The all seeing eye of Glen

[ChezDaJez]

When you get right down to it, whatever is decided in regards to the Glenn should also be applied to every ship-launched floatplane, Allied or Japanese.

Speaking of ship-launched floatplanes, shouldn't their ability to launch floatplanes be curtailed during full speed ops, or at least have their movement reduced? Seems to me it would be rather hard to launch and recover them at full speed.

Chez

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

I don't see it as a ding on the Glen or the IJN, but rather on the games search routines. The bottomline is that a sub isn't an aircraft carrier, and a single Glen isn't a squadron. Fix the air search routines, cut down its use somewhat in a realistic manner, and the Glen is "fixed".

The sea state thing is an issue that affects almost every facet of seaborne ops. Seaplane ops, ASW, carrier ops, even amphibious ops. How often was weather/sea state a burning issue for amphibious ops? Every time, no exceptions. Yet we can pull up offshore, no matter what time of year, no matter what the weather or seas are like, and start tossing troops over the side.

It's funny how nobody complains of the Pete, and yet as the game stats go it's even less capable than the Glen, if, supposedly that is the reason it's not supposed to do searches. I can't say how bad the search routine is off, but I think we have seen other instances of the farce of how easy subs are/were spotted. It doesn't seem there's anything unusual for the Glen itself in that it had heightened capabilities to spot as compared to other craft of the same range, so from that viewpoint there's no reason to touch it at all. Your response suggests that the entire search business is off, and of course if that is true, then the Glen should be left alone. It may not be a CV, but a single plane (and some of the subs have more than one) still had it's purpose, however small that may or may not had been in real life.

It could be said that the Glen, or indeed any single plane (or small number anyway) is actually flying a search mission, or a recon if you will, several times a day, and in the case of the Glen that would be none too surprising (just temporarily ignoring any difficulties there may be with it being sub-based for a minute) because of the range being so short. Get a Mavis to fly out 17 hexes and how many searches can it make within it's longer range? Not as many for the Glen and it's shorter range. Naturally, you could run the Mavis for the shorter Glen range and achieve the same amount of searches (but for longer periods over the area), and indeed the manual talks of increasing odds with a shorter range of longer-range planes. In any event I'm not too sure anyone has a firm grip on just how the Glen may be exceeding the game's treatment of other search aircraft, whereas if they did they would have some way of conveying that it's just too good. Some of the documents in this thread have more than proved that this plane wasn't just shut up because it didn't work, or that they were worried about spotting ships in the open sea with it. Aside from the basic game search routine being ascewed or not, people just have to accept that they were wrong about the plane having no use, no matter how irritating it is.

One thing I am curious about though. Suppose you send a Glen out, or any plane, and it goes to it's maximum range. If a single surface ship is at a hex beyond that range, does it ever get seen? And working off of that, what are the odds in this example, if we send Glen out to range three, and the ship is it the first hex? There may not be any difference between if a ship is at range one-three as to whether it's paicked up, but I would've thought that each hex would have a somewhat different percentage, in which I suppose hex three would be the weakest. That is one thing that the anti-Glen complaintants haven't figured out though, if indeed many think it detects at far too high a rate, is that they do not know at what range the Glen was set, nor where the sub is necessarily, such that if the sub was just one hex away, the Glen could be in the air longer and returning for more fuel at a higher rate, perhaps somewhat similar to what a Mavis might pick up from a maximum range of five or so.

So you see my friends, this is the way the IJN gets back at the Allies for the future atomic bomb, they annoy them with little gnats clandestinely spotting their ships in places they don't want their ships spotted. The IJN secret weapon has been revealed. The enemy can face the annoyance or surrender. Those are the IJN terms.[;)]

[Nomad]

Speaking of fuel, how many flights worth of fuel did a Glenn carring sub have?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Thanks for those TROMs, Brady. They do show pretty active Glen recon missions -- but maybe not so much "Naval Search" as it's modeled in WITP. I mean, mostly the logs show Glens dispatched to recon particular targets: PH, Noumea, Santa Cruz Island, etc. Obviously a Glen would report any enemy vessel it saw on the way to the target, but you don't see many instances of a Glen reporting a contact in the open ocean, do you?

