Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Red_Hammer_Fleet

Submarines, and Anti-Submarine Warfare

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

35
[GULAG]
[GULAG]
Members
149 posts
1,369 battles

It's official, submarines are to be tested in the upcoming Halloween event. Most of the video that we've seen was focused on how submarines are to be played. The boats we saw had torpedo tubes forward and aft, variable depth control, an oxygen meter that requires them to surface, and had fairly limited HP pools.

What interested me in the video was the short clip that showed depth charges falling around a submarine, a sort of hint toward how anti-submarine warfare (ASW) will work. It seems readily apparent that a submarine caught on the surface will be destroyed in short order, given their near-total lack of armor and small HP pools. What interested me more was the implications for ASW. In the video here we see a submarine evading depth charges, and taking damage from one at an unknown range. I will wager that whenever WG does get around to ASW that a submarine will take more damage the closer they are to a depth charge.

Now, what does this mean for us DD captains?

I've looked over every destroyer that I can view, and 59 of 68 have depth charge racks already modeled (87%). A few have depth charge launchers on the port and starboard sides in addition to their stern racks. Even looking at the DDs I don't yet own, racks and launchers of various kinds are easily noticeable on almost all of them. Assuming that subs will be added at T4, only Isokaze, Farragut, and Aigle do not have an immediately obvious ASW armament. Among those, only Isokaze doesn't have any depth charges listed as part of its armament in any historical data that I can find. Farragut and Aigle both declare depth charges as part of their original designed armament, including stern racks and port/starboard launchers. It does appear that the Kami Sisters (Kami, Kami R, and Fujin) and Gremyaschy also have depth charge racks on their respective sterns. This brings the total up to 72 total DDs in-game, with 65 of them having some kind of ASW suite (90%). The remaining 7 DDs are either T2 (Tachibana, Umikaze, Sampson, Smith, V-25, and Longjiang) or the Isokaze at T4. If we are to see submarines enter the game, T4 is the absolute lowest tier that they can begin from and still have a consistent base of opposing ships that can routinely sink them within the MM spread.

That leaves me with a safe assumption that WoWs will retain the fact that every ship in the game can (theoretically) damage/sink every other ship in the game, with one exception (Isokaze, and that can be fixed thanks to some space on the stern currently occupied by minesweepers).

As for mechanics and tactics, it still remains to be seen what we DD captains will get in terms of how to launch depth chargers. My wager is that we will see the 4 key used for launching depth charges, and some kind of range fan and aiming indicator off of the stern and/or sides. The video showed the submarine maneuvering to dodge the depth charges as they fell, which also tells me that the game will include a seafloor beyond what we have no if/when subs are added.

Tactically, almost every cruiser in the game at T4 and above has access to Hydroacoustic Search. Add in the German and British DDs at T6 as well as the German BBs at T8, submarine commanders will show up into an extremely hostile ASW environment from Day One. That's if WG doesn't decide to give Hydro to any other DD lines (USN, IJN, VMF, and PA), and we still haven't seen the French destroyer line yet. Haida has Hydro at T7, as does the Loyang at T8.

Looking more deeply at hydro, the picture gets worse. At absolute minimum, one charge of hydro will last no less than 90 seconds and detect a ship out to 3.12km. Considering that a cap circle is 8km in diameter, any opposing ship that fires up its Hydro in a cap circle will leave a very small area for a submarine to avoid being seen. I'll predict a surge in German ships being played, since they have the overall best Hydro in the game (3.96km @ 92 seconds minimum, 5.88km @ 122 seconds maximum).

The balancing factor to all this is that there are only so many destroyers that can hunt down a submarine on their own. I count sixteen destroyers (7 each KM and RN, plus the Haida and Loyang), all above T6. That puts everyone else in a position that requires some teamwork between a hydro-equipped cruiser or and a depth charge-carrying destroyer, with a few rare exceptions.

I am missing another major factor: cruisers equipped with depth charges. I know that there were at least a few cruiser classes equipped with antisubmarine weapons, whether hedgehog launchers or depth charges, but haven't yet had time to really research it. Anyway, that's my little thought.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[CVA16]
Members
2,301 posts
9,874 battles
5 minutes ago, Red_Hammer_Fleet said:

I've looked over every destroyer that I can view, and 59 of 68 have depth charge racks already modeled (87%). A few have depth charge launchers on the port and starboard sides in addition to their stern racks.

