I bought a radio shack type model that had a prop through the center to pull the model under... that could help too. Mike
Bob, 28 seconds per 100 feet is the equivalent of 40 knots by the big gun speed scale. Submarines are allowed to go 25 knots (45 seconds), though I heard that some subs went 30 knots (38 seconds). WWCC subs are allowed diving planes that are twice the area shown on the plans. I believe they all have extra depth, but no more than the 1" allowed to all WWCC ships. Subs also are not required to float at the scale waterline: their decks are almost awash, which reduces the buoyant force their planes must overcome. Though I haven't built a sub myself, I think that they already have enough speed (60% faster than my club allows), if you are willing to offer them a few small breaks to relieve the pressure of building such a small ship. Larger diving planes and extra depth should make subs somewhat easier to build. How would a dynamic dive system compare to a static dive system in terms of weight and space and stability? Mike, I have seen similar toys, and several members have discussed building subs with a pull-down motor. It would give all the tactical advantages of a static dive system without the issue of running out of gas, especially since WWCC subs are armed with single-shot torpedoes and don't have any on-board CO2. So far, nobody has expanded on it yet, since dynamic diving is a proven technique in the club.
Gascan, A vertical thruster is feasible except for the limited battery capacity in a small 1/144 sub hull. I couldn't run two 280 motors and the radio system off a 6V1.2Ah hour battery for more than 10-12 minutes and had to switch to a single motor, which slowed the sub to about 30 sec./100'. Larger dive planes would probably have worked at that speed, given that my I-400's sealed pressure hull was awash and the fiberglass and balsa superstructure/upper deck had no positive buoyancy. A dynamic system would take up much less room than my static dive system. All that's needed is a single servo with a linkage rod to the aft planes. (I doubt that two sets of working planes would be necessary.) Getting rid of the static system would remove two ballast tanks, 2 of 3 MAV-2 valves, and leave the ballast tank servo available for the diving planes. Without the ballast tanks there'd be an extra 6-8 cubic inches of space, allowing battery capacity to be almost doubled. Removal of 2 MAV-2s, associated brass plumbing and some of the lead ballast should compensate for the extra battery weight. Bob
*cough, increase scale, cough* Sorry guys, I don't want to be a pain in the neck, or a total pessimist, but I don't think that 1/144 subs are going to work, and if they do, they will be so compromised they will never be a weapon worthy of fear by the surface ship guys... Almost all current work surrounding subs concerns the I-400 class, huge by comparison to most other subs of the time. Even then, you guys have to deepen the hulls to even have a shot at making something that works. There in lies the problem, they only built a handful, they are Axis ships ( Allied guys SOL??? ), and even with mods they are too small to arm everything. I'm not a fan of dynamic diving at all. A loss of forward motion means you pop to the surface. And as said before you lack the ability to sit on the bottom, or crawl around slowly to conserve power. The higher speed needed to help force the sub under water no doubt wastes availible battery power and likely angers the surface ship guys because it is much easier to manuver into a favorable firing spot. A vertical thruster is again, excess battery drain and likely a mine and/or moss trap. And increase in scale to 1/96 or 1/72 creates so many interesting possibilities. Here is a short list of ships that might be possible in larger scales: Surcouf, HM X1 (twin turret), the M class (12"gun or minelayer), the K class (steam powered and very fast), the WW1 U-cruisers and commercial subs, the Uss Argonaut and some of the larger V-class boats. A little something for everyone.
I don't think an increase in scale is necessary. Take a look at current RC submarine technology, and you'll see it's getting a heck of a lot smaller. Sure, you can only miniaturize a gas-powered ballast tank so much. And dynamic divers pop to the surface once they stop. But there are other options out there. Personally, I think the European sub clubs had the right idea when they used piston ballast tanks. Piston ballast tanks are basically a piston inside the submarine, operated by a motor or servo, that sucks in water and pushes it back out again. It's perfectly repeatable for as long as you've got battery power to operate the system. Not only that, it can be miniaturized a lot more than your average gas ballast system. You can even make one out of a simple syringe or two, with little difficulty. It's the perfect solution for your static-diving needs. The other thing I think submarines would benefit from is the improved sealing technologies being made. The waterproof seals on every combat submarine I've seen are basically super-short stuffing tubes, but those aren't very reliable. I've seen a few websites with much better o-ring based seals, that are both more compact and more reliable. Reliability has been a huge issue for the combat submarines in the WWCC, so using reliable modern seals would be a huge improvement over current techniques. Lastly, Bob, have you considered trying NiMH or LiPoly batteries? You'll get more power per unit volume (and per unit weight) than with SLA. A 6-cell AA pack of NiMHs is not much bigger than a small SLA, but can easily contain almost twice as much mAh.
