Ohio revision

[Arceus0x]

I have made this calculation

Submarine KE

vsbattles.fandom.com

I have made a revision before but i'd say it wasn't organized well enough and it was dead anyways so here we go.

I believe Ohio-class sub should scale to the calc in question

I also want to scale those who were stated to destroy and damage nuclear submarines or specifically US ones to the values presented since they'd need at least that much AP to actually do enough damage to destroy it.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Alright, some important things to note:

• Both Submarines suffered major damage from these events taking years to repair
• In order to actually scale to their full KE, you would need to prove that the Submarine had its entire momentum stopped rather than striking it and running through or bouncing off at an angle

It's probably some Tier 9 thing, but I doubt any real object of that mass can withstand it's momentum suddenly stopping.

 

[Arceus0x]

Alright, some important things to note:

• Both Submarines suffered major damage from these events taking years to repair
• In order to actually scale to their full KE, you would need to prove that the Submarine had its entire momentum stopped rather than striking it and running through or bouncing off at an angle

It's probably some Tier 9 thing, but I doubt any real object of that mass can withstand it's momentum suddenly stopping.

doubt isn't really much without proof. In my calc i provided evidence that they tanked slamming into a sea mount

in this article we see the image of it and it's clear that they hit the front and it affected everything in the front, not just a part of it, so it is more likely that they hit something that was in front of them, rather than in any other place.

I think downscaling the submarine from that should be good since durability isn't just the durability of a specific part of it but of the whole thing while the only thing affected here was the front.

I need this calc to scale someone who has destroyed a nuclear submarine. I seriously need it and i can't just be content with some vague tier 9 notion.

The fact that it can survive extreme pressure should be more than enough evidence to suggest that it can tank at least 8-C levels of energy.

 

[Qawsedf234]

that they tanked slamming into a sea mount

They didn't. Your own articles stated it took years to repair the damage and the entire nose portion of the submarine was smashed inwards. With one of the articles even mentioning that if it wasn't for the Navy having multiple redundant failsafe's they would've lost the submarine.

In the case of San Francisco, despite a crushed bow at 525 feet depth, the rest of the hull held pressure, preventing it from sinking. The ballast systems still worked, allowing it to surface, and the nuclear reactor still worked after the crash, allowing the ship to move under its own power. In 2013, an admiral with the Navy's Naval Sea systems command was quoted as saying that were it not for SUBSAFE decades earlier, USS San Francisco might have been lost.

15 Years Ago, a U.S. Navy Submarine Ran Into a Mountain

The USS San Francisco didn't sink, and that's no accident.

www.popularmechanics.com

This isn't tanking anything.

in this article we see the image of it and it's clear that they hit the front and it affected everything in the front, not just a part of it, so it is more likely that they hit something that was in front of them, rather than in any other place.

That wasn't my point. It's was that something only scales to its full KE if it strikes an object and all of its momentum is lost. Like a car smashing into a concrete barrier. If the submarine hit the mountain and then bounced away that wouldn't involve it scaling to it's full KE.

he fact that it can survive extreme pressure should be more than enough evidence to suggest that it can tank at least 8-C levels of energy.

The real world doesn't really operate on this universal durability system. Withstanding pressure isn't the same as withstanding rapid impacts, heat or explosions. They all interact with things differently.

 

[Arceus0x]

They didn't. Your own articles stated it took years to repair the damage and the entire nose portion of the submarine was smashed inwards. With one of the articles even mentioning that if it wasn't for the Navy having multiple redundant failsafe's they would've lost the submarine.

yes and it didn't get destroyed fully which means you'd need more than just that to destroy a submarine

This isn't tanking anything

it survived it because it tanked it. It should be enough to scale it to overall durability to signify what is the minimal requirement for actually destroying it

That wasn't my point. It's was that something only scales to its full KE if it strikes an object and all of its momentum is lost. Like a car smashing into a concrete barrier. If the submarine hit the mountain and then bounced away that wouldn't involve it scaling to it's full KE.

yes but that is never stated here, it is stated that there was a collision and we see that the nose was smashed inwards which means it was no a "bounce-off", that is an assumption and a nitpick

The real world doesn't really operate on this universal durability system. Withstanding pressure isn't the same as withstanding rapid impacts, heat or explosions. They all interact with things differently.

but that still signifies that it would require a much more thick and strong hull than even the average naval ship.

 

[Qawsedf234]

it survived it because it tanked it. It should be enough to scale it to overall durability to signify what is the minimal requirement for actually destroying it

It survived it because it has built in failsafe's that allowed it to get too a dock. That's not the same as it having its momentum stopped from a sudden impact or just outright withstanding that impact with minor damage.

yes but that is never stated here, it is stated that there was a collision and we see that the nose was smashed inwards which means it was no a "bounce-off", that is an assumption and a nitpick

It's not stated anywhere what happened other that the submarine hit something. The nose being smashed in a single direction (since the other side suffered less damage) would indicate that it took it at an angle and then got pushed to the side. For example this car collision that involves a hit at an angle or this one that involved a car only partially hitting something and spinning out.

but that still signifies that it would require a much more thick and strong hull than even the average naval ship.

It has a thick hull, but that's not the same as scaling to its full KE. There's also other things to take into account like surface area and where the submarine itself was hit at.

If the calc members want to comment and are fine with it working like that its whatever I guess. But I don't think a submarine realistically scales to it going at maximum speed, hitting a wall and then stopping dead.

 

[Arceus0x]

It survived it because it has built in failsafe's that allowed it to get too a dock. That's not the same as it having its momentum stopped from a sudden impact or just outright withstanding that impact with minor damage.

we don't scale durability to just surviving with minor damage, the fact that it didn't explode to bits is already enough evidence that it can survive such impact

It's not stated anywhere what happened other that the submarine hit something. The nose being smashed in a single direction (since the other side suffered less damage) would indicate that it took it at an angle and then got pushed to the side. For example this car collision that involves a hit at an angle or this one that involved a car only partially hitting something and spinning out.

that's still most of the KE, scaling it to baseline 8-C would be a no-brainer, not to mention there's also the other cases of submarines hitting something and surviving and they clearly aren't stated to just brush past something, they were stated to be direct impacts

It has a thick hull, but that's not the same as scaling to its full KE. There's also other things to take into account like surface area and where the submarine itself was hit at.

if we have so many things to consider then why the hell do we even have profiles for irl stuff?

If the calc members want to comment and are fine with it working like that its whatever I guess. But I don't think a submarine realistically scales to it going at maximum speed, hitting a wall and then stopping dead.

that is your opinion and an argument from incredulity

 

[Qawsedf234]

we don't scale durability to just surviving with minor damage, the fact that it didn't explode to bits is already enough evidence that it can survive such impact

You're confusing fictional scaling and IRL stuff. In fiction we might do that because we don't expect authors to have a deep and complete understanding of every subject. IRL is different because it's subjectEd to measurable and repeatable rules that it always follows.

The subs survived because of failsafes. Not because they can just tank such a violent impact.

clearly aren't stated to just brush past something, they were stated to be direct impacts

You're again not understanding the point I'm making here. There's a difference between having its momentum completely stopped and just hitting something hard. Unless it's a literal dead stop it wouldn't scale to its full KE. That's just how momentum works.

if we have so many things to consider then why the hell do we even have profiles for irl stuff?

Because those profiles consider those things and they're based mostly off of scientific studies/hard numbers. Also they can occasionally be used for scaling things in a fictional universe.

that is your opinion and an argument from incredulity

That's not incredulity, that's just how physics work. Take a stick/bat and hit a thin branch or something that will kove with an impact and then hit it against something tougher like a wall or a tree trunk. You can feel the difference when something has its momentum transferred vs being stopped completely.

 

[Arceus0x]

You're confusing fictional scaling and IRL stuff. In fiction we might do that because we don't expect authors to have a deep and complete understanding of every subject. IRL is different because it's subjectEd to measurable and repeatable rules that it always follows.

then what the hell is irl durability?

The subs survived because of failsafes. Not because they can just tank such a violent impact.

the fact that it didn't just shatter to pieces is enough evidence, failsafes got it to not go under and to get to land

You're again not understanding the point I'm making here. There's a difference between having its momentum completely stopped and just hitting something hard. Unless it's a literal dead stop it wouldn't scale to its full KE. That's just how momentum works.

we can't assume it wasn't a dead stop either

Because those profiles consider those things and they're based mostly off of scientific studies/hard numbers. Also they can occasionally be used for scaling things in a fictional universe.

then nuke everything that is a weapon or vehicle unless it has some very specific statement of it's durability

That's not incredulity, that's just how physics work. Take a stick/bat and hit a thin branch or something that will kove with an impact and then hit it against something tougher like a wall or a tree trunk. You can feel the difference when something has its momentum transferred vs being stopped completely.

that is incredulity because you are making a statement that isn't based on any scientific data but on your personal view, while there are statements that submarines hit seamounts and were able to survive hitting them and while one seemed to hit it at an angle, the others have no evidence of being hit at an angle and thus we can't just assume that it can't survive a head on collision

 

[Qawsedf234]

then what the hell is irl durability?

Durability based on actual physics. An Abrams tank will do fine against gunfire and rockets, but it won't do well if exposed to lava, falling from a high place or being put underwater.

we can't assume it wasn't a dead stop either

We can't assume it was either. Especially when the damage was concentrated on one side of the nose cone.

then nuke everything that is a weapon or vehicle unless it has some very specific statement of it's durability

We have gotten rid of animal KE before for this exact reason, yes.

evidence of being hit at an angle and thus we can't just assume that it can't survive a head on collision

As I said in my second comment, I'm just not really for it. I would just ask some calc members to comment and ask their opinions on the subject.

 

[Arceus0x]

Durability based on actual physics. An Abrams tank will do fine against gunfire and rockets, but it won't do well if exposed to lava, falling from a high place or being put underwater.

i understand but at this point i don't see the point of even attempting normal scaling with any real life vehicle, as in there's no point of trying to give them tiers then

We can't assume it was either. Especially when the damage was concentrated on one side of the nose cone.

why

We have gotten rid of animal KE before for this exact reason, yes.

except most animals can still be hurt by blades and bullets and more and their durability is still very high. A car's basic impact would do horrid things to a whale and yet it's durability is still in the megajoules. Why do we have that and not the same for submarines

As I said in my second comment, I'm just not really for it. I would just ask some calc members to comment and ask their opinions on the subject.

please ping them then, they won't just ignore you, they can ignore me

 

[Dalesean027]

@KLOL506 thoughts considering you commented on the calc?

Plus your a smart guy when it comes to vehicles and their damages

 

[KLOL506]

This would work in a fictional realm but not in the IRL one.

 

[Arceus0x]

@KLOL506 thoughts considering you commented on the calc?

Plus your a smart guy when it comes to vehicles and their damages

This would work in a fictional realm but not in the IRL one.

then what do i do?
we can't leave the current page as it is cause the durability is bollocks
we can't use this in here
what do we do?

also if we have a US nuclear submarine in a fictional universe and it gets destroyed by someone, what do i scale them to?

I seriously don't know what to do at this point because the feat is there but i can't do anything

 

[KLOL506]

also if we have a US nuclear submarine in a fictional universe and it gets destroyed by someone, what do i scale them to?

If it gets completely obliterated by someone, derive volume from their mass and density of materials used, and use the destruction values of said material to find the destruction energy.

 

[Arceus0x]

If it gets completely obliterated by someone, derive volume from their mass and density of materials used, and use the destruction values of said material to find the destruction energy.

there's no further context just that it disappeared and it is heavily implied that godzilla destroyed it. We don't know to what extent.
I guess since it wasn't found we can assume he wrecked it beyond recognition.
There's also a variant to scale him to a torpedo since these are meant to destroy submarines

 

[Arceus0x]

If it gets completely obliterated by someone, derive volume from their mass and density of materials used, and use the destruction values of said material to find the destruction energy.

Destroying a submarine

vsbattles.fandom.com