Take EVERYTHING in that article with a giant tub of salt. The specifics of torpedo combat are some of the most closely guarded military secrets.
Take the following: "These high-torque, permanent magnet electric motor torpedoes ramp up to speed in under a second. They go from sitting in a torpedo tube to 50 knots in a near-instant because they don’t have the mechanical lag and inertia thermal torpedoes must overcome during startup. "
So much of that is totally wrong. The torpedo has nothing to do with how it gets out of the tube. Its propulsor (not a propeller) wont work from the back of a torpedo tube. Starting it up in the tube, INSIDE the sub, sounds horribly dangerous. The torp is ejected by force from the sub and then starts its engine. Electric or thermal, it's doing 50+ whether it wants to or not. Once out of the tube, further acceleration potential is limited by depth/pressure. All torps have more than enough torque to start cavitating their propulsor in shallow water. To continue to automotive analogy, it doesn't matter whether your car is electric or turbine powered, acceleration is limited by how much power your tires can handle before spinning.
"It is best if the weapon detonates within a meter of the hull, but a contact detonation can have devastating effects against even the largest warships."
Torpedoes targeting ships definitely do not want to hit anywhere near the hull. They explode well beneath the target, tens of meters below. They don't try to directly damage the target. Their explosives create a large void of gas, a hole, under the ship. The ship then cracks in half as it 'falls' into the hole. Whether this technique is also used against submarines, with much stronger hulls, is likely classified.
I can think of only a handful of targets that the US might want to shoot at. (I realize there might be a ton, and this is my lack of imagination). The handful I can think of, almost all of them seem like they're in the supply chain to actually build the torpedos. I'm pretty skeptical of the depth of the US stockpile.
To put it another way, if there was a war so bad, the US reinstituted the draft, would these tools still be relevant? The US industrial base is mighty, and could certainly retool to meet whatever need arises, but that'll take years.
Really seems neat, but after you've taken your 20 or 50 or whatever shots, how do you resupply? Seems like you'd need special coatings or shelf stable chemicals or a hundred other things to make the super fancy weapon.
it sure _seems_ like (although I have no fucking clue, so I'm asking) the super fancy weapons are available for a few weeks if things get real bad.
_edit_
realized I didn't actually ask a question. Can the US actually build these things from, like, minerals? It's a big country, we have them. The industrial base doesn't seem tuned for actually doing that though.
_further edit_ I'm a very silly person. it seems like the only must have is a plausible second strike capability. It's great to be able to protect the free flow of oil, or defend the Kurds from chemical weapons. Hell, one of the most American things I can think of is protecting yankee clippers for safe trade. It's part of the Marine's Hymn. but clearing pirates from the shores of Tripoli isn't absolutely vital. I'd sort of thought that subs jobs in the modern world was making sure that if the US can't play, no one else can either, with moderately sized nuclear weapons. Again, I'm a very silly person.
The question with the further edit is, do subs have an essential job beyond second strike cabability?
You are over-analyzing. There is nothing in the sentence you quote that says if the torpedo was launched or swam out etc. Nothing in the sentence you quote even qualified how long "near instant" was. Etc.
You are also saying you know more about this subject than the sub vet who wrote the article...?
"Aaron Amick is a retired U.S. Navy submarine sonarman. He served in both Atlantic and Pacific Oceans on 688 Los Angles Class Fast Attack and Ohio class ballistic missile submarines. He has published two audiobooks on Cold War-era submarines, Akula SSN Project 971 Sub Brief and USS Nautilus SSN-571 Sub Brief."
I dunno, the author's bio suggests that he knows that he's talking about.
Somewhat related, my uncle was a “Phantom driver” (F4 Phantom II) in Vietnam. Flew a bunch of missions of varying types.
So Top Gun comes out, and my mom points out he had graduated Fighter Weapons School - my uncle is a real Top Gun!
So I asked him for tales of dogfights, war stories. He had exactly one: “they’d send us out to fight some MiGs, and as soon as we got in range and turned our radar on to start shooting, they’d turn and run.”
There's a really good, really old (like 25+ years old) episode of Nova called "TopGun and Beyond" where a Viet Nam era fighter pilot said exactly that.
