Stepping backward.. Lower tech.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I don't think you'd need to produce older tech sonar for harbour defence and so on because I think there would still be many commercial fathometers and civilian fishfinders/fishsounders (which work on the same principle and technology as the fathometer) available to use for that purpose.

By the early 1990s both devices were using LCD screens for their displays and they become much more widely available to the recreational fishing & boating community and commercial marine industry. They are both a type of sonar and probably more recognizable by the name "echo sounder". The commercial marine industries (fishing, cargo, passenger etc. etc.) have been using echo sounding for decades for navigation and Western maritime safety regulations typically require every large vessel (100+ tons) operating in restricted waters to have a fathometer (of the constant recording type).
Older fathometers (e.g. the strip chart recording types) used transistors so would be more resistant to EMP as well.

I reckon there would be plenty of opportunities to plunder fathometers and fishfinders from commercial vessels simply because many of those vessels would no longer be operating. I also think for the 1990s period, the number of recreational fishing boats carrying fishfinders/fishsounders would be large enough to make it worthwhile to recover and use those units for harbour defence purposes and so on.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I don't think you'd need to produce older tech sonar for harbour defence and so on because I think there would still be many commercial fathometers and civilian fishfinders/fishsounders (which work on the same principle and technology as the fathometer) available to use for that purpose.

By the early 1990s both devices were using LCD screens for their displays and they become much more widely available to the recreational fishing & boating community and commercial marine industry. They are both a type of sonar and probably more recognizable by the name "echo sounder". The commercial marine industries (fishing, cargo, passenger etc. etc.) have been using echo sounding for decades for navigation and Western maritime safety regulations typically require every large vessel (100+ tons) operating in restricted waters to have a fathometer (of the constant recording type).
Older fathometers (e.g. the strip chart recording types) used transistors so would be more resistant to EMP as well.

I reckon there would be plenty of opportunities to plunder fathometers and fishfinders from commercial vessels simply because many of those vessels would no longer be operating. I also think for the 1990s period, the number of recreational fishing boats carrying fishfinders/fishsounders would be large enough to make it worthwhile to recover and use those units for harbour defence purposes and so on.

I agree in that it would work in only the most basic way....... Something is down there... Something large is down there. I just question the utility of something like this due to the limited range and narrow projection.

It might be my understanding is wrong, but any sonar from the 70's should give depth, speed, and an indication of mass (displacement). A system from the 90s can distinguish a whale from a school or fish, from a attack submarine.... comparing recorded acoustic profiles.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

I agree in that it would work in only the most basic way....... Something is down there... Something large is down there. I just question the utility of something like this due to the limited range and narrow projection.

It might be my understanding is wrong, but any sonar from the 70's should give depth, speed, and an indication of mass (displacement). A system from the 90s can distinguish a whale from a school or fish, from a attack submarine.... comparing recorded acoustic profiles.

1980s tech fishfinders were sophisticated enough to distinguish between objects on the bottom, schools of small fish and single large fishes etc. etc. Plus they had shallow and deep water models and models that included both operating modes. 1990s tech fishfinders increased the sensitivity again and typically increased the functionality of the unit, e.g. various recording modes, projected direction of the fish (or object), adding waypoints, determining if bottom is hard or soft (e.g. rock or sand) and so on.

You also had units that were not permanently mounted on the vessel and thus could be transferred to larger or smaller vessel as needed.
Just like with any naval sonar unit, direction and projection of the scanning device can be increased by using more transducers mounted in different places on the vessel's hull (although we're talking now about a PC or NPC with at least Electronics skill to be able to set up an effective unit with multiple transducers).

While they obviously didn't have a range in the thousands of metres, they did have ranges from tens of metres up to around one hundred metres and commercial fishing models had ranges in the hundreds of metres. They are a sonar device, just not as sensitive as a naval unit as they don't have the power output and range of frequency bands available to a naval unit.
while they won't have the acoustic sophistication to distinguish between, for example, different propeller types, they would still be suitable for scanning rivers, harbours and coastlines to determine if an object is a group of fish, a rock outcrop, an object sitting on the bottom (e.g. car wreck, 44gal drums, shipwreck), a scuba diver, a whale or a submersible vehicle.

The only real limitation is the operator. They have to learn what the different indicators mean because companies creating commercial & recreational units never stuck to one standard display output like you would see on a naval sonar unit.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

I agree in that it would work in only the most basic way....... Something is down there... Something large is down there. I just question the utility of something like this due to the limited range and narrow projection.

It might be my understanding is wrong, but any sonar from the 70's should give depth, speed, and an indication of mass (displacement). A system from the 90s can distinguish a whale from a school or fish, from a attack submarine.... comparing recorded acoustic profiles.

Even 1990's recreational/noncommercial DEPTH FINDERS (the universal recreational name for fish finders) were FAR SUPERIOR to 1950's MILITARY SONAR. The only difference between commercial and recreational depth finders is the software in them (from the mid 90's on anyway).

My Depth Finder is tied directly into my Chart Plotter and projects a picture of the bottom right onto my map overlay. It can also show a small "box" on the side of my plotter's display that will allow you to see sonar images from the side so that you can gauge depth off of the bottom. It has a "shoal warning" alarm that will detect a rapid shallowing of the bottom and a "fish alarm" (all depth finders can tell the difference between bottom and fish since the 90's) that detects movement under the boat.

Most subs have been designed to defeat Commercial SONAR and Depth Finders. Detecting a normal sub (WW2 to late 60's) would be ONE LEVEL MORE DIFFICULT and detecting a modern (post 60's) sub would be at least TO LEVELS MORE DIFFICULT.

