Switching Float Planes on Subs

[awaw]

radar on subs.... surface radar is only one hex, but air radar sweeps wider and can detect air at greater ranges, thus "early" warning...

I think that you are incorrect. I do believe that radar only works within the hex but a greater range than one hex increases the odds for detection. But the aerial naval search will automatically search 4 hexes away although that does not guarantee detection.

I remember quite vividly when I asked the question on radar sometime (years) back, when a radar has range > hex, it gives increase chances of detection. So I believe Ranger is correct.

[BBfanboy]

BB, I understand all about "height of eye" and target height above the horizon, I have spent years at sea (literally) and way too many hours staring at a PPI display. My question concerns definitive statements about the GAME that are often made with little or no sources put forth. I think we all agree that the earth is round and thus the horizon, etc. What I'm not privy to are the minds and reasoning of the game creators and thus the thought processes that were used in the rules creation. If others are, leading to these definitive statements, all I seek is understanding of that knowledge.... sharing is a wonderful thing!

My statements about range of eyesight and radar came from developers (The ELF?) when detection was being discussed. They did have those things in mind when they developed the algorithm for detection.

[PaxMondo]

Remind me not to answer your questions. You want Alfred who was driven away from the forums.

FYI; Alfred was NOT "driven away" as you put it. In fact he has the green light to return whenever he wants, he has chosen not to.

FYO; He was driven away.

Let me try and intervene here a bit as I interact with both of you a fair amount.

I believe that you are both correct. He chooses not to return, I believe, because he feels that there are certain "things" permitted in this forum that are not in alignment with his ethics. He does not believe, and frankly neither do I, that these "things" will be changed and so he chooses not to return. His choice, yes, but our collective loss.

So, this can be viewed as "driven away" and "chooses not to return" both equally as I feel both are true. Not that it really matters all that much; what matters is that we have lost a valued member of this community and we need to try not to lose any more. He joins a list of others that we have lost to our great diminishment; I will let you privately think through that list.

I'm not sure how well Alfred will view my putting words into his mouth here, and I apologize to him now and will again in the future. Hopefully, we can put this topic away as it doesn't do any of us any good to drag it out more.

This is all I'm going to say, and I fear that I've said more than I should. I just hope the penalty for this is one that I can bear.

[dr.hal]

[/quote]

FYO; He was driven away.
[/quote]
Let me try and intervene here a bit as I interact with both of you a fair amount.

I believe that you are both correct. He chooses not to return, I believe, because he feels that there are certain "things" permitted in this forum that are not in alignment with his ethics. He does not believe, and frankly neither do I, that these "things" will be changed and so he chooses not to return. His choice, yes, but our collective loss.

So, this can be viewed as "driven away" and "chooses not to return" both equally as I feel both are true. Not that it really matters all that much; what matters is that we have lost a valued member of this community and we need to try not to lose any more. He joins a list of others that we have lost to our great diminishment; I will let you privately think through that list.

I'm not sure how well Alfred will view my putting words into his mouth here, and I apologize to him now and will again in the future. Hopefully, we can put this topic away as it doesn't do any of us any good to drag it out more.

This is all I'm going to say, and I fear that I've said more than I should. I just hope the penalty for this is one that I can bear.
[/quote]
Thanks Tony for your input. I've talked to Alfred about his situation in regards to the Forum on multiple occasions and I too would be loath to put words into his mouth. But the facts are his account was suspended for a finite period of time which expired long ago and he was then informed he could return. He was never "driven away" as there are no provisions within the forum for such an action, thus my statement. And I stand by its accuracy. I suspect he could have been suspended indefinitely, but that was NOT the case here, nor am I aware that such an action has ever been done by the moderators. However I'm sure I will be corrected if needs be. I do look upon my interaction on this site as a privilege that I do not want to abuse. Thanks again. Hal

[PaxMondo]

Thanks Tony for your input. I've talked to Alfred about his situation in regards to the Forum on multiple occasions and I too would be loath to put words into his mouth. But the facts are his account was suspended for a finite period of time which expired long ago and he was then informed he could return. He was never "driven away" as there are no provisions within the forum for such an action, thus my statement. And I stand by its accuracy. I suspect he could have been suspended indefinitely, but that was NOT the case here, nor am I aware that such an action has ever been done by the moderators. However I'm sure I will be corrected if needs be. I do look upon my interaction on this site as a privilege that I do not want to abuse. Thanks again. Hal

Hal,

Know and respect you. I acknowledge you are correct, but I believe that both of you are. I believe that you two are seeing different sides of the same coin. In the end what matters is that Alfred no longer joins us, and that is our collective loss.

Take care and hang in there!!

[dr.hal]

Thanks Tony for your input. I've talked to Alfred about his situation in regards to the Forum on multiple occasions and I too would be loath to put words into his mouth. But the facts are his account was suspended for a finite period of time which expired long ago and he was then informed he could return. He was never "driven away" as there are no provisions within the forum for such an action, thus my statement. And I stand by its accuracy. I suspect he could have been suspended indefinitely, but that was NOT the case here, nor am I aware that such an action has ever been done by the moderators. However I'm sure I will be corrected if needs be. I do look upon my interaction on this site as a privilege that I do not want to abuse. Thanks again. Hal

Hal,

Know and respect you. I acknowledge you are correct, but I believe that both of you are. I believe that you two are seeing different sides of the same coin. In the end what matters is that Alfred no longer joins us, and that is our collective loss.

Take care and hang in there!!

I completely agree with you Tony, thanks. Have fun yourself! Hal

[Chris21wen]

I don't disagree with what's been said here. My argument here is I want my subs to look for ships, can't shoot an ac down with a torpedo.

When I first started this it was to see how effective a single Glen is, mainly is it worth using, hence producing. The answer is yes they do find stuff but whether finding a TF improves a subs ability to intercept is another thing. So the question is still open. But they can also be used as early warning pickets as has been pointed out but here it's the radar doing the job not he aircraft.

Here's my two penneth on this.

Japanese didn't have sub radar until mid 1944 before that they had to rely on the mark 1 eyeball. Standing on a sub's conning tower I'd say 5-6 miles range tops and that's on a good day. Stick a mark 1 eyeball higher, say 5K in a Glen then it's 80 mi (2 hexes) but there's only one ac covering daylight hours and despite the extra range it's now a much larger area. At 10K the range is 200 miles (5 hexes)

WW2 radar was mediocre at best with limited range with both size of target and height playing a big part in detecting and being detected.

Japanese sub radars were primarily early warning not surface search although at very short ranges they could also detect surface but in those days short range clutter becomes a major problem, basically verging on useless. Ignoring the technicalities of the day, in game surface radar detection range is limited to one hex as it was IRL. The Japanese type 13 had an EW range of up to 100 km, which is less than two hexes in game. much less for single ac like a (low) patrolling Cat.

Although the type 22 could detect surface better it had an even shorter range and was very directive, little more than a gunnery radar which it did get used for.

I've tested Nav search (no radar) and I've posted my findings in a separate thread.

[RangerJoe]

A lookout may not see the ship but might see the smoke on the horizon. Some of the cargo ships still burned coal and even burning oil, some smoke may be there. So with convoys, there may be enough smoke to be seen quite a distance away. Also, the submarines may also raise their periscopes for searching while they were surfaced.

As far as night goes, a lit cigarette can be seen very far away. So could other lights. That is why the strict blackout protocols were used while neutral shipping and hospital ships were very lit up. Even the Japanese and Allies exchanged people using hospital ships.