MAD Question

[oaltinyay]

1. WHen does MAD become available for Japanese planes ?

2. Does it make a difference ?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

1. WHen does MAD become available for Japanese planes ?

2. Does it make a difference ?

I believe Japan Mutually Assured its Destruction on December 7th. [:D]

[oaltinyay]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

1. WHen does MAD become available for Japanese planes ?

2. Does it make a difference ?

I believe Japan Mutually Assured its Destruction on December 7th. [:D]

Sehr lustig Herr Bolter ...

I add a third question : When does the N-6 Radar for Kates become available ?

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

1. WHen does MAD become available for Japanese planes ?

2. Does it make a difference ?

Not very much, but then Magnetic Anomaly Detection wasn't very effective in the war either.

3. When does the N-6 Radar for Kates become available ?

[n01487477]

double post ... when will they upgrade the forum software?

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

1. WHen does MAD become available for Japanese planes ?

2. Does it make a difference ?

Very little that I can see. It is like finally getting that bicycle that you always needed at the same time your neighbor just bought his fourth Lamborghini. The reality is that the Allied qualitative edge is growing exponentially so much faster than the Japanese.

[dr.hal]

Isn't there a Japanese aircraft that starts the war with MAD??? Or am I MAD???

[jwolf]

I don't know if the Japanese start with MAD but in my game May 1942 my Japanese opponent said he just recently was able to upgrade some ASW planes with MAD. It's possible this got priority in the research queue so came out a bit earlier than usual; I don't know.

[geofflambert]

You, playing the game, must have a code, that you can live by,
And so, become an elf, because that MAD is just a fly by.
Teach your pilots well, that MAD alarm will never ring nigh,
And learn them silhouettes, the ones you go by.
Don't they ever ask you why, 'cause you would cry, 'cause you don't know why.
So just look at them and siiiigh, 'cause you can't tell why.

MAD is worthless. Just train crews for ASW, give them planes then assign them to choke points and ports. They'll get it done.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

You, playing the game, must have a code, that you can live by,
And so, become an elf, because that MAD is just a fly by.
Teach your pilots well, that MAD alarm will never ring nigh,
And learn them silhouettes, the ones you go by.
Don't they ever ask you why, 'cause you would cry, 'cause you don't know why.
So just look at them and siiiigh, 'cause you can't tell why.

MAD is worthless. Just train crews for ASW, give them planes then assign them to choke points and ports. They'll get it done.

MAD in the GAME is worthless. IRL it's a sub killer. Maybe I'm prejudiced , but having operated it for 20+ years I can attest it's not worthless. In mid 1943 the 1st USN squadron (VP-5 , the MAD foxes , still known by that to this day) pretty much shut down the mediterrean sea to U-boats. But like a lot of other things in the game , (like the atomic bomb) it really doesn't. Oh well. [:)]

[geofflambert]

Can you state that MAD (the initial Japanese version) was not worthless?

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Can you state that MAD (the initial Japanese version) was not worthless?

Worthless? No. It was not used to best tactical advantage. But new devices seldom are. How well did the allies use RADAR early in the Guadalcanal campaign? [:)]

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

I don't know if the Japanese start with MAD but in my game May 1942 my Japanese opponent said he just recently was able to upgrade some ASW planes with MAD. It's possible this got priority in the research queue so came out a bit earlier than usual; I don't know.

It doesn't matter if the planes have MAD in '42, the device is not operational until the device is available.

[Wijter]

From the editor
Japanese MAD is Device 1919
Available from 4406
Range is 1 (= 1.000 yards), so you should fly low

Japanese groups used MAD equipped AC to detect dived submarines on daytime patrols, at night they used Radar.

[Alpha77]

Seems here is some confusion re MAD. [:-]

In reality, MAD is only useful to detect dived subs BUT not far away from the airplane. It also would be almost useless to detect subs build with non magnetic steel. In game it seems to work as a kind of low tech radar (?). So MAD can detect subs on the surface in this game, which MAD can´t do.

