[req] Looking for authoritive info on surface endurance

[Ducimus]

Anyone know a site that has some authoritve information on exactly how far fleet submarines could travel? Or even a book and dont mind posting the specs listed?

Ive scoured the net repeatidly and sources all seem to vary, but generally agree upon the neighborhood of 12,000 NM @ 10 kts for most sub types, which i find hard to beleive when i find other sources that say for example one of the subtle differences between the tambor and gar was a bit more fuel. Some sources site one sub type of 96,000 gallons, another cites 100+ gallons, and the general slap of 12,000KM @ 10 kts is given, again, im skeptical.

By default the game has a 15,000 NM @ 10 kt endurance. Fuel management hardly comes into play. Unless thats a reflection of some wartme modification, id really love to bring it back down to historical specfications (whatever they are), and would love some more authorive info on it.

[Ducimus]

And yes, this is me counting rivets. :88)

[tedhealy]

I assume you've looked at valortatsea.com?

http://www.valoratsea.com/gato.htm
http://www.valoratsea.com/Tambor.htm
http://www.valoratsea.com/Salmon1.htm
http://www.valoratsea.com/pclass.htm
http://www.valoratsea.com/Sclass1.htm

I couldn't tell you how accurate the info is, but it's another bit of info.

[Ducimus]

Ya ive looked at that site, all the other major ones that everyone knows about.

Not specific enough for me. I mean, if i have to ill settle at, or around 12,000 @ 10 kts, i guess i will, but i think thats a round approximation. Theres just too many inconsitances on specifics.

edit: for example, valoratsea.com will say 12,000 on a tambor, and fleetsubmarine.com will say 11. go to some of the wiki articles and it will say 11,800 on a gato, and elsewhere it will say 12. etc etc, back and forth link ping pong.

[tedhealy]

Another place to look might be navsource

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/04idx.htm

It looks like it will either list the fuel capacity or range for most.

edit: Considering so many boats were modified individually, I would imagine one exact number probably wouldn't apply to all boats. Some will be higher or lower within the same class.

edit2: just looking at early Balaos vs late ones, the earlies have around 95,000 fuel capacity and the laters have around 115,000 or so, so one number won't sum up all the boats in a class.

[Jmack]

here what i found ... not shure how reliable they are because they all say
maximum range 11,000 miles at 10 knots


Balao Class

Fuel Capacity: 116,000 gallons.

Tench Class

Fuel Capacity: 118,510 gallons.

Gato Class

Fuel Capacity: 94.400 gallons.

Sargo Class

Fuel Capacity: 109,900 gallons.

Tambor Class

Fuel Capacity: 93,993 / 96,365 gallons.

Salmon Class

Fuel Capacity: 96,025 gallons.

Shark Class

Fuel Capacity: 85,946 / 86,675 gallons.

[Ducimus]

@tedhealy good point on individual modificaitons. I think one might have to settle for an average or best case scenario.

@Jmack
Good work. Thats a little bit more along the lines of what im looking for, although i woudlnt doubt they're be some variences. Now the trouble is how to convert that to a number usable by the game. (IE MaxRange @ speed format)

:hmm:


edit: Wow, did the sargo really have more fuel then a gato? (generally speaking)

[tedhealy]

here what i found ... not shure how reliable they are because they all say
maximum range 11,000 miles at 10 knots


Balao Class

Fuel Capacity: 116,000 gallons.

Tench Class

Fuel Capacity: 118,510 gallons.

Gato Class

Fuel Capacity: 94.400 gallons.

Sargo Class

Fuel Capacity: 109,900 gallons.

Tambor Class

Fuel Capacity: 93,993 / 96,365 gallons.

Salmon Class

Fuel Capacity: 96,025 gallons.

Shark Class

Fuel Capacity: 85,946 / 86,675 gallons.
I think those are good numbers on average and using an average is the best we'll be able to do in sh4.

