Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Bellman
 Rip - ''The baffle is less than 120 degrees''
How much less ? - lot of room down to our DW 60 deg.
Rip -''The depth change data is fairly accurate''
Which data - Greenville trans. or mine from 688 DW ?
Marconi - ''The depth change performance in DW isn't unrealistic, it's dreadful.''
You arent telling me surely that the 688 in DW taking a minute to level out over 20 ft is accurate ?
When the transcript shows the 688 takes '' a minute or so '' to go from 150 ft to Peri. depth !
One assumes that means arrive at periscope deployment depth level and ready to deploy the peri.
I dont think there can be much room for lack of knowledge -
''You would be suprised how much technical details these guys don't know.''
 If these areas are 'sensitive' then I can understand and appreciate the need to 'muddy the waters'
and also the need to inaccurately simulate. But I cant imagine that these are such areas of concern. |
I think the words "unofficial transcript" say a lot... but think about what the Greenville was doing when she struck that boat. She was doing an emergency blow demonstration. Now, I am assuming that there was a mistake made in the original quote when it was mentioned that
"the sub was at 50 ft and 10 knots prior to going to periscope depth (DW 63 ft) it took he said 'a minute or so'" when it was later mentioned that
"the transcript shows the 688 takes 'a minute or so' to go from 150 ft to Peri. depth !" A transit from 150 to the surface using emergency blow would be
fast... less than a minute, especially if the boat was doing 10kts.
If the transit was
not using emergency blow, but was using normal planes/speed to work up to PD from 150, that transit usually does take 2 minutes or so at 5 knots (dependent on the sea state, and the technique and experience of the entire ship control party), and would be expected to take less time at 10kt, but perhaps the diving officer was using conservative plane angles to so as not to broach the ship. Besides, I find it hard to believe that they were going to PD at 10 knots. That speed exceeds the safety limits for the masts.
As far as the quote from Marconi, Bill Nichols has been around here a long time and was, IIRC, a Chief of the Watch AND a DOOW, and I have never known him to complain vociferously about the ship control performance in SC or DW. If it's wildly inaccurate, he'd be the one I'd expect to hear pitching a fit (although, on second thought, I've never known Bill to pitch a fit either...).
Anyway, DW is not primarily a ship-control simulator, just as it's not a flight sim.
TG