ASW Range question

[blbl]

The Manual says the actual ASW range is half of the normal range. if the ASW range is 5, What's the actual range? 3 or 2?

[Chris21wen]

Now this has been asked before and I should remember but can't so I'd assume the worst. But I do have a related question which i've always wondered about and that is why is ASW half normal range?

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Now this has been asked before and I should remember but can't so I'd assume the worst. But I do have a related question which i've always wondered about and that is why is ASW half normal range?

Yes! Inquiring minds want to know! Though the answer which may or may not be probably forthcoming will be "It's a lot harder to spot a periscope than an aircraft carrier!"

[wdolson]

The reason why it is halved is one of those things that is lost in the depths of time.  I don't know why it is that way, but it is.

A general rule of thumb is that if anything is divided, the fraction is usually thrown away (it's a C/C++ thing).  So if you have a range of 5, 1/2 would usually be 2.  There are a few places where fractions are handled, but most of the time, the fraction is discarded.

Bill

[ltfightr]

If I remember right this was part of an real early WITP patch because ASW went like this. Sub spotted, Every ship in tf spotts sub and launches depth charges every depth charge homes in on sub sub is hit 37 times and sinks. This was on both sides so than was one of the things that turned down asw.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Now this has been asked before and I should remember but can't so I'd assume the worst. But I do have a related question which i've always wondered about and that is why is ASW half normal range?

Because until the recent addition of "search vectors" it was the only way of reflecting the smaller search horizon caused by the lower search altitude needed to spot submarines. Now that we have vectors, the question is why have we not corrected ASW Search so that the A/C have their full range, but a smaller search vector?

Example: If 'x' number of A/C give full search value with a vector of 60 degrees, then the same 'x' number of A/C would give full ASW search value with a vector of 30 degrees. This would be a more accurate representation of reality than what we have now.

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The reason why it is halved is one of those things that is lost in the depths of time.  I don't know why it is that way, but it is.

A general rule of thumb is that if anything is divided, the fraction is usually thrown away (it's a C/C++ thing).  So if you have a range of 5, 1/2 would usually be 2.  There are a few places where fractions are handled, but most of the time, the fraction is discarded.

Bill

Perhaps because ASW needs more loiter time to spot the small periscopes?

[Chickenboy]

Generally speaking, didn't most successful ASW aircraft searches spot SURFACED submarines, not periscopes?

It would take an almost uncanny amount of luck and skill to spot a periscope by itself while airborne. A shadow under the surface in clear and calm waters would probably be easier to identify than a periscope per se.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Generally speaking, didn't most successful ASW aircraft searches spot SURFACED submarines, not periscopes? ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Until the advent of nuclear power, submarines were more accurately designed ass torpedo boats that could submerge when threatened.

It would take an almost uncanny amount of luck and skill to spot a periscope by itself while airborne. A shadow under the surface in clear and calm waters would probably be easier to identify than a periscope per se. Actually, as with ships, what could be spotted was the periscope's wake more than the periscope itself.

[Dili]

Like Mike Scholl says.
In RAF against U-Boots the ideal search altitude was 1500ft. At that height the submarines couldn't detect the aircraft in time to submerge.