To Armor or not to Armor (was: 6 inch gun cruiser...)
sinalizar
Mensagens 1 - 10 de 4398 - Recolher todas
/groups/adfetch?adid=ade8HBEAAACb2-cTU0NuzGLzTG4w5WPMFSRgCP-avRN4YT0eROC0jw
To Armor or not to Armor (was: 6 inch gun cruiser...)  
O grupo no qual você está postando é um grupo da Usenet. As mensagens postadas neste grupo farão com que o seu e-mail fique visível para qualquer pessoa na internet.
Sua resposta não foi enviada.
Postagem publicada
 
De:
Para:
Cc:
Encaminhar para
Adicionar Cc | Adicionar Encaminhar para | Editar Assunto
Assunto:
Validação:
Com o objetivo de verificação, digite os caracteres que você vê na figura abaixo ou os números que ouvir ao clicar no ícone de acessibilidade. Ouça e digite os números que ouvir
 
1.  Andrew C. Toppan  
Ver perfil   Traduzir para Traduzido (ver original)
 Mais opções 1 nov 1998, 06:00
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: actop...@gwi.net (Andrew C. Toppan)
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: To Armor or not to Armor (was: 6 inch gun cruiser...)
GLof815619 (glof815...@aol.com) was seen to write:
[speaking of "all or nothing" armor...]

> you provide maximum protection to though item that must be protected, the
> magazine, main guns, engines, fire control, and steering. The rest was left
> unprotected, because the armor did more harm than good. Notice that the hull
> was not consided a vital item.

You show your lack of understand concerning both armor and ship design.
"All or nothing" ships DID have a large armor belt protecting the hull
from the forward-most critical item (#1 turret) to the aft-most critical
item (the last turret).  This is precisely what Paul has proposed in
response to your insistence on armor - an armor belt from the 5" mount to
the aft VLS.

> Today the armor would be mounted around the 5in magazine, missile Magazine, the
> engineering spaces (at least the parts where the turbines are not sucking air),
> the CIC and computer room. a lot less volume, and a lot least weight than
> required to protect the whole hull.

And if you armor each of these items, you'll end up with a continuous
piece of armor running from the 5" mount to the aft VLS.  It doesn't
matter if you call it an "armor belt" or "individually armored items", you
_still_ end up spreading armor nearly the full length of the ship.  It's
_still_ VERY heavy.

> Also stuborn, and closed minded sometime, but the does know his stuff. ( I

In this case he's just sick of know-it-alls like you who come along every
six months, declare that everyone who has designed a ship in the last 50
years is an idiot, and that the only good ships are the ones designed
"your way", and that the rest of us should listen to you.

> And there are some of us who thing these ship are too small anyway. They need
> more room for missiles, guns, and protection, wiether it inculdes armor or not.
> We spend billions on electronic but don't buy enough guns and missiles to take
> advantage of it anyway.

Yeesh....90 missiles in a DDG, 122 missiles in a CG, 150-200 missiles in a
DD-21 aren't enough??  Well, you could certainly build larger ships with
more missiles, but the ships would cost more, so you would have fewer
ships....in the end you would come out with nearly the _same_ number of
missiles.  57 DDGs @ 90 missiles/ship = 5130 missiles; 29 "super DDGs" @
180 missiles each = 5220 missiles....where's the big gain?  You've spent
the same money, have half as many ships, and essentially the same missile
capability....and you _still_ can't afford to fill all those VLS cells
with missiles!   Again, what do you gain here?

--
Andrew Toppan   ---   actop...@gwi.net   ---   "I speak only for myself"
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more


    Responder ao autor    Encaminhar  
É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
2.  Andrew C. Toppan  
Ver perfil   Traduzir para Traduzido (ver original)
 Mais opções 1 nov 1998, 06:00
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: actop...@gwi.net (Andrew C. Toppan)
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: To Armor or not to Armor (was: 6 inch gun cruiser...)
GLof815619 (glof815...@aol.com) was seen to write:

> Once again KOOL IT, personal attacks gain us nothing, and scares off other

In the case of MKSeppard it's not a personal attack, it's a statement of
fact.

> So you final admit that active defences are not perfect either.

I NEVER said they were.  That's why we have splinter armor, distributed
systems, etc.

> leakers. The one missile that gets through the AEGIS, RAM, and CIWS to hit your
> ship. I don't suggest replacing these system, only protecting them better, so
> that we can use them longer.

