Airborne radar

[spence]

I'm in a PBEM in June 1943. I'm Allies. Although various aircraft are reported to be equipped with airborne radar I have seen absolutely no increase in the probability that those aircraft will make an night naval attack over the probability that non-radar-equipped aircraft will make a night naval attack. Radar-equipped Beauforts only seem to attack when the moonlight is 80% or more even though enemy merchant ships are delivering supplies in a port only 4 hexes away which is exactly the same as the attacks by non-radar-equipped Albacores. I have apparently been wasting 20% of these radar equipped Beauforts on night naval search with the sector narrowed to cover only the port and its immediate approaches.

So far not one of any of these attacks that do occur have scored a hit on anything (maybe warships underway might be hard to hit but anchored merchies would not pose quite the same challenge). These attacks have occurred during every single month's high moonlight period since at least January 43.

US Navy planes equipped with radar display the very same inability to accomplish anything useful at night.

[falcon2006]

You should know that in WWII, there is no airborne radar for locking on surface targets, the radar in this game is air to air intercepting radar so these aircrafts can intercept enemy night bombing. Even if some heavy bombers equipped with ASW or AS radars, they are used for increasing detecting probability, not bombing accuracy or frequency

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: falcon2006

You should know that in WWII, there is no airborne radar for locking on surface targets....

That was news to me...but they obviously did need some light (Leigh..?) to perform successful attacks. These may have reached the Pacific quite late in the war.

ORIGINAL: falcon2006the radar in this game is air to air intercepting radar so these aircrafts can intercept enemy night bombing. Even if some heavy bombers equipped with ASW or AS radars, they are used for increasing detecting probability, not bombing accuracy or frequency

If so, the game is seriously out of touch with the RL.....Just my opinion.

Fred

[Feltan]

That isn't correct as far as I know.

Just finished a book: "The B-24 in China" by A.B. Feuer.

It discussed in some level of detail the surface search radar capability used by these aircraft to locate ships and significant ground features. Not all B-24's were so equipped, but certainly quite a few were -- specialized in night time recon and anti-ship strikes.

Regards,
Feltan

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: falcon2006

You should know that in WWII, there is no airborne radar for locking on surface targets, the radar in this game is air to air intercepting radar so these aircrafts can intercept enemy night bombing. Even if some heavy bombers equipped with ASW or AS radars, they are used for increasing detecting probability, not bombing accuracy or frequency

Falcon I'm afraid you are very wrong. MOST RADAR used in USN air craft in WW2 were surface search. Almost without exception air to air RADAR was used in night fighters , or as a "tail warning" RADAR in bombers.

The fact that you state unequivocally "There is no airborne RADAR", then in the next line you say the equivalent of "but even if there is", makes me suspect that you are not sure what you are saying.

As a former USN airborne RADAR operator , who was trained by ww2 era airborne RADAR operators I CAN STATE that there was indeed surface search airborne RADAR in USN aircraft in WW2. Along with talking to the operators , I've seen it.

The question here really has been "Does the game reflect a airborne RADAR capability?". We're waiting for the Dev's to chime in , as only they know what the program is capable of.



One rule that should be UNDERSTOOD by ALL players of this game. THIS IS A GAME! It is NOT reality , but it is as close as the developers could make it with the time, resources and technology (and of course money) available to them. We should never be sucked into the argument that "But they had it in real life!". That argument DOES apply to "this xxx is TOO strong! They COULDN'T do this in real life!". THAT'S where it belongs. But I'm pretty sure this is a programing question , not a historical one. [:)]

[Lecivius]

I have no information on night attack results, but I do use radar equipped Wellingtons for Nav Search to very great effect. Their search exp. is @ 55-60%. I do not get '2CV, 2BB, 1 CA, 4 DD' type results a lot, but I do get fairly accurate ship numbers in each TF. Nothing moves in the IO, and now the South China Sea, now without me knowing there is something there. And as a bomber, they do not get shot down anywhere near as often as a PBY.

