twilight2000-digest Thursday, February 25 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 018 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Submarines -> Non-radio Infantry Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Submarines Re: Submarines Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: GPS/EMP Re: Submarines Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Submarines Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: T2K nuclear exchanges & Submarine -> Solution Re: Submarines Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Submarines Re: Submarines ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 20:33:38 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. - -----Original Message----- From: Scott David Orr To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 7:17 PM 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). Only if the periscope is busted does he have to surface, correct. What pilot's? Skippers drive, pilots advise. That was taken into consideration, no WWIII sub skipper (or curren day) is gonna trust his boat to a pilot. > >>>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). Almost all ships go to nav detail for that transit, so the sub might also. But I think current day traffic would also precipate that some what. I know from experience it aint much of a channel.:-) > Dwight loonz857@yahoo.com http://bookmark.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: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:53:37 +1100 From: Damian Robinson Subject: Re: Submarines -> Non-radio Infantry trustno1 wrote: > > wrote: > > > 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 ? > Line, or field telephones are still used in most armies. However, the ammount of time spent in the use and training of that equipment has shrunk over the years. Its low tech, but very manpower intensive, and your average western army don't have the spare bods hanging around to use it properly. In My case, as a signaller for an Australian inf Btn, we have maybe 2 bods who are experienced in Line comms. and one is me! But there are now some higher tech line options around, and I think the big armys (the US, UK etc...) are changing to that style. Dont ask me how EMP hardened those sets are though! Cheers Damian *************************************************************************** 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 17:59:38 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. - ---Scott David Orr wrote: > > 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. > The British use pretty similar equipment too, so if you could get your hands on some of their experts they'd be almost as much help, and there were probably lots of fairly compatible parts in places like Faslane, Scotland. (I assume it probably got nuked, but they could have been moved. Groton sure as hell would have been hit, even if they don't list it in the v2.2 rules, which is all i've got to go on) Also most of the NATO countries had diesels pre-war, and I think France had SSNs, so all their facilities couldn't have been hit. you could probably find similar parts and materials somewhere in western europe... I'm not familiar with the module itself, so i don't know whether the whole thing starts off stateside or in europe, so i've just been trying to put facts together from all the other posts in this thread. 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: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:24:21 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: Submarines Hi, Scott! Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: > 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?) True enough. But the City of Corpus Christ had the computer suites removed for replacement and the freighter carrying the replacements was looted and demolished my the mob. So the state of these systems are undefined. - -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: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:31:30 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: Submarines Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: > At 05:29 PM 2/23/99 -0000, Mark Oliver 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. I have never heared of active sonar being installed in German WWII subs --- all they had to do anyway was to dive and listen to the noise of freighters. I doubt it was used on Britsh sub-hunting subs of the same period, but I am no expert. I don't know enough about the pacific side of the sub war to comment. > 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. WWII subs (German) were (later) diving to 200 meters max at regular operations, even if a few reached 300 by accident. - -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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:35:18 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: > At 07:53 PM 2/23/99 -0800, Peter Vieth wrote: > >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. From what I have heared, it's 2 main inner pressure hulls side by side, and an extra inner pressure hull for the command centre (makes sense, so you can loose one of the main pressure hulls and still survive). Of course there is a non-pressure outer hull around 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: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:05:19 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: GPS/EMP Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, firestorm_2021@yahoo.com produced: > I believe GPS satellites (as well as NAVSTAR???) are