/k/ - Weapons

ᶜᵃⁿᵃᵈᵃ ˢᵗʳᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒⁿᵍ!

>>502089

Yeah, you better keep that in smalltext, otherwise sitting Icebear from the tribe next door will find out you were patriotic, and complain to Justin "if you kill them, they win" Trudea, who might come along and apologize to the young, disenfranchised youth by giving him your land.

Isn't there already another /k/riegsmarine thread?

>>502096

Yes, but this one is more focused on submarines.

>>502115

>Since helicopters are loud and subsonic, is there any reason a submarine couldn't carry a missile that hunts based off of sound?

The sounds waves of the helicopter are distorted by the surface of the water, just like the noise of a sub can be distorted by different temperatures/salinity in the water, but much more extreme. This makes getting an accurate bearing difficult. Submarines already carry anti air missiles, which can either be launched vertically, or horizontally depending on design. However: instead of relying on sounds to get close while underwater, and then breaching the surface (which would be too slow for immediate defense), they immediately pierce the surface and begin acquireing much more accurate target data by either visual, IR or radar methods, just like any other AA missile.

The German Type 212 (most advanced conventional submarine in existence) uses a partly wire guided, partly IR seeking anti air missile. The video feed from the missile allows them to abort the launch if it turns out the helo/plane is actually friendly (which can be very difficult to determine by using sonar only).

Once a missile has left the water using sonar is practically impossible through

a) The rocket engine will be so fucking loud that a sonar device couldn't pick anything up besides it.

b) Air doesn't transport sound nearly as well as water does, which makes every noise even more silent than when compared to water.

c) Sound can be reflected off buildings, vessels or mountains, which can lead the the missile targeting an island in the best case, and a friendly vessel nearby in the worst case scenario.

There is a reason why we don't use acoustic MANPADS.

The same kind of personel that mans standard reactors can be trained to man submarine reactors, since they both are practically the same.

A nuclear reactor works the same way everywhere: Uranium decays and generates heat in the process. Heated water from circuit A is used to heat water from circuit B, which turns into steam and powers turbines, which are either directly connected to the propeller, or to generators, which generate electricity, which powers electric engines which power a propeller. The main differences are in size, and reliability. While marine nuclear generators don't produce nearly as much power as land based ones (land based power entire cities, factories and villages of an area, while marine ones are used for lighting, propulsion and sensory equipment or a single vessel only), they must also be much much smaller. This leads to marine reactors having to provide more power per square meter than normal reactors, even under adverse conditions such as constant tilting, corrosion, and possibly lack of maintenance far from port. This means that they use higher grade fuel cells, which also means that the reactor must be able to deal with far more radiation. Really, the main difference is not in operation, but in engineering. Marine generators are far more advanced than land based ones, and need to be designed with on board maintenance in mind, since sometimes you have to replace some VERY important vales while a couple of thousand kilometers from home.

>How cost effective are submarines compared to surface vessels? (In terms of incapacitating an enemy navy of similar sophistication in terms of technology, training etc.)

See WWII: German subs managed to sink 3500 merchants and 175 warships at the cost of <800 subs. While subs were not ready to hunt for warships dedicated to killing subs, they are now, thanks to the advances in engine technology, making submarines the most quiet vessels at sea. Advancements in sonar technology also allow them to spot any threat from very far away, while also staying completely invisible to radar or aircraft unless sonar buoys are employed. There is a reason nearly every nation on earth has submarines, and that reason is that they can do what they are meant to do: sink ships-run-hide-sink ships again

>>502206

>nearly blind

>extremely limited range

>can't reload

>fire one torp and the sub will be asymmetrical

Don't get me wrong, micro subs are fucking comfy and all, but I believe building submarine drones would be far more economical, since you can leave out any life support systems.

>>502115

That is so fucking cute. Russian families are the true saviors of the white race.

>>502199

>German Type 212

>(most advanced conventional submarine in existence)

Bwahahah…

No Li-ion battery (Jap), no PAFC (India), no permanent magnet engine (Russia), no cruise missiles (everyone else), no new gen heavy torpedoes (France, Italy, Japan), no heat homing torpedo (Russia), no long range AShM (Russia, India, China, Iran)…

But hey at least they have a SACLOS (the subsonic wire-guided kind to boot!!!) anti-air missile to shoot down a helicopter at stupidly short range (better hope the antisub helicopter isn't carrying anything to sink a submarine… wait).

It's not like French and US subs can fire MICA and AIM-9X (both FF, IR guided with their regular range) for years, or that Russia has had modded manpads in the sail for decades…

The funny thing is since DCNS simply adapted the casing to launch Exocets for MICAs even Pakistani outdated Agostas can have much better air defense than "classified uber-german" subs… (While for AIM-9X you need the tomahawk module).

But hey at least they mounted a 30mm gun on it…

Germany, the country were it's normal to put a 30mm gun on a submarine but not on attack helicopters!

(it's for all those spooky commandos missions Germany does… wait).

>>502235

little scary to think what would happen if dcns sub division purchased rubin design bureaou.

>>502235

Your president is a faggot.

>>502271

I don't have a president, I have a reichskommissar.

>>502270

Possibly automated image/sonar recognition google captcha of warships on cuckchan when?, or (as dicussed in the /k/riegsmarine thread) laser satellite coms. Just drive fifty of them around an area for days and use them like mobile re-loadable mines, sent to attack any ship they sight, or just ships of a certain sonar signal.

>>502235

>Jap

Diesel

>India

Diesel

>Russia

Diesel

>France

Nuclear only

>Italy

Literally uses 212 and Diesel

>China

Diesel

>Iran

Diesel

Diesel engines a shit. They require a constant air supply and must remain at the surface for most of their deployment, making them literally just another ship for any satellite recon. The hydrogen/oxygen system aboard the 212 allows for three weeks of constant submerged travel, which allows extended underseas operations. Even a snorkel (which can not only be spotted visually, but also appears on radar) means that the sub has to travel at periscope depth, which means that it will still show up on any satellite image.

>Permanent magnet engine

That's just retarded. Why use a stupidly large permanent magnet for your electric engine, when you can use an electric magnet for the same effect and literally NO electro magnetic signature once you turn off your engines?

>heat homing torp

BWAHAHAHA! Water doesn't transport heat nearly as well as air, not to speak of IR rays. Sure, you can use it to track down submarines and surface vessels by checking the water temperature for steaks or slightly warmer water, especially in very deep and cold seas, but most modern vessels that are not coal burners or merchants already attempt to limit heat loss to the sea, simply because every liter of seawater you heat is a liter of heated water you could use on your ship.

>cruise missiles/long range anti ship missiles

That's just doctrinal difference. You don't need cruise missiles when your navy is meant for defensive purposes. :^)

>30mm gun turret

You do know that most modern subs still carry machine guns aboard for situations where the sub must surface due to damage, and enemy forces attempt to board the vessel?

Also: The IDAS is capable of BOTH: wireguided and self controlled targeting. The option of wire guideance allows the submarine crew to launch a missile at a possible threat and abort the missile if it turns out that it is flying towards a friendly target. Especially in any future Baltic conflicts this could be a serious problem, simply due to the lack of proper coordination between allied forces, and the fact that the baltic is fucking tiny.

Maybe it was an overstatement to claim that the 212 is THE most advanced sub, but it certainly is one of the most advanced subs.

>>502271

Ad hominem (republicam?). Go fuck yourself.

>>502283

So basically automated. It seems like drone subs (like aircraft) will never be a thing because by the time reliable underwater communication is invented, we'll likely have lost the taboo against a robot pulling the trigger.

>>502283

>vessels that are not coal burners limit heat loss

So what you're saying is that ships that burn the coal pay the toll?

>>502223

>Canadian flag

Every time.

>>502317

Wow, you brits sure are fucking stupid. Do you not even know what thermal conductivity is? Water has a significantly lower κ value than air does. No fucking wonder we revolted from you stupid limeys 241 years ago.

>>502283

You are largely an idiot.

Firstly, diesels hug coastlines and overwatch ports. The chance of catching its snorkel is near zero, because when they dangle out a snorkel its in areas with dozens of metallic things around, metallic shipwrecks, landmass shadows to fuck with aerial recon.

