All countries (Russia, USA, UK) had nuclear submarines accidents but most loses were on russian/soviet side. I don't care about reasons.
If russians subs have that high standards for survivability, why they have much more loses than any other country?
Quote:
|
That desighn standard implies that if hit by a lightweight torpedo that would flood one compartment would allow a Soviet patern submarine (with exceptions) survive while would lead to a certain death of a USN patern submarine
|
I think that is still dangerous because flooded compartment is not equal "destroyed" compartment. And why you are so sure that LWT can destroy
only one compartment?
Kursk was one of the biggest sub in the world with greatest bouyancy reserve and theoretically should survive that explossion. The main problem is word "therotically".
In this topic main problem is 45% of damages on Akula III class from explosion of 210 kg from 120-180 yds. Because in DW you can still run your sub with 99% damages i think this is NOT overall "health". In my opinion 100% of damages means "bouyancy reserve" is
exceeded (no matter how many compartments are flooded) and you can't longer control your boat.
Quote:
|
in mind after install RA mod 1.41, of enemy subs using Shkval torpedoes with nuke warheads
|
I think it is not true. Nuke warhead would be much more destructive to your Akula III from 120-180 yds. 45% of damage is not "massive".