![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Good Hunting!
|
![]()
I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation of this at one point, and yes, 210 kg of conventional warhead at that distance shouldn't really do any damage to you. It seems they do model the damage from Shkvals at nuclear energy levels.
__________________
Your friendly neighborhood modern submarine YouTuber. My videos: **Exclusive Look at Modern Naval Warfare!** Dangerous Waters Liu Doctrine (LwAmi Learn to play Dangerous Waters |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Seasoned Skipper
![]() Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 742
Downloads: 136
Uploads: 6
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Loader
![]() Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cancun, Mexico
Posts: 89
Downloads: 26
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Hi guys, my calculation method is very simple, in the replay map there is a scale in the bottom left corner, the scale was 500 yards, then both torpedoes exploded about the 200 yards far, period!, thats why I'm asking if the Oscar II had nuclear warheads in any of the vanilla missions. The second torpedoe exploded about 150-180 yards, a 210kg warhead is not enough to do anything to a big sub from this distance!.
Last edited by jaop99; 03-20-17 at 10:10 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | ||
Seasoned Skipper
![]() Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 742
Downloads: 136
Uploads: 6
|
![]()
I asked about calculations for those:
Quote:
Quote:
Your sub had course 010 deg. and shkval exploded near 175 deg from center of your sub. Akula III have aprox. 123 yd of lenght, so you should subtract 60 yds from first measurement (200 yds) I think it is close enough for damaging of some systems. BTW: For accurate range measurement you can use "r" key on map. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Loader
![]() Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cancun, Mexico
Posts: 89
Downloads: 26
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Take any calculation of a bigger airborne warhead IRL, for example FAB-250 or RBK-250, in the air where there is not almost no density, the shrapnel can reach about 400+ meters away, but the blast and expansive wave's real damage is about the range of 200-300 yards. Now, any explosion in the water, is more difficult to reach farest targets due the density of the water, and the pressure depending the depth where the bomb exploded.
In WWII the depth charges had from 400-3000 pounds (400 pounds were the used in mortars) but even with this payload, the explosion should be close to the sub to make a real damage. http://www.engr.psu.edu/cde/Short/MP...-Dam-Ass-1.pdf Last edited by jaop99; 03-20-17 at 04:46 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Loader
![]() Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cancun, Mexico
Posts: 89
Downloads: 26
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Good Hunting!
|
![]()
My methodology is very simple. Let me start by saying I know nothing specific about how explosions work, but I was intrigued by this passage on a Wikipedia article on depth charges:
Quote:
0.1 ton / (3 meters)^3 = 5000 / (X meters)^3 (I'm basically saying 0.1 ton divided by 3m^3 is equivalent to "kill", so I set 5000 ton / X meters ^3 equal to that and solving for X. This is nothing more than a simple extrapolation.) Solving for X produces a killing range of approximately 110 - 150 m and a disablement range of approximately 300 - 370 m. Let's discuss my assumptions. I'm assuming a large nuclear sub (~7000-10000 t displacement) behaves similarly to a 1000 t conventional sub in response to explosive damage. This is probably not a good assumption, as smaller objects tend to be stronger than larger objects due to the square-cube law; however, the larger nuclear submarines also have more mass to absorb explosion energy. I am not sure which would be the dominant effect. These numbers on Wikipedia also have no citation, so I'm not sure where these kill and disablement ranges come from. However, assuming the numbers are correct, I was just curious to see what the numbers would be assuming a nuclear-sized warhead and extrapolating using a simple method. It's an interesting result, it's not one I would expect, and suggests more investigation. That Wikipedia article also discusses more effects, such as primary and secondary shockwaves, the depth of the explosion, explosion shockwave reflections off the bottom of the ocean, and other things that are not considered in my simple calculation. Based on my experience in vanilla and RA, the Shkvals are about equal in damage in both versions. I haven't seen anything to suggest the RA Shkvals are more damaging.
__________________
Your friendly neighborhood modern submarine YouTuber. My videos: **Exclusive Look at Modern Naval Warfare!** Dangerous Waters Liu Doctrine (LwAmi Learn to play Dangerous Waters |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Loader
![]() Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cancun, Mexico
Posts: 89
Downloads: 26
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
I agree with you, if the Oscar used nuke torpedoes, the damage I received is fair!, and I remarked this from my first post!
![]() Wiki about Akula: "The Akula incorporates a double hull system composed of an inner pressure hull and an outer "light" hull. This allows more freedom in the design of the exterior hull shape, resulting in a submarine with more reserve buoyancy than its western analogs. This design requires more power than single-hull submarines[citation needed] because of the greater wetted surface area, which increases drag." Last edited by jaop99; 03-20-17 at 04:54 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|