[crsutton]

In game terms, I "think" that air search radar will only increase DLs for searching and ASW. I do not think it will effect night bombing or attacks in any form. Except of course a higher DL might cause a response. I just don't recall reading of much in the way of radar directed night naval attack. I would think that for bombing of that type you would eventually need to rely on a visual anyways. But am only speculating here. Just don't really know how much naval bombing the Allies did at night.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

In game terms, I "think" that air search radar will only increase DLs for searching and ASW. I do not think it will effect night bombing or attacks in any form. Except of course a higher DL might cause a response. I just don't recall reading of much in the way of radar directed night naval attack. I would think that for bombing of that type you would eventually need to rely on a visual anyways. But am only speculating here. Just don't really know how much naval bombing the Allies did at night.

RADAR attacks , then as now , are not usually "attacks" per say. What I mean by that is you use RADAR to home in on the target to get a visual. That is in "pin-point" attacks like a ship , tank , specific site , etc. If you are "area bombing" (such as a city , port, airfield, or factory) then you can use RADAR as "attack criteria". In the case of night time Naval attacks (such as a surfaced submarine) you often supplement RADAR with another device such as flares or a Leigh-light. This has the added advantage of completely screwing up your adversary's night vision , an effect that you don't get when attacking by "ambient light" (such as moonlight) alone. Phosprerescence will assist , often in the form of a ship's wake. Or of course the target itself doing something stupid like showing light , firing tracers or allowing some fool to light a cigarette.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: spence

I'm in a PBEM in June 1943. I'm Allies. Although various aircraft are reported to be equipped with airborne radar I have seen absolutely no increase in the probability that those aircraft will make an night naval attack over the probability that non-radar-equipped aircraft will make a night naval attack. Radar-equipped Beauforts only seem to attack when the moonlight is 80% or more even though enemy merchant ships are delivering supplies in a port only 4 hexes away which is exactly the same as the attacks by non-radar-equipped Albacores. I have apparently been wasting 20% of these radar equipped Beauforts on night naval search with the sector narrowed to cover only the port and its immediate approaches.

So far not one of any of these attacks that do occur have scored a hit on anything (maybe warships underway might be hard to hit but anchored merchies would not pose quite the same challenge). These attacks have occurred during every single month's high moonlight period since at least January 43.

US Navy planes equipped with radar display the very same inability to accomplish anything useful at night.

In AE radar has never operated in the manner inferred from the OP it should. Been pointed out several times by devs (Symon most prominent), LoBaron and myself. All it does is aid in increasing the DL at which point I have to, once again draw attention to chapter 10 of the manual.

Note in particular s.10.1.1.1 of the manual which categorically states, and which so many refuse to accept, that the DL of a TF is set to 0, zero, nada at the start of each day and night resolution phase. A TF with a DL of 0 is not going to appear on the map at all, a TF with a DL of 1 or 2 is probably not going to be found even though the aircraft know it is out there somewhere.

So what do we have here.

• Any Patrol squadrons flying night naval search? Answer is almost certainly no.
• Is the enemy TF attacked or spotted, at night by Allied subs? Answer is almost certainly no.
• Does the enemy TF contain carriers which launched night strikes? Answer is almost certainly.

So how exactly do the Allies gain a DL here for the night resolution phase. Answer is almost certainly only from the ground search radar equipped Australian Beaufort VIII and Coast Washers if operations are in the relevant areas. Look up the parts of the manual I have pointed out and you will see that at best, it isn't much of a DL which these methods provide.

Of course the Albacores, without ground search radar will perform just as well as the ground radar equipped Beaufort VIII. Everyone shares the DL equally amongst themselves.

Also why would anyone think that "anchored" ships should be more easily targeted. They are considered to be in the port and can only be targeted by aircraft flying a "Port Attack" mission. I seriously doubt anyone has been ordered to fly such a night mission.

