Web pages about submarine air-search radars

[el cid again]

Seems that 1.791beta patch will address the problem a bit since Mike Wood is toning down the air-ASW. Have to see how it effects the game. But I'm still using official 1.6 ...not going to mess with betas.

Hmmm - my impression air ASW is not as effective as it ought to be. For example, it seems to have no effect to have planes overhead when escorts attack subs - but it should make a BIG difference.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Seems that 1.791beta patch will address the problem a bit since Mike Wood is toning down the air-ASW. Have to see how it effects the game. But I'm still using official 1.6 ...not going to mess with betas.

Hmmm - my impression air ASW is not as effective as it ought to be. For example, it seems to have no effect to have planes overhead when escorts attack subs - but it should make a BIG difference.

Cid, what we mean when we say ASW is too effective is that subs go glug glug glug in the game and that is about all they do. Setup in a game optimal fashion, air assets can clobber subs. And the ASW task forces in the game make Johnny Walker's efforts look like baby steps.

Also, air/naval coordination is just not in the engine - we're told this was never intended to be a tactical game.

[el cid again]

Cid, what we mean when we say ASW is too effective is that subs go glug glug glug in the game and that is about all they do. Setup in a game optimal fashion, air assets can clobber subs. And the ASW task forces in the game make Johnny Walker's efforts look like baby steps.

Also, air/naval coordination is just not in the engine - we're told this was never intended to be a tactical game.

To start at the end - tell em (loudly and repeatedly until they get it) that this is NOT a tactical issue - you cannot simulate operational effects if they are not present. Even a SINGLE plane matters - and you simply cannot simulate protecting a TF if it does not get in the code.

To go back to the beginning - in my experience subs are either effective (for me) or irritating (if enemy). I do not like the lack of sub operating mode options - and I agree that being forced to attack when you just want information - or being forced to attack on the surface when you would not - or being forced to move on the surface when your would not - all increase attrition over reality. But I find even the AI can use subs in ways that are not nice - and I can get much better scores than history with them. One player said that I use Japanese fleet boats like modern SSNs!

[jwilkerson]

Well I guess you could say that air increasing the DL of a sub is to an extent representing coordination, since the TF gets to exploit the DL increase, in fact this is part of what makes the ASW TFs so deadly .. the air search is so powerful that the ASW TFs know where all the subs are so they roll over them and squash 'em ... so I guess I'll reverse myself and say the air / naval coordination is at least abstractly though powerfully represented !

[el cid again]

Air warning radar:

Type 3 Radar is available from about April 1944.

A variation of this, for airplanes, is available about July 1944.
It is the "Air Model 6" and it is about the same as a British ASV II - which is to say it hunts surface ships.

Type 2 Radar is available from about January 1942. It has several variations:

Type 2 Mark 2: Jan 1942
Type 2 Mark 2 Mod 1: Apr 1942
Type 2 Mark 2 Mod 1 KAI 2: Jan 1943
Type 2 Mark 2 Mod 1 KAI 3: Apr 1944.

The latter type is ALSO a surface warning radar - that is it is a proper Surface Search/Air Search radar in US/UK terms.

There is also a specialist surface search Radar:

Mark 2 Mod 2: Jan 1944.

The aircraft carrier subs had three sets -
1x Mark 2 Mod 2 and
2x Type 2 Mark 2 Mod 2 KAI 3

Practice was to use one Mark 2 for radar and one for ESM!

Sort of primitive passive ECM.