Secondly theyre largely defensive and utilitarian. They dive, attack threats *IN THE EEZ*, then come back. They dive, move mines around, do maintenance/spying on cables, then come back. Their max/range endurance is not used except in desperation.

Last of all their submerged range is decent enough to hit commercial shipping or anyone trying to attack the coast, as evidenced by chink diesels scaring CVBGs.

>>502325

That wasn't the point of the post though. I was just stating that water doesn't transmit heat as well as air, which is why water is a poor medium for infrared-guidance.

>>502324

>diesels

>lurking near the coasts

Tell that to the Kilos, meant to breach the NATO Atlantic blockade and hunt resupply convoys.

A snorkel still appears on radar, just like periscopes do.

>>502330

Its not traditional IR where it sees the target and homes for it. The thing is basically a wake homing torpedo that avoids cooler water and seeks hotter water.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_homing

>>502335

>Kilos, meant to breach the NATO Atlantic blockade and hunt resupply convoys.

Source? Not counting midgets, its the shallowest diving sub the Soviets had.

Kilo can only dive to 1000 feet. Akula, the contemporary attack sub, could dive to 2000 feet. Some of their deeper water attack subs could go to 5000 feet.

Best blue water American subs can only go 800 feet, so I dont mean to say Kilos depth is insufficient in general. Just RELATIVELY smaller than other Russian attack subs, so why would they use their shittier subs in high depth scenarios?

I could see Kilos harrasing shipping in arctic sea, mediterranean, barents, and north pacific…. but these are the limits of its orders unless its a desperation tactic.

>>502283

>diesel

>diesel

>diesel

Hmm you seem to be under the impression that the Type 212 isn't a diesel sub (and have VERY little knowledge of what you're talking about)?

Because Type 212 are diesel subs…, they totally need snorkels. Germany didn't invent some magic engine that work solely on sea water, you know? (The US did but that's a subject for another day).

>>502408

>What are oxygen/hydrogen fuel cells

H2 and O2 are pumped into two separate chambers, disconnected from another by an proton exchange membrane (which only lets positively charged ions through). The H2 then spits and releases electrons, which generate an electric current. The now ionized hydrogen connects with the oxygen and becomes water.

This method is not only independent from any air supply (although you could use air instead of liquid oxygen if you so desire), but is also extremely silent. The Diesel engine is mostly used for long range transportation and recharging the batteries after a long time of diving without a snorkel.

How long can a kilo stay submerged without a snorkel? Five days at best. Three weeks is a fucking record for conventional subs, while also remaining practically silent.

>>502348

Diving deep is not really a concernt at all. You don't need to go deeper than 100 meters most of the time, since you will be concealed from satellites there. The main concern was to get past the sonar barrier put up between greenland/iceland and england, and since diesel subs are far more silent than nuclear ones, and the location of the sonar barrier was known, it is logical to use the diesel subs to get past that barrier, and find weaknesses in it/sabotage it to allow nuclear subs past without danger of being detected.

>>502440

>>502348

>some of their deeper water attack subs could go to 5000 feet

You wot? I haven't found a source indicating that any of Russia's submarines (nuclear or diesel) have a test depth greater than 600 meters. Can you provide me a source for Russia's 5000+ foot diving submarine?

>best blue water American subs can only go 800 feet

Given that the Virginia class' test depth is listed as greater than 800 feet, that even the 1960's Sturgeon class submarines had a test depth of over 1,300 feet, and that this source:

http://www.aticourses.com/blog/index.php/2011/07/19/uss-virginia-ssn-774a-new-steel-shark-at-sea/

Says:

"The wall-thickness and diameter of VIRGINIA’s cold-rolled, HY-120 steel inner pressure hull, with scrupulously designed hull-penetrations and conscientious seam-welds, allows submarine design engineers to impose a safe-diving test-depth of 1600 feet, according to the open literature."

I'm going to have to call bullshit on your claim that America has no submarines that can go deeper than 800 feet.

>>502448

Mike class.

>blog as source

The official depth for US subs is around 800ft, unofficial is of course greater. But the same applies to Russian subs, negating any argumentative advantage. Instead of engaging in guesswork I go by official numbers only.

Also

>double titanium hull

>somehow less pressure resistant than a single steel hull.

Next youll invent excuses for why US subs need two to three times the manpower to operate because automation is 50s level.

>>502456

>Mike class

Which has a maximum rated depth of 1250 meters, or about 4000 feet. Not 5000 feet. Also, your use of the term "some of their deeper water subs" as well as the term "Mike class" is disingenuous, as they imply that the K-278 was a full class of submarines, and not merely a single submarine that served as a technology testbed.

>the official depth for US subs is around 800 feet

No, the official depth for US subs is greater than 800 feet. The actual test depth is classified. Given that US subs fifty years ago could hit 1300 feet as a test depth, your claim that modern US subs can't exceed 800 feet is dubious.

>double titanium hull

??? most submarines in the Russian navy use steel hulls. The only titanium-hulled subs they have are four Sierra-class subs.

>>502283

wouldn't a sub with cruise/anti ship missiles be significantly better for coastal defence? isn't that what the exocet is for?

>>502440

>thinly veiled Das Boot fan thread

Finally someone noticed.

>>502483

Again: depends on doctrine and the anti missile defense you expect the enemy to have. If all you want to do is blockade the St.Petersburg ports and hunt down enemy subs that attempt to enter the Baltic, having long range missiles is pretty useless.

>>502484

But wouldn't those events basically necessitate a conflict for the control of the Baltic? does German doctrine assume that both parties would remain cautious with their fleets ala the great war?

I feel like the russians would want to grab as much naval supremacy as possible in order to put as much of a choke on your subs as they can, and that in that situation germany would have a greater need for direct sub to fleet engagements? total layman btw if you cant tell.

>>502488

Looking at the Baltic Sea, you'd just have to mine the waters between Germany and Denmark if you want to trap the Russians there. So I doubt the Russians want to move great fleets through it. They can move their subs over Scandinavia, and because of this I don't think they have any reason to bother with them in the Baltic Sea either. Therefore if they want to do something there, it has to do something with the area around that sea. The most likely scenario is that they'd try an amphibious assault in Germany or Poland. But they already have their paratroopers, therefore I don't see why would they prefer that over dropping a few thousands troops behind the enemy lines.

>>502494

but in that scenario, between mines and russian forces based out of Gotland wouldn't the baltic sea lanes be effectively rendered nonexistent?

>>502495

Indeed, that is pretty much what our Germanon says. During a conflict with Russia they'd just mine the waters and use their subs to hunt down anything and everything that wasn't caught by the mines and seems to be Russian. Remember, Germany has access to the North Sea too, on the "other side" of Denmark. And in that scenario Russia wouldn't have any reason to bother with the Baltic Sea either. So the German subs are a cheap way of denying the Baltic Sea, if my understanding is correct.

>>502459

>Which has a maximum rated depth of 1250 meters, or about 4000 feet. Not 5000 feet.

Wew lad you sure showed me, the official dive depth of it is 5x official numbers of US subs, and 2.5x fever dream numbers.

By the way the newer Losharik SSBN has already been spotted to dive to 8200 feet by USN and its max depth is unknown (no official numbers).

Americans are simply behind in depth, armor, automation and offensive weaponry. Russians were behind in sensors and damage control because they felt forward firing torps were more important than a spherical sonar array…. but thats out the door with their newest subs.

America compensates for these technology shortfalls with zerg tactics.

>official depth for US subs is greater than 800 feet.

And the official depth of Russian subs is "greater" than 2000ft for Akulas, whats your point?

>The only titanium-hulled subs they have are four Sierra-class subs.

Has currently, or built? All the titanium hulls they built are in pristine condition, it doesnt corrode.

>>502497

but then that begs the question how far north the german (and NATO too) navies would be willing to blockade. i doubt the russians would tolerate being blocked out of the russo-finnish batlic, im just not sure there will be enough mutual non-engagements in an arm-wrestle over the baltic to allow heavy mining since the russians will require those sea lanes direly in order to supplement activities in finland and swden and the baltic states.

now obviously russia is nothing compared to the big soviet blob but if anything that makes me inclined to believe they may seek out a decisive naval engagement in order to push out the aforementioned german subs in order to negate as much as possible their now relatively weak military position in the region.

it seems all or nothing to me, but id be interested to hear what you think. maybe you dont think a quick victory in the finnish front would be seen as necessary to the russians?

