Why do people still believe the Alfa has an operating depth of 700-800m ?
 

The title says it all.

The modders of DWX sustain that the operating depth of the Alfa is around 600m. The decision has caused great havoc in the italian forum where most players can't accept this fact. They cite janes publications as a source that states that the Alfa can go way below 600m. Even Lwami uses this estimate.

Now in a recent american book, Cold War Submarines which I happen to have; at page 281 the author Norman Polmar states that :

So it seems the modders estimate of the Alfa's depth is correct.

The question I ask is therefore, why are important publications such as jane's still continuing the myth of the Alfa's depth ?
The Mike an early 80's sub could go down to 1000m as stated in Cold War Submarines;but certainly not the Alfa which was a first generation titanium hull submarine made a decade earlier.

But in DWX the alpha could only go down to 450m:O: or am I mistaken

Precise 441m
it's a reasonable figure, I think.

441 YARDS - but no meters.

The exact maximal depth - no more than 500 meters is now known.
Notwithstanding what the titanium hull - he thin enough.

800 meters and more - it bluff of "Cold War".

What about that cold war story where the alfa ran at flank speed under a NATO battle group exercise so deep that no weapon could harm it?


I thought that incident sparked the development of ADCAP? Or is that just another American tale to justify vast American tax dollars put into deep diving torpedo research and development?

I think its the second thing you said.
During the cold war the american establishment mis estimanted many things in the soviet armed forces.
For instance the so-called "missile gap" during the late 50's early 60's that documents after the cold war proved that there had never been a soviet missile gap in the first place. But at the time the US went ahead in the creation of hundreds of icbms and then later nuclear ssbns.
And like this on many occasions americans misjudged soviet military capability (sometimes over estimated, other times underestimated). I'm pretty sure the same thing happened on the other side as well. Paranoia wasn't confined to the east or to the west. They both shared it.

Edit : as for the NATO exercise, maybe it was not so much a question of how deep the sub was going as a question of how "look at that speed." !!!
I mean up to that time, no submarine could even approach 40 knots, and you have the Alfa that suddenly can go easily over 40 knots ? That bit of info must have shaken pretty bad the americans, and their asw torpedo which I think were not geared to chase sub going over 40 knots. When you want money generally you "exagerate" the situation, so 2 bad things (top speed and great depth) are more easy to sell than just one bad thing (top speed). There you have a big bad soviet sub that no western navy can match = $$$$$ for defense research and the myth is born. ^_^

Oh sheesh, a depth ... that's one of the easy things to change in DW - just a number in the database.

The idea that Alfa can't dive to 3000 feet after all only came AFTER the Cold War, when the Russians revealed that Alfa had an "working (рабочая) depth" in the region of 350m and a "maximum (предельная) depth" in the region of 400m. The West went ... if the Russians admit something negative, it must be true...

However, do note that they never actually said crush depth. And if anything, Russian concepts of "working" and even "maximum" seem to be pretty conservative, at least as conservative as the American "test depth". The Akula's "working" depth for example is quoted at somewhere between 400-480m, its maximum from 520-600m. Meanwhile, its test depth, according to Forecast International & Polmar, is 600m (a reasonable conclusion considering that it is supposed to be using ~HY140 equiv steel - do the math on 100kg/mm^2), and its crush (the definition that probably has the highest conformity everywhere), according to Forecast International is 900.

And then we have those observations, from which the whole 3000 feet is in the first place, agreed on by both Americans and Russians like Kolyada who have commanded the sub. Unless you can discredit the observation, theory NEVER beats observation... it is one of the reasons why the 40-knot carrier myth still runs amok...

Personally, I think the answer is in a grain of truth in Stuart Slade's rather one sided appraisal of the class (originally in Warships1.com, still on Archives)
I figured what happened is that the Russians wound up writing the depth specification shallow so as to retain a margin in case of loss of control of the diving planes at high speed. Of course, submarine commanders quickly found out about the margin, and used it for their own tactical ends.

By the way, there are various factors, not just the "tech-gen" of the sub that defines its diving abilities. Further, according to Polmar it is the same 48-OT3V alloy used on both boats, though techniques have improved with the 3rd gen to ease the whole process of welding everything together.