Then he goes on to describe an engagement where the MiG didn't :-)
Found it on YouTube. Yay!! Now I don't have to watch my poorly-recorded-from-broadcast-TV VHS version.
Recently saw an old video on youtube about that. Top Gun was created in response to heavy losses in Vietnam. It was very small and they had trouble even finding space for classes. A turning point came when a Mig was captured and they trained with it to find weaknesses. After that everything changed. The kill ratio inverted and they did start to run when engaged in some cases. Your uncle was lucky to go after the strategy was worked out, or he probably wouldn't have come back!
I knew a guy who was a chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons guy in the army. He took bomb diffusal training, studied old soviet missiles, the lot. What did he do on a day to day basis? Mostly blew up grenades that didn't blow up on their own. Apparently it was super boring.
But largely the tactics were to surprise the Americans with first MiG-17's, then have a MiG-21 at high speed do an ambush pass from the clouds through lower-flying Americans.
The Vietnamese could have done a lot more damage had they known how worthless the US air-air missiles were at the time. There were all kinds of problems with taking too long to arm (around 4 seconds) and vibration from takeoffs and landings inerting the missiles. And that no gun thing.
Additionally, US pilots were expected to have up to a dozen radio channels active, causing pilot workload problems until they turned off like 11 of them.
The article's description of submarine warfare is surprisingly similar to how modern air combat is supposed to play out, and parallels modern artillery's shoot and scoot philosophy as well. Hide, find, hit, and hide again.
My grandfather flew F-86s in Korea, and his experience was similar - the MiGs always ran most of the time. From his personal history:
"In September 1952, I was made an instructor pilot in the F-86 and, in early November, I was made a flight commander and an engineering test pilot. It was also in November that we had one of our most frustrating experiences while I was at Kimpo. One day we were called into a hush hush briefing and told that the State Department had cleared us for a one time crossing of the Yalu River—and, as I remember, the only restriction placed on us was that we could not attack any aircraft on the ground, and that may have been because most of those people were not proficient in air-to-ground operations, I don’t know. Anyway, we anticipated some real aerial combat for a change since we would be able to catch the Migs with no place to run to—it sounded like the mission of a lifetime!! Imagine our disappointment, then, at going up to the Yalu River and not finding a single Mig anywhere—we went right on across the river into China and circled the big airfield complex at Antung and, looking down, there wasn’t a single aircraft anywhere on any of those three airfields! Apparently, the State Department had given the Chinese the same information they had given us and all the aircraft had been moved north to Mukden, Manchuria.
Well, as luck would have it, from our position at 40,000’, I spotted a single aircraft, on final approach to one of the Antung airfields, about a mile and a half from the end of the runway, one of the 10% that never gets the word, I guess. I really felt frustrated about the entire situation and was desperate to get a shot at one of those guys in their own back yard—I called the bogie out to #3 and said I was going after him. Number 3 called back and bet me a milk shake (to be repaid in the States) that I’d never reach him before he touched down, and then, of course, he was home free. I rolled over into a split-s maneuver, left full power on and was shortly exceeding Mach 1 (the speed of sound)—I completed one 360 degree diving turn and came out the bottom of that dive at about 1300 feet. I was really moving, and I just had time to rapidly reverse the bank, acquire the Mig in the gunsight and squeeze off a quick burst—he was about six feet in the air over the end of the runway at that time and that burst of gunfire caught him squarely in the center of the fuselage, lighting it up like a Christmas tree. I just saw his aircraft slam into the ground and go careening off the runway and then I shot past him and had to direct my attention elsewhere. I whistled past the control tower and under a bunch of electric wires, and all the time I could hear automatic weapons firing so I must have been very close to them. An aircraft going directly away from enemy guns is an easy shot so I stayed on the deck (close to the ground) for a couple of miles and then made a steep climb out. Maybe getting that guy was a dumb thing to do but it sure was satisfying!"
Wow, I read your comment just as the movie top gun started on my TV. I really wonder what air-to-air unmanned dog fight would look like.
Are drone swarms a thing yet? a sky filled with drones would be terrifying. I would hope modern jets deploy drone like missiles manned by ground crew for dogfights,but if I learned anything about F22 and F35, they spend trillions to basically let middle parties steal the money and the tech is something designed decades ago.
