SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 6 of 24 « First 2345 6 7891016 Last »
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   Dangerous Waters (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=181)
-   -   Requests for Upcoming LWAMI Patch (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=121071)

Molon Labe 11-09-07 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Most US Ships have kevlar armor added to superstructure. So they probably should have a few HPs added above the standard for their displacement.

Spruances have Halon 1301 fire fighting system so it should get a few points added.

aluminium hulled ships like the Type 21, OHP (although the highly trained USN damaged control teams make this less of an issue on the US OHPs) should get some points deducted.


OHP has an unusual hull layout making damage more critical (if you can't get to a damage system because of the single main hull damage can be more of a problem.) On the other hand ships like the Burke DDGs and most others have a ballanced layout (corrdors on both sides of the hull mean if you have heavy damage on the port side you can go the long way using the starboard corrdor) so they should get a few points added.


Yikes those OHPs really got a lot against them! Just go to show how much the US Navy took the lessons learned by the British in the Falkands to heart. Which brings me to another point that ships crew by nations that have crews trained to a lower standard should get a few points off. A 3rd world ship manned by mostly conscripts wouldn't take as many hits to sink compared to the same ship manned by a Western or good Eastern Bloc crew because a less trained crew can't handle fires as well or is more likly to panic.

Oh and we should add a Operation Praying Mantis era Iranian Alvad FF and Kaman PTGs with their Sea Killer and Harpoon missiles. :up: They would go great with the Strait of Hormuz base map I'm working on. :rock:
If we've got solid data on the materials, tweaks could be made.
The Alvad is definitely already in the sim. I think the Kaman is too but under a diferent name and with Exocets instead of harpoons. Nothing wrong with fixing that.

TLAM Strike 11-09-07 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Oh and we should add a Operation Praying Mantis era Iranian Alvad FF and Kaman PTGs with their Sea Killer and Harpoon missiles. :up: They would go great with the Strait of Hormuz base map I'm working on. :rock:
If we've got solid data on the materials, tweaks could be made.
The Alvad is definitely already in the sim. I think the Kaman is too but under a diferent name and with Exocets instead of harpoons. Nothing wrong with fixing that.
the Kaman is the French built Iranian patrol boats La Combat-something or other. Today thy got C-801 missiles in place of the harpoons they had and fired (IIRC) in Praying Mantis. :know:

Reaper51 11-09-07 06:13 PM
Two other things that I find annoying:

1. When at "all stop" the screw continues to turn.
2. When at "all stop" the engine noise can still be heard.

:up:

Molon Labe 11-09-07 07:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Oh and we should add a Operation Praying Mantis era Iranian Alvad FF and Kaman PTGs with their Sea Killer and Harpoon missiles. :up: They would go great with the Strait of Hormuz base map I'm working on. :rock:
If we've got solid data on the materials, tweaks could be made.
The Alvad is definitely already in the sim. I think the Kaman is too but under a diferent name and with Exocets instead of harpoons. Nothing wrong with fixing that.
the Kaman is the French built Iranian patrol boats La Combat-something or other. Today thy got C-801 missiles in place of the harpoons they had and fired (IIRC) in Praying Mantis. :know:
Fired an missed. Suckers! That was the guy who ended up eating the 6 or so SM-1s and -2s.

TLAM Strike 11-10-07 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reaper51
Two other things that I find annoying:

1. When at "all stop" the screw continues to turn.
2. When at "all stop" the engine noise can still be heard.

:up:
The screws on subs keep turning because they need to keep the shaft and shaft seal lubed otherwise the seal will get brittle and crack which could lead to the sinking of the sub.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Oh and we should add a Operation Praying Mantis era Iranian Alvad FF and Kaman PTGs with their Sea Killer and Harpoon missiles. :up: They would go great with the Strait of Hormuz base map I'm working on. :rock:
If we've got solid data on the materials, tweaks could be made.
The Alvad is definitely already in the sim. I think the Kaman is too but under a diferent name and with Exocets instead of harpoons. Nothing wrong with fixing that.
the Kaman is the French built Iranian patrol boats La Combat-something or other. Today thy got C-801 missiles in place of the harpoons they had and fired (IIRC) in Praying Mantis. :know:
Fired an missed. Suckers! That was the guy who ended up eating the 6 or so SM-1s and -2s.
6, four from frigate Simpson and two from the Cruiser Wainwright. A poon from the Bangly was fired whiched missed. All this didn't sink the Joshan just disabled her, those three ships subsquently sunk her with gunfire.

The Iranian frigate sunk in that battle was hit by up to three harpoons and four skipper bombs after it had the nerve to pop off a couple of SAMs at some USN A-6s. Another FF was damaged when it tried the same stunt- it was only hit by a single bomb. :know:

Reaper51 11-10-07 09:52 PM
Quote:
The screws on subs keep turning because they need to keep the shaft and shaft seal lubed otherwise the seal will get brittle and crack which could lead to the sinking of the sub.
Ah ok thanks, it makes sense now.

:up:

Bellman 11-11-07 05:06 AM
Just 'reporting-in' - standing ready to support the 'next' LwAmi patch.

Edit: Update. AIS coverage query withdrawn. :know:

TLAM Strike 11-11-07 03:08 PM
Contact and Moored mines should have their warheads increased to something approaching 400-450 DP. These mines in DW are ment to be the type used by Iran in the 1980's (The contact ones are ment to be the ones found on the Iran Ajar which were Soviet M-08s). Most sources say the Samuel B. Roberts was "almost blown in half" or "Nearly sunk" and had to be towed to Dubai. So with the OHPs HP at 500 a HP of 450 should come close to disabling one.