I think the technology is getting smaller and smaller and cheaper. I am amazed now at the micro rc stuff, and like the piston apparatus that the new fellow dug up. In 144, for a sub, you are probably going to have to be both an expert builder, and have some serious shop capacity at hand to make a lot of wee little custom parts. Now, I think that every club has or is getting access to 7x10's and x-2 mills, along with cnc sherline equipment and people who can use them... at some point, somebody is going to make it happen I do think though that the blast shield idea would need some looking into, the fellows in my old club want there to be 5/16 gaps just like in a battleship, and I don't find this to be "scale" to the damage received by subs. They were not usually hit with 16' shells, but were sometimes torpedoed. So, I think some space could be reclaimed by not requiring the same distance on blast shields, since it's not really as necessary, because any damage is going to cause so much trouble. Also, not allowing positive pressurization to get rid of water means that a damaged sub would have to surface for the air to make pumping effective. With positive pressurization though, you'll get a stream of bubbles which says aha! there is the sub... and there is only so much air you can pack into the boat. the piston idea seems to me to have some promise, if you have a set point for normal damage and get the model off the bottom at all costs, perhaps on a time delay... That might model very well. Lots to think about :0 Mike
Pistons have been used to suck water into and force it out of ballast tanks in sub models for at least 3-4 decades. 1/144 sub hulls are probably too small to accomodate a piston system. I have to agree with PreDread that 1/144 subs will never be effective combatants. I spent more time designing and repeatedly modifying the I-400 than I have on any 2-3 surface ship models and it was still a failure as a combat model. It was fun to work on as a technical challenge but other than that was not worth the effort. Ralph Coles makes 1/72 scale hulls and conning towers for the M1 and Surcouf. I'm trying to persuade him to make a 1/72 X1 - if he agrees the Greenwich Museum in London has the original plans (though very, very expensive). I think that scale is big enough for R/C naval combat. Bob
John Lambert (I think) is the one drew the plans availible for the M1... Also has plans for the K-class fleet subs. They were steam powered and very fast on the surface. I very much believe that subs should be restricted to their actual scale surfaced/submerged speed for realism. That would make a 24 knot surface sub quite attractive. I'd heard of the syringe style ballast tanks before, but my question is this. What are the effects pressure/vacuum on the hull as you pull water in and out? This assumes the interior of the sub is air/watertight. I'd think you would need some kind of vent to release and intake air into the sub. Of course you would also need that for a conventional ballast system.
My understanding from journals of the International Submarine Modellers Club (1980s) is that the pressure increase within the hull was not significant when the piston was drawn in. Certainly not enough to breach a good deck hatch seal. Pressure normalized when the piston went out to expell the water for surfacing. I would love to have a K Class in 1/72 scale and have been bugging Ralph to make a mold. He has a good set of drawings for the Ks. I think I'd build a K Class as a surface running combatant rather than a diver. Bob
Bob, My fear with an pressure increase is the fragile sides of a combat sub splitting out... but, this fear may be groundless because the hull needs to be strong enough to resist a few feet of water pressure as well. I also looked long and hard at the K-class, but it didn't go well with my preferance for High Seas Fleet ships. So instead (letting my secret project out of the bag here) I decided to research Projekt 50, which, had it been completed, would have been UD-1. UD-1 was a steam powered U-Kruezer of huge proportions. Submerged displacement was estimated at 4300 tons. The ship had 10 torpedo tubes and 4 5.9" deck guns. In 1/72 scale, the sub is big, especially since displacement is misleading for a scale sub. Without an internal pressure hull, you have a lot more than scale air space inside the hull, meaning the ship will need more than 4300 "scale tons" to submerge. Concerning steam subs: They had much slower dive times than diesel subs (the K's even folded down their funnels) and should have their dive speeds in scale restricted to an extent (to keep everybody happy). Scale speeds surfaced/submerged should be enforced for all subs. This could be done with a microcontroller that restricts the throttle while the sub is submerged. Steam subs should have a built in lag time that allows a short burst of high underwater speed after diving (because even with the boilers shut down you would have steam for a short time) and than a surface lag to simulate relighting the boilers and re-raising steam.
