twilight2000-digest Friday, February 26 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 020 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Re: Submarines Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Submarines Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: GPS/EMP -> nuclear reactors in space Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Fw: Navigation. Dunnigan (Was Re: GPS/EMP) Tank vs. Ship Tank vs. Ship Re: GPS/EMP Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Tank vs. Ship Re: GPS/EMP Re: Fw: Navigation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:26:48 +1100 From: Damian Robinson Subject: Re: loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: > > All units in Tango this is Jestor I transmit in the blind; > Jestor Out 95A Ack, out > *************************************************************************** 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 18:43:02 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Submarines The one question that comes to me is, where was the sub when the nukes went off? trustno1 wrote: > >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. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek]-) *************************************************************************** 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 21:52:19 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. >From: Scott David Orr > >>At 05:27 PM 2/25/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: >>> >>>>>From: Scott David Orr >>>> >>> >>>>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. >>>> >>>And when the Pilot puts it up on shole water it's the skipper they haul >>>away. It was not SOP. The Pilot is there to advise on the channel >>>charachter, not drive. >> >>This is at variance with everything I've ever heard about pilots. It's >>true that the helmsman does the actual steering, but the pilot's the one >>who gives the directions. And while I respect your knowledge, I tend to >>put more faith in what real live sub drivers say about the subject. >> Actually, something occurred to me after I wrote the above: if I were a pilot, I'm willing to bet that I would take great pains not to show up the ship's skipper. Therefore, while I might be the one who made all the decisions, I'd definitely go through the captain--so most of the people on the ship would probably never know what came from me and what came from him. As for the captain: if it were _me_, and _I_ were going to be responsible for beaching a billion-dollar ship, I'd trust the pilot, if he knew the channel better than I did. Part of responsibility is knowing when to let someone else do the job when they're better at it than you are. :) 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 19:19:21 -0800 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: Submarines At 06:43 PM 2/25/99 -0800, Peter Veith wrote: >The one question that comes to me is, where was the sub when the nukes went >off? > According to the module, the Corpus Christi was in dry dock at New London for a badly needed reactor overhaul (and sensor suite upgrade) when the nukes fell in November of 1997. New London was never bombed. However, the base was overrun and abandoned during a food riot in the fall of 1998. It is the duty of the PCs to locate the sub, then return it to Norfolk. ~Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:16:35 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. - -----Original Message----- From: Scott David Orr To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 9:52 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. >Actually, something occurred to me after I wrote the above: if I were a >pilot, I'm willing to bet that I would take great pains not to show up the >ship's skipper. Therefore, while I might be the one who made all the >decisions, I'd definitely go through the captain--so most of the people on >the ship would probably never know what came from me and what came from him. > >As for the captain: if it were _me_, and _I_ were going to be responsible >for beaching a billion-dollar ship, I'd trust the pilot, if he knew the >channel better than I did. Part of responsibility is knowing when to let >someone else do the job when they're better at it than you are. :) > I was gonna let it go, but ya threw this post up so I'll make it plane with no BS. On this subject you have no idea Scott. There are literally thousands of ship classes merchants and warships, no pilot is going to know how to drive all of them, and the reason is "they don't drive". I've never been out on a merchant but I can tell you about US warships of which there are only 3 classes the US has I haven't ridden that includes LA's and Permits. A ship has a nav detail team that takes them in and out of port, the pilot is savvy on harbor characteristics, things like draft, eddy's, and currents, tides, ebbs and floods. The ships crew is versed on the posted characteristics as above plus is responsible for things like bare steerage, screw wash, advance, transfer, tactical diameter. This is why ships still pick up pilots and come into port even though visibility is zero, because neither realm of knowledge or expected participation is affected by visibility and why maritime agencies around the world spend big bucks on Notices to Mariners. Ships train to go to sea regardless, visibility is a binnie. On top of all that some pilot trips last barely 20 mins of transits that take