More ships to research for damage info:

al-Rekkahre AKA U.S. tanker Bridgeton- Struck Iranian mine, damaged.

MV Sea Isle City, a reflagged Kuwaiti oil tanker- attacked with Silkworm missile, damaged.

Both these ships suffered only minamal damage due to their double hull construction. Bridgeton limped out of the Gulf under the escort of US warships and Sea Isle City was patched up and on her way in a few days.

Imamar 11-15-07 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
@TLAM; revisiting the IR acquisition issue, I just watched a clip from an F-16 over Iraq where they were bombing a truckload of insurgents. The film was of the view from the targeting pod for the LGBs, which is an IR sensor.... you could see the pilot slew the crosshairs over the target and attempt to lock it on, but the pod would not lock. As the aircraft passed overhead, the pilot had to manually keep the crosshairs on the target until impact. The truck was out in the open; nothing to obscure it.
Intresting. I wonder if the operator couldn't just mark the general area with the sight and have the system's gryo keep it locked on to that exact spot.

This really isn't an issue with the hellfires as they are laser guided and there is not FLIR style targeting system for the Seahawks.

As for the Mav I wonder if the Navy used the laser guided verson at all. If yes we can just say were using LGMs for small targets and IR for the big guys. :hmm:
The targeting pod is automatically ground stabilized, but that didn't do him any good because the truck was moving at the time the bombs were fallling. I think he did a pretty good job, manually steering those LGBs to what appeared to be about 6 inches behind the bumper of a moving target!

The Navy's Maverick is the F model, which is IR guided. The USMC uses a the E model, which is laser guided, but its warhead is only approprate for smaller targets like tanks and such, clearly meant for the close air support role; it's not the sort of thing that would find its way onto a P-3.





@Luftwolf
*All this talk about masts in the other thread got me thinking... objects attached to objects aren't visible in the 3D world, but "effects" obviously are, even showing up on the 3D view when Truth is disabled. Would it be possible to add masts and/or wakes as effects? Hell, even just the wake would get the job done.


*Add SA-7 to Pillbox. ;)

Ya cant point track moving targets, ya have to manually area track.. If ya r point tracking bombs are falling way off.. :D

Gorshkov 11-15-07 06:42 PM
I got an idea to create some historical but real LWAMI mod covered 1970s or 1980s. My proposition is based on assumption there was some qualitative balance between Soviet and Western torpedoes in that period excluding American Mk-48, wasn't it?

Gorshkov 11-21-07 02:19 AM
Hi, Molon!

Your new damage model is a crap. You forgot to include missile's remaining fuel detonation in overall explosion effect!

Molon Labe 11-21-07 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorshkov
Hi, Molon!

Your new damage model is a crap. You forgot to include missile's remaining fuel detonation in overall explosion effect!
I didnt forget to. I just don't think there is a way variable damage can be done with the database. If you're aware of a way to do it, please share and I'll be happy to make the revision.

Gorshkov 11-21-07 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorshkov
Hi, Molon!

Your new damage model is a crap. You forgot to include missile's remaining fuel detonation in overall explosion effect!
I didnt forget to. I just don't think there is a way variable damage can be done with the database. If you're aware of a way to do it, please share and I'll be happy to make the revision.
It is simple!
You must enlarge payload of all ASCM warheads by factor equals to fuel's explosion TNT equivalent.

Molon Labe 11-22-07 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorshkov
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorshkov
Hi, Molon!

Your new damage model is a crap. You forgot to include missile's remaining fuel detonation in overall explosion effect!
I didnt forget to. I just don't think there is a way variable damage can be done with the database. If you're aware of a way to do it, please share and I'll be happy to make the revision.
It is simple!
You must enlarge payload of all ASCM warheads by factor equals to fuel's explosion TNT equivalent.
I can only enter a numeric value into the database field for 'damage.' KE + warhead gives me a value I can enter. If warhead = [warhead mass] + [fuel-TNT coefficient]*[m] where m is the mass of fuel on board at the time of impact, there is nothing I can enter. There is no way for the database to know what to do with the variable m.

Since there is no way to account for onboard fuel (or any other variable) in with the database architecture, the only thing that can be done is to enlarge the amount of damage done by the factors that we can account for. The method I used did exactly that.

Gorshkov 11-22-07 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
I can only enter a numeric value into the database field for 'damage.' KE + warhead gives me a value I can enter. If warhead = [warhead mass] + [fuel-TNT coefficient]*[m] where m is the mass of fuel on board at the time of impact, there is nothing I can enter. There is no way for the database to know what to do with the variable m.

Since there is no way to account for onboard fuel (or any other variable) in with the database architecture, the only thing that can be done is to enlarge the amount of damage done by the factors that we can account for. The method I used did exactly that.
Too primitive database engine!

So you must add three variables for each ASCM to calculate missile damage: kinetic enegry + warhead's TNT + TNT equivalent of remaining fuel for median of missile's maximum range. Of course, calculating fuel consumption for each ASCM will be difficult, so you must find some good sources and formulas to do that.

However if successful, it should be enough!

I underline these insufficiency in your calculations because remaining fuel is forgotten but often a key factor of ASCM damage capabilities. Note that even small Exocet misslie was able to sink British destroyer without warhead's detonation due to fire ignited by its fuel. Compare primitive Exocet "gnome" with some of the Soviet liquid-fueled giant ASCMs like Shaddock, Sandbox, Shipwreck (sole ramjet powered), Kitchen or Kelt in this aspect! I am afraid one Sandbox hit (a ton of TNT plus huge but unknown amount of fuel) could destroy US supercarrier, buddy...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:55 PM.
Page 6 of 24 « First 2345 6 7891016 Last »
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.