SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 41 of 45 « First 3137383940 41 42434445
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   Silent Hunter 4: Wolves of the Pacific (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=202)
-   -   Real Submarine Technology & History Q&A (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147577)

harishrajan96 07-28-13 01:21 PM
Did sub commanders during the war prefer attacking a convoy or blasting a lone merchant out of the water ??

fireftr18 07-28-13 09:48 PM
I haven't read any of the books, only seen some of the movies. One thing I'm sure of is that an entanglement with a destroyer, especially a group of destroyers is a losing proposition for the sub. I think in real life any good sub skipper would much rather attack a lone merchant than a convoy using multiple escorts. You have to remember, their crew members were real person's so they're going to be cautious during attacks.
In the game, we know we're actually safe no matter what happens and the crew members are really only code in a computer program. If we get "killed," it's literally nothing more than a message on a computer screen. Knowing that, we will intentionally get much more risky than in real life.

California-781 07-28-13 09:57 PM
I just want to know what is it like serving on a submarine, especially today?

Aramike 07-29-13 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by harishrajan96 (Post 2091929)
Did sub commanders during the war prefer attacking a convoy or blasting a lone merchant out of the water ??
From everything I've read, skippers seemed to prefer finding whatever targets they could get. As such, they'd typical stalk out known sea lanes, and were just happy to find anything to shoot at. In the early war, skippers were somewhat risk-adverse, and were replaced by the more daring types such as Morton and O'Kane.

And those types of captains had absolutely no issue attacking a convoy.

fireftr18 07-30-13 12:04 AM
Were they more daring? Or with knowledge gained had techniques developed that minimized risk? :06:

Aramike 07-31-13 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireftr18 (Post 2092533)
Were they more daring? Or with knowledge gained had techniques developed that minimized risk? :06:
There was certainly more knowledge and refined techniques, but engagements only got riskier. Skippers would do anything to avoid detection during an approach, and they seemed to relish the 1k-1.5k yards shot. From that distance, there's practically no way that escorting destroyers wouldn't get a decent bead on them after torpedo impact.

Bear in mind that the Mk 14 had a much, much greater range.

Bubblehead1980 07-31-13 07:18 PM
Some were aggressive and risk takers, such as CO of USS Harder who liked to fight it out with Destroyers, with much success.Others were far too cautious and fearful. Some of the uber aggressive one's lived, some did not.Some of the cautious one's managed to sink a few(blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while) some did not and were relieved.The most successful skippers seemed to be those who had the proper balance.Slade Cutter comes to mind, super aggressive yet cautious and when realized he had growing contempt for IJN escorts, he planned to asked for a rest, but his division commander recognized this and had orders made for new construction after four highly successful patrols.Cutter's predecessor, was over cautious and relieved after one command due to inability to sink anything in a hot area.

Sure, there is no real danger in this sim so some may be super aggressive even to the point of being reckless, but I will say, with full realism on(no external cam, contacts off sometimes) and as escorts get tougher, with all the time you invest in playing just one patrol, let a lone a career, i know some of us(myself included) tend to operate in an aggressive yet cautious manner.

grislyatoms 08-02-13 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorpX (Post 2056793)
I can't tell you as much as I would like, but I can give you a few hints.

First off, references give the warhead weight, but rarely say anything about the actual charge. I suspect the warhead wt. includes the casing, and perhaps the exploder as well.

As far as the explosives is concerned, I know the US used TNT at first, then adopted Torpex. I believe the IJN used picric acid or something based on it. I don't know much about Hexonite. I wouldn't give too much weight to explosive energy per kilogram. I don't think this correlates well with "effectiveness". Explosives were tested in various ways, and their suitability for a purpose was likely to be decided by a combination of factors. For instance, the detonation velocity, correlates well with the "shattering effect", where hull plates (or whatever) would be broken apart.

I found this list of some explosives on Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...iveness_factor

Torpex wasn't on the list, but I've read that it was considered about 50% more effective than TNT.

By the way, I should note, some gamers use damage models, where a 100x charge is only does 10x more damage. (I consider this dubious when talking about ship hulls.) The overall model is obviously very important here.
Was reading Wahoo's patrol logs the other day - Mush, for one, much preferred Torpex. He wrote that TNT didn't have the same "whacking" (his term) effect as Torpex. Something to do with the aluminized filler and the length of the detonation pulse/detonation velocity, as you mentioned.

TorpX 08-02-13 09:31 PM
Yes, they certainly thought Torpex was more powerful. I don't know the details of how it was tested, but I believe the UK conducted tests with charges detonated near scaled down "hull" sections underwater to ascertain it's effectiveness.