If you look at individual subs within a class (assuming navsource is accurate), some subs had very different fuel capacities. Some gatos had 115,000, some balaos had 94,000. We don't know what kind of upgrades a sub may have gotten throughout the war to improve fuel capacity, if the later built boats within a class had some of those upgrades built in straight from the yard, or why sometimes a later boat in a class has a smaller fuel capacity.

[Jmack]

considering that the average goes around 12,000 or 11,000 nm at 10 knots and you have for example for the tench 118,510 gallons this means that i... err well im not vey good at math

[Canonicus]

One book that I consider to be authoritative on this subject is "U.S. Submarines Through 1945" by Norman Freidman Phd. published by Naval Institute Press, 1995

In this very exhaustive study, Dr. Freidman lists in appendix D " Submarine Data".

the folowing figures....

Surface Endurance (nm/kt)

S-18...3420/6.5
Max fuel in MBT (Main Ballast Tank) ...8950/9.5

S-42... 2510/6.5
Max fuel in MBT..... 10,000/8.1

Porpoise... 6000/10
Max fuel in MBT... 22,000/8

Salmon... 11,000/10

Sargo... 11,000/10

Tambor/Gar... 11,000/10

Gato... 11,000/10

Balao... 11,000/10

I've seen some data that suggests that the later Balao/Tench boats had 12,000/10
surface endurance ... but NEVER 15,000 nm .

Hope this helps.

[Ducimus]

If you look at individual subs within a class (assuming navsource is accurate), some subs had very different fuel capacities. Some gatos had 115,000, some balaos had 94,000. We don't know what kind of upgrades a sub may have gotten throughout the war to improve fuel capacity, if the later built boats within a class had some of those upgrades built in straight from the yard, or why sometimes a later boat in a class has a smaller fuel capacity.

Ya i was just looking at that, its all over the place. At this point im just wondering how they scale against each other sans modification. For example would an unmodified Sargo have more range then an unmodified Gato or not?

Im starting to think thats a tootsie pop question.

[Jmack]

in all the sites i found including wiki ... the range never goes beyond 12,000 at 10 knots

for example the Valor at Sea site :

for the gato class has the following

11,800 nm at 10 knots
97,140 gallons

[Ducimus]

@Canonicus

Thanks for the stats you listed, it helps.



One bright spot in all of the deviations..... I suppose one could take a *little* artistic license to further differntiate the boat types if you had to. But most certainly 15,000@ 10 KM is a bunch of crock.

[Jmack]

i found this
The Fleet Type Submarine


can be found here http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/index.htm


The Fleet Type Submarine, Navpers 16160, is the first in a series of submarine training manuals that was completed just after WW II. The series describes the peak of WW II US submarine technology.

it has pretty interesting stuff ...

5B3. Fuel oil tanks. a. Normal fuel tanks. The normal fuel tanks are used only for the storage of fuel oil. They are usually located toward the extremities of the boat rather than close to amidships. They vary in size, but normally have capacities of from 10,000 to 20,000 gallons each. Most modern submarines have four of these tanks. In a typical installation (Figure 5-1 (http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/diesel/foldout/fig5-01.htm)) they are numbered No. 1, No. 2, No. 6, and No. 7.
b. Fuel ballast tanks. Fuel ballast tanks are large tanks, amidships, between the pressure hull and the outer hull, which may be used either as fuel storage tanks or as main ballast tanks. They are connected to the fuel oil system in the same manner as the normal fuel oil tanks, but in addition, they have main vents, main flood valves, and high-pressure air and low-pressure blower connections which are necessary when the tank is in use as a main ballast tank. When rigged as a main ballast tank, all connections to the fuel oil system are secured.
Most fleet type submarines have three fuel ballast tanks varying in capacity from about 19,000 to 25,000 gallons. On a typical installation (Figure 5-1 (http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/diesel/foldout/fig5-01.htm)), the fuel ballast tanks are numbered No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5. Current practice is to depart on war patrol with all fuel ballast tanks filled with fuel oil. Fuel is used first from No. 4 fuel ballast tank, and as soon as that tank is empty of fuel (filled with salt water) it is converted to a main ballast tank. Upon conversion, the tank is flushed out several times to insure that all fuel oil is out of the tank. The conversion of No. 4 FBT to a main ballast tank increases the stability of the submarine and decreases the amount of wetter surface of the hull when on the surface.

