RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII

RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Dixie -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (6/30/2008 7:08:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikemike You remember correctly. 25 de Mayo was in TF 79.1, appoachimg the Falklands from the north, while Belgrano, escorted by ex-Sumners Bouchard and Piedrabuena (TF79.4) were east of Staten Island. These ships all carried EXOCET ASMs. The fear was that the Belgrano group might have changed course and run in towards the RN task force, across the shallow waters of the Burdwood Bank, where HMS Conqueror would have found it hard to follow (the Argentine ships could have outrun her in any case), and could have reached the Task Force at about dawn, ready to fire their missiles. If you remember what has been said in this forum about the gun fire of the Brooklyns, and considering that by WWII standards, the RN Task Force consisted essentially of two large CVEs, escorted by some DEs, an ably led and properly operated Belgrano might have shredded the Task Force with her guns alone. Fortunately for the RN, the Argentine Navy seems to have had inept officers throughout. Fortune favours the brave I guess. [:D] Nuclear powered hunter-killer subs were a major fear of the Argentiina Navy. The original plans called for civilian transports to unload the invasion forces to lessen the image of a forecful takeover. When South Georgia was seized the Argentinians felt that they had to complete the main Falkland invasion before the RN could deploy any subs to the South Atlantic. Once they believed that the RN were there then they had to fly reinforcements in. (The first sub they detected was actually a Soviet one [:D]) Sort of back on topic... It's sort of interesting that much of the Argentine navy was made up of WW2 era vessels. It could be argued that their longevity made them a successful design... [;)] 1 British CVL ARA 25 de Mayo (HMS Venerable) 1 US CL ARA General Belgrano (USS Pheonix) 7(?) US DD ARA Seguė, Allen M. Sumner Class (USS Hank, DD-702) ARA Comodoro Py, Gearing Class (USS PErkins, DD-877) ARA Piedra Buena, Allen M. Sumner Class (USS Collett, DD-730) ARA Hipolito Bouchard, Allen M. Sumner Class (USS Borie, DD-704) ARA Rosales, Fletcher Class (USS Stembel, DD-644) ARA Almirante Storni, Fletcher Class (USS Cowell DD-547) ARA Almirante Domecq Garcia, Fletcher Class (USS Braine, DD-360) 2 US SS ARA Santiago del Estero, Balao Class (USS Chivo, SS-341) ARA Santa Fe, Balao Class (USS Catfish, SS-339) HMS Hermes was also a WW2 era design, laid down in 1944 construction was halted until 1952 [X(]

Shark7 -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (6/30/2008 7:42:34 PM)
A few others that made it well into the 90s and beyond: India: INS Vikraant: Originally HMS Hercules, Majestic class, launched 22 September 1945. Decommissioned 31 January 1997. This one would have been involved in the war if it had not ended before her launch. Phillipines: Rajah Humabon. USS Atherton DE-169 (Cannon Class) commissioned 1943. Still in service. Quezon. USS Vigilance AM-324 (Auk Class)Launched on 5 April 1943. Still in service. BRP Rizal (PS-74) (ex-USN USS Murrelet AM-372) (Auk Class). Commissioned 1945, still in service. Miguel Malvar Class (USN Admirable / PCE Class) All still in service: BRP Miguel Malvar (PS-19) (ex-USN USS PCE(R) 852 / USS Brattleboro E-PCE(R)-852) BRP Magat Salamat (PS-20) (ex-USN USS Geyety AM-239) BRP Sultan Kudarat (PS-22) (ex-USN USS PCE-895 / USS Crestview E-PCE-895) 1975 BRP Datu Marikudo (PS-23) (ex-USN USS PCE(R)-853) BRP Cebu (PS-28) (ex-USN USS PCE-881) BRP Negros Occidental (PS-29) (ex-USN USS PCE-884) BRP Pangasinan (PS-31) (ex-USN USS PCE-891) 1948 BRP Iloilo (PS-32) (ex-USN USS PCE-897) 1948

