A fighting chance for submarines

All
After speaking with a few of the captains that are interested in building submarines, we have come to the conclusion that the current rules for surface warships will simply not support the building, and battling of submarines (either surface-runners, or diving), and that we need to take a close look at what needs to be done in order to give those that are interested in these small, and light-weight boats a fighting chance to successfully build, and battle them.
So for starters, we are looking for some input as to just what would be needed by the submariners out there in order to make the subs work.
Thanks.
Washington Treaty Combat

 

Probably deeper hulls to lower the CoG, and increase stability...

 

Just pondering how does a surface ship deal with a sub? I'm serious no wise guys I obviously know in real world I'm thinking on the pond and yes I did hurt myself []

 

Well, I'd think that if you could put a hole in them, and make them submerge, they wouldn't last very long. Maybe penetrable conningtowers so there is at least a little bit of target area to hit. Then cruisers with long range bow or stern guns might be able to pop a hole or two in them make them dive, and that would be that.

 

One thing that I thought of to use for ASW in the WWCC is a "depth charge" weapon. Current WWCC "depth charges" are 1/4 inch cannons aimed down through the bottom of the hull to fire at a submarine beneath. Because submarine decks are impenetrable, and the cannon can't be used for anything else, nobody has ever actually built a current "depth charge" gun.

However, the WWCC has been using fishing-line "minefields" for several years now. The deployment method is simple: you tow it out, then release it where you want it to go. The "depth charges" that I thought of are an upgrade on fishing line "minefields". The basic idea is you take 1 or 2 feet of fishing line, put a treble hook on one end, and a fishing bobber on the other. Tow that line around, and try to sail over the submarine like you were actually dropping depth charges, and try to hook the submarine. If you hook it, then you can tow it back in to shore, and hand it over to the submarine skipper and say "here. You're sunk". If you hook it and cannot tow it, hook it and it sinks, or hook something other than a submarine, you can release the "depth charge" string and safely return to port, and the fishing bobber will mark its location so you can retrieve it after battle and not pollute the pond. Even more neat, if 2 feet of fishing line proves too effective, you can limit its effectiveness by cutting the line down to 1 foot, so the submarine can dive under the hook if it aims for the deep.

I actually built several working examples of my "depth charge" idea. Unfortunately none of the submarine skippers have brought their ships out to play in the months since I designed and built the system, but they certainly liked the idea of an ASW weapon that doesn't require swimming after a submarine in 8 feet of murky water.

 

My static diving I-400 has a fiberglass pressure hull with penetrable free flooding sections fore and aft and penetrable 5" long ballast tanks amidships port and starboard. The solid fiberglass hull was necessary to avoid leakage or implosion of the typical surface vessel's 1/32" balsa hull (likely by a depth of 2-3 feet).

The sub is slightly positively buoyant, with the deck of the pressure hull almost awash and a penetrable upper hull secured to it. Conning tower and hangar are impenetrable (fiberglass) as per a surface ship's superstructure.

A hit on one ballast tank will cause at least partial submersion and a capsize to the damaged side. This renders the model unable to steer and puts the barrel of the BB cannon (in the hangar) just above or under the water. To ensure a sink the attacker needs to penetrate the opposite ballast tank of the now disabled sub.

Bad Bob

 

A couple things have come to mind with the current sub construction rules.
First off. The construction rules are set up so that you have penetrable areas for two reasons.
So that the ship can be sunk, by the water taken in through the holes.
And also, so that damage can be scored on the ship by holes, in the event that the ship does not sink.
That leads me to this question.
As we do not count damage points, and therefore the hull construction can be more flexable when it comes to deck, sub-deck, ribs, and the hard area below-the-waterline, then it would seem to me that we don't really need to construct the hull itself so that it can take holes. We just need to be able to decide how to determine that the sub is sunk.
Now for surface ships, we have a deck, and if that deck goes awash, then the ship is sunk. Pretty cut-and-dry.

I recall having a toy sub, and surface ship when I was just a toddler. You would push the surface ship along the floor, and then take aim with the sub.
When you pushed a button on the sub, it would shoot out a torpedo, and if you hit a panel on the side of the surface ship, the superstructure would fly off.
I also recall Swampy starting a combat club years ago, where P.T. boats or something like that were going to have panels in or on them that would shut off the drive motors, and such.
Just some thoughts I wanted to share.
Mikey

 

http://www.rcnavalcombat.com/rcnavalcombat/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1618

 

So did we decide what to do with the subs and what they get?
Thanks,

 

I think MWC has the easiest rules to build a sub to ...

