Had an idea about how to combat submarines. Use a brightly colored foam float that has a weighted string about three foot long below it. This would simulate a depth charge. Why brightly colored? So warships and transports can easily see and avoid them. They would be deployed in an attacking role only, by ships that were fitted to drop depth charges. They could only be used to combat subs, and if they "mined" a ship, then they would be counted as moss, being removed with no penalty to the ensnared ship. Ships so entangled are to be immune from fire, and must not fire themselves. What do you think?
i think its a good idea but if its brightly colored would the sub captian know were it is and not go by it?
Depth charges are meant to be dropped immediately in front of the submarine, if the skipper of the sub is skilful, he will survive. The same applies to the scale version. What I am envisioning is not a sub trap like a minefield, but an asw weapon, targeted at a specific vessel. If the sub captain can avoid the string, good luck to him. Besides, diffraction at the water surface will make it hard to judge just where the sub is in relation to the float.
Also, if there were such a rule (which I have no problem with I as a submarine builder would build the frames that most subs back then had to prevent bashing their props on piers when mooring (some DDs also had these). The string would hopefully slide right past. But as a submarine afficionado, I have no moral issue with adding these to the game Might even be fun Actually, how about deploying something similar from minelayers (both surface and sub)... that'd be a cool element. You don't damage the ship, but he's off the water while unmossing Very neat way to change convoy scenario dynamics using a minelayer sub to "escort" a convoy...
I have yet to see a working combat sub- And I suspect that a submerged sub would be easly sunk by a single hit from a sidemount- So the need for special weapons to attack them would seam not required.
I don't know if it would be that easy. Like I said, diffraction would spoil your aim. Just how far underwater would a sub need to be in order to be out of effective cannon range? As for prop protection, I was sort of thinking the strings would foul diving planes, catch on superstructure, rudders and the like, slow the sub and force it to the surface. This would stop a sub being an invulnerable transport too.
3 or 4 inches down and the sidemount aint doing crap And there are combat subs in development. There are a few people in MWCI working on them together, in dimly-lit basements in secret. Besides which, everything about the 45-degree line of th ehull is allowed to be solid. unless they're surfaced to fire, it'll be tricky to penetrate.
Uh guys, there ARE active combat submarines, diving and surfacing and sinking other ships. They're just all in the WWCC: http://www.westernwarshipcombat.com/gallery/album27/I_400 http://www.westernwarshipcombat.com/gallery/album58/IMG_7914 Darren, what you have suggested might work against a submarine, but it has a fairly low probability of actually snaring a submarine. Plus, once the submarine is snared, it may be unable to return to shore for de-mossing. After seeing several subs in action and after battling with and against them, my first thought is "what is there to be concerned about?" They are difficult to maintain and not very effective in combat. But since we are on the topic of ASW, here's what I would suggest instead: To represent depth charges for ASW, drag a weighted line about 1 to 2 feet long, trailing behind and below the ship. To use the weapon, the destroyer sails over the submarine, and the weighted line grabs onto the submarine. At the very least, this will disrupt the submarine's course and spoil any attempted attack it makes, while at best it allows the destroyer to drag the submarine back into port and forcibly remove it from combat without causing unnecessary damage. The line is short enough that the submarine might dive under it, but not without risk. I would strongly recommend against using anything similar to a Big Gun minefield in Fast Gun combat, for two reasons. First, Fast Gun propulsion systems are generally much stronger than a comparable Big Gun propulsion system, and could probably rip through all but the mightiest minefields. Second, Fast Gun propulsion systems draw collossal amounts of power when stalled, and minefields cause stalled motors. If a minefield were used in a Fast Gun competition, it could quite probably melt components, damage propulsion systems, and cause permanent damage to a ship.
Honestly, I don't think a 1:144 sub is going to be enough of a threat that anyone is going to be worried by them. Only a few people are building them, and it's only for the "cool" factor. Not for the "wow, we can break the North Carolina's total dominance" factor.
Historically, submarines were attacked by grapple.....so this does apply. Also, despite what the propaganda of the day said, most depth charges missed their intended targets. Stopping the sub is exactly what I'm aiming for, much the same as mining a surface ship. It can still call five while submerged, remember. As for stalled motors and melted components, well, that's what fuses are for, isn't it? Do you have any links for pictures of combat damage caused by subs? I think I've seen some in the past, and the damage was devastating.
http://www.westernwarshipcombat.com/gallery/album58?page=5 Click the thumbnails to see a larger photo. You can see a Giussano class light cruiser pumping heavily after a very lucky hit from the I-400. The light cruiser then sat outside of port pumping and was an easy target for a second attack, and a photo shows the ship resting partway submerged on the bottom. The next photo shows the submarine returning home to reload at a depth of 2-3 inches, and completely unaffected by Adm Scheer's cannons, which cannot depress. Depressing cannons may have been able to hit at that depth. A fourth photo shows the damage from the two submarine attacks. Keep in mind that the submarine fires torpedoes by bumping a button on the bow, which guarantees that it will cause maximum damage. There is also a chance that the air blast will further increase the damage from the balls.
