On 10/11/2022 2:45 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <ti4kjt$1659k$2@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2022 10:56 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
>>>>>>>>>>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>>>>>>>>>>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>>>>>>>>>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>>>>>>>>>>> agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>>>>>>>>>>> constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>>>>>>>>>>> base in Sevastopol.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
>>>>>>>>>> fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
>>>>>>>>>> defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
>>>>>>>>>> not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>>>>>>>>>> agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>>>>>>>>> the exit from the Black Sea?
>>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
>>>>>>>> its flagship. There are international agreements covering
>>>>>>>> transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
>>>>>>>> significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
>>>>>>>> sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
>>>>>>>> part of planning for any significant action.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>>>>>>> to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>>>>>>> of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>>>> Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>>>> would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has a nice ring to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
>>>>> of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>>>>
>>>> A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>>>> recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
>>>> the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
>>>> over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
>>>> damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
>>> damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
>>> suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
>>> how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
>>>
>>> I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
>>> be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
>>> bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
>>> This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
>>> rail transport for men and materiel.
>>>
>> From what I understand the railroad is already shut down. The rails
>> were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should be replaced
>> if a competent civil engineer is involved. Given the situation it seems
>> possible that the segment of the rail bridge will be brought down by the
>> first train the Russians run along it after not repairing it properly.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> That's what I would have expected, but the articles I've seen say
> that the line is in service. Presuming that it's dual track,
> perhaps one track is still in use and the one that had the
> burning tank cars on it isn't. I'd be concerned that the bridge
> structure itself was damaged, but I tend to be risk-averse in
> such things.
>
> There is, naturally, a question about them finding a "competent
> civil engineer" to oversee fixing it properly as--if even one set
> of rails is out of service--going to be a lot of pressure to get
> it open again.

Somewhere else I saw something someone posted about the effects of high
heat on concrete. If there was enough heat to warp the rails then the
concrete that _both_ lines are on is ... of highly questionable weight
bearing capacity now.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> None of this in any way relates to whether or not James is a racist
> moron, even more extremist than you.

And then there's the water supply in Flint, Michigan.

But these are _trifling_ examples. The real reason the health picture for
black Americans is much bleaker than that of whites is, of course,
poverty. And while a lot of effort was expended during American history
to keep black slaves from running away, to keep black people down,
and so on and so forth, the health consequences must be admitted not
to have been a direct goal of these efforts.

That being against this sort of thing is the sign of a "racist moron" must
be an example of a definition of the term "racist moron" of which I have not
previously been aware.

John Savard

On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 4:44:49 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 10/11/2022 10:56 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1...@4ax.com>,
> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
> >>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> >>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
> >>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to continue to
> >>>>>>>>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
> >>>>>>>>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
> >>>>>>>>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
> >>>>>>>>> agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
> >>>>>>>>> constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
> >>>>>>>>> base in Sevastopol.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
> >>>>>>>> That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
> >>>>>>>> fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
> >>>>>>>> defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
> >>>>>>>> not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
> >>>>>>>> agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
> >>>>>>> the exit from the Black Sea?
> >>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
> >>>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
> >>>>>> its flagship. There are international agreements covering
> >>>>>> transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
> >>>>>> significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
> >>>>>> sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
> >>>>>> part of planning for any significant action.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
> >>>>> to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
> >>>>> of the Black Sea can't be altered.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
> >>>>> Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
> >>>>> would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
> >>>>
> >>>> Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
> >>>>
> >>>> Has a nice ring to it.
> >>>
> >>> It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
> >>> of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
> >>
> >> A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
> >> recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
> >> the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
> >> over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
> >> damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.
> >
> > (Hal Heydt)
> > Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
> > damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
> > suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
> > how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
> >
> > I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
> > be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
> > bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
> > This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
> > rail transport for men and materiel.
> >
> From what I understand the railroad is already shut down. The rails
> were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should be replaced
> if a competent civil engineer is involved. Given the situation it seems
> possible that the segment of the rail bridge will be brought down by the
> first train the Russians run along it after not repairing it properly.

From what Ive seen, two of the four auto lanes are in the water, and other two
are coned off to a single lane. So far, I've only seen light vehicles on it.

The parallel rail bridge has two lines. One is apparently open, but Ive seen
close up photos of the other line showing serious track damage. It may be easier
to replace than the road.