>>502499

Whats the current Russian naval doctrine? I know back in the Soviet Era it was to provide cover for the second strike capabilities for it's subs (hence the Admiral Kuznetsov).

Did anyone see the tweets joking about the Kuznetsov's smoke trail? I don't think it really matters if it "werks" no??

>>502498

where are your proofs, russiaboo?

>>502504

It was some verbal spat on twitter the other day, the Russian MOD said in response, "They weren't concerned about the new brits carriers"

>>502484

You forgot this scene,I like Das boot for the music*and an actual plot with characters that seem realistic*, shame that Hollywoods seems to just repeat old stories, *cough, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5830254/?ref_=nv_sr_3*

>>502505

Why don't you show us proof on the contrary actually?

>>502498

https://fas.org/spp/eprint/snf03221.htm

Apparently the main reason the Russian (Soviets) started making better subs was because Toshiba sold them axis milling equipment

Wikipedia link cause I'm lazy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba-Kongsberg_scandal

>>502498

>the official dive depth of it is 5x official numbers of US subs

Wow, a technology demonstrator, of which only one was produced, that sunk 25 years ago performed well! I'm absolutely quaking in my boots!

>Losharik SSBN has been spotted to dive to 8200 feet

Source?

>Americans are simply behind in depth

Source?

>armor

Source?

>automation

Source?

>and offensive weaponry

Source?

>were behind in sensors… but that's out the door with their newest subs

Source?

>and the official depth of Russian subs is "greater" than 2000 ft.

No, the official test depth is 2000 feet. The official test depth of the Virginia class is "greater than" 800 feet.

>has currently, or built

Has currently, because that's what matters.

Or are you seriously going to claim that Russia is going to un-scrap fifty year old ridiculously loud submarines and press them into service?

>>502507

Now you're just being outright disingenuous.

That source says absolutely nothing about diving depth, armor, automation, or offensive weaponry, Russiaboo. It just goes over the acoustic profile of different Russian submarines.

I would like to point out, though, that it lists those titanium submarines you were going on about as being in the "noisy" category, at 130-135 dB, compared to 95 dB of the latest American submarines. Given that the decibel scale is logarithmic, this corresponds to a noise level sixteen times greater.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA519221

>why don't you show us proof on the contrary, actually

Because you're the one making the claim, dipshit. That's how arguments work, at least if you're not arguing based on /leftypol/ logic: the person that makes a claim, such as "American submarines are behind in depth, armor, automation, and offensive weaponry" has to prove that their claim is correct, rather than expecting all the other Russiaboos to fellate them about how muh Russia is the best.

>>502502

These stretegies would also work for a "cold war warmed up" scenario, with either "limited tactical" (lol, as if) or non nuclear option.

>>502506

I love how Klaus (?) casually pulls out a metal listening rod and just puts his ear to the engine. One of the scenes where you really get to know him as a human being. He fucking loves his job and his machines. He doesn't want to die underwater. He loves being surrounded by the noisy, hot machines of this sub. He wants to continue living this life, which is why he is so desperate to get out in this scene, and so very happy in the Situation report scene, where he says that the ship is ready to surface again, and he might survive, and even though he is ordered to get some rest, he refuses and goes to fix "minor problems". His love to the ship is what kept him alive.

It will be bad.

I must keep my hopes down to not be as disappointed when it comes out.

>>502518

But other than prestige what would they even gain in europe? it would just be a net cost surely. they'd be better off just occupying former soviet territory and preparing defenses. the only reason to go on the offense would be to lift naval blockades through land invasion, but that would only require a negotiated peace anyway.

>>502448

>conscientious seam-welds

I, for one, object to this word-jewry.

>>502516

I'm not a "Russiaboo" lol. That's a FAS source, I'm sure that it's not biased in any way or form. I'm not saying that the Russians are quieter than the US, they aren't lol unless you try to compare Kilo's to the 688i without taking into consideration the strategic impact of each which is downright stupid lol, and even then I have my doubts

. I'm saying that they got relatively better compared what they made before.

>>502518

To my understanding, the Soviets were incapable of making milling equipment precise enough to reduce the acoustic signatures caused by cavitaition IIRC, the Soviets couldn't copy it because they were so shitty at making them. I can't read much jap but to my understanding is that they willingly, not accidentally (like how the Soviets sold Titanium for the US blackbirds).

Here is an FAS document on dection ranges thats online anyways: https://fas.org/spp/eprint/snf03222.htm

Unfortunately, there is no comparison between the 971 and U/M variants. The Soviets started taking the stealth game more seriously after the Mk 48 came out in 1972 (55 kn (63 mph; 102 km/h)[5] (estimated)[6]) . I believe the soviet 705s could only reach up to mid 70s Km/h submerged.

It's kinda like the MIG-25, the Plane can't outrun missiles due to the higher Thrust to weight ratio of the missile.

Also, notice how K-463 is laid down in 1975, and is the last of it's class, I'm pretty sure if these were successful that the soviets wouldn't just order seven of these.

>>502523

>that's a FAS source

No, it's not a source at all, because it doesn't so much as mention any of the things you're talking about.

Either provide a source or retract your claims.

>>502502

>they will have no access to the Baltic Sea.

Dont they have 3 massive ports and dozens of ships there?

>>502516

>>502505

>oh shit im losing the argument!

>better ask him to source every word!

>mfw he doesnt ask for sources on the stuff that makes america look good

:^)

If you can be that cheap, so can I: www.google.ca

But I'm going to be nice. Losharik is first result in wiki, several articles. Look into Russian double hulls and the advantage that gives them in terms of pressure and damage resistance, letting them dive deeper or take glancing torpedo hits. Google also Russian improvements in rocket torpedos which can be used for active defense against enemy torps, or as very dangerous mine systems.

Compare Akula and Virginia, same weight class, propulsion and mission. Virginia requires 135 crew to operate, Akula only 62 due to automation. inb4 niggerloading torps is better Virginia has only 4 medium torpedo tubes, Akula has 4 medium and 4 heavy torpedo tubes, over twice the armament. In addition thd Akula can launch anti ship missiles, while Virginia can only launch tomahawks.

In terms of sensors US had an edge in spherical arrays, which Akulas towed array mitigated and Yasen ended.

>No, the official test depth is 2000 feet. The official test depth of the Virginia class is "greater than" 800 feet.

No, all official results are underestimated.

>Russia is going to un-scrap fifty year old ridiculously loud submarines and press them into service?

They arent scrapped, theyre docked. And theyve already done so for several, with upgrades to make them quieter.

>Given that the decibel scale is logarithmic, this corresponds to a noise level sixteen times greater.

Which is why akula snuck past the entire atlantic monitoring network and half the deployed US subs to pop up in the Mexican gulf undetected for a month, to the surprise of everyone?

>>502539

>Dont they have 3 massive ports and dozens of ships there?

I'm not sure about the exact numbers, nor do I know what they'd want to do during a war, but indeed, they have quite the presence there. It's been the case since the 19th century, yet the Russian Navy there played only a minor role in both world wars. If I was in the place of the Germans I would just use some subs to counter those ships instead of building up my own navy.

>>502539

>better ask him to source every word

No, I'm asking you to source your actual arguments, dipshit. You made claims and provided no evidence.

>mfw he doesn't ask for source on the stuff that makes America look good

What the fuck are you talking about, Russiaboo? I asked for sources on every claim you made.

>Losharik

You gotta be shittin' me. Your source for the capability of Russian military submarines is a Russian research submarine, of which there is one in existence, which is completely unarmed, and which is used for crew rescue?

In that case, here's an American submarine with comparable diving depth and intended use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSV_Sea_Cliff

>take glancing torpedo hits

[Citation needed]

>rocket torpedoes

You mean unguided fire-and-hope-it-hits torpedoes with a range of about ten kilometers? Torpedoes that, even with their speed, take about a minute to reach a range of five kilometers?

Yeah, I'm sure the ship that is fired upon won't just, you know, turn in the minute between detecting the torpedo being fired and the torpedo getting there.

>Virginia requires 135 crew to operate, Akula only 62 due to automation

How much of that is due to automation and how much is due to the Virginia having VLS tubes and a diver lockout chamber, both of which require crew to operate, I can't say.

