RA mod 1.41 with Patch #1 and #2

[p7p8]

Thx for explanation Chazly

Yeah I agree it could take damage, but in the game they were massive!

45% of damages are not "massive". Like I said before, in DW 99% of damages allows you play well after repairing (1-2.5 hours). I think 100% of damages means that your sub is not controlable anymore ...and from that moment is sinking. This is something different than "completly destroyed".

BTW double hull is not inner hull + external "armor".

[FPSchazly]

Originally Posted by p7p8

Thx for explanation Chazly

You're welcome!

BTW double hull is not inner hull + external "armor".

Yes, the internal hull is the pressure-bearing hull. The outer hull is for hydrodynamics, and also forms the outer boundary of the ballast tanks.

[ikalugin]

The increased strength of the hull structures and the boyancy reserves typical for Soivet desighns (not all of them, but such reserves were standard) improve survivability.

For example if a single compartment is flooded on LA class you are dead, if a single compartment is flooded on Akula you may still have a chance.

[p7p8]

Yeah, Russian/Soviet nuclear submarines are much more stronger and safer than american subs but they just have "bad luck"

sunken nuclear submarines

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by p7p8

Yeah, Russian/Soviet nuclear submarines are much more stronger and safer than american subs but they just have "bad luck"

sunken nuclear submarines

How many of those losses were due to a hit by a lightweight torpedo?

If they were not due to the combat dammage or simmilar dammage incured, then how is it relevant?

[p7p8]

I doesent matter because subs sunken by LwT = ZERO

But submarines with:

(...)strength of the hull structures and the boyancy reserves typical for Soivet desighns (...)

...should not be a leader in infamous list of sunken one.


In quantities of accidents where sub was not sunk finnaly, they have also "first place" - it is sad truth.


I am big fan of soviet submarines but i think "boyancy reserve" was repercussion of huge numbers of accidents (in comparsion to "west" subs). In other hand stronger structure was necessary because they operate close to polar region.

[ikalugin]

Ok, let me explain. The only example on your list between two countries where the sub was lost due to a combat-hit-like cause was Kursk. Others Soviet/Russian were due to other reasons, not related to the torpedo hit survivability, ie

• 1/7 lost due to scutling.
• 3/7 lost during towing.
• 1/7 lost due to flooding (but as I note below Charlie series did not have boyancy reserves).
• 1/7 due to flooding (after a fire, so not relevant to this specific scenario)

The US losses on the other hand were both due to their hull weakness, which may be viewed as relevant in this context.

Kursk had an internal detonation of a carrier-killer 650mm torpedo, which lead to flooding of 3 compartments. Soviet desighn standard (with exceptions that did not follow it) states that submarine must maintain positive boyancy with single compartment flooding, this is where boyancy reserves come from (the submarine desighns that did not follow that standard may have less boyancy reserves - Charlie series or more reserves - Typhoon class).

That desighn standard implies that if hit by a lightweight torpedo that would flood one compartment would allow a Soviet patern submarine (with exceptions) survive while would lead to a certain death of a USN patern submarine.

p.s. the reason why Charlie (Charlie-I and Charlie-II) series of SSGNs were not desighned with standard reserves (speed/dive depth or any number of other things viewed as standard in Soviet practice at the time) was due to the desire to build those submarines at an inland shipyard. Sierra series SSNs (Sierra-I, Sierra-II, Sierra-III) managed to get their standard reserves via extensive use of titanium and other displacement saving measures.