If I was china I would pop out hundreds of thousands of cheap drones to augment radar capabilities all the stealth tech would be useless if the adversary has millions of eyes at different altitudes each capabale of visual/infrared/lidar detection of fast moving objects. US intel seems spread thin, I wonder if they do enough spying to know what their enemies are capable of. Chinese R&D has been catching up fast these last few years.
That said, there are countless stories about US pilots locking up a bandit who has a RWR system that scares them into turning around (they'd see/hear that they were receiving high PRF - being locked on). That happened a lot more in the 70s and after as US air to air radar got better (look down shoot down radar didn't exist until the 70s too).
Outstanding article, very informative, but the tense and tone is slightly amusing to me:
> Actual underwater combat occurs silently with very little reaction time to fend off an impending attack.
Does it occur? Do we have any examples of "actual underwater combat" occurring? I don't believe we have any real life examples of nations withs submarine capabilities in combat. War games probably don't count...
Side question -- do submarines really have the ability to ping, like in Hunt for Red October, do they ever use it, and does it actually use the frequency range of human hearing like that? Do torpedoes? Or are they ultrasonic (given that depth gauges I know are ultrasonic). I assume that subs once did use such pings historically given how common that sound effect is associated with them. Maybe not any more I guess?
The thing about the ping is that everyone that can hear it gets the benefit of that ping. So you are 100% giving away your position with a ping. Nowadays, you want to stay silent, so you use passive sonar. A very long tail is trailed behind the sub with lots of microphones listening. They've done it so long, they know what all sorts of things sound like. Man made objects likes subs and surface ships, airplanes flying above the water, rocks sliding, crabs crawling, etc.
> With command wire capabilities, the weapon can change its attack geometry or even shut down if directed by the fire control operator. Detected targets can be changed, depth and range limitations can be set, and countermeasures, such as decoys and jammers, can be ignored using the submarine’s sonar data instead of the torpedo's lower-fidelity onboard sonar data. If the data link is lost, the weapon will follow its last given command and execute pre-programmed countermeasure defeating profiles, if necessary.
This somehow reminded me of the final scene from John Carpenter's Dark Star (spoilers, obviously) where a smart bomb wants to blow up (yes, you read that right), and the crew has to talk it into not doing so by using philosophy to give it an existential crisis:
The most in recent serious submarine attack, the sinking of the Blegrano they decided to skip the fancy homing missiles due to unreliability and fired three non-guided torpedoes so it was a bit like the WW2 movies.
I rip on surface fleets as being floating reef fodder that would be sunk almost immediately against any modern power, either because of the sophistication of submarines, the rise of cheap drones winning the economic exchange, or death-from-above missles and ICBMs that are basically undefendable.
But against subs I'm surprised there aren't plans for a drone-net that surrounds a fleet or high value ship that can detect incoming underwater threats via some mesh networking.
When you store unguided torpedo inside capsule in the bottom of the ocean, or allow it to float in some predetermined depth, you have Torpedo mine, like CAPTOR.
You don't need expensive submarines, if you want to protect narrow points or specific areas. You just drop torpedo mines underwater.
So fun trivia. A nautical mile is one minute of latitude (1/60th of a degree). The meter was originally 1/10,000,000th of the equator to the north pole. So I'd argue the nautical mile was more logical than the statute mile, in this respect.
This is also why you can rough 1knot:2km; you're dividing those 10,000,000 old-world-meters by 5400 (90°*60').
The F21 is powered by a new generation of silver oxide-aluminium (AgO-Al) sea-water primary battery using dissolved sodium dioxide powder as electrolyte and incorporating a new electronic closed loop electrolyte circulation system.
In comparison with silverzinc and other technologies, AgO-Al energy density is unrivalled. It ensures both maximum speed beyond 50 knots and endurance around 1 hour without compromising safety.
TIL: A silver-oxide battery (IEC code: S) is a primary cell with a very high energy-to-weight ratio. They are available in small sizes as button cells, where the amount of silver used is minimal and not a significant contributor to the product cost.
> The batteries are connected in series allowing each weapon to have 2, 3, or 4 batteries. More batteries give the weapon more range. Fewer batteries make the weapon much lighter and more agile, but at the cost of range.