I also can't say how much of that crew decrease is down to Russia having different crew workloads than the American navy. I could make a claim that this crew reduction is likely to produce results similar to what's happening with the American navy's LCS, but as I don't have a source for that, and I, unlike you, actually intend to provide sources for claims that I make, I won't say that.

What I'm going to say instead is: exactly what tactical advantage does that give?

>akula can launch anti ship missiles

Yes, because Russia uses submarines as part-missile cruiser due to their relative lack of strength vis-a-vis America in the surface warfare department. American submarines are designed to fill a single role (use torpedoes) rather than be kludged into a multi-role position it's not suited for, as submarines are far less capable than surface ships at generating targeting information for surface targeting due to the lack of surface sensors (radar) and difficulty communicating with other friendlies.

Submarines that can perform some of the roles of surface ships, however poorly, are attractive to countries which are less powerful at surface warfare, such as Russia when compared to the United States, or in particular the countries Russia is fond of selling military equipment to.

When you're a tinpot country whose surface fleet would get wiped off the map by the American navy, the prospect of having a submarine that could possibly hide and survive and potentially do some damage as a poor man's missile cruiser is attractive. When you have the world's largest surface fleet, there's no need.

>Akula towed array mitigated

A towed array? You mean a towed array just like the one the Virginia class has?

>and Yasen ended

Source? Do you have a source that indicates that the Yasen's sensors have a greater range or better resolution than the Virginia's? Or are you just going to say "the Yasen's sensors are better" and expect us to all nod our heads in agreement to your clearly superior reasoning?

>all official results are underestimated

You still aren't getting it are you?

The Virginia's official test depth is greater than 800 feet.

greater than

greater than

greater than

The Akula's test depth is 1700 feet (the 2000 feet figure is its maximum operating depth). The Akula's test depth is not listed as "greater than" 1700 feet, likely because Russia is trying their damndest to get India to buy more and so provides actual figures, whereas America has no intention of selling any Virginia class submarines and so has no reason to tell anyone remotely accurate figures on the submarine's performance.

>>502539

>>502550

>they aren't scrapped, they're docked

That's a blatant lie. Russia's other titanium-hulled subs, the Alfa class, were all scrapped in the 90s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine#Vessels

http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfl6.htm

From the second source:

"The Sevmash yards in Severodvinsk, charged with the task of dismantling the titanium-hulled submarines operate at an even greater loss per unit than Zvezdochka. The shipyard management estimate a loss of one billion roubles for the decommissioning of the Project 705 - Alfa class submarine K-463 (factory no. 915). Sevmash receives no tax relief on its foreign sales of metals. For the moment, the export tax on titanium alloys is set at 1 900 USD/ton, while the world market price is 1 000 USD/ton."

So apparently the Alfa class was completely dismantled.

"The reactor sections from decommissioned nuclear submarines are towed over water to these piers at Sayda Bay where they will be temporarily stored until a long term storage facility is established. At the very left edge of the picture is the reactor compartment from an Alfa class submarine."

And apparently the reactor compartments were removed.

At this point, with the Alfa class being fifty years old, dismantled, and having no reactor, it would be easier to build new subs.

>which is why Akula snuck past the entire atlantic monitoring network

Boy, now that's a non sequitur if I've ever seen one.

This indicates that the Akula is quieter than the Virginia… how?

Also, gonna need a source for that claim.

>>502089

What did he mean by this?

>>502571

>>502586

>name one ship to ship weapon mounted on any American surface combatant that isn't the carrier

… the Harpoon? Soon to be replaced by the LRASM in 2019.

Never mind the fact that saying "name one ship to ship weapon mounted on any American surface combatant that isn't the carrier" is like saying "name one gun you actually own besides the ten AR's in your safe."

>yes the 15 year newer response

Not an argument.

>less than half the armament

Virginia class has 48 torpedoes; Akula has 40. Check the Wiki page.

>twice the crew

There's that point again that you refuse to indicate how it in any way impacts the capability of the Virginia.

>I didn't say Yasens were better

You at the very least said it was equal. Now, I have no way of knowing if that is the case. The Yasen may be better, the same, or worse than the Virginia. But you have provided no evidence to support your claim that the Yasen is at least as good as the Virginia, and while I cannot conclusively state how good or bad the Yasen is vis a vis the Virginia, I can at least say that, without backing evidence, any unsubstantiated claim that the Yasen is as good as the Virginia can be dismissed out of hand.

>incapable of detecting the louder enemy subs, how good are US sensors

Given that that statement provides no evidence of the Russian sensors' ability to detect US subs, I can confidently say that US sensors are somewhere between "worse" and "better" than their Russian counterparts. I can also say that your claim that Russian sensors are as good as US sensors is still unsubstantiated, as the ability of Russian subs to bypass US sensors says nothing about the capability of Russian sensors.

I can also say that you have still provided no evidence of a Russian sub making it past US forces and into the Gulf of Mexico. Again, this is not me asking you to prove the sky is blue. It is me asking you to provide evidence of a specific incident that you are asserting happened.

>>502587

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188791/Russian-attack-submarine-slipped-past-US-Navy-patrolled-Gulf-Mexico-weeks-undetected.html

There. Thats proof, now dont go on a FAKE NEWS rampage like a /pol/ ack.

>>502586

>Asking you to prove that "American submarines are behind in depth, armor, automation, and offensive weaponry" is NOT the same as asking you to prove that the sky is blue

It is for anyone who knows fuck all about anything naval related, but if you knew that you'd know what double hulls were for, what shkval is guided by, or that the harpoon is an anti submarine missile and can do fuckall to surface ships.

Lurk more, read a book, and stop getting into arguments you have no background for just because your jingoism was triggered.

>>502589

Pretty sure this a73e86 guy is a Jew, only uses critical theory, no counter arguments.

>>502589

>quoted anonymous sources

Oh boy, anonymous sources from a clickbait website, reported by the Daily Mail, which the Pentagon denies ever happened.

https://news.usni.org/2012/08/20/pentagon-denies-russian-sub-patrolled-gulf-mexico

I sure do trust that! By the way, did you hear about that latest Elvis sighting?

>>502590

>it is for anyone who knows fuck all

So now you're just going to abandon any attempt at proving your claims and instead just assert that "gee, EVERYONE knows!" instead?

>that the harpoon is an anti submarine missile

Jesus fucking christ.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=200&ct=2

"Primary Function: Air, ship, and foreign submarine and land-based coastal defense battery launched anti-ship cruise missile"

>read a book

Literally "educate yourself."

>no counter arguments

Read everything I posted dipshit. You provided no evidence to substantiate your claims. All you ever did was say that the Navy's official figure of "greater than 800 feet" REALLY means "just 800 feet" and then post an FAS article about the acoustic profile of Russian submarines when I asked you for proof that "American submarines are behind in depth, armor, automation, and offensive weaponry."

You have provided no proof, and unless you do so now, I will feel free to discount everything you said, as you have given me no reason to believe you're not merely pulling it all out of your ass.

>>502590

Also,

>no counter arguments

Pretty difficult to post a counter argument when the nature of your entire argument is:

"I say this is true, therefore it is true! What's that? You want proof? No, it is obvious! Because I said it is obvious! Now here's a pdf about Russian subs' acoustic profile, which totally proves that American subs can't dive as deep as Russian subs!"

>>502592

Well, then according to your logic, all news would be unreliable as we couldn't vouch for the authenticity unless we knew the person.

I'm sure the US government has absolutely NO interest in covering it up if it were to happen.

I'm not really happy with the source, but it's not like the Navy's gonna say that did happen, it would be a pretty large embarrassment considering the Russians hadn't done one since the late 80's ish iirc.

>>502594

>we couldn't vouch for the authenticity unless we knew the person

not trusting an "anonymous source" != not trusting a named source that you don't know

Or did you believe the "anonymous sources" that said that Trump was about to be impeached about five times in a row?

The source is completely unnamed. They don't even provide vague details about where the source is from. The website that posted it is run by a think tank, and does not have a history that gives me any particular reason to trust them at face value.