more likely to > survive the war then say, reconnaisance satellites, ... and much lower than geostationary ones, if I am not mistaken. Also *their* orbits are well known *and* they send out a wonderful signal to home into, if you feel like it. Just send some piece of scrap or a very tiny rocket against them (place them into their path) and splat. They are not that hard to kill, whether you use orbital nuclear bombs (think of all the nuclear reactors in satellites ... are you sure none of them are bombs?) lasers or conventional, mass based weapons. One hit is all you need. :-) > If you did have a working GPS reciever, the coverage would be pretty > spotty at best, but better than nothing i think. Well, if enough satellites survive, GPS will be working every now and then. (whenever one passes overhead ... more or less). It may be a bit less accurate, but accurate enough for most things, I assume. - -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: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:21:51 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: Submarines Hi, Scott! Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: > At 06:55 PM 2/23/99 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: > >Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: [active sonar is *noisy* and marks you a prime target] > 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. Quite probably. So these systems were (partially) rebuild or replaced (after the old suite had been removed for upgrade and the sub was stolen), I imagine. Does that mean that everything on board relying on computers works? > >- 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 :). It was. Type XXI. Faster under batteries than under diesel. :-) Actually snokeling was a rather slow and ... painful process. > 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. True. > 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. The torpedos bring their own computers, don't they? The passive sonar I am not sure about. After all, it was some months in repair with less than plentiful (and expensive) spares. > 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. Let's assume (just for fun) the inertial navigation subsystem is broken/inoperable for whatever reason. So what other navigation methods in 2000 are aviable? - -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: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:08:29 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Hi, Scott! Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: > At 04:47 PM 2/23/99 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: > >Well, you know, many of the (most successful) WWII subs had > >no digital computers at all, an analog model for calculating > 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. True. Almost. Very late in the war it was possible (German side) to do it all by sound, but that system was just too late to be used in combat. > Second, these submarines were _designed_ to use visual sighthing and analog > gear to make their attacks. True. The VIIc class certainly was (500 tons, most build vessel). > In addition, their > sonar operators would have zero experience with the by-ear-only methods of > sonar tracking that WWII sonarmen used. Little experience, yes, but AFAIR the hearing skill of the sonar operator is still crucial (because you don't use active sonar usually), even if you are backed up by software. So basic things like judging distance and even more, type of vessel, is IMHO quite important. > 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. VII class: Surface speed 17-19 knots Underwater speed 7.x knots, reach 130 miles at 2 miles. Till 1943 the mode of attack usually was overwater, night or underwater, daytime attack. With the widespread use of RADAR however, this changed, they mostly tried to: 1. lead other subs in. (Too bad HuffDuff (HF/DF) zeroed them in really fast and they were forced under water :-) 2. overtake the convoy (over water) 3. submerge 4. slip in between the gaps 5. let rip at the fattest targets (using the periscope) 6. escape the waterbombs for the next couple of hours 7. surface 8. goto 2 if torpedos left. Later submarines (The Electo-boats XXI and the smaller coastal version XXIII) actually reached 17-18 knots underwater but only 15-16 surfaced. And they had the batteries to back up that speed. Experimental boats with a closed-circuit underwater high-speed engine (the Walther boats) reached 25+ knots submerged (and 5 knots surfaced), but once their reserves of fuel were eaten up, they performed worse than their more conventional counerparts. These prototypes never made it to production. So your claim of (mostly) surface attack is not completely true, at least in the Atlantic theatre. Even the submarines evolved that way, some not surfacing for months at a time late in the war. > >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. Sub-sub, true, ship-sub, see ASDIC (I knew I mispelled it the first time). > Except in a handful > of cases (I could probably literally count them on one hand) all attacks in > WWII were visual. sub-ship(or surfaced sub) ... true, mostly. Unless we want to count the successful Zaunkoenig (homing torpedo) attacks. > 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. Well, I am/was unaware that full-blown inertial navigation systems were possible without computers. Gyroscope driven compasses and so on, yes, but a system that summs up all the changes in speed and direction from the forces excerted by gyroscopes & co ... I would like a pointer if you