This sounds wrong. Shouldn't they be connected in parallel?
Not necessarily (answering as an Electrical Engineer with zero submarine knowledge), batteries in series give more voltage while batteries in parallel allow more current drawn. Now it depends on what and how your propulsion is.
I think it would be more interesting to have a list of things that are like in the movies, as I assume it would be a lot shorter than the list of things unlike, and rarity is in many things considered more important than the common.
[+] [-] sandworm101|6 years ago|reply
Take the following: "These high-torque, permanent magnet electric motor torpedoes ramp up to speed in under a second. They go from sitting in a torpedo tube to 50 knots in a near-instant because they don’t have the mechanical lag and inertia thermal torpedoes must overcome during startup. "
So much of that is totally wrong. The torpedo has nothing to do with how it gets out of the tube. Its propulsor (not a propeller) wont work from the back of a torpedo tube. Starting it up in the tube, INSIDE the sub, sounds horribly dangerous. The torp is ejected by force from the sub and then starts its engine. Electric or thermal, it's doing 50+ whether it wants to or not. Once out of the tube, further acceleration potential is limited by depth/pressure. All torps have more than enough torque to start cavitating their propulsor in shallow water. To continue to automotive analogy, it doesn't matter whether your car is electric or turbine powered, acceleration is limited by how much power your tires can handle before spinning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjoholiW1ho
And this is why you don't want that engine running prior to the torp leaving the tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoElLaLcfOc
[+] [-] sandworm101|6 years ago|reply
"It is best if the weapon detonates within a meter of the hull, but a contact detonation can have devastating effects against even the largest warships."
Torpedoes targeting ships definitely do not want to hit anywhere near the hull. They explode well beneath the target, tens of meters below. They don't try to directly damage the target. Their explosives create a large void of gas, a hole, under the ship. The ship then cracks in half as it 'falls' into the hole. Whether this technique is also used against submarines, with much stronger hulls, is likely classified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6zQ0wBvh18
[+] [-] jfoutz|6 years ago|reply
I can think of only a handful of targets that the US might want to shoot at. (I realize there might be a ton, and this is my lack of imagination). The handful I can think of, almost all of them seem like they're in the supply chain to actually build the torpedos. I'm pretty skeptical of the depth of the US stockpile.
To put it another way, if there was a war so bad, the US reinstituted the draft, would these tools still be relevant? The US industrial base is mighty, and could certainly retool to meet whatever need arises, but that'll take years.
Really seems neat, but after you've taken your 20 or 50 or whatever shots, how do you resupply? Seems like you'd need special coatings or shelf stable chemicals or a hundred other things to make the super fancy weapon.
it sure _seems_ like (although I have no fucking clue, so I'm asking) the super fancy weapons are available for a few weeks if things get real bad.
_edit_ realized I didn't actually ask a question. Can the US actually build these things from, like, minerals? It's a big country, we have them. The industrial base doesn't seem tuned for actually doing that though.
_further edit_ I'm a very silly person. it seems like the only must have is a plausible second strike capability. It's great to be able to protect the free flow of oil, or defend the Kurds from chemical weapons. Hell, one of the most American things I can think of is protecting yankee clippers for safe trade. It's part of the Marine's Hymn. but clearing pirates from the shores of Tripoli isn't absolutely vital. I'd sort of thought that subs jobs in the modern world was making sure that if the US can't play, no one else can either, with moderately sized nuclear weapons. Again, I'm a very silly person. The question with the further edit is, do subs have an essential job beyond second strike cabability?
[+] [-] rudyfink|6 years ago|reply
https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/at5nt4/silent_l...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbeQmfXE0ws - discussed in this video (from in the parent article)
[+] [-] willvarfar|6 years ago|reply
You are also saying you know more about this subject than the sub vet who wrote the article...?
[+] [-] smabie|6 years ago|reply
I dunno, the author's bio suggests that he knows that he's talking about.
[+] [-] neurobashing|6 years ago|reply
So Top Gun comes out, and my mom points out he had graduated Fighter Weapons School - my uncle is a real Top Gun!
