Saved by shallow water

[Krauter]

Wasn't sitting on the bottom bad for submarines, since the drains to their ballast tanks were on the bottom of the hull, and could thus get clogged with mud and debris? Or was that only for modern submarines?

[MarkCt]

Given a choice, I wouldn't sit on the bottom. In my case I had to because I had heavy flooding plus the Formossa Stright is shallow enough in spots to avoid crush depth. I would rather keep moving that way I have some type of control. The last thing you want is to get caught on the bottom and a DD drops a string of 12 depth charges on you and you have no where to go.

I told you there are some that don't like using cuties. In my four rear tubes I always keep two. When they become available try a couple.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Krauter

Wasn't sitting on the bottom bad for submarines, since the drains to their ballast tanks were on the bottom of the hull, and could thus get clogged with mud and debris? Or was that only for modern submarines?

Apparently not, because they did it many times. Or maybe they took the risk because it was the only choice at the time. I don't know anything about modern subs.

[Daniel Prates]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Apparently not, because they did it many times. Or maybe they took the risk because it was the only choice at the time. I don't know anything about modern subs.

I should imagine that, due to size and weight, landing a Los Angeles sub in the bottom of the ocean is close to an impossible thing. Fleetboats, being much smaller, are another matter.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Daniel Prates

I should imagine that, due to size and weight, landing a Los Angeles sub in the bottom of the ocean is close to an impossible thing. Fleetboats, being much smaller, are another matter.

I don't know that much about modern subs, but I doubt there would be a temptation for them to resort to such tactics. They are much faster, the batteries don't run down, they have more effective weapons, so why would they allow themselves to be caught in shallow water?





The case I read, where a US sub bottomed out and thereby evaded destruction, occured after they had already sustained damage, and were leaking oil. They realized the oil was seeping up and the DD's could see it. The critical detail that saved them was that the currents were carrying the oil away, so the enemy ships dropped DC's on the wrong spot. The Captain wisely ordered flood negative and waited quietly, until the enemy went away.


Ordinarily, the enemy ships could still ping you and locate you, even if your not making noise, and if you aren't moving, you would be easier to hit.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by TorpX

Ordinarily, the enemy ships could still ping you and locate you, even if your not making noise, and if you aren't moving, you would be easier to hit.

Not necessarily. First, the bottom is rarely smooth, and irregularities cause sonar to reflect in random directions, helping to hide the sub. Second, the sand helps to absorb the force of the blast. I'm not saying it's perfect, as one close hit can end it all, and we have no record of the subs it didn't work for, but it was done and sometimes done very well. Re-read my links about S-38.

[MarkCt]

Could sonar tell the difference between a sub on the bottom and a coral reef?

[PacificWolf]

Originally Posted by MarkCt

Could sonar tell the difference between a sub on the bottom and a coral reef?

I believe not! I tried this by myself and I almost die! Im talking about vanilla TMO and RFB.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not necessarily. First, the bottom is rarely smooth, and irregularities cause sonar to reflect in random directions, helping to hide the sub. Second, the sand helps to absorb the force of the blast. I'm not saying it's perfect, as one close hit can end it all, and we have no record of the subs it didn't work for, but it was done and sometimes done very well. Re-read my links about S-38.

I know of the S-38. I don't dispute that this tactic was done on occasion, but I think it was unusual. The incidents with the S-38 happened early in the war, when IJN ASW tactics were of a lower standard. I think most sub crews disliked (or even dreaded) shallow water encounters with DD's and ASW ships.

[Daniel Prates]

Originally Posted by TorpX

I don't know that much about modern subs, but I doubt there would be a temptation for them to resort to such tactics. They are much faster, the batteries don't run down, they have more effective weapons, so why would they allow themselves to be caught in shallow water?

That is not the point, I too can't think of any reason why a contemporary sub skipper would even dream about doing so. I was just pointing out, since someone else asked, that IMO it is not possible to land a large modern sub in the bottom.

[Echo76]

A bit OT but I read a little story about a finnish sub that ran aground while evading russian patrol boats because they had too much ballast. When they released some of the ballast, the surfacing gases and oil made the hunters to believe that the sub had sunk.

Shortly after, the sub ran aground again into an underwater elevation in the bottom and damaged its diving planes. By that time the crew was falling unconscious and became delirious because of the co2 rising too high, like the cook falling with a coffee mug in his hand and when the chief of the watch was told to start the pumps to get the boat on surface, the chief instead started to explain the operating principles of the pump.

Must have been a miracle to get the sub up again but they made it. And got hunted again