Senior Member
Senior Member
Yuppers, Ya definitely can't get Flank Happy with limited fuel . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Wolferz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bextu:
I just got tired of this and said to hell with it and as much as I hated to do it I turned on unlimited fuel.
Have ANY of you read what Ducimus wrote?? Have nay of you read books with info on how fleet boats operated or the stats for fuel usage range etc??? Honestly so many people want to play this as an arcade game, no ships ran at full or flank speed unless in combat!!! This is hopeless.Originally posted by Croaker711:
I have seen the bug impact me in that I do what others have done. Full/Flank from Pearl to Midway and then 2/3 (11-12 knots) to Honshu. Getting to my patrol station at roughly 75/100 fuel used (hadn't checked the actual count but the meter showed a 1/4 tank used).
I am confident there is a bug, but can't say for sure what causes it, that makes the fuel consumption run outside of what is intended.
Senior Member
I have the books home to give you detailed data about fuel consumption and range. Not sure though if the ballast tanks filled with fuel happened at the start of the war or upon getting a refit (or refuelling), mainly because ditching so much valuable fuel in the ocean in face of danger would be so pointless.
I will get back to you about this.
Member
The answer is indeed simple. The game models `best range speed` in one method, and one method only - moderate speed = calculated range.
It was stated earlier by someone that American Fleet Subs rushed to ther patrol areas. That is incorrect. They may have been foreced to rush AROUND their patrol areas, but the fact of the matter was that up to the Balao class the boats were operating at the limits of their endurance and fuel was ALWAYS a most important consideration. NO PERSON OTHER THAN THE SKIPPER AND NAVIGATOR was responsible for deciding how fast a boat should travel, and their judgement was based on fuel to be used to get there AND back, and leaving enough to do something worthwhile while in the patrol area. In fact, slowing to 1/3 speed to reduce fuel usage is the way that these boats operated - O'Kane was an extreme example, but by no means alone in sitting engines off to preserve fuel and increase listening capacity. This tactic is meaningless to us, as hydrophones do not function on the surface, so bimbling about at 1/3 speed when in the patrol area (and therefore with no particular time/location equation to consider) is the valid option. As Ducimus has noted, the depletion of batteries also implies a fuel burn `cost`, so this approach applies equally whether surfaced or submerged, but mindful of what I said earlier that using the batteries does not consume fuel, only recharging them does.
Even today there isn't a conventional submarine that can maintain cruising averages in the `teens` of knots and still make a reasonable range. It's complex physics, but drag increases as a SQUARE of the SPEED, so every knot above `best range speed` costs exhorbitant amounts of diesel. And that IS most assuredly simulated in the game, as Ducimus says.
Quite clearly, those that are looking to operate this product as a simplistic shoot'em'up can make use of the unlimited fuel option. For everyone else, the challenge of being able to do fuel calculations - and sometimes have to turn down a `job` because the fuel state won't permit is a worthwhile jolt of realism. There is a very good reason why the Nav screens include options of `time to end` and `best range at current speed` - so you can have the imapct of your speed and routing decisions seen right there on screen, without having to do the math.
Any travel time/fuel burn comparison as quoted above is meaningless, unless the weather stays fixed. And it doesn't. The difference for a given speed setting can be as much as 50% - at 2/3 setting 11-12 knots can easily be just 7-8 if the sea state won't comply and the weather won't play ball. THEN the challenge is to use the tools at your disposal (and your intelligence) to calculate whether it is best to slow down, speed up, or continue at the same throttle setting.
And we haven't considered the impact of going to a fixed knots setting rather than the usual engine speed, which can also pay dividends in the endurance:range ratio, as it compensates for weather effects.
Senior Member
I have to say, that the majoirty of my sub simming for a number of years now has been in long range patrols. In both Sh3 via type 9 uboats and in Sh4 where long range patrols are pretty much standard fare. So I have to admit, this topic frustrates me when people seemingly dont understand why they're short on fuel.
