quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

You want an actual sonar model similar to what we have in Harpoon.

No, not at all. Harpoon's assumes digital signal processing in a narrow-band environment. WWII was Mark I ears. Still very difficult, but less range, no Doppler analysis, etc.

quote:

And here are a few points. Keep in mind I'm going from memory here, not looking up actual stats.

1. While active sonar will have a near 100% detection rate inside its range, it is very limited by range. Most active sets are good only out to 5 nm. Most subs (even in WWII) could attack from a ranges of 2-8 miles. Do the math. [;)]

The range a torpedo will run before exhausting fuel may be 2-8 miles, but that was NOT any sort of feasible attack envelope.
Neither is ear-driven active sonar good to 5 nm, at least the 1950s era models I've used on 1960s-designed subs. High-freq, multiple-freq. modern active sonar with digital help might go out to 10,000 yards, but I'd be in show me mode there. And, as I've said here before, I have actual experience with dipping active sonar not detecting us inside sandwich-viewing range of the helo. Sea water is a bear sometimes.

At 8 miles, through a periscope, a DD looks like a grain of rice at arm's length. Nothing you can get a good bearing on, let alone an angle-on-the-bow.

quote:

2. Passive sonar and hydrophones were and still are the preferred method for locating subs. There are several factors to consider though, such as organics, thermal layers, convergence zones, etc. Overall, a surface vessel with hydrophones or passive sonar still stands a chance of making the detection.

Now, yes, with digital signal processors. In WWII, at transit speeds, sonarmen were esentially blind. Sprint and drift could work, if there was enough fuel, time, training, and hulls to allow one esocrt to go ahead, day after day. It's very tiring though. Mostly, the ASW escort's first clue a sub was about was a huge explosion off the beam, followed by flames and sinking. THEN they went passive (and active.)

quote:

3. Passive sonar has a greater range than active. Active sonar is for ranging and localizing, not the best method for search and detection. Also, active sonar tells every submarine within hundreds of miles that you are out there looking...the active sonar pings can be heard with passive sonar at far greater distances than would be regular engine noise. Active sonar is basically just broadcasting your position.

Well, a bit embellished to say hundreds of miles. Dozens yes.
Passive sonar in WWII might have greater range, and it might not. A lot was organic to the operator, and design and QC of the gear. Passive systems are much harder to design and build. Hydrophones are fragile and need maintenance. Active sonar also gives a VITAL piece of tactical data--range. It never ceases to amaze me how submarine movies let the boat know--on some radar-like PPI screen--the exact range of the target within seconds of passive detection. It took us many minutes, and some fancy maneuvering, to get a range sufficient to launch homing torpedoes. DCs are stupid. You may have a bearing, but without a range to dozens of yards you're not going to really hurt that sub.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

You want an actual sonar model similar to what we have in Harpoon.

No, not at all. Harpoon's assumes digital signal processing in a narrow-band environment. WWII was Mark I ears. Still very difficult, but less range, no Doppler analysis, etc.

quote:

And here are a few points. Keep in mind I'm going from memory here, not looking up actual stats.

1. While active sonar will have a near 100% detection rate inside its range, it is very limited by range. Most active sets are good only out to 5 nm. Most subs (even in WWII) could attack from a ranges of 2-8 miles. Do the math. [;)]

The range a torpedo will run before exhausting fuel may be 2-8 miles, but that was NOT any sort of feasible attack envelope.
Neither is ear-driven active sonar good to 5 nm, at least the 1950s era models I've used on 1960s-designed subs. High-freq, multiple-freq. modern active sonar with digital help might go out to 10,000 yards, but I'd be in show me mode there. And, as I've said here before, I have actual experience with dipping active sonar not detecting us inside sandwich-viewing range of the helo. Sea water is a bear sometimes.