Almost all DDs also carried Hydro (sonar) but few in game have it. To be fair, many cruisers are modeled with smoke generators on the stern (in addition to what could be made in the stack) but only a few get smoke. Not sure how WG would allow a DD to spot a sub otherwise. Just the 2 K auto-spot distance?

As far as the depth charges, I assume you have to sail right over the sub and hit the fire button (4 key as you suggested) at the right moment (all while dodging torps, gunfire, islands and airplanes). Will DDs have different ASW ratings (racks + launchers)? As far as I know, no ships in game are shown with hedgehogs. I think I read somewhere that submerged subs would still be vulnerable to torps (but not deepwater torps, go figure) but all that is written in jello. Going to have to implement different ways to attack subs or you have 3/4 of classes that are helpless against them until they have to surface (and I assume they will have great concealment so sub 5K detection ranges).

Still hoping WG decides that adding subs to the general game is a bad idea (OK for special scenarios though). Many people are jazzed about playing a sub in the game, not many are at all happy about having to play against them. A lot of that enthusiasm would vanish if WG gave subs realistic underwater speeds (6-7kts for most). Makes the Katori look like a speedboat. By the way, as a Swiss-Army knife sort of training boat, Katori probably carried depth charges. Have to look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[GULAG]
[GULAG]
Members
149 posts
1,369 battles
40 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

Almost all DDs also carried Hydro (sonar) but few in game have it. To be fair, many cruisers are modeled with smoke generators on the stern (in addition to what could be made in the stack) but only a few get smoke. Not sure how WG would allow a DD to spot a sub otherwise. Just the 2 K auto-spot distance?

Yeah, probably the 2km auto-spotting distance.

40 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

As far as the depth charges, I assume you have to sail right over the sub and hit the fire button (4 key as you suggested) at the right moment (all while dodging torps, gunfire, islands and airplanes). Will DDs have different ASW ratings (racks + launchers)? As far as I know, no ships in game are shown with hedgehogs. I think I read somewhere that submerged subs would still be vulnerable to torps (but not deepwater torps, go figure) but all that is written in jello. Going to have to implement different ways to attack subs or you have 3/4 of classes that are helpless against them until they have to surface (and I assume they will have great concealment so sub 5K detection ranges).

A lot of the upper-tier DDs have launchers/projectors. The USN ships in particular have "K-Guns", you can see them on the Kidd and Fletcher along the port and starboard railings. They had a maximum range of about 150m, so you might not have to be directly over a sub in order to attack it. You just have to be "pretty close". Given their slow speed while submerged (probably never more than 15kts), I don't see any DD or other ASW-equipped ship having an issue making an attack or just running away. Even something as slow as a New York can outrun almost any submarine class I can find if it is submerged. Certainly any class within that MM spread.

Far as different ways to attack: you have guns (when surfaced), torps (when at periscope depth), depth charges (when submerged), and I'm going to assume that CVs will have some way of attacking a sub (perhaps dive bombers?). Since cruisers have so much access to hydro and DDs/CVs have the anti-sub weaponry, a poor sub captain will probably get merc'ed pretty easily given about 30 seconds of teamwork.

45 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

Still hoping WG decides that adding subs to the general game is a bad idea (OK for special scenarios though). Many people are jazzed about playing a sub in the game, not many are at all happy about having to play against them. A lot of that enthusiasm would vanish if WG gave subs realistic underwater speeds (6-7kts for most). Makes the Katori look like a speedboat. By the way, as a Swiss-Army knife sort of training boat, Katori probably carried depth charges. Have to look it up.

Well, we have the Halloween event to find out for ourselves. I'm mildly interested in subs, but have invested so much into DDs that I might not go into them all that seriously. I agree that their slow submerged speeds will seriously dampen a lot of enthusiasm, even the fastest classes I've found (nothing nuclear-powered) could maybe make 20 knots while submerged, and those classes would be the facing 30-knot+ fast battleships and 40-knot+ DDs in the upper tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[POD]
Members
39 posts
3,561 battles

Interesting, I am no warship guru by any means but logically speaking one would think the lack of surface tension would make a submarine faster when submerged.  Was it a technology/propulsion issue that kept them so slow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[CVA16]
Members
2,301 posts
9,874 battles
26 minutes ago, HallaSnackbar said:

Interesting, I am no warship guru by any means but logically speaking one would think the lack of surface tension would make a submarine faster when submerged.  Was it a technology/propulsion issue that kept them so slow?

