Concepts: Today's similarities and differences to the HV

penny wrote:

MantiMerchie wrote:Flight deck and flight control likely survive for CLACs.

Conning tower likely not.

I don't think we've seen enough about the LD to make a comparison to subs.

Sent from my SM-A516U using Tapatalk

Good point. Closest I could access a similarity is with ACS. Although they are usually civilians. ACS might have some version of a conning tower, inasmuch as the best location for the platform's sensors to see what's coming in or out of the terminus.

Note that in WWII the conning tower was often not the best place to see what was happening. Royal Navy captains fairly famously preferred to command from the open bridge rather than retreat into the more survivable (but much harder to see out of) conning towers. (The bridge was both higher and had far better visibility -- and the lookout stations and radar were higher still)

Of course on subs it's a bit of a different thing, the conning tower (also called the sail) was sometimes the only bit of deck high enough to be safe to stand on when operating on the surface. But even surfaced the periscope or radar (if present) would be up above the conning tower and thus able see further than crew manning the conning tower.

So if there is a spot for the best placement of ACS sensors it isn't likely it'd be called a conning tower. (After all it's a conning tower -- a place to conn a ship -- not a sensor tower, crows nest, or radar mast)

EKB wrote:In a case of science-fiction recursion, "according to Rear Admiral Cal Laning, the idea for a command information center was taken “specifically, consciously, and directly” from the spaceship Directrix in the Lensman novels of E. E. Smith, Ph.D., and influenced by the works of his friend and collaborator Robert Heinlein, a retired American naval officer."
Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_in ... evelopment

So the CICs in the Honorverse space navies can trace their ancestry back not just to real-world wet navies, but also through them to those older science fiction stories.

One of my first school field trips as a kid was to see the Battleship North Carolina. My best friend and I couldn’t wait to make a beeline to CIC. After all of these years I am still in awe.

Thanks for that interesting fact.

****** *

Again, I wasn’t aware that the subs of that time used decoys. And again, I suggested somewhere on this forum that the LDs might be able to do the same; release some sort of platform that might simulate a spider drive. Do note that I suggested that tactic only for the LD, because I assumed that such a device/platform would be quite large and the LD should have the space to carry at least a few of them.

My point is that the German version was the size of an icebox. Which was a formidable size in comparison to the subs at the time. They probably couldn’t afford to carry many of them.

penny wrote:

MantiMerchie wrote:Flight deck and flight control likely survive for CLACs.

Conning tower likely not.

I don't think we've seen enough about the LD to make a comparison to subs.

Sent from my SM-A516U using Tapatalk

Good point. Closest I could access a similarity is with ACS. Although they are usually civilians. ACS might have some version of a conning tower, inasmuch as the best location for the platform's sensors to see what's coming in or out of the terminus.

Jonsthan_S wrote:Note that in WWII the conning tower was often not the best place to see what was happening. Royal Navy captains fairly famously preferred to command from the open bridge rather than retreat into the more survivable (but much harder to see out of) conning towers. (The bridge was both higher and had far better visibility -- and the lookout stations and radar were higher still)

Of course on subs it's a bit of a different thing, the conning tower (also called the sail) was sometimes the only bit of deck high enough to be safe to stand on when operating on the surface. But even surfaced the periscope or radar (if present) would be up above the conning tower and thus able see further than crew manning the conning tower.

So if there is a spot for the best placement of ACS sensors it isn't likely it'd be called a conning tower. (After all it's a conning tower -- a place to conn a ship -- not a sensor tower, crows nest, or radar mast)

https://science.howstuffworks.com/aircr ... er%20group.

Not the conning tower, per se, of a carrier, but the next level down. The bridge. But still a lot higher than the flight deck itself.

Just like the Pri-Fly, the bridge is outfitted with an array of high-end monitors, including GPS receivers and many radar screens. But the commanding officer and his team still rely heavily on their own eyes to keep tabs on activity around the ship.

The level below the bridge is the flag bridge, the command center for the admiral in charge of the entire carrier group. Below that, there are various operational centers, including the flight deck control and launch operations room. In this tight, windowless space, the aircraft handling officer (also called the handler or mangler) and his or her crew keep track of all the aircraft on the flight deck and in the hangar.

The handler's primary tracking tool is the "Ouija Board," a two-level transparent plastic table with etched outlines of the flight deck and hangar deck. Each aircraft is represented by a scale aircraft cut-out on the table. When a real plane moves from point to point, the handler moves the model plane accordingly. When the plane is out of service, because it needs repair work, the handler turns it over.