Now, you could say that "of course the Navy would cover it up!" and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (i.e. just because the source is dubious doesn't mean it didn't happen), in which case I will point you here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

>>502571

>Absolute none which is why the next generation US subs will use 1000 men to operate three rows of oars.

Made me laugh, you're pretty funny for a leaf

>>502586

The Losharik is not armed, it's not even technically part of Russian navy.

They have a bunch of subs commissioned under the name "underwater sonar installation platform" and registered as auxiliary ships for the Directorate for Deep Sea Research of the Russian defense ministry (Russia euphemism to say ONI).

>>502210

>>502270

It's a retarded idea. If all those systems could be automated, why not put a person in there in a spherical high-pressure shell with a few days supply of food and air? All he'd have to do is push the button, the "drone" sub would do the rest.

I think speed is a better thing to shoot for than endurance. The fastest ever submarine was 44 knots, and the speed of torpedoes is 45 knots. If we just push the speed to 50 knots, the micro sub would be a bit more resistant from being intercepted by enemies. Carried by a ship in the CVBG, when the fleet is under attack it could drop a dozen of these small fast subs which could travel several hours out to form a picket against enemy subs, or to carry out a strike and retreat back to fleet.

>>502586

>>502587

>>502592

>>502596

The image you're posting is not Losharik, its the mothership that carries it. Losharik docks on the large belly area on that sub. Your other images of Losharik are fast and loose guesswork based on the name and the associated cartoon character. The image he posted clearly has some type of hatches on the front, maybe for torpedos, maybe for UUVs.

Harpoon was designed as a air launched missile designed to let fighters shoot surfaced submarines, that's why the name is Harpoon, it's about killing the whale. After the ship-to-ship missile combat in Israel, USN started using harpoon as an anti ship missile. The low speed, short range, and tiny warhead makes it unlikely that it's going to hurt any current ship. Your example is the shittiest "anti ship missile" in the world, with possible exception being the LCS mounted hellfire.

https://news.usni.org/2012/08/20/pentagon-denies-russian-sub-patrolled-gulf-mexico

Yeah these are clearly coveryourbutt political bs responses. It even mentions a confirmed event where two submarines patrolled off the coast.

>The incident is similar to 2009 reports in which the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) confirmed that two Akula boats patrolled off the Eastern U.S. seaboard.

So the Russians are certainly capable of sailing there.

>>502656

Or it could travel under a ship, maybe even a dedicated Russian cargo vessel flagged in Greece or some other country. The amount of ways to get around such a simple sensor system is ridiculous, the only thing that would protect our coasts fully from subs would be regular and dense maritime surveilance plane flights, but that's too expensive in peacetime.

>>502750

The original concept of the Harpoon was as he says, however, by the time it was actually being designed, it was an anti-ship missile through and through. Harpoon is anti-sub weapon in the same sense a deck gun is an anti-sub weapon.

>>502517

Sadly the lengths went to make the film realistic in today would just be substituted with CGI.

An Kommandant: Backborddiesel muss stoppen. Fundament ist gerissen. ALLES WAS DRIN IST LI ALLES WAS DRIN IST!!!!

>>502750

>~300 kilometers

>Harpoon.

Yeah a Boeing ADVERTISEMENT said their new and "improved missile" (read with a much lighter warhead) could reach that far…

Then the navy tested it.

Then Boeing said "well since it's too good for goys like you we're not going to sell them anymore, but it's totally awesome". Which for anyone non-retarded mean IT FAILED THE TESTS.

That's the level of your source.

The Harpoon propulsion has known no change since xGM-84D when they modified the missile to take JP-10 fuel. It's maximum range is 120nm (not it's effective range… the range where you fire it straight and you wait for it to drop in the water out of fuel).

xGM-84E is an xGM-84D with the AGM-65D seeker and the data link from the AGM-62 MK 38 (it's a cobble together stopgap missile waiting for the xGM-137… which was cancelled). Ship version did existed but was cancelled. No sub version exist.

xGM-84F did feature a redesign of the missile, granting it more space for fuel. It also featured a loiter mode, where the missile would try to re-engage a target as long as it had fuel.

But it couldn't be fitted on subs… so was never deployed and was cancelled.

xM-84G is a xGM-84D with the loiter feature of the xGM-84F and a few new chips for better ECCM.

AGM-84H is a serious redesign of the AGM-84E external change are the addition of the pop-out swept wings of the xGM-109, giving it more range, but more so much more maneuverability. They also got rid of the legacy seeker/data link for the AN/DSQ-61 with all the bells and whistle you can think about, they also used the increase fly-ability of the design to up the payload (from 488 lb to 800 lb), leaving two version a big warhead of the same range as xGM-84D, a version with normal warhead and extended range. Again no ships, or sub version exist.

Here is where it gets complicated, McDonnell Douglas started peddling their "Harpoon 2000", which is what is today called Block II, and was simply the xGM-84G but with part of the hardware of the AGM-84H, mainly the GPS/INS guidance, allowing for precision land attack. The navy didn't want any since they had Tomahawks for that.

So xGM-84J was skipped. But then the Navy retroactively called xGM-84J xGM-84D converted to xGM-84L.

AGM-84K is a further minor internal modification of the AGM-84H. It's around that time they modified the software for automatic target acquisition, so there is some confusion but a software upgrade doesn't warrant change in the letter. Both H and K missile can have ATA.

xGM-84L is the "harpoon 2000" from 1996 rebranded "harpoon block II" for export.

As before it's a xGM-84G with GPS guidance. Initially the US Navy didn't want any but they did upgrade some of their xGM-84D to that standard and call them xGM-84J. xGM-84L being used as an export designation.

xGM-84M, so called "block III", is the xGM-84G but with the full tech package of the AGM-84K (GPS/INS guidance, two way datalink, etc…).

But the missile itself is similar in physical performance to the xGM-84D.

Yes yes, wikipedia says something else and wikipedia is a sauce.

>>503140

I think the greatest limit to Harpoon range/speed is the requirement that it be mountable on submarines, helicopters, carrier borne aircraft, and so on.

Lengthening the fuselage and installing a better engine might make it supersonic, but the resulting missile would be 2000-6000lb and the semen and jetheads wouldnt like that.

Look at the Strobile, a medium East-bloc missile. Similar warhead as Harpoon, range is 600km, speed is mach 2.5, but its over 6000lb.

IF burger decided on 2 missiles, one low speed aircraft launched and one big ship launched (tomahawk sized) at least supersonic in terminal…. problem would be over yesterday. As it stands their surface fleet is useless.

Submarines are gay, sailors are gay, the Navy is gay, you are gay.

>>503147

If you are running around with a bunch of fags innawoods or onnaseas is the same thing. The difference is that one of the two will get killed by artillery, other men in hand to hand combat, cold, starvation and disease while the others drown, suffocate, burn, or are ripped apart.

There really isn't that much difference.

>>503151

You also forgot Explosive decompression

Its still better than the chairforce anyway

>>502745

>If all those systems could be automated, why not put a person in there in a spherical high-pressure shell with a few days supply of food and air?

……Why would you?

>>503162

Because a drone can he hacked, while a lonely Strelok is less likely to be brainwashed in the middle of a war.

>>503146

>I think the greatest limit to Harpoon range/speed is the requirement that it be mountable on submarines, helicopters, carrier borne aircraft, and so on.

Harpoon main limitation is that it was designed in 1968 and has been virtually unchanged save for it's electronics (the change in engine between xGM-84A and xGM-84D is minimal, it's an optimization) and that after 50 years of service it's normal for shit to be outdated.

It's the plague of the US military changing shit army wide cost so much they always stop halfway. They need a catastrophe to finally integrate new systems.

The F version was great, the H version is great.

But because they imply that yes you need to move shit around if you want to fire them then it's immediately no, because modifying hundreds of ships is insanely costly.

And if you keep the old shit long enough then the new platforms comes with the need to still integrate the old shit so even new ships you can't put new systems.

That's how the Harpoon, mainly designed to fit in the first gen ASROC launchers, re-designed quickly when the USN realized that guns where obsolete (in 1967… after 20 years spent watching the soviets mounting missiles as main armament on their ships and never wondering why) will be forever in use.

Until the panic.