hours. Hampton Roads the pilot comes aboard at the Hampton tunnel almost two hour after coming into the Chesapeake Bay and he leaves before we go pier side in most cases, depends on whether the pilot boats are all busy with other drops. Mayport FL is a short run, Groton CT and Newport RI are not yet the pilot is picked up well up river and usually dropped off before the pier. Pilots are required by State and Federal Law or the Navy wouldn't use them as often. I've also sailed with German, British and Saudi crews that were equally free of the need for them, fact is the Saudis declined. Ive personally sailed from Norfolk to Baltimore when a pilot was unavailable, Hurricane Gloria. We chose not to wait, so did everyone else. If your SSBN ride was in Bremerton that is a long transit with early pilot pick up I guess, If it was Kings Bay if you blink you'll miss the pilot. It has nothing too do with sophomoric concerns of not showing up a Commanding Officer. I wasn't offended by your lack of faith in what I shared, but was discouraged in your lack of faith (and supposed observation) that sailors can't take their own ships too sea. It's discouraging that with all the Tom Clancy novels and Janes registers out there no one bothered to read Duttons or the Blue Jackets manual. My 2 cents. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:00:35 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. At 12:16 AM 2/26/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Scott David Orr >To: twilight2000@mpgn.com >Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 9:52 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. > >>Actually, something occurred to me after I wrote the above: if I were a >>pilot, I'm willing to bet that I would take great pains not to show up the >>ship's skipper. Therefore, while I might be the one who made all the >>decisions, I'd definitely go through the captain--so most of the people on >>the ship would probably never know what came from me and what came from >him. >> >>As for the captain: if it were _me_, and _I_ were going to be responsible >>for beaching a billion-dollar ship, I'd trust the pilot, if he knew the >>channel better than I did. Part of responsibility is knowing when to let >>someone else do the job when they're better at it than you are. :) >> >I was gonna let it go, but ya threw this post up so I'll make it plane with >no BS. On this subject you have no idea Scott. >There are literally thousands of ship classes merchants and warships, no >pilot is going to know how to drive all of them, and the reason is "they >don't drive". > I've never been out on a merchant but I can tell you about US warships of >which there are only 3 classes the US has I haven't ridden that includes >LA's and Permits. A ship has a nav detail team that takes them in and out >of port, the pilot is savvy on harbor characteristics, things like draft, >eddy's, and currents, tides, ebbs and floods. The ships crew is versed on >the posted characteristics as above plus is responsible for things like bare >steerage, screw wash, advance, transfer, tactical diameter. What I was told (again, by submarine officers, not by Tom Clancy) is that pilots know far more about the harbor characteristics than anyone in the ship's crew does. Apparently the licensing exam involves things like placing bouys on a map by memory. I doubt the crew can do that, even for their homeport. >This is why >ships still pick up pilots and come into port even though visibility is >zero, because neither realm of knowledge or expected participation is >affected by visibility and why maritime agencies around the world spend big >bucks on Notices to Mariners. Ships train to go to sea regardless, >visibility is a binnie. I'm afraid I don't follow as to why this is relevant one way or another....It certainly speaks to the competence of either the crew or the pilot, but I don't see how it shows one to mbe more competent than the other. >On top of all that some pilot trips last barely 20 mins of transits that >take hours. Hampton Roads the pilot comes aboard at the Hampton tunnel >almost two hour after coming into the Chesapeake Bay and he leaves before we >go pier side in most cases, depends on whether the pilot boats are all busy >with other drops. Well then, I would take that to mean that it's only the tunnel that is the really tricky part? >Mayport FL is a short run, Groton CT and Newport RI are not yet the pilot is >picked up well up river and usually dropped off before the pier. >Pilots are required by State and Federal Law or the Navy wouldn't use them >as often. I've also sailed with German, British and Saudi crews that were >equally free of the need for them, fact is the Saudis declined. Well, I don't think that the fact that the Saudi navy does something is in itself proof of its wisdom. I would place more faith in the Royal Navy and the Germans, but it does occur to me that in making this decision, the ego of the sailors in question may conceivably cloud their judgment. >Ive personally sailed from Norfolk to Baltimore when a pilot was >unavailable, Hurricane Gloria. We chose not to wait, so did everyone else. The fact that you have to do something a certain way once in a while, and that it works out, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do it that way all the time. >If your SSBN ride was in Bremerton that is a long transit with early pilot >pick up I guess, If it was Kings Bay if you blink you'll miss the