[ReallyDedPoet]

This from Sailor Steve awhile back Ducimus, great site:

http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/

http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/graphics/wahoo1.jpg
U.S.S. Wahoo pictured in July 1943 off Mare Island Navy Yard. Commanded by Dudley "Mush" Morton,
Wahoo was one of the most successful American submarines of World War II. Four months after this picture
was taken she was lost with all hands while attempting to exit the Sea of Japan after sinking four ships for a
total of 13,000 tons. Her wartime total was 60,038 tons.

From that site.

RDP

[Sailor Steve]

This from Sailor Steve awhile back...
From me? I don't remember. Having a look around I see they have the Gato class listed at 20,000 miles, no range given.
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/gato-class.html
I don't trust their ranges, they're not definite enough.

I have a copy of Bagnasco's Submarines of World War Two, but it's in storage right now. I know several other members have mentioned having a copy; I'm hoping one of them will see this and have a look.

[ReallyDedPoet]

This from Sailor Steve awhile back... From me? I don't remember. Having a look around I see they have the Gato class listed at 20,000 miles, no range given.
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/gato-class.html
I don't trust their ranges, they're not definite enough.

I have a copy of Bagnasco's Submarines of World War Two, but it's in storage right now. I know several other members have mentioned having a copy; I'm hoping one of them will see this and have a look.

I am sure it was you Steve:hmm:

RDP

[Ducimus]

I think ive figured it out. This is going to be very arbitrary, but some of the data seems to correlate.

Heres what im thinking:
(based on numberous sources, I also took the first boat of the class in decidinig fuel capacity)

Class/ fuel in Gallons:

Porpoise 93,129
Salmon 96,025
Sargo 90,000
Tambor 93.993
Gar 96,365
Gato 97,140
Balao 94,400

(NOTE: Math is not one of my stronger points)
If you were to use 96,000 gallons of fuel as a base line to equate out to 12,000 NM at 10 kts then:

96,000 / 12 = 8,000 gallons per 1,000 NM. So then.

MaxFuel / 8,000

That would (theoritcally) mean, and im rounding the results:

Porpoise 11.64 or 11,640 nm
Salmon 12.00 or 12,000 nm
Sargo 11.25 or 11,250 nm
Tambor 11.75 or 11,750 nm
Gar 12.05 or 12,050 nm
Gato 12.14 or 12,140 nm
Balao 11.8 or 11,800 nm

[Sailor Steve]

I am sure it was you Steve:hmm:

RDP
Just because I don't remember doesn't mean it's not true. I'm just getting old. Or maybe my head's full of so much garbage I'm running out of room.:dead:

Ducimus, I can't argue your numbers one way or another, but they're certainly interesting. Until someone comes up with something more definitive, I say go for it.

[Jmack]

I think ive figured it out. This is going to be very arbitrary, but some of the data seems to correlate.

Heres what im thinking:
(based on numberous sources, I also took the first boat of the class in decidinig fuel capacity)

Class/ fuel in Gallons:

Porpoise 93,129
Salmon 96,025
Sargo 90,000
Tambor 93.993
Gar 96,365
Gato 97,140
Balao 94,400

(NOTE: Math is not one of my stronger points)
If you were to use 96,000 gallons of fuel as a base line to equate out to 12,000 NM at 10 kts then:

96,000 / 12 = 8,000 gallons per 1,000 NM. So then.

MaxFuel / 8,000

That would (theoritcally) mean, and im rounding the results:

Porpoise 11.64 or 11,640 nm
Salmon 12.00 or 12,000 nm
Sargo 11.25 or 11,250 nm
Tambor 11.75 or 11,750 nm
Gar 12.05 or 12,050 nm
Gato 12.14 or 12,140 nm
Balao 11.8 or 11,800 nm


im not an expert on this but its logical ...so in round numbers the maxfuel allowed for 1,000 nm is 8,000 gallons is there a minimal value ?

