pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com (I am the NRA 24-Jun-1991 1712) (06/25/91)
From: I am the NRA 24-Jun-1991 1712 <pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes, in part: >>From: I am the NRA 20-Jun-1991 1210 <pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com> >>A blimp can, within reason carry anything an a/c can. The fit for WWII >>K-Ships included crew of four, Make that ten, mea culpa, and add contact bombs to the list. > Seeing this, really makes me seriously wonder just how blimps compared >in surface ships for sub hunting duties. Depth charges are effective only >when delivered fairly close to target, and the extra error induced from >altitude drop seemsa problem. Well, two issues here, i think. One, the doctrine, two, the attack. Doctrine was that blimps were to "keep the subs heads down", preventing the attack, since the sub was kept underwater, unable to use surface speed to make an attack position. Surface ships were to be brought in for the kill. The onboard armament was "just_in_case". (and used effectively, would have to look up kills.) The attack could be at 100 feet, or less, at any speed below maximum, including zero, so dropping error was minimal. (ask a DE skipper to stop dead in the water with a live enemy below...). >Further, I had thought that the top speeds and operational speeds (and >limitations) would present another operational sub hunting handicap. Not a problem in WWII. Minimum safe airspeed is _zero_ (unless the sub is on the surface. 8)>>) Note that much of the effectiveness was due to the characteristics & limitations of the diesel boat (keep 'em down and they are semihelpless). The objective was not so much to hunt, as to patrol, and escort. So long as the blimp kept up with its convoy, and enough over for practical weather, all was well. (One blimp squadron in the Atlantic put ships up for 600 consecutive days.) >It might be interesting to see how this concept would work today with laser >guided drop depth charges, and torpedos. Indeed. but still a Large Slow Target... ============== ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes, in part: >In article <1991Jun18.074541.15334@amd.com> phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) >writes: >>Hm, I wonder how much this thing would weigh and how big its feet would >>be. Could it swim? Cross a rice paddy? >A guestimate on weight would be around 150 kilos depending on the >weight of the problematic power supply and it's fuel. Since the >suit would be capable of operating totally buttoned up for NBC >protection, it could simply walk across the bottom of rivers, and >need not be able to swim. Hmmm. Maybe rivers with nice firm bottoms. IF you know which ones they are. and where the soft spots are. but rice paddies? swamps? Maybe a "swim bladder" could be added (+4 kilos & counting...8)>>) (WWII tanks swum, and crawled submerged. I seem to recall substantial recce for the German U-Tanks being required, to identify good places. And tracks reduce the ground pressure....) thanks dave pierson "For he has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing" A J Raffles