Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ 1:72 combat submarine, How to treat a combat submarine

I was looking at the rules of the Queens Own and I noticed a major area of naval combat that was completely ignored: submarines. Having seen two 1:144 combat submarines in combat (dynamic diving, two single-shot 1/4" ball bearing torpedos), I know that they would be even easier to build in a larger scale. It seems as though they could have an impact on this hobby, so I wonder how they would be armed? What is your opinion on combat submarines?

This is purely out of curiosity and speculation. My hands are quite full with school and finishing a refit on a 1:144 Scharnhorst.

This post has been edited by Gascan: Oct 1 2004, 08:36 PM

Hi Gascan, welcome to the forum. Nice to have new people in here once in a while.

We did submarines back in the 90's but just one season.
Two M-1 submarines were built. In response, the destroyer captains built "hedge hog" style depth charge launchers.

It turned out that the destroyer captains could accuratly put 5-8 rounds at a time inside a hoola hoop or even a smaller pattern. Since the rules at the time stated that a hedge hog round within 2 feet of a submarine was referee'd as a sink, the subs were often sunk 2 or three times each in any 20 minute sortie.

The sub captains declared "no joy" and the club, having to dedicate a referee to each sub just to count the sinks, decided to stick to surface vessels.

However we still have one submarine in the club, however I don't think it has seen any combat.

This post has been edited by UmiRyuzuki: Oct 1 2004, 11:01 PM

Attached image(s)

problem with subs, if the sub skipper can see where it is to pilot it, the enemy can see where it is to sink it. Employing onboard camera would help, but visibility is extremely limited. Radio signals are lost much past a few feet and floating a radio signal buoy would defeat the purpose of being able to dive below visual spotting range. There are problems that seemed insurmountable before that can now be tackled with new technologys. Maybe a fresh look at it and some creative thinking could bring sub capable combatants into the hobby. Some day if you free up some time, and get that life raft secured, take a stab at it!

Interesting. How were the subs armed? How did the hedgehog device work?

The subs in our club don't come out much because they are old and difficult to run. When they do come out the only ASW weapon we have is ramming, so they cause a lot of chaos.

The British M1 Submarines, like the French Sucouf, had ship guns mounted to the conning tower. The M1 had a single barrel. The two M1 models would surface and proceed to put holes into peoples hulls.

It was decided early in our submarine proposals that, "if you chased anything long enough you could ram it." We pulled most "ram" rules out of our games a long time ago. The rules caused to much dispute at the pond as to who rammed who, and who cut who off and forced or caused a ram. Ships don't just stop. Once we threw out the "ram" rules and penalties,... we still had collisions, but instead of arguments we got apologies and a continuous and fun game.

Destroyers can out maneuver the subs, so the submarines typically found themselves being attacked by the destroyer deck guns as often as they surfaced. And as soon as they surfaced there was a destroyer at the back of the pond waiting to drop hedge hog rounds.

The "hedge hogs" were typically launch tubes set at a 45 degree angle just in front of the Destroyer's bridge. The could lob a set of bearings about 20 yards down the pond, and then drop them into a hulahoop.
The loading mechanism was kind of an upsidown "y" shape. the straight side acting as the chamber and barrel, and the short angle in, the magazine. The magazine was arched down and then up behind the chamber.

The Chamber held about 8-12 rounds. each time the "Hedge Hog" was fired, the rounds would exit the barrel in front of the bridge, and the blow back air would force the magazine rounds back. When the rounds in the magazine rolled back down, about 8-12 rounds would drop back down into the chamber, and be set for the next volly.

There was not really any penetration force to the rounds other the gravity. Sinks on submarines were all about proximity, and referee decisions.

Umi

I have plans for and the frames prepared for the construction of the heavy French cruiser submarine Surcouf. I was originally planning on constructing this ship as part of hte Axis fleet for the Queens Own. When I found out about the rules with the use of the Hedge Hog I placed the construction of this ship on hold.
The hedge hog unit places the submarine at a tremendous disadvantage, it would be way to easy for a destroyer to acquire and attack the sub, compared to the ability of the sub to attack the destroyer. The Surcoug is a big boat, bigger than an American Benham or Mahon Class destroyer. I figured that as a ballasted ship, the surcouf would take me 45-55 seconds to surface and fire and perhaps 15-20 seconds to submerge. This places the ship on the surface for more than a minute, if you are lucky to be in the right place to fire the gun and not have to manouver.
There has been discussion in our club to remove the hedge hog as an offenseive weapon and limit the ASW to the standard surface guns of the destroyer as teh sub would only be using its surface guns to attack. This would still place the sub at a disadvantage as one would be easily able to see the sub as she starts to surface and while diving. The sub is slower and far less manouverable than teh destroyer.
We have been playing with the idea of creting ballasted ships that would hve a penetrable superstruture that would fill, this woul dmake the boat top heeavy and unable to maintain a even keel. This would be the determination of a sink.
Until then the Surcouf will probably remain in the box until other projects are done.

