If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
through the Ruhr Dam during WW II. Half the bombers on the mission were
lost, most before they got to the dam. The Taiwanese await the rise of their own Barnes Wallace, should they be so lucky as to ever have one. v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR An LZ is a place you want to land, not stay. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message om... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon capable of breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you need a reality check and some remedial reading comprehension work. That dam is over 180 meters tall, and contains some 26 plus *million* cubic meters of concrete (more than *twice* the mass of the world's previous record holder). It is designed to handle a 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality check time--what conventional weapon do you know of, or can you even conceive of, that could *breach* a structure of those massive dimensions? Answer--none. Actually, the answer is "a pretty big one, but not as big as you'd think." I believe your analysis is a bit faulty in this case; see below. The Three Gorges is certainly very wide, and very tall, and quite thick at the base, but if you hit it about halfway up with a full reservoir, you could breach it with a moderately-large explosive package, since it's only about twice as thick at midpoint as the Mohne dam was at the point the Wallis bomb broke it. The Wallis bomb was apparently good against a target that did not exceed about 50-feet thickness at the point of detonation (see: www.arnsberger-heimatbund.de/moehneattack.html ). The Mohne and Eider dams challenged the ability of the Walls bomb to do the job, and as you note the Three Gorges is substantially more massive (and you may be a bit low on your estimate--remember that the dam crest sits about ten meters above the flood stage overflow water profile, from what I have read). Since the explosive for the Wallis bomb was 6600 pounds, you could probably knock a big hole in the Three Gorges with a ten or twelve ton bomb of more-aggressive explosive, Now we are getting into fantasy land (I know, that is a place where Henry usually enjopys playing, but still...). The point here was a Taiwanese capability of delivering a warhead to the target and doing the deed--I doubt the PLA would stand idly by while a Taiwanese transport aircraft (and that is what it would take to deliver a weapon of the size you are indicating) idles in bound towards the dam. Neither can you reliably count on the relationship between explosive size and depth of breach being a geometric relationship, either. There is a *reason* we planned on taking dams out with ADM's back in the bad ol' days--they, along with large suspension bridges, are just plain nasty targets to try and take out with externally emplaced explosives. maybe with a shaped charge. Nope. Shaped charges work lousy through water--the water disrupts the jet formation. And shaped charge penetration has a couple of nasty characteristics that further sink this option of your's--first, penetration depth is based largely upon the diameter of the liner and acheiving the optimal standoff distance (you'd need one tremendously large diameter liner, and all of that water gets in the way of the jet formation, unless you are arguing for hitting the "open" face, in which case congrats, you just penetrated the concrete--to a max depth of maybe six or eight meters, that is), and second, the jet actually creates a comparitively itty-bitty little hole (maybe between one-tenth and one-fifth the diameter of the liner). A shaped charge is a no-go, from the get-go. Do that at one-third of the way down from the crest (deeper than the Mohne, you get a lot more boost from the water pressure), and you could flood central China with a bigger flood than any recorded in history. I don't think so, based upon the comments above. There are some concerns about the construction or the 3GD (they had 80 fairly long, two meter deep cracks form when they started filling it). OK, now you are arguing that the PRC themselves may have created a potential future catastrophe in the making--plausible, but unlikely IMO (a 2 meter depth crack is nothing if the thickness of the mass at that point is seventy or eighty meters). A moderately paranoid person might also consider that the Chinese government could be dropping these "Taiwan may attack dam" stories in order to give them someone to blame when and if the thing lets go on its own. But the source induicated for this discussion is not the PRC, but a DoD report that included some musings accredited to Taiwanese, with TG merely being offered as an example. The largest bomb the ROCAF could deliver would be maybe a 2000 pounder, of which maybe half is explosive filler. Submerge that puppy on the upstream side (a la the old Barnes Walls "Dambusters" approach) and you'll be lucky to spall some concrete and kill oodles of fish. The sort of thing that would destroy the Three Gorges wouldn't be air-deliverable by Taiwan, but would be easy enough to assemble upstream and place with divers. That is one big puppy you are talking about smuggling into the PRC, assembling, and then getting into place. Not exactly what I'd call a reliable military strike option. Brooks -- cirby at cfl.rr.com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: http://militarynewswatch.blogspot.co...rpedo-dam.html Now, did the articles in question use the DoD report as their basis for the Three Gorges scenario or not? Yes. My