Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Should there be a radio silence option?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War >> Should there be a radio silence option? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Should there be a radio silence option? - 6/13/2007 3:01:14 AM   
Blond_Knight


Posts: 1031
Joined: 5/15/2004
Status: offline
Should there be a radio silence option? I remember how important the option was in the NES game PTO, and how quickly the tactical coordination problems arise from reading Fuchida's book.
Post #: 1
RE: Should there be a radio silence option? - 6/13/2007 3:31:03 AM   
CJMello63


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/15/2004
From: Raynham, Massachusetts
Status: offline
I kicked ass at PTO II.

_____________________________


(in reply to Blond_Knight)
Post #: 2
RE: Should there be a radio silence option? - 6/13/2007 5:51:50 AM   
GoofTrooper


Posts: 54
Joined: 7/22/2004
From: USA
Status: offline
PTO Series, now that brings back some memories....Long before I had a PC, the Sega Genesis was my only means of gaming. PTO 2 was the best of them, 4 absolutely sucked. They are all lame compared to UV/WITP, both of which are what the PTO series could only hope to be. Koei's best games are the RTK series. RTK10 was a very well done game, minus the Russian Orchestra playing during ancient China.

I don't think radio silence would be as important in CAW as it would be for an operational/strategic level game (like WITP). Since the point of maintaining radio silence was to prevent the enemy from knowing you were in the area or what area your fleet was operating in, not so much to prevent tactical discovery and attack (CAW Scale).

I am not an expert on WWII EW, so I can't say how, or if it was used tactically.

_____________________________


(in reply to Blond_Knight)
Post #: 3
RE: Should there be a radio silence option? - 6/13/2007 6:00:21 AM   
Blond_Knight


Posts: 1031
Joined: 5/15/2004
Status: offline
Good point about the scale, but wouldnt EW emissions be viewed on the same scale as the coast watchers which are included?

(in reply to GoofTrooper)
Post #: 4
RE: Should there be a radio silence option? - 6/13/2007 6:21:45 AM   
GoofTrooper


Posts: 54
Joined: 7/22/2004
From: USA
Status: offline
Not necessarily, coast watchers were relying on visual sightings which are far more revealing then simple radio direction finding. I would think DF would be limited by horizon, at least as far as being useful for triangulation.

Also, coast watchers reports may have been better integrated with local commanders (i.e. more available), then EW/DF. Given the limitations of DF, it would make sense that only those who would benefit from it would have the mechanisms for receiving their intel. Anyone else know?


_____________________________


(in reply to Blond_Knight)
Post #: 5
RE: Should there be a radio silence option? - 6/13/2007 6:33:40 AM   
GoofTrooper


Posts: 54
Joined: 7/22/2004
From: USA
Status: offline
Just a thought.

Coast watchers a far easier to implement than EW.

Aircraft wouldn’t be limited by the horizon, but I don’t know if WW2 reconnaissance aircraft were capable of using DF for enemy detection.

In any case that could be a whole can of worms to open when considering all of the variables.


_____________________________


(in reply to Blond_Knight)
Post #: 6
RE: Should there be a radio silence option? - 6/13/2007 7:05:46 PM   
MarkShot

 

Posts: 7089
Joined: 3/29/2003
Status: offline
I thought the British were using Huff Duff to triangulate on German u-boat tranmissions? Where were the receivers located located? Escorts? Air search?

_____________________________

(於 11/13/21 台北,台灣,中國退休)

(in reply to GoofTrooper)
Post #: 7
RE: Should there be a radio silence option? - 6/13/2007 10:27:15 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

I thought the British were using Huff Duff to triangulate on German u-boat tranmissions? Where were the receivers located located? Escorts? Air search?


Both.
Afaik, Mosquito and Lancaster bombers used to conduct recon missions with Huff-Duff + radar .... their mission radiuses (radii? sp? ) covered most of the U-Boats' aeas of operation in the North Atlantic by 1943 or late 1943.

The famous Hunter-Killer Groups either used recon planes (CV based) or escorts which were equipped with Huff-Duff. Once the sub (if still surfaced) got in radar range, the radar was used to track it (H2S radar was first installed on a plane in January 1943 btw), then the improved ASDIC was used in case the sub tried to escape with an emergency dive.
Surprise bombardments (bombs/depth charges) or surprise fire coming from those planes also threatened refuel/resupply meetings, and such planes, along with the Hunter Killer Groups, were able to kill all German supply subs ("Milchkühe" -> "dairy cows") during the war and even sunk a number of regular subs during those resupply-rendezvous. Ultra informations AND Huff-Duff were essential here.

As far as I know the German Sub Commander Dönitz and the Navy developers were not aware of the existence or the operating mode of the Huff-Duff devices. They just focused on Allied radar development, but couldn't get enough informations about the most recent developments, plus their own devs were not able to reduce the wavelengths (for german radar systems) as quickly. The german nightfighters in 1944 used 9 cm radars and devices that could kinda ride on a "beam" coming from Allied planes using H2S or used ground-based homing systems (radio etc.)
Also, the german counter-measures Metox and Naxos (for british H2S) put in german subs were meant to be "simple" warning systems (just a light in fact) that could detect changes in transmissions from Allied radar systems, but german developers did not follow the Allied development, a development where the wavelength was being reduced constantly, down to 9, 5 and even 3cm radars at the end of the war, afaik. So warning devices became useless at the point where Allied planes were using devices with other wavelengths, although the NAXOS received some upgrades.

Allied shore-based Huff-Duff installations had been constructed around the North Atlantic, covering a good part of the U-boats' lines of approach (from french sub-bases), the channel and parts of the american East coast, just to name a few areas.

Huff-Duff combined with ASDIC + the work done at Bletchely Park beat the german subs in WW2. Allied radar improvements made sub-attacks at night (surfaced) almost impossible, but the Allies' advantage regarding radar technology appeared to get toned down somewhat in 1944 IMHO - as the germans came up with similar or other interesting solutions (i.e. nightfighters with radar, subs with snorkel, improved ground installations, "Düppel" -> chaffs).

Back to the topic. Strict radio silence hampered quite a few of japanese air and carrier operations during WW2. While it made sense to maintain silence where an enemy can track down the direction of a radio signal (questions is whether the japs knew about Huff-Duff or not, though) in theory, it hampered coordination and assignment of reserves.

So, having such an option would add some realism, no doubt.

My 2 cents

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 6/13/2007 11:12:58 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to MarkShot)
Post #: 8
RE: Should there be a radio silence option? - 6/19/2007 7:29:34 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
*BUMP*

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blond_Knight
Should there be a radio silence option? I remember how important the option was in the NES game PTO, and how quickly the tactical coordination problems arise from reading Fuchida's book.


Such an option would be a neat item for the wishlist, no?


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Blond_Knight)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War >> Should there be a radio silence option? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.937