The point of contention here isn't that the Glen should have it's powers limited, but that they weren't hardly used and unreliable, or that they could only be used in the calmest seas. The issue of 'no search' only comes up not because they can't do it IRL, but because it gives them lots of power they shouldn't have in the game, because of the bias against their being used beyond the slightest degree because of alleged lack of use. If a plane can recon a port, something often more imminently dangerous than spotting ships at sea, then surely it can spot fleets. Whether the IJN used them very much in that role is immaterial, as the new commander should have that basic option. Of course there's always the possibility of getting a toggle option for these who quiver at the sight of the mighty plane spotting fleets. Any plane that can recon a port, and was used int hat role, should surely be able to search for a fleet.

I hope I'm not opening up on you Grotius when I say this, but it really does make me ill that it seems that virtually every capability of IJ in this game in being called into question that such-and-such capability shouldn't be granted to them because we don't have extensive documentation of it's being done. Besides that point, since we already know that the IJN was often using it's subs, even non-Glen ones for reconnning the sea, just why would they not use the Glen for navy searches when they're just as capable of that as a float plane?

Good point Charles. I would really like to see those who speak in favor of the Glen produce some real life examples where it was used to hunt down shipping at sea. (And no, one or two times in 4 years doesn't count.) If it's to be a usable "game mechanic", it needs to have been used IRL on a regular basis as well. As far as I can tell, sub-launched floatplanes were used almost exclusively for "niusance raids". Even in the period before Midway, the Japanese didn't try to arrainge for some of their subs to launch floatplanes to scout PH for the US CV's. Instead they tried to use one to refuel a Flying Boat for the mission. The game makes the Glen into a useful weapon, but the Japanese could not.

[Brady]

"If it's to be a usable "game mechanic", it needs to have been used IRL on a regular basis as well."

Why, Not that I disagree nescessarly, but why this particular item (the Glen)? We have many examples of things in the game that were only "one of" type deals that cause huge efects in game. Take the "Big Bombs" for US Bombers for use aganst Ship's, from what I recal only "One" instance was actualy found suporting the use of 1000 pound bombs from a 4 engined bomber aganst Japanese ships, yet in Game this hapenes with some frequency. The most anoying aspect of this rule is that the Japanese planes that could do the same thing, Cary a 500 KG bomb, dont get to.


"Even in the period before Midway, the Japanese didn't try to arrainge for some of their subs to launch floatplanes to scout PH for the US CV's"

Did you read the TROM's I posted above, their are scades of instances showing the use of Glens to Recon Pearl, after the Initial atack, their are also examples of Glens Reconing stratigic points of interest Priour to the Atack on Pearl, to determine whear Allied Naval assests were.

[Grotius]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
I hope I'm not opening up on you Grotius when I say this, but it really does make me ill that it seems that virtually every capability of IJ in this game in being called into question that such-and-such capability shouldn't be granted to them because we don't have extensive documentation of it's being done.

No worries, I enjoy reasoned and civilized discussion of an issue, and your post certainly qualifies as that. For what it's worth, I've played the IJN four or five times in PBEM, and the Allies once, and I've often posted on what I see as the ahistorical massing of Allied air power very early in the game. So I hardly "have it in" for the IJN. But it was striking to me that the logs Brady posted described recon missions only, and not once reported that a Glen spotted such-and-such vessel in the open sea. Sure, that doesn't mean that Glens weren't used in the air-search role -- but it might well suggest that Glens weren't very effective in that role. Why would the logs tell us the Glen spotted a vessel in such-and-such harbor but would omit telling us about the Glen sotting a vessel in the open sea? Then again, my concern may be a broader one -- that air search is still too effective in WITP, even after having been toned down as compared to Uncommon Valor.

As for the Pete, there's nothing to complain about -- it's pretty useless, isn't it?

