RE: What is wrong with japanese radars?

RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

el cid again -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/14/2006 2:12:28 PM)
There are sources and there are sources. The Polmar book on IJN submarines is difinitive - and I was able to talk USNI into running it again - it was long out of print. They found the Japanese Army had provided the IJN with a practical radar for its submarines - and I believe this is what is confusing your people. The latest book with really good information - it is just out - puts the Navy type 13 at July 1942. [Instruments of Darkness: it has a whole appendix on Japanese radar; a nother on German radar - but only principle types get described]. Nor is it correct to say that ship based radar is all that matters: Japan began its networks (eventually 80 stations strong) of land based air search sites in 1941 - before the war began. Interestingly, both the army and navy often used the same site! While that is criticized as inefficient, it does offer some redundency to the system. Nor is it correct to say that radar is the main way to detect airplanes. Japanese civil defense never had less than two hours warning of a bomber raid - the sirens always sounded at least two hours early. This was based almost exclusively on VISUAL reporting stations - not simulated - but probably also not right. Note that the famed coastwatchers reported more planes than ships - and that Japan had coastwatcher units as such - something which never got into UV. Spotter units often are more valuable than radar - because they identify plane types - radar does not. Late in the war Japan went over to using air spotters. Aside from giving AA guns the altitude of attackers (these being light planes), they used formal recon planes to seek out enemy formations for interceptors - often at remarkable ranges (several hexes in game terms). This was the key to a number of very successful fighter units late in the war. For the story of the naval units, see Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units of World War Two. Detection is a broader subject than just air search radar - and I have not even mentioned radio intercept, radar intercept and the electromagnetic fence - all of which Japan used - and used more than we did. Note that, since Type 13 radar is AIR SEARCH ONLY, RHS uses it in that form already. Similarly, Type 21 is AIR SEARCH ONLY, and RHS defines it that way. Only Type 22 is surface search. However, the range of Type 13 is wrong in stock and CHS - I reduced it by 10%.

el cid again -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/14/2006 2:16:02 PM)
To the extent possible, RHS added new toys. However, the added radars would not work in the available slots - so it was necessary to combine them (for aircraft radar). It was possible to add MAD gear - and Andrew invented the snorkel (in WITP terms) - which are toys of a sort. A sweeping change would be slot limited - so that would only really be practical if we go to generic devices - and assign a "level 2 radar" or whatever we call it to either side - when and as appropriate. By not trying to have separate British, US and Japanese lines of radar for all types, we might make some progress this way - getting more types in for all. RHS also added quite a few plane types - and almost planes (blimps). But it preserved the separate US and Allied designations - because otherwise the Allies get to use AMERICAN pools - and are not slow to replace up - which is ahistorical. Also, in RHS the planes are NOT the same - even if basically the same. They have different weapons and different performance (becuase of various things, technical and policy wise). It is the RN that introduced rockets to carrier planes - so it is on their planes you first encounter them. [Rockets are another toy added by RHS - a semi-experimental one at this point] Even so, we were able to add heavy transports, gliders, and do things like give flying boat transports a true ability to operate as flying boats. We added submarine bombers - what sense does an I-12 or I-400 make without its bomber? - and the plane carried on the semicarriers - and some nice missing planes for both sides - including a real Japanese heavy bomber (not a fictional one) - and Anson - which was important down under (not to mention in RCAF). It added ARMY carrier planes - why have army carriers without them? In the end these changes were too radical for CHS in one pass - which is why RHS was born - so they could be demonstrated - and possibly adopted one day.

Sardaukar -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/14/2006 2:20:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus He did... Can't find it anymore, but he did... Found it !! http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1117737#

el cid again -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/14/2006 2:30:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence I'm not sure but it seems to me that some ships, designated as ASW ships, at the beginning of the war had either no echo ranging sonar and perhaps not even a hydrophone. They were entirely dependent on lookouts for submarine detection and WAGs for anti-submarine attack. Just in case any of the team has nothing to do and has a few extra slots maybe we could get some differentiation in the ASW capabilities of ASW ships other than the number of charges they drop. It appears that there is a real difference between ASW ships in hard code. This seems to be tied to two facts: 1) The Nation. If you are Japan, too bad. 2) The ship type. Thus a DE is better than anything else. A PC (and several other types - including even a CL ) are pretty marginal. And a DD is apparently in between these extremes. So it is not just the weapon count that matters. Then there are ahead throwing weapons. These exist on both sides - and I added the historical (but missing) projectors of IJN (well - some of them - not the ASW shells for normal guns and the peculiar short guns). These seem to be quite different than DCs - and we have lots of control over their effect too. So the raw material is there for modders to use. Be careful HOW you classify a ship - and also how you arm her - and you get quite nice differences.

