twilight2000-digest Wednesday, February 24 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 017 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: EMP Re: Submarines Re: Bundeswehr Questions Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Submarines Re:Computers Re: EMP Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Submarines Re: Submarines Re: Submarines Re: Submarines -> Non-radio Infantry Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Submarines Re: Submarines ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:24:51 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges At 07:53 PM 2/23/99 -0800, Peter Vieth wrote: >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. > I thought so too, so I checked _Jane's_. Er, you're both right....Technically, it is a double-hulled vessel, but it's got two separate inner hulls in addition to the outer one. 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 21:32:39 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: EMP It says "A standard bomb in today's arsenals is one of 20 megatons." Is this correct? Cuz thats one big ass bomb. trustno1 wrote: > >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. *************************************************************************** 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 01:37:37 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Submarines At 06:55 PM 2/23/99 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >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). > True. >> 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 ... Well, it's the same stuff--except that it doesn't work at all without the computers. Heck, I would imagine that the sound detecting and producing equipment itself is silicon-chip-based. > >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. > ASDIC was the British acronym for what the U.S. called SONAR--that is, active sonar. >> 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)... It did happen on at least one occasion that I know of (a U.S. sub against a Japanese ship). >...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 Well, it wasn't that fast when submerged 50m, because it couldn't schnorkel then :). >- 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. > Yes, this is true, but as I pointed out earlier, the sub in the TW2000 module would not have this equipment. It doesn't exist anymore. >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). > But again, this is all entirely irrelevant, because this stuff is no longer in existence. So I'm not sure what your point is. >> 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. Yes, it happened a few times, and there are suspicions one sub may even have killed another this way--but it would have been hard to tell for sure. [Snip.] >> 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. > Okay, to return to the topic: The author of _The_Last_Submarine_ trilogy has the subs weapons and sonar all working (I don't remember if they were working perfectly, but they were working), with passive detection and homing torpedoes and everything. This implies that the sub has working computers, since (while it's certainly true that subs have done without computers in the past) the types of sonar and torpedoes used by the sub in question, and which the author assumes that it uses, REQUIRE computers. Despite this, he thinks the sub can't navigate without GPS, except by using a sextant and dead reckoning. This is just plain stupid, and none of the facts you've pointed out change that. 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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 03:41:22 EST From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: Bundeswehr Questions In a message dated 99-02-23 17:38:48 EST, you write: << 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 ?? >> Krankenschwester: Female nurse Krankenpfleger: Male nurse Krankenpflegehelfer: Assistant nurse Krankenpflegepersonal: Nurse/Medical staff Sanitatstruppe: Ambulance unit Sanitatsdienst: Medical service Note: I'm not fluent, so if someone else is, and if I missed something, please correct me. *************************************************************************** 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 04:01:07 EST From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges In a message dated 99-02-23 18:56:43 EST, you write: << 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". >> ERRRRTTT! Wrong. If you get the Jane's Recognition Guides, rather than the full books, you get a book that has a publication date of one year only. There is a Jane's Naval Recognition guide that was published in 1996. However, the information in it is taken from the 1995-96 Jane's Naval Book. Trust me on this one, I've got them. *************************************************************************** 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 01:00:01 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: Submarines - ---Scott David Orr wrote: > Okay, to return to the topic: > > The author of _The_Last_Submarine_ trilogy has the subs weapons and sonar > all working (I don't remember if they were working perfectly, but they were > working), with passive detection and homing torpedoes and everything. This > implies that the sub has working computers, since (while it's certainly > true that subs have done without computers in the past) the types of sonar > and torpedoes used by the sub in question, and which the author assumes > that it uses, REQUIRE computers. Despite this, he thinks the sub can't > navigate without GPS, except by using a sextant and dead reckoning. This > is just plain stupid, and none of the facts you've pointed out change that. It would seem that the author simply devised the section about having to use a sextant