Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
Which was why I was initially a bit worried about posting it, but considering that the Italians already have 20 such subs already around (10 of them for about 8 sim years), I'm not worried about that.
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?postid=41779#post41779
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
I would request that this design (and any other major designs, especially the 'innovative' ones) be posted in Ship Design for the kind of peer review and discussion the board was really founded around, rather than appended to industrial reports.
Quoted
The Sen Taka (submarine, high speed), in high bursts of speed, could run faster submerged than on the surface for up to an hour. The only World War II submarine comparable in underwater speed to the I-201 class was the German Type XXI "Elektro-boote" class. The I-201 class had streamlined all-welded hulls, high capacity 4,192 cell batteries and electric motors that provided almost twice the horsepower of their German-designed diesel engines. The I-201 class were fitted with snorkels to allow cruising submerged on their diesels and recharging of their batteries while underwater. They carried 25-mm guns in retractable mounts to maintain streamlining. Eight boats were laid down, but only three were completed before the end of the war. None saw operational use.
This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "Johan" (Apr 20th 2011, 10:37am)
Quoted
Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
So no "Submarine No.71" type as a testbed first?
Quoted
[From Wikipedia
By late 1942 it had become apparent to the IJN that conventional submarines were unable to survive the new ASW techniques coming into service, such as radar, HF/DF, sonar, and new depth charge projectors. New submarines were required, with a higher underwater than surface speed, quick-diving capability, quiet underwater running, and a high underwater operational radius.
Quoted
Originally posted by Johan
Quoted
[From Wikipedia]
By late 1942 it had become apparent to the IJN that conventional submarines were unable to survive the new ASW techniques coming into service, such as radar, HF/DF, sonar, and new depth charge projectors. New submarines were required, with a higher underwater than surface speed, quick-diving capability, quiet underwater running, and a high underwater operational radius.
My question is this has Wesworld IJN deleoped the Submarine No.71, and have they the need for a development, we havent seen the 1942 ASW weapons in large use yet. Often when brilliant new developments come they are killed or put on a shelf because of the cost to develop it. In peacetime it is more secure to use existant tecnology.
Quoted
So no "Submarine No.71" type as a testbed first?
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
Regarding the "Oil fired boilers, steam turbines", I'm not sure what I was smoking (or perhaps it was the flu) when I entered the Engines tab... It should be the standard "Diesel Internal combustion engines plus batteries, Electric cruising motors plus geared drives".
<snippage>
Bruce, if you consider the Adua's to be ordinary diesel-electric boats, then you're saying that the XXI and the 201 were that as well. However, I don't see it that way. To me, all three designs are e-subs.
<more snippage>
Quoted
Not one powered by a steam turbine or other exotic AIP engine.
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
Italian subs:
Antonio Sciesca (2203 tons), 150 tons batteries = 6.8%
Argonauta (535 tons), 44 tons batteries = 8.2%
Adua (396 tons), 160 tons batteries = 40.4%
Perla (423 tons), 45 tons batteries = 10.6%
T (1062 tons), 100 tons batteries = 9.4 %
U (1656 tons), 120 tons batteries = 7.2%
With battery weight at 40.4% of its normal displacement, the Adua really sticks out there among those submarines.
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
Brock, I really don't care what rationales are being given for the Adua's, that does not change the fact that those are operational e-subs 11 years before the Type XXI. If you want to challenge the I-300, fine. But then you should also have challenged the Adua's.
Quoted
The actual figure for batteries alone is 140 tons, so the percentage is 35.4% (not that it disrupts your comparison much).
Quoted
But, I notice, neither did YOU challenge the Adua design back in 2006 when it was introduced, though others did.
Quoted
Very well. <Thwack!>
Quoted
I'm looking forward to seeing a corrected sim to evaluate on its own merits.
Quoted
Speed (surface, diesel): 15.8 knots
Speed (submerged, electric): 18.9 knots
Actual range (surface): 5,800nm at 14 knots
Range (submerged): 135nm at 3 knots
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH