LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[GrayOwl]

Hi Guys! And what the truth MK48 ADCAP has TNT a charge in 400 Kg? And UTK Torp 750 Kg? The truth You in it trust? :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

The database damage values are not 1-1 damage points to kg.

You'll notice all the LWT's have a warhead of 120 points.

The ADCAP is rated higher than other torpedoes for the same warhead weight because it has an advanced shaped-charge warhead , that directs a jet of plasma into the hull of the target, very similar to a HEAT round used for anti-armor work.

Additionally, the UTK torpedo has increased damage to create the underkeel effect for the ADCAP when used in this mode.

Thanks for playing.

Cheers,
David

If you are interested... http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.htm

Explosive Charge 650 lbs. (292.5 kg) PBXN-103
This is equivalent to about 1,200 lbs. (544 kg) of TNT

[UglyMowgli]

Inerver heard thaht the Mk48 had a shaped charge, LWT like 46 and 50 should have one because the lack of explosive but the heavy torpedo like mk48 didn't need shaped charge, they acrry enough explosive to blast everthing. I am wrong?

[LuftWolf]

The Mk48 was designed specifically to defeat the fast, deep diving, *double-hulled* submarines the Soviets built, specifically its SSBN's.

As part of an effort to ensure any submarine hit by the ADCAP went to the bottom (as opposed to being able to carry on in some reduced capacity, perhaps as a nuclear threat), I believe (or at least what I have heard says... no special sources, just paying very close attention over time) the USN specified that the ADCAP to some degree be "overbuilt", to ensure the full power of its explosive warhead was directed past the first hull and into the main pressure hull.

I suspect that the ADCAP has at least a two part warhead configuration, with the first warhead being made of a special explosive compound to both physically damage and chemically degrade the common metals found in submarine hull construction. The second part of the warhead has a very short delay with a forward-blast shaped charge. If the timing and fusing is done correctly, the first warhead triggers when the torpedo is nearly within contact distance of the hull, and then just as the blast of the first stage is degrading the integrity of the hull, the second blast fires to blow both its own blast force and the molten metal and remaining pieces of the outer hull into the interior of the sub.

It's basically exactly like a chemical anti-tank round, and just as nasty, only underwater and much bigger.

Cheers,
David

PS I could be completely wrong... but this technology has been around since the early phases of WWII (think panzershrecks and bazookas...), and its the perfect way to defeat a double hulled submarine specifically designed to suffer blast damage to its outer hull and maintain SLBM capability.

PPS And if you think about just how much larger a Typhoon SSBN is than a single ADCAP torpedo, you'll understand why the USN made this specification.

[UglyMowgli]

Well, You didn't need to pierce the double hull of the submarine, you just have to aim the stern aera of a submarine, wihtout propulsion or direction control a submarine is doomed and the blast of the explosion in all case will make severe damage to the shaft and heavy leak in the propulsion room.
Modern torpedo like blachshark, spearfish and certainly the mk48 are 'enought intelligent' to attack the most vunerable part of a submarine, the stern (witch is also the noisy one).

[LuftWolf]

Well, yeah, that's what one would think.

On the other hand, the very fact that the Kursk had survivors on board after two catastrophic internal explosions is testiment to the Russian designers.

I used to be very skeptical of the claims of how solidly the Russians built their boats, until only very recently. If its a matter of bringing the 33,000 tons of total destruction to the bottom or not, I'd think that one would aim for a weapon that absolutely got the job done.

Keep in mind, if you fire at a Typhoon and miss, that means its going to be firing several dozen nuclear warheads at its earliest opportunity.

Not even the Blackshark has that kind of pressure on it.

Cheers,
David

[Shadowmind]

I haven't been able to find the Advanced Torpedo control mod merged with the v3.08 mod, so I attempted to merge the ATC and v3.08 torpedo doctrines together. I've done some initially testing and it looks good. I made one change from the stock ATC. When the preenable button is clicked for the fourth time I send the torpedo to the floor depth instead of the launch depth. I wanted a way to launch torpedos deep and then pop them up to attack surface ships.

Another nice change would be the ability to increase the torpedo's speed to max speed without making it go active. If only we had a few more buttons. :hmm:

Luftwold/Amizaur, are either of you interested in this? Is anyone?

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Shadowmind

I haven't been able to find the Advanced Torpedo control mod merged with the v3.08 mod, so I attempted to merge the ATC and v3.08 torpedo doctrines together. I've done some initially testing and it looks good. I made one change from the stock ATC. When the preenable button is clicked for the fourth time I send the torpedo to the floor depth instead of the launch depth. I wanted a way to launch torpedos deep and then pop them up to attack surface ships.

Another nice change would be the ability to increase the torpedo's speed to max speed without making it go active. If only we had a few more buttons. :hmm:

Luftwold/Amizaur, are either of you interested in this? Is anyone?

Hi!