Pt

In article <ti4sii$16r8s$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 10/11/2022 2:45 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <ti4kjt$1659k$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2022 10:56 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S
>Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to
>continue to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>>>>>>>>>>>> constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>>>>>>>>>>>> base in Sevastopol.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
>>>>>>>>>>> fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
>>>>>>>>>>> defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
>>>>>>>>>>> not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>>>>>>>>>>> agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>>>>>>>>>> the exit from the Black Sea?
>>>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
>>>>>>>>> its flagship. There are international agreements covering
>>>>>>>>> transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
>>>>>>>>> significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
>>>>>>>>> sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
>>>>>>>>> part of planning for any significant action.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>>>>>>>> to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>>>>>>>> of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>>>>> Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>>>>> would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has a nice ring to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
>>>>>> of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>>>>>
>>>>> A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>>>>> recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
>>>>> the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
>>>>> over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
>>>>> damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.
>>>>
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
>>>> damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
>>>> suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
>>>> how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
>>>>
>>>> I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
>>>> be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
>>>> bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
>>>> This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
>>>> rail transport for men and materiel.
>>>>
>>> From what I understand the railroad is already shut down. The rails
>>> were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should be replaced
>>> if a competent civil engineer is involved. Given the situation it seems
>>> possible that the segment of the rail bridge will be brought down by the
>>> first train the Russians run along it after not repairing it properly.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> That's what I would have expected, but the articles I've seen say
>> that the line is in service. Presuming that it's dual track,
>> perhaps one track is still in use and the one that had the
>> burning tank cars on it isn't. I'd be concerned that the bridge
>> structure itself was damaged, but I tend to be risk-averse in
>> such things.
>>
>> There is, naturally, a question about them finding a "competent
>> civil engineer" to oversee fixing it properly as--if even one set
>> of rails is out of service--going to be a lot of pressure to get
>> it open again.
>
>Somewhere else I saw something someone posted about the effects of high
>heat on concrete. If there was enough heat to warp the rails then the
>concrete that _both_ lines are on is ... of highly questionable weight
>bearing capacity now.

(Hal Heydt)
It's probably an effect on the cement in the concrete. The
agregate probably isn't much bothered by any heat those fires
generated. The (portland) cement sets by a hydration reaction.
heat it up enough to drive the water back out of it and it's
rather unlikely to be effective holding the agregate together any
more.

Side note... That hydration reaction is--no
surprise--exothermic. When you pour really large amounts of
concrete--Shasta Dam being one example--you need to embed pipes
in it and run something through them to cool the whole thing down
or the concrete will never set.

On 10/11/2022 6:34 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <ti4sii$16r8s$2@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2022 2:45 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <ti4kjt$1659k$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2022 10:56 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>> In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>>>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S
>> Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to
>> continue to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> base in Sevastopol.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
>>>>>>>>>>>> fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
>>>>>>>>>>>> defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
>>>>>>>>>>>> not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>> agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>>>>>>>>>>> the exit from the Black Sea?
>>>>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
>>>>>>>>>> its flagship. There are international agreements covering
>>>>>>>>>> transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
>>>>>>>>>> significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
>>>>>>>>>> sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
>>>>>>>>>> part of planning for any significant action.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>>>>>>>>> to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>>>>>>>>> of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>>>>>> Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>>>>>> would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has a nice ring to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
>>>>>>> of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>>>>>> recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
>>>>>> the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
>>>>>> over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
>>>>>> damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>> Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
>>>>> damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
>>>>> suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
>>>>> how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
>>>>> be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
>>>>> bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
>>>>> This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
>>>>> rail transport for men and materiel.
>>>>>
>>>> From what I understand the railroad is already shut down. The rails
>>>> were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should be replaced
>>>> if a competent civil engineer is involved. Given the situation it seems
>>>> possible that the segment of the rail bridge will be brought down by the
>>>> first train the Russians run along it after not repairing it properly.
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> That's what I would have expected, but the articles I've seen say
>>> that the line is in service. Presuming that it's dual track,
>>> perhaps one track is still in use and the one that had the
>>> burning tank cars on it isn't. I'd be concerned that the bridge
>>> structure itself was damaged, but I tend to be risk-averse in
>>> such things.
>>>
>>> There is, naturally, a question about them finding a "competent
>>> civil engineer" to oversee fixing it properly as--if even one set
>>> of rails is out of service--going to be a lot of pressure to get
>>> it open again.
>>
>> Somewhere else I saw something someone posted about the effects of high
>> heat on concrete. If there was enough heat to warp the rails then the
>> concrete that _both_ lines are on is ... of highly questionable weight
>> bearing capacity now.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> It's probably an effect on the cement in the concrete. The
> agregate probably isn't much bothered by any heat those fires
> generated. The (portland) cement sets by a hydration reaction.
> heat it up enough to drive the water back out of it and it's
> rather unlikely to be effective holding the agregate together any
> more.
>
> Side note... That hydration reaction is--no
> surprise--exothermic. When you pour really large amounts of
> concrete--Shasta Dam being one example--you need to embed pipes
> in it and run something through them to cool the whole thing down
> or the concrete will never set.