Dixie -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (6/30/2008 7:57:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 A few others that made it well into the 90s and beyond: India: INS Vikraant: Originally HMS Hercules, Majestic class, launched 22 September 1945. Decommissioned 31 January 1997. This one would have been involved in the war if it had not ended before her launch. Phillipines: Rajah Humabon. USS Atherton DE-169 (Cannon Class) commissioned 1943. Still in service. Quezon. USS Vigilance AM-324 (Auk Class)Launched on 5 April 1943. Still in service. BRP Rizal (PS-74) (ex-USN USS Murrelet AM-372) (Auk Class). Commissioned 1945, still in service. Miguel Malvar Class (USN Admirable / PCE Class) All still in service: BRP Miguel Malvar (PS-19) (ex-USN USS PCE(R) 852 / USS Brattleboro E-PCE(R)-852) BRP Magat Salamat (PS-20) (ex-USN USS Geyety AM-239) BRP Sultan Kudarat (PS-22) (ex-USN USS PCE-895 / USS Crestview E-PCE-895) 1975 BRP Datu Marikudo (PS-23) (ex-USN USS PCE(R)-853) BRP Cebu (PS-28) (ex-USN USS PCE-881) BRP Negros Occidental (PS-29) (ex-USN USS PCE-884) BRP Pangasinan (PS-31) (ex-USN USS PCE-891) 1948 BRP Iloilo (PS-32) (ex-USN USS PCE-897) 1948 Also: NAeL Minas Gerais (HMS Vengeance), decommisioned 16th October 2001 Does Taiwan still operate her two Tench Class subs? How about the WW2-era oilers from the USN reserve fleets? I know a few were sent here for scrapping, how about the rest of them?

Shark7 -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (6/30/2008 8:04:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 A few others that made it well into the 90s and beyond: India: INS Vikraant: Originally HMS Hercules, Majestic class, launched 22 September 1945. Decommissioned 31 January 1997. This one would have been involved in the war if it had not ended before her launch. Phillipines: Rajah Humabon. USS Atherton DE-169 (Cannon Class) commissioned 1943. Still in service. Quezon. USS Vigilance AM-324 (Auk Class)Launched on 5 April 1943. Still in service. BRP Rizal (PS-74) (ex-USN USS Murrelet AM-372) (Auk Class). Commissioned 1945, still in service. Miguel Malvar Class (USN Admirable / PCE Class) All still in service: BRP Miguel Malvar (PS-19) (ex-USN USS PCE(R) 852 / USS Brattleboro E-PCE(R)-852) BRP Magat Salamat (PS-20) (ex-USN USS Geyety AM-239) BRP Sultan Kudarat (PS-22) (ex-USN USS PCE-895 / USS Crestview E-PCE-895) 1975 BRP Datu Marikudo (PS-23) (ex-USN USS PCE(R)-853) BRP Cebu (PS-28) (ex-USN USS PCE-881) BRP Negros Occidental (PS-29) (ex-USN USS PCE-884) BRP Pangasinan (PS-31) (ex-USN USS PCE-891) 1948 BRP Iloilo (PS-32) (ex-USN USS PCE-897) 1948 Also: NAeL Minas Gerais (HMS Vengeance), decommisioned 16th October 2001 Does Taiwan still operate her two Tench Class subs? How about the WW2-era oilers from the USN reserve fleets? I know a few were sent here for scrapping, how about the rest of them? I'd have to look. I do know Pakistan was operating an old T-2 until recently. Also, Taiwan was operating a few FRAM DDs into the 90s. Gearings and Sumners IIRC. There are lots of old LST 1/LST 542 class in service through-out the world. Taiwan still has 5 Cherokee class tugs, 2 Guppy class subs. http://www.hazegray.org/ It's not completely up to date, but did have the active ships of most navies right at the turn of the century.

hawker -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (6/30/2008 11:05:47 PM)
Here is the ship that drive Italians off Croatian shore[;)] [image]local://upfiles/17130/7B83437C7FAB4EB4B9934B11BEC5FD3B.jpg[/image]