Jonathan_S wrote:Note that in WWII the conning tower was often not the best place to see what was happening. Royal Navy captains fairly famously preferred to command from the open bridge rather than retreat into the more survivable (but much harder to see out of) conning towers. (The bridge was both higher and had far better visibility -- and the lookout stations and radar were higher still)

Of course on subs it's a bit of a different thing, the conning tower (also called the sail) was sometimes the only bit of deck high enough to be safe to stand on when operating on the surface. But even surfaced the periscope or radar (if present) would be up above the conning tower and thus able see further than crew manning the conning tower.

So if there is a spot for the best placement of ACS sensors it isn't likely it'd be called a conning tower. (After all it's a conning tower -- a place to conn a ship -- not a sensor tower, crows nest, or radar mast)

About periscope depth. I always wondered whether subs could see the Morse Code sent between ships in the Navy. It would be hard to believe the enemy didn't know Morse Code?

penny wrote:About periscope depth. I always wondered whether subs could see the Morse Code sent between ships in the Navy. It would be hard to believe the enemy didn't know Morse Code?

They could, if they were in the right spot. I recall from George Grider's WWII sub memoir War Fish that at one point they saw a Japanese escort flashing away with its signal lamp.

But those signal lamps are pretty directional, so you need to be close and in the right direction to see it.

Of course being able to recognize the letters of Morse code when the ship is foreign might not be all that helpful. Sure if they're signaling another nation's ship they'd presumably be using something standardized. But communicating with other ships of their nationality in a convoy or fleet formation they're likely to mostly be using their own naval shorthand code (which random sub officers likely wouldn't know; even if naval intelligence did) -- and anything spelled out would be spelled out in their language.
So you'd need to know Morse and know the enemy's language well enough to do the conversions in your head in real time.

(And frankly even in WWII a sub didn't generally want to leave its periscope up long enough to try to 'eavesdrop' on a message. Much more interested minimizing periscope time to reduce likelihood of getting spotted as they work into attack position (or out to make a sighting report; depending on orders)

Old HV hands will know that RFC is a well respected Naval Historian. His stories are drawn from OTL history (particularly the period of about 1880 to 1946), but inspired by the Hornblower stories from prior to that.
During that period naval technology exploded from centuries of how it had always been done, to continual new developments.
If you are able, spend a day at the Portsmouth base and museum. They have the remains of the Mary Rose (one of the first gunpowder armed ships), to the Victory (the last fully muzzle loading ship of the line), to the Warrior which had everything (sails, steam, iron armour, muzzle loaders and breech loaders). Outside of that are modern day missile equipped destroyers and such.

Jonathan_S wrote:

penny wrote:About periscope depth. I always wondered whether subs could see the Morse Code sent between ships in the Navy. It would be hard to believe the enemy didn't know Morse Code?

They could, if they were in the right spot. I recall from George Grider's WWII sub memoir War Fish that at one point they saw a Japanese escort flashing away with its signal lamp.

But those signal lamps are pretty directional, so you need to be close and in the right direction to see it.

Of course being able to recognize the letters of Morse code when the ship is foreign might not be all that helpful. Sure if they're signaling another nation's ship they'd presumably be using something standardized. But communicating with other ships of their nationality in a convoy or fleet formation they're likely to mostly be using their own naval shorthand code (which random sub officers likely wouldn't know; even if naval intelligence did) -- and anything spelled out would be spelled out in their language.
So you'd need to know Morse and know the enemy's language well enough to do the conversions in your head in real time.

(And frankly even in WWII a sub didn't generally want to leave its periscope up long enough to try to 'eavesdrop' on a message. Much more interested minimizing periscope time to reduce likelihood of getting spotted as they work into attack position (or out to make a sighting report; depending on orders)

In the movie the subs were depicted as predators who preferred to hunt at night, as predators often do. In one scene the captain of the sub’s taunting included “We can always see you Greyhound. You cannot slip away from us. The seas favor the wolf on the hunt. Not the hound on the run.”

I don’t think the subs were worried about being spotted by their periscope in the pitch black of night. The destroyers couldn’t see a darn thing. In fact, in one scene the destroyer barely missed colliding with a freighter at least five times its size while maneuvering against the sub. I wonder if the sub planned it that way.

Anyhow, there was a five-pack of wolves shadowing the convoy. One got in-between Greyhound and the convoy. He surely should have been able to see any signals. It would also make sense that reading Morse code would be a prerequisite of the sub’s sailors.