Terminus -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/14/2006 2:31:41 PM)
I thought I'd seen somewhere that the Japanese never developed a forward-firing ASW projector...[&:]

jwilkerson -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/14/2006 4:00:19 PM)
quote: There are sources and there are sources. The Polmar book on IJN submarines is difinitive - and I was able to talk USNI into running it again - it was long out of print. They found the Japanese Army had provided the IJN with a practical radar for its submarines - and I believe this is what is confusing your people. Are you saying you dispute the veracity of the Lacroix / Wells source ? If so, do you have a basis for this position ? Their credentials look pretty darn good to me ! For example, Dr. Wells, graduated USNA 1967 served 26 years in USN including command of DDDG-16 and DesRon21. He has graduate degrees in international relations anbd mathematics from Johns Hopkins. He has lived and studied in Tokyo. The authors used numerous Japanese Language sources in the production of this work which includes an extensive bibliography. So I would be interested to hear the basis of your challenge. Also I would be careful calling any source "definitive" (or even "difinitive" [;)]) that might imply that the source would not be impugnable even if new data were available ! I doubt we would ever want to say that ! But to say that a source is important and should be considered certainly makes sense. And who are "my people" ? Maybe they are Lacroix / Wells, though I am not sure upon what basis you refer to them as "confused", nor am I sure why they are "mine" I do not proport to own them in any sense. So I will admit to be "confused" by your above quoted statements. Perhaps you could re-state these parts of your argument so that they are more clearly understandable, Thanks. quote: The latest book with really good information - it is just out - puts the Navy type 13 at July 1942. [Instruments of Darkness: it has a whole appendix on Japanese radar; a nother on German radar - but only principle types get described]. The data I have are: The Navy type 11 (landbased air search) began development in April 1941 and the prototype was ready in September 1941. On April 18, 1942 one of these sets detected the inbound B25s from Doolittle's raid. In 1942, the Type 12 was a trailer version of the Type 11, about 50 of these were produced, mostly employed in the home Islands, but a few were forward deployed to spots like Rabaul, Ambon and Kupang. And then in 1943, the Type 13 was a still lighter improvement upon the earlier Type 11 and 12. It was this Type 13 that was then adopted for shipboard use by the Navy in Feburary 1944. Over 1000 of these were delivered before the end of the war and they were employed aboard many surface units as well as submarines. quote: Nor is it correct to say that ship based radar is all that matters: Japan began its networks (eventually 80 stations strong) of land based air search sites in 1941 - before the war began. Interestingly, both the army and navy often used the same site! While that is criticized as inefficient, it does offer some redundency to the system. Not sure anyone said that ship based radar "is all that matters". Could you re-state this part of your argument so that it can be more clearly understood, thanks. quote: Nor is it correct to say that radar is the main way to detect airplanes. Japanese civil defense never had less than two hours warning of a bomber raid - the sirens always sounded at least two hours early. This was based almost exclusively on VISUAL reporting stations - not simulated - but probably also not right. Note that the famed coastwatchers reported more planes than ships - and that Japan had coastwatcher units as such - something which never got into UV. Spotter units often are more valuable than radar - because they identify plane types - radar does not. Late in the war Japan went over to using air spotters. Aside from giving AA guns the altitude of attackers (these being light planes), they used formal recon planes to seek out enemy formations for interceptors - often at remarkable ranges (several hexes in game terms). This was the key to a number of very successful fighter units late in the war. For the story of the naval units, see Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units of World War Two. Detection is a broader subject than just air search radar - and I have not even mentioned radio intercept, radar intercept and the electromagnetic fence - all of which Japan used - and used more than we did. Not sure anyone said that radar is the main way to detect airplanes. Certainly the MK I Eyeball would come to mind as a primary contender ! I think that is what you are saying. But this thread did start off as being about radar, not specifically about "main ways to detect airplanes". Perhaps we should start another thread on that topic. quote: Note that, since Type 13 radar is AIR SEARCH ONLY, RHS uses it in that form already. Similarly, Type 21 is AIR SEARCH ONLY, and RHS defines it that way. Only Type 22 is surface search. However, the range of Type 13 is wrong in stock and CHS - I reduced it by 10%. While Type 13 radar is Air Search only, the Type 21 and 22 have a more complex story. Type 21, adoped in April 1942 and experimentally installed aboard the Ise in May 42, was the first IJN shipboard (air search) radar platform. The first "production" version, the Type 211 was fitted abord the Shokaku, Kirishima and Kongo in August 1942; on the Musashi, Junyo and Hiyo in September 1942 and on the Zuikaku in November 1942. The next improvement, the Type 212 was adopted in April 1943 and was fitted on many major combatants after that point. Type 22, surface search radar, actually the Type 221 was first installed on Hyuga also in May 1942, however, it was removed before Midway at the request of the ship's captain. The next modification, the Type 222 was adoped by December 1942 and fitted on the Kaibokan (subchasers) to detect enemy submarines. About 100 of these were delivered. The Type 223 was adopted in June 1943 for submarine use. And the Type 224 was adopted in December 1943 for larger surface ships. Both the Type 21 and Type 22 were further developed in attempts to produce a functional Surface Fire Control radar. The 213, 214 and 215 variations of Type 21 were however all deem unsuccessful as the range accuracy could not be improved above +/- 500 meters, and the deflection not made better than +/- 1 degree. However, a further variation of the Type 224 called "superheterodyne" was installed aboard "all" units of the Second Fleet from August-September 1944 and could be used for both surface search and fire control. So there are sub classes within the Type 21 and Type 22 families, which are not purely "Air Search" or "Surface Search" respectively and perhaps in the future, we should break out these subtypes. It is not clear that we should assume that the dates in the second half of the war are "hard coded" in the game. Thus it is possible that radars may become available sooner or later and may have slightly improved performnace (or not). Varying the availability dates of the various models would probably do nicely in that regard. And if you upgrade to add say a Type 214 (SS/FC) in August 1943 because it is available, then you might not be in port in say September 1943 when the much better performing Type 224(H) (SS/FC) is available. === But in summary perhaps the length and subject matter of our posts are getting off topic and thus I might suggest that we take this discussion "off line" if you would like to pursue much farther, though you should certainly have a right to "come back" at me one more time anyway on this thread [:)].

