I think the appropriate question on soviet doctrine, is what other accounts of documents are available to so them using active sonar at a much higher incident then the West might have or not? If all the sources indicate they did, well then the normal pattern of historical research is to say that they probably did. Now two instances isn't a lot to base anything off of, but if it's all you have it's all you have.
I also don't view it as firing off an emergency flare personally. If I'm in the dark woods being hunted potentially by a wolf (we both have hearing, his is just significantly better then mine), I'm gonna use my flash light. It's the only chance I have. Please not the word potentially, that's the situation when we ambush them. It's wartime there's always a potential threat. A US sub is quieter, it has better passive gear. WTF do you do other then go active? Stay at home and don't fight a war was the historical answer, but beyond not even being there?
I agree that it runs absolutely counter to everything the West has developed about submarine warfare. This is also the country that launched counter attacks in WW2 with every man having a 5 round stripper clip of ammunition, and one in 5 or so having a rifle. The idea being that as men with rifles were shot, those without could pick them up. Losses against results, not a question of the human factor. There is a very different thought process in work due to cultural difference.
I also agree that their current torpedo evasion leads this to be a far more detrimental tactic then it might otherwise be.
-Jenrick
|