According to this info, seems to be not so:phylo_roadking wrote:now, looking at the description of the EMG mine assembly that I and LWD have linked to...
Height regulated to eight feet below surface level by the float...
Height regulated to eight feet below surface level by the float...
Die EMG ist in ihrer Grundbauart gleich mit der EMC und besteht aus zwei Halbkugeln mit einem Durchmesser des Minengefäßes von 1,12 Metern aus 3,5 Millimeter Stahlblech. Die Ladungsgröße beträgt 300kg. Gegenüber der EMC hat die EMG nur vier Bleikappen. Die Bleikappen auf der unteren Halbkugel fehlen und statt der oberen mittleren Bleikappe befindet sich dort ein Auge für den Bojenstander. An diesem Augen ist eine mit Tarnanstrich versehene linsenförmige Boje an einem 2,5 Meter langen Stander befestigt. Am Minengefäß unten fehlt der bei der EMC verwendete Federpuffer, hier hängt ein 5 Meter langer Stander mit Ausgleichsgewicht direkt an der Zugstange, welcher das Minengefäß so auf Tiefe zieht, dass von der ganzen Mine nur die linsenförmige Boje eben aus dem Wasser ragt. Ist das Ausgleichsgewicht abgerissen oder abgesprengt treibt das Minengefäß auf. Gegenüber der EMC wurde keine Kontakteinrichtung (K. E.) eingebaut, eine Entschärfervorrichtung (E. E.) nur teilweise.
You are quite correct; "2,5 Meter" is actually 8 feet 2 and 27⁄64 inches...According to this info, seems to be not so:
Yes, you seem to have understood the float cable lenght correct...phylo_roadking wrote:You are quite correct; "2,5 Meter" is actually 8 feet 2 and 27⁄64 inches...
An diesem Augen ist eine mit Tarnanstrich versehene linsenförmige Boje an einem 2,5 Meter langen Stander befestigt.
In other words the mine floating slightly under ten feet depth (3 meters) and the mine horns slightly deeper, perhaps a bit over ten feet depth.Juha Tompuri wrote:Yes, you seem to have understood the float cable lenght correct...phylo_roadking wrote:You are quite correct; "2,5 Meter" is actually 8 feet 2 and 27⁄64 inches...
...but the EMG mine floated even more deep than that, if you look at the drawing attached.
In addition of the cable there is also the float.
As AFAIK every(?) other similar data.LWD wrote:In a static case.
Well, truth(?) itself has "some" value.LWD wrote:What is the import?
Regards, Juhato deal with shallow draught SURFACE craft
Indeed it does but is it relevant to the discussion at hand? and is it "truth". For instance was the spec written as 2.5 m or 2.50 m? In the first case 8 ft is close enough if one looks at the significant digits. Then there's the point that in actual usage it it was specified at 2.50 m the vertical distance would be less than 2.5m + the distance below the water level of the bottom of the float.Juha Tompuri wrote:As AFAIK every(?) other similar data.LWD wrote:In a static case.Well, truth(?) itself has "some" value.LWD wrote:What is the import?
Does it? How does 2" or even 2 ft imply this? Which brings up the question what are they calling sallow draft?Also I think it points out even more to that direction that they were not designed:to deal with shallow draught SURFACE craft
Is truth relevant... hmmm...LWD wrote:Indeed it does but is it relevant to the discussion at hand?Well, truth(?) itself has "some" value.LWD wrote:What is the import?
I doubt it being "truth" and you are welcome to post here info that proves the link info about EMG mines wrong.LWD wrote:and is it "truth"
How about re-reading from this on: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1780977LWD wrote:For instance was the spec written as 2.5 m or 2.50 m? In the first case 8 ft is close enough if one looks at the significant digits. Then there's the point that in actual usage it it was specified at 2.50 m the vertical distance would be less than 2.5m + the distance below the water level of the bottom of the float.
Yes.LWD wrote:Does it?Also I think it points out even more to that direction that they were not designed:to deal with shallow draught SURFACE craft
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1783123Juha wrote:Actually the EMC and EMD mines were designed for vessels with both smaller and greater draught.phylo_roadking wrote:...and only the three Portland Bill-Gris Nez long fields B1, B2 & B3 were to use EMGs. The others were to use EMCs, EMDs or combinations of both.
Why? Personally, I would assume that the GERMANS were equally as aware as the British that the Channel Narrows were no place for capital ships...and that the BIG threat coming from the SOUTH would be shallower-draught coastal craft, and destroyers. The EMC and EMD "conventional", bottom-moored minefields (the C-prefixed fields) were arrayed at the NORTHERN end of the Narrows where possibly (probably?) Home Fleet might attempt to interfere with their operations
So there they were going to sow mines designed for vessels with a greater draught!
