"phillip smith" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in article
[email protected], Brett Aubrey at
[email protected] wrote on
> 6/11/03 3:21 PM:
> > "Anon." <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
news:[email protected]...
> >> Brett Aubrey wrote:
> >>> "Anon." <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>
news:[email protected]...
> >>>> Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
> >>> <snip >
> >>>>> the difference in frequency of hits of the nail and the pin are both near zero and you said
> >>>>> it's not true(?). Mine is a true statement.
> >>>> What you wrote was: "The difference in the frequency of hits (probably near zero in both
> >>>> cases) is insignificant." And I was pointing out that the difference was not insignificant.
> >>> In the context of Churchill's statement ("The size of the sea is so so vast..."), Frank's
> >>> initial point (agreement with Churchill) was correct, and his analogy was a basically valid,
> >>> simple and useful illustration. Churchill was suggesting that the difference between ship and
> >>> convoy sizes is *effectively irrelevant* when compared to the (very roughly) 6 to 8 million
> >>> square mile area in which they , sailed (of a total ~12M sq. mi.). Yes there's a difference,
> >>> but it "shinks in comparison almost to insignificance".
> >> No it doesn't, just because the ocean is large, the relative sizes of the one- and many- ship
> >> fleets don't change. A 200m long boat is still twice as long as a 100m long boat no matter if
> >> it's in the Atlantic Ocean or the Kensington Round Pond. Indeed, the fact that the ocean is
> >> large makes the whole thing clearer, because if you try to hit a big boat in a small pond, it's
> >> too easy.
> > Ahhh! Finally! Thanks for the explanation... Now I can see your source of confusion. Churchill
> > was not discussing "hitting" anything at all! Nor was I and nor (I doubt) was Frank, except in
> > his analogy. The discussion, rather, was around visual acquisition, not targeting once
> > acquisition had been made. Anything relating to Churchill's vastness of the sea becomes
> > completely irrelevant once contact has been made, unless it is subsequently lost again visually,
> > which happened far too often for the Germans not to complain about it.
>
> The Relationship between convoy size and safety is not to do with the size of the target but the
> relationship between size of the convoy and circumference.
Well, I think this changes the initial topic, but I need clarification on your meaning to be sure.
For now, though, I'll gladly try to respond. First, the initial discussion was between a specific
form or "type" of safety (Churchill's "convoy ... slipping unperceived between the patrolling U-
boats") and a "convoy size" of many (i.e. numerically only, with compactness as a given) and - if
you choose to call it such - a "convoy size" of only one (1, uno) vs. the central and seemingly
overlooked point of the vastness of the seas. Issues outside these - or for that matter issues than
fail to take these into account - do not bear on the discussion, IMO. Not that I mind a change in
direction as long as it's not clouding earlier points, as I think these are.
I don't think I've stated that "the size of the target" is meaningful, so am unclear on your point
negating this, above. In fact, this phrase can be interpreted in several ways, so I'm even unclear
of your context. And safety (unqualified, as you have it above) will introduce many factors not
even addressed by Churchill's quote or anything I've stated, so am again unclear on why you're
bring this up. Please elaborate on your reason for mentioning these, and I will try to address them
in more detail.
The safety factor of "slipping unperceived" by the enemy affects the overall safety of the convoy,
but so do many factors other than your "size of the convoy and circumference" (speed and
manouverability of the least capable ships, numerical relationship of escorts to convoy ships,
escort ship capabilities, intelligence, etc., etc.) More imoportantly, your "relationship between
size of the convoy and circumference" was already stated in rough terms by Churchill's "in close
order", so any variation in this relationship is outside the initial topic. If I'm missing what
you're trying to get at, I apologise; again, please elaborate on your reasons for mentioning these,
and I will try to address them in more detail
> If I have ten convoys of of ten ships I have a greater circumference to area ration than if I have
> one convoy of 100 ships. If I only put my anti submarine vessels around the circumference then the
> ratio of anti submarine vessels per convoy member goes down with the increase in convoy sizes.
> Therefore I can protect more vessels with fewer ships.
No major dispute here, *if* you assume your eleven convoys are roughly equal in station-keeping,
that is, typically, are *equally* "in close order". But in reality, your analogy is oversimplified -
my remembering of 8 years in anti-submarine operations and on submarines (4 years each), is that
while the convoy itself is in close order, the anti-submarine forces are neither equally in close
order to the rest of the convoy nor are placed equally around the ships being protected. But of
note, this again seems irrelevant to the initial discussion - there was nothing stated or even
implied about protecting more (or less) vessels with fewer (or greater) ships in Churchill's quote.
It was simply a single ship vs. a convoy. Please clarify if I'm missing something.
> What has this got to do with evolution. Well there are two close relation ships CH Waddington who
> discovered canalistation I'm pretty sure worked in operations research during the war and was
> responsible along with many others for applying statistical methods to the problem of sinking
sybmarines
> and JBS haldane who gave us haldanes rule and haldanes delemma, spent his time during the, war
> working on submarine escape systems which would have saved at least some german submariners lives,
> had they had access to his work. Its tenuous I agree but its there.
I presume you mean canalisation, but again, this seems outside of the discussion (i.e. not just
tenous). As are submarine escape systems. But if you feel I'm wrong, please explain the relationship
to me. Since we all know Churchill's quote but IMO digress from it on occasion, I'll attempt to
reiterate in my own format - hopefully not that different from Churchill's - just what *is* germane
to the discussion (please especially note Points 1 and 2, as I view these as critical to whether
Churchill was correct or not, but see no mention of them from you):
- The size of the sea, specifically its "vastness".
- The huge difference between the vast seas *in comparison* to (tiny) convoys or single ships.
- The far smaller difference between sizes of close-ordered convoys and single ships, to a point
where it "shinks in comparison almost to insignificance".
- The difficulties of visual acquistion for a submarine, as illustrated by Churchill's "slipping
unperceived...".
- The associated and illustrative fact that the chance of a convoy transiting undetected was nearly
as good as for a single ship.
Churchill and everyone else seem to agree that there is a difference in convoy size and ship size
(what's there to find fault in that?), but where we seem to diverge is that this difference "shinks
in comparison almost to insignificance when compared to the vast seas". If you agree with this
analysis, is it fair to ask you to confine your comments to this divergence or the "bulleted" points
immediately above, *just until* we can come to some sort of agreement or alternatively, agree to
disagree? I suggest this because I think your bringing up issues like
- "ten convoys of ten ships (vs.) one convoy of 100 ships",
- "anti-submarine vessels around the circumference",
- "the ratio of anti-submarine vessels per convoy member",
- "the size of the target", etc., while all interesting and relevant to a discussion on convoys in
general, bear absolutely no relation to the context of Churchill's quote, and more importantly, to
the validity of Churchill's quote (which was the basis and the argument around this thread,
respectively, IMO). Comments appreciated. Cheers! Best regards, Brett.
> --
> Phillip Smith phills@(buggger).co.nz replace bugger with ihug
http://www.applied-evolution.co.nz
>
> "he who is smeared with blubber has the kindest heart" -- a Greenland Eskimo adage