, or if you believe there might be a submerged minefield in the > >area. Of course, like you said, you're broadcasting your position to > >everyone in the vicinity. > > > Yes; at any rate, I don't think it was ever used by submarines to make an > attack--they rarely used it at all in WWII, and I'm not even positive they > were equipped with it (I've never read an account of one using it). > > >>"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). > >> > >With the fact that any surviving subs (and surface ships, don't forget > >them) are back to simple hydrophones, i think active sonar would be > >much more important. However, since sub to sub combat would be next to > >impossible, it's uses would be limited to a more navigational/surface > >attack roll. > > Probably. But still, I wouldn't want to assume that subs were back yo > simple hydrophones. > > >>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. > > > >I don't think it would be that difficult to modify existing torpedoes > >to run straight. However, the difficulty would lie in the fusing for > >it. Unless you have very accurate range/speed/etc. data, a timed fuse > >or remote fuse (this might or might not be possible to rig... i don't > >know) would be taking a pot shot at best. A proximity fuse would be > >much more useful, but this becomes much more difficult to do. > >I remember reading about the proximity fuses the Germans were using at > >the beginning of WWII, and how much difficulty they initially had with > >premature/non detonation, though they eventually got it right. If you > >could find their old plans (good adventure hook maybe) it probably > >wouldn't be that hard to put together, but without them I think it > >would be very difficult. So with the right equipment and knowledge, i > >think you could jury-rig Mark-48s or whatever into straight-running, > >proximity fused torpedoes. Just my take, i could be completely wrong i > >guess. > > The U.S. also had fuse trouble, even with their contact fuses. But yes, I > suppose it could be done. > > Still, I don't see a need to do this: I know that the original TW2K > background says that all the computers died to EMP. However, it was always > the case in the game background that hardened military computers, such as > targeting computers, often survived, and this would probably apply to > submarines as well. > > But I think another point is that the game was originally written before > they started putting computer chips in _everything_, right down to protable > radios. If _every_ silicon chip in the world went bye-bye, practically > NOTHING would work. While this would be an interesting game world to play > in, I don't think it would really match the game world that the TW2000 > authors had in mind. Therefore, I think I'd back off any insistence that > EMP destroyed every computer on the face of the planet. > > Scott Orr > *************************************************************************** > 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 23:21:58 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Fw: Navigation. - -----Original Message----- From: loonz857@mindspring.com To: T2K Mailing List Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 6:51 PM Subject: Navigation. >The only thing that would inhibit a sub from submerging "information wise" >would be depth and fathometers are calibrated semi annually and annually, >atleast Navy models are and making modifications to the type of equipment on >a sub is a complex project. I would say after 5 years of low maintenance >the fatho' installed would be unreliable in the shallows atleast, and >swapping or refitting would be very difficult. Manual soundings are >possible and accurate but only at shallow depths, and would probably only be >conducted in local waters. But once at sea there are few obstructions too >fear at all but the extreme depths so if they dont push the depth it they >should be able too do it, but not close in shore. GPS is most certainly >gone from just the multiple EMP bursts it would have to tolerate even if not >targeted specifically. > >Celestial and non-electronic navigation is a common trade taught often, >formally and informally, training at sea and the academy is dictated by the >most likely conflict, in the 90's and beyond that is hands down a littoral >fight of which "position" is pre defined for the most part, and not very >dynamic. Senior enlisted and all Officers should be able to assist this >type of navigation in a majority of cases. Means of navigation available in >T2K would be Celestial (with Sextant), Visual (compass bearings to known >points, rarely buoys, mostly buildings, towers and other very defined >structures). Underwater maps are near useless without a fatho' and there >data is very short lived for accuracy in areas close in shore especially. >The secrecy of underwater data dealt with both depth and what were you doing >there at the time of the soundings (never adequately answered by either >side). > >All sensor data takes a chip of some sort. So if your campaign takes away >all chips then no Sonar (Passive or Active or the even the fatho'), no >weapons because the MK 48 is wire guided and needs a puter. Mk46's the >surface version and used in SUBROC is more analog but still needs logic >circuits in the sensor (either active acquisition or passive homing, ya need >both), but the 46' is my bet for a post war survivor, but SUBROC was >retired. A sub would have no weapons and mounting deck points by >inexperienced labor could damage the pressure hull. As to sensor data >operators are rigorously trained in this "Art" and could function to a great >extent with out the logic of the sensor, but the gyro feed to the sensor >would have to be stable as well. NATO weapons operate on the same principle >but have different payloads, ranges, speeds, depths, turning radius etc.. > >A small tip of the conversation but I hope it helps. > > > >Dwight >loonz857@yahoo.com >http://bookmark.findhere.com >http://t2k.findhere.com > > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:22:35 -0400 From: trustno1 Subject: EMP >And how does it damage chips and such? EMP is one of those subjects that all TW2K'ers should be well versed in :) Taken from: http://www.io.com/~hcexres/tcm1603/acchtml/caus_ex.html Electromagnetic Pulse Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a type of nuclear fallout. The principal victims of EMP are the solid state circuits that form the groundwork of our modern world. In 1962 the United States set off a 1.4 megaton hydrogen bomb 248 