The idea that a torpedo would somehow OUTRUN the shockwave of an underwater detonation is patently false, and defies physics.

Oscillations in the pressure wave? Why would this matter after the first shattering wavefront? How would this make an explosion LESS deadly? Underwater explosions are actually LEAST deadly near the surface! There, the blast gets directed towards the air! And additionally there is the least pressure against a hull-form at shallow depths, giving it MORE resistance to an explosion.

The pressure wave of an explosion travels at 1500m/s underwater. (Speed of sound in water.)

Here, just read this...

http://www.underwaternoise.org.uk/no...explosives.htm

As for the 2000lb mine killing EVERYTHING within 2nm, I think he's talking in the game. I do know they will kill torpedoes IN THE GAME.

Really all I'm hearing is a bunch of naysaying, and nobody is decisively able to defeat what evidence I've posited. The most I will grant you is that this is an unknown, and deserves better scrutiny.

The idea that these torpedoes are hardened to explosions (other than fuzing) doesn't seem supported by any evidence at all. I've never heard of torpedoes undergoing explosion trials, unlike subs and ships, which do.

I don't think anyone's done this, and if they have, they've kept it bottled up.

It is logical that they would be vulnerable, the question is HOW vulnerable.

Food for thought.

Give us some ease. This is a field where no one are experts, and no one BUT the experts may conclude this or that. There isn't much naysaying going on, just a bit of swimming around and poking at "What if?"s and "Maybe it's not"s. No one is standing on their back legs against'cha.
As for killing within 2nm, that's not in the game. A 1,000 kg heavy mine will not make other mines go kasploom, not the ones I saw that were about three hundred feet from each other.
What proof you have yet to show, is that it's reasonable to consider the torpedo's onboard electronics as as fragile and vulnerable as you want it to. Again, that information could only, and may not in our lifetime, be given by the very right people. Until we know better, it's only sensible to let things be as they are.

OK. Anti torp torps...how long till someone comes up with anti, anti torp torps?

IF and its a big if we can shoot down adcaps then ok.

To me and my humble opinion....why bother. When you fire a torp you comprimise your postition.

So make it a sub killer rather than a torp killier. Otherwist your just surrendering the intitative to your opponent again?

The best form of defense is offense right?

What I said about the 2000lb mine, is based on my own experience in the game. I've seen it happen, and unfortunately it took out just about the whole minefield I had placed in the path of the enemy ships. And that on a 'forerunner'.

The reason? The attack strength / hitpoints field is combined, meaning that weapons have 1 hitpoint. Anything goes off near them = goodbye. (Also the reason the 0.50s are not that bad against missiles...)

I guess you're right about the shkval, as most torpedoes have MAD SL set to zero. (Quick check found two exceptions, with signatures set to the size of subs! Argh, DWX already!)

The point of anti torp weapons, is that hard kills are that much more certain. Even if I like chaffing missiles, I prefer shooting them down with my own SM-2s. As for now, there IS such a weapon in our arsenals - the mines. Esp against active torps. However, they currently do their work the same way as countermeasures do - by providing a false target to kill instead.

>To me and my humble opinion....why bother. When you fire a torp you comprimise your postition.

When you are fired at, we can safely assume your position is known.

>So make it a sub killer rather than a torp killier. Otherwist your just surrendering the intitative to your opponent again?

Who said anything about firing only torp killers?

What if you have a high value submarine like a Boomer? Killing the enemy might be less important than preserving its self. Having a cache of defensive torpedoes would be a assets to a sub like a Boomer.

Ummm... what evidence? Any photos (besides that grainy little one in the webpage you linked to - which, by the way, confirms the oscillation I mentioned?) Animations? Videos? Any real numbers for us to sink our teeth into? Or just a bunch of barely supported hot air?

You will grant us? Wow, that's very magnanimous of you :lol:


A somewhat-deeper-than-cursory scan of the thread will show that nobody mentioned anything about trying to outrun a shockwave from a detonation prior to this mention...

Why, yes! From the very link you posted:

Got any figures on how far that shattering wavefront travels for a given quantity of a given explosive for a detonation at a given depth? Or for what distance it retains that "shattering" characteristic? Seems to me, that's the magic number we're looking for... how far away does one torpedo have to be from another to be safe (i.e. still capable of performing its mission) if one of them detonates?

I don't recall anyone mentioning that it would, or even implying the same.

The naysaying you hear is the open discussion and speculation that we all engage in here, over a variety of topics. Not many of us are experts in these hobbies we hold so dear (though some of us have more knowledge and experience in these things than others), so cut us a break. You imply that we haven't proven you wrong, when you haven't proven yourself right. Why don't you go ask the Navy for about 100lbs of PBXN-103 and stage a test, then come back with the results :P

TG

Yeah, we're both pretty much arguing from ignorance. And butting heads besides.

To really decide this, we need to know the construction of the torps, as well as the strength of the pressure wave at depth.

Anyone know how thick the skin of a Mk48 ADCAP is?

Naval weapons engineering:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/...ns/uw_wpns.htm

Caseck - First let me congratulate you on your change of avator - hope that the Administrators in the
Control Box were'nt sending you a message with that "Shore Leave' one. :)

Some folks just enjoy beeing macho but to spectators it simply looks like 'Stag Rutting'

In another thread you congratulate, I hope sincerely, those ex-naval types for their clam-like secrecy.
Then you provoke/tease out responses in areas which some may consider 'delicate'

Not sure where you are coming from but you sure got a 'Thick skin'

That's why I considered the above comment about the ADCAP a joke. I figured this thread was done, and certainly didn't expect a reply.