So I asked him for tales of dogfights, war stories. He had exactly one: “they’d send us out to fight some MiGs, and as soon as we got in range and turned our radar on to start shooting, they’d turn and run.”
So not like the movies?
“Nope.”
[+] [-] HeyLaughingBoy|6 years ago|reply
Then he goes on to describe an engagement where the MiG didn't :-)
Found it on YouTube. Yay!! Now I don't have to watch my poorly-recorded-from-broadcast-TV VHS version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol-1vPWfHy8
[+] [-] phkahler|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] c3534l|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redis_mlc|6 years ago|reply
The Vietnamese pilots were using Soviet tactics, mainly Ground Control vectors.
Most Vietnamese pilots were rookies, but they did have some aces who would dogfight, like Colonel Toon, who was shot down by Randy Cunningham:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham
But largely the tactics were to surprise the Americans with first MiG-17's, then have a MiG-21 at high speed do an ambush pass from the clouds through lower-flying Americans.
The Vietnamese could have done a lot more damage had they known how worthless the US air-air missiles were at the time. There were all kinds of problems with taking too long to arm (around 4 seconds) and vibration from takeoffs and landings inerting the missiles. And that no gun thing.
Additionally, US pilots were expected to have up to a dozen radio channels active, causing pilot workload problems until they turned off like 11 of them.
[+] [-] magicsmoke|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] umvi|6 years ago|reply
"In September 1952, I was made an instructor pilot in the F-86 and, in early November, I was made a flight commander and an engineering test pilot. It was also in November that we had one of our most frustrating experiences while I was at Kimpo. One day we were called into a hush hush briefing and told that the State Department had cleared us for a one time crossing of the Yalu River—and, as I remember, the only restriction placed on us was that we could not attack any aircraft on the ground, and that may have been because most of those people were not proficient in air-to-ground operations, I don’t know. Anyway, we anticipated some real aerial combat for a change since we would be able to catch the Migs with no place to run to—it sounded like the mission of a lifetime!! Imagine our disappointment, then, at going up to the Yalu River and not finding a single Mig anywhere—we went right on across the river into China and circled the big airfield complex at Antung and, looking down, there wasn’t a single aircraft anywhere on any of those three airfields! Apparently, the State Department had given the Chinese the same information they had given us and all the aircraft had been moved north to Mukden, Manchuria.
Well, as luck would have it, from our position at 40,000’, I spotted a single aircraft, on final approach to one of the Antung airfields, about a mile and a half from the end of the runway, one of the 10% that never gets the word, I guess. I really felt frustrated about the entire situation and was desperate to get a shot at one of those guys in their own back yard—I called the bogie out to #3 and said I was going after him. Number 3 called back and bet me a milk shake (to be repaid in the States) that I’d never reach him before he touched down, and then, of course, he was home free. I rolled over into a split-s maneuver, left full power on and was shortly exceeding Mach 1 (the speed of sound)—I completed one 360 degree diving turn and came out the bottom of that dive at about 1300 feet. I was really moving, and I just had time to rapidly reverse the bank, acquire the Mig in the gunsight and squeeze off a quick burst—he was about six feet in the air over the end of the runway at that time and that burst of gunfire caught him squarely in the center of the fuselage, lighting it up like a Christmas tree. I just saw his aircraft slam into the ground and go careening off the runway and then I shot past him and had to direct my attention elsewhere. I whistled past the control tower and under a bunch of electric wires, and all the time I could hear automatic weapons firing so I must have been very close to them. An aircraft going directly away from enemy guns is an easy shot so I stayed on the deck (close to the ground) for a couple of miles and then made a steep climb out. Maybe getting that guy was a dumb thing to do but it sure was satisfying!"
[+] [-] ckozlowski|6 years ago|reply
https://www.amazon.com/Clashes-Combat-North-Vietnam-1965-197...
[+] [-] badrabbit|6 years ago|reply
Are drone swarms a thing yet? a sky filled with drones would be terrifying. I would hope modern jets deploy drone like missiles manned by ground crew for dogfights,but if I learned anything about F22 and F35, they spend trillions to basically let middle parties steal the money and the tech is something designed decades ago.
