NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Imperializt Russia]

How close you can afford to hit, and therefore how sure you need to be of where your target is, is of course determined by warhead size. Hence why nuclear anti-sub weapons were around in the Cold War. You don't need a fix, you just need to know where a sub is to like within a kilometre, throw in 5-500 kilotons of fuck you, and know that it's probably dead or dying.

A direct hit, I assume, will flood at least the compartment it strikes. How well the other sub can seal its other compartments and launch damage control operations will decide whether it dies or is crippled.

[Arthurista]

Is it a good idea to invest in supercavitating torpedoes? Or is the range disadvantage such that it's not really worth bothering with?

[Imperializt Russia]

IIRC the major application of supercavitating torpedoes (for subs, at least) is self-defence. Because the only truly viable guidance method for torpedoes is wire-guidance, subs need to remain relatively stationary as they guide them to target.

The sudden appearance of a high-speed rocket torpedo will force the enemy sub to manoeuvre defensively and cut its guidance cables.
Sort of like what would happen if you were in a fighter aircraft and launched your own missiles at a long-range contact you suspected was launching AMRAAM, which must be guided mid-course by the launch aircraft. He will be forced to take evasive action and stop guiding his missiles.

[The Kievan People]

IIRC the major application of supercavitating torpedoes (for subs, at least) is self-defence. Because the only truly viable guidance method for torpedoes is wire-guidance, subs need to remain relatively stationary as they guide them to target.

You forget "Sinking the Belgrano" :V

[Imperializt Russia]

IIRC the major application of supercavitating torpedoes (for subs, at least) is self-defence. Because the only truly viable guidance method for torpedoes is wire-guidance, subs need to remain relatively stationary as they guide them to target.

You forget "Sinking the Belgrano" :V

I thought we used WWII-era MkVIIIs or something?

[The Kievan People]

You know what could have made those torpedoes even better?

If they went really fast.

[Inyourfaceistan]

IIRC the major application of supercavitating torpedoes (for subs, at least) is self-defence. Because the only truly viable guidance method for torpedoes is wire-guidance, subs need to remain relatively stationary as they guide them to target.

The sudden appearance of a high-speed rocket torpedo will force the enemy sub to manoeuvre defensively and cut its guidance cables.
Sort of like what would happen if you were in a fighter aircraft and launched your own missiles at a long-range contact you suspected was launching AMRAAM, which must be guided mid-course by the launch aircraft. He will be forced to take evasive action and stop guiding his missiles.

So a super-cativating torpedo is relatively useless against a submarine shooting torpedoes at your rear end though, right?

[The Akasha Colony]

Sort of like what would happen if you were in a fighter aircraft and launched your own missiles at a long-range contact you suspected was launching AMRAAM, which must be guided mid-course by the launch aircraft. He will be forced to take evasive action and stop guiding his missiles.

AMRAAM doesn't have to be mid-course guided. Using command inertial mode is preferred and provides the longest effective range, but inertial active allows for full fire-and-forget capability at range as the missile just flies toward a specified set of coordinates before going active. This degrades accuracy because it leaves a larger uncertainty volume, but IIRC this was the mode RAF Tornado ADVs were limited to using initially until they received AMRAAM-compatible data links.

IIRC the major application of supercavitating torpedoes (for subs, at least) is self-defence. Because the only truly viable guidance method for torpedoes is wire-guidance, subs need to remain relatively stationary as they guide them to target.

The sudden appearance of a high-speed rocket torpedo will force the enemy sub to manoeuvre defensively and cut its guidance cables.
Sort of like what would happen if you were in a fighter aircraft and launched your own missiles at a long-range contact you suspected was launching AMRAAM, which must be guided mid-course by the launch aircraft. He will be forced to take evasive action and stop guiding his missiles.

So a super-cativating torpedo is relatively useless against a submarine shooting torpedoes at your rear end though, right?

inb4 stern torpedo tubes make a comeback.

[Imperializt Russia]

You know what could have made those torpedoes even better?