The EMD however with it's relatively small charge, seems to have been designed for smaller or "softer" targets.
Actually the EMG height setting was quite ideal against submarines, both surfaced and at periscope depth.phylo_roadking wrote:Also - all the descriptions of the Germans' countermeasures against the RN involved using uboats in the lower end of the Narrows; now, looking at the description of the EMG mine assembly that I and LWD have linked to...
Height regulated to eight feet below surface level by the float...and horns removed from the BOTTOM of the EMC mine case used in the design...
...I can't help thinking that THIS particular cobbled-together assembly not only was designed to deal with shallow draught SURFACE craft...it ALSO reduced to a degree the risk to uboats operating in the immediate vicinity!
Also I would disagree that the EMG was designed:...as the setting was effective to warships from destroyers to bigger ships.not only was designed to deal with shallow draught SURFACE craft.
It even seems that quite many RN destroyers could pass the EMG mine fields unharmed.
Also the greater size of the EMG charge would point out to that direction.
What 2 inches?`LWD wrote:How does 2" or even 2 ft imply this?
Actually not they:LWD wrote:Which brings up the question what are they calling sallow draft?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1780977phylo_roadking wrote:...and only the three Portland Bill-Gris Nez long fields B1, B2 & B3 were to use EMGs. The others were to use EMCs, EMDs or combinations of both.
Why? Personally, I would assume that the GERMANS were equally as aware as the British that the Channel Narrows were no place for capital ships...and that the BIG threat coming from the SOUTH would be shallower-draught coastal craft, and destroyers. The EMC and EMD "conventional", bottom-moored minefields (the C-prefixed fields) were arrayed at the NORTHERN end of the Narrows where possibly (probably?
Also - all the descriptions of the Germans' countermeasures against the RN involved using uboats in the lower end of the Narrows; now, looking at the description of the EMG mine assembly that I and LWD have linked to...
Height regulated to eight feet below surface level by the float...and horns removed from the BOTTOM of the EMC mine case used in the design...
...I can't help thinking that THIS particular cobbled-together assembly not only was designed to deal with shallow draught SURFACE craft...it ALSO reduced to a degree the risk to uboats operating in the immediate vicinity!
Is truth relevant... hmmm...[/quote]Juha Tompuri wrote:Indeed it does but is it relevant to the discussion at hand?
Where did I claim it was wrong?I doubt it being "truth" and you are welcome to post here info that proves the link info about EMG mines wrong.LWD wrote:and is it "truth"
It is written as 2.5m thus if using if we apply the significant digit criteria it could be anywhere between 2.45 and 2.55 m. Caliming 8 feet 2 inches would be the equivalant of saying it was between 2.474m and 2.502m. See the difference the latter much more precise than the official one.How about re-reading from this on: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1780977LWD wrote:For instance was the spec written as 2.5 m or 2.50 m? In the first case 8 ft is close enough if one looks at the significant digits. Then there's the point that in actual usage it it was specified at 2.50 m the vertical distance would be less than 2.5m + the distance below the water level of the bottom of the float.
and if needed checking this one too: http://www.minenjagd.de/minenjagd/minen ... en/emg.php
How so? You are the proponent here and you have made no effort to explain your case.Yes.LWD wrote:Does it?Also I think it points out even more to that direction that they were not designed:to deal with shallow draught SURFACE craft
That very much depends. If your draft is 3m then what is the difference if the mine is at 2m or 2.5m? If it's an influence mine it's actually worse if it's at 4 or 5 meters.What 2 inches?`LWD wrote:How does 2" or even 2 ft imply this?
Leaving that mistake aside, I must say that I've always thought that the deeper the mines are being laid, the safer it would be to try to cross the field.
May I repeate: "what two inches difference"?LWD wrote:The question is: "Is 2 inches difference in a measurement relevant to the topic at hand?" and it is indeed a valid question that you seem to be dodging.
No one has claimed you did.LWD wrote:Where did I claim it was wrong?