Hi everyone
I thought this was a thread for me
Tachikaze if you look up ThierryC under the subcommitte, I bet he can help you, I know that he has built a surcouf himself and a whole lot of other subs
And as everyone knows by now I am to building a submarine for naval warfare altough Im going for a little more technology specs so that I dont have to spend time at the surface.
My weapon range is torpedoes and missiles if I will have the time/money/interrest to finish them.
Gascan are you interrested in building a sub for warfare?
have you built a sub or anything like a sub before?

I came up with a depth charge idea for Skuggan about the time that I was developing guided missiles... yeah bad idea.... but the depth charges were a pretty good idea, I'll try to find a link and post it.

yay! took me a while to remember how to link to a posting... click this big line of text!

This post has been edited by baratacus: Oct 5 2004, 07:23 AM

hehehe baratacus we shouldn't walk that path again
yes the idea for the depth charges are great.
they should work like a charm!

Yes, the idea is about combat submarines, although I don't plan on making one YET. I have only been working on a Scharnhorst (1/144) for about a year, so my building experience is not up to what I would like. I would love to have one, and it would be easier in 1/72 than 1/144 so I was trying to find out what is allowed, what you can do, do I have to build a coastal sub to get torpedos...
The whole hedgehog thing does kinda make it impossible to run a sub, so I would wait until not only do I have more experience but more fair ASW weapon is created before I would attempt it.

Haha, I was just thinking about the I-400 (one of the subs we have in the WWCC) in 1/72 would be as big as Scharnhorst! According to tonnage, its in the 725 class with five guns, but the boat only had one 5" deck gun. At five and a half feet long you'd have little trouble fitting anything you want in like auto leveling, depth regulator, video camera, waterproof rotating cannon... I'd have to be a super genius to get all that stuff in there, but I bet it could be done.

Yeah we kind of did the whole "sink bomb" thing.

http://www.microrccenter.com/forum/index.p...l=depth+charges

The biggest problem we have is not the design so much as what is safe to publish.

Yes somehow this have not been the place to ask if it is possible, its more like am I allowed to do this hehe
Gascan 5 feet that would be almost 2 meters right?
there are alot of subs with all the equipment you stated in that size my sub is 172cm and space is not the major problem. The major problem is off course the price, if its small, then its expensive
kind of like jurassic park... is it heavy? yes!? then its expensive
There are alot of vendors selling submarine kits, altough I don't know about the I-400.
If you go to the subcommittee (www.subcommittee.com)
and follow the links vendors.
there you will find a whole lot.
And keep in mind you get what you pay for.
Some vendors are very expensive but you get one hell of a sub.
Altough I would not recommend a expensive one as a first one.
If I where you I would start with a robbe u-47 its a very nice sub, very controllable and have a nice speed and nice manouvering.
Altough the robbe model is a static diver which means you will have to apply thrust in order to dive!

This is why the sub is so cheap, on the other hand it is good to start with, when you feel more confident you can start rebuild the sub and make it a dynamic diver, all the stuff required is available at different vendors.

and for any questions you have this forum and also subcommitte of course

We've done a lot of work in our 1:144 club on this subject, so I'll just outline the basics of what we have determined at this point, for what it's worth.

Generally speaking, "declaring" something as sunk does not excite anyone in rc warship combat. It's more like a war game than war, if you follow me. The only way submarine warfare in either 1:144 or 1:72 can be both fun and fair for everyone, is if the sub can be damaged, disabled or sunk by surface warships. Since our clubs (and insurance) would not allow exploding depth bombs, we're left with our simulated guns and torpedoes, or passive devices, such as nets or weighted lines.

In the club Gascan belongs to (which is the one I also belong to: Western Warship Combat Club), the submarines we see in combat are dynamic divers. That means they are only slightly positively buoyant, and don't have ballast tanks. A destroyer can theoretically drop a modestly weighted line and drape it over the sub, causing it to sink, or alternatively, foul its propellers. Not easy - but possible for a skilled skipper. Another passive device is a weighted net. Another is a line with grappling hooks that can be dragged behind a destroyer. (This device was actually used in WWII to "troll" for submarines lying on the bottom in shallow waters.)

Our club allows a "depth charge gun." This is a downward-firing 1/4" gun, specifically for engaging submarines. In order for this to work to actually sink the sub, the top deck of submarine must be penetrable. Not easy, but possible.

Finally, the minimum that would keep people interested would be actual superstructure damage that is "declared" fatal, i.e., put holes in the submarine's conning tower or blow its periscope off, and it's sunk.

Rob

Well if you have a mold and build the sub kind of like a warship that would be no problem, but if you are going to build it from a kit, then you are bound to go with plastic and stuff, I don't think that the bb will be able to penetrate the hull of for example my sub, on the other hand I have not seen how much power is released from these cannons.
But if you make a wet hull sub there should be no problems at all with a hull that can take damage, the only problem is that it will only take damage the sub will not sink, since with a wet hull sub you flood the entire sub so a whole in the hull won't make any difference.
If you build a dry hull then you will get results on the other hand you will flood your electronics and there goes youre sub
But if visual damage is enough to fill your pleasures then it is possible.

Rob,

When you say the "top deck of submarine must be penetrable" is it correct
that this penetrable area is for scoring hits or counting as a sink and is
not for allowing water into the internals of the sub to actually send it to the bottom?

RiverRaider

This post has been edited by RiverRaider: Oct 15 2004, 04:12 AM