The signal lamps might have been directional, but the convoy could not see the escorting destroyer(s) in the dark. There was a casualty from friendly fire because the other destroyer didn’t know that the Greyhound was in the line of fire from the sub. Limited visibility at night seemed to hinder the movements of the convoy making them sitting ducks at night. That fact also showcased the limited utility of “Huff Duff.” High frequency direction finding.

At night the convoy would tend to get separated a bit. They couldn't see, and the wolf would be frightening them. So even with a directional lamp they shouldn't know where to direct it to.

penny wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:They could, if they were in the right spot. I recall from George Grider's WWII sub memoir War Fish that at one point they saw a Japanese escort flashing away with its signal lamp.

But those signal lamps are pretty directional, so you need to be close and in the right direction to see it.

Of course being able to recognize the letters of Morse code when the ship is foreign might not be all that helpful. Sure if they're signaling another nation's ship they'd presumably be using something standardized. But communicating with other ships of their nationality in a convoy or fleet formation they're likely to mostly be using their own naval shorthand code (which random sub officers likely wouldn't know; even if naval intelligence did) -- and anything spelled out would be spelled out in their language.
So you'd need to know Morse and know the enemy's language well enough to do the conversions in your head in real time.

(And frankly even in WWII a sub didn't generally want to leave its periscope up long enough to try to 'eavesdrop' on a message. Much more interested minimizing periscope time to reduce likelihood of getting spotted as they work into attack position (or out to make a sighting report; depending on orders)

In the movie the subs were depicted as predators who preferred to hunt at night, as predators often do. In one scene the captain of the sub’s taunting included “We can always see you Greyhound. You cannot slip away from us. The seas favor the wolf on the hunt. Not the hound on the run.”

I don’t think the subs were worried about being spotted by their periscope in the pitch black of night. The destroyers couldn’t see a darn thing. In fact, in one scene the destroyer barely missed colliding with a freighter at least five times its size while maneuvering against the sub. I wonder if the sub planned it that way.

Anyhow, there was a five-pack of wolves shadowing the convoy. One got in-between Greyhound and the convoy. He surely should have been able to see any signals. It would also make sense that reading Morse code would be a prerequisite of the sub’s sailors.

The signal lamps might have been directional, but the convoy could not see the escorting destroyer(s) in the dark. There was a casualty from friendly fire because the other destroyer didn’t know that the Greyhound was in the line of fire from the sub. Limited visibility at night seemed to hinder the movements of the convoy making them sitting ducks at night. That fact also showcased the limited utility of “Huff Duff.” High frequency direction finding.

At night the convoy would tend to get separated a bit. They couldn't see, and the wolf would be frightening them. So even with a directional lamp they shouldn't know where to direct it to.

A fair bit of that is Hollywood license.

Most nights aren't pitch dark -- you can see a surprising amount by moonlight. Especially the white spray that a periscope would kick up as it cut through the dark seas.

And in some areas (like parts of the Pacific) there's bioluminescent stuff in the sea that'd light up when disturbed - so a periscope would cause a glowing trail.

And of course as the war went on Allied escorts got radars capable of picking up even a periscope or snorkel if the sea wasn't extremely rough -- so even attacking on the new moon wouldn't help.

Also WWII subs generally aren't fast, nor have sufficient submerged high speed endurance, enough to pick their time to attack. Sure, they prefer to attack at night. But if a convoy comes into range during daylight they generally don't have the luxury of waiting for nightfall -- by that point the convoy would be long gone. Even a slow (8 knot) convoy is nearly as fast as most submerged WWII subs -- and the convoy can maintain that speed for days while a sub can generally manage to maintain that submerged speed for an hour or so. If they want to stalk a convoy until dark they have to do so on the surface where they can use their diesels -- but where they're far easier to spot.


And yes, while there were the occasional friendly fire incident, or some ships getting separated from a convoy in the night (though during bad weather was more common) it wasn't all the time every night. The movie compresses a bunch of incidents together to make itself more dramatic.

penny wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:They could, if they were in the right spot. I recall from George Grider's WWII sub memoir War Fish that at one point they saw a Japanese escort flashing away with its signal lamp.

But those signal lamps are pretty directional, so you need to be close and in the right direction to see it.

Of course being able to recognize the letters of Morse code when the ship is foreign might not be all that helpful. Sure if they're signaling another nation's ship they'd presumably be using something standardized. But communicating with other ships of their nationality in a convoy or fleet formation they're likely to mostly be using their own naval shorthand code (which random sub officers likely wouldn't know; even if naval intelligence did) -- and anything spelled out would be spelled out in their language.
So you'd need to know Morse and know the enemy's language well enough to do the conversions in your head in real time.