Players who want to achieve the same degree of effectiveness as the Allied forces did historically, need to be as smart as the historical people were. Having the same historical equipment is not going to produce the same results if the game mechanics are not taken into account.

Alfred

[spence]

Also why would anyone think that "anchored" ships should be more easily targeted. They are considered to be in the port and can only be targeted by aircraft flying a "Port Attack" mission. I seriously doubt anyone has been ordered to fly such a night mission.

I only mentioned "anchored" ships to distinguish them as ships in a TF. In the particular case I am referencing here the port is only a 1 so the ships are unloading outside the port (for the most part)...Japanese practice was to anchor out.

Radar should increase the likelihood of aircraft conducting an attack because the enemy is detected. The results of the attack may in fact be mostly governed by the %moonlight but that is not my complaint. The game does not seem to make detection any more likely. Non-radar equipped planes seem to attack with exactly the same frequency as radar equipped planes.

The ASVII radar (and American equivalent) was developed in 1940 and deployed in 1942 on multiple Allied aircraft yet it seems they detect enemy task forces with exactly the same frequency as aircraft that have no radar whatsoever (according to the game anyways). Swordfish and Albatross are unequipped in the game anyways even though engaging at night was in fact recognized as the only way that the Brit CVs had the slightest chance against the KB during the IO Raid in early 1942.

[rustysi]

I may be wrong, but I think the point from a game stance is to not differentiate between radar/non-radar equipped A/C. It is the DL of the target that is important. Now radar can help raise this DL, but the units will attack or not based on other factors. These factors would be experience, leadership, etc.

[Justus2]

ORIGINAL: Alfred


Note in particular s.10.1.1.1 of the manual which categorically states, and which so many refuse to accept, that the DL of a TF is set to 0, zero, nada at the start of each day and night resolution phase. A TF with a DL of 0 is not going to appear on the map at all, a TF with a DL of 1 or 2 is probably not going to be found even though the aircraft know it is out there somewhere.

So what do we have here.

• Any Patrol squadrons flying night naval search? Answer is almost certainly no.
• Is the enemy TF attacked or spotted, at night by Allied subs? Answer is almost certainly no.
• Does the enemy TF contain carriers which launched night strikes? Answer is almost certainly.

So how exactly do the Allies gain a DL here for the night resolution phase. Answer is almost certainly only from the ground search radar equipped Australian Beaufort VIII and Coast Washers if operations are in the relevant areas. Look up the parts of the manual I have pointed out and you will see that at best, it isn't much of a DL which these methods provide.

...
Alfred

Alfred, I want to make sure I understand your point. When you say 'Answer is almost certainly no' on the first two points you make above - are you saying that those actions will NOT improve the DL at night, or that they are likely not being considered in the example?

I assumed (and I'm learning all the time) that patrol aircraft flying night search would in fact increase DL on TFs in the area, and potentially make it easier for attack missions (or subs) to attack later in the night phase. I understand this DL gets reset the following daytime phase.

In the situation described, it seems using the radar-equipped planes on search (or at least a portion of them) would improve DL, allowing the non-radar equipped to then fly attack missions with an improved chance of success.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Justus2

ORIGINAL: Alfred


Note in particular s.10.1.1.1 of the manual which categorically states, and which so many refuse to accept, that the DL of a TF is set to 0, zero, nada at the start of each day and night resolution phase. A TF with a DL of 0 is not going to appear on the map at all, a TF with a DL of 1 or 2 is probably not going to be found even though the aircraft know it is out there somewhere.

So what do we have here.

• Any Patrol squadrons flying night naval search? Answer is almost certainly no.
• Is the enemy TF attacked or spotted, at night by Allied subs? Answer is almost certainly no.
• Does the enemy TF contain carriers which launched night strikes? Answer is almost certainly.

So how exactly do the Allies gain a DL here for the night resolution phase. Answer is almost certainly only from the ground search radar equipped Australian Beaufort VIII and Coast Washers if operations are in the relevant areas. Look up the parts of the manual I have pointed out and you will see that at best, it isn't much of a DL which these methods provide.