For more information on Depth Finders just Google them or go to West Marine's website and check out the FAQ's.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Even 1990's recreational/noncommercial DEPTH FINDERS (the universal recreational name for fish finders) were FAR SUPERIOR to 1950's MILITARY SONAR. The only difference between commercial and recreational depth finders is the software in them (from the mid 90's on anyway).

Which I assumed right away........ I don't think it is until the 1970's (my example) that integrated a computer to run filters and make full use of a hydrophones sensitivity. The 40's and 50's are vaccuum tube systems with transistors only making units smaller, but not more efficient to the best of my limited knowledge.

Are the displays on these commercial systems even large enough to do Anti submarine or counter sabotage (anti-diver) operations without a penalty for the operator? Do they have variable modes and systems to screen out some or most noise?

[ArmySGT.]

Any thoughts on older designs like recoiless rifles making a comeback with anti tank missiles all but impossible to reproduce?

Am I the only one that thinks that the overall lack of anti tank weapons in T2k really only applies to missiles? Shells for recoilless rifles, anti tank guns, and even anti tank rockets like the AT4, LAW, and RPG-7 are not much more sophisticated to make than the fused mortar and artillery shells being produced post-2000.

Passive IR systems only need transistors..... Is it only the transducer or light gathering plate that is stop small batch production?

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Any thoughts on older designs like recoiless rifles making a comeback with anti tank missiles all but impossible to reproduce?

Am I the only one that thinks that the overall lack of anti tank weapons in T2k really only applies to missiles? Shells for recoilless rifles, anti tank guns, and even anti tank rockets like the AT4, LAW, and RPG-7 are not much more sophisticated to make than the fused mortar and artillery shells being produced post-2000.

Passive IR systems only need transistors..... Is it only the transducer or light gathering plate that is stop small batch production?

Any US weapon at least post Vietnam would not be easy to make in the home shop (we put way to many safeties and junk in the device) The RPG and Recoilles rifle rounds more likely HE would be much easier to make than the HEAT rounds

[Jason Weiser]

A small item: In the early 2000s, one saw at many gunshows and other such places rows upon rows of Mosin-Nagant rifles (mostly dating from the 20s and 30s) in cardboard boxes, they were wrapped in oilskin paper, and the bayonet as well as a glass bottle of oil was often enclosed. The rifles were not given any cosmoline..and were, sans a visit to the gunsmith..ready to go out of the box.

According to the fella I talked to selling them? He told me that this was the Russians clearing out all the old Soviet reserve armories. He also had captured German Mausers from the same source, in the same condition, with a Soviet headstamp overstamping the German one. In short, this might be the armament of your poor 1998 or 1999 draftee...a 50 year old rifle, with limited ammunition..that he barely knows how to use..or care for.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Any thoughts on older designs like recoilless rifles making a comeback with anti tank missiles all but impossible to reproduce? Shells for recoilless rifles, anti tank guns, and even anti tank rockets like the AT4, LAW, and RPG-7 are not much more sophisticated to make than the fused mortar and artillery shells being produced post-2000.

I don't see them making a comeback as many weapons systems never left

As of 2001 the M67 Recoilless Rifle is still in production in South Korea ( Worldwide Equipment Guide 2001) Many more are still in service with avalanche control units of the National Park Service or Private Avalanche Control Companies. Apparently the ammunition stock pile was quite large as they are only now starting to run out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/us/20alta.html?_r=0

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?...losed.html.csp

The US must also have a fair number still held in reserve as they were issued to troops in Afghanistan in 2011

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/201...apons-arsenal/

Although the M72 is no longer use in general service by the US Military, Many NATO, and US Allies still use it. American production of the M-72 began by Hesse-Eastern in 1963, and was terminated by 1983; currently it is produced by Nammo Raufoss AS in Norway and their subsidiary Nammo Talley, Inc. in Arizona.

http://www.talleyds.com/Talley%20Nam...2_products.htm

AT-4 is still being produced in Sweden by Saab Bofors Dynamics and in US by Alliant Techsystems Inc who operates the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant having taken it over from the Olin Corporation in 2001. I’m thinking many more companies would begin making it as US and World Wide demand goes up.

As stated in my pervious post the 105 mm M2A1 (M101A1) Howitzer is still used by Canada and by over 50 other nations. This is WWII tech and it still going strong.

Your retooling is interesting but I remember this TV show on discovery called Sons of Guns. During one of episodes they work on a Soviet 152mm Towed Howitzer M1955 (D-20) I think might have I D1. Anyway they made shells at their shop while they did not go into great detail, it dose beg the question, could this be done on a small scale locally.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Which I assumed right away........ I don't think it is until the 1970's (my example) that integrated a computer to run filters and make full use of a hydrophones sensitivity. The 40's and 50's are vaccuum tube systems with transistors only making units smaller, but not more efficient to the best of my limited knowledge.

Are the displays on these commercial systems even large enough to do Anti submarine or counter sabotage (anti-diver) operations without a penalty for the operator? Do they have variable modes and systems to screen out some or most noise?

The other issue with commercial/recreational depth finders is that they are always "active" (pinging to recover the info you need). A sub WILL know you are there because it can track YOUR depth finder's signal. And it will know it AT A MUCH GREATER DISTANCE THAN YOU CAN "SEE" THE SUB. This is one very big issue with any ACTIVE ELECTRONIC DETECTION (radar,sonar, radio sweepers, etc...).