SUBSIM Radio Room Forums


SUBSIM: The Web's #1 BBS for all submarine and naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > Modern-Era Subsims > DW Mod Workshop
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-21-2017, 12:57 PM   #16
ikalugin
Ocean Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,951
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by p7p8 View Post
Yeah, Russian/Soviet nuclear submarines are much more stronger and safer than american subs but they just have "bad luck"

sunken nuclear submarines
How many of those losses were due to a hit by a lightweight torpedo?

If they were not due to the combat dammage or simmilar dammage incured, then how is it relevant?
__________________
Grumpy as always.
ikalugin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 01:19 PM   #17
p7p8
Samurai Navy
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 588
Downloads: 116
Uploads: 5


Default

I doesent matter because subs sunken by LwT = ZERO

But submarines with:
Quote:
(...)strength of the hull structures and the boyancy reserves typical for Soivet desighns (...)
...should not be a leader in infamous list of sunken one.


In quantities of accidents where sub was not sunk finnaly, they have also "first place" - it is sad truth.


I am big fan of soviet submarines but i think "boyancy reserve" was repercussion of huge numbers of accidents (in comparsion to "west" subs). In other hand stronger structure was necessary because they operate close to polar region.
p7p8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 01:40 PM   #18
ikalugin
Ocean Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,951
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0


Default

Ok, let me explain. The only example on your list between two countries where the sub was lost due to a combat-hit-like cause was Kursk. Others Soviet/Russian were due to other reasons, not related to the torpedo hit survivability, ie
  • 1/7 lost due to scutling.
  • 3/7 lost during towing.
  • 1/7 lost due to flooding (but as I note below Charlie series did not have boyancy reserves).
  • 1/7 due to flooding (after a fire, so not relevant to this specific scenario)
The US losses on the other hand were both due to their hull weakness, which may be viewed as relevant in this context.

Kursk had an internal detonation of a carrier-killer 650mm torpedo, which lead to flooding of 3 compartments. Soviet desighn standard (with exceptions that did not follow it) states that submarine must maintain positive boyancy with single compartment flooding, this is where boyancy reserves come from (the submarine desighns that did not follow that standard may have less boyancy reserves - Charlie series or more reserves - Typhoon class).

That desighn standard implies that if hit by a lightweight torpedo that would flood one compartment would allow a Soviet patern submarine (with exceptions) survive while would lead to a certain death of a USN patern submarine.

p.s. the reason why Charlie (Charlie-I and Charlie-II) series of SSGNs were not desighned with standard reserves (speed/dive depth or any number of other things viewed as standard in Soviet practice at the time) was due to the desire to build those submarines at an inland shipyard. Sierra series SSNs (Sierra-I, Sierra-II, Sierra-III) managed to get their standard reserves via extensive use of titanium and other displacement saving measures.
__________________
Grumpy as always.
ikalugin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 02:51 PM   #19
jaop99
Bosun
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cancun, Mexico
Posts: 62
Downloads: 23
Uploads: 0
Default

I managed to complete the mission yesterday, with this new ROE in mind after install RA mod 1.41, of enemy subs using Shkval torpedoes with nuke warheads. I will edit the mission and upload it tonight or maybe tomorrow!, but was a tense situation, evading not only the Shkvals, but multiple STALLIONS or Sizzler ASW launched from the surface vessels!

The best way to evade the Shkval: launch an active decoy and run at flank speed far from the possible detonation area (I could evade four in this way, exploding near the decoys, because was the only object they found with their MAD!), and at the same time I sank an Oscar and a Victor subs with a mixed combination of one Shkval and one USGT for each one, the first crippled many of their systems, and the second was the shot of grace.

What really saved me, was the use of voice commands and not the keyboard to give orders.
jaop99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 03:01 PM   #20
p7p8
Samurai Navy
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 588
Downloads: 116
Uploads: 5


Default

All countries (Russia, USA, UK) had nuclear submarines accidents but most loses were on russian/soviet side. I don't care about reasons.

If russians subs have that high standards for survivability, why they have much more loses than any other country?

Quote:
That desighn standard implies that if hit by a lightweight torpedo that would flood one compartment would allow a Soviet patern submarine (with exceptions) survive while would lead to a certain death of a USN patern submarine
I think that is still dangerous because flooded compartment is not equal "destroyed" compartment. And why you are so sure that LWT can destroy only one compartment?

Kursk was one of the biggest sub in the world with greatest bouyancy reserve and theoretically should survive that explossion. The main problem is word "therotically".