Pretty much. Submerged you used battery powered electric motors (didn't need air). Batteries were lead-acid types. Couldn't get a lot of power from them and even then running at "full" speed would deplete them even faster. Until the invention of the snorkel (for subs) they had to surface to recharge those batteries.

Additionally, subs of the period were surface ships that could submerge (and come back up). Air resistance is nothing compared to water resistance/drag. They actually had much more drag once submerged (minimally streamlined conning tower,  non-fully retractable periscopes, deck guns, etc.) Things you don't see on modern subs. Even today, surface ships can go faster than most subs.

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[JFSOC]
Members
934 posts
2,823 battles

Virtually every destroyer above about Tier 3 in the game would carry depth charges in two racks aft and either K or Y guns, variously 2 to 4 per side.  The Japanese for example stuck with the Y gun and generally had 2 of these amidships on the stern ahead of the depth charge racks while most other navies used K guns with 2 to 4 per side.

USN K guns use black powder charges and can fire to about double the maximum range of RN hydraulically operated ones.  This gives the USN a slight advantage in being able to lay a wider pattern.

In any case, everybody typically lays a depth charge pattern that is 8 to 14 charges big in three or four parallel lines wide and covering roughly 100 to 200 feet in depth that is intended to box the submarine.  This is the USN "master" pattern diagram for depth charges.  It shows the "book" laying of a pattern:

asw_1670-1.gif

The picture below gives you an idea of how the pattern would be laid:

parth-06.jpg

Thus, the ship using depth charges has to predict where the sub will be when the charges reach its depth accounting for the sub's motion.

Another issue is the depth charge sink time.  Early ones might sink at around 4 feet a second while the fast sinkers like the USN Mk IX "teardrop" charge will sink up to about 18 feet a second.  This is important because the faster sinking charge gives the submarine less time to evade the pattern.  Then there's fuzes.  The US and RN developed deep firing ones that could be set to upwards of 1000 feet depth to take on deep diving German boats.  Most other navies are limited to about 300 feet with their fuze settings.

Next, you have to consider other ASW weapons.  Will aircraft be able to carry them?  What about ahead fired weapons like Hedgehog, or Mousetrap?  Or ahead thrown depth charges like Squid and Limbo?  The FIDO homing torpedo came out in late 1943.  Will it be included?  Will the subs get pattern running or homing torpedoes?

On the whole it will be a complication that adds little to the game as a submerged submarine will be little more than a very slow moving intelligent sea mine for all intents.  That is, it will creep along at maybe 8 knots at best and hope that some ship blunders over its position to give it a shot at torpedoing it.

I'd also say it would be patently unfair and unrealistic if subs can scout for other ships as they would have no means to communicate any ship they sighted while submerged to the other ships on their side.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[CVA16]
Members
2,301 posts
9,874 battles
6 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

That is, it will creep along at maybe 8 knots at best and hope that some ship blunders over its position to give it a shot at torpedoing it.

WG may go with higher speeds as they are in the scenario. 6-8kts would be painfully slow. Even the surface speeds top out around 24 kts which everyone complains about for other ships (US BBs).

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
326 posts
328 battles

Hedgehog Anti-sb mortar was also deployed in a lot of US and RN DDs, but usually INSTEAD or replacing one main gun:

WAMUS_Hedgehog-mk11-15_pic.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[GULAG]
[GULAG]
Members
149 posts
1,369 battles
On 9/19/2018 at 6:18 PM, Sabot_100 said:

WG may go with higher speeds as they are in the scenario. 6-8kts would be painfully slow. Even the surface speeds top out around 24 kts which everyone complains about for other ships (US BBs).

I commented on a submarines thread about that. Subs will probably need to have their starting marks set even further forward than destroyers in order to compensate. Start off on the surface, dive once they get close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[CVA16]
Members
2,301 posts
9,874 battles
On 9/22/2018 at 10:54 AM, Patosentado said:

Hedgehog Anti-sb mortar was also deployed in a lot of US and RN DDs, but usually INSTEAD or replacing one main gun

Picture is almost certainly post-war (note helo and sub in the background). Didn't know they continued hedgehogs much after the war as they had homing torps and other weapons so you didn't have to sail right up to the sub (that also got homing torps making it a bit more dangerous).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
59 posts
9,717 battles

They will probably just require the submarine to surface and give it zero armor.  WG isn't particularly creative when it comes to implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
516
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,439 posts
4,629 battles

There was also the 'Squid' large anti-submarine mortar system, active in the RN from about 1943. Fired over the bow while the submarine was still in the ASDIC signal arc.

