House Rules Discussion

[spence]

I'm not sure that gyroscopic input was part of the SG radar but one did get a "god's eye view" of the battlefield with the owning ship in the center and either true (gyroscope input) or relative bearings (to the ship's present heading) and accurate ranges. Using 2 or more prominent radar reflecting land features one could determine one's own position and "fire by the map" at targets such as an airfield. Artillery spotting was very helpful since the bombardment depended on the accuracy of the map. Maps of SW Pacific islands were not all that accurate though.

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Only if there is some relevant geographic mark near the target that appear in radar that could help. By 1942 there wasn't even PPI.

I was asking about the use of radar with bombardments in the game.

Pretty sure in real life that PPI's came standard as part of the SG outfit in the second half of '42. The SG equipped ships in the October and November naval clashes off Guadalcanal all used PPI's.

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: spence

I'm not sure that gyroscopic input was part of the SG radar but one did get a "god's eye view" of the battlefield with the owning ship in the center and either true (gyroscope input) or relative bearings (to the ship's present heading) and accurate ranges. Using 2 or more prominent radar reflecting land features one could determine one's own position and "fire by the map" at targets such as an airfield. Artillery spotting was very helpful since the bombardment depended on the accuracy of the map. Maps of SW Pacific islands were not all that accurate though.

From what I've read, SG was at best more of a targeting guide than a fire control radar, although it could spot the fall of shot.

In what was possibly the very first use of US cruisers in a night bombardment mission (Jan 5th '43), the SG radar was initially used to locate two pre-selected landmarks off the target (Munda airfield) in order to determine the ship's relative position and help guide it to its planned starting position for the bombardment. As that point approached, the SG data was used to coach the more precise FC fire control radars onto the landmarks to begin a running plot of bearings and ranges to both generate target data as well as accurately gauge the point to begin the timed firing plot. Once the FC fire control radars had taken over, the SG returned to its role of navigation aid and search radar during the firing run. And as you indicated, central to everything they had to have a very accurate grid-map for the night fire mission. The mission was also performed without any form of target illumination.

[spence]

From what I've read, SG was at best more of a targeting guide than a fire control radar, although it could spot the fall of shot.

The SG radar was the first radar to use the PPI display which provided the user with a "god's eye view" of the battlefield (sorta like standing over a map). One could obtain a bearing (direction) to the target and a decent range to the target but one could see both the range and bearing right off the PPI display. Fire control radars needed to be pointed directly at their target but did give an extremely accurate range using an "A scope". They were unable to determine the direction of the target unless they were pointing at it either purposefully or by accident.

The problem with spotting the fall of shot with an SG radar is the length of time the shot's image would actually remain on the PPI scope. Generally the fleeting image of a shot faded before one was able to physically move "the bug" onto the image to determine range (forgot what the official terminology of bug is). The images of important landmarks on the PPI scope would remain and hardly change much between sweeps of the radar antenna.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
From what I've read, SG was at best more of a targeting guide

One must ask Mandrake-san if SG need to provide targeting guidance. [X(]

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
From what I've read, SG was at best more of a targeting guide

One must ask Mandrake-san if SG need to provide targeting guidance. [X(]

DANGER - Cross Thread posting! This thread may be sucked into the AE AAR vortex at any time. Proceed at your own risk.

[Buckrock]

Just think how vast the forum's knowledge base might have become by the time this thread next emerges from its slumber. Perhaps they might even have the answer to my question on radar&bombardment in the game.[:)]

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: spence
The problem with spotting the fall of shot with an SG radar is the length of time the shot's image would actually remain on the PPI scope. Generally the fleeting image of a shot faded before one was able to physically move "the bug" onto the image to determine range (forgot what the official terminology of bug is). The images of important landmarks on the PPI scope would remain and hardly change much between sweeps of the radar antenna.

If used for tracking fall of shot, the SG would be set for a narrow sector search to ensure the target was continually illuminated but obviously this would be at the cost of the SG's 360 deg search capability. Use of the SG in such a manner was generally frowned upon by leadership above SAG TF level. The temptation to use SG radar for salvo spotting was less compelling after early '43 when the FC fire control radar began to be replaced by the more powerful FH model, a type that proved capable of clearly tracking salvo splashes in relation to the target.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Just think how vast the forum's knowledge base might have become by the time this thread next emerges from its slumber. Perhaps they might even have the answer to my question on radar&bombardment in the game.[:)]

It was first answered circa 2010 and often repeated since.

There is no FC in the game.

The game design is both more complicated and simplified abstracted in terms of detection levels and their impact on game play.

Alfred

[Buckrock]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Just think how vast the forum's knowledge base might have become by the time this thread next emerges from its slumber. Perhaps they might even have the answer to my question on radar&bombardment in the game.[:)]

It was first answered circa 2010 and often repeated since.

There is no FC in the game.

The game design is both more complicated and simplified abstracted in terms of detection levels and their impact on game play.

Alfred

Thanks Alfred. I'd not been able to identify any relevent threads through a site search but since you've stated the case, I'll now stop wondering.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy

The P-39 was equipped with oxygen; a few P-400s (export version) that were delivered to Guadalcanal had the equipment removed for some reason. The real reason pilots rarely took it above 12,000 feet was its single-stage, single-speed supercharger. The engine quickly lost power above 12,000 ft; later P-39Ns and Qs had the supercharger adjusted to provide max boost around 15,000 feet, so the plane performed okay up to 18,000 ft. The P-40 suffered from the same problem (since it was also stuck with a single-stage, single-speed supercharger).

+1

Thanks - I am rather constantly amazed at the depth of knowledge of the members here.

I cannot recall where I read my disclaimer ~ perhaps it applied to export versions only ? Unsure. Frankly not entirely relevant then.

Either way your commentary speaks to using metrics "other than maneuver bands" which are rather broad and/ or sacrificing the "smallish loss of performance" for the 'dive attack bonus' (perhaps equally small) i.e. P39s and P40s at 25000 feet

The proposed house rule being : Max 12000 for Allied engines with single stage supercharger

Other knowledgeable players can likely opine about Japanese aircraft.

[Yaab]

The rule would be easier to remember if you could edit the altitudes in Editor.

[LeeChard]

I would like to be able to limit the altitude of allied aircraft early in the war
to around 10,000 to 12,000ft in areas that do not have a supply of oxygen.
p40's and 39's seem to be too effective in the Coral Sea area.