In this topic main problem is 45% of damages on Akula III class from explosion of 210 kg from 120-180 yds. Because in DW you can still run your sub with 99% damages i think this is NOT overall "health". In my opinion 100% of damages means "bouyancy reserve" is exceeded (no matter how many compartments are flooded) and you can't longer control your boat.

Quote:
in mind after install RA mod 1.41, of enemy subs using Shkval torpedoes with nuke warheads
I think it is not true. Nuke warhead would be much more destructive to your Akula III from 120-180 yds. 45% of damage is not "massive".
p7p8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 03:30 PM   #21
ikalugin
Ocean Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,951
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0


Default

Because those losses were due to non-combat like causes (scuttling during decomission, loss turing towing etc) they are irrelevant to the discussion of combat survivability.
You can make an argument regarding reliability and safety of the Soviet designs, but it is again irrelevant to this specific discussion.

Because with double hull and high strength pressure hull it is unlikelly that a hit by a lightweight torpedo would lead to flooding in multiple compartments. If anything Kursk shows that in order to achieve flooding of multiple compartments you need a very big explosion.

Technically no, Typhoons are both larger and have larger reserves. Kursk sank due to internal (and thus more dammaging) explosion of multiple 650mm torpedos which are by far more potent than a lightweight torpedo or even the classical heavyweight torpedoes.
Thus even that case is not illustrative of the expected combat survivability.
__________________
Grumpy as always.
ikalugin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 04:07 PM   #22
p7p8
Samurai Navy
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 588
Downloads: 116
Uploads: 5


Default

Quote:
Because those losses were due to non-combat like causes (scuttling during decomission, loss turing towing etc) they are irrelevant to the discussion of combat survivability.
Why you think that. Is russian/soviet subs have greater buoyancy only during combat?
USN/UK subs have same "low" buoyancy reserve all the time. Statistically they should be sunken in accidents more often than russian subs.
p7p8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 04:36 PM   #23
ikalugin
Ocean Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,951
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by p7p8 View Post
Why you think that. Is russian/soviet subs have greater buoyancy only during combat?
USN/UK subs have same "low" buoyancy reserve all the time. Statistically they should be sunken in accidents more often than russian subs.
That is a faulty assesment, because if you look at the losses of the subs they were due to the causes that were independent from boyancy reserves where those were availiable (ie excluding charlie class for example).

In fact in one such case (loss of the Mike class) the loss can be attributed to a feature that improves survivability to combat dammage (solid fuel gas generators for emergency blow), that feature is currently standard on Soviet/Russian desighns.

To recap my point - double hull and boyancy reserves allow the submarine to survive certain types of combat dammage (lightweight torpedo hit with a single compartment flooding) unlike the classical single hull, poorly compartmentalised US desighns without reserves, but does not magically make that sub unsinkable (though Oscars and Typhoons are as close to that as possible).
Nor does it affect the reliability and safety of the desighn, which is a separate matter entirely.
__________________
Grumpy as always.
ikalugin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 05:26 PM   #24
jaop99
Bosun
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cancun, Mexico
Posts: 62
Downloads: 23
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by p7p8 View Post
I think it is not true. Nuke warhead would be much more destructive to your Akula III from 120-180 yds. 45% of damage is not "massive".
Simple maths, ot they are nukes or they cant damage my boat at all with a 210kg conventional warhead explotion at 120-180 yds. Period. Have you read any of the posts about the damage of the depth charges in the WWII in this thread?.

Citing Wikipedia:

"Although the explosions of the standard United States 600 lb (270 kg) Mark 4 and Mark 7 depth charge used in World War II were nerve-wracking to the target, an U-boat’s undamaged pressure hull would not rupture unless the charge detonated closer than about 15 ft (4.6 m). Placing the weapon within this range was entirely a matter of chance and quite unlikely as the target maneuvered evasively during the attack. Most U-boats sunk by depth charges were destroyed by damage accumulated from a long barrage rather than by a single charge. Many survived hundreds of depth charges over a period of many hours; U-427 survived 678 depth charges fired against it in April 1945."

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...arges_in_wwii/

Last edited by jaop99; 03-21-2017 at 06:22 PM.
jaop99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 11:40 AM   #25
p7p8
Samurai Navy
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 588
Downloads: 116
Uploads: 5


Default

Here is link to interesting document - link

and here are some graphics:



Descriptions about pressure:




Document and graphics are about "Underwater explosion on a ship" - not submarine but i think it gives us some good reference.

