Soviet subs tactics

[max-peck]

Originally Posted by denis_469

Excellent. Continue think so and more! When war start our victory would be easy.

I am pretty sure none of us here on this forum are wanting to start a war, or have one.

Originally Posted by denis_469

When I last counted was 30737 attacks. But in was in January this year. Now may be more or less. So find new attacks and find double write and delete doubles. Not only torpedo, but and gun. And other like kingstones and fire.

Now I am very interested Denis

Could you please clarify something

Does this mean 30,000 attacks by Russian Boats on Western Boats?
Does this mean 30,000 attacks by Western Boats on Russian Boats?

Why have I not seen this in the news?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you?
Does this mean 30,000 simulated attacks in a wargame or simulator?

Or do you mean you have data on 30,000 torpedo attacks from history?

I am honestly curious about this Denis, as this is something I do not have any knowledge of

[denis_469]

Originally Posted by max-peck

I am pretty sure none of us here on this forum are wanting to start a war, or have one.

You not know history. Every century wild west attack Russia. Now 21 century and wild west not aatck Russia yet. So it must be in future.

Originally Posted by max-peck

Now I am very interested Denis

Could you please clarify something

Does this mean 30,000 attacks by Russian Boats on Western Boats?
Does this mean 30,000 attacks by Western Boats on Russian Boats?

Why have I not seen this in the news?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you?
Does this mean 30,000 simulated attacks in a wargame or simulator?

Or do you mean you have data on 30,000 torpedo attacks from history?

I am honestly curious about this Denis, as this is something I do not have any knowledge of

I mean, that it was 30000 attack in history. From start war patrols.

And you all right understand, but start stupid specially. I understand, that wild west not wish poorest himself weaps, so read in this topic for LOL only.

[The Bandit]

Originally Posted by denis_469

You not know history. Every century wild west attack Russia. Now 21 century and wild west not aatck Russia yet. So it must be in future.




I mean, that it was 30000 attack in history. From start war patrols.

And you all right understand, but start stupid specially. I understand, that wild west not wish poorest himself weaps, so read in this topic for LOL only.

For the record

[JhonSilver]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Okean 61 and 77 and later on in 84 operation atrina saw the use of "wolf packs"

the western boats could classify each individual boat and also separate them out too so wasn't a massive issue the diesels ...

???

The pack does not go around a bunch. Between submarines is maintained the value of the distance. It's not about what problems with the recognition of the enemy for the american submarine - but the fact that finding a nearby second Soviet submarine extremely complicates the classification - that in battle fatal.
In a radius of 10,000 meters there can not be a second submarine, especially at high noise levels
-------
sorry bad english

[shipkiller1]

Originally Posted by JhonSilver

???

but the fact that finding a nearby second Soviet submarine extremely complicates the classification - that in battle fatal.
In a radius of 10,000 meters there can not be a second submarine, especially at high noise levels
-------
sorry bad english

Sorry, no it does not....

[Shadriss]

Originally Posted by shipkiller1

Sorry, no it does not....

Agreed, for a great many reasons I can't talk about here.

As for the supposed attack in 2005... riiiiiiight.

[JhonSilver]

Originally Posted by Shadriss

Agreed, for a great many reasons I can't talk about here.

So many disadvantages:

1. The submarines do not exchange target designation underwater - two boats do not have the advantage of finding an enemy over one

2. The presence of a nearby allied submarine for both imposes restrictions on the use of weapons, while for the enemy increases the probability of hitting

3. Each new underwater contact in wartime is the default enemy. Thus, with a temporary loss of contact with the ally, there is a risk of identification error.

4. The number of targets that can hit one submarine is sufficient to destroy any surface target, the presence of a second submarine for an attack of the same purpose will not increase the effectiveness.
(This does not concern the attack of the CVBG)

5. Boats located at one point can be bypassed, including dispersing the group target. Boats distributed in the veil are much more difficult to get around.
-----------------
Any advantages?
-----------------
Benefits are when accompanied SSBN. But to attack convoy ??

[shipkiller1]

Originally Posted by JhonSilver

So many disadvantages:

1. The submarines do not exchange target designation underwater - two boats do not have the advantage of finding an enemy over one

2. The presence of a nearby allied submarine for both imposes restrictions on the use of weapons, while for the enemy increases the probability of hitting

3. Each new underwater contact in wartime is the default enemy. Thus, with a temporary loss of contact with the ally, there is a risk of identification error.

4. The number of targets that can hit one submarine is sufficient to destroy any surface target, the presence of a second submarine for an attack of the same purpose will not increase the effectiveness.
(This does not concern the attack of the CVBG)

5. Boats located at one point can be bypassed, including dispersing the group target. Boats distributed in the veil are much more difficult to get around.
-----------------
Any advantages?
-----------------
Benefits are when accompanied SSBN. But to attack convoy ??

This is not a criticism, but I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

[JhonSilver]

Originally Posted by shipkiller1

... I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

Is Google translator so bad?

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by JhonSilver

???

The pack does not go around a bunch. Between submarines is maintained the value of the distance. It's not about what problems with the recognition of the enemy for the american submarine - but the fact that finding a nearby second Soviet submarine extremely complicates the classification - that in battle fatal.
In a radius of 10,000 meters there can not be a second submarine, especially at high noise levels
-------
sorry bad english

There is a lot of evidence from past Soviet war games that diesels would hunt together in a group normally of 3 to 5 submarines, the exercises i mentioned were the known occasions for large scale deployment in such a configuration spacing would be around 5 miles to 10 miles apart close enough for mutual assistance far enough not to get under each others way.