el cid again -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/15/2006 2:15:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus I thought I'd seen somewhere that the Japanese never developed a forward-firing ASW projector...[&:] Yeah - there is a quite nice one - and a famous photograph is reproduced in Naval Weapons of World War II for one place - 300 mm - trainable. This weapon was mounted on a number of ships from ASW carriers to merchantmen. It is interesting enough I created a device for it - but it has not yet been seen to work.

el cid again -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/15/2006 2:24:02 PM)
Japanese radar is an esoteric subject not subject to credentials. I have little use for credentials in the first place - I do not reason from authority - but from facts. It does not matter what a professor has not heard of - it matters what we have documents, photographs, physical examples of or testimony about. And material published in 2006 is much more likely to be right than material published in previous years: for some time Japanese attitudes have shifted - for cultural reasons people were unwilling to talk for a long time - but now they are too old to lose their jobs - and new materials are being either found or translated or subject to forensic reconstruction (in thie case of photographs). I don't know your source - but if it says that the Japanese were not operating air search radar in 1941 it is incorrect. If it says they were not operating air search readar on ships in 1942, it is incorrect. Or, more precisely, possibly very correct, if it is very specific (as you were) - model 313 operated on such and such - but note that says NOTHING about any other model. WE have a problem - there is only ONE Japanese air search radar slot - so it represents ALL types - not just one.

