Quote:
Originally Posted by LUKNER
I studied this question and repeatedly returned to this question with an ambiguous result. The declared cruising range of Gato and Balao is approximately the same at 10 knots. ( Tambor/Gar/Gato Class Bunkerage 175 (norm)) But this range is designed for the main fuel tanks located mainly inside the strong hull, and partially between the strong and light hull. Without taking into account the range of navigation using fuel-ballast tanks (TBTs), which additionally gave an increase in the range of navigation. The reason for this judgment is the difference in fuel reserves between Gato and Balao. 300 and 365 tons with the same range of 11,000 miles per 10 knots.
[Chapter18.Phrase1]
Phrase= Источник: The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia
[Chapter18.Phrase2]
Phrase= S18 Class 5650 / 9.5 kt Bunkerage 64 (norm)/ - (max) tons В игре: 7.000 / 10 kt
[Chapter18.Phrase3]
Phrase= S42 Class 8000 / 8.1 kt Bunkerage 59 (norm)/ - (max) tons В игре: 9.000 / 10 kt
[Chapter18.Phrase4]
Phrase=Porpoise 11.000 / 10 kt Bunkerage - (norm)/ 300 (max) tons В игре: 18.000 / 10 kt
[Chapter18.Phrase5]
Phrase=Salmon Class 11.000 / 10 kt Bunkerage - (norm)/ 300 (max) tons В игре: 18.000 / 10 kt
[Chapter18.Phrase6]
Phrase=Sargo Class 11.000 / 10 Kt Bunkerage - (norm)/292 (max) tons В игре: 17.526 / 10 kt
[Chapter18.Phrase7]
Phrase=Tambor/Gar Class 11.000 / 10 kt Bunkerage 175 (norm)/ 301.9 (max) tons В игре: 18.976 / 10 kt
[Chapter18.Phrase8]
Phrase=Gato Class 11.000 / 10 kt Bunkerage 175 (norm)/ 300.91 (max) tons В игре: 18.914 / 10 kt
[Chapter18.Phrase9]
Phrase=Balao Class 11.000 / 10 kt Bunkerage 175.94 (norm)/ 324.25 (max) tons В игре: 20.272 / 10 kt
[Chapter18.Phrase10]
Phrase=Tench Class 12.200 / 10 kt Bunkerage 193.9 (norm)/ 361.5 (max) tons В игре: 22.727 / 10 kt
[Chapter18.Phrase11]
Phrase=Narval Class 9.380 / 10 kt Bunkerage - (norm)/ 560 (max) tons В игре: 21.000 / 10 kt
[Chapter18.Phrase12]
Phrase=Cachalot Class 10.000 / 10 kt Bunkerage - (norm)/ 260 (max) tons В игре: 15.652 / 10 kt
Based on the calculations, I took a standard fuel supply of 175 tons, which gave a range of 11,000 miles. From this figure I calculated about how much each boat could pass with an additional supply of fuel.
When I had access to the war logs, I realized that such distances of the boat did not pass and did not exceed the range of 11000 - 12000 miles. Then I reduced the range and remained completely perplexed; how so? If in comparison with Gato and Tambor Balao and Tench could take much more fuel, then the increased range was very not significant!
Я изучал этот вопрос и не раз к этому вопросу возвращался с неоднозначным результатом. Заявленная дальность плавания Гато и Балао примерно одинакова при 10 уз. Но эта дальность плавания рассчитана по основным топливным цистернам расположенных в основном внутри прочного корпуса, и частично между прочным и легким корпусом. Без учета дальности плавания с использованием топливно-балластных цистерн (ТБЦ) которые дополнительно давали прирост дальности плавания. Основание такому суждению разница запасов топлива у Гато и Балао. 300 и 365 тонн при одинаковой дальности плавания в 11000 миль на 10 уз.
На основании этого мне казалось возможным рассчитать реальную дальность плавания по объему топлива. У меня получилось в версии Silent Service 2.0 по максимальному запасу топлива такие цифры: см.выше
За основу в расчетах я взял стандартный запас топлива 175 тонн, которые давали дальность 11000 миль. От этой цифры рассчитывал примерно сколько могла бы пройти каждая лодка имея еще дополнительный запас топлива.
Когда я имел доступ в журналам боевых действий то понял что такие расстояния лодки не проходили и не превышали дальность 11000 - 12000 миль. Тогда я уменьшил дальность плавания и остался в полном недоумении; как так? Если в сранении с Гато и Тамбор Балао и Тенч могли значительно больше брать топлива, то увеличенная дальность оказывалась весьма не значительной!
|
I get what you are saying and I've consulted the Pacific War Encyclopedia as well, among other sources. However, it seems a case of the technical specs and assumptions of how would operate based on those specs vs what was able to actually do in practice, such as the modification of tanks to carry extra fuel, having the stops for fuel etc. Midway for example, is 2,213 nautical miles from Midway Island. A fully fueled Gato/Balao/Tench, could rather easily fuel at Midway , proceed to anywhere along the pacific coasts of the home island at 15.5-16 knots/Ahead Standard. Once in area, depending on period of war, preference of skipper, would run on surface at lower, less fuel consuming speed unless chasing a convoy etc. or run submerged by day, surfaced at night. They had sufficient fuel to remain on station for some time, often returning home due to expending all torpedoes or having completed the required time on station required by orders, of course considering provisions, morale etc.
Fuel and speed/range specs vs reality can be compared with say the test depth of submarines. Technical specs of Gato say 300 ft was the safest test depth, but many times in war, either by choice/necessity or forced deep by damage, Gato went far beyond, talking 500 feet or more. Balao was rated at 412 ft, but it became normal to go 600 feet or more with no issues. Tang, Bowfin, Billfish, etc went to 650 or deeper. A old Porpoise class, the Pollack went into out of control dive after making emergency dive to escape charging enemy destroyer and the old riveted hull boat, rated for 250 feet, went to 540 before was under control. Another case of tech specs vs. reality of performance capability perfect in wartime.