Whats with the aft tubes?

[7Enigma]

From a theoretical and safety (of the ship and crew) standpoint, it would actually be beneficial to have ALL tubes AFT. This would allow you to lay and wait for your prey, fire off a salvo, then immediately be able to leave as directly as possible.

Having tubes foreward requires a sub to fire at their target, then evade by first moving CLOSER to the target while turning away. I know if it was my arse on the line, I would prefer to have the immediate exit rather then having to turn away as my ship is being hunted....

[perisher]

Originally Posted by 7Enigma

From a theoretical and safety (of the ship and crew) standpoint, it would actually be beneficial to have ALL tubes AFT. This would allow you to lay and wait for your prey, fire off a salvo, then immediately be able to leave as directly as possible.
...

Not so easy in real life, submarines are not humming birds, to quote the guys at NYGM Tonnage War. You cannot get ahead of a convoy, go to periscope depth and just hover there waiting for your prey to cross your sights. You have to keep the boat moving or it will not maintain depth, it will either go up or go down but it will not stay at a constant depth. The game will let you do this, but a real submarine could not.

[7Enigma]

Originally Posted by perisher

Not so easy in real life, submarines are not humming birds, to quote the guys at NYGM Tonnage War. You cannot get ahead of a convoy, go to periscope depth and just hover there waiting for your prey to cross your sights. You have to keep the boat moving or it will not maintain depth, it will either go up or go down but it will not stay at a constant depth. The game will let you do this, but a real submarine could not.

So how about this then :p :

Do your typical 90-degree attack with foreward tubes at very low speed (say 1kt just to keep your depth), then go back 1/3'rd and dive to escape. I'm curious at how inefficient reverse is as opposed to normal foreward movement, and also if there was a significant increase in noise as compared to normal operation. And obviously the aft dive planes would be less effective, but the tradeoff might be worth it to get distance between your target and escorts quicker?

[perisher]

I seriously doubt that a submarine ever went astern except when manoeuvring in harbour, all ships are difficult to handle going astern and I would imagine that depth keeping going astern was next to impossible. I read something abourt this recently but I can't find it right now.

When I use my stern tubes, I approach on a parallel track to my target(s), when I am ready I turn sharply away and increase speed, as my firing angle comes on I slow the boat, centre the rudder and fire. If I want to evade I put the rudder back on, go to flank and dive, once under 200 ft I cut to 1/3, rig for silent and make a 90 degree turn.

Having said that, on my last patrol I got target fixation and ended up too close for the bow shot, so I went under my target and took him with the stern tubes.

[SteamWake]

Youd be better off flooding the ballast tanks and charge foward.

[AhhhFresh]

It's because convoy's zig-zag, and any competent zig-zag pattern should be very difficult to predict exactly even after plotting their course for hours. They could get their base course and be pretty certain where they were going to pass, but to set up to ensure a forward torpedo shot meant that you were risking getting "caught in left field" if they zigged away from you on your firing leg.

Subs got into position so that regardless of the final zig they would have a minimum range shot from either from the bow or stern. That is, that if that zig was to port or starboard it wouldn't make much of a difference.

EDIT: I should note that I've never seen anything other than a very basic zig zag pattern in SHIV, so it's somewhat moot... unless it gets sophisticated in the latter part of the war, which I have yet to play.

[7Enigma]

So can anyone comment on the noise issue with moving in reverse compared to foreward? (ie things like cavitation, increased turbulence, etc.)

[SingeDebile]

Originally Posted by 7Enigma

From a theoretical and safety (of the ship and crew) standpoint, it would actually be beneficial to have ALL tubes AFT. This would allow you to lay and wait for your prey, fire off a salvo, then immediately be able to leave as directly as possible.

Having tubes foreward requires a sub to fire at their target, then evade by first moving CLOSER to the target while turning away. I know if it was my arse on the line, I would prefer to have the immediate exit rather then having to turn away as my ship is being hunted....

i like this

[deamyont]

Originally Posted by 7Enigma

From a theoretical and safety (of the ship and crew) standpoint, it would actually be beneficial to have ALL tubes AFT. This would allow you to lay and wait for your prey, fire off a salvo, then immediately be able to leave as directly as possible.

Having tubes foreward requires a sub to fire at their target, then evade by first moving CLOSER to the target while turning away. I know if it was my arse on the line, I would prefer to have the immediate exit rather then having to turn away as my ship is being hunted....

With all tubes aft, the sub would need to make a 180 degree turn after aproaching a convoy. This would take a lot of time at silent running at 2 knots, time it dont have. Also, it would show of the biggest possible signature towards all directions...

And youre not diving towards the threat. When attacking the convoy the escorts are on your sides, and even behind. Youre diving towards a harmless merchant.

No, all tubes bow. Aproach convoy stealthy, fire all torpedoes and crash dive. Escorts hear you but its to late for the ships in the convoy to evade the torpedoes. Even if the smaller ships might be agile enough to turn, they cant because of the other ships around them. While crash diving, turn. It looks like you dive towards the targets but youre now sailing away. And the escorts cant hear you over the sounds of sinking ships...

I like that over the scenario when you sneak in, and take minutes of extra time turning, giving escorts a chance to kill you before you even fired.


In real life, do you think they would like the idea of taking a huge fleet submarine inside a convoy, rather than to stay at safe range?

[7Enigma]

Originally Posted by deamyont

With all tubes aft, the sub would need to make a 180 degree turn after aproaching a convoy. This would take a lot of time at silent running at 2 knots, time it dont have. Also, it would show of the biggest possible signature towards all directions...

And youre not diving towards the threat. When attacking the convoy the escorts are on your sides, and even behind. Youre diving towards a harmless merchant.

No, all tubes bow. Aproach convoy stealthy, fire all torpedoes and crash dive. Escorts hear you but its to late for the ships in the convoy to evade the torpedoes. Even if the smaller ships might be agile enough to turn, they cant because of the other ships around them. While crash diving, turn. It looks like you dive towards the targets but youre now sailing away. And the escorts cant hear you over the sounds of sinking ships...

I like that over the scenario when you sneak in, and take minutes of extra time turning, giving escorts a chance to kill you before you even fired.


In real life, do you think they would like the idea of taking a huge fleet submarine inside a convoy, rather than to stay at safe range?

My quote was based on the assumption that you were already past the intersection point, not that you were running towards it. It was mentioned that my idea was not practical due to the lack of hovering ability that the game allows (finding a likely intersection point and then idling aft tubes facing the enemy). So you would need to pass the intersection point and then very slowly (1kt) move away from your target(s), while readying your aft tubes.

This could definitely be done as you had described to good effect IF you were far enough ahead of the target so a long slow turnaround could be performed at a deep depth.