Realistic sub tactics with aircraft

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by vanjast

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.

US boat had the sonar array located where it could operate while the boat was surfaced.

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.

1) At flank speed you're using all your power. The batteries won't be charged.

2) Charging the batteries uses more power than driving the boat, even at Ahead Flank.

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 ..

See (2) above. Using the batteries does not conserve fuel. Best time-on-station will be achieved by running surfaced at Ahead Slow, or about 5 knots.

[Rockin Robbins]

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!

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by vanjast

Surface sub sails away from target and misses it (but will pick up the other ship which the submerged ship won't), Target sails towards submerged sub, which picks it up on passive sonar.

This kind of hypothetical really demands a picture to reference. At anyrate, the conclusion that a submerged submarine that a submerged sub will find a target using a sensor with a lower effective search radius is... bizarre at best.

Unless you're cherry-picking your hypothetical to support the idea that searching at a slower speed with lower effective search radius will get you more contacts.

Depending on weather, which effects both radar and passive sonar ranges

Radar, even old-school sets like the SJ, is far less affected by weather in general. Sonar just flat doesn't work in some conditions. In-game sonar definitely has shorter range, regardless of weather. Surfaced, moving faster (using as much or less fuel), with a larger effective search radius... I'm not sure how this would lead to less contacts under any equivalent circumstances.

- Yes, but both have to get into strike position ahead of the target. This usually requires a bit of flank/full surface speeds, using up a lot of fuel.

Nah, I can usually close up a slow convoy with nothing more than standard bell. I never use flank unless I'm absolutely hauling ass away from some flaming datum.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by vanjast

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 )

You are positing odds of finding a single target. Actually your odds must be extended to encompass all the targets on the ocean at any given time, which are, as far as you are concerned and as you agree above, randomly distributed and moving in random directions. Then you take the odds of encountering any one target times the number of targets in the area you search for your total targets developed.

By moving at 9 knots on the surface, you are giving yourself 50% odds (according to your figures) on many many more targets. Suppose submerged you might encounter five targets. You have a 50% chance (according to your figures) on each so you will develop 2.5 targets.

However, on the surface, I have 50% odds on 50 targets and will develop 25 viable targets to shoot at, ten times more.

So there is your own logic extrapolated to the conclusion that you hide. That is why Eugene Fluckey garnered one of the top scores of the war when his career didn't start until the middle of 1944. He alone sank targets at a rate unparalleled by any captain at any point in the war, while fellow skippers playing ostrich returned to port full of torpedoes and finding no targets. You really need to read Thunder Below and remember who took Lockwood's place after the war. Was it because Fluckey used inferior strategy? Was it because he foolishly had several boats shot out from under him? Was it because his strategy was not MUCH more productive than the ostriches?

The answer to all those questions is no. Fluckey revolutionized submarine warfare by following and extending the tactics of Morton, Kane and his own personal hero, Sam Dealey. He believed in aggressively taking the fight to the enemy and that the best defense is to quit fearing for your life and concentrate on making your enemy fear for his.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by vanjast

Surface sub sails away from target and misses it (but will pick up the other ship which the submerged ship won't), Target sails towards submerged sub, which picks it up on passive sonar.

That's assuming both hypothetical subs are in the same position. If the merchant comes along severl hours after your scenario starts then

A) The surfaced sub will be miles beyond where the target is, and will never see it, or

B) The submerged sub will be miles behind where the target is, and will never know it's there.

Either way, it's only theoretical, and it ceases to be a valid test.

This usually requires a bit of flank/full surface speeds, using up a lot of fuel.

How much is "a bit" of flank or full speed? Five hours at flank speed doesn't mean a lot to a submarine carrying enough fuel for a 60-day patrol at standard speed, even if fuel consumption is doubled.

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Best time-on-station will be achieved by running surfaced at Ahead Slow, or about 5 knots.

How about surfaced, but at 0 knots. Wouldn't that be better? O'Kane did that.

[Hitman]

Eugene Fluckey garnered one of the top scores of the war when his career didn't start until the middle of 1944

Actually, according to JANAC in its post-war revision, Fluckley ranked 1st skipper in confirmed tonnage sunk, surpassing O'Kane

[G2B]

Originally Posted by vanjast

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 )

Lets throw a flying thingy in this set up.

Your boat running on the surface detects a plane, now depending on weather conditions and the course of the aircraft you may not have to dive to avoid detection, perhaps just slowing down a bit to eliminate your wake. Even if you have to dive your only down for a few minutes, again depending on weather conditions to determine your depth to avoid detection (any way to save a % of batteries) surface and go on your way. I learned the hard way about planes a foolish mistake that cost my boat and crew. Lesson learned, DON'T MESS WITH THE FLYING THINGIES If it says HOT don't touch it.

Now submerged boat, lets say your running at P depth with radar up looking for planes. Suddenly you get a ship contact but to intercept you have to surface and run flank to get into position, five minutes into your surface run you have a plane contact, again depending on weather conditions and course of the plane you may either have to slow down or dive to avoid detection (burning more batteries) now your losing time to get into position. Now lets say the ship contact is a TF or convoy with escorts, you get into position sink a couple ships and the escorts are on you like bee's on honey, DC's raining everywhere and your batteries are starting to run low. Flank speed is not what it was so its getting harder to avoid explosions, now your taking damage the crew is getting injured and panicky, WE HAVE FLOODING SIR how much time till batteries are done? Could have used that 25% more power about now.

