LOL... is this realistic??

[Whistler]

Hey I'm new to DW and not a big expert on naval technology... Anyway I was fooling around with the Kilo in a mission where your objective is to sneak into a US carrier group and sink a Nimitz class.

I got inside the group, ID'd the carrier, and let loose with 3 torpedos, then hitailed it out of there. 2 of the torps hit the carrier and one went off to hit a escort. The carrier just sat there burning with like 75% damage IIRC.

Anyway as I was getting away I turned on show truth just to observe how the AI reacts to my attack. There were helos all over the place dropping buoys etc, and one of them dropped a torpedo into the area where I had launched my attack from.

Anyway, the torpedo went in circles for a bit looking for me, then targetted and SANK the Nimitz! Is that something that would happen in real life or just an AI goof?

[goldorak]

To be honest in real life I seriously doubt that the helicopters would drop torpedos in the middle of the formation.
It doesn't make sense (cause they could sink there own ships).
First they would prosecute a contact and only when they have a fix they would fire torpedos makeing sure they don't acquire friendly ships.
So in the end, yeah the ai is too much zelous. :rotfl::rotfl:

[Amizaur]

In LwAmi mod the aircraft carriers are one of few targets an ASW torpedo is able to hit... the safe feature of ASW torpedos are enaugh to prevent hitting most surface targets, but carriers are too big.
BTW, what damage could an Mk46 or Mk50 do to an aircrat carrier ? 1% ? 0.1% ? :-) maybe we should review warhead damage points, of dedicated ASW torps, not sure what LW set them to currently...
After introducing new definition of ceiling setting by Luftwolf and maybe pure ASW mode for AI air dropped torps, this will not happen again. Torpedos dropped against a sub target would completly ignore the Nimitz as an surface target.

But hmm the warhead damage values maybe should be reviewed... I the warheads should be given realistic values based on warhead size, and to ensure single hitn can sink a sub, the sub damage values should be reduced instead in comparison to surface ships.

[goldorak]

Actually it depends where the torpedo hits.
As to the mission Amizaur, one torpedo didn't sink the Nimitz.
The carrier had already sustained 2 direct torpedo hits (from a kilo) and then was hit by a third helicopter dropped torpedo.
We can agree that 3 torpedos if they hit a weak spot (and any ship has weak spots) are sufficient to sink a ship.

[Whistler]

Actually it might have even taken 3 hits from me... I wasn't paying attention really, I just let loose with everything I had in my tubes, some hit the Nimitz and some hit the escorts :rotfl: .

[XabbaRus]

I haven't read too much into this. I remember in 688i when hunting teh Kuznetsov the Helix dropped and ASW torp on a false contact and it the KUz.

I wonder if light weight air dropped ASW torps do have some logic filter built in that prevents them going after target at depths above 8 metres considering the average draft of a warship and that any sub contact being prosecuted will do the smart thing and go deep. I guess it is in the realms of possibility. Then again I guess older toprs aren't so smart and maybe would go for surface targets.

Another question is what torps is this automatci and what torps does this need to be set by the operator?

[SeaQueen]

I've had similar problems with VLAs and ships sinking themselves with them. A couple former ship's captains have told me that they never liked shooting VLA or SVTT, because it always made them nervous to have torpedoes circling around out there.

I don't know specifics, but my suspicion is that there are more sophisticated safety measures than what is modeled in Dangerous Waters. I'm not sure the interface will allow one to implement them, though.

[Whistler]

I saw another funny one today... I was doing that single mission where you are a FFG-7 defending a convoy in the North Atlantic from Soviet attackers. I got wiped out pretty early by a Tu-22 firing ASMs, so I turned on truth to watch the end of the battle.

2 Kilos were set on attacking the convoy, one to the east and one to the north. The Kilo to the east began firing off torpedos to sink the merchant ships. It sank most the convoy while the northern Kilo continued to do its own thing. The nothern Kilo started shooting off countermeasures as if it believed that the torpedos aimed at the convoy were meant to hit him. THEN he fired a rocket torpedo (SS-N-15 Starfish I think?) AT the eastern Kilo, heavily damaging it (77%).

