Is there a reason we don't get hydrophones for our battleships?

[arkhangelsk]

Can you tell I've just been clobbered by torpedoes again? I have been doing reversals with fair regularity (but you can't turn every salvo or something, the guns rotate too slowly for that).

Anyway, why can't we have hydrophones on battleships? They exist. And we keep getting thrown into missions where we are only allowed to have one battleship. Against 2 battlecruisers and 2 cruisers. So there's no point saying I'm supposed to use the destroyers. Besides, since real battleships do have hydrophones, shouldn't we players choose whether we want them on our battleships given the appropriate weight penalty? Further, battleships having hydrophones still won't negate the advantages of destroyers having them, because they would add to the total detection distance being far away from the battleship.

[nimbalo500]

I think it is for balance reasons, but i agree there is 0 reason why BB should not get the option for hydrophones seeing as how most were given them, it would be a little like locking radar from destroyers

[TBRSIM]

Hydrophones in this game are a-historic oddities to begin with, contributing to a purely "gamey" element. In game they support torpedo detection but, in the game's timeframe, this was not done/possible with hydrophones. The entire "deteciton system" against torpedoes is way off and breaks suspension of disbelief to me. In game trimeframe the only hydrophones that could detect torpedoes regularly wewre those on submarines that were traveling submerged @ lest than 5kn. For surface ships at speed the only way to detect incoming torpedoes was thtough optical observation of their launch (from other surface ships or airplanes) and through observation of their "buble wake". Wet heater atmospheric torpedoes dominated the timeframe and those had lots of "bubble wake" signature since they emitted a boiling hot steam/air mix from their propulsion system. That is also true of "oxygen" torpedoes like the Long Lance. In timeframe only electrical and oxygenated fuel (hydrogen-peroxide-kerosene) torpedoes did not exhibit a well visible wake signature. That is the reason German submarines began using mostly electircal torpedoes in daylight.

[arkhangelsk]

Actually, it seems where they are actually installed they are pretty useful in the torpedo detection role even at battle speeds:

But then, not a lot of battleships had them - the Bismarcks had them, as did the Scharnhorst, and the Yamatos and I am out of ships I remember that have them. But where they are fitted, they do serve as useful early warning devices for torpedoes and even enemy ships. Also, remember that even a puny sensor as that can be fitted onto torpedoes can usefully detect escorts while the torpedo itself is moving at over 20 knots.

Where things start to go south seems to be when they are asked to detect quiet submarines, and these sneak up to about 1000 yards before unleashing their fish.

[madham82]

2 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

Actually, it seems where they are actually installed they are pretty useful in the torpedo detection role even at battle speeds:

But then, not a lot of battleships had them - the Bismarcks had them, as did the Scharnhorst, and the Yamatos and I am out of ships I remember that have them. But where they are fitted, they do serve as useful early warning devices for torpedoes and even enemy ships. Also, remember that even a puny sensor as that can be fitted onto torpedoes can usefully detect escorts while the torpedo itself is moving at over 20 knots.

Where things start to go south seems to be when they are asked to detect quiet submarines, and these sneak up to about 1000 yards before unleashing their fish.

That just highlights the real issue, you would only get a bearing...no range or speed. Hydrophones in these cases would have only put the crew on alert that they had been fired, and to keep eyes on that bearing to spot the wake (the only real way to plot them). The current method by which torpedoes are detected plots them exactly on the map (speed, range, bearing, with continual tracking) the moment they are detected, so it is easy to plot avoidance then.

[Cptbarney]

38 minutes ago, madham82 said:

That just highlights the real issue, you would only get a bearing...no range or speed. Hydrophones in these cases would have only put the crew on alert that they had been fired, and to keep eyes on that bearing to spot the wake (the only real way to plot them). The current method by which torpedoes are detected plots them exactly on the map (speed, range, bearing, with continual tracking) the moment they are detected, so it is easy to plot avoidance then.

Its better than nothing i supposse, sod being the guy who has to sit cross legged on the deck trying to spot torps while under a hail of gunfire. Too be honest if we had something like wows where you could spot torps out from like 6km that would be quite mental and make torps pretty much worthless.

[Nick Thomadis]

The main reason we do not have yet Hydrophones/Sonars in large capital ships, is that usually they were not fitted with them, because of the noise of their engines and thickness of their hulls, their results would be not accurate. Maybe we can allow some hulls to get this as a special option, but we need more opinions on this matter. 

[Shaftoe]

4 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The main reason we do not have yet Hydrophones/Sonars in large capital ships, is that usually they were not fitted with them, because of the noise of their engines and thickness of their hulls, their results would be not accurate. Maybe we can allow some hulls to get this as a special option, but we need more opinions on this matter. 

