SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
03-31-18, 07:43 PM | #1 | ||||||||
Navy Seal
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 8,214
Downloads: 793
Uploads: 10
|
Quote:
Here we go: Quote:
Sources: US Bombs and Fuzes Pyrotechnics, ed. June 44, pp. 45, 47 and 171 US Bombs and Fuzes Pyrotechnics, ed. September 45, pp. 51, 53, 251 and 253 Quote:
"The original pistol setting of 50ft (15m) was too deep for aircraft attack on a surfaced U-boat and it was reduced to 25ft (7.6m) in 1942" This is referred to the British Mk. VII airborne DC, but it probably applies to other aircraft depth charges used ny the British. An user in navweaps' discussion board quotes another source (a link to is provided, but it is no longer available online): "In the first two years of the war depth charges were mainly set for explosion at a depth of 30/45 metres [this figure having being set years ago and never altered since]. Analysis of pilot reports by ORS showed that in 40% of attacks the U-boat was either still visible or had been submerged less than 15 seconds (these are the U-boats that we would expect to have most chance of killing as we have a good idea of their position). Since the lethal radius of a depth charge was around 5-6 metres it was clear that a shallower setting was necessary. Explosion at a depth of 15 metres was initiated and as new fuses became available at 10 metres and then 8 metres." This is probably referred to US depth bombs. The two pamphlets by Navy Bomb Disposal School I mentioned above (dated summer 1944 and autumn 1945) specify for all the hydrostatic fuzes used with air ordnance depth settings in steps of 25ft, from 25ft (7.6m) to 125ft (38.1m), but I think only the 25ft setting was used in practice. Quote:
Quote:
ASW Weapons @ navweaps.com). Both navweaps.com and Campbell list the illogical figure of 600 fps (183 mps!) as terminal velocity of the streamlined Mark VIII 250-lb a/c depth charge, but I regard it as a typo. No information at all on the sinking speeds of US depth bombs. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
John Campbell, op. cit, p. 163 United States of America ASW Weapons @ navweaps.com Depth Charge, Mark 9 and Modifications: Descriptinìon and instructions for Use, Bureau of Ordnance, February, 1944 |
||||||||
04-01-18, 05:12 AM | #2 | ||
Navy Seal
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 8,214
Downloads: 793
Uploads: 10
|
Quote:
Apparently, the hydrostatic pistols that could be used with British a/c depth charge were as follows: Pistol Mk. X** (obsolete by the date of publication): Depth settings: 50, 100 and 150 ft (15.2, 30.5 and 45.7 m respectively) DC's used on: Mk. VII and VIII Pistols Mk. XIV and XIV* (in service): Fixed depth setting: 14-18 ft (4.3-5.5 m) DC's used on: Mk. VII, VIII, XI and XI* Pistols Mk. XVI and XVI* (in service): Fixed depth setting: 20-24 ft (6.1-7.3 m) DC's used on: as above Pistol Mk. XIX (in service): Fixed depth setting: 20-24 ft (6.1-7.3 m) DC's used on: Mk. XI and XI* with Mk. IV tail Pistol Mk. XX (in service): Fixed depth setting: 14-18 ft (4.3-5.5 m) DC's used on: as above Summing up: after all, unlike stated by post-war sources, British a/c depth charges could be set to detonate at depths shallower than 25ft. Indeed, we don't know how reliable/effective were the shallowest pistols (Mk. XIV and XX, 14-18 ft), and how common they were. Incidentally: happy Easter guys |
||
05-01-18, 01:44 PM | #3 | |||||||
Commander
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 457
Downloads: 52
Uploads: 7
|
I have been unable to ressurrect my oldest HD, so I'm going to try replying "off-the-cuff" to these as best as I can.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In closing, I cannot argue or dispute any of your points, or reasonings and, in fact, would have incorporated those into my mod had I been aware of them. |
|||||||
05-13-18, 11:29 AM | #4 |
Navy Seal
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CJ8937
Posts: 8,214
Downloads: 793
Uploads: 10
|
Sorry for the late feed-back guys, family problems have absorbed most of my time during the last month; now I am slowly getting back to normality. I am preparing my replies to your unaswered posts. Just stay tuned and keep patient a few more days
|
05-14-18, 12:44 PM | #5 | |
Officer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 249
Downloads: 126
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
No problem, I hope you will be fine soon. I also was in holiday so I haven't made progress in the last month... I think that it would take some time because I have personal problems since a few months and not that many time for research...
__________________
My Mediafire Page Join the Real ASW Mod Discord-Server: https://discord.gg/Yg5ZE25 |
|
05-15-18, 07:38 AM | #6 |
Sea Lord
|
IS this mod compatible with wac 5.1?
|
05-15-18, 08:01 AM | #7 |
Officer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 249
Downloads: 126
Uploads: 0
|
Real ASW Mod
Sadly no because I have experienced positioning problems with the DC Racks which I'm not able to fix... There is anything different with the Racks than in vanilla and the other mods and even changing them to vanilla doesn't fix that.
__________________
My Mediafire Page Join the Real ASW Mod Discord-Server: https://discord.gg/Yg5ZE25 |
05-15-18, 08:08 AM | #8 |
Sea Lord
|
So the only problem is bad dc rack positioning
|
Tags |
asw, depth charge, mod, real, realismn |
|
|