| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GunnersMate
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 225
Location: Boston, MA
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| BigBadVuk wrote: | | Oh boy i have some debts to collect among them(especialy P-3) so...can u upload that mission :know: |
Just find some shallow water areas stick some helos and p3 and fire away.
BTW the fire and smoke effects are amazing  . Watch them blaze into the sea from the bridge  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MaHuJa
Joined: 10 Jan 2002
Posts: 447
Location: 59.96156N 11.02255E
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NastyHyena wrote: | Shallow water plays hell on air-dropped ANYTHING. Although, in the P3 you can compensate by flying low (as mentioned) and fast. 50', throttles to the firewall, which causes the torpedo to have a flatter trajectory when it splashes.
For helo's...er..hover with your belly in the water? :hmm: |
I've usually reduced my speed instead. They don't end up that much more pitched, and it means less braking distance until the torpedo can steer (up from the bottom) again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
3Star
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The shallow water problem is a reason that ASW mortars and depth charges are still in service around the world: They are not affected by the noise of shallow water, and also don't have to worry about bottoming out.
With the emphasis on blue-water-ops, the US Navy basically abandoned the DC/ASW mortar as a valid weapon system. European navies, to include the Russians, still have them on new-build ships.
NTM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NastyHyena
Joined: 10 Jan 2002
Posts: 150
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 3Star wrote: | The shallow water problem is a reason that ASW mortars and depth charges are still in service around the world: They are not affected by the noise of shallow water, and also don't have to worry about bottoming out.
With the emphasis on blue-water-ops, the US Navy basically abandoned the DC/ASW mortar as a valid weapon system. European navies, to include the Russians, still have them on new-build ships.
NTM |
True. But as far as ship-mount systems go, if you're close enough to use a DC or an ASW mortar, you're already in a VERY bad place.
EDIT: Back to the subject of air-dropped toys. If the water is too shallow for effective torpedo deployment, could one not use air-dropped mines? Kind of a poor-man's depth bomb with a proxy fuse? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
3Star
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NastyHyena wrote: |
True. But as far as ship-mount systems go, if you're close enough to use a DC or an ASW mortar, you're already in a VERY bad place.
|
Yes, and to a point, no. A large number of surface vessels with DCs/ASW mortars are corvette sized. Nice and maneuverable, and are they really worth a sub torp or two? (OK, if it's a case of dying or using a torp...) You also have the issue of the very thing which makes ASW mortars a practical alternative, the effects of shallow water on torpedo seekers. Any torpedoes fired by the submarine at these small targets might well end up confused.
At any rate, there must be something to the concept, as they are still being fitted. The Visby stealth corvettes of the Royal Swedish Navy, for example, have them.
| Quote: |
EDIT: Back to the subject of air-dropped toys. If the water is too shallow for effective torpedo deployment, could one not use air-dropped mines? Kind of a poor-man's depth bomb with a proxy fuse? |
Why not just drop depth charges set for a suitable depth? If it's 50 meters of water, set it for 30 meters. You're not going to be more than 10 meters from the hull in elevation. There are, however, acoustic-homing depth charges in existance.
NTM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NastyHyena wrote: | | True. But as far as ship-mount systems go, if you're close enough to use a DC or an ASW mortar, you're already in a VERY bad place. |
Actually, IIRC weapons like the RBU-12000 can go out to 12km. Against a quiet sub in shallow waters, you'd be pretty lucky to pick it up at 12km. If you detect it outside, well, there are always antisub missiles...
Besides, the mortar flies much faster than a torpedo, being ballistic and air flying. If you suddenly detect a sub (say it floods its tubes to fire), you may be able to ping it and hit it with a spread of DCs before it finishes its attack preparation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NastyHyena
Joined: 10 Jan 2002
Posts: 150
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guess my knowledge of DC's and the like is dated.
Anyways, my suggestion of using mines is as only applies to the game, not the real world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Palindromeria
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 489
Location: Brooklyn NY
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GunnersMate wrote: | | goldorak wrote: | | GunnersMate wrote: |
lightweight - as opposed to Mk38? and is 50 ft low enough? |
Maybe you are not setting the "depth" variable accordingly prior to launch.? |
 |
EUREKA !
i had a feeling some of my torps were disappearing for a reason ... thanks ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Palindromeria
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 489
Location: Brooklyn NY
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PeriscopeDepth wrote: | | Kapitain wrote: | | The Jap's launched torps in pearl harbour and its what not far over 40 feet deep. |
IIRC they made their torps able to be used in very shallow water specifically for Pearl Harbor. |
i believe it was wooden tail vanes specifically.
reduced weight / added buoyancy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GunnersMate
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 225
Location: Boston, MA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Palindromeria wrote: | | PeriscopeDepth wrote: | | Kapitain wrote: | | The Jap's launched torps in pearl harbour and its what not far over 40 feet deep. |
IIRC they made their torps able to be used in very shallow water specifically for Pearl Harbor. |
i believe it was wooden tail vanes specifically.
reduced weight / added buoyancy. |
It was something having to deal with wooden "wings" like a Tomahawk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frying Tiger
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 4
Location: Waterford, CT
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I just set up a mission in 43 foot deep water, and popped an AI Akula from my P3with a nicely dropped pattern of surface-set 2000 lb. mines. Nice thing is you can drop them from 9000 feet and be out of range of the SAM launcher. They carry about 4nm before they hit the water, so it takes a bit of practice to get them on target. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MuscleBob.Buffpants
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject: Re: Air dropped torps and Shallow waters |
|
|
| Kazuaki Shimazaki II wrote: |
Feature. They use chutes, but that means they enter the water vertically - AFAIK a WWII torp is hits the water more or less on its belly, so the pre-stabilization dip may well be less. |
A correction.
The 'parachute' is the Mk31 Air Stabilizer. It is designed to give the torpedo a predictable entry angle (around 30 - 40 degrees) into the water. The torpedo doesn't hang vertically under the chute in the descent. The torpedo has some of the speed scrubbed off it that the launch aircraft imparts, but not all. Once entering the water, it takes time before the salt-water battery comes to life and starts providing power to sensors and steering. During this time, the torpedo continues towards the seabed. If it is too shallow then the torpedo may strike the sea floor.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nexus7
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 275
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK but what about SUBROCKS ?
Using air units you can drop them from low altitude and with a good angle to impact the water, allowing for use in shallow waters.
With the subrocs no.
Why shouldn't a subrock fly to target at low altitude? Wouldn't this make it harder to detect/destroy by surface units, and also allow for usage in shallower waters?
Finally, is there a reason why they fly a ballistic trajectory even if launched horizontally? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr.Sid
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 205
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well .. there are sea-skimmer rocket torpedoes .. don't know the name but russian destroyer throwed 6 at me yesterday.
I guess balistic are just simpler. You can have solid-fuel rocket engine only. It can burn 20 seconds only, but can get missile high (thus far) enough.
With sea-skimmer you usually need engine which will fly the rocket at lower speed for longer time. Usually jet engine, which is much more expansive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molon Labe
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 1052
Location: Bloomington, IN, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Frying Tiger wrote: | | I just set up a mission in 43 foot deep water, and popped an AI Akula from my P3with a nicely dropped pattern of surface-set 2000 lb. mines. Nice thing is you can drop them from 9000 feet and be out of range of the SAM launcher. They carry about 4nm before they hit the water, so it takes a bit of practice to get them on target. |
:nope:
In my less-than-humble opinion, SCS should spend its time developing a simulated parachute for the air dropped torps to allow them to work wherever they could in real life, instead of developing, testing, and advertising exploits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