AW1Steve -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 12:16:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this? i've also read that - IF THEY ARE NOT SNORKELING they are extremely hard to find... i don't have any idea of whether the San Luis was snorkeling anywhere near the Brits, or for that matter if she snorkeled at all during the operation... she could have recharged on the surface for all i know. I can confirm it. If the diesel is staying put , say in a choke point, they can be very,very difficult to detect. In shallow waters a diesel boat can bottom , something few nuke boats can do. The most difficult boats I ever prosecuted were Brisith "Upholder class", and before that the Porpise/Oberon class, in shallow coastal waters. As one of my instructors once said , "which would you rather listen for, a steam kettle or a flashlight battery?"

rtrapasso -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 12:32:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this? i've also read that - IF THEY ARE NOT SNORKELING they are extremely hard to find... i don't have any idea of whether the San Luis was snorkeling anywhere near the Brits, or for that matter if she snorkeled at all during the operation... she could have recharged on the surface for all i know. I can confirm it. If the diesel is staying put , say in a choke point, they can be very,very difficult to detect. In shallow waters a diesel boat can bottom , something few nuke boats can do. The most difficult boats I ever prosecuted were Brisith "Upholder class", and before that the Porpise/Oberon class, in shallow coastal waters. As one of my instructors once said , "which would you rather listen for, a steam kettle or a flashlight battery?" My question: how difficult is it to track them if they are snorkeling?

rtrapasso -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 12:35:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikemike You remember correctly. 25 de Mayo was in TF 79.1, appoachimg the Falklands from the north, while Belgrano, escorted by ex-Sumners Bouchard and Piedrabuena (TF79.4) were east of Staten Island. These ships all carried EXOCET ASMs. The fear was that the Belgrano group might have changed course and run in towards the RN task force, across the shallow waters of the Burdwood Bank, where HMS Conqueror would have found it hard to follow (the Argentine ships could have outrun her in any case), and could have reached the Task Force at about dawn, ready to fire their missiles. If you remember what has been said in this forum about the gun fire of the Brooklyns, and considering that by WWII standards, the RN Task Force consisted essentially of two large CVEs, escorted by some DEs, an ably led and properly operated Belgrano might have shredded the Task Force with her guns alone. Fortunately for the RN, the Argentine Navy seems to have had inept officers throughout. [:D]This is the third (or was it fourth) completely different account i've read of the attack... the other ones were either during the war, or shortly after however.

AW1Steve -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 2:38:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this? i've also read that - IF THEY ARE NOT SNORKELING they are extremely hard to find... i don't have any idea of whether the San Luis was snorkeling anywhere near the Brits, or for that matter if she snorkeled at all during the operation... she could have recharged on the surface for all i know. I can confirm it. If the diesel is staying put , say in a choke point, they can be very,very difficult to detect. In shallow waters a diesel boat can bottom , something few nuke boats can do. The most difficult boats I ever prosecuted were Brisith "Upholder class", and before that the Porpise/Oberon class, in shallow coastal waters. As one of my instructors once said , "which would you rather listen for, a steam kettle or a flashlight battery?" My question: how difficult is it to track them if they are snorkeling? A lot easier. Now you listen for a diesel engine. Stand next to a truck that's idling some time. And water is a much better conductor of sound then air. Newer boats have lots of shock mounts. I've tracked ww2 former US boats that were given to third world Navies. To say that they sounded like freight trains is an insult to frieght trains (although they have the same dieselmotors as them. ).

AW1Steve -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 2:41:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso As for the Argentine subs: AFAIK - they were trying to avoid the Brits, not attack them... did they make any attempts to attack the British fleet? AFAIK - no (although i am not sure the British were aware of this.) Trying to search out subs over 1000's of square miles of ocean when they are trying not to be found is a different proposition than finding a sub that is coming after you. If the Argentine subs had gone after the British fleet, it might have been different story. The German Navy in WW2 could not just build subs and then make them hide to try to prosecute the war. In books (and other meterial I found) I read that ARA San Luis did indeed tried to attack the British fleet on several occassions and that it did even fire torpedo(es) but they missed or were malfunctioning... Leo "Apollo11" My understanding was that she had a faulty fire contro system.