I agree that more modern battleships (30-40s) need to have the option of equipping hydrophones. It's historical, and there are accounts of successful use of such devices on battleships. The game is being advertised as realistic, therefore this feature should be added, because it is realistic. 

Edited March 22, 2020 by Shaftoe

[HusariuS]

1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The main reason we do not have yet Hydrophones/Sonars in large capital ships, is that usually they were not fitted with them, because of the noise of their engines and thickness of their hulls, their results would be not accurate. Maybe we can allow some hulls to get this as a special option, but we need more opinions on this matter. 

As far as I know, Yamato-class battleship were using hydrophones, they were installed somewhere in the front of the ship and could be used only when stationary or at very low speed (below 5 knots if i'm correct).

[Cptbarney]

3 minutes ago, HusariuS said:

As far as I know, Yamato-class battleship were using hydrophones, they were installed somewhere in the front of the ship and could be used only when stationary or at very low speed (below 5 knots if i'm correct).

Didn't iowa and scharnhorst have hydrophonics too?

[HusariuS]

Just now, Cptbarney said:

Didn't iowa and scharnhorst have hydrophonics too?

They should have, but I don't know how effective those were.

[Shaftoe]

11 minutes ago, HusariuS said:

As far as I know, Yamato-class battleship were using hydrophones, they were installed somewhere in the front of the ship and could be used only when stationary or at very low speed (below 5 knots if i'm correct).

You are incorrect about 5 knots. You erroneously generalized many uses of hydrophones as if they were one and the same. In fact, same rules apply to nowadays submarines, too. 

When you want to listen in on a distant contact, you really need slow down. However, if you are only using hydrophones to detect incoming transients (torpedo signatures), then you can sail at speeds well above 5 knots. Those signatures will still be detectable. If you go faster, then detection distance shortens and accuracy decreases, but any sonarman will still be able to say that something is in there, approaching fast - that's all you really need from this feature. 

Also, overall thickness of ship's hull has NOTHING to do with effectiveness of a sonar/hydrophone, because they are normally installed in thiner parts of a vessel's hull. Modern ships' sonars are installed in special composite boxes mounted on the bow below waterline. WW2 sonars were simply put in well-conductive/thin areas of the hull.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Shaftoe

[HusariuS]

10 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

In fact, you are incorrect about 5 knots. You are wrong, because you erroneously generalized many uses of hydrophones as if they were one in the same. In fact, same rules apply to nowadays submarines, too. 

I know, I was mainly talking about Yamato-class battleships, and they're hydrophone could be used only when stationary or at low speed (like ~5knots).

Edited March 22, 2020 by HusariuS

[Cptbarney]

11 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

You are incorrect about 5 knots. You erroneously generalized many uses of hydrophones as if they were one and the same. In fact, same rules apply to nowadays submarines, too. 

When you want to listen in on a distant contact, you really need slow down. However, if you are only using hydrophones to detect incoming transients (torpedo signatures), then you can sail at speeds well above 5 knots. Those signatures will still be detectable. If you go faster, then detection distance shortens and accuracy decreases, but any sonarman will still be able to say that something is in there, approaching fast - that's all you really need from this feature. 

Also, overall thickness of ship's hull has NOTHING to do with effectiveness of a sonar/hydrophone, because they are normally installed in thiner parts of a vessel's hull. Modern ships' sonars are installed in special composite boxes mounted on the bow below waterline. WW2 sonars were simply put in well-conductive/thin areas of the hull.

 

1 minute ago, HusariuS said:

I know, I was mainly talking about Yamato-class battleships, and they're hydrophone could be used only when stationary or at low speed (like ~5knots).

Ahh so thats how they worked, guess we could apply them to chonk super BB's after all, hope we get an internal customiser to choose where to put some vitals and equipment in the ship (with the relevant penalties and bonuses etc).

did ship size have any major or minor effects on hydrophonics.

[Shaftoe]

1 minute ago, HusariuS said:

I know, I was mainly talking about Yamato-class battleships, and they're hydrophone could be used only when stationary or at low speed (like ~5knots).

Why? Did they extend out of the hull and couldn't handle incoming water pressure at higher speeds? Otherwise there's no need for a ship to go so slowly in order to use them.  However, if it had particularly poor hydrophone, then it might not have been effective. You need to be a little more precise with your wordings.

[Shaftoe]

5 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

did ship size have any major or minor effects on hydrophonics.

Ship's size has NO impact on effectiveness of hypdrophones. However, the larger your ship, the more surface you will need to dedicate for hydro to use. That's a structural weakness. Unless you are ok with limited arcs of scanning - but then you'll have to adjust your heading to get a reading from a particular direction.