The original estimated cool down time of the Hoover dam was measured in
1000's of years IIRC. :D
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <ebfdae38-ddc5-488f-aadb-27b2f5eded69n@googlegroups.com>,
pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 4:44:49 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 10/11/2022 10:56 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> > In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1...@4ax.com>,
>> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
>> >>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> >>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> >>>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>> >>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S
>Person wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to
>continue to
>> >>>>>>>>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of
>course,
>> >>>>>>>>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>> >>>>>>>>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>> >>>>>>>>> agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>> >>>>>>>>> constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a
>fleet to
>> >>>>>>>>> base in Sevastopol.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>> >>>>>>>> That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
>> >>>>>>>> fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
>> >>>>>>>> defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
>> >>>>>>>> not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>> >>>>>>>> agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>> >>>>>>> the exit from the Black Sea?
>> >>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>> >>>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
>> >>>>>> its flagship. There are international agreements covering
>> >>>>>> transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
>> >>>>>> significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
>> >>>>>> sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
>> >>>>>> part of planning for any significant action.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>> >>>>> to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>> >>>>> of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>> >>>>> Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>> >>>>> would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Has a nice ring to it.
>> >>>
>> >>> It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
>> >>> of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>> >>
>> >> A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>> >> recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
>> >> the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
>> >> over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
>> >> damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.
>> >
>> > (Hal Heydt)
>> > Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
>> > damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
>> > suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
>> > how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
>> >
>> > I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
>> > be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
>> > bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
>> > This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
>> > rail transport for men and materiel.
>> >
>> From what I understand the railroad is already shut down. The rails
>> were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should be replaced
>> if a competent civil engineer is involved. Given the situation it seems
>> possible that the segment of the rail bridge will be brought down by the
>> first train the Russians run along it after not repairing it properly.
>
>From what Ive seen, two of the four auto lanes are in the water, and other two
>are coned off to a single lane. So far, I've only seen light vehicles on it.
>
>The parallel rail bridge has two lines. One is apparently open, but Ive seen
>close up photos of the other line showing serious track damage. It may be easier
>to replace than the road.

(Hal Heydt)
That matches some reports I found, one of which include a photo
of the rrail line from before the recent events. They appear to
have laid a traditional rock ballast on the bridge structure with
the ties embedded in the ballast. So basically built a
traditional rail line on top of a bridge.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:56:45 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>(Hal Heydt)
>Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
>damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
>suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
>how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
>
>I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
>be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
>bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
>This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
>rail transport for men and materiel.
>
>It does cause one to wonder what would happen if someone managed
>a missile strike on a train carrying ammunition as it crossed
>onto that particular bit of the bridge...
>
>Observation: Looking at the photos of the damaged bridge and the
>way the roadbed segments fell, even without seeing a navigation
>chart of the area it is plain that the water is quite shallow
>except where the ship channel is.
>
Based on today's news of retaliatory cruise missile attacks on
Ukrainian territory for what Putin calls a raid on Russian territory
(albeit territory nobody outside Russia calls Russian territory) it's
clear Putin at least thinks Zhilenskyy is fully on board with the
attack.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 20:41:28 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>The usual alternative, on land, is trucks. That was, after all,
>the rationale behind building both the Autobahn and US Interstate
>Highway networks. Not to mention that one of the few specific
>pieces of equipment Eisenhower credited with helping win WW2 in
>Europe was the 2.5 ton truck.
>
Two points on this:

(1) In 1944-45 one of the things that most surprised the Germans was
that the tactics they "learned" in North Africa and Russia that the
best way to stop a truck was to target the driver just plain didn't
work against American troops (and Canadians) since if the driver was
wounded or killed under fire the dead or wounded driver was pushed
aside and another soldier moved into the driver seat and often was
able to drive the truck to safety.

(2) Eisenhower saw the effectiveness of the Autobahn system in Germany
(during the occupation) and took their best ideas (no access/exit
except via on and off ramps, standardized signage among other things)
and when president promoted an American version which became the
Interstate highway system.

When I was a child my parents each winter drove from BC to Southern
California and on our first trips took the older US 99 but later on my
parents commented at length on how much faster they could reach their
destination via the new I-5. (On 99 my brother and I always bothered
them about stopping in each town - on the Interstate we only stopped
for gas or meals)

No question the interstate system revolutionized transport within the
US and Eisenhower justified federal funds (highways are a state
responsibility) for this program on the grounds he was improving
logistics for the US Army which while true was only a tiny part of the
value of the Interstates to the US economy.

