World of Warships – The Silent Service

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (5,262 votes, average: 4.91 out of 5)

Yes, Submarines are (sort of here) in World of Warships. Listen, do you hear them? No? EXACTLY! They don’t call them The Silent Service for nothing!

Of course, everything you see here is strictly Work in Progress and subject change, but still… it’s kinda cool.

music licensed from and


System Specs: Core i7 4.3Ghz CPU, 32GB DDR4 RAM, nVidia GTX1080 8GB GDDR5 GPU, running at 1920×1080 resolution

If you have a World of Warships replay, consider using a hosting service like

Just be aware that I get hundreds of emails every week and I can’t promise that I’ll what you send in.


  1. Hey a cold wate – wait a minute, this ain’t cold water ?

  2. John Angelo Tenorio

    Acoustic homing torps!? Hoo boy, that’s gonna be fun…

  3. Not real excited for submarines, at least how they currently function

    • Matthias Darrington give a purpose to dd’s?. DD’s have more purpose already than any other class in the game

      Spot ships
      Cap points
      Hunt BB’s
      Area denial

      Need I go on

      Now let’s add hunt subs as the squishiest class in the game, all you have to do in a sub is hang by a CA and a DD in a division and you’ll be untouchable ??‍♂️

    • What they need to do is give BB’s hydro across the board to help hunt subs and spot them when they get close, or BB’s are gonna be toast, imagine a division of subs lurking behind enemy lines, no dd to hunt them, coordinating double ping torps on the battleships, and then throw a dd in there with the subs, no battleship will be able to dodge all the torps, not to mention the homing torps????

    • So BB’s deal with whole team of he spammers, did torps fires from outside detection range and now homing torps fires from a sub, sounds engaging lmao

    • @Matthias Darrington LOL like Destroyers don’t have a purpose now. Subs look boring and even more importantly, anti-sub combat looks pretty dull as well. I really didn’t care if subs made it to the game before I watched this video, now it just looks pathetic.

    • HORIZONS If you pay attention to your matches, you will notice a lot of your games now don’t have carriers

  4. Me: “Im gonna try to go to bed early tonight”
    *Jingles puts up new submarine content
    Me: who needs sleep

  5. Jingles, you’re cavitating!!

  6. xXAngel_With_A_Shotgun Xx

    honestly the interactions between subs and other ships look really clunky.

    • I hate the word clunky, like, it says absolutely nothing about what you criticize/whats wrong.

      Let’s say the missing interaction/counterplay for BBs and Cruisers sucks while dd’s/cvs can do whatever they want.

    • I just hate how, after spending years trying to keep BBs from camping in the back, they give another reason as to why it’s a bad idea for a battleship to get stuck in and knife fighting.

  7. “I would have liked to have seen Montana”

  8. That cinematic trailer is awesome. Say what you want about WG, but you can’t deny they have style when it comes to graphics and video quality.

  9. 9:51 So like in Cold Waters, aircraft are a PITA for subs. Good to know.

  10. Hydro, needs to be able to track or at least ping Subs locations while in range.

  11. Ramming a sub was standard tactic in WW2. When en escort ship detected an enemy sub on the surface or at periscope depth, the standard tactic was to charge at it, full speed ahead, all guns blazing. A ram was almost always deadly for the sub, and rarely for the escort.

  12. Max 1 sub per game wouldn’t be too bad… 2 is pushing it, 3 is just ludicrous.

  13. I like it that the submarines can only cap a point on the surface.

  14. Hydro should really be able to spot subs at most depths if not all, that would also make the german cruisers a bit more viable again.

    • @Nicholas Knightley what… submarines underwater only went electric. The only way to run ypur engines under water was at parascope depth with a snorkel.

      Unless you wanted your crew to die from CO poisoning, which could still happen if the batteries got damaged.

    • Definitely would like to see hydro spotting subs, it would make my favourite DD so far even more evil against them (Icarus). But CLs usually mounted depth charges as well, many have hydro too so what about giving them the same capability? That leaves the only ones at massive risk from subs as CAs and BBs. Add in depth charges to catapult aircraft as someone else in the comments suggested and then everyone gets *some* ASW capability, all be it one with limited uses and a long cooldown. Might balance things out a little bit unless the gunnery targeting gets a lot better.

    • Surface ship hydro should at least be able to give you a general location of a sub, or it could also detect subs at ~half its normal range. That would be pretty realistic, since surface ships and torpedos make a lot more noise than a submarine

    • @Augschburgball Real hydro acoustic sensors have extreme difficulty detecting subs deep down. Thermoclines in the water (water tends to form in layers of different temperatures) hide subs quite well.

      Subs also have no problem spotting just about every surface ship on the map, if we want to be realistic about sonar. But this is a game with a, ahem, LOOSE association with reality.

