Cold Waters

[Nefaro]

How to interpret ownsip and target signal strength numbers?

Negative number means you won't likely be detected, in the current relative conditions.  But this also depends on how good your solution & ID to the target is.

Supposedly somewhere at +9 or +10 is good enough for first acquiring a contact.  It may be lower in CW, I don't know.  Still speculative.

After first detection, you can hold the contact if at +1 or higher.  Regaining them after briefly losing them is the same, or a bit higher perhaps.


When I see their estimated sensor value go into the positive, I tend to assume they're very near detecting me.  Or they've just re-detected me, if that has happened before.



Keep in mind that even if the enemy unit currently has a 0 or negative rating on you, with one of their sensors, that situation can quickly change.  Such as your launch transient when you fire a weapon.  That will make your noise spike.  If the AI gets a brief detection of it, but you drop back off the scope after firing no more, they will quickly switch to Active Sonar to try picking you back up. 

It has other factors, such as their active sonar possibly being more effective if you're showing the side of your boat towards them, compared to bow or stern-on, due to the larger surface creating larger echos from the pings.  Or being on the same side of the layer.  Comparable depths being close.  Speeds.  If you're cavitating, even for a brief moment.  Etc.

[Toonces]

My point on the Belgrano is that it is the only modern, post-WW2 submarine warshot against a surface target of which I'm aware.  And it was made with unguided torps, even though Conqueror had guided torps.

So, they're not "worthless."  But, I agree that Belgrano was no match for Conqueror.

I've been using the Mk-37s and they're awfully slow, but appear to be tenacious little bastards.

[mirth]

The guided Tigerfish torps weren't used to attack Belgrano because of reliability concerns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigerfish_(torpedo)

[mikeck]

Not sure that the sinking of the Belgrano is an apt reference. The Belgrano was a surplus WWII light cruiser (USS Phoenix) and I don't know what, if any, upgrades the Argentinians made to her sensor suite but, I suspect that she was sailing along fat, dumb and happy with no idea that the HMS Conqueror was in the area.

Not to mention the Captain chose not to zig zag. He couldn't have made it easier. But then again, it's a highly trained British submarine crew. For us, it's hard. I had a helluva time in SH3,4 hitting anything that wasn't moving straight at a 90 degree angle about 1000 yds away

@Mirth: I had thought the Sub Commander had chosen the WW2 era non-guided torps because they had enormous warheads and the Belgrano had a thick steel armor layer. Modern guided torps being designed to break the keel of lighter ships. Saw it on a documentary on the Falklands war so no citation

[mirth]

The Mark VIIIs definitely had a larger warhead, but the early Tigerfish were extremely unrealiable

Early models suffered from poor reliability: only 40% of the Mod 0 ASW model performed as designed. The torpedo depended in large part on the remote-control system, but the weapon tended to dip during launch, severing the control wire. The Mod 0 failed its initial fleet acceptance trials in 1979 but was nevertheless issued to the fleet in 1980. The Mod 1 DP (dual purpose) anti-submarine and anti-ship model also experienced problems, though a redesigned version (Mod 2) passed sea trials in 1978 and was issued the following year. When HMS Conqueror sank the ARA General Belgrano during the 1982 Falklands war she used the "point and shoot" 21" Mark VIII torpedoes rather than her Tigerfish. The Mark VIII had no homing system but, despite the design being over 50 years old at the time, was far more reliable and carried a greater high-explosive payload. In a test carried out by submarines returning to the UK after the war two of five Mod 1 Tigerfish fired at a target hulk failed to function at all and the remaining three failed to hit the target.

[Con]

Not sure that the sinking of the Belgrano is an apt reference. The Belgrano was a surplus WWII light cruiser (USS Phoenix) and I don't know what, if any, upgrades the Argentinians made to her sensor suite but, I suspect that she was sailing along fat, dumb and happy with no idea that the HMS Conqueror was in the area.