While the basic idea was German no question his administration
probably came up with a few innovations of their own.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:44:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> From what I understand the railroad is already shut down. The rails
>were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should be replaced
>if a competent civil engineer is involved. Given the situation it seems
>possible that the segment of the rail bridge will be brought down by the
>first train the Russians run along it after not repairing it properly.

Obviously the Ukrainians are hoping the next train via that route will
be a Ukrainian, not a Russian train!

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 18:51:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>The original estimated cool down time of the Hoover dam was measured in
>1000's of years IIRC. :D

That seems unlikely but then even if true the design engineers for the
Hoover Dam were probably not designing with missile fire in mind....

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:15:38 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:03:16 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:18:27 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Not to mention Murmansk, or Vladivostok (although neither are
>>>particularly convenient, they are blue-water ports).
>>
>>Fair enough but we were discussing access and eggress from the Black
>>Sea which is rather impractical via Murmansk or Vladivostok.
>>
>>Is Murmansk ice free 12 months a year?
>
>Yes. That is why it was used in WWII for one of the lend-lease routes.
>I suspect the same current that gives the British Isles their
>temperate climate, swinging up and around Norway.
>
>And, of course, with the Arctic ice pack declining every year, it is
>more so now than it was during WWII.

Actually MOST of the Arctic Lend Lease routes were to Arkangelsk and
British merchant sailors were highly anti-Russian as they felt they
gave the Brits no thanks for delivering the extra 150 or so miles to
Arkangelsk (vs delivering to Murmansk which had problems due to
periodic destruction of sections of rail due to German and Finnish
efforts) and often times were not even allowed on shore before being
required to leave Arkangelsk.

In his history of the war Churchill goes into this rage in some
detail.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 16:40:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> You'll see
>>> this more clearly in NK, where we learn that Kim Jong-un is "too
>>> perfect to need to urinate or defecate".
>>>
>>> When a dictatorship reached that point, it gone.
>>>
>> And yet, Kim is still in power in NK.
>
>And getting his daily cheese fix flown in from Switzerland.

In many cases brands (both in cheeses and other products) that he had
enjoyed during his education in Switzerland as a teenager

On 10/12/2022 1:52 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 18:51:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> The original estimated cool down time of the Hoover dam was measured in
>> 1000's of years IIRC. :D
>
> That seems unlikely but then even if true the design engineers for the
> Hoover Dam were probably not designing with missile fire in mind....

A quick search comes up with a 125 years to cool to ambient temperature
estimate at the time. Still longer than the engineers wanted.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 12/10/2022 03.49, The Horny Goat wrote:

> (2) Eisenhower saw the effectiveness of the Autobahn system in Germany
> (during the occupation) and took their best ideas (no access/exit
> except via on and off ramps, standardized signage among other things)
> and when president promoted an American version which became the
> Interstate highway system.
>
> When I was a child my parents each winter drove from BC to Southern
> California and on our first trips took the older US 99 but later on my
> parents commented at length on how much faster they could reach their
> destination via the new I-5. (On 99 my brother and I always bothered
> them about stopping in each town - on the Interstate we only stopped
> for gas or meals)
>
> No question the interstate system revolutionized transport within the
> US and Eisenhower justified federal funds (highways are a state
> responsibility)

Not exclusively the states' responsibility.

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power
....
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
....

--
Michael F. Stemper
This post contains greater than 95% post-consumer bytes by weight.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <ti4sii$16r8s$2@dont-email.me>,
>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>On 10/11/2022 2:45 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <ti4kjt$1659k$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2022 10:56 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>> In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>>>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S
>>Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get to
>>continue to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lease the base at Sevastopl for their fleet. They would, of course,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to pay the lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would promptly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO and adopt a peace
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitution similar to Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> base in Sevastopol.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue water"
>>>>>>>>>>>> fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need to coastal
>>>>>>>>>>>> defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if
>>>>>>>>>>>> not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>> agree, necessarily ones leased from some other country).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What does "blue water" mean in this context given the Turks control
>>>>>>>>>>> the exit from the Black Sea?
>>>>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser as
>>>>>>>>>> its flagship. There are international agreements covering
>>>>>>>>>> transit into and out of the Black Sea. So Sevastopol could be a
>>>>>>>>>> significant Naval Port for the Russians. They might have to be
>>>>>>>>>> sure to have ships on their preferred side of the Bosphoros as
>>>>>>>>>> part of planning for any significant action.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>>>>>>>>> to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>>>>>>>>> of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>>>>>> Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>>>>>> would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has a nice ring to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
>>>>>>> of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>>>>>> recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
>>>>>> the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
>>>>>> over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
>>>>>> damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>> Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
>>>>> damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
>>>>> suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
>>>>> how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
>>>>> be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
>>>>> bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
>>>>> This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
>>>>> rail transport for men and materiel.
>>>>>
>>>> From what I understand the railroad is already shut down. The rails
>>>> were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should be replaced
>>>> if a competent civil engineer is involved. Given the situation it seems
>>>> possible that the segment of the rail bridge will be brought down by the
>>>> first train the Russians run along it after not repairing it properly.
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> That's what I would have expected, but the articles I've seen say
>>> that the line is in service. Presuming that it's dual track,
>>> perhaps one track is still in use and the one that had the
>>> burning tank cars on it isn't. I'd be concerned that the bridge
>>> structure itself was damaged, but I tend to be risk-averse in
>>> such things.
>>>
>>> There is, naturally, a question about them finding a "competent
>>> civil engineer" to oversee fixing it properly as--if even one set
>>> of rails is out of service--going to be a lot of pressure to get
>>> it open again.
>>
>>Somewhere else I saw something someone posted about the effects of high
>>heat on concrete. If there was enough heat to warp the rails then the
>>concrete that _both_ lines are on is ... of highly questionable weight
>>bearing capacity now.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>It's probably an effect on the cement in the concrete. The
>agregate probably isn't much bothered by any heat those fires
>generated. The (portland) cement sets by a hydration reaction.
>heat it up enough to drive the water back out of it and it's
>rather unlikely to be effective holding the agregate together any
>more.
>
>Side note... That hydration reaction is--no
>surprise--exothermic. When you pour really large amounts of
>concrete--Shasta Dam being one example--you need to embed pipes
>in it and run something through them to cool the whole thing down
>or the concrete will never set.