It almost looks that you have not checked the link contents I gave.LWD wrote:It is written as 2.5m thus if using if we apply the significant digit criteria it could be anywhere between 2.45 and 2.55 m. Caliming 8 feet 2 inches would be the equivalant of saying it was between 2.474m and 2.502m. See the difference the latter much more precise than the official one.How about re-reading from this on: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1780977LWD wrote:For instance was the spec written as 2.5 m or 2.50 m? In the first case 8 ft is close enough if one looks at the significant digits. Then there's the point that in actual usage it it was specified at 2.50 m the vertical distance would be less than 2.5m + the distance below the water level of the bottom of the float.
and if needed checking this one too: http://www.minenjagd.de/minenjagd/minen ... en/emg.php
I ment in general and with the ship types in question.LWD wrote:That very much depends. If your draft is 3m then what is the difference if the mine is at 2m or 2.5m? If it's an influence mine it's actually worse if it's at 4 or 5 meters.What 2 inches?`LWD wrote:How does 2" or even 2 ft imply this?
Leaving that mistake aside, I must say that I've always thought that the deeper the mines are being laid, the safer it would be to try to cross the field.
I found that a bit ungrateful.LWD wrote:How so? You are the proponent here and you have made no effort to explain your case.Yes.LWD wrote:Does it?Also I think it points out even more to that direction that they were not designed:to deal with shallow draught SURFACE craft
The one where the document I linked statyed 8 ft and you objected becuase 8ft is 2 inches short of 2.5m.Juha Tompuri wrote:May I repeate: "what two inches difference"?LWD wrote:The question is: "Is 2 inches difference in a measurement relevant to the topic at hand?" and it is indeed a valid question that you seem to be dodging.
The one originating from phylo_roadking misunderstanding?
Your response implied I was?No one has claimed you did.LWD wrote:Where did I claim it was wrong?
??? how so. The drawing labels the length of the chain as 2.5m.It almost looks that you have not checked the link contents I gave.LWD wrote:It is written as 2.5m thus if using if we apply the significant digit criteria it could be anywhere between 2.45 and 2.55 m. Caliming 8 feet 2 inches would be the equivalant of saying it was between 2.474m and 2.502m. See the difference the latter much more precise than the official one.How about re-reading from this on: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1780977
and if needed checking this one too: http://www.minenjagd.de/minenjagd/minen ... en/emg.php
Certainly if you are talking DDs 2.5m vs 3m is irrelevant for most if not all of them. As a point of reference at least some US DE's had a draft of over 3m.I ment in general and with the ship types in question.LWD wrote:That very much depends. If your draft is 3m then what is the difference if the mine is at 2m or 2.5m? If it's an influence mine it's actually worse if it's at 4 or 5 meters.What 2 inches?`LWD wrote:How does 2" or even 2 ft imply this?
Leaving that mistake aside, I must say that I've always thought that the deeper the mines are being laid, the safer it would be to try to cross the field.
I found that a bit ungrateful.LWD wrote:How so? You are the proponent here and you have made no effort to explain your case.Yes.LWD wrote:Does it?Also I think it points out even more to that direction that they were not designed:to deal with shallow draught SURFACE craft
AFAIK there is no chain there but a cables, and:LWD wrote: ??? how so. The drawing labels the length of the chain as 2.5m.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1784886Juha earlier wrote:Yes, you seem to have understood the float cable lenght correct...
...but the EMG mine floated even more deep than that, if you look at the drawing attached.
In addition of the cable there is also the float.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1785083Juha earlier wrote:In other words the mine floating slightly under ten feet depth (3 meters) and the mine horns slightly deeper, perhaps a bit over ten feet depth.
Actually the original phrasings were:LWD wrote:And 3m doesn't mean that it won't work against "shallow draft ships" if by such you mean DDs.
that the BIG threat coming from the SOUTH would be shallower-draught coastal craft, and destroyers.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1780977I can't help thinking that THIS particular cobbled-together assembly not only was designed to deal with shallow draught SURFACE craft...
A clear description of you point would have made the reposting unncessary.Juha Tompuri wrote:Nice to notice that my efforts finally paid off and the message seems to have gone through.
Even with just re-posting older material.
Took however unnecessary long.
Ah, so it's his statement you object to. I thought I had read words to this effect elsewhere as well so looking at the document I posted earlier, i.e.:Actually the original phrasings were:LWD wrote:And 3m doesn't mean that it won't work against "shallow draft ships" if by such you mean DDs.that the BIG threat coming from the SOUTH would be shallower-draught coastal craft, and destroyers.http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1780977I can't help thinking that THIS particular cobbled-together assembly not only was designed to deal with shallow draught SURFACE craft...
Regards, Juha
Seems pretty clear to me. What was your objection again?The EMG was a moored, contact, constant-depth mine assembly designed for defence against small surface craft such as torpedo boats.