Well, doing the complete ATC and weapon physics mods are the ultimate project for me, since I have asked another SubSim member to do the database expansion and SCXIIc unit imports. So, my project is currently on hold until this person finishes that project, since the DW structure dictates that only one project can be done at any time, unless someone wants to do their project twice.

Basically, the project involves duplicating all the playable weapons so they have non-playable counterparts, then reconstructing all the torpedo doctrines, creating mulitple doctrines for each playable weapon, some of the non-playable weapons, and all of the non-playable torpedo types. I have a reasonably ambitious plan for expanding the AI's use of torpedoes by allowing them to selectively fire passive weapons and weapons at speeds lower than their max speeds, but that's a finishing touch.

At this time, I'm not in a position to add the ATC to the 3.08 database, so if anyone out their wants to work on it on their own and pass the files around, I actively encourage you to do so, however, the number things in the air at any given time necessitate signifcant testing for most changes so I think it'd be best to think of it as an ongoing project.

Also, some of the weapon doctrines need a bit of work, although they all were working as advertised in the old ATC test for DW 1.03, at least as far as I could tell with the limited amount of testing I have done.

Let me know if you have any specific questions as you go along.

Cheers,
David

[GrayOwl]

LW, you are informed on that what the passive mode works with bugs?

The passive torpedo do not lose contact - doctrine does not receive never command LOSTTRACK in a passive mode. More correctly to say - torpedo loses contact, but the doctrine does not receive LOSTTRACK message from the engine - because of it of a torpedo emerge on a surface and jumping as dolphin.

When such "surprises" - I become known for me become sad.

Also in an active mode, all time remains switched on the passive gauge.
For example when is started UGST in an active mode, if the purpose moves on the large speed and does a lot of noise, the detecting is real occurs by a passive sensor control, but not active!
Check up it debugger and you will see it.

Have it in a kind at designing new ATC.

Cheers!

[GrayOwl]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

The database damage values are not 1-1 damage points to kg.

You'll notice all the LWT's have a warhead of 120 points.

The ADCAP is rated higher than other torpedoes for the same warhead weight because it has an advanced shaped-charge warhead , that directs a jet of plasma into the hull of the target, very similar to a HEAT round used for anti-armor work.

Additionally, the UTK torpedo has increased damage to create the underkeel effect for the ADCAP when used in this mode.

Thanks for playing.

Cheers,
David

If you are interested... http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.htm

No, No... Formula for calculate percent damages in "DW" same as in "Harpoon":
ARMOR Tgt / ARMOR Wpn = % Damages. Strongly 1 to 1 ! (Except for the doctrines using variable 'DETONATE')

But if You made recalculate explosion weight - so correctly...

Whether more correctly to calculate a Armor/Damage hulls under "Harpoon" formulas? (Damage Points Calculate)

Some values hulls are obviously high, others are too small.

Under keel explosion Is strongly "Hypotetical".
In DW damages areas at 3d model not modelled...



It only rather feigns a level of damages at the expense increase of quantity of an explosive, but on another it cannot be made. There can be this correct decision...


Only MK 48 ADCAP, UTK mode have been. Why other torpedos with a wire control have no an opportunity to shoot under keel?

This is similar "God Help" for US sub drivers. :hmm:

Or I is wrong?

[LuftWolf]

Well, I'm going on the information I have.

In terms of the damage model, it functions 1-1 but the whole damage scheme has to be considered carefully. Simply going through books and plugging in values would result in something like four LWT's to kill a SW and like 15 to sink a OHP.

Clearly, the "real" values aren't very helpful when it comes to warheads other than a guide to relative in-game effects, which is all that matters.

If you are going through our database looking for numbers ripped from Janes, etc. you aren't going to find them, partially because its not interesting and partially because its not helpful.

There are probably thousands of difference between our database and say a Janes book.

Plugging real-world values into a database and calling it "realism" work is the lowest form of modding, IMHO.

Cheers,
David

[Qppralke]

Hi guys. I was diving yesterday with my friends , and one of them (Kilo) was caught on hi freq. by Seawolf.
Do you think the Hi freq. are visible on real, active intercept station ? And if yes , is it possible to make this a feature in LWAMI ? :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

I'll definately look into it.

Although, for some reason, I think a few others have looked at this, and it seems that HF sonar is simply not detectable in the sim engine on active intercept.

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Tusipex

Hi guys. I was diving yesterday with my friends , and one of them (Kilo) was caught on hi freq. by Seawolf.
Do you think the Hi freq. are visible on real, active intercept station ? And if yes , is it possible to make this a feature in LWAMI ? :hmm:

If a submarine gets within range to see another one on HF sonar (and that means he's real real real close), then with all due respect the other guy is meat for the fish, whatever sub he is controlling.
Active intercept isn't going to help you one bit.
If you can't detect with passive sonar another sub within 3nm of you, well you don't deserve going back to port to put it mildly. :rotfl:

[LoBlo]

Hi Luftwolf and Amizaur.