The caption for the below reads:

The mortars discharged by the destroyer COSSACK's weapon exploding well ahead of the ship.

large_000000.jpg

 

There is a good technology 'spread' to carry submarines up to Tier X.

As pointed out, anti-submarine technology was evolving fast (homing torpedoes, sonar buoys, active radar, mortars) by the end of the war.

But submarine technology was also improving - streamlining for extra speed, stealth periscopes and snorkels (anti radar), wake and sound homing torpedoes ...

I'm looking forward to it.

Lack of submarines has always been a serious deficiency in this game IMHO

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,501 posts
5,487 battles
On 9/19/2018 at 4:46 PM, HallaSnackbar said:

Interesting, I am no warship guru by any means but logically speaking one would think the lack of surface tension would make a submarine faster when submerged.  Was it a technology/propulsion issue that kept them so slow?

The early subs were all slower under the water than on the surface but it was not until the 80's that Sub hull and propeller advancement had reversed that physical problem. They then went faster underwater than above it.  A interesting fact about that is that because the SUB is traveling so fast it raises the ocean as a small hump above it which can be detected by the trained eye for your information. But with WOW not going into the cold war era technology we can dismiss those attributes.   For the time being that is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35
[GULAG]
[GULAG]
Members
149 posts
1,369 battles
45 minutes ago, HMS_Formidable said:

There was also the 'Squid' large anti-submarine mortar system, active in the RN from about 1943. Fired over the bow while the submarine was still in the ASDIC signal arc.

The caption for the below reads:

The mortars discharged by the destroyer COSSACK's weapon exploding well ahead of the ship.

large_000000.jpg

 

There is a good technology 'spread' to carry submarines up to Tier X.

As pointed out, anti-submarine technology was evolving fast (homing torpedoes, sonar buoys, active radar, mortars) by the end of the war.

But submarine technology was also improving - streamlining for extra speed, stealth periscopes and snorkels (anti radar), wake and sound homing torpedoes ...

I'm looking forward to it.

Lack of submarines has always been a serious deficiency in this game IMHO

Between depth charges, Squid, Hedgehog, Limbo, and a few other (more exotic) systems, quite a few ships will have more than a little bit of ASW weaponry. I did find a few mentions of RN CLs carrying depth charges, but have yet to find any source documents of a cruiser successfully sinking a submarine with depth charges or with a bomb-throwing system. I've also only searched English-language data, so I am certainly missing out on quite a lot of other reports.
 

I wonder which nations will the best at killing subs. The USN and RN were certainly quite good at it, the IJN and KM had loads of experience with it as well. Not sure about the Russians (though submarines have long been a specialty of theirs), not sure about the French or Italians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[SMI-1]
Members
6 posts
1,029 battles

With the new CV rework coming out it will be interesting to see how that mechanic plays vs subs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
171
[WOLFB]
Members
451 posts
3,836 battles

I am looking forward to a new type of vessel to play. And all the complex interaction/balancing of surface ships hunting and killing subs. And subs stalking and torping surface ships. And air based anti-sub attacks. And sub vs. sub duels. I think it'll be great. If they take their time and do a good job balancing it.

Thanks for all the fun info in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[PLPT]
Members
636 posts
6,850 battles
On 9/19/2018 at 3:46 PM, HallaSnackbar said:

Interesting, I am no warship guru by any means but logically speaking one would think the lack of surface tension would make a submarine faster when submerged.  Was it a technology/propulsion issue that kept them so slow?

Surface tension is negligible.  When submerged, you are displacing way more water. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[POD]
Members
39 posts
3,561 battles
3 hours ago, n00bot said:

Surface tension is negligible.  When submerged, you are displacing way more water. 

I think you are underestimating the resistance of surface tension and energy lost due to rough water.  Excluding hydrofoil equipped ships nuclear powered submarines are faster than similarly sized surface ships,  furthermore submarines are faster underwater than they are in the surface.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-submarine-move-faster-underwater-than-on-the-surface

  The same principle applies to swimmers, the fastest swimming strokes recorded are also underwater.  