AW1Steve -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 2:54:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BrucePowers quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 HI all, quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this? That is correct. The nuclear powered submarine must always run the pumps to cool the reactor(s). The diesel powered submarine under water is very quiet because it runs only on battery... Leo "Apollo11" Yeah, but a nuclear boat under water is a lot faster than a diesel boat. Granted doesn't help as mnuch against a helo or a P-3 or the upcoming P-8. Speed does help.[:)] Speed helps, but it's a trade off. The faster you go the more noise you make. And I Spior can verify, you don't always need the pumps. It all depends on the water. In shallow water, the diesel is king. In deep water , the nuke boat is the king. The fastest boat ever, the Russian Alfa class, was one of the noiseiest. It didn't care about noise , It intended to outrun torpedos. But it wasn't going to creep up on much. On the opposite spectrum, the Collins class (Australian) has manny of the capabilities of a nuke boat (Except speed). If I were in shallow , coastal waters, say any body of water connected to the word "straits" and I'd want a modern diesel. If I didn't have to go very far. If I was waiting in ambush. If I had to chase down my prey, or cover a long distance, then the nuke has the advantage. And that includes against each other. the diesel is all about ambush. The San Luis was in deep water. It held no advantage , and it had a green crew, and was a new boat. The Brit SSNs had every advantage.

castor troy -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 7:36:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: BrucePowers quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 HI all, quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this? That is correct. The nuclear powered submarine must always run the pumps to cool the reactor(s). The diesel powered submarine under water is very quiet because it runs only on battery... Leo "Apollo11" Yeah, but a nuclear boat under water is a lot faster than a diesel boat. Granted doesn't help as mnuch against a helo or a P-3 or the upcoming P-8. Speed does help.[:)] Speed helps, but it's a trade off. The faster you go the more noise you make. And I Spior can verify, you don't always need the pumps. It all depends on the water. In shallow water, the diesel is king. In deep water , the nuke boat is the king. The fastest boat ever, the Russian Alfa class, was one of the noiseiest. It didn't care about noise , It intended to outrun torpedos. But it wasn't going to creep up on much. On the opposite spectrum, the Collins class (Australian) has manny of the capabilities of a nuke boat (Except speed). If I were in shallow , coastal waters, say any body of water connected to the word "straits" and I'd want a modern diesel. If I didn't have to go very far. If I was waiting in ambush. If I had to chase down my prey, or cover a long distance, then the nuke has the advantage. And that includes against each other. the diesel is all about ambush. The San Luis was in deep water. It held no advantage , and it had a green crew, and was a new boat. The Brit SSNs had every advantage. Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps?

goodboyladdie -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 8:13:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this? i've also read that - IF THEY ARE NOT SNORKELING they are extremely hard to find... i don't have any idea of whether the San Luis was snorkeling anywhere near the Brits, or for that matter if she snorkeled at all during the operation... she could have recharged on the surface for all i know. I can confirm it. If the diesel is staying put , say in a choke point, they can be very,very difficult to detect. In shallow waters a diesel boat can bottom , something few nuke boats can do. The most difficult boats I ever prosecuted were Brisith "Upholder class", and before that the Porpise/Oberon class, in shallow coastal waters. As one of my instructors once said , "which would you rather listen for, a steam kettle or a flashlight battery?" I read of two exercises recently when entire task forces were "sunk" by subs that were never detected. On both occasions the sub in question was a Type 212, one German and one South African...