for navigation for color, just to remind players who are aboard this submarine with all of these computers and high-tech equiptment that this is still the world of Twilight:2000. My advise to GMs is, if your players are getting too much into all the technology and need a jolt of reality, then use the sextant reference, but if you are concerned with exploring what really might be the case of surviving subs, then don't use it... IMHO........Strategist 2000 _________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 04:16:12 EST From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re:Computers In a message dated 99-02-23 23:08:14 EST, you write: << 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 :) >> I'll assume your referring to the comment made about EMP. In that case, EMP is not related to the radiation of the nuclear bomb. It is totally different and deals with a charged field affecting electrical fields and surfaces. Anything with an antenna, or plugged into a source of power which may be affected by the EMP field, will be affected by it. That includes computers that are on OR plugged in. If you need more info on this, I can be more specific, but it takes a lot more explaining. *************************************************************************** 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 04:19:28 EST From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: EMP In a message dated 99-02-23 23:41:27 EST, you write: << 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. >> (MUCH SNIPPING) Well, yes, thank you. That is all the stuff that I didn't cover. :) *************************************************************************** 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 12:21:51 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. - -----Original Message----- From: Scott David Orr To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 12:20 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. .> >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. >> >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. >> As to spare parts for machinery on ships, alot of parts can and as a practise are fabricated in and by the yard from plans. These fabrications require stock of various metals and stock to be available so refitting should be an adventure in it's own. As to the fatho' your probably right, but I would as a sub skipper like to "KNOW" it's ok, so comparison or manual soundings or other fatho' should be used. Bottom data only changes drasticly in shallows, and then nearly exclusively in the vicinity of tidal areas, which is usually where ships tie up. As to calibrating being easy? Who calibrated the the calibration gear, retreving the bench marks for this stuff would take one too the far corners of America. Yet another adventure. > >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. > No, having a gyroscope or an independent inertial nav array is not sufficient without sufficient updates. Either by Bottom Contour (SONAR), GPS (nuff said), RADAR (Periscope), Visual (Periscope) or Celestial (Periscope). A ship has to get in and out of port and very few ports that are that forgiving as to allow one to eye ball it, Mayport Fla, Guantanamo Bay are a few that come to mind but none North of Charleston SC or West of Tampa FL come to mind (not that they don't exist). Sailboats with next to no draft can get away with it, warships and merchants can't. >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. :) Thanks Scott just tryin ta add where I can, aint like Navy stuff comes up every day in T2K, :-) IIWM I would manual sound the channel out, correct charts as required. I would navigate out visually, with a lead ship equip with any common commercial sonar to verify my fatho'. Once at see I can use inertial off my last visual fix Lat/Long, but regularly away from land fall I will want get a fix via celestial or HFDF both preferably. As to weapons of preferance against a target that cant detect me or cant catch me? Mines. After mission, reverse steps. Hope this helps, but it was a fun thread ta read. 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. *************************************************************************** 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 12:39:25 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Submarines - -----Original Message----- From: Scott David Orr To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 1:37 AM Subject: Re: Submarines >>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 ... > >Well, it's the same stuff--except that it doesn't work at all without the >computers. Heck, I would imagine that the sound detecting and producing >equipment itself is silicon-chip-based. My buddies tell me (more accurate than Janes), they could conceiveably get the passive to work reliably in this situation. Active as you said above would require an immense amount of refit. >>> 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)... > >It did happen on at least one occasion that I know of (a U.S. sub against a >Japanese ship). As I said before passive is the prefered method, the first sign they were in trouble would be the launch noise. The weapon does the aquisition even the wire runners. > >>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). >> >But again, this is all entirely irrelevant, because this stuff is no longer >in existence. So I'm not sure what your point is. > Aircraft drop a Torpedoe. The ASROC is Ship launched, SUBROC is sub launched. Both just balistic weapons, a MK46 torp on a rocket, and I think the 46' is your best bet since we "could" have an abundant supply of the older analog ones around. Even the Fire control to the biggest extent is analog. