[req] Looking for authoritive info on surface endurance

[ReallyDedPoet]

This from Sailor Steve awhile back Ducimus, great site:

http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/


U.S.S. Wahoo pictured in July 1943 off Mare Island Navy Yard. Commanded by Dudley "Mush" Morton,
Wahoo was one of the most successful American submarines of World War II. Four months after this picture
was taken she was lost with all hands while attempting to exit the Sea of Japan after sinking four ships for a
total of 13,000 tons. Her wartime total was 60,038 tons.

From that site.

RDP

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

This from Sailor Steve awhile back...

From me? I don't remember. Having a look around I see they have the Gato class listed at 20,000 miles, no range given.
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/gato-class.html
I don't trust their ranges, they're not definite enough.

I have a copy of Bagnasco's Submarines of World War Two, but it's in storage right now. I know several other members have mentioned having a copy; I'm hoping one of them will see this and have a look.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

From me? I don't remember. Having a look around I see they have the Gato class listed at 20,000 miles, no range given.
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/gato-class.html
I don't trust their ranges, they're not definite enough.

I have a copy of Bagnasco's Submarines of World War Two, but it's in storage right now. I know several other members have mentioned having a copy; I'm hoping one of them will see this and have a look.

I am sure it was you Steve:hmm:

RDP

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

I am sure it was you Steve:hmm:

RDP

Just because I don't remember doesn't mean it's not true. I'm just getting old. Or maybe my head's full of so much garbage I'm running out of room.

Ducimus, I can't argue your numbers one way or another, but they're certainly interesting. Until someone comes up with something more definitive, I say go for it.

[Ducimus]

I think ive figured it out. This is going to be very arbitrary, but some of the data seems to correlate.

Heres what im thinking:
(based on numberous sources, I also took the first boat of the class in decidinig fuel capacity)

Class/ fuel in Gallons:

Porpoise 93,129
Salmon 96,025
Sargo 90,000
Tambor 93.993
Gar 96,365
Gato 97,140
Balao 94,400

(NOTE: Math is not one of my stronger points)
If you were to use 96,000 gallons of fuel as a base line to equate out to 12,000 NM at 10 kts then:

96,000 / 12 = 8,000 gallons per 1,000 NM. So then.

MaxFuel / 8,000

That would (theoritcally) mean, and im rounding the results:

Porpoise 11.64 or 11,640 nm
Salmon 12.00 or 12,000 nm
Sargo 11.25 or 11,250 nm
Tambor 11.75 or 11,750 nm
Gar 12.05 or 12,050 nm
Gato 12.14 or 12,140 nm
Balao 11.8 or 11,800 nm

[Jmack]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I think ive figured it out. This is going to be very arbitrary, but some of the data seems to correlate.

Heres what im thinking:
(based on numberous sources, I also took the first boat of the class in decidinig fuel capacity)

Class/ fuel in Gallons:

Porpoise 93,129
Salmon 96,025
Sargo 90,000
Tambor 93.993
Gar 96,365
Gato 97,140
Balao 94,400

(NOTE: Math is not one of my stronger points)
If you were to use 96,000 gallons of fuel as a base line to equate out to 12,000 NM at 10 kts then:

96,000 / 12 = 8,000 gallons per 1,000 NM. So then.

MaxFuel / 8,000

That would (theoritcally) mean, and im rounding the results:

Porpoise 11.64 or 11,640 nm
Salmon 12.00 or 12,000 nm
Sargo 11.25 or 11,250 nm
Tambor 11.75 or 11,750 nm
Gar 12.05 or 12,050 nm
Gato 12.14 or 12,140 nm
Balao 11.8 or 11,800 nm

im not an expert on this but its logical ...so in round numbers the maxfuel allowed for 1,000 nm is 8,000 gallons is there a minimal value ?

[Ducimus]

No, its just based on 12,000 nm @ 10 kts. Or rather, if 96,000 gallons of fuel gets you 12,000 nm when traveling at 10 kts, then you'd use 8,000 gallons per 1,000 nm. When editing the sub's sim file, it wants a NM range @ speed.


Anyway,The numbers look good. i think ill be using the above values (perhaps recalculated sans rounding to be more exact) in Tmaru 1.1.

[U-Bones]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

No, its just based on 12,000 nm @ 10 kts. Or rather, if 96,000 gallons of fuel gets you 12,000 nm when traveling at 10 kts, then you'd use 8,000 gallons per 1,000 nm. When editing the sub's sim file, it wants a NM range @ speed.


Anyway,The numbers look good. i think ill be using the above values (perhaps recalculated sans rounding to be more exact) in Tmaru 1.1.

It assumes the same efficiency for all the power plants, but like you say anything you pick will be somewhat arbitrary and these are all in the ballpark. IMO 11-12k is much preferable to the current 16k across the board. The partol I just finished would have been *tight* on fuel.

[CaptainHaplo]

Guys, I hate to throw a wrinkle in here - but you have to remember that you HAVE to deal with averages. Running distance during wartime was always on surface AND sub-surface (except when transitting friendly waters). Then you have to account for when a sub may have to charge batteries vs use propulsion for motion only. And lets not even start taking into account weather and sea state..

When you look at it - your going to have to accept an average. Even were you to just take a sub, fill it up and run it at 10 knots in a straight line - your still not going to get the same results every time. *Although man wouldnt that be fun to get a group together and try - at least for a few hours!*

In reality - the sea state is going to have a huge effect on "mileage", so you have to average.