Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bandit
I understand that shark-bites were also a problem.
|
And still is. When I worked at IMF in Bangor, WA, I worked in the TA shop, and there is still (best of my knowledge) a collection of shark teeth that have been pulled from TB-16 arrays over the years. They sometimes still come home with arrays that have been torn to shreds.
Quote:
|
One thing I would propose though, because I think it would make for a great addition to the game, at the initial "contact encounter" screen before the battle starts (where you can choose to close range and what not) I think that it would be good if we could pick the state of the TA here (streamed or stowed) as well as being told about the depth under the keel to help you make your decision.
|
This makes sense to me... or barring that, set up the scenarios to ensure adequate depth for the TA droop (assuming that they are modeling that) to keep it off the bottom of any problem you may be in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julhelm
US Submarines since 1945 states that the reason the USN went for the retractable design was experience with the clip-ons getting damaged by extended high-speed runs (such as transiting the Pacific) and particularily shark bites.
|
My experience with the 'clip-on' array was fairly limited... for obvious reasons, we didn't like to put that thing out. The risk in both deployment and retrieval was not insignificant. By the time I hit my second OHIO, they were all but already gone and replaced by inboard TB-23 deployment systems, so I can't really speak to how well those systems handled high speed ops, just the ones in use for the '16 and '23.
And yes. Shark bites are, were, and will likely always be a problem with Towed Arrays.