LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #11: Adv. Torpedoes

[Bellman]

I'm in !! (Heck thats my shortest post ever )

[LuftWolf]

Ok, I'll try to whip something up.

Fish you are of course welcome to.

Anyone else who want to try it is more than welcome to, so long as they understand, it's a ***ALPHA*** Playtesters Special.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Competent opponents need to be tracked during evasion so that the torps can be resteered to intercept them on their evason course, unless you put so many torps in the water that every possible evasion course is covered.

True on both counts. Even two torpedoes can cover every possible evasion course at the right range, btw. It doesn't take a lot. I don't see most people doing that, though.

You're also assuming, though, that it's a one-on-one. I've noticed in replays that people who walk torpedoes in, often don't hit the target they originally aimed at, either. They end up hitting someone else. A lot of this is due to the scenarios themselves being contrived (the space is way too densely packed), but the way wire guidence is now also facilitates the tactic because it makes it possible to effectively use a torpedo as a high-speed, ASW UUV.

A player firing a snapshot is at a disadvantage against a player that had an initial solution, btw.

Depending on how close the guy with the solution is, this is also true.

Why even ask this question?


Of course we want all that and a soda machine onboard

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

USN dropped the subroc/lea lance because it was unlikely that it would detect a contact far enough out to need one. The Russians are much, much quieter than they used to be.

It wasn't just the Russians becoming quieter that was driving that. It was also a matter of the US strategic focus changing to places where convergence zone detections were less likely.

[Bellman]

SQ:

Torpedo as a high-speed, ASW UUV

BOT - LwAmi mod. This is exactly what we want a UUV which has a higher range, variable speed control and
search patterns. Not a torp exhibiting the earlier LwAmi 'feedbacks' but an unarmed torpedo with that
type of performance married to a UUVs sensor capacity.

The essence of depth and speed control of such a new UUV would be stealth and it should be possible
to slow it right down (or temporarily stop it) with resulting sonar enhancement and extensions to range.

Luftwolf may recall our earlier correspondence.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Bellman

Not a torp exhibiting the earlier LwAmi 'feedbacks' but an unarmed torpedo with that
type of performance married to a UUVs sensor capacity.

Personally, I don't think the UUV should be good for doing anything but hunting mines. Currently, there only exists one UUV in the US inventory, the LMRS. It has a side-scan imaging sonar for hunting bottom mines, and a short range, high frequency, forward looking, active sonar for detecting floating and tethered mines.

There's a lot of talk in theoretical circles about an ASW oriented UUV, but it's all purely theoretical and it looks like to do it you'd have to build something much larger than would fit in a torpedo tube. There's some talk about something called the Sea Talon that Lockheed Martin is looking at building, but that's not going to fit on a submarine. It all exists only on PowerPoint slides at this point.

[LuftWolf]

So...

Should I make the UUV better or worse?

(Still chewing on the wirelimit test doctrine... working 12+ hours a day in the real world on big boy things...)

[TLAM Strike]

I think the UUVs should have better range and speed. More like the LMRS.

Something you can really send to scout ahead. Thats what UUVs have been billed as.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

So...

Should I make the UUV better or worse?

(Still chewing on the wirelimit test doctrine... working 12+ hours a day in the real world on big boy things...)

A little of both. =)

Decrease sensitivity, increase non-cavitating NL, increase cavitation depth, increase range (battery time and/or speed), add variable depth capability.

[WolfyBrandon]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

So, what can I do to do keep players from firing salvoes at long range if 1) the weapon parameters are realistic, 2) the detection ranges and sonar performance is realistic?

Originally Posted by MaHuJa

As for the "salvo problem", there is no silver bullet. This is certainly no solution to that.
With things as they are, it's always an advantage with more torpedoes in the water heading for a target.

Possible countermeasures I can think of:
-false contacts, when included by a mission designer, means a player should hold back to spend on a real target if the one shot on was not. While somewhat possible already, much could be done to support this in the mod

That was one good thing I liked about SCX was the false contacts and if they could be created for DW that would really help with the salvo problem. It would make players be more careful what they fire at, and conserve torpedos so if they did indeed fire on a false contact (anomoly) that would give away their position and they would need to conserve torpedos to defend themselves.

Wolfy

[Deathblow]

Originally Posted by MaHuJa

If you spent a 8 torpedo salvo on a single sub, I suspect you'd be thoroughly yelled at when you came back. That is not part of DW. Also, you'd have 8 torpedoes less until you got replenished. That is also not part of DW.

As for the "salvo problem", there is no silver bullet. This is certainly no solution to that.
With things as they are, it's always an advantage with more torpedoes in the water heading for a target.

A question about this:

How do we know that large torpedo salvos *aren't* what the reality of real life sub vs sub combat would be? Has anyone here actually been in a real life and death sub battle with their life and the life of their crew on the line? If you have 8 tubes, and a better killing the enemy with more torps fired, and in the process giving a better chance of saving your hide from a watery grave... then what *would* stop a real life commander from no-holds-barred tatics to save his ship? Just what have all those tubes been designed for then?

Everyone is insistent upon the "only one-two torps per volley" obession as "real life" but does anyone have proof that this is the reality besides Hollywood moview and television?

[WolfyBrandon]

I think the ideas are baised on the cost of torpedos, since they are so expensive and all this money goes into training the crew I don't think the military would want you wasting so many torpedos on a single target. Like in the air force they wouldn't want you wasting your entire payload on a single ground target or all your missles on a single enemy fighter. :hmm:

Wolfy

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

Everyone is insistent upon the "only one-two torps per volley" obession as "real life" but does anyone have proof that this is the reality besides Hollywood moview and television?

Well lets see whats been done in real war...

HMS Conquer fired three torpedoes at Belgrano.
ARA San Luis fired two torpedoes at HMS Brilliant and/or HMS Yarmouth
ARA San Luis attacked HMS Alacrity and HMS Arrow. Unknown number of torpedoes.
ARA San Luis attacked POSUB (Possibly Oberon Class HMS Onyx?) Unknown number of torpedoes.
PNS Hangor attacks INS Kirpan with 1 torpedo
PNS Hangor attacks INS Khukri with 1 torpedo sinking her
PNS Hangor attacks INS Kirpan (again) with 1 torpedo
^Those last three all in one battle
INS Tanin attacks Egyptian Frigate. Unknown number of torpedoes.

Maybe someone who knows more about the Tanin and San Luis can comment on how many weapons they fired.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

So...

Should I make the UUV better or worse?

The sensor should be very short ranged maybe a few hundred yards in each direction, and active only.