He didn't aim the SSM at the convoy, not even close, it went right for his buddy in the other Kilo.

Hmmmmmm.... :rotfl:

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

I wonder if light weight air dropped ASW torps do have some logic filter built in that prevents them going after target at depths above 8 metres considering the average draft of a warship and that any sub contact being prosecuted will do the smart thing and go deep.

Such logic is implemented in LwAmi for AI launched ASW torps. AI doesn't set the ceiling for their torpedos at all, so I had to correct that. But it doesn't work against aircraft carriers... Works for most of other surface ships. To work for carriers too, the celing setting for AI subs would have to be increased so much that it would possibly not kill a sub on PD...
New definition of ceiling by Luftwolf should fix that for carriers too.

[jason taylor]

I've done that mission several times and it has never done that. I did get bonked once from a p3 while I was chaseing a fleeing Nimitz quite closely.

actually what struck me was the free use they make with their active. You can almost track the American fleet with nothing but active intercept.

[hyperion2206]

I am also surprised how often the surface ships use their active sonar, I always thought that you shouldn't do it except that you are pretty sure a sub is extremly close to your position.:hmm:

[swimsalot]

Certainly no expert on modern surface tactics, but it does seem unwise for ships to be banging away with active sonar.
Do the mission designers add this to the mission?
Is that the default setting for these ships?
Any way to make em intermittent?
Any way to make em go active when they get a contact from other assets indicating the sub is within active range?

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by swimsalot

Certainly no expert on modern surface tactics, but it does seem unwise for ships to be banging away with active sonar.

Not necessarily. It really depends on whether they feel they'd have decent chance of detecting an expected target with passive sonar. If they felt like they could count on their towed array then they'd use that. Against a quiet diesel electric submarine you'd typically not do so well without it. A nuke... they'd probably do a lot better. The nuke would have different advantages, though.

Surface warfare is different from undersea warfare in the sense that stealth is not necessarily their armor all the time. There is definitely that element, but they also rely on speed, firepower, and survivability. A good surface commander understands how these all fit together and strives to make decisions which balance the different factors to meet a given threat. I think in that sense, surface warfare is more difficult than submarine warfare. I can't imagine how a surface commander wraps his brain around the air picture, undersea picture, the strike picture, and surface picture simultaneously. The whole multi-threat, multi-axis thing must be really tough.

Do the mission designers add this to the mission?

Yes and no. Unfortunately, because of the way they set up their emissions control settings, you only have the choice of no emissions or all emissions. Limited emissions doesn't seem to be an option. I wish sometimes one could have different vessels turn on and off specific radars.

Is that the default setting for these ships?

Yes

Any way to make em intermittent?

Not that I know of.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by swimsalot

Certainly no expert on modern surface tactics, but it does seem unwise for ships to be banging away with active sonar.

Adding to the previous answer, the difference is a kind of offense vs defense thing. Part of the reason American surface ships use passive sonar so much is because they do a lot of Soviet sub tracking and the Soviet fleet includes many subs of the previous generation, which means that the normal relationship b/w surface ships and subs gets inversed for most cases. So American surface assets hunt subs.

The Soviet fleet faces the "normal" relationship (even against their own subs, let alone American ones), in which subs tend to have major advantages over surface ships. The sub can have a more flexible choice of depth, is deeper and thus is in waters better for its sonar, and tends to have better silencing. What do they do? They go active. No guarantee of course, but it gives them a much better chance of keeping the enemy out of a certain ring, so they would either be prevent from launching torps or at least they would be forced to launch further out and maximize chances of evasion - you will also notice that the Soviets built some weapons like the Udav-1 that's is supposed to actually try and intercept the torpedo with ASW mortars, while the Americans don't even try that. The offense vs defense affair is clear.