Realistic sub tactics with aircraft

Hitman · 12-12-09, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Yup.. but it makes sense to let the target come to you, if you know where to find it - A little comon sense works wonders here.

I'd like to throw another 2 cents in here

Stiebler did an excellent analysis of the efficiency of staying static vs. patrolling at different speeds in your patrol area (should be still available in pdf at his downloads web) and concluded that cruising around at 9 knots surfaced produced the best chances of detecting targets vs fuel economy, etc.,

BUT, BUT, BUT ...

the very same Richard O'Kane mentioned in his books (Specifically the one about USS Tang IIRC) that in his opinion, the results were the same if he stayed static in the proper point or patrolled around; only that he could conserve fuel and battery much better when being static.

Of course, NOT SUBMERGED, but static and surfaced.

I just wanted to throw this in, as this is not specifically about being submerged/surfaced, but it touches a sensible factor that has to do with them, and that is cruising speed vs area covered and battery depleted.

abclkhan · 12-12-09, 07:22 PM

the stuff about the usage of energy from batteries to trim the boat and keep functional any other vital systems is interesting. I wonder if those expenditures weren´t already accounted in the underwater range of submarines in the game. If not, maybe someone could build a mod to drain energy while the sub is stopped.

I can imagine why yo yo strategy is more effective in late war. Targets were becoming fewer day after day. For realism purposes, I think its use is pertinent.

RR is correct about being kept underwater by planes while batteries are low and CO2 is high. We can easily experiment this situation playing OM in 1944-45.
But did the ostrich skippers stayed underwater until depleting completely its batteries? As Mr Spock would say , "that would be unwise".
But that is just talking.. I am far from knowing even 10% on this topic. Is there any online sources about the issue?

sergei · 12-12-09, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitman

the very same Richard O'Kane mentioned in his books (Specifically the one about USS Tang IIRC) that in his opinion, the results were the same if he stayed static in the proper point or patrolled around; only that he could conserve fuel and battery much better when being static.

Really? That is interesting.
I have read quite a few books about the sub war in the PTO recently, but I have not read any by Dick O'Kane.
Well that's my next book purchase sorted!

vanjast · 12-13-09, 02:04 AM

The funny thing is that I always have >75% battery power, and plenty fuel to do anything I want. Maybe I'm just more efficient at my energy usage, and thus use different tactics.

I also don't think you'll find anything in contravention to the orders, on paper.
If I was a sub skipper in WW2, I'd still use the same method, but lie in my patrol log to make it look like I was following orders. I'd would entrust this info only to few fellow skippers, as their lives and the crew are more important.

Rockin Robbins · 12-13-09, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanjast

If I was a sub skipper in WW2, I'd still use the same method, but lie in my patrol log to make it look like I was following orders. I'd would entrust this info only to few fellow skippers, as their lives and the crew are more important.

Your non-productivity would result in your removal from command anyway. If you lived through your foolish tactics. All you're doing is gaming the game, proving nothing about the real subs. Many dozens of captains who felt as you do were removed from command. I have the figures.

vanjast · 12-13-09, 03:35 AM

Presumptious non-the-less... but when the results prove otherwise..well, even admirals have been removed from service.

Armistead · 12-13-09, 09:27 AM

To keep that amount of battery power you must be running at 1kt submerged. The results of this will be less targets. Certainly, it will mean less range you can travel overall in the game regardless of what formula you try to use.

Your going to cover more ground using less fuel on the surface. You'll also have more chances to find target using radar, visuals, than passive sonar alone.

Not to mention, you may find yourself in a position that even if you do surface, you'll not be able to get in attack position soon enough for fast TF's.

Patch up that bath plug and rise to the surface. Results that matter are number of ships sunk and I bet a skilled surface runner will outscore a bottom dwelling catfish anyday.

I remember O'Kane about to lose his mind aboard the Wahoo with his first skipper who refused to surface to get in attack positions. This Skipper stuck in WW1 tactics almost broke down several times, refusing to attack, afraid of death...........

vanjast · 12-13-09, 10:11 AM

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

)

Rockin Robbins · 12-13-09, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanjast

Presumptious non-the-less... but when the results prove otherwise..well, even admirals have been removed from service.

Yes, but I have a cushy retirement plan!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-12-09, 07:22 PM	#2
abclkhan Loader Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 87 Downloads: 169 Uploads: 0	the stuff about the usage of energy from batteries to trim the boat and keep functional any other vital systems is interesting. I wonder if those expenditures weren´t already accounted in the underwater range of submarines in the game. If not, maybe someone could build a mod to drain energy while the sub is stopped. I can imagine why yo yo strategy is more effective in late war. Targets were becoming fewer day after day. For realism purposes, I think its use is pertinent. RR is correct about being kept underwater by planes while batteries are low and CO2 is high. We can easily experiment this situation playing OM in 1944-45. But did the ostrich skippers stayed underwater until depleting completely its batteries? As Mr Spock would say , "that would be unwise". But that is just talking.. I am far from knowing even 10% on this topic. Is there any online sources about the issue?

12-13-09, 02:04 AM	#4
vanjast Sea Lord Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Somewhere else now Posts: 1,740 Downloads: 825 Uploads: 4	The funny thing is that I always have >75% battery power, and plenty fuel to do anything I want. Maybe I'm just more efficient at my energy usage, and thus use different tactics. I also don't think you'll find anything in contravention to the orders, on paper. If I was a sub skipper in WW2, I'd still use the same method, but lie in my patrol log to make it look like I was following orders. I'd would entrust this info only to few fellow skippers, as their lives and the crew are more important.

12-13-09, 03:35 AM	#6
vanjast Sea Lord Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Somewhere else now Posts: 1,740 Downloads: 825 Uploads: 4	Presumptious non-the-less... but when the results prove otherwise..well, even admirals have been removed from service.

12-13-09, 09:27 AM	#7
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	To keep that amount of battery power you must be running at 1kt submerged. The results of this will be less targets. Certainly, it will mean less range you can travel overall in the game regardless of what formula you try to use. Your going to cover more ground using less fuel on the surface. You'll also have more chances to find target using radar, visuals, than passive sonar alone. Not to mention, you may find yourself in a position that even if you do surface, you'll not be able to get in attack position soon enough for fast TF's. Patch up that bath plug and rise to the surface. Results that matter are number of ships sunk and I bet a skilled surface runner will outscore a bottom dwelling catfish anyday. I remember O'Kane about to lose his mind aboard the Wahoo with his first skipper who refused to surface to get in attack positions. This Skipper stuck in WW1 tactics almost broke down several times, refusing to attack, afraid of death...........

12-13-09, 10:11 AM	#8
vanjast Sea Lord Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Somewhere else now Posts: 1,740 Downloads: 825 Uploads: 4	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 )