Just to put things back in perspective: we have fleets that consist mostly of the rarest type of ship in the world (battleships), sail almost rail to rail and even bump into each other, and use compressed air to fire solid, non-explosive steel balls at less than horizontal angles to penetrate a wooden hull. Some clubs fire as fast as a machine gun, and others simulate aircraft with the above mentioned solid, non-explosive steel ball cannons. Realizing how non-scale our game really is, I don't think we need to worry about anything that would make it more complex and difficult, like reducing submarine speed and regulating the diving time, just to simulate a minor historical point. I like my rules like I like my boats: plain, simple, and easy to build, use, and maintain. I prefer a torpedo cruiser to a cruiser with all guns and torpedoes. I prefer chess to Warhammer 40k even though WH40K is a more accurate simulation of combat. The general impression I've gotten is that many people prefer simpler games where only sinks and cargo are counted as opposed to games where holes are counted as well. Back on the subject, 1/144 submarines can be effective fighting ships in their own unique way, I have seen that with the subs in the WWCC. However, their small size means that they will never be a very numerous ship due to the sheer difficulty of making one in the first place. I don't think it should be made any more difficult by regulating diving speed (how would you reliably measure that?), in fact it should be made easier. My opinion is that they need extra depth to help with space, weight, and stability issues and enlarged dive planes to encourage the use of the far simpler dynamic diving system. A submarine will, by it's very presence, throw the opposing team into chaos. It only dives to escape attacking ships, not to set up attacks because you need to see your own ship to attack. Its small size and low profile will provide it all the stealth it needs to set up ambushes.
Bring up the non-scale factor is a slippery slope, Yes, even I will admitt that some things simply cannot scale down, or cannot be scaled down safely. But there is a difference between not being able to scale things down, and not wanting too. There in lies the problem, most of the masses are more than willing to "bend the rules" a bit for one thing, but go racing to Conway's to shoot down another... I think this is an underlying issue that has been boiling just below the surface for some time. Would anybody be opposed to simply adding a WW2 looking conning tower to the top of a hobby store sub? Why not? If all you ever see is the tower and a fake deck gun who cares what it looks like underwater? Its already built, already works, just tack on some surface fluff and add a weapon. Sure, its not the I-400 or a Gato, but its only 6 inches shorter, 3 inches wider, and 2 inches deeper. Oh yeah, and its bright pink. Does the thought of that make you gag? Thats my point. I would be less critical if tons of mods weren't need to build the largest possible sub.
If you can find one that is a 1/144 scale model(or within the allowed tolerences) of a sub that sailed in the given time frame then go for it. I could care less what color it is, pink would actually be a good color for a sub cause they can be pretty hard to find when the sink, especially if they are running submerged and just never resurface. It took two divers a few hours doing a search standard search grid to find a sunken sub at NATS 06. All clubs have rules regarding speed and the sub should conform to those rules. You're always allowed to go slower than your top speed if you feel that is "better". I dont think it comes down to scale/not scale or historical/not historical at all, its a question of what rules are you playing by and what do they allow. Its a game and as such the rules are more focused on making it playable and fun than historical. Anyone that tells you this hobby is about historical/scale combat is blowing smoke.
Which is my gripe exactly. Thats what I was getting at, most people want the rules "bent" when it suits them, and then run to Conway's to shoot someone else down. Everybody likes different stuff, everybody has their own idea's on what is playable, fun, and somewhat historical. Nobody can deny many of the current rule sets only benefit certain kinds ships. Person 1 does "allowed" modifications A,B, and C to create exactly the kind of ship they want. Person 2 has different interests in ships and even with mods A,B, and C the ship still isn't really viable or fun. Then Person 2 is told, well those are the rules, be happy in your little niche or go pound sand. Which is why my opinion is this: "Let history make the rules."
