OT: Need better subs?

OT: Need better subs? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Historiker -> OT: Need better subs? (3/21/2012 11:25:31 AM)
Does anyone think I might need better subs? Here you go: https://www.vebeg.de/web/de/verkauf/suchen.htm?DO_SUCHE=1&SUCH_KFZEGAL=1&SUCH_FREITEXT=206&statflag=1&zusatzlink&SHOW_AUS=1214300&SHOW_LOS=1

castor troy -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/21/2012 12:38:55 PM)
they have to be scrapped... either in the EU or in Turkey, why Turkey?

Historiker -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/21/2012 12:46:23 PM)
Who knows... There were 6 and Thailand intended to buy them all. Obviously that didn't work out.

Terminus -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/21/2012 12:48:39 PM)
The Thais have no money. Like everybody else...

Historiker -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/21/2012 12:58:53 PM)
Taiwan could've used them. They only have two and one is from WW2... [X(]

Terminus -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/21/2012 1:06:19 PM)
The PRC won't let them.

Historiker -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/21/2012 1:22:21 PM)
They could've sold them for scrap. Like the Varjag...

Dili -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/21/2012 2:57:34 PM)
Who wants a submarine with almost 40 years, no AIP. That is a just a money pit. Scrap yard it is the right place for it.

Historiker -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/21/2012 3:51:40 PM)
These subs were good enough to get US CVs into their periscope sight just a few years ago. They are rather coastal subs - exactly what Taiwan needs. But never mind. I just thought its funny that they are sold like an old car.

wdolson -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/22/2012 1:43:26 AM)
The USN sold some surplus 16 inch gun barrels by auction a few years ago. I wish somebody had the money to save the Cabot a few years ago. It had been in the Spanish navy since the 50s and they gave it back to the US around 2002. It sat in Texas for a couple of years until they finally scrapped it. But then the money isn't there to save the Olympia either, and she's already a museum ship. Bill

JeffroK -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/22/2012 3:51:33 AM)
They'd be better than our semi submersibles!

Historiker -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/22/2012 9:52:09 AM)
Where are you from Jeff?

Sredni -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/22/2012 1:30:26 PM)
They're just tiny little things, they might just be too small to be truly useful for much. I was curious how they compare the the victoria (formerly upholder class) subs canada has, thinking that perhaps canada would have been better off buying second hand from someone else heh, but the 206 class ones are super small. The victoria class subs are 2,455 tonnes displacement according to wikipedia while the 206 are under 500t and not even half the length.

castor troy -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/22/2012 1:38:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sredni They're just tiny little things, they might just be too small to be truly useful for much. I was curious how they compare the the victoria (formerly upholder class) subs canada has, thinking that perhaps canada would have been better off buying second hand from someone else heh, but the 206 class ones are super small. The victoria class subs are 2,455 tonnes displacement according to wikipedia while the 206 are under 500t and not even half the length. modern midgets [:D]

Terminus -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/22/2012 1:38:35 PM)
The Type 206 was made for use in the Baltic and North Sea, so it needed to be small.

Historiker -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/22/2012 1:39:53 PM)
And now try to find such a tiny sub when its hiding. Being diesel-electric, it makes, unlike a nuclear sub, absolutly no sound when lying on the ground. Eight torpedo tubes give it some power, and you should guess that the nation that produced most subs in the world should know its business [;)] But of course, this sub was built for a certain purpose: To defend the Baltic Sea against soviet invasion forces. Thus a small size (size of German subs was also limited to 1000ts after the war) and the short range are more than enough for that purpose. But who threatens to invade canada's coast? I'd guess you'll need something bigger, if the subs shouldn't only be used to guard the Northwest Passage,

Historiker -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/22/2012 1:41:47 PM)
Gotcha [;)] Allright, I admit. I have some natiional pride about that tiny things. [image]local://upfiles/25688/0CAF128ED13E48F5A3D0B91190C03693.jpg[/image]

Sredni -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/22/2012 1:59:56 PM)
Yeah, I'm looking at them through the goggles of Canada's needs. Long endurance patrol boats for things like patrolling the northwest passage. Honestly I figured we should have probably gone hole hog and gotten some decent nuclear subs from somewhere (or developed our own as costly and risky as that is). but meh I suppose someone with less coastline would find a smaller boat with less endurance a more fitting vessel. Though I notice Germany's new sub the type 212 is 1,830 tonnes displacement, so quite a bit bigger. That could reflect changing goals though rather then any real inherent inadequacy of the 206 at what it was used for. A thoroughly modern boat the 212. Wish Canada had gone that route.

JeffroK -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/22/2012 10:49:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker Where are you from Jeff? 'Stralia My flag dissapeared!!! We could use them in Sydney Harbour or Port Phillip Bay. They could also base out of our ports in the north like Port Hedland and Gladstone and defend against any raiders.

Historiker -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/22/2012 10:54:03 PM)
? I thought the Collins are really good subs.

Empire101 -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/23/2012 10:24:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker Gotcha [;)] Allright, I admit. I have some natiional pride about that tiny things. [image]local://upfiles/25688/0CAF128ED13E48F5A3D0B91190C03693.jpg[/image] Careful.... that gloved hand has a mind of its own you know!! [:D]

Historiker -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/23/2012 11:07:59 AM)
quote: Careful.... that gloved hand has a mind of its own you know!! [:D]

Alfred -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/23/2012 5:07:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker ? I thought the Collins are really good subs. They are. Practically all of their well publicised defiencies arise only if they are handled incompetently. The teething problems of a new class have subsequently been fixed. The fact is that there was no prototype built. All prototypes of any new weapon system always have teething problems. Alfred

JeffroK -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/23/2012 9:33:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: Historiker ? I thought the Collins are really good subs. They are. Practically all of their well publicised defiencies arise only if they are handled incompetently. The teething problems of a new class have subsequently been fixed. The fact is that there was no prototype built. All prototypes of any new weapon system always have teething problems. Alfred Hardly a succes story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins_class_submarine It was our first try at building submarines, maybe next time we get a better result.

khyberbill -> RE: OT: Need better subs? (3/23/2012 9:34:30 PM)
quote: And now try to find such a tiny sub when its hiding. Being diesel-electric, it makes, unlike a nuclear sub, absolutly no sound when lying on the ground. The Narwhal, SSN 671, made very little sound when under 60% power and almost none when not moving. I trained on the prototype reactor for this sub and it was very quiet in the engine room as compared to a 637 class engine room.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.09375