Not to mention the Captain chose not to zig zag. He couldn't have made it easier. But then again, it's a highly trained British submarine crew. For us, it's hard. I had a helluva time in SH3,4 hitting anything that wasn't moving straight at a 90 degree angle about 1000 yds away

@Mirth: I had thought the Sub Commander had chosen the WW2 era non-guided torps because they had enormous warheads and the Belgrano had a thick steel armor layer. Modern guided torps being designed to break the keel of lighter ships. Saw it on a documentary on the Falklands war so no citation

If I recall the Belgrano was outside of the U.K. Designated and communicated exclusion zone and making full steam for port. The brits decided to knife her based on a tactical decision that they had the shot and didn't know if they would get another chance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

[jomni]

My point on the Belgrano is that it is the only modern, post-WW2 submarine warshot against a surface target of which I'm aware.

There's also the Cheonan. Though the torpedo seems to be a stealthy wake homing torpedo.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking

[mikeck]

Not sure that the sinking of the Belgrano is an apt reference. The Belgrano was a surplus WWII light cruiser (USS Phoenix) and I don't know what, if any, upgrades the Argentinians made to her sensor suite but, I suspect that she was sailing along fat, dumb and happy with no idea that the HMS Conqueror was in the area.

Not to mention the Captain chose not to zig zag. He couldn't have made it easier. But then again, it's a highly trained British submarine crew. For us, it's hard. I had a helluva time in SH3,4 hitting anything that wasn't moving straight at a 90 degree angle about 1000 yds away

@Mirth: I had thought the Sub Commander had chosen the WW2 era non-guided torps because they had enormous warheads and the Belgrano had a thick steel armor layer. Modern guided torps being designed to break the keel of lighter ships. Saw it on a documentary on the Falklands war so no citation

If I recall the Belgrano was outside of the U.K. Designated and communicated exclusion zone and making full steam for port. The brits decided to knife her based on a tactical decision that they had the shot and didn't know if they would get another chance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

It had always absolutely stunned me that people claim the sinking was controversial and a "war-crime". The critics site to the fact that the cruiser was outside of the British "exclusion zone" and steaming away. My question is...so what? It CANT be a war crime because it was a warship manned my military personnel. That in and of itself makes it legit. Of Russia shoots down a US B-52 for no reason, it's not a "war crime". It may lead to diplomatic issues and scorn but it's not a war crime.

But here, there was a declaration of hostilities between Britain and Argentina. The U.K. Made it clear what it was doing. The exclusion zone was simply an area designated so neutral shipping could avoid any issues. It wasn't a declaration that they won't attack anything out of it. Britain would have been justified in attacking naval bases in Argentina proper...so what's wrong with a warship in international waters? It was a warship, a potential threat to the BritIsh Navy and no nation is under any obligation to "warn" another before it attacks a military target.

I think that claim of a war-crime (or even suggesting it was improper) is ridiculous. The Brits had an amphibious task force on the way to invade an island...they could have (and if they were able to, would have) destroyed the entire Argentine navy.

People mistakenly look at military decisions through the lens of necessity: "did you HAVE TO DO IT?". They should view it only through the lens of "was it a military target"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/sinking-the-belgrano-justified-attack-or-war-crime/amp/

[mirth]

Through a message passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government on 23 April, the UK made clear that it no longer considered the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone as the limit of its military action. The message read:

In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.

[Jarhead0331]

It's not clear to me why the Royal Navy leadership needed to seek permission to engage the Belgrano outside of the exclusion zone. From what I've read, the exclusion zone was an area around the islands in which British naval forces were in essence clear to fire on anything. In other words, if you entered into the zone, it was at your own risk.  There is no indication that I have seen establishing that there was any policy or RoE providing that British forces could not engage enemy assets outside of the zone. The whole purpose of the exclusion zone was to assist British forces by reducing the amount of time necessary to identify legal targets.

[Toonces]

^ This exactly.  The problem is the public not understanding what an exclusion zone is....the perception that if a warship is out of the exclusion zone it is somehow exempt from being engaged.  That's not the case at all.

[mikeck]

It's not clear to me why the Royal Navy leadership needed to seek permission to engage the Belgrano outside of the exclusion zone. From what I've read, the exclusion zone was an area around the islands in which British naval forces were in essence clear to fire on anything. In other words, if you entered into the zone, it was at your own risk.  There is no indication that I have seen establishing that there was any policy or RoE providing that British forces could not engage enemy assets outside of the zone. The whole purpose of the exclusion zone was to assist British forces by reducing the amount of time necessary to identify legal targets.