The answer to my question was actually already eluded to, it was a technology issue that limited submarine speeds back when they were diesel/electric powered.  Given the nearly infinite power of a nuclear power plant they can take advantage of the lack of surface tension of being underwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[PLPT]
Members
636 posts
6,850 battles
7 hours ago, HallaSnackbar said:

I think you are underestimating the resistance of surface tension and energy lost due to rough water.  Excluding hydrofoil equipped ships nuclear powered submarines are faster than similarly sized surface ships,  furthermore submarines are faster underwater than they are in the surface.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-submarine-move-faster-underwater-than-on-the-surface 

Nothing there says surface tension is even part of the equation.  Don’t confuse frictional resistance with surface tension. Wave resistance is due to creating wake because the surface water is not “held down” by water above it.  Drive speeds are lower for the same reason... the screw cannot apply as much thrust because the water cavitates easily near the surface. Then there are the effects of hull shape, modern submarines being designed for underwater movement, not surface traverse, so they need to slow down to prevent rolling. None of these has anything to do with surface tension.

Water surface tension is 0.07 N/m or about 0.005 pounds per foot.  Enough to keep an insect or leaf on the surface but absolutely nothing in terms of a boat.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[CVA16]
Members
2,301 posts
9,874 battles
14 hours ago, HMS_Formidable said:

Lack of submarines has always been a serious deficiency in this game IMHO

Except that it is a surface combat game. Most will only grudgingly tolerate CVs into the mix as they did occasionally engage ships involved in surface combat. Submarines were something that might torp you on the way to the battle. Once surface combat started, subs were sidelined.

How is adding subs going to enhance the enjoyment of the game for anyone that is not playing a sub?

9 hours ago, HallaSnackbar said:

Excluding hydrofoil equipped ships nuclear powered submarines are faster than similarly sized surface ships,  furthermore submarines are faster underwater than they are in the surface.

For most of the time period covered by the game, there were no engines that could be used by a submerged sub that generated anywhere near the power of an air breathing engine. Very late war the Germans had a system  that allowed a sub to go about 20 kts but was dangerous to the crew and certainly afterwards other technologies were introduced to increase underwater speeds. But most subs in game would have submerged speeds of less than 10kts. WG is not going to introduce nuclear power into the game (of course they also stated they would never introduce subs either, and they still hopefully will not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
516
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,439 posts
4,629 battles
10 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

How is adding subs going to enhance the enjoyment of the game for anyone that is not playing a sub?

 

Anti-submarine warfare - which involves anticipation, hunting, locating, tracking, putting weapons on target. 
This will mostly be from surface-based destroyers, and perhaps some cruisers. Maybe it will be an excuse to bring in Destroyer Escort and frigate trees.
It can also be achieved from the air (Swordfish were dropping charges on subs from 1939)

It adds a cat-and-mouse element to the game

Not just duking it out over long distances.

 

It's also a great way to challenge the island-hugging mentality choking the game at the moment.
It won't eradicate it.
But ships sitting behind the same island for half the game are suddenly going to be facing a possible subsurface threat.

As are those who blindly race through narrow choke points.

Those who like hiding safely behind islands while exploiting their gun arcs and the AEGIS-like targeting intel from others who have put themselves in danger will dislike the change
Those who dislike this World-of-Tanks tactic will love it.

 

Lets face it: it is coming.

Wargaming never had any intention of introducing submarines.

Then they were forced to admit their carrier warfare gameplay was a serious failure.

Now they have built an engine they never intended to:

The long and painful solution to the carrier problem was to introduce a three-dimensional gaming system, where aircraft are controlled through the air.

It doesn't take much adaptation to shift that mechanic under water. So, after spending the time and wages getting this engine, it would not make economic sense to not fully exploit it.

A surface-only game would work for the age of sail.

But aircraft and submarines have been a part of naval warfare since World War I.

And yes, the big-gun ship drivers complained about this then, too.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[CVA16]
Members
2,301 posts
9,874 battles
12 hours ago, HMS_Formidable said:

Anti-submarine warfare - which involves anticipation, hunting, locating, tracking, putting weapons on target. 
This will mostly be from surface-based destroyers, and perhaps some cruisers. Maybe it will be an excuse to bring in Destroyer Escort and frigate trees.
It can also be achieved from the air (Swordfish were dropping charges on subs from 1939)

It adds a cat-and-mouse element to the game

Not just duking it out over long distances.

 

It's also a great way to challenge the island-hugging mentality choking the game at the moment.
It won't eradicate it.
But ships sitting behind the same island for half the game are suddenly going to be facing a possible subsurface threat.