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. >>> 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. See above >The author of _The_Last_Submarine_ trilogy has the subs weapons and sonar >all working (I don't remember if they were working perfectly, but they were >working), with passive detection and homing torpedoes and everything. This >implies that the sub has working computers, since (while it's certainly >true that subs have done without computers in the past) the types of sonar >and torpedoes used by the sub in question, and which the author assumes >that it uses, REQUIRE computers. Despite this, he thinks the sub can't >navigate without GPS, except by using a sextant and dead reckoning. This >is just plain stupid, and none of the facts you've pointed out change that. > Covered in another post, plus I thought we were just shredding the Sub module? :-) 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. *************************************************************************** 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 12:42:54 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Submarines - -----Original Message----- From: Josh Baumgartner To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 4:03 AM Subject: Re: Submarines >It would seem that the author simply devised the section about having >to use a sextant for navigation for color, just to remind players who >are aboard this submarine with all of these computers and high-tech >equiptment that this is still the world of Twilight:2000. My advise >to GMs is, if your players are getting too much into all the >technology and need a jolt of reality, then use the sextant reference, >but if you are concerned with exploring what really might be the case >of surviving subs, then don't use it... > >IMHO........Strategist 2000 > Sextants can also be reliable in the desert. Dwight loonz857@yahoo.com http://bookmark.findhere.com http://t2k.findher.com > >_________________________________________________________ >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. *************************************************************************** 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 19:56:51 -0000 From: "Tas" Subject: Re: Submarines - -----Original Message----- : :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. Won't help with a strategic sub that has gone out with a bay full of ICBMs! Unless they plot the angles to the nearest target and launch the missile anyway :-) Also, despite lots of references to W.W.II abilities of equipment, one of the drawbacks of modern soldiering is an increasing reliance on technology. I have just come back from an Infantry exercise and to be brutally honest, without radio comms between section commander and 2ic (etc) they would have be cut to shreds.Training and tactics (and the weapons systems) are built around the availability of the High tech warfighting kit. *************************************************************************** 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 16:38:51 -0400 From: trustno1 Subject: Re: Submarines -> Non-radio Infantry wrote: >Also, despite lots of references to W.W.II abilities of equipment, one >of the drawbacks of modern soldiering is an increasing reliance on >technology. I have just come back from an Infantry exercise and to be >brutally honest, without radio comms between section commander and 2ic >(etc) they would have be cut to shreds.Training and tactics (and the >weapons systems) are built around the availability of the High tech >warfighting kit. Interesting to note that some countries do train for non-radio situations. Noteable, the old Soviets could conduct large scale infantry ops with small wooden whistles, and armoured ops with semaphore style flags. Also lots of 'less modern' armies still use WW2 Field Phone technology; no electronics, just two phone boxes, a few C cells, and a lot of wire to connect them together... does the US Army still use this technology, or is everything radio now ? *************************************************************************** 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 16:14:44 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges At 04:01 AM 2/24/99 EST, Grimace997@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 99-02-23 18:56:43 EST, you write: > ><< > 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". > >> > >ERRRRTTT! Wrong. No, I was right. Even if I had been wrong, this would an exceptionally rude way to go about telling me--certainly not the sort of behavior worthy of an adult. >If you get the Jane's Recognition Guides, rather than the >full books, you get a book that has a publication date of one year only. >There is a Jane's Naval Recognition guide that was published in 1996. >However, the information in it is taken from the 1995-96 Jane's Naval Book. > >Trust me on this one, I've got them. I'm sure you do. However, when someone refers to a book as "_Jane's_" the assumption is that the reference is to _Jane's_Fighting_Ships_--indeed, I've never heard the term used any other way, except of course as a reference to the entire publisher. I doubt the author was even aware that the recognition guides existed. 