pilot. We didn't even go out into the channel, since it was just a dependents cruise--on that particular ride I don't think the pilot did much. I wasn't speaking from personal experience observing the pilot, but from what I was told. >It has nothing too do with sophomoric concerns of not showing up a >Commanding Officer. >I wasn't offended by your lack of faith in what I shared, but was >discouraged in your lack of faith (and supposed observation) that sailors >can't take their own ships too sea. >It's discouraging that with all the Tom Clancy novels and Janes registers >out there no one bothered to read Duttons or the Blue Jackets manual. Well, like I said, I thought the more direct route was to ask some submarine officers. Mind you, these same officers noted that fact that pilots maintain carefully controlled cartels, and hence are paid far more than they're worth, but that doesn't mean they don't possess skill or that they don't do something important. 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:06:28 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. >At 12:16 AM 2/26/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Scott David Orr >>To: twilight2000@mpgn.com >>Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 9:52 PM >>Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. >> >>>Actually, something occurred to me after I wrote the above: if I were a >>>pilot, I'm willing to bet that I would take great pains not to show up the >>>ship's skipper. Therefore, while I might be the one who made all the >>>decisions, I'd definitely go through the captain--so most of the people on >>>the ship would probably never know what came from me and what came from >>him. >>> >>>As for the captain: if it were _me_, and _I_ were going to be responsible >>>for beaching a billion-dollar ship, I'd trust the pilot, if he knew the >>>channel better than I did. Part of responsibility is knowing when to let >>>someone else do the job when they're better at it than you are. :) >>> >>I was gonna let it go, but ya threw this post up so I'll make it plane with >>no BS. On this subject you have no idea Scott. >>There are literally thousands of ship classes merchants and warships, no >>pilot is going to know how to drive all of them, and the reason is "they >>don't drive". >> I've never been out on a merchant but I can tell you about US warships of >>which there are only 3 classes the US has I haven't ridden that includes >>LA's and Permits. A ship has a nav detail team that takes them in and out >>of port, the pilot is savvy on harbor characteristics, things like draft, >>eddy's, and currents, tides, ebbs and floods. The ships crew is versed on >>the posted characteristics as above plus is responsible for things like bare >>steerage, screw wash, advance, transfer, tactical diameter. I can not speak for the USN, but I have be involved in numerous RAN 'Special Sea Dutyman' details. In our regular ports/bases we don't need no stinking pilots. In other ports, yes the pilot is on board. He _never_ takes the wheel or gives commands, that's the jobs of the helmsman and officer of the watch. No civilian steers a Navy ship. Arrogance? No, we know the ships, the entire crew is involved in the evolution. Skippers are ship drivers, if they can not take a ship into harbour how can they RAS or the other seamanship evaluations? Peter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:36:41 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: GPS/EMP -> nuclear reactors in space - ---trustno1 wrote: > > > >> Nuclear reactors in sattelites?? I wasn't aware that a sattelite was > >> large enough to carry such a thing. All sats I've seen (over many > >> years of reading AW&ST) have been powered by a combination of solar > >> arrays and internal batteries. > > > > Not to mention the fact that putting a nuclear device in space > >would violate just about every treaty ever signed about satellites and > >space. > > > From James F. Dunnigan's "How to Make War", 1988 > > The War in Space; Limits of Satellite Endurance; Power Supply > > " The power source is typically a combination of solar panels and > batteries. Batteries are needed for those times when the satellite is in > earth's shadow. Russia uses a special nuclear reactor (not the same type > used in power plants) that generates a lot of energy in a few months and > then runs down. " > > Fascinating book, btw... a must have for everyone, IMO. I'm a personal fan of Dunnigan, I particularly like his 'Quick and Dirty Guide to War' books for a good rundown of the world's conflicts and players involved. S2000 _________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:43:38 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. - ---loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: > > > >Agreed...simply put: Captains trust pilots. Period. I'm not saying > >that some captains don't have a bit of an ego problem about it, but > >frankly, the dangers of entering a harbor with a larger ship are so > >high, and intense local knowledge of the lanes is so critical that > >there really isn't any choice but to trust a pilot. Even in the > >harbor where a ship homeports the captain still uses a pilot. Pilots > >are the only ones who day-to-day navigate the harbor, so are the only > >ones with the experience to do so safely. > > > That is inaccurate. > Please elaborate... _________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:11:37 +0000 From: Eddie