Submarines

[Walter]

Something I mentioned over at Wesworld for those who don't look there...
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?page=Thread&postID=141949#post141949

... most of the stuff there is not of interest to us since we use fixed stats for the submarines. However the one thing that does apply which I mentioned there is the construction aspect. Here, just as with Wesworld, a ship is launched when it is at 40%, but considering the nature of a submarine, it is unlikely that at 40%, it is anywhere near enough to be launched. Having used Japan's new I-315 as example over there, it seems more like almost 93% of all the materials is needed before it could be launched. We're pretty far with Wesworld, but with Navalism we are still in the early stages, so is this something that should be looked at to make submarine construction slightly more 'realistic'?

[miketr]

If people want higher realism for subs just declare they occupy a slip till 100% finished.

[Darman]

99% of my ships occupy a slip until completion

[Kaiser Kirk]

I'm fine with them staying in slip longer.
The two things I want on subs is greater maintenance (it's 2x now, but I've read that due to the engineers and training they cost about the same as a cruiser to run...so more like5x)
and shorter refit cycles (instead of 10 years, 6) based on mentions that things like seals, gaskets, glands, really can't be pushed on subs, and wear out much faster, not to mention the flexing of the pressure hull. Unfortunately, I can't point to a source and say "see, here, it's broken down" ....oh well.

[Walter]

I've read that due to the engineers and training they cost about the same as a cruiser to run

To me this is extremely vague. Is a 500 ton submarine being compared to a 15000 ton cruiser or is a 3000 ton submarine being compared to a 5000 ton cruiser? Is the CSS Hunley being compared to the USS Alaska or is the I-400 being compared to the USS Atlanta (the 1884 one that is). There is a big difference between each two comparisons.

Also does this apply to all historical submarines or is this based on modern day submarines? Cause I do not think that you can compare the USS Virginia with the ~100 year older USS Holland. To me, the more complex the submarine becomes, the higher the maintenance cost will be. So for example, as of the 1930 tech, it would become x3, as of the 1950 tech, it would become x4, as of the 1970 tech it would become x5. Something like that.

To me, in order to use this as an argument to increase maintenance cost for submarines, you'd require the stats of both submarines and  cruisers being compared as well as the maintenance costs of those vessels and do this at numerous of points in time (best would be for each submarine tech year).

and shorter refit cycles (instead of 10 years, 6) based on mentions that things like seals, gaskets, glands, really can't be pushed on subs, and wear out much faster, not to mention the flexing of the pressure hull.

I disagree with that. What if your submarine is in reserve and spends most of the time in port? Or if it is normal active it spends 99% of the time on the surface or at periscope depth (where nothing is being pushed)? We are not talking about second half of the 20th century nuclear powered submarines that dive deep and can stay under water until the supplies run out and it needs to restock. In this time period, submarines traveled most of the time on the surface only diving when necessary. In peacetime, I think that in the 10 year period a submarine would probably spend 80% of its time on the surface and 20% below the surface and maybe have only a few dives that would go to greater depths to test both the submarine as well as the crew. Hardly anything that would justify the need to shorten the refit cycle for submarines.

It seems more likely that this should be determined by mods in time of war with rolls to determine whether a submarine was forced to dive deeper than periscope depth due to reasons and with every failed roll it would have to dive deeper and put more pressure on the hull and with every failed roll maintenance should be performed 6 months earlier than before (so on a failed roll, 10 years would become 9.5 years, 9.5 years would become 9 years, etc).

Unfortunately that would require quite some rolls if numerous submarines are involved and the mods would have to keep track of all those submarines and their reduced status as well which will end up being a lot of work.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Unfortunately, I can't point to a source and say "see, here, it's broken down" ....oh well.

It's been *ages* since I read that stuff. It is all "extremely vague".

As I recall it was about interwar US boats and the difficulties of building up a large peacetime submarine fleet.
As for reserve status, part of what I do recall is the ageing and deterioation of seals/gaskets/glands on the S-Class being a problem as they were a major hassle to strip out and with submarines in particular because you can let that stuff slide on a surface vessel, but on a sub it can be mission critical.