Some day you will have to recognize that you CANNOT armor radars, missile
directors, comms links, EW gear, ESM systems, and the like. These things
do not work when covered in a layer of steel plate.

> But is it enough, of the right type, located in the best position, these are
> thing we do not know. If there has been a study on these factors recently I
> have not seen it.

It's safe to assume that DDGs were designed the way they are for a reason,
not by accident...

--
Andrew Toppan   ---   actop...@gwi.net   ---   "I speak only for myself"
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more


    Responder ao autor    Encaminhar  
É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
3.  Andrew C. Toppan  
Ver perfil   Traduzir para Traduzido (ver original)
 Mais opções 1 nov 1998, 06:00
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: actop...@gwi.net (Andrew C. Toppan)
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: To Armor or not to Armor (was: 6 inch gun cruiser...)
GLof815619 (glof815...@aol.com) was seen to write:

> of too much armor. I am suggesting adding armor only to though section that can
> either A. result in the lose of the ship if hit. AKA the magazines. or B. would
> allow the ship to be a sitting duck, AKA the machinery. or C are expensive and
> hard to replace, ie the CIC.

Just what parts of the ship do NOT fall into one of those categories?  And
if something is not weapons system, a machinery system or "expensive and
hard to replace", what's it doing on a warship in the first place?

Using your definitions, the only parts of a ship that do not need armor
are habitabiity spaces (berthing, messing), offices, storerooms, and
repair shops.  The problem is that those spaces are worked in around all
the other mission-critical spaces; you can't "pick and choose" to armor
the CIC but not the berthing and messing spaces, because the berthing and
messing spaces are directly above, below or beside CIC.

Face it, the "mission critical" spaces in a modern warship run from the
extreme bow (sonar dome) to the stern (Nixie and towed array rooms), and
from the keel (machinery spaces) to the masthead (ESM and TACAN).  

> What the saying, "Steel is cheap", Yes I think a cruiser size hull was
> justified, the added firepower would greatly outwiegh a small increase in
> cost.

"Steel is cheap" when you add only "steel" - but when you start adding
additional combat systems, missiles, VLS, etc., you're no longer adding
"steel", and it's no longer "cheap".  People in this group make this
mistake all the time - they say "Steel is cheap, so I'll add 2,000 tons
and a VLS and another radar" - they've got to realize that the VLS and
radars, etc. AREN'T cheap.

> The Burke gave up to much to be called destroyers. The Helo alone would justify
> the increase size.

About half the BURKEs will have helos (2 helos, 2 hangars, 2 RAST, and a
big magazine to go with 'em)...and they're still called destroyers.

The lack of helo hangars in the first two Flights is not a big problem
when you realize that these ships will operate in a battle group with
CGs, DDs, FFGs and later DDGs, all of which carry helos.  Not every ship
needs a helo hangar.

> An extra 32 missiles would be useful now that we are adding
> land attack missiles to the mix.

And it would drive up costs, so fewer ships would be built, so you would
have no net gain in missile capability.

> The Burke Block II Plus, which is what should have been built in the frist
> place only with more missiles space in reserve.

You mean Flight IIA?  Well, if that's all that had been built, you would
be criticizing the class just as much, because some tradeoffs were made to
add the helo hangars.  You would be here screaming and shouting about
their lack of Harpoons and SQR-19.  Face it, even if USN had built the
"perfect" warship by your standards, you would _still_ be saying it was
unbalanced, unaccepable, under-armed, etc.

My opinions only.

--
Andrew Toppan   ---   actop...@gwi.net   ---   "I speak only for myself"
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more


    Responder ao autor    Encaminhar  
É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
What is towed array?  
1.  Tim McFeely  
Ver perfil   Traduzir para Traduzido (ver original)
 Mais opções 1 nov 1998, 06:00
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: flankb...@my-dejanews.com (Tim McFeely)
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: Re: What is towed array?
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:17:49 -0800, Mark Borgerson <m...@oes.to>
wrote:

Hence WAA or Wide Apperture Array.

>You can also derive range if you use the receiving array in bistatic
>mode with another signal source (for which you know the transmission
>characteristics).  No reason the  Towed array couldn't be used
>with signals from the bow sonar dome, AFAIK.

Too much ambiguity as to where the towed array really is.  Scope is
not really precise, array is not really on the same plane, any turn
drops array signal or at least disperses bearings.

And besides if one uses the bow array for a signal source, don't you
mean active generation of signals, i.e. noise?