IIRC, Shasta will stop heating in about a decade (100 years after
being poured). It's a fun tour to climb through the middle
of the dam and take the elevator down to the generator room.

On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 4:49:42 AM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 20:41:28 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
> >The usual alternative, on land, is trucks. That was, after all,
> >the rationale behind building both the Autobahn and US Interstate
> >Highway networks. Not to mention that one of the few specific
> >pieces of equipment Eisenhower credited with helping win WW2 in
> >Europe was the 2.5 ton truck.
> >
> Two points on this:
>
> (1) In 1944-45 one of the things that most surprised the Germans was
> that the tactics they "learned" in North Africa and Russia that the
> best way to stop a truck was to target the driver just plain didn't
> work against American troops (and Canadians) since if the driver was
> wounded or killed under fire the dead or wounded driver was pushed
> aside and another soldier moved into the driver seat and often was
> able to drive the truck to safety.
>
> (2) Eisenhower saw the effectiveness of the Autobahn system in Germany
> (during the occupation) and took their best ideas (no access/exit
> except via on and off ramps, standardized signage among other things)
> and when president promoted an American version which became the
> Interstate highway system.
>
> When I was a child my parents each winter drove from BC to Southern
> California and on our first trips took the older US 99 but later on my
> parents commented at length on how much faster they could reach their
> destination via the new I-5. (On 99 my brother and I always bothered
> them about stopping in each town - on the Interstate we only stopped
> for gas or meals)
>
> No question the interstate system revolutionized transport within the
> US and Eisenhower justified federal funds (highways are a state
> responsibility) for this program on the grounds he was improving
> logistics for the US Army which while true was only a tiny part of the
> value of the Interstates to the US economy.
>
> While the basic idea was German no question his administration
> probably came up with a few innovations of their own.

Ike took part in the first US Army transcontinental motor convoy, in 1919.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/in-1919-dwight-d-eisenhower-suffered-through-historys-worst-cross-country-road-trip

The Interstate system's constitutional justification also relies on the commerce
clause and a specific grant of power to Congress to fund the building of post roads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause

Should the government have such power?
That's entirely another question.

--
Kevin R

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:29:49 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>news:byi1L.251382$51Rb.55999@fx45.iad:
>
>> The Ukranians seem to be prioritizing destruction of supply
>> depots behind their lines.
>>
>That is because their strategists are pretty smart.

Or they have been reading manuals like those on the "Air-Land Battle"
and similar concepts, which incorporate supply dumps and troop
concentrations two days away from the front lines as prime targets for
(IIRC [1]) Corps commanders (Division commanders have a focus on
things closer to hand).

Eliminating the enemy's supply chain/reinforcements /before/ they can
be used is not a new concept. Well, to the West, anyway.

Indeed, at one time, entire campaigns depended on who controlled which
supply depots (which were, of course, heavily fortified, in the Vauban
sense).

[1] I could be one level off. Corps commanders may be focused on where
their Divisions are/should be, leaving the Army commanders to deal
with more remote targets.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <r00dkhtoq096l73kqcs0g6uut7no2rij28@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 18:51:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>The original estimated cool down time of the Hoover dam was measured in
>>1000's of years IIRC. :D
>
>That seems unlikely but then even if true the design engineers for the
>Hoover Dam were probably not designing with missile fire in mind....