interpretation? How do you get anything other than the noting that some Taiwanese have stated they think Taiwan should have a capability to strike mainland HVT's, with Three Gorges offered as an example, from that? If the DoD didn't think the treat was realistic why did they bring it up? Nice example of typical Cobbian doublespeak, Henry. Let's look again at the *exact* wording of what you believe to be a claim that they can/should be able to breach Three Gorges: "Taipei political and military leaders have recently suggested acquiring weapon systems capable of standoff strikes against the Chinese mainland as a cost-effective means of deterrence. Taiwan's Air Force already has a latent capability for airstrikes against China. Leaders have publicly cited the need for ballistic and land-attack cruise missiles. Since Taipei cannot match Beijing's ability to field offensive systems, proponents of strikes against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible threats to China's urban population or high- value targets, such as the Three Gorges Dam, will deter Chinese military coercion." (from pp. 52-53 of the DoD report) Now, does it say Taiwan has such a capability? Nope. Does it say that Taiwan is planning to develop such a capability? Nope. All it says is that some Taiwanese officials believe they should develop a capability of posing "credible threats to China's urban population or high- value targets", with TG being offered as an example. Now, if they instead had used an example like "such as the PRC petroleum industry", would that by definition mean they had to destroy outright every tankfarm in the PRC, or might it also accept merely taking out some major pipelines and disrupting their refining operations? YOU are the guy who leaped to the conclusions that (a) the example of TG was some sort of sacrosanct pillar of this new strategy, and (b) posing a "credible threat" to TG requires physically breaching the dam, and would not be satisfied by merely cutting off its generating capacity, or destroying its associated locks, etc. The DoD report did not reach those conclusions--YOU did; and as usual, your analysis is sorely wanting for a taste of reality, and your willingness to take a statement completely out of context to suit your own strange views remains as strong as ever. Do they know something that you don't or are they trying to spin a non-story to the media and if so for what reason? No, you are doing all of the spinning in this case--they said what they said, and it does not have any resemblance to what you have concocted it as saying. Brooks -HJC |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message om... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon capable of breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you need a reality check and some remedial reading comprehension work. That dam is over 180 meters tall, and contains some 26 plus *million* cubic meters of concrete (more than *twice* the mass of the world's previous record holder). It is designed to handle a 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality check time--what conventional weapon do you know of, or can you even conceive of, that could *breach* a structure of those massive dimensions? Answer--none. Actually, the answer is "a pretty big one, but not as big as you'd think." I believe your analysis is a bit faulty in this case; see below. While I'm *sure* yours is, from the assumptions you made about thickness. Height and overall mass is all well and good, but stress, construction and *thickness* are the important issues for a Wallis-type bomb. The Three Gorges, while very tall and very long, isn't as thick as you seem to think. The Three Gorges is certainly very wide, and very tall, and quite thick at the base, but if you hit it about halfway up with a full reservoir, you could breach it with a moderately-large explosive package, since it's only about twice as thick at midpoint as the Mohne dam was at the point the Wallis bomb broke it. The Wallis bomb was apparently good against a target that did not exceed about 50-feet thickness at the point of detonation (see: www.arnsberger-heimatbund.de/moehneattack.html ). The Mohne and Eider dams challenged the ability of the Walls bomb to do the job, Actually, it was the *placement* of the bombs that caused the issues. One bomb, well-placed, was more than enough in each case. Their aiming system was a couple of spotlights and a piece of wood with nails in it... and as you note the Three Gorges is substantially more massive (and you may be a bit low on your estimate--remember that the dam crest sits about ten meters above the flood stage overflow water profile, from what I have read). "Substantially" being about twice, at about the halfway point. Which is why I mentioned a much larger weapon with a much more powerful explosive. Fired off at a deeper location, double the water depth, double the tamping effect, placed directly against the surface, you should be able to get at least a factor of four more destruction, which would do a lot to the twice-as-thick wall of the Three Gorges at about halfway down. Since the explosive for the Wallis bomb was 6600 pounds, you could probably knock a big hole in the Three Gorges with a ten or twelve ton bomb of more-aggressive explosive, Now we are getting into fantasy land (I know, that is a place where Henry usually enjopys playing, but still...). Nope. As I mentioned, it's certainly a feasible thing to do. Not airdropped (as I mentioned further into my post), but it's not hard at all to place large items by hand, if