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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:17:54 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. At 12:21 PM 2/24/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: >As to spare parts for machinery on ships, alot of parts can and as a >practise are fabricated in and by the yard from plans. These fabrications >require stock of various metals and stock to be available so refitting >should be an adventure in it's own. > >As to the fatho' your probably right, but I would as a sub skipper like to >"KNOW" it's ok, so comparison or manual soundings or other fatho' should be >used. Bottom data only changes drasticly in shallows, and then nearly >exclusively in the vicinity of tidal areas, which is usually where ships tie >up. As to calibrating being easy? Who calibrated the the calibration gear, >retreving the bench marks for this stuff would take one too the far corners >of America. Yet another adventure. Well, they _are_ at a shipyard, maybe the Groton yard? I don't remember for sure. So they're in the one place it would be easiest to find the stuff. And yes, it wold be an adventure if the characters had to do it, but someone else does it for them. >>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. >> >No, having a gyroscope or an independent inertial nav array is not >sufficient without sufficient updates. Either by Bottom Contour (SONAR), >GPS (nuff said), RADAR (Periscope), Visual (Periscope) or Celestial >(Periscope). A ship has to get in and out of port and very few ports that >are that forgiving as to allow one to eye ball it, Mayport Fla, Guantanamo >Bay are a few that come to mind but none North of Charleston SC or West of >Tampa FL come to mind (not that they don't exist). Sailboats with next to >no draft can get away with it, warships and merchants can't. > Yes, I said earlier it would have to be updated on occasion--but my point was it wouldn't require dead reckoning the way the module says, and you would be able to make a reasonable landfall without using a sextant. Of course, the author also forgot about the sonar and the visual and radar methods using the periscope: he actually says the sub has to surface so the players can use a sextant. And yes, I agree that getting in and out of harbors could be a problem (though that is what pilots are for). >>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. :) > >Thanks Scott just tryin ta add where I can, aint like Navy stuff comes up >every day in T2K, :-) > Heh. :) >IIWM I would manual sound the channel out, correct charts as required. I >would navigate out visually, with a lead ship equip with any common >commercial sonar to verify my fatho'. Once at see I can use inertial off my >last visual fix Lat/Long, but regularly away from land fall I will want get >a fix via celestial or HFDF both preferably. >As to weapons of preferance against a target that cant detect me or cant >catch me? Mines. > >After mission, reverse steps. > I don't think they even have to penetrate a harbor submerged. There is one part where they have to go through the English Channel, but as I recall the reasoning for that is that they can't navigate accurately in the open ocean or something (or maybe I have it backwards, I'm not sure). 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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:22:45 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Submarines At 12:39 PM 2/24/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: > >From: Scott David Orr >As I said before passive is the prefered method, the first sign they were in >trouble would be the launch noise. The weapon does the aquisition even the >wire runners. Yes, but that presumes the weapon's computers are working. :) >>>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). >>> >>But again, this is all entirely irrelevant, because this stuff is no longer >>in existence. So I'm not sure what your point is. >> >Aircraft drop a Torpedoe. The ASROC is Ship launched, SUBROC is sub >launched. Both just balistic weapons, a MK46 torp on a rocket, and I think >the 46' is your best bet since we "could" have an abundant supply of the >older analog ones around. Even the Fire control to the biggest extent is >analog. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. > No, he's talking about the old WWII and post-WWII equipment. Most of the stuff you're talking about involves comptuers somwhere in the process doesn't it? 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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 20:26:47 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Submarines - -----Original Message----- From: Scott David Orr To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 7:22 PM Subject: Re: Submarines >At 12:39 PM 2/24/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: >> >>From: Scott David Orr >>As I said before passive is the prefered method, the first sign they were in >>trouble would be the launch noise. The weapon does the aquisition even the >>wire runners. > >Yes, but that presumes the weapon's computers are working. :) > >>>>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). >>>> >>>But again, this is all entirely irrelevant, because this stuff is no longer >>>in existence. So I'm not sure what your point is. >>> >>Aircraft drop a Torpedoe. The ASROC is Ship launched, SUBROC is sub >>launched. Both just balistic weapons, a MK46 torp on a rocket, and I think >>the 46' is your best bet since we "could" have an abundant supply of the >>older analog ones around. Even the Fire control to the biggest extent is >>analog. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. >> >No, he's talking about the old WWII and post-WWII equipment. Most of the >stuff you're talking about involves comptuers somwhere in the process >doesn't it? > Sure but what kind? Analog is mostly mechanical, servo's an such. Takes more to maintain but prob more reliable in this instance. Same for the 46'. I think the ambiguity is in the term "computer" , older ones 60-70's vintage didn't even use puter chips, and interfaces now adapt to that, since the 46 is still around. ASROC and SUBROC are ballistic, point in general direction set distance to shoot, depth at water entry, an BOOM away ya go. No chips no fuss. Weapon does all the work, an it's mostly analog also. *************************************************************************** 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 #17 ************************************