Hallahan Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. Right I'm going to jump in here. I've got to say Scott that you are wrong on this pilot thing. Skippers trust their crew, they tend to not trust anyone else with their ship, that goes for Navy, Merchant any other kind of shipping. I can only speak for the Royal Navy here but what I know of them is that on occasion they will take a pilot on board, the pilot works with the duty nav they plot a course and go into harbour, under the duty watch. All the pilot does is advise the nav and liase with the harbour bods. That is it. Now, you say you 'asked some sub. officers' well good. However after the bitterness that was evinced in some earlier posts about people spouting off about things they had no knowledge of, I think you have been hoist by your own petard. Anyway thats my wee rant. EddieH At 01:00 26/02/99 -0500, you wrote: >At 12:16 AM 2/26/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Scott David Orr >>To: twilight2000@mpgn.com >>Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 9:52 PM >>Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. >> >>>Actually, something occurred to me after I wrote the above: if I were a >>>pilot, I'm willing to bet that I would take great pains not to show up the >>>ship's skipper. Therefore, while I might be the one who made all the >>>decisions, I'd definitely go through the captain--so most of the people on >>>the ship would probably never know what came from me and what came from >>him. >>> >>>As for the captain: if it were _me_, and _I_ were going to be responsible >>>for beaching a billion-dollar ship, I'd trust the pilot, if he knew the >>>channel better than I did. Part of responsibility is knowing when to let >>>someone else do the job when they're better at it than you are. :) >>> >>I was gonna let it go, but ya threw this post up so I'll make it plane with >>no BS. On this subject you have no idea Scott. >>There are literally thousands of ship classes merchants and warships, no >>pilot is going to know how to drive all of them, and the reason is "they >>don't drive". >> I've never been out on a merchant but I can tell you about US warships of >>which there are only 3 classes the US has I haven't ridden that includes >>LA's and Permits. A ship has a nav detail team that takes them in and out >>of port, the pilot is savvy on harbor characteristics, things like draft, >>eddy's, and currents, tides, ebbs and floods. The ships crew is versed on >>the posted characteristics as above plus is responsible for things like bare >>steerage, screw wash, advance, transfer, tactical diameter. > >What I was told (again, by submarine officers, not by Tom Clancy) is that >pilots know far more about the harbor characteristics than anyone in the >ship's crew does. Apparently the licensing exam involves things like >placing bouys on a map by memory. I doubt the crew can do that, even for >their homeport. > >>This is why >>ships still pick up pilots and come into port even though visibility is >>zero, because neither realm of knowledge or expected participation is >>affected by visibility and why maritime agencies around the world spend big >>bucks on Notices to Mariners. Ships train to go to sea regardless, >>visibility is a binnie. > >I'm afraid I don't follow as to why this is relevant one way or >another....It certainly speaks to the competence of either the crew or the >pilot, but I don't see how it shows one to mbe more competent than the other. > >>On top of all that some pilot trips last barely 20 mins of transits that >>take hours. Hampton Roads the pilot comes aboard at the Hampton tunnel >>almost two hour after coming into the Chesapeake Bay and he leaves before we >>go pier side in most cases, depends on whether the pilot boats are all busy >>with other drops. > >Well then, I would take that to mean that it's only the tunnel that is the >really tricky part? > >>Mayport FL is a short run, Groton CT and Newport RI are not yet the pilot is >>picked up well up river and usually dropped off before the pier. >>Pilots are required by State and Federal Law or the Navy wouldn't use them >>as often. I've also sailed with German, British and Saudi crews that were >>equally free of the need for them, fact is the Saudis declined. > >Well, I don't think that the fact that the Saudi navy does something is in >itself proof of its wisdom. I would place more faith in the Royal Navy and >the Germans, but it does occur to me that in making this decision, the ego >of the sailors in question may conceivably cloud their judgment. > >>Ive personally sailed from Norfolk to Baltimore when a pilot was >>unavailable, Hurricane Gloria. We chose not to wait, so did everyone else. > >The fact that you have to do something a certain way once in a while, and >that it works out, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do it that way all >the time. > >>If your SSBN ride was in Bremerton that is a long transit with early pilot >>pick up I guess, If it was Kings Bay if you blink you'll miss the pilot. > >We didn't even go out into the channel, since it was just a dependents >cruise--on that particular ride I don't think the pilot did much. I wasn't >speaking from personal experience observing the pilot, but from what I was >told. > >>It has nothing too do with sophomoric concerns of not showing up a >>Commanding Officer. >>I wasn't offended by your lack of faith in what I shared, but was >>discouraged in your lack of faith (and supposed