Sonar both west and east is advanced enough to be able to single out specific targets even when bunched together close, the fact a submarine can hide in the cavitation of another ships screw and still monitor a potential target is testament to the system in hand, Type 2070 of the Royal Navy has the ability to listen and classify over 100 targets simultaneously with a range of 1000 miles (official release) (yes just think on that )


Now Denis 1st off any attack Russian to American or vice versa which leads to the loss of an asset if a formal declaration of war under international law (re pearl harbour)

2nd the MK48 and Stingray torpedoes are not designed to hit the hull they are designed to go beneath it and create a gas bubble which effectively breaks the vessels spine.
HMAS Farncombe which in 1999 sank the Frigate HMAS Torrens during a sinkex demonstrates my point in case your wondering it is also the load up screen of sub command but here is the link to show you that is goes underneath the hull.



In case you want an explanation this video is from the Royal Australian Navy giving you a description and a Video of a 2004 Sinkex where HMAS Farncombe sinks the USNS Kilauea.




The notion of 30,000 attacks in history is non-sensicle given the Russian fleet in its entirely hasn't had more than 2,500 boats. what do you count as an attack?

Further more i was speaking with Igor Kurdin (Former Captain of a Delta IV) yesterday he confirmed that the standing orders for Russian boats are the same as the American or British which i will tell you is Fire if Fired upon, i can assure you had a western boat launched any weapon aimed at any Russian boat then it is certain the Russian boat will fire back.

In 1962 independent authority was given to commanders Igor Savitsky, Nikolai Shumkov, Ryurik Ketov, and Alexi Dubivko to fire without permission from Moscow nuclear tipped torpedoes if they were threatened by the USA thank god no one lost their cool because on the Foxtrot class B-59 (under the command of Ryurik Ketov) the boat had been forced to surface Vasili Arkipov (who technically out ranked the Captain but was 2nd in command) refused to agree to the order to fire the weapon (it required a unanimous decision between Captain 2nd in command and Political officer) Thus preventing the USS Blandy under the command of Charles Rosier) from being incinerated.

Technically speaking The USA committed a war crime it was only wording that saved it, the crime being blockading a country they were not at war with which is against international laws, what saved the USA was Robert McNamara advising Kennedy not to use the word "blockade" but use the word "Quarantine" instead.



I'm sorry but i cannot believe or Justify your 30000 claim or the 2005 attack no boat has been unaccounted for in 2005.

As for Data links they do exist and you can contact submarines while underwater both Russian and Western, i don't think i can go much further with this without treading on some toes here.

And finally as for the 30,000 claim i am struggling to find 3 credible losses due to foul play, and i have been through the books only real suspicious one would be the K129 Golf class that went down in the pacific ocean and was later part of Azorian and Project Jennifer.

[shipkiller1]

The Aussy officer was only partially correct.

What the torpedo does is....

When the warhead detonates, it creates the first pressure wave. You see this in the first video as the puff of smoke out of the stack...

Now the expanding pressure wave leaves a vacuum bubble. Once the pressure wave expands to a point where sea pressure overcomes the pressure of the bubble, the water attempts to fill the vacuum, violently. When this happens (this is hard to explain) the in-rushing water that is coming in from all sides since the vacuum bubble is a sphere, has so much energy, it sort of passes through itself (this is what is hard to visualize), releasing more energy.... This second pressure wave is amplified and produces the more energetic second explosion you see, breaking the keel.

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by shipkiller1

The Aussy officer was only partially correct.

What the torpedo does is....

When the warhead detonates, it creates the first pressure wave. You see this in the first video as the puff of smoke out of the stack...

Now the expanding pressure wave leaves a vacuum bubble. Once the pressure wave expands to a point where sea pressure overcomes the pressure of the bubble, the water attempts to fill the vacuum, violently. When this happens (this is hard to explain) the in-rushing water that is coming in from all sides since the vacuum bubble is a sphere, has so much energy, it sort of passes through itself (this is what is hard to visualize), releasing more energy.... This second pressure wave is amplified and produces the more energetic second explosion you see, breaking the keel.

Actually, unless I'm wrong you can see all this in this video:



and then from the surface at 4:44 where you can clearly see both waves.

[JhonSilver]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

...from past Soviet war games that diesels would hunt together in a group normally of 3 to 5 submarines,....spacing would be around 5 miles to 10 miles apart

Oh Thank you very much!
Those. Tactics of group action was used by diesel boats (a legacy of the World War 2)
- obviously unjustified for nuclear submarines.

So left it in 1968 campain.

Originally Posted by Kapitan

a submarine can hide in the cavitation of another ships screw and still monitor a potential target

the ability to listen and classify over 100 targets simultaneously

This applies to surface ships.

----------------------------
----------------------------

It is likely that the torpedo Uset-80 is overpowered. By 1984, problems with homing in difficult conditions had not been solved on it.

And Set-65 have differents homing systems in 1968 and 1984.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by JhonSilver

Oh Thank you very much!
Those. Tactics of group action was used by diesel boats (a legacy of the World War 2)
- obviously unjustified for nuclear submarines.

So left it in 1968 campain.


This applies to surface ships.

----------------------------
----------------------------

It is likely that the torpedo Uset-80 is overpowered. By 1984, problems with homing in difficult conditions had not been solved on it.

And Set-65 have differents homing systems in 1968 and 1984.

These tactics were still being used in 84 with atrina and okean 86 so not still 68 im afraid, in fact the stance was still used in 2000 in baltic exercises.

as for cavitation yes they can however modern sensors can now tell the difference.

[ikalugin]

Heh, missed this thread. My 50 cents would be that it appears that our estimed US comrades do not understand the logic of the Soviet submarine development.

Not only is the effect of spy rings over estimated, the driving requirements behind the developments are poorly understood, for example why and when did Soviets switch to rafting? Why Alfas were small, fast SSNs? Why didn't Soviets deploy more weapons on SSBNs? etc.