Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About theCarthaginian

  • Rank
  1. Ok... Nice charts. You don't give any context though. You can plunk down charts all day long without context and it means little. Cavitation, for instance, isn't an absolute limit. It's a function of multiple things: RPM, pressure, blade geometry, etc. Two otherwise identical plants can have different geometry screws and cavitate at different points. Speed being a function of noise is correct, but it is not THE BIGGEST FACTOR, as a turbine powered ship is MUCH QUIETER at a given speed than a ship powered by expansion engines at an equal speed. Indeed, even on a modern submarine, the lower fr
  2. False assumption, again. Machines do not 'hear.' They do not get distracted, they do not miss things; contrariwise, they cannot interpret info on the fly if the incoming data doesn't trip their preset parameters. They are, as my old high school math teacher loved to say 'high speed idiots.' They merely multiply the mistakes of others at incredible rates. A particular pattern recognition in those early automated systems was not very reliable, was easily spoofed, and was very limited in range. Think about the difficulties that early homing torpedoes had... the system you mentioned woul
  3. Yeah... the actual performance info on GHG transducers in general and the great socking linier array on P.E. in specific is quite limited. I've been looking between games of HOI4 since I got off work on Wednesday morning and have found precisely diddly-squat beyond what you mentioned. All of which make the cited case look more like an outlying case rather than the mean performance of the set... more reason for me to doubt 🧐.
  4. PS - I find no records of Bismark or Scharnhorst having any sonar systems installed. Could you point me toward your source for that? If they did not, in fact, have them... well, you ARE dealing with a single instance - especially if those ships didn't exhibit exactly the same performance.
  5. 1.) You are kidding, right? The creme de la creme of sonar operators in the Kreigsmarine were put on a heavy cruiser? 🤣 I'm sorry, no... that's a MASSIVELY counterintuitive comment with neither grounding in rationality nor the ability to cite proof. Occam's Razor would lead one ot believe that the better sonarmen were on U-boats, simply by virtue of their ships' entire existence depending on how well that system is operated. Pulling a guy that can hear, differentiate, and triangulate targets at 40km from a sub to a surface ship is like taking the best door gunners in the Ia Drang valley out
  6. It's not a resistance to a 'competent hydrophone system' - it's a resistance to some people confusing 'theoretical maximums' with 'consistent performance under combat capabilities.' Those two things are a fair piece away from each other, realistically... yet armchair quarterbacking on third-hand sources sometimes leads to their confusion. For instance, the 'maximum effective range' on my beloved M249 was (theoretically) 1000m for an area target. Even in Iraq, that was a most generous assumption: - It first assumes that I'm engaging on open terrain that lets me have that kind of option, a
  7. And would, coincidentally, assist massively with the whole "clown car" situation... with more accurate modeling of INTERNAL components and bulkhead placement comes the unavoidable, but highly pleasant, side effect of getting better placement of EXTERNAL components that connect to those. No more will we see insane turret placement where half-a-dozen different gun calibers are packed into every available square inch of deckspace. The computer will have more accurately modeled the magazines, and will resultantly have better gun mount arrangement.
  8. Nor do I... not while it was happening - in fact, I'm quite skeptical that the sonar crew figured out what they heard was a torpedo. I'm of the opinion that the 'information integration' we see in the log happened on the bridge, and that the recording of 'torpedo detection' was the result of sonar relaying a "probable intermittent contact" report, lookouts reporting suspicious enemy asset behavior, and then the actual spotting of a wake or group of wakes. Then you have that eureka moment, and realize what the sonarman heard in that direction for the last 5 minutes (probably defined as "out the
  9. We can understand why the Devs 'compressed' things a bit as far as hits - very few players want to spend hours in a game with 50 ships plowing around the ocean, fight a 24 hour (realtime) long battle in half-a-dozen 2 hour long main phases and a dozen short-duration skirmishes... and sink maybe 7 or 8 ships (and few of them be large ones). It, sadly, goes back to the 'Realism vs Entertainment' issue - and that people could by and large want to see more substantial results for their efforts. As far as the torpedoes: Yeah, the launch sequence for a torpedo is the dead giveaway... a ship GEN
  10. You are focusing on a single documented instance to fit your desired outcome. While I acknowledge this exists I am able to point to a plethora of other documented instances by ships of multiple nations that had a much broader range of results. Convoy escorts saw torpedoes strike without ever hearing them (or the launching sub) on their sonars. Sub skippers saw ships before they heard them, and vice versa. Observation that depends on a single instance and the mediocrity principle isn't the best policy.
  11. Yeah... they used two items grossly similar in actual performance to separate focuses on 'Field of View' (obtaining sight picture) versus 'Precision Optics' (point-target accuracy). I'd like them to change those names, personally, as coincidence and stereoscopic rangefinders are pretty much 'six of one, half dozen of the other' in end result.
  12. Yes, I doubt everything - skepticism is the foundation of Science. Your pointing to the wiki article tells me nothing. It regards a submarine, which you yourself admit has different characteristics than a surface ship. It doesn't talk about the number of hydrophones in the array, whether it was fixed or mechanically steered, what conditions were during the test, whether the sub was surfaced or submerged, the speed bands across which the testing was conducted, the depth of the submarine if it was submerged, the presence of a thermocline, salinity of the water, time of the year or any of 10,
  13. 1.) Submarines lost contact with surface ships up to and including fast-moving escorts... negating the 'subs are quiet' argument. 2.) Indeed, it's quieter and more stable for a sub... and, barring something like a sound channel or a thermocline, more conducive to them getting BETTER overall performance in the general area under any given variable. 3.) But for a surface ship, this is moot... and both the extra performance and the interference that go with it. 4.) EXACTLY - part of the reason was the degradation of sonar performance on the surface versus that of sonar submerged. And the wh
  14. And, yet, even older or less protected battleships and cruisers have taken some pretty astounding torpedo damage and either sank slowly or even not sank. North Carolina, for instance, continued to blaze along at what was roughly her maximum sustainable speed (remember her peculiar issues with her top speed) of 25 knots and maintain formation with Saratoga. Even Wasp not only took the single Type 95, but three more much weaker Mk 15 torps... and even then took hours to sink in the face of the combined damage (without anyone trying to stop her from sinking, BTW). Heck, in that battle, a close-ab
  15. I'm yet to hear any example of 'perfect sonar' like Prinz Eugen managed in this account. In fact, every other accessible account of sonar (including the one sonarman I know) use seems to contradict it... indeed, if sonar was so incredibly and amazingly clear as this alleged account states, then why does modern sonar require computer assistance for noise-canceling or target tracking or a host of other duties? Until shown other documented episodes of similar instances with similar results (which I haven't found), then such an aberration can only be put down to the fact that someone is stretch
  • Create New...