(And frankly even in WWII a sub didn't generally want to leave its periscope up long enough to try to 'eavesdrop' on a message. Much more interested minimizing periscope time to reduce likelihood of getting spotted as they work into attack position (or out to make a sighting report; depending on orders)

In the movie the subs were depicted as predators who preferred to hunt at night, as predators often do. In one scene the captain of the sub’s taunting included “We can always see you Greyhound. You cannot slip away from us. The seas favor the wolf on the hunt. Not the hound on the run.”

I don’t think the subs were worried about being spotted by their periscope in the pitch black of night. The destroyers couldn’t see a darn thing. In fact, in one scene the destroyer barely missed colliding with a freighter at least five times its size while maneuvering against the sub. I wonder if the sub planned it that way.

Anyhow, there was a five-pack of wolves shadowing the convoy. One got in-between Greyhound and the convoy. He surely should have been able to see any signals. It would also make sense that reading Morse code would be a prerequisite of the sub’s sailors.

The signal lamps might have been directional, but the convoy could not see the escorting destroyer(s) in the dark. There was a casualty from friendly fire because the other destroyer didn’t know that the Greyhound was in the line of fire from the sub. Limited visibility at night seemed to hinder the movements of the convoy making them sitting ducks at night. That fact also showcased the limited utility of “Huff Duff.” High frequency direction finding.

At night the convoy would tend to get separated a bit. They couldn't see, and the wolf would be frightening them. So even with a directional lamp they shouldn't know where to direct it to.

Jonathan_S wrote:A fair bit of that is Hollywood license.

Most nights aren't pitch dark -- you can see a surprising amount by moonlight. Especially the white spray that a periscope would kick up as it cut through the dark seas.

And in some areas (like parts of the Pacific) there's bioluminescent stuff in the sea that'd light up when disturbed - so a periscope would cause a glowing trail.

And of course as the war went on Allied escorts got radars capable of picking up even a periscope or snorkel if the sea wasn't extremely rough -- so even attacking on the new moon wouldn't help.

Also WWII subs generally aren't fast, nor have sufficient submerged high speed endurance, enough to pick their time to attack. Sure, they prefer to attack at night. But if a convoy comes into range during daylight they generally don't have the luxury of waiting for nightfall -- by that point the convoy would be long gone. Even a slow (8 knot) convoy is nearly as fast as most submerged WWII subs -- and the convoy can maintain that speed for days while a sub can generally manage to maintain that submerged speed for an hour or so. If they want to stalk a convoy until dark they have to do so on the surface where they can use their diesels -- but where they're far easier to spot.


And yes, while there were the occasional friendly fire incident, or some ships getting separated from a convoy in the night (though during bad weather was more common) it wasn't all the time every night. The movie compresses a bunch of incidents together to make itself more dramatic.

In the movie, one of the tactics of the pack is for one or two subs to trail and attack the convoy; even in daylight because the initial confrontation would have surprise on its side. Sometimes the sub tries to cripple, not destroy one of the sheep to slow down the convoy's speed as a whole. If a ship is damaged but seaworthy, it will not be abandoned. The rest of the pack casts a net for the running hounds to become ensnared. Zig-zagging slows down the convoy quite a bit. Especially when the waters are infested by wolves with shark-like teeth. A single sub startles the pack and causes them to accelerate faster than sonar speed.

“We’re at sonar speed.”

The Greyhound had to slow down for “sonar speed.” I have suggested that GA ships and GR drones cannot go speeding off into the dark of night in hopes that they will detect a stealthy spider. I recall that on dark country roads it is possible to outrun the coverage of your headlights.

penny wrote:
“We’re at sonar speed.”

The Greyhound had to slow down for “sonar speed.” I have suggested that GA ships and GR drones cannot go speeding off into the dark of night in hopes that they will detect a stealthy spider. I recall that on dark country roads it is possible to outrun the coverage of your headlights.

"Sonar Speed" is the result of an issue caused by the noise of water against the hull created when your ship moves too fast - the noise of the water moving past the sensors blinds them. Less of an issue in the era of digital filters and slicker hull forms, but still an issue to this day.

In the Honorverse, ships drones wouldn't have the same issue with radar and lidar until they hit a velocity .6-.8c when the particle density is too high to see through and blinds the sensors (and collapses the particle shields).