...
Alfred

Alfred, I want to make sure I understand your point. When you say 'Answer is almost certainly no' on the first two points you make above - are you saying that those actions will NOT improve the DL at night, or that they are likely not being considered in the example?

I assumed (and I'm learning all the time) that patrol aircraft flying night search would in fact increase DL on TFs in the area, and potentially make it easier for attack missions (or subs) to attack later in the night phase. I understand this DL gets reset the following daytime phase.

In the situation described, it seems using the radar-equipped planes on search (or at least a portion of them) would improve DL, allowing the non-radar equipped to then fly attack missions with an improved chance of success.

Small apology first. There is a typo in the third dot point; it left out the "no" at the end. That might have caused you some problems although the context and format should have limited the degree of confusion resulting from the typo.

All three dot points presented cover standard means by which the DL of an enemy TF can be increased. The OP did not mention whether any of them had been employed/had occurred in the exemplar. From that "omission" my assumption was that they had not. Consequently the only means for increasing the DL could only be attributable to the 20% Beaufort VIII flying night naval search, and if in coast watcher territory (not disclosed). The DL cap from those limited means is very low. The results speak for themselves that the DL is low.

Yes, if you want to conduct aerial night naval attack missions regularly and with a satisfactory ROI, you need to dedicate many entire patrol squadrons to night naval search operations. Doing so maximises your opportunities to garner high DLs on enemy TFs during the night phase. It also means reducing commensurately the number of patrol squadrons available to fly daylight naval search operations. Just like real life, AE is full of trade offs.

There is another concurrent thread on DL/searching. The standard forum folklore is being trotted out. Forum folklore is usually incorrect but I don't normally correct it if the advocated praxis fails to achieve it's perceived objective but the mistaken praxis still results in benefits which may or may not be directly germane to the stated objective.

The fact of life in AE is that there is no electronic warfare in AE. Not all of the primitive WWII technology employed is in the game, and what there is often is abstracted to accommodate it within the combat algorithms. There are no FC finders to assist in naval combat for example. No sonar either and you can see the hoops through which JWE/Symon (and quite possibly Don Bowen too) had to go through when "fixing" within the abstract confines imposed by the naval ASW combat algorithms, the Japanese super E vessels.

Similar constraints apply to radar, both naval and aerial. In naval terms one does not start the initial firing until the Mark I eyeball gets a firing solution. It simply does not matter what ship borne radar is present for that initial salvo. For aerial operations air search radar does assist night fighters, compared to their non so equipped day fighters temporarily committed to night flying, to find their targets. Aerial ground search radar assists but only in terms of the abstracted DL. The same DL level is "broadcast" to all and sundry, irrespective of whether the beneficiaries are land/sea/air units, irrespective of whether those units are operating with radar/sonar/radios.

I keep on saying, and AW1Steve independently also pointed out in post #5 above, AE is a game. Time after time posters (and oh so often they are the same people) complain in so many threads about an aspect of AE because it does not simulate exactly their third hand perception of real world praxis . That type of criticism never has any validity because AE is not a simulation and it just does not matter how many times they cry out that it is, they are always on every single occasion totally wrong. This is before even taking into account playability, hardware, commercial considerations which would effectively negate their possible incorporation into the product's design.

Alfred

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
... I keep on saying, and AW1Steve independently also pointed out in post #5 above, AE is a game. Time after time posters (and oh so often they are the same people) complain in so many threads about an aspect of AE because it does not simulate exactly their third hand perception of real world praxis . That type of criticism never has any validity because AE is not a simulation and it just does not matter how many times they cry out that it is, they are always on every single occasion totally wrong. This is before even taking into account playability, hardware, commercial considerations which would effectively negate their possible incorporation into the product's design.

Alfred

Alfred,

Respectfully, I don't think the distinction is as bright of a line as you may be portraying.