[el cid again]

This Boat did some interesting things as well, refueling Jakes to extend their radious of operation, Imagine alowing these Subs to act as AV's:)

There are two classes of Japanese sub AVs - the minelayers and the D class - although the latter were actually designed to carry midgets first - they already had space for the same 18 inch torpedo the flying boats used - so it was easy to modify them for the task. I don't think this is modeled in the game. And although many books say the US didn't do this - except for pre war experiments - I just found some data on US transport subs which did it in the early war years.

[el cid again]

Why, Not that I disagree nescessarly, but why this particular item (the Glen)? We have many examples of things in the game that were only "one of" type deals that cause huge efects in game.

There is a US minelaying submarine which was converted to a transport - and NEVER once laid mines - yet it showed up as a minelayer in early UV days - got converted to a transport for later editions - but reverted to minelayer again for WITP!

[Brady]

Ref- Japanese Sub's as AV's, at least those with float planes that is. I have been going over the TROM's again this AM and have found even more examples of Japanese sub's being used to Provide suport for Float planes/Flying Boats, So far I have found over Half a Dozen differnet casses whear Sub's acted to extend the range of Float planes by Providing fuel for them, with the exception of the Emily attack on Pearl they were not carrying fuel in their hanger instead of a float plane, that is to say they provided the suport with their on Board Avation fuel. I still havent read more than Two Thirds of all the TROMS for Float plane equiped subs Either.

.....................

This is Interesting:

For I-17

8 April 1943:
Departs Truk to reconnoiter Phoenix Island and intercept a converted PT tender whose arrival is predicted by the Combined Fleet's code-breaking unit(Hse found the ship but her torps pased under the target.)

Another example of the US Navy Killing men in Life Boats:

5 March 1943:
25 miles NE from Cape Ward Hunt. About 0500, Lt J. Baylis' USS PT-143 and Lt R. Hamachek's PT-150 discover the I-17 and three lifeboats: a large one with more than 100 soldiers and two smaller ones with about 20 soldiers in each. The men are survivors of the Bismarck Sea battle. The submarine is taking them aboard. Each PT fires a torpedo. The 143’s runs erratically. The 150’s runs true, but misses as the submarine crash dives. The PTs strafe the conning tower as the I-17 submerges, then they sink the three boats with machine gun fire and depth charges.

Four hours and 45 minutes later, the I-17 resurfaces and picks up 34 soldiers, one of whom later dies of his wounds.

6 March 1943:
Despite air and PT attacks, the I-17 rescues another 118 soldiers and four sailors.

Later:

25 July 1943:
The I-17 departs Truk to reconnoiter Espiritu Santo, New Hebrides and Noumea, New Caledonia and raid enemy communications. She carries a Yokosuka E14Y1 "Glen" floatplane for this mission.

10 August 1943:
The Glen's pilot reports the presence of several battleships and carriers in the harbor. LtCdr Harada sends a report with the results of the reconnaissance flight over Espiritu Santo. This is the last message sent by the I-17.

19 August 1943:
40 miles SE of Noumea, New Caledonia. The I-17's Glen floatplane has reconnoitered Noumea and spotted a convoy that has just cleared the harbor. After stowing the plane, the I-17 sets out after the convoy. The New Zealand armed trawler HMNZS TUI makes an asdic contact, closes and drops depth charges.

If you have the time Read the TROM's guy's their facanating.

[el cid again]

I've often posted on what I see as the ahistorical massing of Allied air power very early in the game

There are completely fictional numbers of 4 engine bombers in stock and CHS past releases. Players talk about LB-30s as if they were bombers. NEVER used for mass bombing, a mere handful got used as patrol planes (to be sure, by bombing squadrons) - the rest began US service as transports and all ended up in that role. There were never significant numbers of B-17s in PTO - in spite of the belief in the summer of 1941 that 30 odd in the Philippines were "the greatest assembly of strategic air power in history." Eventually B-24s were available in numbers - and then also B-29s and a few B-32s - but in the early war period the reason you saw so many 2 engine bombers is that 4 engine ships were quite rare - something not obvious from WITP.

One thing Matrix and modders never have figured out is the difference between production and in theater numbers. I find, on average, only about 30% of planes end up in actual service - if you look at data about actual deliveries to units in a given month vs production in the previous month. WITP at best uses production rates - and sometimes (e.g. the B-17) they make it up completely.