have one, it would certainly interest me how they did *that* feat. But (depending on what you count ships) I shall disagree to the 'carried on all ships'. Alternatively we are meaning something different when we use the phrase "inertial navigation" ... I am talking of a thingie, that, given a known position, direction and speed at one point will tell me later very exactly *where I am*, no matter what sort of wild manoevers I perform. > 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. No, I assume that while replacements have been tried to get at huge expenses, they are not of the quality you'd like. After all, the sub was kidnapped while lacking many crucial parts and Evil[1] did intend to use it in more or less coastal waters to control and gain power. Owning the only one of it's kind it would not even be neccessary to be an effective killer. Thus the engines and basic navigation come before the weapons and they before more optional gear ... like the 'nice to have' inertial nav. IMHO. It was costly enough to get it seaworthy at all. [1] no naming names here ... no need to spoil at least the first of the 3 modules. Which is not touched my this discussion anyway, IMHO. > 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. Ok, but how do you *know* it works OK, when someone else had it's fingers inside that box and so on? Surely you want to keep an eye on it, just in case. Failing DECCA, etc. and GPS and *knowing* how to use an sextant (as the captain and his officers are bound to know), I'd use one. Just to sleep better. No amount of cash you'll get will ever replace that high-tech plaything called a submarine. And the high command would quarter you, tar and feather you and boil you in oil :-) ... loosing that asset, now, wouldn't they? > 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). If it's known to be OK, yes. If you trust it. What if it's found to drift (become incorrect) in a random manner after a certain time ... say a couple of miles every 1 or 3 days? Good enough to navigate an ocean, not good for a harbour ... or the channel, probably. Especially if you get into combat. [navigating the channel by maps and tidal charts] > >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. :) No. I am saying: you need no inertial nav system to navigate the channel even without surfacing. That does *not* mean that you can navigate the Atlantic (without a fix on your position) and expect to *hit* the channel, even. Thus, you do want celestial navigation (or coastal, if you are within sight of it). [inertial nav system broken] > In that case, it doesn't work. Are you under the impression that somehow > your statement above disagrees with the statement quoted above it? nope. See above. It was just a supplementary argument why the INAV may be broken. > >I doubt that the evil one had access to an old... > No, it doesn't have to be old. ALL ships carry these things. well ... I assume *most* ships do not make provisions to record their position in 3D, as their modus operandi of underwater action is usually "sinking". But I could be wrong. And I still dispute that 'all'. "Old", because 'new' here means manufactured after the bombs and using sails, rather than prewar (and probably converted). > >...functioning > >merchant ship with that gear. And even then, you will want to > The module begins in a port. Are you of the opinion that it will be > impossible to find a merchant ship in a port? "Much of the facilities which supported the sub base were destroyed in the riots and civil disorder following the nuclear strikes of 1997." (which did not hit the area anywhere near the port, but the food was low.) "The former submarine base is occupied by a small group of a few hundred refugees. The factories have been looted of all but the heaviest machineries, and everything that can be pried loose has been taken away or broken." Same on the other side: "It too has been heavily looted". Still think that the one merchant ship that came into the base and was overrun by the mob, which then "broke into widespread looting and destruction out of anger and frustration" is intakt. Still think you'll find much? :-) [Jane's not having USSR sub names] Oh well ... There may or may not be the names in 1996's *fictional* Jane's. I hope that *that* glitch is not critical for the module. Anyway, the (fictional) Barricada was launched Oct 1996, 2 weeks after the hostilities in the west began in the same month (based on V 1.0). *shrug* - -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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:28:45 EST From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: Submarines > >>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? Quick question: Do wire guided torps require a computer to operate? *************************************************************************** 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 22:21:30 EST From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges In a message dated 99-02-24 16:16:04 EST, you write: << 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 >> Apologies for being "exceptionally rude". I work at a bookstore and when someone refers to "Jane's", they could be referring to about 3 different styles of Jane's books (Gem books, Recognition guides, and the full book), and could be pertaining to half a dozen different topics (Tanks, Ships, Aircraft, Small Arms, etc). Since your reference was to "Jane's" in general, and not the more specific title that you mentioned in your last post, I thought I should clear it up, so that YOU