>>503162

Drones have to run on a wire, which restricts range/mobility, and theres always the possibility of wire being cut. Unless youre talking about autonomous action, which is not a good idea. An AI cant make a judgement call to shoot at a civilian ship sonar signature because it acts weird, or because taking out a possible enemy might be worth the risk of sinking a friendly civvie at that stage in the war.

A single dude isnt going to cost you much in pressure hull weight and air for a 24+ hour trip. the entire thing should have an empty weight of 5-15 tonnes depending on sensors, equipment, speed wanted, range… etc.

The biggest weight will be the 4x5 tonne torpedoes this thing is going to need to strike long range (50km+) at ships and subs before they can strike back, plus the 8x3 tonne rocket torpedoes for self defense in the ~15km range.

>>503171

You'd think the hypersonic scramjet missile might scare some sense into allied fleets. Even if we shoot that thing down its still fragments moving at mach 7 towards your ship, more than twice the speed of 30mm GAU API shells, tearing through fuel lines, radars, weapons, people…. theres no defense!

>>503173

This is what we're talking about. A modernized variant of these…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-class_submarine

>>503173

>Drones have to run on a wire

U wot? Satellite connection via laser/radio communication buoy dragged behind the sub on a wire would be A-OK.

>A single dude isnt going to cost you much in pressure hull weight and air for a 24+ hour trip.

24+ hours is an extremely short amount of time for a ship/sub. You would need something more than a month or two, at which point you will also be running into the whole "one guy alone for a month" problem. Do you really think that a man, who voluntarily enters a metal hull to be completely separated from mankind for a month or two, should be trusted with a weapon that can potentially destroy battleships and is stealthy/silent enough to potentially strike your own vehicles?

>>503154

>chairforce

Either getting shot through your canopy and bleeding to death because you can't land/eject in time, exploding right away, having to eject and getting caught, or breaking a bone and wasting away in the middle of the wilderness, or going unconscious because of failing life support/high G-forces and crashing into the ground at stupid speeds

Ground crews

Do these guys even face any danger other than blowing up the fuel/ammunitions storage, or having their airfield overrun?

>>503361

Whoa a month or two? Thats insane dude!

>>503374

You do realize that even the Seehund could only do 8kn at the surface, and 6kn while diving.

So to get across the atlantic at full maximum speed (which would take a lot of fucking fuel for such a tiny craft), it would take (5.5k kilometers, or roughly 3.05k nautical miles) 381 hours, or 15-16 days. Keep in mind, that the vessel would have to come back afterwards too, so you got a whole month of just traveling from A to B. Unless you want to waste fuel, you will want to keep that craft in the AO for another month, even if it has spent all it's torps, it can still function as a recon vessel. Even using it as a superclose coastal vehicle (Aka: the intended purpose of the Seehund) for example for blockading the Channel, or defending the Prussian coastal city evacuations, you would still want at least a week or two of supplies and fuel just to be able to transport it to most of the world without a freighter.

>>507370

Literally one of the best movies ever made. It is /k/ from the getgo, and I don't mean the "lonely operator operating in the zone, get out of here stalker, cheekie breekie dakkadakka" side of /k/.

It perfectly captures the actual fear you feel when you are in a though situation, and the long stretches of boredom and anticipation/fear inbetween. In that regard it can be similar to Generation kill.

>>507370

/tv/ is probably the shittiest board on this site right now and if you want decent movie recommendations you should ask literally any other board before you even bother with them.

If someone posted Das Boot as a recommendation there the thread would immediately devolve into low level politics shitflinging simply because it has nazis in it.

sage for off topic drunken bitching

>>507801

>SDV

>suck dick vehicle

Fuck that tiny piece of shit. It is good for nothing besides taticool operatan in a body of water and getting people from A to B. It's like 50% aa massive battery, and the rest is just some dudes navigating via magnetic fields. It has barely any sensor equipment, and only a tiny pathetic periscope.

Also:

>not sealed

>submarine

It's more of an underwater jetski, but slow and without an internal impeller.

>>507696

/tv/ was always pretty bad as a shitposting board then /leftypol/ came and shit it up so much that its gotten to halfchan levels of cancer. /leftypol/ is hypocritical as fuck and can barely be seen as any semblance of /pol/ anymore due to the mod letting just anyone join regardless of beliefs or quality to get the board up to third most popular. Used to be that /leftypol/ actually had some intelligent conversation and half-baked memes like that cat-girl but after the influx by the mod and the exodus from the hack followed by a bigger influx most of the posters on /leftypol/ that actually made OC or resembled in any way other boards on this site have left or gotten retarded. /a/ is has been corrupted and the post quality is definitely down but /tv/ is pure cancer and /leftypol/ has gotten so far from its roots and core retards that they shouldn't be even considered a real board and more like a shitty subreddit. What I'm trying to say is /a/ is a shit board but recoverable, /tv/ is a shitposting board that was supposed to be bad but got fucked by /leftypol/ retards and shit moderation and /leftypol/ is so different from the one that was initially created that taking one glance at the board will show you how utterly disconnected they are from the rest of the site and any form of board culture so its a tight match between /tv/ which is halfchan levels of pure cancer and /leftypol/ which barely qualifies as a containment board.

>>507696

/tv/ was always pretty bad as a shitposting board then /leftypol/ came and shit it up so much that its gotten to halfchan levels of cancer. /leftypol/ is hypocritical as fuck and can barely be seen as any semblance of /pol/ anymore due to the mod letting just anyone join regardless of beliefs or quality to get the board up to third most popular. Used to be that /leftypol/ actually had some intelligent conversation and half-baked memes like that cat-girl but after the influx by the mod and the exodus from the hack followed by a bigger influx most of the posters on /leftypol/ that actually made OC or resembled in any way other boards on this site have left or gotten retarded. /a/ is has been corrupted and the post quality is definitely down but /tv/ is pure cancer and /leftypol/ has gotten so far from its roots and core retards that they shouldn't be even considered a real board and more like a shitty subreddit. What I'm trying to say is /a/ is a shit board but recoverable, /tv/ is a shitposting board that was supposed to be bad but got fucked by /leftypol/ retards and shit moderation and /leftypol/ is so different from the one that was initially created that taking one glance at the board will show you how utterly disconnected they are from the rest of the site and any form of board culture so its a tight match between /tv/ which is halfchan levels of pure cancer and /leftypol/ which barely qualifies as a containment board.

>Barrel Bombs :^)

>>502442

Watching that video pisses me off to no end. I grew up on the gulf coast of Texas and saw the port cities pretty much swolen up by the drug trade from the sea.

How would /k/ deal with those towed torpedos? There has got to be a way other than just hoping to intercept the drug ship via intel.

>>507890

milecastles on the beach. if we pulled troops out of europe we would be more than capable of manning it without a significant increase in overall military budget, sans the construction

>>502518

I don't know much about the Soviet side of that scandal but I do know a bit about machine tools. My guess is that the Soviets were unable to copy/reverse-engineer the systems they acquired illicitly but that doesn't particularly matter in terms of that handful of machines posing an enormous security threat. Having one system or having a dozen copied systems only makes a difference in terms of production capacity. While it would be nice to have the ability to crank out dozens of super-precise screws and turbines each year, just being able to produce a handful is enough to radically improve the operational performance of your existing designs.

The Soviets definitely had the ability to produce mechanical components and tool heads which were accurate enough to meet the incredibly close tolerances of anti-cavitation screw designs. What they didn't have was the technology needed to produce super accurate scales, encoders, and electronics capable of accurately and rapidly computing the position of the tool head. This article is a good overview of what exactly separates an accurate CNC machine from one accurate enough to produce the kinds of complex 3D surfaces found on a screw to tolerances tight enough to virtually eliminate cavitation: http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/improving-machine-tool-linear-accuracy-with

TL;DR It's all about accurately controlling the position and travel of the tool head. Normally this is accomplished with magnetic or optical scales (these are almost guaranteed to be used on the systems acquired by the Soviets) but lasers took over starting around the time when that article was written. The scales used in systems like the ones the Soviets obtained would have been less than 5 microns in terms of repeatable accuracy. To give you an idea of how precise these scales are, a human hair is anywhere between 100 to 125 microns thick. When even the slightest imperfection can cause cavitation, the ability to control the surface form to tolerances measured in tens of microns is a huge deal. Since the Soviets could easily replace the mechanical wear components, they could maintain production of these advanced screws indefinitely since the scales and computers last for decades.

