LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #14: SLMM vs CAPTOR - Page 2

Dr.Sid · 02-15-07, 10:05 AM

Those are some serious arguments, Bill. So '8000yds, 28kts' are parameters of the torpedo ? Those are mentioned anywhere on the net.

But it can be clearly seen on pictures that CAPTOR itself has no propeller. Only the torpedo inside has one.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_Mines.htm

Such weapon has even less usage options in DW I guess.

PS: how long can CAPTOR stay on watch ? I didn't find it mentioned anywhere. I know it has fuel-based energy plant, nothing more.

LuftWolf · 02-15-07, 01:49 PM

Hmm...

Upon further review, it would appear that 8000yrds @ 28+kts are the BS stats given for the Mk46.

Thanks for the clarification, Bill.

SLMM it shall stay.

This is why I do polls, so I don't embarass myself too much.

Thanks for the responses everyone.

Cheers,
David

PS I'm going to look at the ISLMM now. :hmm:

LuftWolf · 02-15-07, 02:51 PM

Not looking good on the ISLMM. There are three problems.

1) The SLMM interface is incompatible with wirecontrols

2) The SLMM interface only has one (terminal) waypoint.

3) The SLMM don't want to launch no warhead...

So basically, I can increase the range of the existing SLMM, but it doesn't appear I can add any new features.

Doh.

Cheers,
David

Dr.Sid · 02-15-07, 03:01 PM

Never mind .. what is official FFG 76mm status ? I guess it calls for another poll.

LuftWolf · 02-15-07, 03:43 PM

The 76mm gun issue doesn't need a poll, because its clear that it should be effective against air targets.

What has to happen now is that I need to test out the proper changes completely, to make sure nothing breaks, and to let you guys know what I find.

Thanks for reminding me...

Cheers,
David

Bellman · 02-16-07, 09:33 AM

The conservatism of mission designers understandably defending the SLMM status quo protects the SP game. However the bulk of MP games are sub v sub still from SC days and the emphasis on littoral water operations and the use of the SLMM is inappropriate in that game area.

The ability to 'anchor' the Captor at intermediate depths gives a whole range of tactical ASW possibilities not available with the SMM or ISMM. It would be IMO a great pity if this potential feature is put aside. It would be nice to hear from some MP players, because I guess, if you factor-out the weight of designers voting for the status quo the picture changes dramaticaly ! The 'anti' vote is motivated and biased. NIMBYs ?

I would be happy to have the sub launched Captor as an additional feature in the same way that ATC has been. Useage and acceptance of the latter has induced the decision to offer it as a standard, I believe.

Molon Labe · 02-16-07, 10:07 AM

Somehow I doubt that two subs that got entangled in a battle would try to mine the **** out of an area to try to get the other guy. MP already has enough issues with unrealistic scenarios and tactics. Taking DW in that direction would not be progress.

CAPTORs or not, mines are still strategic weapons. It makes more sense to be using them as part of a mission objective than to try to get immediate results.

LuftWolf · 02-16-07, 10:10 AM

Well... the fact that the mine when correctly implimented does not in fact have it's own propulsion system, unless I take a radically liberal view of what the ISLMM is, pretty much negates any tactical use a Mk60 would have for a submarine.

It would appear the only moddable option for an SLMM conversion would be to merge what is known about the ISLMM into what is know about the Mk60 and create and CAPTOR-ASuW Capable Mine that can both fire a torpedo AND detonate like a conventional mine.

Best of both worlds... plausible engineering wise given 21st century technology if the Mk60 came about in the 1970's.

As a modder I want to go for it for the sake of doing it, because it would be really neat, and wouldn't give US submarines any capability they don't have now, other than a self-propelled CAPTOR.

On the other hand, it's a blatant poetic interpretation of the state of affairs... I can only get away with so many of those.

So... what do you all think of that? (cringes)

Cheers,
David

PS No I'm not really serious, it would be a fun engineering challenge for me that all...

Molon Labe · 02-16-07, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Well... the fact that the mine when correctly implimented does not in fact have it's own propulsion system, unless I take a radically liberal view of what the ISLMM is, pretty much negates any tactical use a Mk60 would have for a submarine.

It would appear the only moddable option for an SLMM conversion would be to merge what is known about the ISLMM into what is know about the Mk60 and create and CAPTOR-ASuW Capable Mine that can both fire a torpedo AND detonate like a conventional mine.

Best of both worlds... plausible engineering wise given 21st century technology if the Mk60 came about in the 1970's.

As a modder I want to go for it for the sake of doing it, because it would be really neat, and wouldn't give US submarines any capability they don't have now, other than a self-propelled CAPTOR.

On the other hand, it's a blatant poetic interpretation of the state of affairs... I can only get away with so many of those.

So... what do you all think of that? (cringes)

Cheers,
David

YGTBFKM

LuftWolf · 02-16-07, 10:14 AM

That's pretty much my assessment of my own idea. :rotfl:

Bill Nichols · 02-16-07, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Somehow I doubt that two subs that got entangled in a battle would try to mine the **** out of an area to try to get the other guy. MP already has enough issues with unrealistic scenarios and tactics. Taking DW in that direction would not be progress.

CAPTORs or not, mines are still strategic weapons. It makes more sense to be using them as part of a mission objective than to try to get immediate results.