[juliet7bravo]

"Glen spotting a vessel in the open sea"

If they could be launched in the open ocean (as history and Chez both assures us is possible) then even a short radius recon around the sub would greatly extend the subs "line of sight" and thus the area sub could effectively search. Didn't the Germans go so far as to play around with "manned kites" towed behind subs to try and search a larger area? A 90 knot AC with 5 hour endurance would have to be better than a "kite" for this task, or sticking a guy on top the periscope sheers. I'd have to think this would be a great asset in an anti-shipping role, especially in a shipping lane outside the reach of LB ASW AC. Completely realistic, as long as it doesn't have the capability to fly on just about every day, never has OP losses, and can't search a 2 hex radius, ect.

The issues raised about sea states, search radius, OP losses ect. are all valid, and all have impact far beyond "nerfing" the Glen.

[Brady]

I-21:

19 May 1942:
Early in the morning, Warrant Flying Officer Ito conducts a recce flight over Suva. He sights a Glasgow-class light cruiser and seven submarine chasers in the harbor and returns to the submarine one and a half hours later.

24 May 1942:
The I-21's Glen reconnoiters Auckland, New Zealand. As a result of a heavy squall, Ito fails to detect any vessels in the harbor. When flying over the Auckland airfield at 1,315 feet, landing lights are switched on for him by the New Zealanders.

29 May 1942:
35 miles NE of Sydney, Australia. WFO Ito is launched from the I-21 to make a pre-midget submarine attack reconnaisance in his Glen. Ito is caught by three searchlights over Cockatoo Island, but manages to escape.

At 0420, a floatplane with its navigation lights on is sighted as it circles twice over the harbor near where the heavy cruiser USS CHICAGO (CA-29) is anchored. It is thought to be an American plane, but eventually RAAF fighters are sent up to intercept, but they are unsuccessful. While landing in heavy seas, Ito's plane capsizes and is later scuttled. Ito reports sighting a "battleship". He also spots the converted hospital ship ORANJE. Captain Sasaki orders an attack on Sydney harbor by his midget submarines.

25 January 1943:
The I-21 launches her plane for a recce flight over Sydney. The pilot reports the presence of a heavy cruiser and some ten smaller vessels stationed at the harbor entrance.

19 February 1943:
WFO Ito makes another recce flight, taking photos of the New South Wales coast. His plane is detected by radar but is not attacked.

30 May 1943:
The I-21 evacuates 10 midget submarine crews from Kiska. (This is interesting because in another TROM it is mentioned that Several Midget Crews were evacuated from Guadacanal by Sub as well, which is interesting because I presumed that the crews of those midgets were lost while operating off Guadacanal).

8 October 1943:
The I-21 launches her plane for a flight over Suva.

..................

I-36 This is only the second OP loss I have read about, and at Night!

10 August 1943:
Returns to Yokosuka for overhaul. The I-36 is fitted with an E27 Type 3 radar detector.

31 August 1943:
Cdr Inaba receives a verbal order to reconnoiter Pearl Harbor from HQ, SubRon 1. The I-36 commences Yokosuka E14Y1 "Glen" floatplane launch and recovery tests in Inland Sea.

8 September 1943:
Departs Yokosuka to patrol off Hawaii.

19 September 1943:
The I-36 arrives W of Hawaii. Her radar detector registers the work of numerous American ship-based radars.

21 September 1943:
The I-36 is transferred E of Hawaii to avoid detection, but numerous contacts are still made.

16 October 1943:
After sunset, the I-36 surfaces 120 nms S of Pearl Harbor. Her E14Y1 floatplane is assembled in ten minutes and launched from the catapult.

One hour and twenty minutes later Cdr Inaba receives the signal from the returning floatplane. The partially submerged I-36 heads for the rendezvous point while maintaining contact with the pilot on a long-wave channel. The fliers report sighting four carriers, four battleships, five cruisers and 17 destroyers at anchor.

By 2330, the pilot of the Glen reports that his plane is low on fuel and that he has lost the bearing to the submarine. The I-36 surfaces and heads towards the location of the aircraft at full speed, with navigation lights switched on. Contact with the Glen is lost.