[Ducimus]

No, its just based on 12,000 nm @ 10 kts. Or rather, if 96,000 gallons of fuel gets you 12,000 nm when traveling at 10 kts, then you'd use 8,000 gallons per 1,000 nm. When editing the sub's sim file, it wants a NM range @ speed.


Anyway,The numbers look good. i think ill be using the above values (perhaps recalculated sans rounding to be more exact) in Tmaru 1.1.

[U-Bones]

No, its just based on 12,000 nm @ 10 kts. Or rather, if 96,000 gallons of fuel gets you 12,000 nm when traveling at 10 kts, then you'd use 8,000 gallons per 1,000 nm. When editing the sub's sim file, it wants a NM range @ speed.


Anyway,The numbers look good. i think ill be using the above values (perhaps recalculated sans rounding to be more exact) in Tmaru 1.1.
It assumes the same efficiency for all the power plants, but like you say anything you pick will be somewhat arbitrary and these are all in the ballpark. IMO 11-12k is much preferable to the current 16k across the board. The partol I just finished would have been *tight* on fuel.

[CaptainHaplo]

Guys, I hate to throw a wrinkle in here - but you have to remember that you HAVE to deal with averages. Running distance during wartime was always on surface AND sub-surface (except when transitting friendly waters). Then you have to account for when a sub may have to charge batteries vs use propulsion for motion only. And lets not even start taking into account weather and sea state..

When you look at it - your going to have to accept an average. Even were you to just take a sub, fill it up and run it at 10 knots in a straight line - your still not going to get the same results every time. *Although man wouldnt that be fun to get a group together and try - at least for a few hours!*

In reality - the sea state is going to have a huge effect on "mileage", so you have to average.

[Ducimus]

The reality of physics isn't always represented unfortuantley.

[Jmack]

thats why i asked if there was a minimal value ... but anyway i think these values are better than stock , but then again ranges of 20 000 where possible ...

[SgtWalt65]

@tedhealy good point on individual modificaitons. I think one might have to settle for an average or best case scenario.

@Jmack
Good work. Thats a little bit more along the lines of what im looking for, although i woudlnt doubt they're be some variences. Now the trouble is how to convert that to a number usable by the game. (IE MaxRange @ speed format)

:hmm:


edit: Wow, did the sargo really have more fuel then a gato? (generally speaking)

What I woul do would be to try and find out best and worse and set it for say 65-70% between the two leaning towards the better side. Really depends on the Boats Captain and how he sailed her.

[U-Bones]

Observation:

I played a Tambor for 2 Patrols in TM 1.0 and was luckily in port for 1.1.

Assignments: Patrol 3 was Formosa Commando Insertion, Deploy Formosa Sea, Prosecute Shipping. Nice.

Mileage: at start my CE calculated 11200 at 10kt. I ordered 45% throtttle (my std), and that figure shoots up to 13600 at ~9.4kt

I do not believe the range@speed settings used in *.sim are the most efficient settings in game as is commonly thought. They CAN be, but when they are it is co-incidental. I believe that efficiency is directly related to throttle %, such as is used in the *.cfg file. I could be wrong but...

At any rate the max range is actually almost 20% higher, IF you have a good CE ;)
Dunno what you want to do with the info, but there it is for you to consider.

BTW, nice job on 1.1- I am playing with only my keyboard and camera on top. (and sub throttle speeds in the cfg lol - i use them as creep, stationkeeping,maxrange,full & flank .125,.33,.45,.9,1.0). Once you get use to this everything else is a lot of unneccessary dial clicking. Old habits and crutches - with them everything just felt right.

Again, nice job.

[perisher]

Extract from USS Wahoo 5th War Patrol Report :-

15. FUEL OIL EXPENDED
Enroute to Area......................... 8.68 gal. per mile.
In Area................................. 8.53 gal. per mile.
From Area...............................15.80 gal. per mile.


NOTE: Passage to area appears to have been mostly at "2 engine speed"
Passage home appears to have been at "3 engine speed."