>Mark Borgerson

Just a dumb knuckledragger with his 2 cents worth.

Scope's under...
Tim McFeely


    Responder ao autor    Encaminhar  
É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
2.  Tim McFeely  
Ver perfil   Traduzir para Traduzido (ver original)
 Mais opções 1 nov 1998, 06:00
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: flankb...@my-dejanews.com (Tim McFeely)
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: Re: What is towed array?

On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 10:58:37 -0800, "Dave" <stscs...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Tim McFeely wrote in message <363b202f.168839...@news.dmv.com>...

>>Hey, I am a stupid knuckledragger.  I deal with contacts that SONAR
>>picks up.

>Can you be more specific?  Genus?  Species?

Well I was a Torpedoman, the USN now thinks I be a MM.  One of the
dumber moves made by the USN.  Just after I get done fixing the
scrubber, I will reload tube one....

>Dave

Scope's under...
Tim McFeely

    Responder ao autor    Encaminhar  
É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
What is towed array? - TOAD Arrays.  
3.  mtbbsd  
Ver perfil   Traduzir para Traduzido (ver original)
 Mais opções 2 nov 1998, 06:00
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: MTB...@nospam.uk
Data: 1998/11/02
Assunto: Re: What is towed array? - TOAD Arrays.
Well it's obvious the cat's out of the bag now,
or rather,
the toad's out of the hole.

Just a post to clarify a few points.

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:20:30 -0400, "Howard C. Berkowitz"

<h...@clark.net> wrote:

<snip>
<reformatted>

>Not sure about these particular ingredients,
>but I was having dinner with a sonar engineer friend,
>and the topic of towed arrays did come up.
>His wife, who is nontechnical, made some comment about
>not knowing the Navy was using biological sensors.
>We looked at each other in some puzzlement,
>until we realized she had heard "toad array."

She was closer to the truth than you'd thought.
The detail of this highly classified stealth programme
is just begining to emerge.

>Perhaps that isn't such a strange idea.  
>Toads arrayed across the sea...
>clearly some sort of amphibious ready group.

No,
think of it more as a low investment,
high return,
flexible extension of SOSUS.

The use of toads as dispersed active sonar,
generating 'direct path' reference,
reflected target bearings,
and the self exciting nature of a toad field,
coupled with DSP,
has resulted in a significant enhancement of this network.

One parallel being the 'avalanche' effect in a Gieger-Muller tube.

<snip>

>The toad array has many possibilities.  

Watch this space.

>Clearly,  
>a demand to eat toads fits into the hazing discussion.  
>A single toad will not do if you are initiating shellbacks on a CVN.

Under proposed new Navy Code,
"Toad consumption or abuse",
is to become an offense.

<snip>

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 18:47:37 -0800, "Dave" <stscs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure NAVSEA would buy-off on the toad-array.  

This would not be an unexpected response.

It's often the case when an effective low cost system
is available for very little investment.

The phrase "buy-off" being appropriate here.

If the purchase doesn't assist the individual in securing
a post public office, consultacy,
then it's not worth purchasing.

>I have some technical questions myself:

>1.    What is the maximum operating depth of a toad?

That's classified.
Suffice to say that like some other biologics
they have the capacity to go 'deep'.

> (and where does one attack the tow cable?)

This is a common misunderstanding,
TOADS require neither tow cable nor control tether.

You're probably confusing this acronym with that of the
TOwed Array Dispenser, (TOAD),
or the name of the similar sounding 'Towed' array.

It refers in this case to -
T       Tactical
O       Oceanographic
A       Amphibic
D       Dispersed
S       Sonar

These are fully autonomous, independantly operating, sensor systems
that can be deployed in a variety of dispersal configurations.
solitary -      close inshore or midocean.
field -         concentrated area (barrier and choke points).
linear -        outer barrier and far field arrays.

Having the capabilty to 'hibernate',
whereby all systems other than sensors,
are put on standby until the toad is disturbed.

The toad instinctively knows that to avoid predators and survive,
it must make the best use of natural cover.
Often found hiding under rocks,
but at it's most effective when buried in mud,
where it can remain undisturbed for many years.

>2.    Are there different models of toad that have different self-noise
>characteristics?

NB. In follow-ups,
Please use the word 'species' rather
than the incorrect 'model' designation.

Due to their biologic nature,
TOADS generate minimal self noise,
other than when they go 'active'.