el cid again -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/15/2006 2:32:27 PM)
I htink your chronology of the Navy Type 13 is reasonable - in the beginning anyway. I think there is contradictory information about the radar used on Japanese submarines - there are only two kinds of radar used - on four classes - and only one of these was air search - and it is NOT the navy set at all - but an army one - apparently with a designation that makes many people think it IS hte navy radar. But it isn't - that is too big - while the Type 22 is different - its little horn antenna was just fine on a submarine - and you can see it in pictures. The Navy DID use the Type 13 - its type 13 - on bigger ships - and I have some fine photographs of these on Takao and Fuso. No way you could mount that on a sub - not even I-400 - unless you went for a radar picket sub where the antenna dominated the deck and required something like an aircraft hanger to protect it when diving. I note that your data given above is quite different from the previous statements -= and the data in the game - whith more or less pretends there is NO air search radar before a specific variant of the Type 13 goes into mass production. This is poor simulation. We should give Japan radar at Tokyo (its first stattion) in 1941 - and add more as time passes. In fact, I did that. And it is certainly wrong to rate the Type 13 as a surface search radar (CHS does) - something it could not do at all. And its range is also too great - the best estimates are 90 miles - and many put it more like 60. [Both could be true, of course: it depends on the target and the conditions]

el cid again -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/15/2006 2:42:49 PM)
The game seems to pretend that the main ways to detect planes are sound detectors and radar. Further, it rates sound detectors perfectly awful - far less than they ever were. I see no provision for visual detection - and some post that if the sound detectors don't work the AAA won't shoot. There apparently is some other involved though - because some say you can intercept at multiple hexes - while I have not seen it and some post it is impossible. But assuming it does happen - how were the planes detected? Whatever the answer, I see no way to put in a network of ground observation posts - something which should exist in a place like Japan - and any place a land unit exists. I can see a major difference bettween night and day - and that might lead t onight raids like really happened. On the other hand, I am not sure that there is any way to do the long range detectoin thing: running a radar GIVES AWAY YOUR POSITION AND IDENTITY to the enemy - see the book Shinano if you want a Japanese example. Her loss is even more ironic because it involved a series of command errors - which were possible because she started with the initiative - due to first detection. Not by radar - although it was her radar set that was used !!! It was not acting as a radar set - but as what we call ECM or ESM. Yet if this were allowed, you might NOT want your radar on at all! Just as in real life. But that mould result in something like Real Sub Hunter - too real to be fun for those who want simple bang bang games.

el cid again -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/15/2006 2:52:46 PM)
The Type 21 is - at the time it was introduced and long afterwards - purely short range air search. The Type 22 was actually a fair surface search radar - and marginal air search radar - and also eventually able to do some fire control vs ships (but not planes). It would be called a surface search/air search today. I call it surface search in RHS. I let the Type 21 be short range air search because - in its principle variations - it was only that - and never in the league of a Type 13 for range. The Allies SHIP radar has more range - except when it does not. The Allies ALSO have short range air search (I am thinking of SK) - an also of air search/surface search. [The SC/SG/SJ series are surface search - but useful against low flying patrol planes). Or maybe not - surface search radar - even on your yacht - always detects planes - if they are low enough. On the other hand, Japan has long wave radar like Chain Home - on land. But in general, it is fair to say that the long range air search radars at sea had more range on the Allied side. Another difference is reliability - Japanese transmitters were awful - and a major reason they went over to listening was that way the tubes would still be able to work if needed for ranging! Some transmitter tubes had a 50^ failure rate if operated for two hours continuously. Now all radar transmitter tubes are short lived - but that is rediculous.

Terminus -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/15/2006 3:40:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus I thought I'd seen somewhere that the Japanese never developed a forward-firing ASW projector...[&:] Yeah - there is a quite nice one - and a famous photograph is reproduced in Naval Weapons of World War II for one place - 300 mm - trainable. This weapon was mounted on a number of ships from ASW carriers to merchantmen. It is interesting enough I created a device for it - but it has not yet been seen to work. But they never made something similar to Hedgehog, right? (i.e. a multi-barrel barrage weapon). I'd heard about their ASW mortar they put on merchies, but no Japanese Hedgehog-San...

Terminus -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/15/2006 4:02:35 PM)
Hmmm, Naval Weapons of World War II mentions a 15cm ASW mortar, but 30cm?

jwilkerson -> RE: What is wrong with japanese radars? (6/15/2006 10:21:22 PM)
quote: Japanese radar is an esoteric subject not subject to credentials. I have little use for credentials in the first place - I do not reason from authority - but from facts Our job is to make the "esoteric" be non-esoteric ! Re-stated, we should try to make the complex become simple ! And of course the question should be asked, "How do we determine what the facts were?" quote: I note that your data given above is quite different from the previous statements what previous statements ? I think the data are consistent !

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.953125