Well whats wrong twith what wwcc uses? A gun pointing staight down would be simple and fairly affective... Seeing that Gravity pulls things DOWN the salvo would travel slightly longer. Attacking a submarine like this would go like this - A Submarine aproches another ship and fires its torpedo(s) a Destroyer ( being twice as fast as a sub ) can chase the sub before its submerged at least two or three inches down and fire it's 1/4 inch depth cahrges and destroy the submarine...
What I'd suggest is to build the submarine with an upper hull "shell" of balsa, that traps air for flotation - like when you put an inverted glass under water. Then the down-firing cannon depth charge could be an effective anti-submarine weapon. If the sub's balsa shell is penetrated, it won't have any buoyancy & sinks just like any other ship (i.e. it can't surface again). Where a surface ship has its penetrable areas on the sides, a sub should have its penetrable areas on top (i.e. facing its enemy). Also, it might also find itself below "crush depth", just like the real thing, if the sub. captain isn't careful! I think it's important to build in complementary capabilities & vulnerabilities so that each can be defeated. A submarine that can't be sunk is no good for the game, but building in the means for its own defeat makes it viable within the scope of the game. Just like balsa skinned hulls make surface ships vulnerable - it would be easy to make an unsinkable ship, but the fun comes from being able to be sunk. JM
Well instead of having and entire shell for the submarine do the 1 inch thing. One inch of penetrability below and obove the water line... To simulate the difficulty of droping depth charges... After all There was no way back in WWII to realy aim a depth charge
Ok, before this gets out of hand and makes subs a non-viable type of vessel. I suggested this weapon system only in order to avoid having subs used as invulnerable transports. Firstly, a penetrable deck, whilst desirable from an attacker's standpoint, would make a sub too easy to kill. Any hit that breaks the seal will sink the sub....any hit at all. So NO, I wouldn't support that. Historically, some subs took quite a pounding and still survived. Secondly, subs do have penetrable area rules, I see no reason to change this. They can still be sunk when forced to surface or when they surface to attack. Thirdly, gravity = 9.8m/sec/sec. Over 75mm (three inches approx) the effect of gravity is insignificant, when air resistance (and water resistance) are taken into account. Besides, I really hate the idea of downward facing cannon. I really do. Really. I'm not kidding. Finally, the depth charge device I suggested for ASW will miss most times, just like a real depth charge. It would be purely up to the skills of the two skippers. Or a lucky shot. Not a single-shot instant kill.
They pretty much already are non-viable. Basically just a novelty & more of a distraction than any sort of effective combat vessel. Building in a way to defeat it while submerged at least brings it into the game. {quote]I suggested this weapon system only in order to avoid having subs used as invulnerable transports. Firstly, a penetrable deck, whilst desirable from an attacker's standpoint, would make a sub too easy to kill. I'd say that your skill is considerably greater than most captains'. Most have trouble hitting something that they can see, on the surface, & get a line-of-sight on. Shooting at something that's submerged, "somewhere", sounds like a real crap-shoot to me. Of course, I haven't ever fired on a submerged sub, so I may be wrong & it may be a piece of cake after all. What do you suppose might happen to the velocity of steel balls fired into water? Only a PENETRATING hit would release the captured air. Shots that don't penetrate due to reduced velocity, bad angle, or just plain missed, aren't going to sink a thing, just like in real life. How, exactly, does one force a sub to surface without firing something at it? Penetration rules currently apply as for surface ships, IOW on the sides. The penetrable areas face attacking ships only when on the surface, not when submerged. To make a submarine vulnerable while submerged, it needs to have penetrable areas that face an attacker while it is submerged. Well, downward-firing cannon as a "depth charge" would be pretty simple to implement, won't tangle up anything else, won't persist long after the deploying ship is gone, & is a heck of a lot safer than upward-aimed or even horizontal guns. If there's something down there that can be "damaged", it could be a marginally-effective weapon against a marginally-effective vessel. Best part, though, is the noise & splash. ASW would probably be a fun spectacle to watch, even if nothing ever gets hit. JM[/FONT][/QUOTE]
So lets allow destroyers and escorts that carried depth charges have racks to roll 1/4" lithium cylinders into the water behind them...
Well, Maybe any ship that carried DC's could have them... And i've been Brain storming about the whole penetrable submarine deck thing.... According to rules the same amount of penetrabilty aplies to both subs and ships. But in the rule set, subs dont have penetrable decks. So what about having 3-4 1inch windows evenly distributed along the top of the submarine? Now i knwo most people dont want to change the rules to allow this... but Since My dad would like to start a club we would probably use this...