>>502283

>>502317

>>502319

You're all kind of half right, half wrong. Water transports (conducts) heat far more efficiently than air (most insulation is just trapped air), but it also absorbs far far far more by volume (thermal mass). Even a hot object, like a reactor, would likely only leave a signature of a fraction of a degree within a short distance, and it would probably be hard to tell that from an ocean current changing the temperature.

Equipment on submarines break all the time. A crew is needed to fix said equipment. Thats why you dont see too much automation in submarines right now. Life support system make a small part of equipment onboard a submarine.

Think about all the shit that is in a sub. Trim/drain pumps, propulsion systems, batteries/electricity, sonar, comms, weapons systems, and so on. Someone will still have to monitor those systems 24/7. Might as well have those people onboard the sub monitoring it so they can fix a problem when it arises.

I see a lot of people talking about this subject and have on fucking idea what theyre saying.

>>507472

Like the ending??? Rip captain. Goes through all that crap and ends up dying on land

>>507370

You got any other films like that you'd recommend? I dislike the propaganda BS in the States and in China.

Also, is there a thread about Chinkland somewhere?

? I went there recently and saw them do exercises in Tibet.

t. American born Chink

>>507845

This.. I grew up alongside commie family and they taught me quite a bit. Marx is slightly better though.

Not that they wouldn't hang me for being a revisionist Maoist even though I'm right leaning LOL

>>513849

Sorry forgot sage for off topic on chinkland

>>513849

>>507472

>Like the ending???

Typical West-German defeatist WWII storytelling, movie script. “There is nothing glorious in German military action in WWII.”

>Rip captain. Goes through all that crap and ends up dying on land

The real captain survived with his boat.

Did I tell you West-German nanny state, its journalists, authors made things up to keep the population compliant?

>>507370

>You got any other films like that you'd recommend? I dislike the propaganda BS in the States and in China.

Do you think West-German “anti-war films” are no propaganda? Yeah it is no silly hip-hip-horray story telling as preferred in the USA, but that is for a reason. Germans had to be reeducated, that any resistance was futile, the Nazis are bad for them (you notice how unsympathetic the official Nazi of the film is described) and the Germans now reduced to be the bitch of the USA is actually good for them and something they always wanted to be.

BTW there was no “Nazi polit-officer of Soviet style” on that boat, it’s a fabrication of the author who claimed “everything is hundred percent true”.

That Weimar style disrespectful partying at the begin and on the boat is fiction as well.

Propaganda does work, in that example since decades, as well as “Enenmy at the Gates”.

One of the very first West-German films was already made in the same defeatist style “Die Brücke”, the bridge, the story about some fresh from Hitler Youth soldiers blowing apart a US tank. Of course such action is not glorious but silly and futile. The youthful Landser become nervous wrecks seeing his friends dying for “nothing”, because in the end the US is winning anyway (and be very generous and cavalier victors) which is a very good thing (as everybody watching the current state of Europe must agree).

>>516359

I know both are propaganda. It's just that you don't have it forcibly beat in to you (eg; I don't "have to" " severely recommended" in China to read every fucking anti-Japanese book or "American Imperialism" essay).

Thanks for the insight though. That's not something you see everyday.

I really hope they imploded some chinks.

>>516547

>>516359

>I know both are propaganda. It's just that you don't have it forcibly beat in to you (eg; I don't "have to" " severely recommended" in China to read every fucking anti-Japanese book or "American Imperialism" essay).

It‘s often very heavy handed and for those in the know difficult to watch.

One US war film which is surprisingly balanced is the first Pearl Harbor film, “Tora Tora”. There the Japanese are described as competent warrior, not the cliché orks as often. The second more recent “Pearl Harbour” film has the usual atrocity propaganda, the Japanese bombing hospitals etc., while in reality only military objects were target. Of course the use of footage of modern US destroyers, ships in a film about WWII makes one cringe.

A rule in film making of the Allies is that even massive defeats are presented as “hour of glory” and “steping stone to victory”. Example are the disaster of “Operation Market Garden” in a “Bridge to far” or Dunkirk. Dunkirk was shown more realistic as a désastre in the French film “Weekend at Dunkirk, Week-end à Zuydcoote“, of course they Germans in the film are comic book evildoer who dress up as nuns, shoot at ambulances; including made up blood-lusty speeches on the radio.

Dunkirk is interesting to the topic, because of the capture of the French sub “Surcouf”, by the British, then the biggest submarine, with a battery of twin 8inch, 20cm guns.

What is mostly glanced over in describing the events is that with Dunkirk the British became quite hostile to the French, who did most of the fighting by then. There were quite a large number of French soldiers who made it from Dunkirk to Britain, some 10000’s, just to be disarmed by the British and send back to France without their weapons.

Those with some better knowledge about the war know “Operation Catapult”, the destruction of the French fleet in Oran, Mers-el-Kébir, French-Algeria by the British fleet after the ceasefire in France. Less known is that French marine units who made it to Britain were attacked as well. So the submarine Surcouf, were four people died in the fight during the capture of the boat by the British.

I can understand why the British wanted to have control about that boat. The French fleet was inferior to the British between the wars. The only purpose of that submarine could have been as economic raider against the merchant marine. Germany had no navy and barely a merchant marine, so the only power that vessel could be directed against was most likely Britain. The name of the boat, “Surcouf” a French corsair against England, wasn’t a too subtle hint of its intended purpose either.

Back to film making, you are never going to see a film celebrating German Falschirmjäger, really cool exploits, like storming the Fort Eben-Emael (reverse Market Garden), were German paras knocked out a strong bunker fortress and secured a bridge crossing. A combination of “Where Eagles dare” and “Guns of Navarone”, just in real. Neither will there be a film about the capture of Crete by the Falschirmjäger.

Neither are we going to see a film about captain Priem of U-47 and how he sunk the battleship “Royal Oak” in the lair of the home fleet, Scapa Flow.

>>516648

Interesting redpill even if I'm not /pol/

Anyone have documents or news regarding AIP, in particular the Sweedish A-20, Russian Lada, Chinese 039A? Last I heard was the Ruskies redesigned theirs.

HI Ministry of State Security, no I'm not going to drink tea with your employees.

>>516574

> likely killed something

Or there is a new pirate of the Caribbean movie that came out this year…

>>516648

>Those with some better knowledge about the war know “Operation Catapult”, the destruction of the French fleet in Oran, Mers-el-Kébir, French-Algeria by the British fleet after the ceasefire in France. Less known is that French marine units who made it to Britain were attacked as well.

What's even less known is that every french military official both in London and in the fleets themselves (the french and British admirals met regularly) assured systematically that they will never let the french fleet fall into the hands of the Germans. Now the french navy, even more so back then, always prided itself as being old school (it's nickname is "la royale" because most of their officers were still royalists 100 years after it had fell out of fashion) and for their officer words given are bonds and "better death than dishonor" is not some vague concept. So the British sneak attack was perceived (and still is) as a blatant betrayal (even if it kind of wasn't)… but when the German did made a move to get the french fleet in 1942 the officers did decide to scuttle the whole fleet (and to not sail to the allies, despite having the fleet and crew to do so… exactly because of the british betrayal).

>The French fleet was inferior to the British between the wars.

That's disputable, it was inferior in numbers due to the fucking Washington treaty (in which France, winner of WWI with the other half of all the colonies in the worlds, ended with more naval restrictions than Germany…), but Operation Menace, continuation of Catapult, where a commonwealth fleet twice as big try to beat the ships in French West Africa to conquer Senegal, the oldest and most developed french colony in black Africa and failed to do so (despite the french battleship defending the harbor being damaged already and incapable of moving, nor with the proper ammo for it's main batteries and french planes not having any torpedoes…).

After the two UK battleship were damaged (one so bad it had to be towed by the other) and so were half the cruisers they called it quit.

So quality wise modern french ships were on par with the British… there just was a shitload less of them.

Le Fantasque-class destroyers, La Galissonnière-class cruisers and the Dunkerque-class and Richelieu-class battleship were very slick designs (fast, well armored, well armed) that would have fared very well if refit during the war.

>>516893

>>516648

>The French fleet was inferior to the British between the wars.

