[DB ISSUE] Tango-class (Project 641B) MGK-100 sonar appears useless compared to older Foxtrot MG-10M

[Smitt1322]

I've been testing the Tango-class submarine in CMO and I believe the MGK-100 Kerch sonar may be incorrectly modeled compared to the older Foxtrot-class MG-10M.

Observed behavior:
Foxtrot (MG-10M)
Passive detection range (database): ~10 nm
Passive detection range (in practice, shallow/coastal waters): Works consistently
Active detection range (database): Reasonable

Tango (MGK-100 Kerch)
Passive detection range (database): ~4 nm
Passive detection range (in practice, shallow/coastal waters): Drops to ~2 nm or less, often detects nothing
Active detection range (database): ~0.5 nm (suicidal and useless)

The problem:

In most scenarios (Baltic, Barents Sea, coastal waters), the Tango is blind. I cannot detect anything unless the target is practically on top of me. The active sonar is completely useless at 0.5 nm — it serves no purpose, not even for final targeting.

This makes the newer, more advanced Tango (digital sonar, better processing) consistently inferior to the older, simpler Foxtrot in actual gameplay. This does not seem historically accurate. The real MGK-100 was not a downgrade from the MG-10M.

My questions:

Is this intentional? I may be using the Tango incorrectly (although I can use the Foxtrot correctly/efficiently)? A 2 nm practical detection range makes the platform unusable in most scenarios.

Is the 0.5 nm active range correct? Even for an "attack sonar" meant for final targeting, this seems extremely low.

Are there any plans to review these values, or does anyone have a workaround?

Thank you.

[Nikel]

Post a zipped save or scen for the devs.

Also the build of the game and the database version you are using.

[boogabooga]

Post a zipped save or scen for the devs.

Also the build of the game and the database version you are using.

Why? That adds nothing to the conversation. Anyone can check the database and see the latest values, whether what he says is true.

I've long been wondering why diesel-electric submarines in general always have such a weak passive sonar.

[Dimitris]

Smitt1322 < Can you please open a ticket for this on the Github DB-tracker, so that it becomes visible and trackable to the DB team? : https://github.com/PygmalionOfCyprus/cm ... sts/issues

Thanks!

[Nikel]

OK, I think the problem is that the sonar that the Tango is using right now is not the correct one.

If you search in pages in russian, it should be the MGK-400 Rubikon, the range is 15 nm in the db.


https://www.deepstorm.ru/DeepStorm.file ... b/list.htm

http://www.snariad.ru/submarin/submarin_641b/


Also a page in French.

https://www.soumarsov.eu/armes/Armes_details/mgk400.htm



A request in the db to increase the range of russian sonars, if the author is correct should be more than the double of 15.

https://github.com/PygmalionOfCyprus/cm ... ssues/2231

Squid Arm [MGK-400 Rubikon] (active/passive sonar):
range: 40 nm **
additional data: this is the detection range when sensing a ship, 32.4 nm for a submarine.

R.png (64.6 KiB) Viewed 238 times

Here is a comparison of the Foxtrot, the Tango with MGK-400 Rubikon and the Tango right now.

T.gif (396.72 KiB) Viewed 228 times

They have the right one in Sea Power apparently.

TSPpng.png (169.04 KiB) Viewed 210 times

[Smitt1322]

Smitt1322 < Can you please open a ticket for this on the Github DB-tracker, so that it becomes visible and trackable to the DB team? : https://github.com/PygmalionOfCyprus/cm ... sts/issues

Thanks!

Done!
Thanks!