Taiwanese Dam Strike Old News...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

Neither "missile" would be capable of breaching TG. For gosh sakes,
people,
TG is a friggin' GRAVITY dam--its a large concrete monolith! Folks keep
comparing this to the Ruhr dams--but weren't they *arch* dams?

Nope. They were arch-*shaped*, but the Moehne and Eder were gravity
dams.

Your inability to understand the basics of civil engineering continues to be
in evidence. Why do you think they included the arch design in those dams?
To reduce the required volume of material in their construction! Think load
paths... Note that TG is a pure gravity design, on the other hand.

Oh, and BTW, you keep using these Ruhr dams an example, but I believe they
have another distinct difference exhibited in comparison to TG--they are
*masonry* (or lesser) structures (Mohne listed as masonry only, Eder as
masonry-rubble, and Sohne as *earthen* with a simple concrete core wall),
not reinforced concrete structures like TG is.

And... I found some references to the cross sectional depth of TG, and it
appears my seat-of-the-pants estimate is a hell of a lot closer than you
claimed (I believe you were indicating I was off by a factor of about
100%)--my estimate was 122 meters, and there are quite a few sources out
there in Googleland that indicate it is indeed "over 100 meters". The Mohne
had a base "thickness" (masonry) of some 34 meters, versus the "over 100
meters" (of rf concrete) of the TG. It looks like TG is about three times as
massive as

taiwansecurity.org/Reu/2004/Reuters-160604.htm

Now, what exactly again is the basis for your comparison of the Ruhr dams
and TG? None that I can see...


Oddly enough, the RAF officers who thought the mission wouldn't work in
1943 were saying pretty much the same things you're saying now. "The
bombs aren't big enough, you can't put them in place, the risk isn't
worth it..."

Since, as has been shown, you are talking about *much* smaller dams, of
*much* smaller thickness, made of materials which exhibit *less* structural
integrity than the RC used in TG, your point would be...?

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com