Senior Member
They used them in the beginning of the war. Throughout the war as well. This tank was drained first to the engines and then the saddle tanks were used. Each engine had a water/fuel separater. Fuel was never ditched in the ocean. The tank would fill with sea water as the fuel was consumed and the fuel would float on top of the water. Trimming was done with this tank using either the full tank of fuel or the full tank of water. There was always some liquid in the tank for trimming. Once done, the tank was pure sea water from that point on.Originally posted by krazyfrenchman:
I have the books home to give you detailed data about fuel consumption and range. Not sure though if the ballast tanks filled with fuel happened at the start of the war or upon getting a refit (or refuelling), mainly because ditching so much valuable fuel in the ocean in face of danger would be so pointless.
I will get back to you about this.
Be that as it may, the realistic fuel adds realism to me in leaps and bounds. It is part of the simulation as a skipper and real consideration for action you might take. If you want to hot rod around the Pacific, us unlimited fuel, be happy! If you want to have other consideration in your game play, limit the fuel and work it to the best of your ability. I have ran dry once and it was poor decision making on my part. Sometimes I head home with a few torpedoes as I'm low on fuel. The game does not care if you come home with torps. It cares if you make your appointed rounds.
Junior Member
I guess I did not make myself clear previously.
I refit at Midway to refuel after heading there from Pearl at Full speed. Tank was full when I left Midway for Honshu running at 2/3 speed (11-12 knots).
Proceeded to Honshu Patrol area at 2/3 (11-12 knots)speed, arrived with 3/4 tank full. Patrolled for 2-3 days and ran out of torps when I still had 67/100 fuel left (i.e. well over 1/2 tank left).
I then headed directly back to Midway and was not able to make it as I was at least a day out of Midway still (started at the coast of Honshu at 67/100 fuel in my tank) before I ran out of fuel. I ran at 2/3 speed as I had used to get into the area (where, again, I used 1/4 of my fuel).
Explain to me how I am screwing things up here? How can I have 67/100 fuel and not make it back to Midway for a refit on fuel before prceeding to Pearl.
I used 2/3 speed, as I did on my way out to Honshu. On my way out I used 1/4 of my fuel, and on the way back I used more than 67/100 of my fuel. I never was able to make it back to Midway for that refit.
Along with the extra fuel consumption rate, I also had issues where the time compression would not seem to work past 512x speed.
If someone can explain how that happens and still fits into the game mechanics correctly, I would appreciate it.
But 1/4 fuel out from Midway (as seen on the fuel gauge tool at the bottom of the screen), and then more than 67/100 back to Midway is not right when using the same speed setting both ways.
I also tried running back to Midway from the same point on the Honshu coast at 1/3 speed and ran out of fuel the same day or so out of Midway, so reducing speed even more did not help.
btw, I understand the idea of fuel limiting your patrol. I would have returned to Midway if I still had torps, but was closing on 1/4 fuel left ( I would have left the patrol area before I thought I was close to running out of fuel. So, while I appreciate the point you're making, I am aware that I shouldn't stay out beyond my fuel capacity (as I think is evidenced as I was returning from my patrol area with 67/100 fuel remaining).
Senior Member
Snavesuk and Ducimus, I agree with both of you, but before the first patch for SH4, I could not understand why I was roaming the seas as if I was leaking fuel: I was going to a 10 to 12 knot cruising speed and I was always coming short, only the "unlimited battery bug" provided me with the necessary power to reach PH. But upon understanding that damage to my batteries would result in heavy alternator-to-battery drainage seriously hampering my normal fuel consumption, then it became understandable. The only thing that I continue to disapprove is, once you go through serious US Submarine literature, the battery sets' capacity from 1935 were meant for a submarine to go from 2.0 to 2.5 knots for 48 HOURS!! Main boats before the Salmon class had it for 36 hours. Right now, I can barely reach 14 hours at the same speed...
Alright, here are the promised data, it can be long to read (but longer to type, TRUST ME!) yet you'll have a better understanding.
[For the Salmon-class]
Characteristics were issued in Feb. 1935. Because oil no longer would be stowed in main ballast tanks, a distinction between normal endurance (using fuel in oil tanks) and maximum endurance (using oil in ballast tanks) was not needed. Required sea speed was still 17 kt, but now it had to be maintained at deeper displacement (maximum fuel load), with enough reserve power to recharge the main batteries in 8 hr (an increased load given increased battery capacity). This apparently trivial change entailed a major increased in power. Similarly, the 11,000-nm cruising radius now took into account a 30 percent reserve for battery charging. Reserve buoyancy (for sea-keeping) was calculated on the basis of full (formerly "emergency"), rather than normal, load. On this basis, for example, the 36 percent reserve buoyancy of the Porpoises fell to 14.5 percent. Corresponding figures for the Salmon class were 34.2 abd 18.2 percent. It was generally agreed that a long-range submarine needed 20-25 percent reserve buoyancy. BuShips later said that this FY 36 submarine (Salmon class [22 182]) was designed really to accompany the fleet.