Aprial 22(ish) 1944(Third OP Loss I have found)

Majuro. At 1455 (JST), the I-36 launches her Glen floatplane that flies over the anchorage at 3,900 feet. The observer reports sighting 11 carriers and three battleships. Upon return, the pilot of the E14Y1 fails to locate the submarine. Contact is re-established only by dawn the next morning. The aircraft is scuttled, rather than recovered, to escape detection.




I could post stuff like this all day, but I will atempt to restrain myself[:)]

[Brady]

I-30:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AT SEA:

6 May 1942:
The I-30's "Glen" floatplane sights elements of the British Fleet en route from Durban to Madagascar.

Look at all these Sorties flow by her Glen on this patrole, and they repaired the Glen as well:

7 May 1942:
Indian Ocean. Gulf of Aden. The I-30 launches her floatplane to reconnoiter Aden.

8 May 1942:
Indian Ocean. Gulf of Aden. The I-30 launches her Glen to reconnoiter Djibouti.

19 May 1942:
The I-30 launches her floatplane to reconnoiter Zanzibar and Dar-es Salaam. The pilot sights one merchant in the harbor and one 4,000-ton vessel departing. During landing, one of the Glens floats is damaged, but it is hoisted aboard.

20 May 1942:
The flagship I-10 catapults her Glen floatplane that reconnoiters Durban, South Africa. There are at least 40 merchant ships in the harbor, but Ishizaki is after warships. The Glen is not sighted and the Japanese make no attacks that would reveal their presence. During the week, the I-10's aircraft also overflies East London, Port Elizabeth and Simonstown.

That same day, the I-30 carries out periscopic observation of the port at Kilindini (Mombasa).

24 May 1942:
At night, the I-30 carries out a periscopic observation of Diego Suarez at the northern tip of Madagascar at Antsiranano, on the Indian Ocean.

29 May 1942:
At night, the I-10's floatplane reconnoiters the harbor at Diego Suarez. The plane sights the HMS RAMILLES, an old 29,150-ton ROYAL SOVEREIGN-class battleship, at anchor in the bay. Also in the harbor are the destroyers HMS DUNCAN and ACTIVE, corvettes HMS GENISTA and THYME, troopship HMS KARANJA, hospital ship ATLANTIS, tanker BRITISH LOYALTY, 10,799-ton merchant LLANDAFF CASTLE and an ammunition ship.

[Mike Scholl]

BRADY. Please notice that virtually every one of your examples is a "RECCON" mission of a fixed point. NOT an open ocean "NAVAL SEARCH". I don't think anyone has any objection to Glens being used for reccon..., it's naval search that the game's system abuses. A submarine is not an aircraft carrier that can sail along launching and recovering aircraft throught the day.

[ChezDaJez]

But it was striking to me that the logs Brady posted described recon missions only, and not once reported that a Glen spotted such-and-such vessel in the open sea. Sure, that doesn't mean that Glens weren't used in the air-search role -- but it might well suggest that Glens weren't very effective in that role. Why would the logs tell us the Glen spotted a vessel in such-and-such harbor but would omit telling us about the Glen sotting a vessel in the open sea?

Hi, Grotius,

I-10 sank several ships during its patrols. I think its fair to assume that some of those may have been initially located by its Glenn. The TROM is too limited in detail to verify whether this is true or not. I used to have a book on Japanese sub operations but I haven't been able to find it in years. Guess I'll have to find another one that may detail how the Glenn was used in the scouting role. But that is what the entire aircraft-carrying sub concept was designed for... to scout ahead of the fleet and to locate targets for itself.

As someone pointed out, its not the search capability of the Glenn that should be questioned. Its the way WitP conducts air searches in general. Its basically a range circle around a base and everything inside it is subject to detection even though there may only be one search aircraft available.

True air searches consisted of searching sectors the size of which depended upon the furthest range to be searched and the number of available aircraft. The primary search emphasis would be towards the perceived threat axis. It would be nice in WitP II takes this into account. Basically it would require the ability to input a threat axis. For example, if you are expecting the enemy to make a move from a base to your north, you would tell the computer to focus the search to the north. The resulting search plan would resemble a cardioid pattern.