Let me explain:

I actually started that other thread AFTER this one, simply because I realized there IS so little info to work off of, and it occured to me that it wasn't because nobody's done these things, but simply because nobody is going to talk about it! There isn't any way we are going to come up with real facts on this, it's all classified, or nobody is talking about it!

In a way that's cool though, because it really leaves us in a position where we are free to guess at what these capabilities actually could be, rather than being tied to a historical or known capabilities. (Because there really are few hard facts!)

I hope that clarifies the two perspectives I seem to have on this stuff. I'm not really irrational! It's just my perspective has changed from one of being frustrated about the lack of info. At first I thought this was due to institutional lack of creativity, that this data didn't even EXIST, and that nobody had even TRIED to do this stuff, but now I understand WHY there is this lack of info, and I really respect that. It's just amazing that this stuff is locked up that tight! I mean, effectively since WWII, we really don't know ANYTHING new factwise about what submarines can do! That's crazy!

I thought the shore leave avatar was pretty funny actually.

I hope that settles things. No hard feelings.

This is the trademark of any kind of military simulation games.
Even Falcon 4 the best military flight sim has a lot of info classified, even the real flight model is classified so what ?
Unless you are a real fighter pilot on the F-16 you won't mind if the data in the simulation is not "real enough" and this doesn't take the fun away despite what a lot of whinners on the falcon forums go saying.
The same goes for sub sims, how much realism can you get when all the info is classified ? Only the people who served on boomers or attack submarines can notice the difference between real facts and what is depicted in the simulation (and they are of course not at liberty to discuss it).
In any case this lack of info doesn't take the fun away so relax and enjoy being a virtual skipper :|\

That's a good example of how different this stuff is.

Because with an F16, there are far more knowns than unknowns. Yeah, it's got some spicy electronics we don't know about, and of course some of it's weapons have never been made public, but we know how fast it is, roughly how many G's it can pull. We know A LOT about it.

But, you can't say, go to Pakistan and find an old Permit class, and find out what it could do. How deep it could dive. How fast it could really go. How good was it? They're all gone, and nothing about them was ever declassified! Heck, I think stuff about Nautilus (SSN-571) is just NOW being declassed! And only some of it! And only because it's sitting there as a floating museum!

It's like some kind of fricken' "Secret History" or something!

With Navy subs, it's more unknowns than knowns.

Fertile ground for the imagination, but strange ground for sub sims!

Which is why I can say. "Why CAN'T a torp sink another torp?" And bring this thread full circle, and to a close.

*HUUUUUUURGHL. CCCCCCCCRUGH.* I swallowed a bloody fly. 'Neway.
Effectively, with a lack of information, the game developers are forced to use a little bit of fantasy. That only adds to the fun, at least in this case.
:up:

Well, for underwater detonations, a lot of test and theoretical information is available. You could have a look at, for example, AMCP 706-180 Engineering Design Handbook, Principles of explosive behavior, US Army Materiel command, April 1972. More recent, Numerical Modeling of Explosives and Propellants, 2nd ed., Charles Mader, CRC Press. Both have sections dedicated to this subject. However, they do not include simple look-up tables. They contain the needed information to calculate them, combined with some experimental data. The second book even includes the computer models. If you're good with mathematics, computer programming, and don't know what to do with your time for a week or two, give it a try ;)

Stuff you aren't as likely to find in a library, and expensive, but there's more out there:
http://www.stormingmedia.us/keywords...xplosions.html
Some of those look like they might apply here.

Of course, it would be useless without also knowing the damage resistance of torpedoes, and that involves a lot more than just skin thickness.

For F-16 flight models, everything isn't public, but there is at least one book that includes a lot of data on it as an example system.
http://www10.pair.com/jsalvati/resources.htm

A little of topic but it was mentioned someware in a earlier post.
In GAME mines detonating close to other mines then set of those mines. Well i dont actually know if the explosion is detonating the mines near by or destroying them. but all mines within about 2nm or more somtimes disapear and you get multible warninhgs in game that a mine has detonated near by. with this i am guessing that they are being detonated. I have the map i used to test this some time ago if any one is interested send me an email.

Further off-topic but 'proximity' related -

Often observed in SC replay post MP that a torp would explode well over 600 yards from a target sub and destroy it.
Checked with others at the time and it was felt that this was either 'just replay viewer related' or might just be 'realistic'
It was confirmed that the Mk48 did not have a proximity fuse in the game.

Anyone experiencing any anomalies in DW MP ?

The impact on the object from the pressure wave is related to size and shape of the object and the distance from the point of origin. Most anti subamrine charges are shaped, like HEAT and will have different explosive compounds than their anti-ship convetional (gas generating type) to brake the bow. Proximity fuzes are easily tricked into going off prematurely or not at all.

They very likely can - at the very least, I've seen a Mk.46 Mod 5 AS(W) track a Mk.48 ADCAP on more than one occasion. In real life.

And at least one of those situations was ruled a kill, although whether a 46 could actually kill an ADCAP, rather than just make passes on it, I dunno.