observation) that sailors >>can't take their own ships too sea. >>It's discouraging that with all the Tom Clancy novels and Janes registers >>out there no one bothered to read Duttons or the Blue Jackets manual. > >Well, like I said, I thought the more direct route was to ask some >submarine officers. > >Mind you, these same officers noted that fact that pilots maintain >carefully controlled cartels, and hence are paid far more than they're >worth, but that doesn't mean they don't possess skill or that they don't do >something important. > >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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:26:29 -0800 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Dunnigan (Was Re: GPS/EMP) Anybody else out there read "Digital Soldiers" by Dunnigan? ~Snake Eyes At 12:36 AM 2/26/99 -0800, Strategist 2000 wrote: >I'm a personal fan of Dunnigan, I particularly like his 'Quick and >Dirty Guide to War' books for a good rundown of the world's conflicts >and players involved. > S2000 > >_________________________________________________________ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:11:57 -0600 From: Mitch Berg Subject: Tank vs. Ship Snake Eyes said: >Since we were almost on the topic anyway, does anybody have any solid >information on a tank sinking a destroyer from shore during WWII? My >military history teacher made reference to such an incident when I was in >high school, but I don't know if he was shooting straight or full of crap. >It's certainly possible (given that most DD's are armored only slightly >better than a lunchbox), but it must have been one damn lucky shot. Maybe >it hit a magazine? I'm not aware of a TANK sinking a DD, but I know that a US Marine shore battery sank a Japanese DD at Wake Island - the only time in history an amphibious attack has been repelled by shore defenses. Having just read a book about all destroyers that served in the war, I can not recall one instance of one being sunk by a tank. To the best of my knowledge, all DD vs. Tank battles have resolved in favor of the navy - there were stories of such duels in, I believe, Italy. Mitch Berg mitch@humanwaredesign.com http://www.humanwaredesign.com - --------- NEED A MILITARY RECORD? Running for office in a blue-collar district, while you spent the sixties in the CANADIAN national guard? Want to have something to tell the Grandkids about? Or do you want to trump the guys with the mail-order PhDs? The North Dakota State Constitution allows for a State Navy - and now non-residents can join! Get a complete military career, with rank, branch and official recognition of service! Go to : http://www.humanwaredesign.com/nodaknavy/ Celebrating North Dakota's maritime tradition! *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:11:57 -0600 From: Mitch Berg Subject: Tank vs. Ship Snake Eyes said: >Since we were almost on the topic anyway, does anybody have any solid >information on a tank sinking a destroyer from shore during WWII? My >military history teacher made reference to such an incident when I was in >high school, but I don't know if he was shooting straight or full of crap. >It's certainly possible (given that most DD's are armored only slightly >better than a lunchbox), but it must have been one damn lucky shot. Maybe >it hit a magazine? I'm not aware of a TANK sinking a DD, but I know that a US Marine shore battery sank a Japanese DD at Wake Island - the only time in history an amphibious attack has been repelled by shore defenses. Having just read a book about all destroyers that served in the war, I can not recall one instance of one being sunk by a tank. To the best of my knowledge, all DD vs. Tank battles have resolved in favor of the navy - there were stories of such duels in, I believe, Italy. Mitch Berg mitch@humanwaredesign.com http://www.humanwaredesign.com - --------- NEED A MILITARY RECORD? Running for office in a blue-collar district, while you spent the sixties in the CANADIAN national guard? Want to have something to tell the Grandkids about? Or do you want to trump the guys with the mail-order PhDs? The North Dakota State Constitution allows for a State Navy - and now non-residents can join! Get a complete military career, with rank, branch and official recognition of service! Go to : http://www.humanwaredesign.com/nodaknavy/ Celebrating North Dakota's maritime tradition! *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:00:55 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Curran Subject: Re: GPS/EMP - ---Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 11:05 AM 2/25/99 -0800, Michael Curran wrote: > > > Not to mention the fact that putting a nuclear device in space > >would violate just about every treaty ever signed about satellites and > >space. > > > I don't know of any treaties against it: the relevant treaty bans > _weapons_ in space, not power plants. The Soviets have apparently done it > a number of times, and the reason the U.S. didn't do it until recently was > anti-nuclear sentiment within the U.S. I'm not sure, but I believe there is a ban on putting any nuclear that in bigger and more powerful than a battery in space. Weapons are the main reason, but they also don't want a large nuclear reaction falling out of the sky some day. - -MC _________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:14:53 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. At 09:11 AM 2/26/99 +0000, Eddie Hallahan wrote: >Right