RamscoopRaider
Donor
Why does a River monitor appear to mount Anti Ship Missiles? Surely Brazil can't be expecting to fight hostile warships on the Amazon, and a gun or even MLRS would be much more useful for providing fire support?
I have a question about ASW warfare in general. Why was Hedgehog replaced by Squid and how was Squid better? If we check Hedgehog's wikipedia page it lists 4 advantages over depth charges:
Yet Squid lacks all but 1 of these advantages (3) because it uses depth charges with time/depth fuses. Hedgehog was also sometimes mounted on rotating barbettes for an arc of fire while Squid appears to always have been fixed in one direction.
So if anything it should be less effective, and Wikipedia seems to confirm this, as Hedgehog's page states it had a kill rate of 1 in 5.7 attacks versus depth charges with a rate of 1 in 60.5 attacks, over 10 times more effective than depth charges. Another source on the same page gives an even higher ratio of 1 kill in 5 attacks versus 1 kill in over 80 with depth charges, making Hedgehog 16 times more effective. Squid's wikipedia page states that it was only 9 times more effective than depth charges and apparently had to be upgraded to Double Squid to be effective, meaning it should have been less effective than Hedgehog. So why did they replace Hedgehog with it?
Now that I was thinking about Hedgehog and associated reloading systems, it reminded me of the volley gun, whose wikipedia page states:
This wouldn't help much against an equally capable or superior submarine force (there's really no counter to that), but for an inferior or incompetent submarine opponent it is interesting to think about.
Yet Squid lacks all but 1 of these advantages (3) because it uses depth charges with time/depth fuses. Hedgehog was also sometimes mounted on rotating barbettes for an arc of fire while Squid appears to always have been fixed in one direction.
So if anything it should be less effective, and Wikipedia seems to confirm this, as Hedgehog's page states it had a kill rate of 1 in 5.7 attacks versus depth charges with a rate of 1 in 60.5 attacks, over 10 times more effective than depth charges. Another source on the same page gives an even higher ratio of 1 kill in 5 attacks versus 1 kill in over 80 with depth charges, making Hedgehog 16 times more effective. Squid's wikipedia page states that it was only 9 times more effective than depth charges and apparently had to be upgraded to Double Squid to be effective, meaning it should have been less effective than Hedgehog. So why did they replace Hedgehog with it?
Now that I was thinking about Hedgehog and associated reloading systems, it reminded me of the volley gun, whose wikipedia page states:
That made me wonder, is it possible to make a sort of "canister Hedgehog" ammunition for Squid, with Hedgehog projectiles packed inside it like a giant shotgun flechette shell? In theory this would give Squid the ability to function as a Hedgehog launcher, while retaining the full abilities of Squid with normal ammunition, and possibly having a better reload time than Hedgehog in both functions.
This wouldn't help much against an equally capable or superior submarine force (there's really no counter to that), but for an inferior or incompetent submarine opponent it is interesting to think about.
McPherson
Banned
[snip]
Shotgun launch means you have to disperse in the air and I see no advantage with this factor over a much simpler ripple launch system like mousetrap? Seriously, though, when it comes to mid WW II type ASW, and mortar type delivery systems one has to take the roiled water situation and the fixed sonar search cone swivels as the limiters and challenges to be overcome. I believe that the most forward thinking people on both sides of the Atlantic on the Wally side accepted that the simplest solution was the contact hit to kill mortar bomb. So it became the RTL solution at the time it was applied. For the physical reasons that were named, namely the limitations of conic fixed sonar and the roiled waters that disrupt the echoes of signal return and the time measurement thereof.
The thing that makes Squid and Hedgehog ultimate failures in the overall schema is when the range limitations come in. By the way Squid had to use time or hydrostatic-fuses to affect targets because the subs had time to dive and maneuver while the charges were in flight to drop where the sub's predicted path and depth would be. Contact detonation charges will not work if time in flight is 30 seconds or more and depth is more than 50 meters. The Squid charges have to be area effect weapons.