It shows that 210 kg of TNT can't sink ship from distance 120-180 yds. In other hand, your damages was not massive. I think they responds 2-6 MPa.

I can't find information how strong nuclear warhead had shkval, but i think nuke explosion from that distances should sink your sub immediatly.

Conclusions:

- In RA shkval does little too powerfull damages from distances 120-180 yards but i think it is acceptable for "game purposes".
- damages you took definitely was not from nuke warhead
p7p8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 03:00 PM   #26
FPSchazly
The One and Only
 
FPSchazly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Maryland
Posts: 630
Downloads: 7
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by p7p8 View Post
Document and graphics are about "Underwater explosion on a ship" - not submarine but i think it gives us some good reference.

It shows that 210 kg of TNT can't sink ship from distance 120-180 yds. In other hand, your damages was not massive. I think they responds 2-6 MPa.

I can't find information how strong nuclear warhead had shkval, but i think nuke explosion from that distances should sink your sub immediatly.

Conclusions:

- In RA shkval does little too powerfull damages from distances 120-180 yards but i think it is acceptable for "game purposes".
- damages you took definitely was not from nuke warhead
I agree that a nuke at that distance would result in immediate sinking. I also agree with both of your conclusions. The Skhval's current explosion would be consistent with a rather small nuke (<0.1 kiloton), but I feel the Shkval would have a much larger nuke (or at least it could) because it is a rather large torpedo. It seems likely Sonalysts modeled Shkvals this way for gameplay purposes, which I'm fine with.

EDIT: By the way, the stuff you posted is very cool
__________________
Your friendly neighborhood modern submarine YouTuber!

My videos:
**NEW** Dangerous Waters Liu Doctrine (LwAmi) **NEW**

688(I) Hunter/Killer
Cold Waters South China Sea

Remember, it's just a game

Last edited by FPSchazly; 03-22-2017 at 03:09 PM.
FPSchazly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 05:38 PM   #27
jaop99
Bosun
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cancun, Mexico
Posts: 62
Downloads: 23
Uploads: 0
Default

I do not agree, we are talking of a WAR VESSEL!. Are a superb charts, but looking the distance and payload, the category falls to 2-4 (for a 300 kg payload, the Shkval only have 210Kg), for a ship is lighting lamps cracking and electronics, but THIS IS AN AKULA (Project 971), in the scale of less than 4 MPa it should not receive any damage at all, only a simple push. And by the way, the voices only reflected a small part of the damage I received, in fact the damage screen in the first test was complete full of red text, will repeit the test. If my radio antenna, radar and all the electronics broken were deployed is ok, but they were secured inside the sub tower.

Last edited by jaop99; 03-22-2017 at 06:06 PM.
jaop99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 07:50 PM   #28
p7p8
Samurai Navy
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 588
Downloads: 116
Uploads: 5


Default

In DW damages are completly random. I am sure with 45% most of them needs about 1 hour (max) for repair.

Quote:
but THIS IS AN AKULA
Sorry for joke but i cannot resist

...but:


Yes, this is Akula, so?

Quote:
we are talking of a WAR VESSEL
Yes, I know that. Did you look to linked document?

Civilian vessels are safe with pressure 0-0,4 MPa
Warship are safe with pressure 0-2 MPa
(this is on second picture)

All time you said "damages was massive" but on YT you did not check list of damages and how many minutes takes repairing. You just quit mission!

From my experience i know that 45% of damages is not too much. Probably your submarine still was able to gain max speed, depth etc.
p7p8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2017, 08:57 PM   #29
jaop99
Bosun
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cancun, Mexico
Posts: 62
Downloads: 23
Uploads: 0
Default

GREAT PIC!, but yes the Akula is something similar to Sparta in the sub world! and yes, I read the whole document is great!
jaop99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2017, 05:48 AM   #30
ikalugin
Ocean Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,951
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0


Default

2 MPa is ~ 20 atm or ~ pressure at 200m depth.

Ofc there is a difference between static and dynamic loads, but on low depths such a change in pressure that doesnt sound as all that lethal considering the crash dive depth of the desighn.

Morever, more or less post Alfa class the Soviet SSN/SSGN desighns were optimised (in terms of hydrodynamic shaping and structural desighn) to improve survivability against (nuclear) depth charges.
__________________
Grumpy as always.
ikalugin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2019 Subsim