goodboyladdie -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 8:20:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: BrucePowers quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 HI all, quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this? That is correct. The nuclear powered submarine must always run the pumps to cool the reactor(s). The diesel powered submarine under water is very quiet because it runs only on battery... Leo "Apollo11" Yeah, but a nuclear boat under water is a lot faster than a diesel boat. Granted doesn't help as mnuch against a helo or a P-3 or the upcoming P-8. Speed does help.[:)] Speed helps, but it's a trade off. The faster you go the more noise you make. And I Spior can verify, you don't always need the pumps. It all depends on the water. In shallow water, the diesel is king. In deep water , the nuke boat is the king. The fastest boat ever, the Russian Alfa class, was one of the noiseiest. It didn't care about noise , It intended to outrun torpedos. But it wasn't going to creep up on much. On the opposite spectrum, the Collins class (Australian) has manny of the capabilities of a nuke boat (Except speed). If I were in shallow , coastal waters, say any body of water connected to the word "straits" and I'd want a modern diesel. If I didn't have to go very far. If I was waiting in ambush. If I had to chase down my prey, or cover a long distance, then the nuke has the advantage. And that includes against each other. the diesel is all about ambush. The San Luis was in deep water. It held no advantage , and it had a green crew, and was a new boat. The Brit SSNs had every advantage. Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps? Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs? Edit The Soviets introduced the Alfa to the West by running one under a NATO task force at 40 plus knots and at incredible depth - no need to hide as it was faster than all Western lightweight torpedoes and as fast as the swiftest sub launched torps of the time and so deep nothing could get to it...

Apollo11 -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 8:25:05 AM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps? Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs? Sirens are veiling as Carl is being taken away... [8D] Leo "Apollo11"

goodboyladdie -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 8:34:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps? Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs? Sirens are veiling as Carl is being taken away... [8D] Leo "Apollo11" Cheeky! [:'(]

Apollo11 -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 8:44:23 AM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps? Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs? Sirens are veiling as Carl is being taken away... [8D] Cheeky! [:'(] [:'(] [:D] Leo "Apollo11"

rtrapasso -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 12:15:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: BrucePowers quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 HI all, quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this? That is correct. The nuclear powered submarine must always run the pumps to cool the reactor(s). The diesel powered submarine under water is very quiet because it runs only on battery... Leo "Apollo11" Yeah, but a nuclear boat under water is a lot faster than a diesel boat. Granted doesn't help as mnuch against a helo or a P-3 or the upcoming P-8. Speed does help.[:)] Speed helps, but it's a trade off. The faster you go the more noise you make. And I Spior can verify, you don't always need the pumps. It all depends on the water. In shallow water, the diesel is king. In deep water , the nuke boat is the king. The fastest boat ever, the Russian Alfa class, was one of the noiseiest. It didn't care about noise , It intended to outrun torpedos. But it wasn't going to creep up on much. On the opposite spectrum, the Collins class (Australian) has manny of the capabilities of a nuke boat (Except speed). If I were in shallow , coastal waters, say any body of water connected to the word "straits" and I'd want a modern diesel. If I didn't have to go very far. If I was waiting in ambush. If I had to chase down my prey, or cover a long distance, then the nuke has the advantage. And that includes against each other. the diesel is all about ambush. The San Luis was in deep water. It held no advantage , and it had a green crew, and was a new boat. The Brit SSNs had every advantage. Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps? Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs? Edit The Soviets introduced the Alfa to the West by running one under a NATO task force at 40 plus knots and at incredible depth - no need to hide as it was faster than all Western lightweight torpedoes and as fast as the swiftest sub launched torps of the time and so deep nothing could get to it... Apparently the Alfas were so noisy at high speed they could be heard for literally 1000's of miles on the SOSUS underseas monitoring system... iirc, they picked up an ALFA around Iceland from Bermuda... High speed is all well and good until someone coordinates an attack with torps dropped in front and behind you - which helos could pull off (Alfa still couldn't outrun them...)