Preferentially, the weapon should be a powered signal chase logic weapon with a hit to kill fusing. (FIDO). It, that kind of weapon, can be dropped from aircraft or launched from other platforms. And it can said to be self contained.
I don't like SQUID as a solution. It is a long range long time in flight depth charge. It is just a K-gun on steroids. But I recognize that Mousetrap and Hedgehog are also severely limited because of the inherent range limitations of free flight ballistic mortar hit to kill bombs versus granted maneuver time for the evading sub. Again this is about 30-45 seconds.
I like to put the chase into the weapon because that allows the weapon to close the distance between the target and it without allowing the target to achieve an initiative of evasive maneuver. In WW II that means Able Baker tactics with a searcher platform and engager platforms. Airplanes are for the purposes of this discussion an engager platform.
I prefer the term "time of engagement". If the time of engagement was short, even a Squid could be hit to kill. But beyond 60-90 seconds, we are no longer able to use hit to kill mortar bombs as the sub is dove too deep.
Last edited:
The advantage I had in mind was that it would be possible to build a single weapon that could fire both shotgun Hedgehog shells and regular Squid depth charges.
OK, that makes sense.
The US actually did develop a powered signal chase logic weapon with hit to kill fusing- basically an early ASROC- right after WWII. It was cancelled because even at 5,000 yards (4.6 km) range on prototypes, no sonar in 1950 could detect submarines at anywhere close to that distance. I don't know what the maximum practical range is for unguided ballistic weapons like Squid, but that's probably why weapons like Weapon Alpha and Limbo were still developed in the 1950's. Their range limitations were less than the sonar range limitations at the time.
Something about early ASW weapons of WW2 period:
Hedgehog was an intermediate weapon to start with and proved to be as dangerous to the ship it was mounted on, as to the enemy submarine it was supposed to combat. As a weapon Hedgehog was a nightmare for the operating crew, and a liability on the ship, it was mounted on, as the weapon was prone to many sorts of defects and uncontrolled explosions, being a crude sort of mortar, with a relatively large amount of propellant charges of unstable explosives. Seawater and rust could easily find its way in the launch tubes, causing all sorts of hazards, often jamming projectiles and causing these to explode when launched.
Squid was always intended to be the primary forward- or bow facing ASW weapon, though belayed by developing troubles. Squid fired a more traditional depth charge weapon in the direction of the detected underwater contact at a given depth of setting, unlike the direct contact warheads of the smaller Hedgehog projectile. In other terms: Hedgehog was more like a shotgun type of weapon, that had to score direct hits on a relatively small target in a general direction, where Squid was a radius blast effect type of weapon, that covered a larger range of effect.
Hedgehog was an intermediate weapon to start with and proved to be as dangerous to the ship it was mounted on, as to the enemy submarine it was supposed to combat. As a weapon Hedgehog was a nightmare for the operating crew, and a liability on the ship, it was mounted on, as the weapon was prone to many sorts of defects and uncontrolled explosions, being a crude sort of mortar, with a relatively large amount of propellant charges of unstable explosives. Seawater and rust could easily find its way in the launch tubes, causing all sorts of hazards, often jamming projectiles and causing these to explode when launched.
Squid was always intended to be the primary forward- or bow facing ASW weapon, though belayed by developing troubles. Squid fired a more traditional depth charge weapon in the direction of the detected underwater contact at a given depth of setting, unlike the direct contact warheads of the smaller Hedgehog projectile. In other terms: Hedgehog was more like a shotgun type of weapon, that had to score direct hits on a relatively small target in a general direction, where Squid was a radius blast effect type of weapon, that covered a larger range of effect.
Mousetrap was the same thing as the Hedgehog, though the seperate launchbox of the later being ommited and the mortarbombs simply attatched to the shield of the main gun(s) on launchrails.