suitably ballasted. A modern high explosive would do a *lot* more damage than anything they'd try to use in WWII. A higher propagation velocity would *magnify* the effects versus WWII high explosives. There are some concerns about the construction or the 3GD (they had 80 fairly long, two meter deep cracks form when they started filling it). OK, now you are arguing that the PRC themselves may have created a potential future catastrophe in the making--plausible, but unlikely IMO (a 2 meter depth crack is nothing if the thickness of the mass at that point is seventy or eighty meters). ....except that the thickness you're talking about is only at the *bottom* of the dam. It slopes in a *lot* on the downstream side to about the halfway point, where it's less than 100 feet thick (the upstream side is a vertical wall from top to bottom). A two meter depth *surface* crack in concrete is almost certainly not the only crack you've got in a structure that size (besides the 80 surface cracks they know of, how many are there deeper in?). China isn't famous for good construction practices, and average over a hundred dam collapses per *year*. A moderately paranoid person might also consider that the Chinese government could be dropping these "Taiwan may attack dam" stories in order to give them someone to blame when and if the thing lets go on its own. But the source induicated for this discussion is not the PRC, but a DoD report that included some musings accredited to Taiwanese, with TG merely being offered as an example. The original DoD report only mentioned that Taiwan might hold the option to attack various high-value targets (like 3 Gorges) in China if the Chinese invaded Taiwan (as possible strategies), but the PRC has already made some very strong comments. There are other sources than the one minor one that started this thread. "It will provoke retaliation that will 'blot out the sky and cover up the earth,'" according to one general in the PRC, quoted in a lot of places (Reuters story, June 16). Note that the Pentagon report on this was from last year. Why the strong comments *now*? The sort of thing that would destroy the Three Gorges wouldn't be air-deliverable by Taiwan, but would be easy enough to assemble upstream and place with divers. That is one big puppy you are talking about smuggling into the PRC, assembling, and then getting into place. Not exactly what I'd call a reliable military strike option. Actually, it's not really that large. A good-sized truck would hold it. Or a few bribes to one or more PRC officers to get some stuff that's already handy. Not to mention that there was probably a few thousand tons of TNT used during the construction of 3G, and diverting a fraction of a percent of that wouldn't be too tough. Hell, unless the PRC has some *extreme* measures in place, it wouldn't be that hard to put a *hundred* ton bomb of some sort in a boat, steer it to the dam, and sink it with a depth sensor for detonation... -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message . com... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message om... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: If *your* interpretation of that is that it requires a weapon capable of breaching a massive dam like Three Gorges, then you need a reality check and some remedial reading comprehension work. That dam is over 180 meters tall, and contains some 26 plus *million* cubic meters of concrete (more than *twice* the mass of the world's previous record holder). It is designed to handle a 7.0 Richter scale event. Reality check time--what conventional weapon do you know of, or can you even conceive of, that could *breach* a structure of those massive dimensions? Answer--none. Actually, the answer is "a pretty big one, but not as big as you'd think." I believe your analysis is a bit faulty in this case; see below. While I'm *sure* yours is, from the assumptions you made about thickness. Height and overall mass is all well and good, but stress, construction and *thickness* are the important issues for a Wallis-type bomb. The Three Gorges, while very tall and very long, isn't as thick as you seem to think. Actually, the only guage I have for thickness is the claim you made that the structure was around twice as thick at the mid-point as the Rhine dams mentioned. Plus knowing the height of the structure, it is easy to surmise that the base dimensions have to be pretty darned big themselves to resist the massive moment resulting from the hydrostatic load. Of course, we could get a SWAG by taking the volume of concrete (known), the height of the structure, and then figuring the likely bottom "thickness" (as I believe you have called it)...let's see, 26 million cm with a max height of 185 meters and a length of about 2300 meters, gives us a likely bottom measurement in the area of about 122 meters, assumeing a uniformly decreasing cross section as you go up (yeah, I know that is probably not the case, but it will be close enough, and I have yet to see anything that actually provides the cross sectional dimensions of the dam as built). The Three Gorges is certainly very wide, and very tall, and quite thick at the base, but if you hit it about halfway up with a full reservoir, you could breach it with a moderately-large explosive package, since it's only about twice as thick at midpoint as the Mohne dam was at the point the Wallis bomb broke it. The Wallis bomb was apparently good against a target that did not exceed about 50-feet thickness at the point of detonation (see: www.arnsberger-heimatbund.de/moehneattack.html ). The Mohne and Eider dams challenged the ability of the Walls bomb to do the job, Actually, it was the *placement* of the bombs that caused the issues. One bomb, well-placed, was more than enough in each case. Their aiming system was a couple of spotlights and a piece of wood with nails in it... and as you note the Three Gorges is substantially more massive (and you may be a bit low on your estimate--remember that the dam crest sits about ten meters above the flood stage overflow water profile, from what I have read). "Substantially" being about twice, at about the halfway point. Which is why I mentioned a much larger weapon with a much more powerful explosive. Fired off at a deeper location, double the water depth, double the tamping effect, placed directly against the surface, you should be able to get at least a factor of four more destruction, which would do a lot to the twice-as-thick wall of the Three Gorges at about halfway down. Let's see. Since the max ordinate for the dam in terms of upstream fill is supposed to be only about 175 meters, from what I have read, you halfway dimension would apparently be, based upon that 122 meter estimate above, something like 57 meters--let's be generous and assume a more favorable number for you, of maybe 40 meters (reflecting a more realistic actual cross section). Which last I knew was quite a bit more than 100 feet--more like 125 feet? Not sure that your everything-increases-linearly-as-you go-down concept is the most accurate way of describing this situation. By that reasoning one could kill submarines at great depth with mere handgrenades, right? Since the explosive for the Wallis bomb was 6600 pounds, you could probably knock a big hole in the Three Gorges with a ten or twelve ton bomb of more-aggressive explosive, Now we are getting into fantasy land (I know, that is a place where Henry usually enjopys playing, but still...). Nope. As I mentioned, it's certainly a feasible thing to do. Not airdropped (as I mentioned further into my post), Then you just made it infeasible in terms of being strike weapon, which is what this thread is all about. We are not discussing the possibility of driving a trainload of HE to the dam and carefully assembling and placing a massive charge in the reservoir--we are talking about military strike options. but it's not hard at all to place large items by hand, if suitably ballasted. A modern high explosive would do a *lot* more damage than anything they'd try to use in WWII. A higher propagation velocity would *magnify* the effects versus WWII high explosives. What you are referring to is the Relative Effectiveness factor (RE), which uses TNT, a WWII explosive if there ever was one, as the basis of measurement (with a value of 1.00); C-4 had an RE of 1.34. But you have to be careful here; C-4 does indeed exhibit significantly faster propogation, and hence "brisance" (or "shattering effect") when compared to TNT, but if you instead want to start looking at its other qualities, such as its "heave" effect, you will find very little difference. There are some concerns about the construction or the 3GD (they had 80 fairly long, two meter deep cracks form when they started filling it). OK, now you are arguing that the PRC themselves may have created a potential future catastrophe in the making--plausible, but unlikely IMO (a 2 meter depth crack is nothing if the thickness of the mass at that point is seventy or eighty meters). ...except that the thickness you're talking about is only at the *bottom* of the dam. It slopes in a *lot* on the downstream side to about the halfway point, where it's less than 100 feet thick (the upstream side is a vertical wall from top to bottom). A two meter depth *surface* crack in concrete is almost certainly not the only crack you've got in a structure that size (besides the 80 surface cracks they know of, how many are there deeper in?). Newsflash--concrete cracks. It is quite a common occurence. The real issue is the roientation of said cracks; running vertically, no big deal. Horizontally, you may have something to start worrying about. China isn't famous for good construction practices, and average over a hundred dam collapses per *year*. A moderately paranoid person might also consider that the Chinese government could be dropping these "Taiwan may attack dam" stories in order to give them someone to blame when and if the thing lets go on its own. But the source induicated for this discussion is not the PRC, but a DoD report that included some musings accredited to Taiwanese, with TG merely being offered as an example. The original DoD report only mentioned that Taiwan might hold the option to attack various high-value targets (like 3 Gorges) in China if the Chinese invaded Taiwan (as possible strategies), but the PRC has already made some very strong comments. There are other sources than the one minor one that started this thread. "It will provoke retaliation that will 'blot out the sky and cover up the earth,'" according to one general in the PRC, quoted in a lot of places (Reuters story, June 16). Note that the Pentagon report on this was from last year. Why the strong comments *now*? Who knows? Who really cares, given that the Taiwanese don't have, and won't be getting, any capbility of breaching said dam. Now, can they hit the ancilliary structures and do a temendous amoundt of damage? You betcha--and I'd be willing to bet that is the kind of thing that the PRC would be more worried about. The sort of thing that would destroy the Three Gorges wouldn't be air-deliverable by