  15. What if they gave the spotter planes of battle ships and Cruisers depth charges ?

    • @AlexADTR they can, depth charges are not that heavy, ranging from ~50kg to ~200kg. most naval aircraft that could carry a pair of bombs could have depth charges mounted instead, that include carrier planes and catapult aircraft, dedicated torpedo bombers could not as they didn’t have any hard-points for bombs. the load would be a pair of light (45kg) depth charges at first, but would evlolve to larger (200kg) on later crafts, tho the ASW role would be left mostly to bombers by that point
      even today some planes still have the capability to drop depth charges against submarines (Br. 1150 Atlantic, IL-38, P-3 Orion for example) tho nowadays an airdropped active sonar torpedo is preferred

    • @vector mortis Some cruisers were equipped with depth charges. The Atlanta class did, for one, as they were designed as destroyer leaders, despite their actual war time role.

    • @AlexADTR Planes carried depth Charges all the time. Sunderland and Catalina planes carried them all the time. Any aircraft used for sea patrols can and did carry depth charges.

    • @Nick Carr Sorta light tank vs. arty (or like what it used to be back in the day…)

    • @Dennis Uerling CV’s can already destroy subs perfectly fine without depth charges, don’t give them an insta-kill for subs aswell

  16. Pretty silly how you can’t launch torps from the surface, eh?

    • @Gabriel Dombach torpedo tubes on subs were below the water line so they could launch when surfaced, the only exception was the Surcouf, but it was an exception in pretty much all of its design elements (2x203mm (8in) guns in a pressure tight turret, 2x37mm AA guns, 2×13.2mm AA guns, 6 22in topedo tubes, 4 16in tubes [4 of the 22in tubes were installed tradtionally, the rest were installed in swivelling mounts, aft of the conning tower], a floatplane, a 14ft motorboat and accomodation for 40 passengers) the thing was classified as a sumarine-cruiser
      because France and rule lawyering

    • 2 letters: O. P.

    • @YahYeet they could just make it so that torpedoes launched when surfaced behave like normal torps (no acoustic guidance, no keel breaker), so it would be a discount destroyer when on the surface, with maybe one gun if they decide to let ppl play with the sub deck gun

    • What about the deck gun when your on the service.

    • @Darrell Goodman

      it would be an idea, problem is most would be really under-powered
      US subs like the Cachalot class had mostly a single 3″ (76mm) gun, a few interwar classes had 127mm or 152mm guns, other received multiple (up to 4 in one instance) 76mm
      the British were a bit better, with their deck gun calibre oscillating between 4″ and 5″ (101mm to 127mm)

      the Japanese had the better guns in that regard, with most of their subs having either a 5″ (127mm) of 5.5″ (140mm) gun, but i expect the rate of fire to suffer
      the Germans would be mostly the same as the US, but lacking the bigger guns, their submarine designs incorporating either a 8.8 or a 10.5 deck gun
      the Soviets used invariably the 100mm (4″) with either 1 or 2 guns
      the French used principally the 75mm, with some use of a 100mm gun of some type on later designs, the only notable exception is of course the Surcouf, with it’s twin 203mm (8″) turret

      the problem with submarines deck guns is that it would be really under-powered, even as an emergency weapon, with one exception all have destroyer grade guns or lesser, and generally only one. this was mostly because the deck gun of a submarine was used primarily to deal the finishing blow to a ship (generally cargo) crippled by a torpedo hit, they would be useless against warships as submarines present a very unstable firing platform and a single low calibre gun wouldn’t be able to deal some significant damage to warships, remember, these are destroyer grade guns and destroyers received anywhere between 3 and 6 of them. the only exception would be the Surcouf with it’s cruiser grade guns but it sits apart as it existed as the only representative of it’s category and was exceptionally… french
      it would be nice to be able to play with the submarines deck gun, but ultimately they wouldn’t matter in battle and would be putting your vessel at unnecessary risks, revealing your position every time you would open fire for minimal damage. the ability to launch torpedoes while surfaced would be more interesting IMO, maybe dropping the sonic ping when surfaced so they would behave like normal destroyer torps. and that’s before considering that some classes didn’t have deck guns in the first place

  17. WoT: No armored cars, ever.
    WoWs: No submarines, ever.

  18. To their own shore,
    Came the world war.
    Gleaves and Ingham,
    Leading the bury west.

    • In their own track,
      Came the wolfpack.
      Gleaves led the convoy,
      Into the hornet’s nest.

    • @David Knowles underwater
      under fire
      May 42 when bury did fail the test

      (Enter best sabaton guitar riff ever)

    • To their own shore came the world war
      Gleaves and the Ingham leading them into death

      569 makes the contact and lead them
      U-94 scores a kill in the dark
      124 sinking 4 in 2 approaches
      406 suffers failure on launch

  19. I expected jingles to be taking in some water and being stuck down on the seafloor……

  20. 11:10
    First Officer: Captain Jingles, we have only 7% of oxygen left!
    Captain Jingles: Dive! Dive! Divie! 50 meters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *