Submarines damage while submerged

[Nathan_Massingham]

Hear me out. I think subs should not be able to get shot while submerged because they are already weak as and they already have huge disadvantages. Also realistically a shell would more likely bounce off the surface of the water hence why I think that it would be better if submarines can’t take damage from main guns while submerged. They also have hardly any health. Make it fair for the submarines 

[Nathan_Massingham]

Hear me out. I think subs should not be able to get shot while submerged because they are already weak as and they already have huge disadvantages. Also realistically a shell would more likely bounce off the surface of the water hence why I think that it would be better if submarines can’t take damage from main guns while submerged. They also have hardly any health. Make it fair for the submarines. Even if you make it so that they can dive deeper so they can avoid the damage from the main guns that would be great. 

 

[Puggsley]

And in WW2 they used solid shells, one hit to any part of the pressure hull was enough to cripple the sub so it could not submerge. And then be sunk.

[Majmac]

3 hours ago, Nathan_Massingham said:

Make it fair for the submarines 

Why? They are roaches that crawl along unseen. They deserve all they get ... and more!

[Paladinum]

No.

 

If subs cannot get shot at while underwater, there will be even less counterplay than there already is. Subs are not weak overall, they are extremely steathy, which is an advantage.

Subs already don't take damage from guns when they are below 20 meters, so what are you even saying?

 

5 hours ago, Nathan_Massingham said:

Also realistically a shell would more likely bounce off the surface of the water

Even a 9 mm cartridge can go some distance into water, so what you say here is completely and utterly wrong. If a 9 mm gun shell can do that, imagine a 152 mm shell or larger. An artillery shell is designed to penetrate steel and concrete, and you say they would bounce off the water "realistically". They are NOT skipping stones.

 

You don't even know the basics of the things you are talking about.

[Mechfori]

then just as realistic they should not had homing torpedo , they should take way more damage when surfaced and in periscope depth , and Depth Charge should deal way more ( if hit )

[UnderTheRadarAgain]

1 hour ago, Mechfori said:

then just as realistic they should not had homing torpedo , they should take way more damage when surfaced and in periscope depth , and Depth Charge should deal way more ( if hit )

Actually the Germans did have acoustic homing torpedoes  in ww2, they had a speed of 24 knots and a range of 5km

 

G7es torpedo - Wikipedia

So in interests of historical accuracy, only the German submarines should use the homing torps, and their speed and range needs to be massively lowered to reflect the true capabilities. Of course they can only be detected by the target ship 100 metres before impact.

 

ps. The American acoustic torpedo was not a traditional torp used by ships or submarines - but a air dropped ASW weapon.

Mark 24 mine - Wikipedia

[Paladinum]

This player posted the same thread over another subforum too.