McPherson
Banned
MOUSETRAP was rocket propelled as a "wooden round" rocket boosted free flight underwater bomb launched from a rail setup which was not aimable. Hedgehog was spigot mortar launched and was aimable.
Last edited:
It didn't have to be fixed though, the Soviet RBU series are about the same design and are aimable like the rotating Hedgehog platforms.
Here's a new one that I had not heard of before. The K-2 submarine, a design that would carry 41 Swallow cruise missiles - a Soviet version of the German V-1. Or 12 R-1 rockets, the Soviet copy of the V-2.
I am so sad that wasn't built.
Can you imagine the effects of this submarine continually failing killing off the experts or having them count trees in Siberia?
Plus that is a gold mine for any US sub or destroyer captain.
McPherson
Banned
Latest version.
Comments.
1. The launcher, loaded, all up weight is about 8,000 kilograms.
2. It relies on the Burya Fire control system which means the weapon actually outranges the average signal detection threshold interval of the Russian sonar system that supports it by a factor of 0.3
3. The 90 RKU development is a belated admission that the original RKU 60 was totally ineffective. The sink charge has an active sonar steer to hit signal chaser that pings away and relies on gravity and tail control to bring the bomb close enough for a proximity fuse to set it off. Problem? It is a salvo weapon. What happens when two, four or more of them are pinging away in close proximity? Customers should think about that one.
4. Still have the time in flight problem. Mister Sub hears the launch blast. Also if a torpedo is not on its way in homing on that noise then that sub deserves to die.
5. The decoy noisemaker feature is worthless against a wake-homer.
6. It is claimed to kill up to 1000 meters depth. Problem. With a 10 m/s sink rate in either version, that is 40 seconds in the air and 100 seconds to sink. 140 seconds for a 20 m/s torpedo to home on wake. By the time the bombs get there, Mister Sub has not only launched, but he has maneuvered to evade. You are D>E>A>D. As for Mister Sub, what is he doing? The crew is a bit deaf and reloading for round two.
That is assuming it is a D/E boat with standard torpedoes and FCS and a well trained crew. If the guy is a nuke or D/E equipped with decent flank arrays and Mark 48s or their French equivalents? He has a reach and signal threshold detection advantage.
If that is the case, why deploy such a system? Because most sub operators are not that good, their torpedoes and sensors advantage is misused and it, the RBU, will work as a revenge weapon in that case. Everybody dies, both Mister Sub and Mister Средний корабль ракеты стрельбы (Medium Rocket Launching Ship, i.e. destroyer) and sometimes that is the best the Russians can achieve, but it is enough in their (still Marxist driven) calculus of war by the numbers.
Last edited:
McPherson
Banned
Here's a new one that I had not heard of before. The K-2 submarine, a design that would carry 41 Swallow cruise missiles - a Soviet version of the German V-1. Or 12 R-1 rockets, the Soviet copy of the V-2.
R-1 Scunner
Hope that sub would have carried a pet cat or two dozen, because when the Russians tried to field-ex their R-1s in 1948 army maneuvers they found MICE in the wiring, chewing away happily as the rodents they were. BOOM. Own goals is not just an American problem.
Hope that sub would have carried a pet cat or two dozen, because when the Russians tried to field-ex their R-1s in 1948 army maneuvers they found MICE in the wiring, chewing away happily as the rodents they were. BOOM. Own goals is not just an American problem.
Last edited:
That would've ended the US taking the threat of the USSR seriously though for several years
Here's a new one that I had not heard of before. The K-2 submarine, a design that would carry 41 Swallow cruise missiles - a Soviet version of the German V-1. Or 12 R-1 rockets, the Soviet copy of the V-2.
..... Where do the crew live exactly?
Crew? Crew! Good lord, man, this is a warship not some cruise liner, wherever they fit, of course...
I think they live in those 2 side pressure hulls (the Soviets liked to put multiple pressure hulls in their submarines).
So like coal bunkers of old, they also act as extra shielding for the primary hull?