miles above Johnston Island. On Ohau, 800 miles northeast, 300 streetlights went dark, and hundreds of burglar alarms began ringing. EMP is produced when gamma rays emitted during the first few nanoseconds (a nanosecond is one-billionth of a second) of a high-altitude nuclear burst collide with upper-atmosphere. Electrons scattered by gamma rays accelerate and deflect off the earth's magnetic field. These electrons produce an extremely high-voltage electric current; the current then sets up EMPs, which radiate to earth. Figure 1 shows the EMP ground coverage for nuclear bursts at 100, 300, and 500 kilometers above the United States. Any metal object--antenna, cable, pipeline, fence, powerline--can act as a pulse collector, gathering energy from the transitory charge. EMP travels through the collector to damage the machinery. Electromagnetic pulse is short lived, having a duration 100 times shorter than that of a lightning bolt and does not carry a large amount of energy. One-millionth of the energy of a nuclear explosion goes into EMP; therefore, it is harmless to humans. Everything from TVs to cars, from home appliances to industrial control equipment, from power current sensors to broadcast devices and computers are likely to malfunction as a result of EMP. It may also affect electronic controls in nuclear power plants and initiate meltdowns in every nuclear reactor in the country. The military has begun shielding or "hardening" its equipment against EMP. The Department of Defense is now buying fiberoptic cables to replace the old ones for its ground-based communications network. Computers, power, and communications are the basic systems affected by EMP. Old fashioned electronic equipment (high-voltage motors and vacuum tubes) are EMP resistant; however, the types of computer chips in military and civilian telecommunications systems are EMP fragile. No one knows whether the "red alert" network (the president's wartime communications network) will function in a nuclear attack. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:20:07 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. At 11:21 PM 2/23/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: > >The only thing that would inhibit a sub from submerging "information wise" >would be depth and fathometers are calibrated semi annually and annually, >atleast Navy models are and making modifications to the type of equipment >on a sub is a complex project. I would say after 5 years of low maintenance >the fatho' installed would be unreliable in the shallows atleast, and >swapping or refitting would be very difficult. Manual soundings are >possible and accurate but only at shallow depths, and would probably only >be conducted in local waters. But once at sea there are few obstructions >too fear at all but the extreme depths so if they dont push the depth it >they should be able too do it, but not close in shore. GPS is most >certainly gone from just the multiple EMP bursts it would have to tolerate >even if not targeted specifically. The idea of the module is that the sub in question has just been refitted, so I don't think you can assume that nothing works. Parts might be in short supply, but anything that just requires recalibration and low-level maintenance should be in working order. Oh, and it wouldn't be five years anyway--the nuclear war started in 1997, and I think the ship was in refit before that, so you're talking three years at most, and no operations during that time. > >Celestial and non-electronic navigation is a common trade taught often, >formally and informally, training at sea and the academy is dictated by the >most likely conflict, in the 90's and beyond that is hands down a littoral >fight of which "position" is pre defined for the most part, and not very >dynamic. Senior enlisted and all Officers should be able to assist this >type of navigation in a majority of cases. Means of navigation available >in T2K would be Celestial (with Sextant), Visual (compass bearings to known >points, rarely buoys, mostly buildings, towers and other very defined >structures). Underwater maps are near useless without a fatho' and there >data is very short lived for accuracy in areas close in shore especially. >The secrecy of underwater data dealt with both depth and what were you >doing there at the time of the soundings (never adequately answered by >either side). The secrecy of the data isn't a problem, since the players are hired by one of the governments (I can't remember which one) to perform this mission, and they start out at a USN shipyard. I didn't realize data on the ocean floor changed so fast--still, the low-frequency sonar would be useful at least for avoiding the bottom. > >All sensor data takes a chip of some sort. So if your campaign takes away >all chips then no Sonar (Passive or Active or the even the fatho'), no >weapons because the MK 48 is wire guided and needs a puter. Mk46's the >surface version and used in SUBROC is more analog but still needs logic >circuits in the sensor (either active acquisition or passive homing, ya >need both), but the 46' is my bet for a post war survivor, but SUBROC was >retired. A sub would have no weapons and mounting deck points by >inexperienced labor could damage the pressure hull. As to sensor data >operators are rigorously trained in this "Art" and could function to a >great extent with out the logic of the sensor, but the gyro feed to the >sensor would have to be stable as well. NATO weapons operate on the same >principle but have different payloads, ranges, speeds, depths, turning >radius etc.. I think in the modules the author didn't actually assume that all computers had been destroyed: if he had, then I can see there being navigational problems, although I still think a simple gyroscope would be an expedient solution. However, the author assumes that the sub's sonar and weapons are working (some of it, I think, with new equipment, perhaps not quite as good as the original), but still insists that the sub has to use a sextant to navigate. This to me indicates that the author is completely unaware of the concept of inertial navigation: to make the scenario work, the sonar and weapons equipment would have to have survived (or been replaced) but not the navigational equipment. That I think is silly, especially since the former is probably going to be a lot more sophisticated than the latter. Well, you obvoiusly know more about the navigation systems than I do. :) 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 #16 ************************************