Taiwan, but would be easy enough to assemble upstream and place with divers. That is one big puppy you are talking about smuggling into the PRC, assembling, and then getting into place. Not exactly what I'd call a reliable military strike option. Actually, it's not really that large. A good-sized truck would hold it. Or a few bribes to one or more PRC officers to get some stuff that's already handy. Not to mention that there was probably a few thousand tons of TNT used during the construction of 3G, and diverting a fraction of a percent of that wouldn't be too tough. Hell, unless the PRC has some *extreme* measures in place, it wouldn't be that hard to put a *hundred* ton bomb of some sort in a boat, steer it to the dam, and sink it with a depth sensor for detonation... OK, now we are getting into true fantasy land. This discussion started out about military strike operations, not John Wayne/Errol Flynn/Rambo Supercommando operations. The psited case is for Taiwan to do this in order to retaliate against a PRC invasion--and you see commandos, and boats, etc., running willy nilly about all over and around the dam, on land and water? Come on, now... Brooks -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote: Actually, the only guage I have for thickness is the claim you made that the structure was around twice as thick at the mid-point as the Rhine dams mentioned. Plus knowing the height of the structure, it is easy to surmise that the base dimensions have to be pretty darned big themselves to resist the massive moment resulting from the hydrostatic load. Of course, we could get a SWAG by taking the volume of concrete (known), the height of the structure, and then figuring the likely bottom "thickness" (as I believe you have called it)...let's see, 26 million cm with a max height of 185 meters and a length of about 2300 meters, gives us a likely bottom measurement in the area of about 122 meters, assumeing a uniformly decreasing cross section as you go up (yeah, I know that is probably not the case, but it will be close enough, and I have yet to see anything that actually provides the cross sectional dimensions of the dam as built). You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project* is the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera. Overall, you've overestimated the volume of concrete used in the dam itself by at *least* a factor of two. That throws all of your other guesswork right out the window. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message m... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: Actually, the only guage I have for thickness is the claim you made that the structure was around twice as thick at the mid-point as the Rhine dams mentioned. Plus knowing the height of the structure, it is easy to surmise that the base dimensions have to be pretty darned big themselves to resist the massive moment resulting from the hydrostatic load. Of course, we could get a SWAG by taking the volume of concrete (known), the height of the structure, and then figuring the likely bottom "thickness" (as I believe you have called it)...let's see, 26 million cm with a max height of 185 meters and a length of about 2300 meters, gives us a likely bottom measurement in the area of about 122 meters, assumeing a uniformly decreasing cross section as you go up (yeah, I know that is probably not the case, but it will be close enough, and I have yet to see anything that actually provides the cross sectional dimensions of the dam as built). You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project* is the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera. I used the only numbers I had available. You have offered exactly--zip in terms of actual numbers. And as i told you above, yes, assuming a linear relationship between the toe and crest of the dam is not going to be completely accurate--but it does provide a pretty good working number in the absence of any actual dimensions for cross sectional structural depth at various ordinates. If you have those precise numbers, please provide them. Overall, you've overestimated the volume of concrete used in the dam itself by at *least* a factor of two. Show why, and be specific; the 26 mil cm figure is the only one I came across in a quick search. That throws all of your other guesswork right out the window. LOL! Coming from a guy who postulated the use of a shaped charge (giggle-snort!) to penetrate said dam, the use of the term "guesswork" is a real hoot... Now, when you can show that the Taiwanese have a possible realistic retaliatory strike capability that allows them to actually breach that puppy, show us; otherwise your claims remain in Rambo Land. Brooks -- cirby at cfl.rr.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Chad Irby" wrote in message m... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: Actually, the only guage I have for thickness is the claim you made that the structure was around twice as thick at the mid-point as the Rhine dams mentioned. Plus knowing the height of the structure, it is easy to surmise that the base dimensions have to be pretty darned big themselves to resist the massive moment resulting from the hydrostatic load. Of course, we could get a SWAG by taking the volume of concrete (known), the height of the structure, and then figuring the likely bottom "thickness" (as I believe you have called it)...let's see, 26 million cm with a max height of 185 meters and a length of about 2300 meters, gives us a likely bottom measurement in the area of about 122 meters, assumeing a uniformly decreasing cross section as you go up (yeah, I know that is probably not the case, but it will be close enough, and I have yet to see anything that actually provides the cross sectional dimensions of the dam as built). You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project* is the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera. I used the only numbers I had available. You have offered exactly--zip in terms of actual numbers. And as i told you above, yes, assuming a linear relationship between the toe and crest of the dam is not going to be completely accurate--but it does provide a pretty good working number in the absence of any actual dimensions for cross sectional structural depth at various ordinates. If you have those precise numbers, please provide them. Overall, you've overestimated the volume of concrete used in the dam itself by at *least* a factor of two. Show why, and be specific; the 26 mil cm figure is the only one I came across in a quick search. That throws all of your other guesswork right out the window. LOL! Coming from a guy who postulated the use of a shaped charge (giggle-snort!) to penetrate said dam, the use of the term "guesswork" is a real hoot... Now, when you can show that the Taiwanese have a possible realistic retaliatory strike capability that allows them to actually breach that puppy, show us; otherwise your claims remain in Rambo Land. Brooks Kevin, they don't even have to come close to breaching it. Weaken it, water is relentless, it'll find a way through.... T3 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message m... You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project* is the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera. I used the only numbers I had available. You have offered exactly--zip in terms of actual numbers. I did mention that the dam didn't have as big a cross-section as you think, with approximate thicknesses. You chose to ignore that, so it's your problem, not mine. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"T3" wrote in message . com... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Chad Irby" wrote in message m... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: Actually, the only guage I have for thickness is the claim you made that the structure was around twice as thick at the mid-point as the Rhine dams mentioned. Plus knowing the height of the structure, it is easy to surmise that the base dimensions have to be pretty darned big themselves to resist the massive moment resulting from the hydrostatic load. Of course, we could get a SWAG by taking the volume of concrete (known), the height of the structure, and then figuring the likely bottom "thickness" (as I believe you have called it)...let's see, 26 million cm with a max height of 185 meters and a length of about 2300 meters, gives us a likely bottom measurement in the area of about 122 meters, assumeing a uniformly decreasing cross section as you go up (yeah, I know that is probably not the case, but it will be close enough, and I have yet to see anything that actually provides the cross sectional dimensions of the dam as built). You assumed the dam, as built, is one big structure of a certain cross-section, that the amount of concrete used on the dam *project* is the same as that just used on the dam (as opposed to the other dam structures, locks, roads, powerhouses), et cetera. I used the only numbers I had available. You have offered exactly--zip in terms of actual numbers. And as i told you above, yes, assuming a linear relationship between the toe and crest of the dam is not going to be completely accurate--but it does provide a pretty good working number in the absence of any actual dimensions for cross sectional structural depth at various ordinates. If you have those precise numbers, please provide them. Overall, you've overestimated the volume of concrete used in the dam itself by at *least* a factor of two. Show why, and be specific; the 26 mil cm figure is the only one I came across in a quick search. That throws all of your other guesswork right out the window. LOL! Coming from a guy who postulated the use of a shaped charge (giggle-snort!) to penetrate said dam, the use of the term "guesswork" is a real hoot... Now, when you can show that the Taiwanese have a possible realistic retaliatory strike capability that allows them to actually breach that puppy, show us; otherwise your claims remain in Rambo Land. Brooks Kevin, they don't even have to come close to breaching it. Weaken it, water is relentless, it'll find a way through.... T3 This is all about posing a credible military threat. You are right in saying they don't have to breach it--much easier to take out the generating station, or substations, powerlines, locks, etc. Those things are all conceivable. Breaching it, as a military reponse to a PRC invasion/attack, is not. Brooks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PING: Gordon (was: The torpedo high jump...) | Yeff | Military Aviation | 0 | June 10th 04 08:41 AM |
Taiwan to make parts for new Bell military helicopters | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 28th 04 12:12 AM |
realign M-750 to reduce noise in Taiwan | Dan Jacobson | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | January 31st 04 01:44 AM |
US wants Taiwan to bolster intelligence gathering | Henry J. Cobb | Military Aviation | 0 | January 8th 04 02:00 PM |
monitoring China air communication with a radio in Taiwan | Dan Jacobson | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | November 23rd 03 09:40 PM |