pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com (LAY ON GROUND. LIGHT FUZE. 01-Nov-1990 1238) (11/03/90)
From: "LAY ON GROUND. LIGHT FUZE. 01-Nov-1990 1238" <pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com> Wm Randolph Franklin writes, in part: >Related to this: what's the status of all the conventional WW2 explosives on >the bottom, like the Bismark's munitions? Do they get more and more unstable >until one day they go off when a sinking beer can hits the ship, or is there a >gentle degradation path to more stable chemicals? It varies with whats in them. Some things get more stable, some get real touchy. There's a WWI vintage warship a few hundred miles off Long Island... ========== David Kaminsky, writes, in part: >I was just wondering why the canisters are not deposited at the site of a >nuclear test. Wouldn't the gas be destroyed in the heat of the blast? Two problems: 1) many of the tests are made in boreholes just big enough for the the device. There are TONS, MANY, MANY cubic Yards of Chemweaps to be "Safed". 2) Explosions, even nuclear, don't "destroy", on a chemical level (except for the fissionable fuel...). Some of the agent would be rearranged into random molecules of unknown properties. Some of it would be forcibly dispersed. ALL of it would probably end up radiologically hot. A carefully controlled burn, or chemical decomposition seems a MUCH better approach. (The shells are easier to handle, as noted on the show, no bursters in place. But the rockets and the mines... Not only toxic but exoplosive risk.) =========== D Squared wrote, in part: >>No tank, in the history of land warfare, has failed to carry a gun that would >>crack it's own armor.... >[mod.note: I doubt the gun of the British Infantry Mk I (a machinegun >tank) could penetrate its armor. 8-) - Bill ] However, Mark I (and Mark IV) came in three flavors: female: All Machine Gun (5 or 6?) male: 4(?) pounder in the sponsons plus 3 or 4 MG hermaphrodite: 4 pounder in one sponson, MG in the other, plus the hull mounted MGs. (The naming was that used at the time. I believe the hermaphrodite was a field expedient, when the "female" crews found themselves in need of more BOOM.) [mod.note: Note I said *Infantry* Mk I; I'm talking about the Matilda I, a well-armored machinegun tank which served in France in 1940 with the BEF. What you've described is a WWI MkI, a very different beast. And BTW, the guns were 6-pounders. - Bill ] ========================== JOSEPH T CHEW writes, in part: >A fusion device is triggered by a fission device. X-rays from the fission >compress the tritium in a small target capsule. This was, I believe, the >key idea contributed by Dr. Teller: radiative compression. There seems to be an open question on how much of the idea was Teller's and how much came from elsewhere. In any case, my impression was that many (most?) current warheads, including artillery, are "gas boosted", with some output from a fusion element. ============================== Frank Vance wrote, in part: >What are some of the various PAVE programs, and what do they have in common, >such that they get a PAVE name? My impression was that PAVE was a term for a group of programs with little in common besides "leading edge" (at the time) technology. This is based on the wide variety of things with "PAVE" attached to them. ==================== Tom Tedrick writes, in part: >I saw a news report recently that US tank mobility is >restricted by lack of tracked vehicles capable of carrying >fuel for purposes of refueling the tanks. Is this true? Dunno about recent past, however the army has a family (can someone supply the name?) of eight wheel, all powered, high mobility, articulated, heavy haulers. Picture eight "tractor" type tires, all driven, vehicle length 40 foot overall. Treads are not the only way to get "off road" mobility. (Saw a train load of these being loaded summer '89 in Oshkosh (b'gosh). Yes, I was leaving the Fly-in... The entire load was "tankers" (fuel, or possibly water). ======= Randy Appleton writes, in part, concerning the "neutron bomb" >Also, I thought that we (America) decided *NOT* to build any. Does anyone >know for sure? We had (i believe have) enhanced radiation warheads) available. I believe they are among the first scheduled for disassembly/retirement as peace breaks out.... =========== Doug Mohney writes, in part: >In article <1990Oct29.033204.10576@cbnews.att.com>, >shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >> carried them. In case of a forced landing, one or two shots into the >> fuel tank produced a nice raging inferno. I imagine that one or two >> shots into electronics would be effective as well. >>You don't make forced landings in modern fighters; you eject. The impact >>will destroy any electronics. In addition, the sensitive bits have detonators/destructors attached. No clear on what triggers them (manual or automatic), but a friend who collects "large green boxes" occasionally finds a destructor still in place. (I think Mary Shafer was quoting someone else, at the indent??) >Uh, what happened when Gary Power's U-2 was shot down over Mother Russia? I >thought there were enough embarassing parts left from the 70,000 drop, despite >the CIA's belief that anything which was shot/blown to pieces at that altitude >would break up into generic metal once it hit the ground. Intel data? Operative word is BELIEF... My impression is there is still an argument over whether the U2 was hit, or bombed, or partially dismantled by a near hit. The U2 had a rep as a fragile airplane, I believe, at least in early incarnations. Whether any given piece of intelligence equipment was particularly fragile (or lacked detonators) is an open question. thanks dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage, Digital Equipment Corporation |the opinions, my own. 600 Nickerson Rd Marlboro, Mass 01752 pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com "He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing." A J Raffles