goodboyladdie -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 12:53:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: BrucePowers quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 HI all, quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this? That is correct. The nuclear powered submarine must always run the pumps to cool the reactor(s). The diesel powered submarine under water is very quiet because it runs only on battery... Leo "Apollo11" Yeah, but a nuclear boat under water is a lot faster than a diesel boat. Granted doesn't help as mnuch against a helo or a P-3 or the upcoming P-8. Speed does help.[:)] Speed helps, but it's a trade off. The faster you go the more noise you make. And I Spior can verify, you don't always need the pumps. It all depends on the water. In shallow water, the diesel is king. In deep water , the nuke boat is the king. The fastest boat ever, the Russian Alfa class, was one of the noiseiest. It didn't care about noise , It intended to outrun torpedos. But it wasn't going to creep up on much. On the opposite spectrum, the Collins class (Australian) has manny of the capabilities of a nuke boat (Except speed). If I were in shallow , coastal waters, say any body of water connected to the word "straits" and I'd want a modern diesel. If I didn't have to go very far. If I was waiting in ambush. If I had to chase down my prey, or cover a long distance, then the nuke has the advantage. And that includes against each other. the diesel is all about ambush. The San Luis was in deep water. It held no advantage , and it had a green crew, and was a new boat. The Brit SSNs had every advantage. Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps? Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs? Edit The Soviets introduced the Alfa to the West by running one under a NATO task force at 40 plus knots and at incredible depth - no need to hide as it was faster than all Western lightweight torpedoes and as fast as the swiftest sub launched torps of the time and so deep nothing could get to it... Apparently the Alfas were so noisy at high speed they could be heard for literally 1000's of miles on the SOSUS underseas monitoring system... iirc, they picked up an ALFA around Iceland from Bermuda... High speed is all well and good until someone coordinates an attack with torps dropped in front and behind you - which helos could pull off (Alfa still couldn't outrun them...) I never said it was a good idea, but it did cause a lot of problems for Western Naval planners. It was a blind alley development wise. Do any of our sub brethren have any info on the latest SSNs? How good are the Russian Akulas?

rtrapasso -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 1:00:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: BrucePowers quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 HI all, quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Even more OT: I have read that a well handled diesel sub is a lot more difficult to detect than an equivelent nuclear powered one, can anyone out there confirm this? That is correct. The nuclear powered submarine must always run the pumps to cool the reactor(s). The diesel powered submarine under water is very quiet because it runs only on battery... Leo "Apollo11" Yeah, but a nuclear boat under water is a lot faster than a diesel boat. Granted doesn't help as mnuch against a helo or a P-3 or the upcoming P-8. Speed does help.[:)] Speed helps, but it's a trade off. The faster you go the more noise you make. And I Spior can verify, you don't always need the pumps. It all depends on the water. In shallow water, the diesel is king. In deep water , the nuke boat is the king. The fastest boat ever, the Russian Alfa class, was one of the noiseiest. It didn't care about noise , It intended to outrun torpedos. But it wasn't going to creep up on much. On the opposite spectrum, the Collins class (Australian) has manny of the capabilities of a nuke boat (Except speed). If I were in shallow , coastal waters, say any body of water connected to the word "straits" and I'd want a modern diesel. If I didn't have to go very far. If I was waiting in ambush. If I had to chase down my prey, or cover a long distance, then the nuke has the advantage. And that includes against each other. the diesel is all about ambush. The San Luis was in deep water. It held no advantage , and it had a green crew, and was a new boat. The Brit SSNs had every advantage. Outrun torps?? [X(] How fast are those subs? And how slow are Western torps? Until Spearfish and Mk48 ADCAP, it was entirely possible for a Nuke to outrun a torpedo. The newer faster torpedoes make it harder. I understand Seawolf and her sisters can creep (ie move slowly to produce no machinery/pump noise at all) at 15 plus knots. Older boats could creep only at speeds around 5 knots. I am happy to be corrected by posters who have personal experience. How good are the latest SSNs? Edit The Soviets introduced the Alfa to the West by running one under a NATO task force at 40 plus knots and at incredible depth - no need to hide as it was faster than all Western lightweight torpedoes and as fast as the swiftest sub launched torps of the time and so deep nothing could get to it... Apparently the Alfas were so noisy at high speed they could be heard for literally 1000's of miles on the SOSUS underseas monitoring system... iirc, they picked up an ALFA around Iceland from Bermuda... High speed is all well and good until someone coordinates an attack with torps dropped in front and behind you - which helos could pull off (Alfa still couldn't outrun them...) I never said it was a good idea, but it did cause a lot of problems for Western Naval planners. It was a blind alley development wise. Do any of our sub brethren have any info on the latest SSNs? How good are the Russian Akulas? From what i've read, the Russian Akulas are really good... but i am not in the ASW loop.