There wasn't a command, order or rule of engagement. I Think the sub commander just wanted to make sure he was authorized to attack a target outside of the zone. But ROE or no, attacking a light cruiser belonging to a nation with which you are engaging in armed conflict is not only "legal" but probably a great idea. Had it been the US navy with its carriers, every Argentinian naval port or base would have been attacked and every naval ship they could find, sunk. The Argentine navy was lucky the Brits did not have such capability.

To me, it's just sour grapes. A lot of nations were rooting for Argentina to give an old European Colonial power (perceived to be illegally holding onto a colonial possession) a good comeuppance. It was embarrassing for the Argentinians as it should have been.

Downsized or not, the British Navy is a big-boy navy. If your going to play with the big boys, you better be ready to fight. As with the Iraqi's in 1991, the Argentinians simply did not understand the qualitative difference in forces....but learned.

This brings us FULL CIRCLE back to the point; hitting ships with unguided torps is hard unless the other guy is clueless..AI or no

[mikeck]

Jesus I'm wordy

[Con]

Not sure that the sinking of the Belgrano is an apt reference. The Belgrano was a surplus WWII light cruiser (USS Phoenix) and I don't know what, if any, upgrades the Argentinians made to her sensor suite but, I suspect that she was sailing along fat, dumb and happy with no idea that the HMS Conqueror was in the area.

Not to mention the Captain chose not to zig zag. He couldn't have made it easier. But then again, it's a highly trained British submarine crew. For us, it's hard. I had a helluva time in SH3,4 hitting anything that wasn't moving straight at a 90 degree angle about 1000 yds away

@Mirth: I had thought the Sub Commander had chosen the WW2 era non-guided torps because they had enormous warheads and the Belgrano had a thick steel armor layer. Modern guided torps being designed to break the keel of lighter ships. Saw it on a documentary on the Falklands war so no citation

If I recall the Belgrano was outside of the U.K. Designated and communicated exclusion zone and making full steam for port. The brits decided to knife her based on a tactical decision that they had the shot and didn't know if they would get another chance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

It had always absolutely stunned me that people claim the sinking was controversial and a "war-crime". The critics site to the fact that the cruiser was outside of the British "exclusion zone" and steaming away. My question is...so what? It CANT be a war crime because it was a warship manned my military personnel. That in and of itself makes it legit. Of Russia shoots down a US B-52 for no reason, it's not a "war crime". It may lead to diplomatic issues and scorn but it's not a war crime.

But here, there was a declaration of hostilities between Britain and Argentina. The U.K. Made it clear what it was doing. The exclusion zone was simply an area designated so neutral shipping could avoid any issues. It wasn't a declaration that they won't attack anything out of it. Britain would have been justified in attacking naval bases in Argentina proper...so what's wrong with a warship in international waters? It was a warship, a potential threat to the BritIsh Navy and no nation is under any obligation to "warn" another before it attacks a military target.

I think that claim of a war-crime (or even suggesting it was improper) is ridiculous. The Brits had an amphibious task force on the way to invade an island...they could have (and if they were able to, would have) destroyed the entire Argentine navy.

People mistakenly look at military decisions through the lens of necessity: "did you HAVE TO DO IT?". They should view it only through the lens of "was it a military target"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/sinking-the-belgrano-justified-attack-or-war-crime/amp/

I hope your remarks weren't directed at me...I didnt call it a war crime or say it required justification.  I agree with the decision  from a tactical viewpoint but it is also true that the Brits altered their rules of engagement in order to take advantage of the situation.

If you didnt direct that towards me I might just be getting that perception from being tired and crabby from driving all day

Con

[mikeck]

Lol....no. They aren't directed at you at all. I just happened to be reading the article and saw your post. I had assumed you were just stating a fact: it's controversial...which it is. Shouldn't be, but is.

My post was a response to the article I linked at the bottom

-"there...now we can be friend again"
Doc Holliday