If they went really fast.

What speed actually qualifies as "supercavitating"?
I've just realised that Mk48 is technically an SC torpedo isn't it?

When people discuss them my mind defaults to the rocket-powered monster that was SHKVAL.

[Elan Valleys]

You forget "Sinking the Belgrano" :V

I thought we used WWII-era MkVIIIs or something?

Which weren't wire guided. They were fired on mathematically calculated paths.

[Palakistan]

Yeah, make a alliance with that Middle East country.

This would be the best option but they are allies themselves already. At best they may refuse to support them in an invasion.
The gigantic minefield option is tempting since you don't have to staff it, but can you really make a dense enough minefield 4700 km long? I think it'd be more practical to use lower density fields with some kind of extensive fortification network behind it to fire at the explosions off in the distance.

As cool as it sounds, the giant wall option is really goofy, being a strong contender for the largest manmade structure ever. The Great Wall of China and Wall of Benin are much longer but not nearly as heavily built. For shits & giggles It would probably look a bit like this:

The less fanciful clusters of fortifications like the Atlantic Wall and Maginot line are certainly more practical to make than continuous reinforced concrete wall but have a worrying history of not working...

As for concealment, that's an interesting idea, what if there were some kind of massive scale method of hiding things from the thermal imaging equipment on spy satellites? You could play this kind of 'shell game' with the few defenders you have.

Do you have any allies? You need to put the political pressure. It will detoriate their will to fight.

[The Kievan People]

Short range torpedo shots still happen.

A supercavitating torpedo is great in that role.

[Velkanika]

Minefields are useless unless they're in a prepared fire zone. If the enemy isn't taking fire they can easily clear a safe path through the field in a few minutes.

Good decoy tanks have thermal signatures for a reason you know.

That brings the manpower issue to the forefront again, there simply aren't enough troops to adequately guard all 4700 km. Most of the 'mineland' will have no one to watch it.
The shell game strategy does seem the most practical solution but that's an unprecedented number of decoys for everything from tanks, mobile launchers, trucks, and personnel.

Concentrate your forces in bases until your enemy starts moving units to their jumping-off points just prior to the war breaking out. That will tell you everything you need to know about where to deploy the balance of your military. The obvious risk here is a feint or deceptive buildup to draw you away from the actual invasion route, so work on developing your intelligence gathering capabilities so you have the opportunity to see what's really going on.

Also, you may find this helpful:

Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men. Hence the use of spies, of whom there are five classes: (1) Local spies; (2) inward spies; (3) converted spies; (4) doomed spies; (5) surviving spies. When these five kinds of spy are all at work, none can discover the secret system. This is called "divine manipulation of the threads." It is the sovereign's most precious faculty. Having local spies means employing the services of the inhabitants of a district. Having inward spies, making use of officials of the enemy. Having converted spies, getting hold of the enemy's spies and using them for our own purposes. Having doomed spies, doing certain things openly for purposes of deception, and allowing our spies to know of them and report them to the enemy. Surviving spies, finally, are those who bring back news from the enemy's camp.

- Sun Tzu, The Art of War Cf. II. ss. 13

[Arkania 5]

Is chlorine trifluoride generally considered too troublesome to contain, or is it just overkill?

[Gallia-]

the best rocket fuel is dimethymercury

[EsToVnIa]

Karen Wetterhahn agrees it's 10/10

[New Vihenia]

Gel fueled supercavitating torpedo >:3 With TVC. Looks promising.

perhaps it can offer longer range, as the gel can haz more ISP than solid propellant.

[Gallia-]

Karen Wetterhahn agrees it's 10/10

unfortunately the only people who had te nads to suggest using neurotoxic exhaust was te us navy

e: found him

http://web.gccaz.edu/~wkehowsk/ignition.pdf

[Inyourfaceistan]

Beyond-visual range LIDAR-guided supercativating torpedoes fired in salvos of 3000 from my submersible hyper-mega-ultra dreadnaught-carriers.