wouldn't go around telling people they were wrong. I will watch the way I word things in the future, as should YOU. Some of your prior posts were rather on the condescending side. I realize that sometimes people feel they know a lot more about certain subjects that others, but that's no reason to rub their face in their error. I know, I did it on my previous post. :/ *************************************************************************** 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 20:13:18 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges & Submarine -> Solution Scott David Orr wrote: > 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. > Ok, in an effort to stop the progressively bitter and caustic nature of this thread before someone is challenged to a duel, I have a solution: everyone look in their phone books under Wiseman, Loren and Billings, Jeff. They are listed under Design and Development and Supplemental Design in the credits. We'll go to their houses and interrogate them until a solution everyone is happy with is reached. We'll also call up A.C. Farley, the guy who did the cover for Boomer, and ask him why the two good guys on the back side of the book are letting off a steady stream of rounds from their m16s when everyone knows the m16 has a 3 round burst governor, its even in infantry weapons of the world. And why does the Typhoon on the cover have what looks like 5 periscopes? Ok maybe we won't do this :) I understand and agree with Scott Orr's original position (not sure what exactly is being argued over now), and although a lot of interesting information has come out of this thread, I think it could be handled in a different manner; theres lots of energy there but its coming out in the wrong way :). I'm sure we've got character sheets to copy, sessions to plan, web pages to work on, etc rather than argue. Grade AAA USDA sarcasm courtesy of fatigue courtesy of work courtesy of need for money courtesy of desire not to live in a refridgerator box courtesy of Sears *************************************************************************** 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 23:31:30 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Submarines At 08:26 PM 2/24/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: > >From: Scott David Orr > >>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. > Maybe these would still work (the EMP may well destroy non-computer circuitry), but they're not carried by subs (SUBROC was cancelled, as an earlier poster pointed out), and at any rate the module posits the sub's Mk48's working. 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 23:36:28 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. At 08:33 PM 2/24/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: > >From: Scott David Orr >>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). > >Only if the periscope is busted does he have to surface, correct. What >pilot's? Skippers drive, pilots advise. That was taken into consideration, >no WWIII sub skipper (or curren day) is gonna trust his boat to a pilot. On the one and only sub I've ever been on (an "Ohio"-class), the officers seemed to be extremely impressed by the pilot--as I understand it it's not a very bright idea to try to navigate a tricky channel yourself. 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 23:38:35 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. At 05:59 PM 2/24/99 -0800, Michael Cook wrote: > > The British use pretty similar equipment too, so if you could get >your hands on some of their experts they'd be almost as much help, and >there were probably lots of fairly compatible parts in places like >Faslane, Scotland. (I assume it probably got nuked, but they could >have been moved. Groton sure as hell would have been hit, even if they >don't list it in the v2.2 rules, which is all i've got to go on) One would think. I don't remember which shipyard it is, but in the module it definitely hasn't been hit. :) > Also most of the NATO countries had diesels pre-war, and I think >France had SSNs, so all their facilities couldn't have been hit. you >could probably find similar parts and materials somewhere in western >europe... > I'm not familiar with the module itself, so i don't know whether >the whole thing starts off stateside or in europe, so i've just been >trying to put facts together from all the other posts in this thread. > It starts off in the U.S., in either RI or CT, I don't remember which. 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: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:50:53 -0400 From: trustno1 Subject: Re: Submarines >Quick question: > >Do wire guided torps require a computer to operate? I would say yes. As I understand it, wire guided means that the torpedo spools out a very long wire behind it as it goes. The sub then, via its target acquisition sensors (sonar, etc) gives course corrections to the torp to quite literally, fly it right to its target. I assume that this wired information would be in digital format, hence it would require a computer. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:05:53 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Submarines At 10:28 PM 2/24/99 EST, Grimace997@aol.com wrote: >> >>>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? > >Quick question: > >Do wire guided torps require a computer to operate? To program and update them, yes. More to the point, they have an onboard computer. 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 #18 ************************************