The number I recall is 12 years for a major overhaul. Since we're at 20 ..suggested not required... for overhauls and 10 for refits that would scale as 12 and 6.
Meanwhile an S class is ~900tons (1200 sub), and the Omahas 7000....more like 9 times, maybe down at 6 times.

So no, I don't have enough information, and wasn't claiming to,  to support a rule change.
But I would be interested if one of the other players has information on this type of stuff.

[Walter]

As I recall it was about interwar US boats and the difficulties of building up a large peacetime submarine fleet.

The problem no doubt is because of crappy over complicated US boats. :)

The US no doubt would need all kind of sophisticated tools to work on their subs while at the same time the Soviets probably just used hammers and sickles to solve their submarine issues. ;D

The number I recall is 12 years for a major overhaul. Since we're at 20 ..suggested not required... for overhauls and 10 for refits that would scale as 12 and 6.

I think I would probably keep it a lot easier by saying that submarines will always require a minimum of a refurbishment every 10 years and can't make use of overhauls or basic refits.

Meanwhile an S class is ~900tons (1200 sub), and the Omahas 7000....more like 9 times, maybe down at 6 times.

Yes, but the Denver class is only 3200 which would make your 9 a 3.5 and your 6 a 2.5...

So no, I don't have enough information, and wasn't claiming to,  to support a rule change.

I doubt enough information exist to do that. You would need numerous submarine-cruiser comparisons, and you need it from different submarines and different cruisers as well as of different nations. You need construction costs (as a sort of quality indicator), sizes and maintenance costs of all those vessels as well. After all, you can't just go outside right now and look at the thermometer and say that 52 F is the average of the whole year just based on that one measurement.

Probably better to keep it just simple as is...

[Kaiser Kirk]

I would argue submarine-cruiser comparisons from just one nation would be plenty.  Afterall, what's the basis for the current +25% for DDs and +100% for Subs? Many of our rules are based on 'sounds good' data, so if someone were to provide real data, even if from one period and one nation, that would be a better basis.
Still, I don't have enough for that, and I do agree that KISS has some real benefits. 

I will say your 10 year refurbishment makes more sense from the KISS idea than my concept of introducing entirely different maintenance cycles for subs.

We don't want to take the fun factor out. Heck, you'll see in my Navy's notes I keep finding myself worrying about deck heights vs freeboard in my designs and that makes more self-inflicted work than I like...just can't stop myself.

[Walter]

I would argue submarine-cruiser comparisons from just one nation would be plenty.

I disagree. That is like checking 100 US drivers and based on their driving skill you claim that Americans are the best drivers in the world.

Afterall, what's the basis for the current +25% for DDs and +100% for Subs?

No idea and if it were up to me, I would use KISS and treat all vessels the same instead of making it more complicated and throwing in more rules.

Heck, you'll see in my Navy's notes I keep finding myself worrying about deck heights vs freeboard in my designs and that makes more self-inflicted work than I like...just can't stop myself.

That's the problem with all those tall Italian Sailors in the Italian Navy. I doubt China has to worry about that with my short Chinese ones. :D

[Kaiser Kirk]

I don't think that is is an accurate analogy.
If you have no real data, then any figures used are arbitrary and are unlikely to be correct at all.
If you then get data and base the figures on that, it may still be incorrect when applied to all cases - classic logical fallacy is expanding a subset, but at least it's based on something and will correct in some circumstances.

However, we're free to disagree, that's the point of having discussions. Overall, you just seem to really dislike the idea. That's a good data point :)

Generally, since the spreadsheets do the work, I don't mind complicating things a bit if it changes a formula, but doesn't change my input effort and makes things a bit more reasonable.

As for freeboard, since I want the main belt to cover from the top of the armor deck - or a height above the protective deck- to a certain spot below water, I want to know where my decks are. Then comes wanting my freeboard to line up with that. I use 2.44m since it's the default, and matches something I read once about needing space overhead for conduits, but I'm using 2.5m more as it's easier to figure in my head.