Many frontline soldiers being already familiar with
their land based relatives.
They often report that there is little more daunting than
the possibiity of an unexpected toad suddenly going 'active' on you
and triggering off the whole array.

If you mean -
Are different species distinguishable by their active emissions,
then yes,
but more importantly,
every individual toad has it's own unique active 'signature'.

>3.    Will there be an inboard stowage system?
>(next to the goats, I suppose)

There already is,
though not next to the goat locker.

Primary active stowage being the WRT tank,
the acronym formerly    Water Round Torpedo tank,
being replaced by       Water Round Toad tank.

Use of this tank allows toads to be deployed directly through
the normal torpedo 'water-shot' discharge process,
without any system hardware modification.

Early trials indicated a high degree of baseline correlation,
and the project was nearly dropped,
but once on track,
the issues were dealt with by the team as they arose.

Initial problems with the toads unexpectedly switching to active mode,
were traced to the water-ram piston speed,
this had resulted in direct physical compression of the toads.

Another early problem involved the near loss of a vessel through a
complete loss of heat sink,
caused by the ingestion of macerated toads into the main circ water
and other seawater cooling systems.

These have been overcome by the introduction of modified ram
operating parameters.
The use of a slower discharge stroke
coupled with lower flow rates
all have improved the succesful deployment figures,
enabling the toad to 'go with the flow' and swim out from the ram.

Other stowage matters.
Apart from the environmental concerns -
Goats   generally requiring an arid smoky private environment
        along with a more public strutting area,
        have a nasty habit of trampling on toads at every opportunity.
Toads   being less dominant,
        tend to gather in wetter colder environs,
        i.e. bilges or anywhere out of the goats view.

Toads and goats definitely don't get along,

Goats also tend to have this superiority complex,
which from my experience,
they never lose,
becoming more pronounced once out of their service environment.

>4.    What will Greenpeace think?

They've already reported an unexplained decline
in our local "Natterjack" population,
it just hasn't clicked yet.

<snip>

On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 06:30:56 GMT, rand...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>All these picky details are worked out through
>COTS (COmmercial Toad Systems)

<snip>

The correct useage of the acronym 'COTS'
as applied to TOADS refers to -

C       Collected
O       Off
T       The
S       Shore

Please note before posting any follow-up comments,
these are marine toads and not the common land (track) toad variety.

If interested -
Further discussion of this topic may be continued at a later date.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bad random number generator:  1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4.33e+67, 1, 1, 1


    Responder ao autor    Encaminhar  
É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
military retirement "benefits?!"  
1.  SHIPFIXR  
Ver perfil   Traduzir para Traduzido (ver original)
 Mais opções 1 nov 1998, 06:00
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: shipf...@aol.com (SHIPFIXR)
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: Re: military retirement "benefits?!"
RS wrote; (who knows what she really  meant)

>hahahahhahahaha. that's what I meant- they either move up or get out.
>Dave wrote in message <363546f...@news.oz.net>...
>>Pizza deliverymen?

      Too bad you're not better at stating what you mean when you post
it....instead of waiting
for responses and picking the one that's "what I meant".....

DN


    Responder ao autor    Encaminhar  
É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
Modern Merchant Cruiser?  
1.  David E. Powell  
Ver perfil   Traduzir para Traduzido (ver original)
 Mais opções 1 nov 1998, 06:00
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@email.msn.com>
Data: 1998/11/01
Assunto: Modern Merchant Cruiser?
What would possibilities be for modern Merchant Cruisers? Slap-on quad racks
for Harpoons, though off most USN ships, are still in storage by several
nations, also gun systems and other missle systems like Exocet, the Chinese
version of said missile, and other weaponry are out there...

Would there be any nations which might benefit from and/or use Modern AMCs?
How about China? With plenty of state-owned shipping, the concept of
snapping on weapons for military duty could work, especially in view of
Chinese sealift needs in the event of an invasion of Taiwan or Singapore.
How about Gulf tankers, who want something more than Machine guns and other
lighter weapons to shoot back with in event of renewed tanker hostilities,
or people worried about piracy in certain parts of the world?

Ah... what a use for all those bulk carriers, etc that don't make it up to
snuff - the penalty, turning over all ships, cargo, and funds of offending
corporations to S.M.N. for manufacture of Armed Merchant Cruisers, Foist
warships and warship carriers, and Halifax-Style Boat Bombs to be sailed
into Kharg Island, Havana Harbor, and Saddam Hussein's Swimming Pool!

P.S. Imagine the might of the new Liberian Navy.