If I was china I would pop out hundreds of thousands of cheap drones to augment radar capabilities all the stealth tech would be useless if the adversary has millions of eyes at different altitudes each capabale of visual/infrared/lidar detection of fast moving objects. US intel seems spread thin, I wonder if they do enough spying to know what their enemies are capable of. Chinese R&D has been catching up fast these last few years.
[+] [-] kitteh|6 years ago|reply
That said, there are countless stories about US pilots locking up a bandit who has a RWR system that scares them into turning around (they'd see/hear that they were receiving high PRF - being locked on). That happened a lot more in the 70s and after as US air to air radar got better (look down shoot down radar didn't exist until the 70s too).
[+] [-] m4rtink|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo
Or how in the movies they don't run in circles and sink the submarine that launched them ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_18_torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tang_(SS-306)
[+] [-] chiph|6 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/GpEcU0OEzhc?t=120
[+] [-] TheSpiceIsLife|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ThrowawayR2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kragen|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
[+] [-] alanbernstein|6 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-864
"It is the only documented instance in the history of naval warfare where one submarine intentionally sank another while both were submerged."
[+] [-] deanCommie|6 years ago|reply
> Actual underwater combat occurs silently with very little reaction time to fend off an impending attack.
Does it occur? Do we have any examples of "actual underwater combat" occurring? I don't believe we have any real life examples of nations withs submarine capabilities in combat. War games probably don't count...
[+] [-] angry_octet|6 years ago|reply
GORMAN Thirty-eight...simulated.
VASQUEZ How many combat drops?
GORMAN Well...two. Three, including this one.
[+] [-] giardini|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cafard|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supernova87a|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dylan604|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vanderZwan|6 years ago|reply
This somehow reminded me of the final scene from John Carpenter's Dark Star (spoilers, obviously) where a smart bomb wants to blow up (yes, you read that right), and the crew has to talk it into not doing so by using philosophy to give it an existential crisis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h73PsFKtIck
[+] [-] 1123581321|6 years ago|reply
Why is this so? The wire controls seem sufficient.
[+] [-] tim333|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AtlasBarfed|6 years ago|reply
But against subs I'm surprised there aren't plans for a drone-net that surrounds a fleet or high value ship that can detect incoming underwater threats via some mesh networking.
[+] [-] nabla9|6 years ago|reply
You don't need expensive submarines, if you want to protect narrow points or specific areas. You just drop torpedo mines underwater.
[+] [-] tra3|6 years ago|reply
I got confused by the dual units here:
> 65cm torpedoes have enough fuel to travel in excess of 100 kilometers at 50 knots for just over an hour.
Turns out 1 knot/hr is nearly 2km/h so that checks out. Weird nautical units.
[+] [-] soneil|6 years ago|reply
This is also why you can rough 1knot:2km; you're dividing those 10,000,000 old-world-meters by 5400 (90°*60').
[+] [-] jdjrirkfkfk|6 years ago|reply
Silver oxide-aluminium (AgO-Al)
Silver oxide-zinc (AgO-Zn)
Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion)
Lithium-polymer
Lithium-iron phosphate (LiFePO4)
1,040 Wh/kg
490 Wh/kg
600 Wh/kg
600 Wh/kg
520 Wh/kg
The F21 is powered by a new generation of silver oxide-aluminium (AgO-Al) sea-water primary battery using dissolved sodium dioxide powder as electrolyte and incorporating a new electronic closed loop electrolyte circulation system.
In comparison with silverzinc and other technologies, AgO-Al energy density is unrivalled. It ensures both maximum speed beyond 50 knots and endurance around 1 hour without compromising safety.
TIL: A silver-oxide battery (IEC code: S) is a primary cell with a very high energy-to-weight ratio. They are available in small sizes as button cells, where the amount of silver used is minimal and not a significant contributor to the product cost.
[+] [-] bregma|6 years ago|reply
I think you meant to write 1 knot hour is nearly 2 km -- a weird way to compare distances, but hey, the math works.
[+] [-] ken|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] extrapickles|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AtlasBarfed|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|6 years ago|reply
This sounds wrong. Shouldn't they be connected in parallel?
[+] [-] angry_octet|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2rsf|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _archon_|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qwerty456127|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mothsonasloth|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoseja|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moron4hire|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]