>That's disputable, it was inferior in numbers

I think the Royal Navy was a paper tiger in the first and second world war. Superior in numbers but with arguable bad material and just sufficient seaman- and leadership.

The Royal Navy was not tested, or there were just small tests always ending with bad marks.

The battle of Jutland clearly showed the Royal Navy's deficits versus a smaller, outnumbered opponent. I believe, that if the German High Sea Fleet, half the size of the Royal Navy, would have sought the engagement with his British counterpart, that would have not ended with an overwhelming German victory, but with the largest part of the British fleet on the bottom of the sea, instantly crippling and removing Britain from the status of a world power. It would have been like Tsushima, while the Japanese were never able to touch the heartland of Russia, did they end Russia's ambitions as a world power.

The second world war also demonstrated the bad quality of the British fleet. Germany’s minuscule fleet could never think of challenging the British, but there were quite a number of engagement were the Royal Navy unperformed. As an example, the Hood, Britain's most powerful battleship, was destroyed with just a few volleys of precise fire of the Bismark, it did blow up like fire work. The second British battleship Prince of Wales, the most modern of the Royal Navy equal to the Bismarck, chickened out and fled. While the Bismarck was latter caught by a British fleet after a lucky hit by a torpedo plane, destroying the rudder and her ability to maneuver it did not sink until the crew scuttled their own ship after all gun batteries were destroyed. The British boasted that half of their projectiles actually hit the incapacitated, unable to maneuver Bismarck. The Prince of Wales had later the dubious fame of being the first battleship, along with Repulse to be destroyed only by air power by Japanese bombers.

Bismarck clearly demonstrated the staying power of German ship building, quality of German guns and seamanship, while the British ships did just blow up and did not hit. Another design which showed remarkable staying power were the Japanese Yamato/Musashi battleships. The US battleships were never tested in battle, but the Iowa managed to blow up their own gun and survive.

>>517063

Doesn't that basically equate to the Soviet version of, "screw quality, build me more tanks" that they used to win eventually?

>>516648

There should be a movie about the Lusitania that was sunk, but have it show that the British were transporting ammo, and how the germans warned the people that they were going to sink it in the newspapers.

>>517083

>>516648

>There should be a movie about the Lusitania that was sunk,

It was a setup, no doubt. The Lusitania was ordered to wait for an escort in waters the British Admiralty did know was patrolled by a German submarine. Ships like the Lusitania were not in serious danger from submarines in open waters under full steam because they were so much faster than them and only slightly slower than torpedoes. So to make her wait, slow cruising was really an invitation for the u-boats, but the captain of the Lusitania was unjustified blamed for it.

The Brits also used hospital ships to transport ammunition. Some excuse it because it were “just spent shells” from France, still illegal. British duplicity, hypocrisy and crass violation of moral standards didn’t know bounds. A British nurse Edith Cavell was allowed to work on German side of the front despite her being an enemy alien, she abused that trust by spying on the Germans and freeing POW. After she was uncovered, found guilty of espionage and shoot, the Brits hypocritical cried about “the murder of nurses”.

>While the First Geneva Convention ordinarily guaranteed protection of medical personnel, that protection was forfeit if used as cover for any belligerent action. This forfeiture is expressed in article 7 of the 1906 version of the Convention, which was the version in force at the time.

>First Secretary of the U.S. legation at Brussels, made clear to the German government that executing Cavell would further harm Germany's already damaged reputation. Later, he wrote:[15]

>We reminded [German civil governor Baron von der Lancken] of the burning of Louvain and the sinking of the Lusitania, and told him that this murder would rank with those two affairs and would stir all civilised countries with horror and disgust.

>Rankin cites the published statement of M. R. D. Foot, historian and Second World War British intelligence officer, as to Cavell having been part of SIS or MI6.[18] The former director-general of MI5, Stella Rimington, announced in 2015 that she had unearthed documents in Belgian military archives that confirmed an intelligence gathering aspect to Cavell's network.

>>517094

What are your views on the undeclared war? In my school they say it was "to protect US shipping".

>>517152

>>517094

>What are your views on the undeclared war? In my school they say it was "to protect US shipping".

If that was the intention, they had to protect US shipping to Germany and the neutral countries, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway which was blockaded by the British Navy.

The British Empire wanted to prevent neutral states to trade with Germany and it’s Alliies.

>>517068

>Doesn't that basically equate to the Soviet version of, "screw quality, build me more tanks" that they used to win eventually?

No because the simple fact is that while the Russians had the resources to build and man more tanks than they were losing, that wasn't the case of the British nor can it really be the case for a fleet.

Ships, are always complicated, time consuming, resource eating things, that need some serious amount of training to perform correctly (even if subpar).

So you will never have a thing were you can just throw ships at the enemy and overwhelm them (at high sea at least, fire boats-> torpedo boats-> missile boats, have proven you can sort of do it in very specific circumstances and use cheap boats with weapons that can fuck up big ones), unless you're fighting an enemy that is already much, much, smaller (industry-wise) than you (which means you were gonna win in the end, anyway if you can afford that type of shit in the first place).

Britain had troubles making battleship even before the war they only managed to put out the King Georges V-class (designed in 1928…), even with US support and clearing the seas of most submarine threat years before the end of the conflict, they couldn't make later designs (Lion, upgraded King George V and Vanguard roughly on par to German Bismark or French Richelieu. That were both complete before the war…). Their loses were hardly replaceable, it might have been possible for the German navy through their probable sacrifice to punch a hole a big enough in the British navy bench it for the rest of war and basically give submarines free reign to siege them.

>>517147

dresden had been evacuated by the time the bombing started. the soviets spread lies about "firebombing innocent civilians" to score political points against the west which they knew they would be at war with soon.

ww2 was just the shape of things to come. a massively publicized war, aided by new technology and the proliferation of radios and film. after that, wars were more commonly fought in the minds of the school children, indoctrinated by belief. like say, the belief that 90% of american history was slave owners killing and betraying native indians.

>>517177

>which was blockaded by the British Navy.

>The British Empire wanted to prevent neutral states to trade with Germany and it’s Alliies.

Isn't that a warcrime?

>>517274

Every European power has argued every side of that as it benefited them at the moment.

>>517274

So was allied behavior in WWII, or in Iraq circa 2003.

War crimes only applies to losers.

>>517274

"Warcrimes" are a nonsensical concept used to further punish losers and nothing else.

>>517312

>war crimes

>allies in Iraq c 2003

and if we can't prove war crimes, we will just make some up, have a british medical journal sign off on it, maybe inflate the use of safety rounds or white phosphorous strictly used as illumination or obscurant smoke as proof that american soldiers are all rapist baby killers but don't you dare question the patriotism of the anti american left.

the dems even attempted to claim that bush started the war "illegally" despite him starting the war without committing a single crime.

>>517883

>he thinks white phosphorous is used strictly as obscurant

pffftttt

Also Bush technically started the war in technical violation of the constitutional rules on whether or not he actually even can declare war, which usually takes an act of congress IIRC.

Oh, and there is clear and convincing evidence he knew there weren't no WMDs in Iraq, so that's another factor there

>>517883

Its not pro or anti america, stop thinking in those terms.

I'm saying its impossible to engage in war without breaking a war crime rule, the entire POINT of the rules was to legislate war out of existance. Later the war crimes rules were just used as punishment for the losing side (wwii).

>>517906

>>517883

>I'm saying its impossible to engage in war without breaking a war crime rule, the entire POINT of the rules was to legislate war out of existance.

That‘s nonsense. The laws of war, Haage conventions etc. were made so splendid little wars could be fought, things did not go out of hand, risk for waging war was reduced.

>>517967

Are you trying to sound like a lying globalist shill?

>>517970

If Great War like WWI WWII kicks off, I will bet you that the countries in a state of total war have little concern for POWs unless they have political influence with them.

One of the most controversial things about the CCP in the WWII was that they technically didn't sign Geneva, and thus the populace demanded them to massacre the nips.

>>502073

Anyone play SH5 with the Wolves of Steel modpack?

I wish someone that wasn't ubisoft made a decent sim that would run on my PC

>argentines btfo

lmao 2bad nonwhites cant swim tbqhwymd

>>517967

>>518124

Great wars weren't a common thing in human history, they were just the final extension of realpolitik.

No one practices realpolitik anymore.