Maybe we should ask A.E. Neuman from MAD ?

http://www.jordanorlando.com/other/donm ... in_02.html


Neuman says that all subs in WW2 could be detected by MAD. They were all build with "normal" steel. Here is a sub that MAD would have difficulty with:
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/German- ... -class.htm

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

I don't know if the Japanese start with MAD but in my game May 1942 my Japanese opponent said he just recently was able to upgrade some ASW planes with MAD. It's possible this got priority in the research queue so came out a bit earlier than usual; I don't know.

Not possible asfaik. The MAD arrival date should be fixed. And a plane that can get it exists at wars start already. This one and others can not get this device before the scheduled date (imho). Which would be 6/44 per posted above.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Seems here is some confusion re MAD. [:-]

In reality, MAD is only useful to detect dived subs BUT not far away from the airplane. It also would be almost useless to detect subs build with non magnetic steel. In game it seems to work as a kind of low tech radar (?). So MAD can detect subs on the surface in this game, which MAD can´t do.

Maybe we should ask A.E. Neuman from MAD ?

http://www.jordanorlando.com/other/donm ... in_02.html


Neuman says that all subs in WW2 could be detected by MAD. They were all build with "normal" steel. Here is a sub that MAD would have difficulty with:
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/German- ... -class.htm

Excuse me, but WHO says MAD doesn't work for surfaced subs? MAD works on anything magnetic, of decent size , and within range. As a matter of practice I would often turn on my MAD as we were passing over surface ships (what we called a "rigging run") simply to provide practice and calibration on a known target of known size and depth (0 feet!) . MAD is perfectly usable on a surfaced sub , but under almost every circumstance I can think of any surfaced sub in MAD range should well be in visual. But like using RADAR to acquire a target you already have a visual on (except a thunder cloud) it isn't really necessary. [:D]

Now about non-magnetic subs. There have been such beasts , but they are very expensive , both to build and maintain. The Soviet Navy had their Alfa and Mike class subs made of titanium. The soviets referred to the Alfa's as "golden fish" as one boat used up almost their entire years production to build just one boat (and a great deal of that years Naval budget). The West Germans built several small boats of non-magnetic steel , but that was due to the mine threat , not MAD. And it was a budget buster .


MAD is rarely (and usually unsuccessful) for "Open ocean MAD hunts", and such things are generally done as training (and boredom on the part of the operator). MAD is less of a hunting device and more on a targeting device. In a restricted "choke point" that a sub must pass through you may continuously patrol with MAD equipped aircraft. But in open ocean , not so much. But once you have a general idea of location , then you commence various MAD hunting tactics and you can get targeting information refined enough to drop a torpedo or depth charge. It's extremely good for refining a "visual contact gone sinker" (a sub that you saw and dove ) or a RADAR contact. Either way you have some kind of "Datum" to base your search upon. In a 20 year career as a MAD operator I've had precisely 3 MAD contacts as 1st source of data. That's it. (And I believe I had a higher rate of success than most operators because I turned MAD any time we were low enough to use it). On two of those contacts I picked up the contact only because we were flying a MAD run on a "known target" (EXERCISE SUB) And another sub was trailing it. The other case was blind , simple luck.

So if you think of MAD as similar to a "fire control RADAR" you'll see how it fits in. You don't locate a ship or target with a fire control RADAR. You find it with something else, then use the firecontrol to aim your weapons. MAD works exactly the same way. [:)]

[Skyland]

Why no more MAD on US P-8A ?
India having it on their P-8I.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Skyland

Why no more MAD on US P-8A ?
India having it on their P-8I.

There's a lot of debate. Experienced ASW operators are horrified at giving up a useful device. Boeing and anyone involved in selling , or maintaining the aircraft says "we don't need it". Japan's P-1 also retains MAD. But the USN doesn't seem to think submarines are a threat anymore. They did not replace the S-3B Vikings on carriers , saying that short ranged helo's can pick up the slack. [:@] [:@][:@]
You probably won't hear much concern about subs and carriers till someone stuffs a couple of torpedoes up the rear of some fat arsed bird farm! [:@] After all, this is the same mentality that guards secrets with a $2 padlock , if that! [:(]

[geofflambert]

The Wikipedia article says the operational altitude of the P-8 is too high for MAD. Even though the P-8 is Navy, I should think the CVNs should have some ASW aircraft of their own.