Gato/Baleo best speed for range?

[LUKNER]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Definitely ignore the historical ranges in the stock aka out of the box unmodded game. UBI did not bother to provide historical range/speed to the subs nor did they include the function to tell you max range at current speed etc. There are mods that address this. In stock game, will need to do some testing , monitor consumption at various speed, measure distances and estimate ability to make it.

Been ages since ran this sim without mods, but if I recall I believe somewhere around 9.5 knots was speed used to tool around the pacific. Subs in most cases proceeded at standard speed....15.5-16 knots for Gato and Balao to and from patrol areas. Those particularly long trips maybe have went slightly slower. Something we do not have to worry about (should) in SH 4 is provisions...food etc and morale...so had to get to area in a reasonable time, and patrol, then return, thus travel at a reasonable speed.

As far as I know, the boats went on an economical course, 10 knots. If, after the patrol, the boat returned home, it could indeed go fully to the base with the appropriate fuel balance and permission received from the coast to this mode of passage and excessive fuel consumption.
Such a quick transition was often allowed from Midway to Pearl Harbor, connected rather not with the desire to get home faster, but due to the possible threat of Japanese submarines.

--------------------------------------------------
Насколько мне известно в район патрулирования лодки шли экономичным ходом, 10 узлов. Если после патруля лодка возвращалась домой, то она действительно могла идти полным ходом в базу при соответствующем остатке топлива и полученном разрешении с берега на этот режим хода и излишнюю трату топлива.
Такой быстрый переход часто разрешался от Мидуэя до Перл-Харбора, связанный скорее не с желанием по быстрее попасть домой, а из-за возможной угрозы японских субмарин.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by LUKNER

As far as I know, the boats went on an economical course, 10 knots. If, after the patrol, the boat returned home, it could indeed go fully to the base with the appropriate fuel balance and permission received from the coast to this mode of passage and excessive fuel consumption.
Such a quick transition was often allowed from Midway to Pearl Harbor, connected rather not with the desire to get home faster, but due to the possible threat of Japanese submarines



--------------------------------------------------
Насколько мне известно в район патрулирования лодки шли экономичным ходом, 10 узлов. Если после патруля лодка возвращалась домой, то она действительно могла идти полным ходом в базу при соответствующем остатке топлива и полученном разрешении с берега на этот режим хода и излишнюю трату топлива.
Такой быстрый переход часто разрешался от Мидуэя до Перл-Харбора, связанный скорее не с желанием по быстрее попасть домой, а из-за возможной угрозы японских субмарин.

Really depended on how far patrol area was from their port/last fuel stop...such as a stop at Midway when en route to patrol off Honshu from Pearl Harbor. I recall several of the memoirs by O Kane, etc and reading various patrol reports of different subs, discussing various speeds and ahead standard or 15.6-16 knots was typical cruising speed to and from areas. Of course is a boat out of Pearl stopped at Midway then was proceeding to the Yellow Sea , would likely cruise at slower speed. I recall even reading would cruise at standard speed in daylight, slow down at night to 2/3 speed or 10-11 knots. One reason they modified the ballast tanks to carry fuel oil, was to extend range/duration and enable subs to cruise at higher speeds to area. The fuel in these tanks would be consumed en route and converted back to ballast tanks before reaching assigned area. In TMO, all fleet subs fuel load takes into account this modification, and they have the historical speeds, with ahead standard being the ideal balance to transit time to area and fuel efficiency, for the most part.

While 10 knots or so saved (does so in the sim as well) more fuel but it made for a long trip and ultimately less time in patrol area as there were other concerns we do not have to really worry about in SH 4...such as supply of food and other provisions, health and morale of the crew. To some degree we have to monitor health and morale of the crew, as a exhausted crew will not perform same as well rested, but its not a major factor in the sim.

[LUKNER]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Really depended on how far patrol area was from their port/last fuel stop...such as a stop at Midway when en route to patrol off Honshu from Pearl Harbor. I recall several of the memoirs by O Kane, etc and reading various patrol reports of different subs, discussing various speeds and ahead standard or 15.6-16 knots was typical cruising speed to and from areas. Of course is a boat out of Pearl stopped at Midway then was proceeding to the Yellow Sea , would likely cruise at slower speed. I recall even reading would cruise at standard speed in daylight, slow down at night to 2/3 speed or 10-11 knots. One reason they modified the ballast tanks to carry fuel oil, was to extend range/duration and enable subs to cruise at higher speeds to area. The fuel in these tanks would be consumed en route and converted back to ballast tanks before reaching assigned area. In TMO, all fleet subs fuel load takes into account this modification, and they have the historical speeds, with ahead standard being the ideal balance to transit time to area and fuel efficiency, for the most part.

While 10 knots or so saved (does so in the sim as well) more fuel but it made for a long trip and ultimately less time in patrol area as there were other concerns we do not have to really worry about in SH 4...such as supply of food and other provisions, health and morale of the crew. To some degree we have to monitor health and morale of the crew, as a exhausted crew will not perform same as well rested, but its not a major factor in the sim.

From the base in Guam, this is quite possible, but from Pearl Harbor or Midway is unlikely.


С базы в Гуаме такое вполне возможно, но с Перл-Харбора или Мидуэя маловероятно.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by LUKNER

From the base in Guam, this is quite possible, but from Pearl Harbor or Midway is unlikely.


С базы в Гуаме такое вполне возможно, но с Перл-Харбора или Мидуэя маловероятно.

Actually, it was quite possible and was pretty normal for Gato and Balao. Fleetboats were designed to have "long sea legs", it was the basis of their design evolution in pre war period. There were strategically placed bases like Midway, Johnston Island etc. as well as others for Australia based boats. Again it depended also on distance, assigned time on station etc. but based on words of actual commanding officers of the subs from memoirs and countless patrol reports have read, it was the norm.

[LUKNER]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Actually, it was quite possible and was pretty normal for Gato and Balao. Fleetboats were designed to have "long sea legs", it was the basis of their design evolution in pre war period. There were strategically placed bases like Midway, Johnston Island etc. as well as others for Australia based boats. Again it depended also on distance, assigned time on station etc. but based on words of actual commanding officers of the subs from memoirs and countless patrol reports have read, it was the norm.

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!

[Bubblehead1980]

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.

[LUKNER]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

You're absolutely right! I fully understand the difference between the calculation data and the practical indicators. When I made the cruising range indicated in the menu table according to estimated calculations, I was just afraid that I had too overestimated the navigation range indicators in the sime. You confirmed my early assumptions about this.


Вы абсолютно правы! Я прекрасно понимаю разницу между расчетными данными и практическими показателями. Когда я сделал дальность плавания указанной в таблице меню по предположительным расчетам я просто испугался, что слишком завысил в симе показатели дальности плавания. Вы подтвердили мои ранние предположения по этому поводу.