Hey now... If you are talking small gun, that's one thing. Blast away on the faults of the format . I'm not a fast gunner, and don't claim to understand the in and outs. But don't lump big gun into "this hobby" as not being scale. It's as scale as it can be given limits of technology and the inertia of people who have years and bookoo bucks in a boat. It ain't perfect, rules change slowly, but it is *not* blowing smoke. I've had friends take great pain to put props and rudders at scale locations and live with the turning limits of British ships. I'll agree though that 144 rules were set up for ww2 battleships, and the people that want everything their way, but nothing for you can be a real drag. I plan on building a torp cruiser to run them off If I had my druthers, I'd go 1/96 emphasizing about 1922 because then ww1 battleships become about the right size, wallets can build the iowa, and carriers roles (and cannon issues) are less. Mike Horne
My previous post could have been more clear: historical accuracy is a secondary goal to having fun. I think more people will have fun seeing a submarine or two with somewhat larger diving planes and a bit of extra depth as opposed to seeing no subs at all. By the same token, I think most people will agree that there are limits on how much of an advantage any ship can be given. The rules are made to provide a structure for us to have fun. They should not make it too difficult for us to build the ships we want. I have seen two effective big gun submarines and a grand total of zero effective submarines in fast gun. This suggests to me that 1/144 submarines are right on the line of what is possible and what isn't. I think some small allowances should be made to make it somewhat easier to build submarines, not that we should throw out the rulebook. As an example, consider that the WWCC used to allow all battleships only 6 main guns (we are odd for big gun). Everyone built WW2 battleships, which were bigger, faster, and mostly had larger guns than their WW1 counterparts. A year or two before I joined, battleships from 20k-30k tons were allowed 8 main guns, to encourage construction of the smaller and older ships. Those ships could have been given an upgrade to 10 or even 12 main guns, but the membership agreed that was too much advantage. Now we have seen dreadnoughts Warspite, Baden, and Normandie, and smaller WW2 ships like the Dunkerque fight well on the pond alongside Iowas, Bismarks, Richelieus, and Rodneys. Everyone enjoys building a wider variety of ships and exploring new tactics with smaller, slower, yet more maneuverable ships. Historical accuracy went down, but fun factor went up, so it was a good rule.
Yup, as long as the rules scale to themselves, it should be okay. The WWCC ruleset is very interesting to me, because they have developed over a long time, I prefer big gun vanilla so to speak But there is a lot to learn in the compromises and changes that have been made. Mike
Im a small gun guy and I love it, its a fun rule set and it has its place in the hobby as a whole. Im not a big gunner but I've read through the rules and I'll agree that Big gun is more "scale" than small gun but its still not scale or historical combat.(ranges battles take place at, number of ships/classes,types and amount of damage recieved, tactics, hull penertability,etc all are reasons its not scale or historical combat) And yes there are limitations to what can be done easily and safely but those things also mean its not scale or historical (is real war safe and easy?) Im not saying that makes it bad, in fact I dont think the hobby would be as good if it was 100% scale and historical, why cause it wouldn't be as fun. You would be stuck with how the ships preformed and without anything to mess with you would have imbalances that couldn't be fixed. People are in the hobby cause its fun making sure its semi balanced makes things more fun. Bottom line is: I just dont think that trying to say things has to be one way or another cause thats how it was in real life makes sense, you have to look at how it would effect the hobby and your ruleset as a whole, if you can mix the historical part in great.
I think we have differing definitions of scale. It's words smurfing together. If you mean true scale and true historical sure... but I don't know of anyone with a bofors in their backyard Although I used to be close enough to Dalgren that munitions were in an old farmers shed. That was a debacle... can you imagine your mom asking you... "Did you know there were live shells in that barn???" after the nice men from the navy came I agree with ya on the major effects on hobby and ruleset... witness the continuing debate on torpedos and torpedo cruisers. I guess the fast gun equivalent would be a fast cruiser opening up with 4 spurtguns to the side Mike
Ahh, the joys of language. I have always used two different terms to discuss this... sensitive subject. I use the terms: 1) scale 2) historically accurate When I say "scale", that means dimensions. Stuff like making sure we're building our ships to the right size and shape, getting the guns in the right locations, etc. Adding depth to a hull or squaring off ribs would be a good example of non-scale stuff. When I say "historically accurate", I mean anything that is not directly related to dimensions. This includes tactics, time stretching, engagement ranges, weapons caliber and rate of fire, teams and time period, etc. Big Gun battleships putting belt-armor thickness balsa across the entire hull, and destroyers towing strings of fishing line as minefields are examples of non-historically-accurate stuff. I personally am a lot more forgiving of stuff that's not historically accurate than I am of stuff that's not to proper scale. Even still, I have no objections with simplifying a hull shape or adding a little extra depth to make the construction of a difficult ship easier. Historically speaking, war sucks. What we're doing is playing a game for fun. The trick is to have enough scale and historical accuracy for the game to be recognizable as what you intend it to be, but not so much that you lose the fun factor.