Apollo11 -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 1:10:15 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie Do any of our sub brethren have any info on the latest SSNs? How good are the Russian Akulas? "mikemike" knows a lot of stuff! Leo "Apollo11"

rtrapasso -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 1:10:58 PM)
BTW - the latest USN nukes are literally quieter in the water they are moving in: the amount of noise produced by the sub (per cubic meter) is lower than the ambient noise in the water, however: There is such as thing as being TOO quiet! [X(] Researchers have discovered that it is quiet possible to map out underwater objects by using the ambient noise in the water... and apparently the Navy is hard at work on this. In using this technology, the quieter the object, the more it will show up as producing a "sound shadow". For an idea of how this works: close your eyes in your house when it is making an average amount of noise and move around - if your hearing isn't terribly impaired you will sense when you are near a large object since it will block the noises coming from other areas of the house. By using sensor arrays with numerous "microphone" pickups, and computerized mapping, you can quite accurately map out a three dimensional image of things in water... how far along the various naval folks are with this is classified, afaik.

Apollo11 -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 1:16:52 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso BTW - the latest USN nukes are literally quieter in the water they are moving in: the amount of noise produced by the sub (per cubic meter) is lower than the ambient noise in the water, however: There is such as thing as being TOO quiet! [X(] Researchers have discovered that it is quiet possible to map out underwater objects by using the ambient noise in the water... and apparently the Navy is hard at work on this. In using this technology, the quieter the object, the more it will show up as producing a "sound shadow". For an idea of how this works: close your eyes in your house when it is making an average amount of noise and move around - if your hearing isn't terribly impaired you will sense when you are near a large object since it will block the noises coming from other areas of the house. By using sensor arrays with numerous "microphone" pickups, and computerized mapping, you can quite accurately map out a three dimensional image of things in water... how far along the various naval folks are with this is classified, afaik. Sirens are veiling as Robert is being taken away... [8D] Leo "Apollo11"

goodboyladdie -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 2:09:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso BTW - the latest USN nukes are literally quieter in the water they are moving in: the amount of noise produced by the sub (per cubic meter) is lower than the ambient noise in the water, however: There is such as thing as being TOO quiet! [X(] Researchers have discovered that it is quiet possible to map out underwater objects by using the ambient noise in the water... and apparently the Navy is hard at work on this. In using this technology, the quieter the object, the more it will show up as producing a "sound shadow". For an idea of how this works: close your eyes in your house when it is making an average amount of noise and move around - if your hearing isn't terribly impaired you will sense when you are near a large object since it will block the noises coming from other areas of the house. By using sensor arrays with numerous "microphone" pickups, and computerized mapping, you can quite accurately map out a three dimensional image of things in water... how far along the various naval folks are with this is classified, afaik. Sirens are veiling as Robert is being taken away... [8D] Leo "Apollo11" You are such a cynic Leo. Just because Croatia has no submarines...[:'(]

Apollo11 -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 2:37:26 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso BTW - the latest USN nukes are literally quieter in the water they are moving in: the amount of noise produced by the sub (per cubic meter) is lower than the ambient noise in the water, however: There is such as thing as being TOO quiet! [X(] Researchers have discovered that it is quiet possible to map out underwater objects by using the ambient noise in the water... and apparently the Navy is hard at work on this. In using this technology, the quieter the object, the more it will show up as producing a "sound shadow". For an idea of how this works: close your eyes in your house when it is making an average amount of noise and move around - if your hearing isn't terribly impaired you will sense when you are near a large object since it will block the noises coming from other areas of the house. By using sensor arrays with numerous "microphone" pickups, and computerized mapping, you can quite accurately map out a three dimensional image of things in water... how far along the various naval folks are with this is classified, afaik. Sirens are veiling as Robert is being taken away... [8D] You are such a cynic Leo. Just because Croatia has no submarines...[:'(] We do - one (albait very small and without batteries)... [:D] BTW, real shame... we ourselves used to build battleships and submarines in our shipyards even 100 years ago (not to mention where first torpedo and ship screw was created)... [:(] Leo "Apollo11"