As are those who blindly race through narrow choke points.

Those who like hiding safely behind islands while exploiting their gun arcs and the AEGIS-like targeting intel from others who have put themselves in danger will dislike the change
Those who dislike this World-of-Tanks tactic will love it.

 

Lets face it: it is coming.

Wargaming never had any intention of introducing submarines.

Then they were forced to admit their carrier warfare gameplay was a serious failure.

Now they have built an engine they never intended to:

The long and painful solution to the carrier problem was to introduce a three-dimensional gaming system, where aircraft are controlled through the air.

It doesn't take much adaptation to shift that mechanic under water. So, after spending the time and wages getting this engine, it would not make economic sense to not fully exploit it.

A surface-only game would work for the age of sail.

But aircraft and submarines have been a part of naval warfare since World War I.

And yes, the big-gun ship drivers complained about this then, too.

After all that, you still failed to answer my original question.

How is adding subs going to ENHANCE the game for anyone not playing a sub? (of course the same might be said for having CVs but that is for another thread)

Those island hugging, high arc cruisers are using the tactic because that is the only way most can survive and do damage to the enemy. They have been balanced around that ability. It is the ONLY upside to having derpy guns. Play a Helena/Cleveland/Seattle etc. as open water brawlers. Most games will be very short and low scoring for you. (Some unicum players may be able to pull this off but the vast majority will not)

DDs don't need another way to be unexpectedly detected. Most DDs don't have hydro so will have to be right on top of the sub to spot it. I assume DDs wil be outspotted by a large margin by a surfaced sub as the sub is much smaller.

Subs would have a far greater effect on ships pushing than they will against ships camping. Pushing can involve going blindly through chokepoints, otherwise the push stalls. It will take subs a long time to get to the camping areas but not long at all to get to ambush points.  Just as CVs have a huge effect on DDs pushing forward to spot for the team or cap (especially at high tiers, getting spotted and focused or crossdropped and killed with nothing you can do about it) subs will too. Subs won't have the crossdrop ability but will spot any DD long before they can be spotted. The only way to find the sub will be to push even closer to the red team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,501 posts
5,487 battles
On 9/26/2018 at 8:12 PM, Red_Hammer_Fleet said:

Between depth charges, Squid, Hedgehog, Limbo, and a few other (more exotic) systems, quite a few ships will have more than a little bit of ASW weaponry. I did find a few mentions of RN CLs carrying depth charges, but have yet to find any source documents of a cruiser successfully sinking a submarine with depth charges or with a bomb-throwing system. I've also only searched English-language data, so I am certainly missing out on quite a lot of other reports.
 

I wonder which nations will the best at killing subs. The USN and RN were certainly quite good at it, the IJN and KM had loads of experience with it as well. Not sure about the Russians (though submarines have long been a specialty of theirs), not sure about the French or Italians.

I dunno..what would prevent you from launching those mortar rounds to a surface enemy ship ?   What would be the result if they did. Fall as a dud on deck or explode ??   I myself think the type that has cans which roll off the rear of the ship is best suited but thats just me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
604
[OPRAH]
[OPRAH]
Beta Testers
3,874 posts
12,625 battles

@HallaSnackbar WW 1 and 2 as well as the post war era submarines were not very fast on the surface due to their size limiting their internal combustion engine capacity. Diesel engines of the time were not necessarily built for speed but rather raw horsepower, speed being obtained by rather bulky gearing systems. Surface vessels being much larger had the space to accommodate such machinery, subs did not. Four diesel engines and their gearing machinery, electric generators, motors and batteries along with their recharging equipment took up a great deal of the limited space. So most subs of the era max surface speeds were less the 20 knots and submerged less than 10 knots since the electric motors were not as powerful as the diesels and the faster they ran the quicker the batteries discharged. For those equipped with snorkels the surface speed was no higher and even though the snorkel allowed for submerged use of the diesel engines the speeds were no faster since the intake/exhaust on the surface would create a detectable wake and possibly be swamped and filled with water. 

The one exception was the XXI class U Boat that could exceed its max surface speed while submerged for very short periods due to its hydrogen peroxide/water steam producing system powering turbines and providing additional power to the electric motors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[CVA16]
Members
2,301 posts
9,874 battles
1 hour ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

due to its hydrogen peroxide/water steam producing system powering turbines and providing additional power to the electric motors.

If it didn't kill the crew in the process.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×