(Hal Heydt)
Probably not since it was built before Barnes Wallace little
trick with skip bombs, aided by a clever little bomb sight
suggested by one W. Churchill, and delivered by 617 Squadron.

In article <iuvckht1f82irk8vnu0sriihc6ecno03th@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:44:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> From what I understand the railroad is already shut down. The rails
>>were warped by the heat and the concrete they are on should be replaced
>>if a competent civil engineer is involved. Given the situation it seems
>>possible that the segment of the rail bridge will be brought down by the
>>first train the Russians run along it after not repairing it properly.
>
>Obviously the Ukrainians are hoping the next train via that route will
>be a Ukrainian, not a Russian train!

(Hal Heydt)
To the best of my knowledge, the Ukrainians want the bridge
*gone*. Besides providing a symbolic unifying symbol of Crimea
and the rest of Russia (NOT through Ukraine), it's also a
convenient invasion route and they also claim that it limits the
size of ships that can pass through the straight. Probably
doesn't detract from their opinion of it that it's a major ego
boost for Putin.

Side note... Just about every article about the bridge notes
that it opened in 2018. That's true of the *road* bridge. The
rail bridge opened in 2019. Besides driving the lead truck in
the convoy that opened the road bridge, Putin was in the cab of
the first train to cross the rail bridge.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 20:41:28 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <byi1L.251382$51Rb.55999@fx45.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus passage
>>>>>>>to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's) fleets in or out
>>>>>>>of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>>>>Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>>>>would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Has a nice ring to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the Straits
>>>>>of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>>>>
>>>>A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>>>>recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so will, if
>>>>the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked, and a bridge
>>>>over the Kerch Straits that was in the news recently for being
>>>>damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to bring it down.
>>>
>>>(Hal Heydt)
>>>Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that the
>>>damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
>>>suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis of
>>>how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
>>>
>>>I rather suspect that the single most effective thing that could
>>>be done to impede Russian military use of the bridge would be to
>>>bring down the railway span the goes over the shipping channel.
>>>This would be because the Russians seem to be overly reliant of
>>>rail transport for men and materiel.
>>
>>What else could they use? Their air transport fleet is small,
>>likely less than 60% mission-ready and sitting ducks for
>>Ukrainian SAMs.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>The usual alternative, on land, is trucks. That was, after all,
>the rationale behind building both the Autobahn and US Interstate
>Highway networks. Not to mention that one of the few specific
>pieces of equipment Eisenhower credited with helping win WW2 in
>Europe was the 2.5 ton truck.

It also promoted the movement of troops from place to place, if
needed.

The 2.5 ton truck was/is an improvement over mules, but a train is
needed for /serious/ resupply -- and, in 1944, the Western Allies ran
fuel piplines alongside the rails (with appropriate spacing, no doubt)
because /that/ is the fastest way to get bulk fuels (the ones most
needed) forward.

Note that, when the US Army outran the part of the French rail system
already made useable, the Red Ball Express was formed to use trucks --
lots of trucks -- to make up for rail not being available. This alone
justifies Ike's comment.

>The Russian reliance on rail--which tends to be vulnerable to air
>attack--suggests some combination of lack of trucks, reliablility
>of trucks they do have, drivers, and roads. Hence my point that
>taking out the rail portion of the Kerch bridge would be pretty
>effective. There's also the fact that you can move massive
>tonages of goods with a single train, requiring a very small
>operating crew.

In WWII, the Russian rails tended to be one-track (with, no doubt,
turnouts), each paralleled by a "highway", which might have two lanes
and even something more than packed dirt on top (hello mud!).
Presumably, things have improved a bit since then.