I'm going to jump in here. > >I've got to say Scott that you are wrong on this pilot thing. Skippers >trust their crew, they tend to not trust anyone else with their ship, that >goes for Navy, Merchant any other kind of shipping. I can only speak for >the Royal Navy here but what I know of them is that on occasion they will >take a pilot on board, the pilot works with the duty nav they plot a >course and go into harbour, under the duty watch. All the pilot does is >advise the nav and liase with the harbour bods. That is it. I don't think you've actually disagreed with what I've said. > >Now, you say you 'asked some sub. officers' well good. However after the >bitterness that was evinced in some earlier posts about people spouting off >about things they had no knowledge of, I think you have been hoist by your >own petard. > Well no, I know something about it, because I asked someone who knew. This is, in most cases, how we learn things. And I told everyone up front where I knew it from, which is more than anyone else in this discussion has done, including you. 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:01:10 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. - -----Original Message----- From: Josh Baumgartner To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 3:43 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. > >---loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: >> >> >> >Agreed...simply put: Captains trust pilots. Period. I'm not saying >> >that some captains don't have a bit of an ego problem about it, but >> >frankly, the dangers of entering a harbor with a larger ship are so >> >high, and intense local knowledge of the lanes is so critical that >> >there really isn't any choice but to trust a pilot. Even in the >> >harbor where a ship homeports the captain still uses a pilot. Pilots >> >are the only ones who day-to-day navigate the harbor, so are the only >> >ones with the experience to do so safely. >> > >> That is inaccurate. >> > >Please elaborate... I don't have anything further to add. Pilots do not drive ships, and are not the soul possesor of navigational data for any port. Any warship of a developed countrie can and does enter port without the advice of a harbor pilot. It's a fact. To suppose otherwise is grossly inaccurate. My last post sounded pompous and I apologise. It was late and I was annoyed and should have shown restraint. I truely enjoy giving tours and explaining the buisiness of the Navy, but am unaccustomed to being disregarded out of hand it threw me. Again Sorry. Anyone coming to Hampton Roads can drop a line and I'll make sure your hooked up with a first class tour. Even you Scott. 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:49:04 +0000 From: Eddie Hallahan Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. >I don't think you've actually disagreed with what I've said. I believe you said captains trust pilots, that is what i disagreed with. EddieH *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:01:40 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. At 05:01 PM 2/26/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: > >I don't have anything further to add. Pilots do not drive ships, and are >not the soul possesor of navigational data for any port. Any warship of a >developed countrie can and does enter port without the advice of a harbor >pilot. >It's a fact. To suppose otherwise is grossly inaccurate. > I don't think anyone has disagreed with you on any of these points. 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:04:08 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Tank vs. Ship At 07:11 AM 2/26/99 -0600, Mitch Berg wrote: > >I'm not aware of a TANK sinking a DD, but I know that a US Marine shore >battery sank a Japanese DD at Wake Island - the only time in history an >amphibious attack has been repelled by shore defenses. > >Having just read a book about all destroyers that served in the war, I can >not recall one instance of one being sunk by a tank. To the best of my >knowledge, all DD vs. Tank battles have resolved in favor of the navy - >there were stories of such duels in, I believe, Italy. > There was a case in the Falklands of the Argentinians attacking a British ship with anti-tank missiles (not from a tank, obviously)--as I recall they drove the ship further out to sea (it was conducting shore bombardment) but I don't think the damaged 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:06:45 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: GPS/EMP At 09:00 AM 2/26/99 -0800, Michael Curran wrote: > >I'm not sure, but I believe there is a ban on putting any nuclear that >in bigger and more powerful than a battery in space. Weapons are the >main reason, but they also don't want a large nuclear reaction falling >out of the sky some day. > I don't recall ever hearing about any such treaty, but I haven't heard of everything. Do you have any idea what treaty it was or when it was signed? 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:20:48 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. At 10:49 PM 2/26/99 +0000, Eddie Hallahan wrote: > >>I don't think you've actually disagreed with what I've said. >I believe you said captains trust pilots, that is what i disagreed with. Well that I'm not buying. If they don't trust them, why do they take advice from them, as you said they 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 #20 ************************************