In terms of the chemistry, the aluminum is added because it has a high heat of combustion, and is used in other explosives, so it is not unusual. There were safety concerns about Torpex, but the UK used it in bombs, and I think it was shown to be a worthwhile improvement. The books I've read are very vague about just when torpedo warheads started using Torpex, or how heavy a charge they used.

Rammstein0991 09-16-13 08:39 AM
As an earlier post pointed out DD's=death to a U boot/Fleet Boat. Some would say "Oh but attacking lone merchants is no challenge", and in the game this may be true but you must consider in real life they didnt care if it was challenging or not, all they wanted was to go out, sink some ships, and make it back to their families alive, if this meant sinking unescorted lone merchants or raiding harbors and hitting them at anchor if escorts were absent there, so be it. They were more concerned about surviving to fight the war and get back home than showing how daring they were by hitting heavily escorted convoys.

Aktungbby 09-16-13 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pvt. Public (Post 1036798)
how well could a sub mask its signature if it sat as close to the bottom as possible in water shallow enough? i understand that a sandy bottom wouldnt echo, but what if its really rocky? and somewhat related, has a submarine ever settled on the bottom to avoid detection?
Belatedly admittingly: From Hitler's Uboat War vol II, at least one Mediterranean U-boat "lay doggo" on the bottom during a depth charge attack. Never works for me in SH's though!:Kaleun_Sleep:

Aktungbby 09-16-13 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bathrone (Post 2046500)
This is a great thread and sincere thanks for everyone who contributed to the information. I read it all in one hit, fascinating

The thing that has crossed my mind more than once is what the submariners were expected to do with their adult urges? 80 days with no women! :D I guess atleast in port it would help the lesser desirable women to pickup a hot sailor date as I cant say I'd have any sort of standards left from 80 days without :arrgh!: Does she have a heartbeat? CHECK! Prepare to dive!

I wonder if it would be possible for people who've been on subs in a navy to talk about these issues in a way that doesnt attract the moderators wrath? From a tactical sense I seriously submit that the lack of sex in young males could have tactical drawbacks to their performance in operations.

The other issue I could see coming out of all this, is say young sailor has his liberty and runs a mock in the pubs, is too drunk to hookup a local woman, gets coerced by a local prostitute and he goes with that, when he manages to stumble his way back to the boat he's now got a sexually transmitted disease that will effect his performance on operations

For some reason it seems never to get discussed in submarine books that I've seen
Obviously, your not subsimming hard enough! :Kaleun_Salivating:

Aktungbby 09-16-13 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammstein0991 (Post 2115228)
As an earlier post pointed out DD's=death to a U boot/Fleet Boat. Some would say "Oh but attacking lone merchants is no challenge", and in the game this may be true but you must consider in real life they didnt care if it was challenging or not, all they wanted was to go out, sink some ships, and make it back to their families alive, if this meant sinking unescorted lone merchants or raiding harbors and hitting them at anchor if escorts were absent there, so be it. They were more concerned about surviving to fight the war and get back home than showing how daring they were by hitting heavily escorted convoys.
Acquaint yourself with the treatise on the 'OODA loop' by which doctrine we have oriented our combat tactics in the modern age. Originally developed for aircraft combat, it applies to subs as well since, in sense, they are flying in a multi-dimensional element as well. Observe, Orientate, Decide, Act: favors the lone ship attack as the sub is inside the target's OODA loop generally observing first ,stealth and superior speed etc. when attacking the convoy the OODA situation is or rapidly becomes reversed and multiple communicating escorts will have "U" in THEIR OODA loop. Challenges are to be avoided, as in all combat 'equallness' is to be avoided in favor of cold-blooded execution. After the Iraq war, a military commentator noted "we got inside their loop" he was referring to OODA. As U-boat warfare is essentially UNALIGNED warfare (sea guerilla) against a superior enemy, and really with only WWI's technology and a compromised enigma, high-centimetric radar,DFing and sonar have obviated the guerilla's subterfuge and stealth advantage, single vessels ARE the preferred target. :Kaleun_Salute:

Nuc 10-09-13 05:29 AM
Post war diesel boats
 
For those interested see my post here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...85#post2125585

Platapus 10-11-13 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokisaga (Post 2054704)
Hi all,
I'm wondering if someone can tell me a little bit about the warheads used in German and American torpedoes during WWII. Specifically, I'm wondering what the explosive power of Hexanite (the Kriegsmarine explosive of choice) and Torpex (USN) is in joules per kilogram. I'm trying to determine a standard frame of reference for comparing USN and Kreigsmarine torpedoes from this era.

Thanks
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...3&postcount=12

We had a discussion about this on this thread. There might be some information useful to you there.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 PM.
Page 41 of 45 « First 3137383940 41 42434445
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.