Additionally, you can never get a reading from an area directly behind your ship. It's called baffles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baffles_(submarine)

Edited March 22, 2020 by Shaftoe

[HusariuS]

1 minute ago, Shaftoe said:

Why? Did they extend out of the hull and couldn't handle incoming water pressure at higher speeds? Otherwise there's no need for a ship to go so slowly in order to use them.  However, if it had particularly poor hydrophone, then it might not have been effective. You need to be a little more precise with your wordings.

Honestly, I don't know about the reason for it.

Maybe I'm poorly searching but every time when i was searching for some electronic things that were used by IJN, I can't find any good source of information.

For example: radars or hydrophones.

I know only that Yamato-class were using Hydrophones Type 0 that were mounted in the bow of the ship and could be used only at low speed or when stationary.

[Cptbarney]

3 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

Ship's size has NO impact on effectiveness of hypdrophones. However, the larger your ship, the more surface you will need to dedicate for hydro to use. That's a structural weakness. Unless you are ok with limited arcs of scanning - but then you'll have to adjust your heading to get a reading from a particular direction.

Additionally, you can never get a reading from an area directly behind your ship. It's called baffles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baffles_(submarine)

Ahh ok, seems like they solved that via plonking a fat sonar at the back like how the AI put a secondary tower hanging of the edge of the ship (LOL).

Maybe some nations will get bonuses or whatever to that.

[Shaftoe]

1 minute ago, HusariuS said:

Honestly, I don't know about the reason for it.

Maybe I'm poorly searching but every time when i was searching for some electronic things that were used by IJN, I can't find any good source of information.

For example: radars or hydrophones.

I know only that Yamato-class were using Hydrophones Type 0 that were mounted in the bow of the ship and could be used only at low speed or when stationary.

There's a huge difference between ability to use, and usefulness of a device under certain conditions. 

P.S. Also, here's your 200th rep point. Congratulations.

[HusariuS]

10 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

Ship's size has NO impact on effectiveness of hypdrophones. However, the larger your ship, the more surface you will need to dedicate for hydro to use. That's a structural weakness. Unless you are ok with limited arcs of scanning - but then you'll have to adjust your heading to get a reading from a particular direction.

Additionally, you can never get a reading from an area directly behind your ship. It's called baffles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baffles_(submarine)

If you know good sources of informations about IJN Warships and their equipment like radars, I would be grateful for posting a link for that site.

 

EDIT: Thanks :3

Edited March 22, 2020 by HusariuS

[Shaftoe]

2 minutes ago, HusariuS said:

If you know good sources of informations about IJN Warships and their equipment like radars, I would be grateful for posting a link for that site.

Nah, I can't (ever) be asked to spend time on searching for sources. I just know some stuff about sonars 'n all - from my time in Cold Waters (game & community). 

Edited March 22, 2020 by Shaftoe

[Cptbarney]

6 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

Nah, I can't (ever) be asked to spend time on searching for sources. I just know some stuff about sonars 'n all - from my time in Cold Waters (game & community). 

Fair enough lol, you would hate the wows forums, that sort thing is always asked for even if the arguements are something arbitrary or nonsensical.

Or the infamous phrase 'Replay or didnt happen!'

[Shaftoe]

51 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Fair enough lol, you would hate the wows forums, that sort thing is always asked for even if the arguements are something arbitrary or nonsensical.

Or the infamous phrase 'Replay or didnt happen!'

Hate? Oh, please. I simply don't care.

[GUTB]

Well....look. Historically all ship classes could be fit with hydrophones, and it's completely a-historical that anything larger than a light cruiser in this game can't have them.

BUT! What's even more a-historical is the virtual reality drone camera coverage of the battlefield which includes not only information on whether a ship has fired their torpedoes or not but also the remaining time for reloading them! That's straight up cheating and which does at least partially counter the lack of hydrophones.

There's another a-historical thing too -- in reality someone on the bridge of a ship which detected a torpedo launch would be doing math to plot the course of the torpedoes to figure out when and how to evade. In the game we get no aid whatsoever, it's up to us to just eyeball / feel it out.

Ultimately this game's subject matter is big ships, things which were rendered obsolete by torpedos even as the dreadnoughts were in their prime. When naval planes with radios came on the scene the battleship was also screwed.

[Shaftoe]

6 minutes ago, GUTB said:

There's another a-historical thing too -- in reality someone on the bridge of a ship which detected a torpedo launch would be doing math to plot the course of the torpedoes to figure out when and how to evade. In the game we get no aid whatsoever, it's up to us to just eyeball / feel it out.

You can't see torpedoes in the water until they are "detected". The game hides them from player's view.