Yes or yes?

[New Vihenia]

Beyond-visual range LIDAR-guided supercativating torpedoes fired in salvos of 3000 from my submersible hyper-mega-ultra dreadnaught-carriers.

Yes or yes?

NO. i doubt you'll have enough space for both Lidar seeker and the Cavitator.

[Mitheldalond]

Excessive number of torpedo tubes... if it is within the same age and generation as the Gearing-class then less torpedoes, more AA guns would be a better use of your time. The era of mass torpedo strikes of the kind the IJN envisioned would be more or less gone by the time these things would be finished, assuming you start construction at around the same time as the Gearing.

Personally, I'd delete two torpedo tube banks and replace with another dual 5"/38 mount and more Bofors guns (so basically don't change the Gearing base design) or delete the extra torpedo banks and make the destroyer correspondingly smaller... it'll end up looking like a Yank style Battle/Barfleur-class destroyer.

As the previous poster, I would say too many torpedo tubes for that time. Even the Shimakaze had only 15. And I wouldn't delete the aft turret. It leaves a pretty big gap in fire zones. So I would suggest to leave the aft turret and remove that torpedo tube.
And with the added guns (esp. the Bofors on the bridge) your top weight could get critical.
Oh and you have 20 Bofors according to your description.

It's actually supposed to be more in line with the Fletcher as far as timing goes. For real life, I'd agree about the torpedo tubes (I actually have an AA version of this which replaces the aft 3 torpedo mounts with quad Bofors mounts and hangs out with the carriers), but this is designed for NS, where people regularly form their surface combatants up into a battle line and exchange broadsides with the enemy even in MT. So you know there are going to be formations with dozens of battleships thrown at you in NS WWII. That's what these are mainly designed for; waiting for the enemy BBs to form their battle line to engage my BBs, then charging forward and massacring everything in sight with hundreds of torpedoes (destroyers operate in squadrons of 5, so that's 100 torpedoes per squadron).

How about I take out the two twin Bofors amidships (bear with me), and move the fourth torpedo tube into their place (I'd probably have to move the aft funnel forward a bit to fit them). Then take out the #2 5" mount, and put the #3 mount back where it belongs. Then move the quad Bofors off the top of the bridge and put it in the #2 mount position. Finally, put a fourth quad Bofors mount behind the aft 5" mount, and remove the depth charge rails to make room for the 4 20mm Oerlikons?

That should solve the firing arc and top heavy issues, while maintaining a hefty AA and torpedo armament. And the ship would look a bit more unique, which is a plus.

[Padnak]

Would using spotters in small boats and on remote islands to warn air defense sites of enemy aircraft before they get close actually be worth doing?

[Imperializt Russia]

If you don't have the radar coverage or aren't convinced of its capability, then of course.
Guys with binos are a staple of reconnaissance of any sort, from air defence to coastal defence to ground forces.

[Padnak]

If you don't have the radar coverage or aren't convinced of its capability, then of course.
Guys with binos are a staple of reconnaissance of any sort, from air defence to coastal defence to ground forces.

My plan is to have most of the radar units at my sam sites turned off until hostile aircraft are very close by, at which point they'll turn on the radar and engage

the hope being that this lessesnes the damage from SEAD missions

[Imperializt Russia]

If you don't have the radar coverage or aren't convinced of its capability, then of course.
Guys with binos are a staple of reconnaissance of any sort, from air defence to coastal defence to ground forces.

My plan is to have most of the radar units at my sam sites turned off until hostile aircraft are very close by, at which point they'll turn on the radar and engage

the hope being that this lessesnes the damage from SEAD missions

You'll probably end up with a lot of leakers from contacts your spotters simply don't see.
You should probably maintain radar operations at least until the SEAD phase actually begins and you're certain combat operations are underway, with at least the hope of scoring some opening kills.

In any case - SP air defences and decoy radars should be the name of the game. Keep the heat off your radars and keep them running as long as possible. As long as you have functional radar, you will have functional air defence.