When playing through some self-made scenarios I've constantly noticed that subs are always avoiding torpedoes to the left and never right. I think its coded into their SubAvoidWep to evade left.

I've taken the liberty to randomize the torp evasion route a bit in the hope it provides less predictability.

Here are the changes that I've made to the SubAvoidWep Doctrine highlighted in orange. I think you'll like them.

__________________________________________________ ______________
; $Header: SubAvoidWeap.txt Thu Dec 30 16:55:05 EST 2004 mike $
; $Revision: 5 $
; $Copyrt1: Copyright (c) 2003, Sonalysts, Inc. All rights reserved. $
;
; SubAvoidWeap, modified by Amizaur, feet/meters miscalculation corrected
; AI behaviour when evading torpedo still needs improvements to avoid cavitation
; if torp below layer sub could run 5kts above layer and drop CMs, not run full speed cavitating
; Additional edits by LuftWolf, sub always drops active decoy and evades at 100-140 degrees
; Slight increase in recognition delay and decrease in max tgt evasion range
; Modded by LoBlo 8/6/2006 to randomize evasion routes a bit more.
var PreventingSnorkel
var PreventingComms
var LegTimer
var RecognitionDelay
var Snapshot
var LegCourse
var jammerIdx
var decoyIdx
var AvoidLeft
IF Init THEN {
PreventingSnorkel = false
PreventingComms = false
RecognitionDelay = ( Time + 15 + rnd 15 )
LegTimer = -1
Snapshot = false
jammerIdx = DBIdxFromRecNum 1414
decoyIdx = DBIdxFromRecNum 1412
If rnd 100 > 50 THEN {
AvoidLeft = True
DebugOut "Evading to the left"
} Else {
AvoidLeft = False
DebugOut "Evading to the right"
} ENDIF
} ELSEIF LegTimer == -1 THEN {
IF Time > RecognitionDelay THEN {
IF ( TgtRng < 12000 ) AND ( TgtSilos < 0 ) AND ( abs RelativeBearing TgtCrs ( TgtBrg + 180 mod 360 ) < 30 ) THEN {
DEBUGOUT "Sub Evading Torpedo!"
IF Not Snapshot THEN {
DEBUGOUT "Firing Back!"
FIREBEST
Snapshot = true
} ENDIF
IF NOT PreventingSnorkel THEN {
PreventingSnorkel = true
SetEntVar "TooBusyToSnorkel" ( GetEntVar "TooBusyToSnorkel" + 1 )
} ENDIF
IF NOT PreventingComms THEN {
PreventingComms = true
SetEntVar "TooBusyForComms" ( GetEntVar "TooBusyForComms" + 1 )
} ENDIF
LegTimer = ( 180 + RND 180 )
SetPriority 255
SetSpd MaxSpd
; LW Edit to 100 to 140
If AvoidLeft THEN {
LegCourse = ( TgtBrg + 100 + rnd 40 mod 360 )
} ELSE {
LegCourse = ( TgtBrg - 100 - rnd 40 mod 360 )
} ENDIF
; Set Depth Opposite Layer
IF TgtAlt < LAYER THEN {
SETALT ( -600 - RND 50 )
} ELSE {
SETALT ( LAYER - 400 )
; set depth to 400 ft below layer
} ENDIF
; Setalt ( ( MinAlt / 0.3048 ) + 100 )
; DebugOut "MinAlt + 100 feet set"
; Throw CM?
IF RND 10 > 0 THEN {
; Decoy or Jammer?
IF ( TgtSource $= "Active Intercept" ) OR ( rnd 100 > 65 ) THEN {
DEBUGOUT "CM Decoy"
CountermeasureIdx decoyIdx
} ELSE {
DEBUGOUT "CM Decoy II"
; LW always drop active CM
CountermeasureIdx decoyIdx
} ENDIF
} ELSE {
DEBUGOUT "Decoy failed random draw."
} ENDIF
LegTimer += Time
} ELSE {
IF PreventingSnorkel THEN {
PreventingSnorkel = false
SetEntVar "TooBusyToSnorkel" ( GetEntVar "TooBusyToSnorkel" - 1 )
} ENDIF
IF PreventingComms THEN {
PreventingComms = false
SetEntVar "TooBusyForComms" ( GetEntVar "TooBusyForComms" - 1 )
} ENDIF
} ENDIF
} ENDIF
} ELSEIF Time > LegTimer THEN {
LegTimer = -1
} ELSE {
SetPriority 255
SetCrs LegCourse
SetSpd MaxSpd
SETALT ( -600 - RND 50 )
} ENDIF
__________________________________________________ ________________

So far the initial test work great and subs avoid more unpredictably. In regards to surface avoidance, I've not run enough test to know if surface ships are also avoiding left as well. If so the above code may randomize there avoidance a bit as well.

Another approach rather than just avoiding left or right randomly is to code the subs to avoid in the direction that is most convient to where they are heading, though that makes weapon avoidance a little predictable...