castor troy -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 3:35:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso BTW - the latest USN nukes are literally quieter in the water they are moving in: the amount of noise produced by the sub (per cubic meter) is lower than the ambient noise in the water, however: There is such as thing as being TOO quiet! [X(] Researchers have discovered that it is quiet possible to map out underwater objects by using the ambient noise in the water... and apparently the Navy is hard at work on this. In using this technology, the quieter the object, the more it will show up as producing a "sound shadow". For an idea of how this works: close your eyes in your house when it is making an average amount of noise and move around - if your hearing isn't terribly impaired you will sense when you are near a large object since it will block the noises coming from other areas of the house. By using sensor arrays with numerous "microphone" pickups, and computerized mapping, you can quite accurately map out a three dimensional image of things in water... how far along the various naval folks are with this is classified, afaik. Sirens are veiling as Robert is being taken away... [8D] You are such a cynic Leo. Just because Croatia has no submarines...[:'(] We do - one (albait very small and without batteries)... [:D] BTW, real shame... we ourselves used to build battleships and submarines in our shipyards even 100 years ago (not to mention where first torpedo and ship screw was created)... [:(] Leo "Apollo11" ^ thought we Austrian were doing that... [;)]

hawker -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 3:59:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso BTW - the latest USN nukes are literally quieter in the water they are moving in: the amount of noise produced by the sub (per cubic meter) is lower than the ambient noise in the water, however: There is such as thing as being TOO quiet! [X(] Researchers have discovered that it is quiet possible to map out underwater objects by using the ambient noise in the water... and apparently the Navy is hard at work on this. In using this technology, the quieter the object, the more it will show up as producing a "sound shadow". For an idea of how this works: close your eyes in your house when it is making an average amount of noise and move around - if your hearing isn't terribly impaired you will sense when you are near a large object since it will block the noises coming from other areas of the house. By using sensor arrays with numerous "microphone" pickups, and computerized mapping, you can quite accurately map out a three dimensional image of things in water... how far along the various naval folks are with this is classified, afaik. Sirens are veiling as Robert is being taken away... [8D] You are such a cynic Leo. Just because Croatia has no submarines...[:'(] We do - one (albait very small and without batteries)... [:D] BTW, real shame... we ourselves used to build battleships and submarines in our shipyards even 100 years ago (not to mention where first torpedo and ship screw was created)... [:(] Leo "Apollo11" ^ thought we Austrian were doing that... [;)] Yes,inventor of torpedo Ivan Vukic-Lupis was an Austrian[:D] And yes,he lived in Austrian town Rijeka[:D] P.S. In Rijeka there is still factory called "Torpedo" which manufacturing ship engines.

Apollo11 -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 4:08:14 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 BTW, real shame... we ourselves used to build battleships and submarines in our shipyards even 100 years ago (not to mention where first torpedo and ship screw was created)... [:(] thought we Austrian were doing that... [;)] Pardon - we were all "Austro Hungarians"! [;)] Leo "Apollo11"

mikemike -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 6:19:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso [:D]This is the third (or was it fourth) completely different account i've read of the attack... the other ones were either during the war, or shortly after however. It's mainly from Admiral Sandy Woodward: "One Hundred Days" HarperCollins 1992, with some info from Martin Middlebrook: "Task Force: The Falklands War, 1982 (Revised Edition)", Penguin Books, 1987.

rtrapasso -> RE: Best Designed Ship of WWII (7/1/2008 6:23:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mikemike quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso [:D]This is the third (or was it fourth) completely different account i've read of the attack... the other ones were either during the war, or shortly after however. It's mainly from Admiral Sandy Woodward: "One Hundred Days" HarperCollins 1992, with some info from Martin Middlebrook: "Task Force: The Falklands War, 1982 (Revised Edition)", Penguin Books, 1987. i'll put them on my "Wish List" with Amazon... [8D]

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.0625