David Powell
--
"Weep for the chickens, Bok. Weep for us all"

"Bok!"

G'Kar and Bok, in the Animaniacs Episode

 "Chickens can't be Narns."

"Insanity is part of the times." - Londo Mollari, "Knives." Babylon 5,
Season 2.


    Responder ao autor    Encaminhar  
É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
2.  Charles Gray  
Ver perfil   Traduzir para Traduzido (ver original)
 Mais opções 2 nov 1998, 06:00
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: n...@null.net (Charles Gray)
Data: 1998/11/02
Assunto: Re: Modern Merchant Cruiser?
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 20:49:56 +1300, "annabella"

        True, but many of those conversions were marked by major
modifications to the ship, often, such as in the case of the CVE's,
removing all  cargo carrying ability.
        Given the need for long range sensors to make a ship combat
effective, most merchant conversions would either be nearly as
expensive (and not nearly as effective) as a dedicated warship, or
amount to little more then targets.  On the other hand, there are two
conversions that would be effective--
        The First would be mounting a helicopter platform and support
hanger on a ship, not so much to replace its escorts as to give them
more options-- helicopters could be based off the merchies, in order
to give the escorts more leeway in their manuvering, since the
merchant based ASW helicopters could give a ship some coverage against
subs and surface raiders (the latter with penguin or harpoon
missiles).
        Another type would be US coast guard style ships, which while
not normally equiped with harpoons, can be equipped so.  In normal
times, such ships could conduct usual coastal operations, without the
expense or danger of a weapons loadout, while in wartime they could be
quickly converted.

    Responder ao autor    Encaminhar  
É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
3.  Dale Farmer  
Ver perfil   Traduzir para Traduzido (ver original)
 Mais opções 2 nov 1998, 06:00
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: Dale Farmer <d...@access1.digex.net>
Data: 1998/11/02
Assunto: Re: Modern Merchant Cruiser?
Charles Gray <n...@null.net> wrote:

: On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 20:49:56 +1300, "annabella"

: <annabe...@clear.net.nz> wrote:

:       The First would be mounting a helicopter platform and support
: hanger on a ship, not so much to replace its escorts as to give them
: more options-- helicopters could be based off the merchies, in order
: to give the escorts more leeway in their manuvering, since the
: merchant based ASW helicopters could give a ship some coverage against
: subs and surface raiders (the latter with penguin or harpoon
: missiles).
        Just for convoy self defense role.  Given a ten or twenty
ship convoy, having a couple of the merchies have a PHALANX or two,
a minimal helo flight deck.  (basically nothing but a refueling
station, one torpedo on a reload dolly, and a bunch of sonobouys.  
Train the merchies to do refueling and sonobouy reloading, while
the flight crew pees off the lee side then reloads the torp if needed.
It can save a 20-30 minute round trip, and the DD or whatever is
free to do other things.  )  Also the convoy commodore (Traditionally
on one of the merchies.) can be ferried over for meetings and such.
Add to the fueling setup the refuel while hovering over the flight
deck capability and you have just increased the ASW helos' loiter
time over the target area a fair bit.  Plus I have never met a
helo pilot who didn't want a couple of spare flight decks somewhere
nearby, just in case.  :-)  This could all fit into two or three
containers, with the flight deck laid on top of them.  

:       Another type would be US coast guard style ships, which while
: not normally equiped with harpoons, can be equipped so.  In normal
: times, such ships could conduct usual coastal operations, without the
: expense or danger of a weapons loadout, while in wartime they could be
: quickly converted.

        For coastal defense role, you want ASW, not surface weapons.  
Bring back the blimps!  

        A blimp has lots of carrying capacity, so flight duration is,
with fuel conservation measures, constraind by crew rest, not running
out of gas.  Instead of the twenty or so sonobouys, say a couple
hundred.  And a nice BIG antenna for the radar, for locating those
periscopes.  Immune to torpedos.  And if the sub surfaces and
shoots a SAM at it, well, it loses an engine and the envelope
starts leaking.  Hey, better dump some weight, like say, a torpedo. :-)
Then limp on back to base.  

        --Dale

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dale Farmer Dale at accessdotdigex.net Personal opinion. Sudbury, Mass.
"Free the ISO 9000!"  --Nomi Burstein
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    Responder ao autor    Encaminhar  
É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.

Criar um grupo - Grupos do Google - Página inicial do Google - Termos de Uso - Política de Privacidade
©2009 Google