At 8 miles, through a periscope, a DD looks like a grain of rice at arm's length. Nothing you can get a good bearing on, let alone an angle-on-the-bow.

quote:

2. Passive sonar and hydrophones were and still are the preferred method for locating subs. There are several factors to consider though, such as organics, thermal layers, convergence zones, etc. Overall, a surface vessel with hydrophones or passive sonar still stands a chance of making the detection.

Now, yes, with digital signal processors. In WWII, at transit speeds, sonarmen were esentially blind. Sprint and drift could work, if there was enough fuel, time, training, and hulls to allow one esocrt to go ahead, day after day. It's very tiring though. Mostly, the ASW escort's first clue a sub was about was a huge explosion off the beam, followed by flames and sinking. THEN they went passive (and active.)

quote:

3. Passive sonar has a greater range than active. Active sonar is for ranging and localizing, not the best method for search and detection. Also, active sonar tells every submarine within hundreds of miles that you are out there looking...the active sonar pings can be heard with passive sonar at far greater distances than would be regular engine noise. Active sonar is basically just broadcasting your position.

Well, a bit embellished to say hundreds of miles. Dozens yes.
Passive sonar in WWII might have greater range, and it might not. A lot was organic to the operator, and design and QC of the gear. Passive systems are much harder to design and build. Hydrophones are fragile and need maintenance. Active sonar also gives a VITAL piece of tactical data--range. It never ceases to amaze me how submarine movies let the boat know--on some radar-like PPI screen--the exact range of the target within seconds of passive detection. It took us many minutes, and some fancy maneuvering, to get a range sufficient to launch homing torpedoes. DCs are stupid. You may have a bearing, but without a range to dozens of yards you're not going to really hurt that sub.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

And I think you very well proved my point. Rather than having both the Allies and Japanese getting lots of ASW attacks, neither side should. ASW was a lot more luck and finding the sub after the fact than anything else...it wasn't until later in the war when sonar, radar and MAD gear improved that the Allies finally started getting the upper hand in the ASW war. And to this day the subs still have a huge advantage...even more so with the Nuclear Attack boats, since they are not forced to surface every night to recharge batteries.

As I said, we can institute a more realistic sonar model...neither side is going to like it when their merchants get shot out from under them and they have very little ability to fight back. May be best to leave things be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

And I think you very well proved my point. Rather than having both the Allies and Japanese getting lots of ASW attacks, neither side should. ASW was a lot more luck and finding the sub after the fact than anything else...it wasn't until later in the war when sonar, radar and MAD gear improved that the Allies finally started getting the upper hand in the ASW war. And to this day the subs still have a huge advantage...even more so with the Nuclear Attack boats, since they are not forced to surface every night to recharge batteries.

As I said, we can institute a more realistic sonar model...neither side is going to like it when their merchants get shot out from under them and they have very little ability to fight back. May be best to leave things be.

To start at the end, I'm happy now![:)] This whole thread for me has been theoretical and historical. I'm happy enough with the game because, as I've said several times in this forum, I consider the test to be whether the game is balanced, not whether some micro-piece is "historical". After Patch 3 my ASW ships are being missed more than 3 times in 4, and attacked less often in the first place. They deal out counter-attacks more frequently after they're missed too (although I'm in 1944 and my DEs are terrors.) If anything I thnk IJN ASW is a bit light on damage per DC; I haven't lost anything like historical number of boats despite using them in a piratical manner. I certainly don't think it's overpowered.

From my reading, electronics were far more important to the Allies. Many/most IJN attacks were on a diving sub finishing a night surface attack, or from the bubble stream back to the launch point. Except with fleet DDs and well trained small boys, there was often one or two vicious DC runs, and that was it. Eight, ten, twelve-hour work-overs happened, and sunk boats, but weren't the norm. Sub COs feared surprise air attack and mines as much or more than ASW ships.

I like that AE has finally made WITP players sit up and take notice that, no, airplanes didn't sink the Japanese economy. USN subs sank over 1100 ships. I have a ways to go in my game to get to that figure. But I'm not asking for any changes. It plays fine for me.