[vanjast]

Hypothetical as mentioned, once on the surface you are inviting trouble (the point of my tactics), but one has to way up the odds of a successfull attack.

At this point, you might get a lucky break, but if not you have to run and hide. I rarely use more than 25% battery power in this situation. Again .. evasion tactics an efficient power usage

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by vanjast

Hypothetical as mentioned, once on the surface you are inviting trouble

From what exactly? You've failed to demonstrate anything contrary to RR's original reasoning regarding why aircraft pose very little threat to a radar-equipped sub. Perhaps you are taking bad habits from SH3?

[vanjast]

Originally Posted by Apocal

Perhaps you are taking bad habits from SH3?

Perhaps, but I play the game at 100%+, no map updates and real navigation (No sub icon - nothing).

The attack map is actually useless in this situation, and from what I've seen on most demo videos, ie: O'Kanes's method is run on the attack map.

No such luxuries in my game And I take a educated guess that most are not at 100%+..+..+, so of course my method of play/reasoning makes no sense - which doesn't actually bother me, but I enjoy trying to explain to everybody that they do not have to be 'sheep', and try develop their own methods and tactics. Had I been in that admirals place in WW2 I most probably would have been the most successful sub-admiral around.

You can argue till you're blue in the face - I know my tactics work for this game, and will stick to it. A different game might require different tactics and I'm flexible to recognise that - Some are not.

[vanjast]

Originally Posted by Apocal

From what exactly? You've failed to demonstrate anything contrary to RR's original reasoning regarding why aircraft pose very little threat to a radar-equipped sub. Perhaps you are taking bad habits from SH3?

Whoops off on a limb on the previous post... wrong answer - but read it anyway.

Radar-vs-Mk1 eyeball with naval binocs - have you ever looked through naval binocs, then at ~10000 ft ?. I'm not sure whether the game simulates this properly, probably not...buuut MK1 eyeball + binocs gives you better range than those early radars. also looking from the sub upwards.

Perhaps you didn't see this in the previous post.


This is mostly irrelevant as RL is different from the game, but people tend to try relate the game to RL. Some get it wrong, and others get incredibly wrong

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by vanjast

Perhaps, but I play the game at 100%+, no map updates and real navigation (No sub icon - nothing).

The attack map is actually useless in this situation, and from what I've seen on most demo videos, ie: O'Kanes's method is run on the attack map.

No such luxuries in my game And I take a educated guess that most are not at 100%+..+..+, so of course my method of play/reasoning makes no sense - which doesn't actually bother me, but I enjoy trying to explain to everybody that they do not have to be 'sheep', and try develop their own methods and tactics.

Whether you play at 100% or something like 70% realism doesn't matter; larger search radius - more contacts - more attacks - more ships sunk. I'm not sure of how this could be wrong and you keep avoiding addressing it directly.

Had I been in that admirals place in WW2 I most probably would have been the most successful sub-admiral around.

Then why didn't the early-war submarine skippers, some who held multiple commands, outscore late-war ones? Simple question.

You can argue till you're blue in the face - I know my tactics work for this game, and will stick to it. A different game might require different tactics and I'm flexible to recognise that - Some are not.

Then why are you hiding from aircraft that, for the most part, cannot harm you?

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by vanjast

Whoops off on a limb on the previous post... wrong answer - but read it anyway.

Radar-vs-Mk1 eyeball with naval binocs - have you ever looked through naval binocs, then at ~10000 ft ?. I'm not sure whether the game simulates this properly, probably not...buuut MK1 eyeball + binocs gives you better range than those early radars. also looking from the sub upwards.

Yes, I have actually. I'm a Fire Controlman in the US Navy right now, although my last while has been spent in a boots-on-ground billet.

Anyway, that you can see aircraft further away with Big Eyes or whatever subs had is pretty much irrelevant; both it and radar can see aircraft before they see you, with enough time for you to dive to evade detection.

This is mostly irrelevant as RL is different from the game, but people tend to try relate the game to RL. Some get it wrong, and others get incredibly wrong

I do exactly this in real life.

The variables regarding effective search radius, the tradeoff against aircraft threat and the compromise solutions regarding such is presented well enough in the Silent Hunter series you can see why aircraft we're such a critical part of an effective ASW campaign... and why subs operating without an effective aircraft threat to offset their capabilities would run roughshod through your merchant marine.

I'm sure pedants have such and such system X or capability Y they wish was simulated, but the overall flavor of such things is shown quite well.

[vanjast]

I'm a qualified ground/airborne electronic engineer, originally in military radar systems, but diversified into other electronic fields as time has gone by.

Anyway.. I'd hope that I could pass on some relevant info regarding the (dis)advantages of early radar systems, plus done a bit of flying, I'd hope I could pass a leetle bit of experience on too.

You know what I mean... But that's up to those who might be interested in RL.