Chez

[Brady]

Mike- I did find an example of a open ocean "Naval Search" and posted it above, also the TROM's realy dont cover all aspects of the subjects daily movements and operations, when comparing them to Some Cruzer operations as an example, they dont list all the Naval Searchs they preform either. A lot of the Sub's Say they Spoted this or that in the TROM's but they dont say how they spoted them.

As noted before by others the launch and recovery of these planes from the Subs was something that took very little time, 10 min was all that was required in one example above to get a Glen up and away. So stoping to do this is not eating up a lot of time. Nore is the recovery of these planes by Subs or any other ship class capable of doing so.

I do think though that all Float planes should be subject to Sea State Weather limatations on their Flight op's.

[Brady]

Chez
[/quote]

True air searches consisted of searching sectors the size of which depended upon the furthest range to be searched and the number of available aircraft. The primary search emphasis would be towards the perceived threat axis. It would be nice in WitP II takes this into account. Basically it would require the ability to input a threat axis. For example, if you are expecting the enemy to make a move from a base to your north, you would tell the computer to focus the search to the north. The resulting search plan would resemble a cardioid pattern.

This has always been a point of some concern for me, finialy they came up with a code that alowed the shorting of the search radious and increased the likely hood of dection withen that shortned radious increased the density of the planes invloved...if you follow, But the Big peave remained, not being able to Slice the Pie so to speak, espichaly when say half of it is over land! As an example; if the base is say on the West Coast, half the planes are doing a "Naval Search" over Oregon!

[spence]

As I previously pointed out the Glenn's range and speed are such that it could search with a fairly low POD (unless absolutely clear WX) to a radius of 1 hex during an AM or PM Air Phase. The game gives it an endurance of 480 (presumably miles) so I assume that converts to a range of 4. The plane is thus searching an area 16 times larger than was possible during each air phase. That's a bit much.

[ChezDaJez]

But the Big peave remained, not being able to Slice the Pie so to speak, espichaly when say half of it is over land! As an example; if the base is say on the West Coast, half the planes are doing a "Naval Search" over Oregon!

So very true. Sector search was (and still is) the order of the day. Full circular searches would only be conducted by units (such as carriers) that have penetrated a defensive perimeter such as during the Doolittle raid or by units on islands that could be hit from any direction. ASW search from island bases is another situation I can think of where the enemy could be found anywhere.

Midway is a prime example of how sector searches were used on both sides. No one was looking "behind them" so to speak. They were putting all their resources ahead and to the sides to gain the earliest possible detection.

Chez

[Brady]

Jake:

Cruising speed 120 kt at 2,000 m
Climb to 3,000 m
in 6 min 5 sec
Service ceiling 8,730 m
Range 1,128 naut miles

........................................................

Glen:

Maximum speed 133 kt at sea level
Cruising speed 90 kt at 1,000 m
Climb to 3,000 m
in 10 min 11 sec
Service ceiling 5,420 m
Range 476 naut miles


..............................

So the Glen has about half the range of the Jake acording to the stats (a little less than half) In the Game it has about half the range 4 hexes as aposed to 8 I beleave for the Jake. Each Hex in the Game is 60 NM, so it would take about 2.5 hours to fly out to the range limit, and 2.5 to fly back, takes 10 min to launch...

..............................

Check out the OS2U:

Cruise Speed: 116 mph (186 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 19,000 feet (5,791meters)
Initial Climb Rate: 890 feet (271 meters) per minute
Range: 982 miles (1580 km)

Game Range Is I beelave 5 hexes


...................................

The Radious of search is an abstracted represenatation of a likely are that the plane(s) will find a target in, presuming one is their to find. The more planes that are capable of flying the search mishion the greater the chance of suxcess, for the Glen, or say a Cruzer with a pair of float planes on board and set to 50%, your going to have a low probabality of finding a TF with a given radious at Max range, this is how the game work's, their not saying any one plane will search the whole area, it is a krap shoot, the variables are the same for all "Naval Searches".