K. Submarines
1. All rules pertaining to the construction, operation, and scoring of surface ships within the rules apply to submarines unless specified.
2. A submergible submarine may have a pump if the pump can only be used to pump water into and out of an enclosed ballast tank. In no way may the pump be used for damage control.
3. Submarines are not considered sunk by decks awash or resting on the bottom, but by their failure to surface when requested by a CD.
4. All penetrable area on a submergible submarine that participates in fleet battle is considered "below the waterline" area for scoring.
5. On submarines, impenetrable material may be used as hull skin, but be at least 1" below the waterline, more than 45 degrees below the turn of the bilge, or more than 45 degrees above the turn of the hull.
6. A submarine must have at least 1/2" of penetrable area amidships.
7. A submarine does not need at least 1/2" at its lowest point.

Rule 3 is the good one. The sub isn't sunk unless it cannot surface unless requested by the Contest Director.

So, a sub could be built "wet", i.e. flooded inside the hull. That would equalize pressure inside and outside the hull so it doesn't implode the side sheeting when deep diving. The sub's buoyancy wouldn't change like it would if water got into a "dry" hull setup. With a repeatable unchanging bouyancy, it would take much smaller ballast tanks to make the sub dive and surface. Radio equipment would be waterproofed in a box or possibly potted in epoxy.

I'm sure someone has tried a wet hull sub before, right?

 

Thats my point with a wet hull in MWC. It doesn't matter if you get a hole ... there is already water inside.

 

Tugboat,
From my experience with R/C subs in 1/144 and 1/72 scales it would be virtually impossible to dive a 1/144 sub using a ballast system and keep it steady at 6"-8" depth. When my I-400 vented ballast tanks it went immediately to the bottom. CO2 volume in the ballast tanks could not be finely enough regulated (via MAV-2)for it to hover at a set depth. It was either on the bottom, partly, or fully surfaced.

Dynamic diving R/C subs can be run briefly at a set depth but can easily go out of control and dive deeper than intended. My 1/72 scale sub was hard to keep at a set depth for more than 15-20 seconds before starting to oscillate. There are electronic/gyroscopic systems for stable depth-keeping in model subs but they are too large to fit in a 1/144 combat hull.

Bob

 

If the weight of the rounds hitting and then rolling around the bottom of the sub tip the balance and sink it, then that might work. Instead of water displacing air, the added mass would defeat the reserve bouancy. Might be worth a thought.

Mike

 

And that is the beauty of the current MWC sub rules. A sub isn't ruled sunk unless it cannot surface at the CD's request. Heh. It definately makes a sub more workable in 144th scale if you can pull it off.

 

Now this is just my oppinion on the subs, based on what I have been reading on this forum.
The best bet for someone that is interested in building a working combat sub,
would be to build one in 72nd scale, and make it work.
One could build the sub in 96th scale, and although it wouldn't be as easy as building one in 72nd scale, it would still be easier than building one in 144th scale, as you have more room, and weight to play with.
Admittedly, I am not really up-to-date on the sub rules in either of those two
scales. But the extra weight, and room would certainly make the build easier.
Then we could simply try to scale things down in order to utilize the knowledge
gained in building the larger sub, in order to build one to 144th scale.

Now this may sound rather drastic, but I think that if we are going to give
the 144th scale folks any sort of chance to build a working combat sub, then we need to seriously consider letting them build a couple working subs that are not limmited to the current surface warship construction rules, and then writing up a set of rules just for the subs.
Just my thoughts.
Mikey

 

Mikey,
A 1/72 scale combat sub would not be difficult to make - I plan to build one of Ralph Coles 1/72 Surcouf models next winter.

However, based on my experience with the I-400 (and 1/144 Surcouf) a reliable 1/144 scale combat sub is a very difficult proposition, and is only feasible if the sub has a much deeper hull than scale.

I've already given input on what might be required to make a useful 1/144 combat sub, but don't know if I'll try another one in that scale. It's very little bang for the buck (and time!).

Bad Bob

 

I have a 1/144th Surcoff hull and every time I pull it out an look at it I cringe at how little room there is in it. I've built a couple of small ships, The HMS Roberts and the Mogodor and never had any intent to make a combat ship out of the sub. I'd like to set her up as a dynamic diving cargo ship. Run a little faster and everything but the periscope disappears. Great way to play cargo target! But even without a gun it is a very very small hull!

 

Phil,
I had one of Ralph Coles' Surcouf hulls. After installing prop shafts, molding (but not installing) ballast tanks and making a deck for the lower hull I realized there wasn't enough room for a diving system and a cannon. I doubted that the model could even be a successful surface runner with a cannon so gave up and moved on the the I-400 project. That hull was much larger but not large enough to be a successful combatant. It could do static dives and fire the BB cannon after resurfacing but I couldn't overcome the stability problems. If I don't sell it I'll finish the conversion to a surface running convoy ship (I-402 : aviation gas tanker) by spring.
Bob