[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by vanjast

Hypothetical situation:

One sub on the surface going at 9 knots Std speed, one below the surface at 1 knot, both going west.

A target is coming from north to south and is just out of range of sonar and surface radar. Assuming they both on a long search leg, who's going to pick up the target first - The submerged boat

By the same token, if there was a ship far to the northwest going south - then it's the surfaced boat.

The submerged boat by sonar tracking over about 30-60 minutes track the sourse and speed of the boat, and then plot an intercept solution. Then surface and flank speed to this point, submerge and do the process again.
During this process batteries are charged, using less fuel compared to beating about the ocean.

The surfaced boat spotting the ship, visual or surface radar has to do the same thing.

---------------------------
As you can see, it's about 50/50 and luck also plays a part, and one method is not all together better than the other. But a good skipper who uses a bit of common sense is likely to be the one who scores.

BUT the submerged boat preserves his fuel for the chase/positioning phase where he'll charge his batteries at the same time.
The surfaced boat, has 100% battery power, but will be using fuel at a faster rate.

The end result, is that the submerged boat will be on station longer, therefore possibly account for more ships - you didn't think of this
The surfaced might also possibly account for the same amount of boats in a shorter time period, but ..

Starting Odds approx 50% for either method.
Time on station favours sumerged tactics = Higher contact possibilities.
Damaged/sub sinkings favour submerged tactics = Means Less subs sunk = more subs in the force = more enemy ship sinkings.
----------------------------------------------

It'll be interesting to see if this was even considered by that admiral you keep mentioning. Tell me this doesn't make sense !! (Wait for it )

You are positing odds of finding a single target. Actually your odds must be extended to encompass all the targets on the ocean at any given time, which are, as far as you are concerned and as you agree above, randomly distributed and moving in random directions. Then you take the odds of encountering any one target times the number of targets in the area you search for your total targets developed.

By moving at 9 knots on the surface, you are giving yourself 50% odds (according to your figures) on many many more targets. Suppose submerged you might encounter five targets. You have a 50% chance (according to your figures) on each so you will develop 2.5 targets.

However, on the surface, I have 50% odds on 50 targets and will develop 25 viable targets to shoot at, ten times more.

So there is your own logic extrapolated to the conclusion that you hide. That is why Eugene Fluckey garnered one of the top scores of the war when his career didn't start until the middle of 1944. He alone sank targets at a rate unparalleled by any captain at any point in the war, while fellow skippers playing ostrich returned to port full of torpedoes and finding no targets. You really need to read Thunder Below and remember who took Lockwood's place after the war. Was it because Fluckey used inferior strategy? Was it because he foolishly had several boats shot out from under him? Was it because his strategy was not MUCH more productive than the ostriches?

The answer to all those questions is no. Fluckey revolutionized submarine warfare by following and extending the tactics of Morton, Kane and his own personal hero, Sam Dealey. He believed in aggressively taking the fight to the enemy and that the best defense is to quit fearing for your life and concentrate on making your enemy fear for his.