Monopoly is a game. No one writes Milton-Bradley to say it would be more accurate for Boardwalk to cost $450 instead of $400. Monopoly is a gross abstraction of reality -- it is fun, but no one in their right mind considers anything other than a game.

WITP-AE is different. It is not an accurate simulation of detailed events, but it is IMHO a simulation nonetheless. If we as a community were not interested in "making it accurate" most of the content on this forum would not exist. One does not make a mere game (like Monopoly) more accurate, one makes a simulation more accurate.

There are limitations and restrictions as you point out. However, I think it is inaccurate to characterize the tens of thousands of man-hours poured into WITP-AE as exclusively game development -- I continue to think of it as a simulation with constraints.

Regards,
Feltan

[spence]

Alfred,

Respectfully, I don't think the distinction is as bright of a line as you may be portraying.

Monopoly is a game. No one writes Milton-Bradley to say it would be more accurate for Boardwalk to cost $450 instead of $400. Monopoly is a gross abstraction of reality -- it is fun, but no one in their right mind considers anything other than a game.

WITP-AE is different. It is not an accurate simulation of detailed events, but it is IMHO a simulation nonetheless. If we as a community were not interested in "making it accurate" most of the content on this forum would not exist. One does not make a mere game (like Monopoly) more accurate, one makes a simulation more accurate.

There are limitations and restrictions as you point out. However, I think it is inaccurate to characterize the tens of thousands of man-hours poured into WITP-AE as exclusively game development -- I continue to think of it as a simulation with constraints.

+1

I recognize that electronics are abstracted. But why does one need "several squadrons on night naval search" to cover the port of Akyab? 30% of one squadron of radar equipped planes searching one 10 degree sector 4 hexes away from their base (Chittagong) should surely be able to detect whether or not there are ships near the miniscule port of Akyab (a 1) [at least most of the time] but they seem to be no better whatever than their Mark I, Mod 0 Eyeball friends NOT launching a single attack over 6 months of time when the moonlight was less than 80% (exactly like their Mar 1 Eyeball friends).

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: spence
+1

I recognize that electronics are abstracted. But why does one need "several squadrons on night naval search" to cover the port of Akyab? 30% of one squadron of radar equipped planes searching one 10 degree sector 4 hexes away from their base (Chittagong) should surely be able to detect whether or not there are ships near the miniscule port of Akyab (a 1) [at least most of the time] but they seem to be no better whatever than their Mark I, Mod 0 Eyeball friends NOT launching a single attack over 6 months of time when the moonlight was less than 80% (exactly like their Mar 1 Eyeball friends).

spence,

In the book I referenced above, I noted that even with radar the aircraft did a visual recognition as well. It seems more often than not, the "blip" on the radar was a sampan not worthy of attack.

It might not be much consolation, but while radar helped it didn't solve all (or even) most of the detection problems faced by Allied pilots.

Regards,
Feltan

[RevRick]

I would think that if one could get a return signal from a sampan, the corresponding return from a tincan, let alone anything bigger, would probably fricassee that radar unit.

[BBfanboy]

Alfred: Answer is almost certainly only from the ground search radar equipped Australian Beaufort VIII and Coast Washers if operations are in the relevant areas.

I never knew they had people designated to clean up the oil on the coastline from sunken ships. How very green for the time! [:'(]

As for discerning targets - when I took a day cruise out of Phuket we passed through an archipelago of tiny islands and barely exposed reefs that would probably look like anchored ships on radar at night. Imagine your PBY pilot explaining to his CO why he wasted an expensive torpedo on a small island!

One thing I think airborne radar did help with is getting the outline of the coast to help with navigation. Being able to find the enemy port is the first step to locating any ships therein or nearby.

[RangerJoe]

Also if one of those islands is moving . . .

Or if there is a "new" island . . .

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

One thing I think airborne radar did help with is getting the outline of the coast to help with navigation. Being able to find the enemy port is the first step to locating any ships therein or nearby.

Or more importantly, to find the home base.