[For the Sargo class]
The six FY 37 submarines (Sargo class, SS 188-193) generally repeated the FY 36 design. Inspired by the Submarine Officers Conference, the General Board required that the submarine maintain its sustained sea speed (17 kt) on three engines (i.e. with one down for repairs). It required 25 percent reserve buoyancy. Some officers associated the 17-tk requirement with the new standard auxiliary ship speed of 16.5 kt (like submarines, major auxiliaries were expected to cruise to the western Pacific with the main fleet). The conference wanted sea speed maintained with sufficient reserve to recharge the storage batteries with 2,000 BHP (a figure deleted by the General Board) or in minimum time within permissible battery limits. This change from previous langyage much simplified BuEng's problem. Dual-purpose (fuel-ballast) tanks were again prohibited. FY 38, a 4 boat contract for Sargo class submarines was granted, following the previous requirements demanded in FY 37.
[For the Tambor class and the Gar class]
Oil fuel once again could be stowed in certain main ballast tanks (two thirds were carried in the main fuel tanks). [FY 39 = Tambor class]
On 17 Dec. 1938, the secretary of the navy decided that the large submarines would duplicate the FY 39 boats.[...] [Note: But for a notable exception) The general Board wanted FY 40 boats strenghtened for 300 ft if that could be done without delay. It wanted 300 ft in the next class, if that could be done without changing the rated collapse depth [500 ft]. [FY 40 = Gar class]
-----------------------------------
Note to AVGWarhawk: thanks for the explanation. but upon reading about it and all, I need to point out that once you dive --and still having fuel or not in your ballast tanks-- it would leave a trail of fuel on the water because once you surfaced, oil-soaked water is expelled either way normally or through leaks.
Meaning that:
A submarine attacking a enemy's fleet faced patrolling aircraft. They could appear even when the submarine was not inviting attention during attacks. For example, pilots might always spot a periscope's feather, hense the intense prewar interest in attacks based on sound alone. Pilots could easily spot a submarine's oil slicks. Although a submarine could extend her range by storing fuel in the main ballast tanks, leaky tanks unfortunately left an oil slick. Even after the oil had been exhausted, it left a film on the inside of the tank that produced a new slick every time seawater ran out of the tank. Oil was caught in pockets, and it stuck to the tank sides and to the inside of the superstructure. Oil attacked the preservative with which fuel ballast tanks were painted to form a mixture that gummed up fuel lines. Dual purpose tanks were eliminated in the FY 36 submarines. In 1935, however, Subron (Submarine Squadron) 6 had reported that oil slicks could be avoided by repeatedly filling and blowing while on the surface. Dual tankage was too attractive to be foregone; it was restored in later classes. [read the above excerpts.]
------------------------
I truly hope that all this shed some light on what you were all wondering.
Senior Member
As stated above, we have been over this a hundred times. The folks that "don't get it" never will, but for those of you who just can't grasp the concepts. try these simple rules:
1. Fuel consumption is a major problem on the long haul patrols from Pearl Harbor to areas off Japan.
2. Refuel coming and going at Midway. This adds about 3,000 miles to your patrol range.
3. Set your speed for 10 - 11 knots outbound from Midway until you return to Midway for maximum range (it's actually better that ahead 1/3)
4. If your batteries are damaged and will not recharge to 100% go to standard propulsion when you have as much of a charge as you are going to get or you are going to use a ton of fuel for no good reason.
OK, that's it, no physics, trim tanks or higher level math.
Junior Member
Thank you for your explanation of how to play the game and work around this BUG.
The design specs for the boats and SH4 do not match and this is an issue that has always been a problem with all the SH series.
I do understand it is a game and not a sim, but it is disappointing none the less.
regards, Mark