>>>It does cause one to wonder what would happen if someone managed
>>>a missile strike on a train carrying ammunition as it crossed
>>>onto that particular bit of the bridge...
>>
>>Some of the damage was caused by fire from rail tank cars:
>>
>> Per DW, The blast "set fire to seven oil tankers being carried by
>>rail to Crimea,"
>
>Clearly the Russians were a lot less concerned about the thermal
>damage to rails and road bed than the US would be in the same
>circumstances. Hence my suggestion to hit a train hauling ammo.
>
>>>Observation: Looking at the photos of the damaged bridge and the
>>>way the roadbed segments fell, even without seeing a navigation
>>>chart of the area it is plain that the water is quite shallow
>>>except where the ship channel is.
>>>
>>>>So much for the supply routes. And, with no supply routes, the
>>>>soldiers run out of beans & bullets and that's the end of the game for
>>>>Putin.
>>
>>There are reports of long-standing graft and theft from
>>Russian military supply depots.
>>
>>https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-10
>
>I've seen that sort of report for some decades. Add to it, flat
>out bad manufacturing. I saw one claimb long ago that 90% of the
>materiel supplied to the Soviet Army (and, given recent events,
>one may well suspect that nothing has changed), was unuseable.
>And that's averaging across everything from boots to ICBMs.
>
>>>Per an article on the BBC today, quoting the head of the UK GCHQ,
>>>the Russians are running out of munitions even without losing
>>>supply routes. Cutting supply routes would just make that happen
>>>faster for isolated units.
>>
>>The Ukranians seem to be prioritizing destruction of supply depots
>>behind their lines.
>
>Always a good choice, depending on what weapons you have to hand.
>Of course, if the supplies never *get* to the depots, that's even
>better.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:28:25 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:rJLoIL.1tq8@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat
>>><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J
>>>>>>Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> >On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com
>>>>>>> >(Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >>In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>> >>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul S
>>>>>>> >>>Person wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might get
>>>>>>> >>>> to continue to lease the base at Sevastopl for their
>>>>>>> >>>> fleet. They would, of course, have to pay the lease
>>>>>>> >>>> payments not paid during their illegal occupation and
>>>>>>> >>>> the rates might well go up going forward.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would
>>>>>>> >>>promptly agree to hand over all their armaments to NATO
>>>>>>> >>>and adopt a peace constitution similar to Japan's. So
>>>>>>> >>>they would not *have* a fleet to base in Sevastopol.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>(Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>> >>That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a "blue
>>>>>>> >>water" fleet, but they would still have a legitimate need
>>>>>>> >>to coastal defense and search and rescue ships. I.e. A
>>>>>>> >>Coast Guard, even if not a Navy, and a Coast Guard still
>>>>>>> >>needs ports (though not, I'd agree, necessarily ones
>>>>>>> >>leased from some other country).
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >What does "blue water" mean in this context given the
>>>>>>> >Turks control the exit from the Black Sea?
>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a cruiser
>>>>>>> as its flagship. There are international agreements
>>>>>>> covering transit into and out of the Black Sea. So
>>>>>>> Sevastopol could be a significant Naval Port for the
>>>>>>> Russians. They might have to be sure to have ships on their
>>>>>>> preferred side of the Bosphoros as part of planning for any
>>>>>>> significant action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus
>>>>>>passage to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and Ukraine's)
>>>>>>fleets in or out of the Black Sea can't be altered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>>>Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>>>would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>>>
>>>>>Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>>>
>>>>>Has a nice ring to it.
>>>>
>>>>It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or the
>>>>Straits of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>>>
>>>A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory (as
>>>recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and so
>>>will, if the current offensive goes on long enough be blocked,
>>>and a bridge over the Kerch Straits that was in the news
>>>recently for being damaged. Conventional PGMs should be able to
>>>bring it down.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct that
>> the damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian forces, one
>> suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit of analysis
>> of how well that worked and how to do it better the next time.
>
>Given the construction of the bridge, it would be pretty difficult
>to actually destory it.

I hate to say it, not wanting to give anybody ideas, but a small
tactical nuke would probably remove it pretty permanently.

But multiple PGMs aimed at the pilings might have the same effect, at
least for the duration of the war.

>Plus, damaging it to the point of not being usable, but still
>repairable, is preferable anyway, because they can keep doing that
>over and over, until the Russians figure it out.
>>
>> Per an article on the BBC today, quoting the head of the UK
>> GCHQ, the Russians are running out of munitions even without
>> losing supply routes. Cutting supply routes would just make
>> that happen faster for isolated units.
>>
>Indeed. But then, he's been saying that since February. Nearly word
>for word.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 05:07:55 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

<snippo>

>(Hal Heydt)
>That matches some reports I found, one of which include a photo
>of the rrail line from before the recent events. They appear to
>have laid a traditional rock ballast on the bridge structure with
>the ties embedded in the ballast. So basically built a
>traditional rail line on top of a bridge.

Well, it /is/ a technology they have mastered.

And it's known to work.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 01:38:55 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

<snippo>

>Based on today's news of retaliatory cruise missile attacks on
>Ukrainian territory for what Putin calls a raid on Russian territory
>(albeit territory nobody outside Russia calls Russian territory) it's
>clear Putin at least thinks Zhilenskyy is fully on board with the
>attack.

Or just wants revenge for "his" bridge (which apparently is a
bridge-building achievement) being attacked, regardless of what
Zelenskyy may or may not have been aware of.

Like a small boy who has had the fly he was picking the wings off
removed from his control.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:t7rdkh17ut0o533neeku2sd1m00nea2l4q@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:28:25 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>news:rJLoIL.1tq8@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article <rn5bkhlbqnejq0qi1434gu2nrc9pi4lr19@4ax.com>,
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:04:19 -0700, The Horny Goat
>>>><lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:22:21 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>>>"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 11:33:06 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J
>>>>>>>Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <ovq6kh9a7t8lphjr6...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:08:01 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com
>>>>>>>> >(Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >>In article <f3596eca-cdcc-4e10...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>> >>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 9:32:17 AM UTC-6, Paul
>>>>>>>> >>>S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>>> If Putin is replaced by someone /sane/, they might
>>>>>>>> >>>> get to continue to lease the base at Sevastopl for
>>>>>>>> >>>> their fleet. They would, of course, have to pay the
>>>>>>>> >>>> lease payments not paid during their illegal
>>>>>>>> >>>> occupation and the rates might well go up going
>>>>>>>> >>>> forward.
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>>If Putin were replaced by someone *sane*, Russia would
>>>>>>>> >>>promptly agree to hand over all their armaments to
>>>>>>>> >>>NATO and adopt a peace constitution similar to
>>>>>>>> >>>Japan's. So they would not *have* a fleet to base in
>>>>>>>> >>>Sevastopol.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>(Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>> >>That doesn't actually follow. They might not have a
>>>>>>>> >>"blue water" fleet, but they would still have a
>>>>>>>> >>legitimate need to coastal defense and search and
>>>>>>>> >>rescue ships. I.e. A Coast Guard, even if not a Navy,
>>>>>>>> >>and a Coast Guard still needs ports (though not, I'd
>>>>>>>> >>agree, necessarily ones leased from some other
>>>>>>>> >>country).
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >What does "blue water" mean in this context given the
>>>>>>>> >Turks control the exit from the Black Sea?
>>>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>>>> Well... The Russian Black Sea fleet used to have a
>>>>>>>> cruiser as its flagship. There are international
>>>>>>>> agreements covering transit into and out of the Black
>>>>>>>> Sea. So Sevastopol could be a significant Naval Port for
>>>>>>>> the Russians. They might have to be sure to have ships on
>>>>>>>> their preferred side of the Bosphoros as part of planning
>>>>>>>> for any significant action.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I understand that there's a treaty that bans the Bosphorus
>>>>>>>passage to ships engaged in war. So Russia's (and
>>>>>>>Ukraine's) fleets in or out of the Black Sea can't be
>>>>>>>altered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sevastopol is another reason Russia wants to retain
>>>>>>>Crimea. Aside from its historic significance, its loss
>>>>>>>would be require expensively building up Novorossiysk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Putin -- loser of Sevastopol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Has a nice ring to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>It would but hasn't happened yet and via the land route or
>>>>>the Straits of Kerch are relatively easily defended.
>>>>
>>>>A land route that lies /entirely/ within Ukrainian territory
>>>>(as recognized internationally, not as declared by Putin) and
>>>>so will, if the current offensive goes on long enough be
>>>>blocked, and a bridge over the Kerch Straits that was in the
>>>>news recently for being damaged. Conventional PGMs should be
>>>>able to bring it down.
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> Postulating for the moment that the speculation is correct
>>> that the damage to the Kerch bridge was done by Ukrainian
>>> forces, one suspects that they have done/are doing quite a bit
>>> of analysis of how well that worked and how to do it better
>>> the next time.
>>
>>Given the construction of the bridge, it would be pretty
>>difficult to actually destory it.
>
> I hate to say it, not wanting to give anybody ideas, but a small
> tactical nuke would probably remove it pretty permanently.

I have doubts, but really, I think it would be pretty diffcult for
PUtin to convince anybody, anywhere, that Ukraine used a tactical
nuke.
>
> But multiple PGMs aimed at the pilings might have the same
> effect, at least for the duration of the war.

It all depends on precisely what munitions are used. But what
Ukrainian agents can get there aren't going to do the kind of
damage needed to actually destroy the bridge to unrepairability.

And:
>
>>Plus, damaging it to the point of not being usable, but still
>>repairable, is preferable anyway, because they can keep doing
>>that over and over, until the Russians figure it out.
>>>

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <rJnEJK.1u3n@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <r00dkhtoq096l73kqcs0g6uut7no2rij28@4ax.com>,
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 18:51:51 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The original estimated cool down time of the Hoover dam was measured in
>>>1000's of years IIRC. :D
>>
>>That seems unlikely but then even if true the design engineers for the
>>Hoover Dam were probably not designing with missile fire in mind....
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Probably not since it was built before Barnes Wallace little
>trick with skip bombs, aided by a clever little bomb sight
>suggested by one W. Churchill, and delivered by 617 Squadron.

(Hal Heydt)
The inventor's name is actually Barnes Wallis. My apologies for
the error.