I agree completely. Real subs do not run around with mines as part of their normal weapons loadout. The only time they load mines is when they are sent to lay a minefield in a specified location. Multiplayer gamers who use mines in a tactical engagement are taking advantage of the game design to employ unrealistic tactics.

LuftWolf · 02-16-07, 10:16 AM

Ok, then this topic is pretty much done.

SLMM == SLMM

Cheers,
David

Bellman · 02-16-07, 10:46 AM

So be it !

Dr.Sid · 02-16-07, 12:15 PM

Btw. any of you tried beating Kilo Demo with mines only ?

View Poll Results: What Should Be Done With the SLMM for US Submarines?
Convert the SLMM to the Submarine Launched Version of the Mk 60 CAPTOR	9	30.00%
Leave the SLMM as a Mobile Conventional Mine	21	70.00%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

02-15-07, 01:49 PM	#17
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Hmm... Upon further review, it would appear that 8000yrds @ 28+kts are the BS stats given for the Mk46. Thanks for the clarification, Bill. SLMM it shall stay. This is why I do polls, so I don't embarass myself too much. Thanks for the responses everyone. Cheers, David PS I'm going to look at the ISLMM now. :hmm: __________________ LW

02-15-07, 02:51 PM	#18
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Not looking good on the ISLMM. There are three problems. 1) The SLMM interface is incompatible with wirecontrols 2) The SLMM interface only has one (terminal) waypoint. 3) The SLMM don't want to launch no warhead... So basically, I can increase the range of the existing SLMM, but it doesn't appear I can add any new features. Doh. Cheers, David __________________ LW

02-15-07, 03:43 PM	#20
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	The 76mm gun issue doesn't need a poll, because its clear that it should be effective against air targets. What has to happen now is that I need to test out the proper changes completely, to make sure nothing breaks, and to let you guys know what I find. Thanks for reminding me... Cheers, David __________________ LW

02-16-07, 09:33 AM	#21
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	The conservatism of mission designers understandably defending the SLMM status quo protects the SP game. However the bulk of MP games are sub v sub still from SC days and the emphasis on littoral water operations and the use of the SLMM is inappropriate in that game area. The ability to 'anchor' the Captor at intermediate depths gives a whole range of tactical ASW possibilities not available with the SMM or ISMM. It would be IMO a great pity if this potential feature is put aside. It would be nice to hear from some MP players, because I guess, if you factor-out the weight of designers voting for the status quo the picture changes dramaticaly ! The 'anti' vote is motivated and biased. NIMBYs ? I would be happy to have the sub launched Captor as an additional feature in the same way that ATC has been. Useage and acceptance of the latter has induced the decision to offer it as a standard, I believe. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

02-15-07, 10:05 AM	#16
Dr.Sid The Old Man Join Date: May 2005 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	Those are some serious arguments, Bill. So '8000yds, 28kts' are parameters of the torpedo ? Those are mentioned anywhere on the net. But it can be clearly seen on pictures that CAPTOR itself has no propeller. Only the torpedo inside has one. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_Mines.htm Such weapon has even less usage options in DW I guess. PS: how long can CAPTOR stay on watch ? I didn't find it mentioned anywhere. I know it has fuel-based energy plant, nothing more.

02-15-07, 03:01 PM	#19
Dr.Sid The Old Man Join Date: May 2005 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	Never mind .. what is official FFG 76mm status ? I guess it calls for another poll.

02-16-07, 10:07 AM	#22
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	Somehow I doubt that two subs that got entangled in a battle would try to mine the **** out of an area to try to get the other guy. MP already has enough issues with unrealistic scenarios and tactics. Taking DW in that direction would not be progress. CAPTORs or not, mines are still strategic weapons. It makes more sense to be using them as part of a mission objective than to try to get immediate results. __________________

02-16-07, 10:10 AM	#23
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Well... the fact that the mine when correctly implimented does not in fact have it's own propulsion system, unless I take a radically liberal view of what the ISLMM is, pretty much negates any tactical use a Mk60 would have for a submarine. It would appear the only moddable option for an SLMM conversion would be to merge what is known about the ISLMM into what is know about the Mk60 and create and CAPTOR-ASuW Capable Mine that can both fire a torpedo AND detonate like a conventional mine. Best of both worlds... plausible engineering wise given 21st century technology if the Mk60 came about in the 1970's. As a modder I want to go for it for the sake of doing it, because it would be really neat, and wouldn't give US submarines any capability they don't have now, other than a self-propelled CAPTOR. On the other hand, it's a blatant poetic interpretation of the state of affairs... I can only get away with so many of those. So... what do you all think of that? (cringes) Cheers, David PS No I'm not really serious, it would be a fun engineering challenge for me that all... __________________ LW

02-16-07, 10:14 AM	#25
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	That's pretty much my assessment of my own idea. :rotfl: __________________ LW

02-16-07, 10:16 AM	#27
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Ok, then this topic is pretty much done. SLMM == SLMM Cheers, David __________________ LW

02-16-07, 10:46 AM	#28
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	So be it ! __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity Last edited by Bellman; 02-16-07 at 11:15 AM.

02-16-07, 12:15 PM	#29
Dr.Sid The Old Man Join Date: May 2005 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	Btw. any of you tried beating Kilo Demo with mines only ?