All things radar...

All things radar... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

heckler -> All things radar... (5/31/2013 5:39:53 PM)
Ok, so I think I understand radar in my base units-they pick up incoming air raids and assist CAP effectiveness, right? But as I look down my air reinforcement roster, I see some bombers -as well as fighters- will have radar on them...does that signify night capability? And lastly, many of my early 1942 upgrades will add 1 or more radar pieces on subs and surface ships-do those do air and surface detection/accuracy/night effectiveness? Appreciate any clueing in of the clueless here [:)]

geofflambert -> RE: All things radar... (5/31/2013 6:15:54 PM)
The problem with Radar is you could only put him on one base or ship or plane at a time. Also he was a mite young in those days. [image]local://upfiles/37002/693704B54B574FB79DD50678848811B9.jpg[/image] Hey, you did say "all things radar". [:'(]

heckler -> RE: All things radar... (5/31/2013 7:04:01 PM)
That. Is. AWESOME! Lol-I wouldn't want to know how many times I've watched each of those episodes... And his senses would have been welcome-maybe saved my carriers off Australia[;)] Now to enjoy a Grape Knee-High and see what the forum can tell me!

jmalter -> RE: All things radar... (5/31/2013 7:29:02 PM)
night-fighter radar will aid intercept capability, bomber radar improves detection capability for Naval Search or ASW. I don't do NavSearch or ASW at night, so I don't know if it will work at night. I don't think ground-attack radar (such as the APQ-7 used by some B-29Bs) is modeled in the game.

Lokasenna -> RE: All things radar... (5/31/2013 7:38:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heckler Ok, so I think I understand radar in my base units-they pick up incoming air raids and assist CAP effectiveness, right? I believe so? This is something I've been wondering also, but I do see "Raid detected by radar..." sometimes, so I think it must help. I mean, it did IRL... quote: ORIGINAL: heckler But as I look down my air reinforcement roster, I see some bombers -as well as fighters- will have radar on them...does that signify night capability? I believe it helps with naval search capability, which helps with ASW. It also helps with finding targets at night, I think. quote: ORIGINAL: heckler And lastly, many of my early 1942 upgrades will add 1 or more radar pieces on subs and surface ships-do those do air and surface detection/accuracy/night effectiveness? Appreciate any clueing in of the clueless here [:)] There are air search and surface search radars. I've had ripe Allied TFs escape my radar-less Japanese ships before due to early detection via radar.

HexHead -> RE: All things radar... (5/31/2013 8:21:16 PM)
The reality being modeled is: * Early war Allied radar is kinda 'meh'. This reflects (I just kill myself, sometimes) lack of familiarity with methods, techniques, etc. Some commanders distrusted it. Night time IJN doctrine should be more effective until late 42, really. * Once widespread & understood, it should, if modeled, get better with improved sets, techniques & understanding. The killer app is linking it to fire control systems. * Don't forget - early 44 or so - the proximity fuse. If modeled in late Allied devices, this is huge. And the above is guesswork and context more than factual game data.

geofflambert -> RE: All things radar... (5/31/2013 9:06:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead The reality being modeled is: * Early war Allied radar is kinda 'meh'. This reflects (I just kill myself, sometimes) lack of familiarity with methods, techniques, etc. Some commanders distrusted it. Night time IJN doctrine should be more effective until late 42, really. It wasn't doctrine, it was Zeiss lenses.

HexHead -> RE: All things radar... (5/31/2013 10:13:17 PM)
They had trained at night extensively - with 16 power lenses, yes. That training & the best torp in the world made for a deadly combination. I am very, very careful when I go fishing in waters where angry Japanese DDs and CLs, whom I do not see, might put an eel in my innards.

spence -> RE: All things radar... (6/1/2013 12:03:49 AM)
Up until late 1942 16 power Zeiss lenses were enough most of the time. But plotted radar bearings and ranges gave the Allied Commander a "God's Eye" view of the battlefield which no IJN Commander could match no matter how much his lookouts reported to him. Learning to take advantage of that "God's Eye" view took time; especially when the radar operator himself had to crank the antenna around to the bearing of each enemy ship individually: SC radar. SG radar presented the whole shooting match at once - just move the cursor and one had the bearing and range. Maybe not perfect for gunnery solutions but adequate enough. The USS Washington took on the whole of the IJN on November 15, 1942. The Kirishima was sunk (hit by 9 x 16" and 40 x 5" in minutes). The rest of the IJN TF retreated. The CO of the Washington saw the possibilities, trained his men to use it, and convinced his peers with his results. It took a few months to percolate thoughout the fleet but the IJN had no advantages left a year later (as demonstrated by every surface battle thereafter).

HexHead -> RE: All things radar... (6/1/2013 12:27:37 AM)
The exact action I had in mind - five minutes, that's gunnery.

geofflambert -> RE: All things radar... (6/1/2013 4:18:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead They had trained at night extensively - with 16 power lenses, yes. That training & the best torp in the world made for a deadly combination. I am very, very careful when I go fishing in waters where angry Japanese DDs and CLs, whom I do not see, might put an eel in my innards. The "best torp in the world" was unstable and a greater danger to the ship carrying it than to any target. The IJN dispensed with them pretty early.

HexHead -> RE: All things radar... (6/1/2013 5:41:13 AM)
The Long Lance? I thought much success was due them.

geofflambert -> RE: All things radar... (6/1/2013 5:56:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead The Long Lance? I thought much success was due them. You are correct, they could blow a destroyer or even a cruiser in half and in '42 they did do a lot of damage. The Germans were rather fond of what they called Wasserstoff (hydrogen peroxide) but there was and is very little in the way of chemicals more dangerous and unstable, and capable of eating through almost any seal you attempted to use to contain it, especially rubber. It's just horrible, horrible stuff and the Japanese decided (wisely I think) to discontinue using it.

jmalter -> RE: All things radar... (6/1/2013 6:22:14 AM)
The LL was unequaled for speed, range & warhead size, & was pert' much unknown to Allied naval intelligencers at the outbreak of war. Many LL-equipped ships carried reload torps, presumably a well-trained crew would be able to re-load some/all of the mount & shoot again in the same engagement. Prob was, the thing was oxygen-fueled, that stuff is kinda volatile, a hit on your loaded LL mount or reserve torp store could ruin your day. Can't be arsed at present to look up the action, but an IJN admiral died when, as a result of a gun-hit, an LL oxy-flask rocketed through his flagship's bridge & eviscerated him. In my AE games vs. the AI, I haven't seen that the IJ is noticeably more successful at achieving surface-action torp hits than my Allied ships. But when I get drilled by an LL, I always kinda wish that it hadn't happened. Normal torp hits on a CL or DD are sometimes survivable - LL hits, not so much. I'd venture to assume that an IJ PBEM player would willingly pay PPs to put high-NavSkill captains on his LL-equipped ships.

geofflambert -> RE: All things radar... (6/1/2013 6:30:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmalter The LL was unequaled for speed, range & warhead size, & was pert' much unknown to Allied naval intelligencers at the outbreak of war. Many LL-equipped ships carried reload torps, presumably a well-trained crew would be able to re-load some/all of the mount & shoot again in the same engagement. I'm not picking on what you've said, because it's spot on as far as my knowledge goes, just want to say I don't think the allies knew about the Long Lance until about May of '45. In fact I think they decided some of their battle losses were due to mines, that's how far behind they were.

jmalter -> RE: All things radar... (6/1/2013 8:55:42 AM)
hi gorn, your timeframe may well be correct - when Saipan (a major IJN HQ) fell in July '44, thousands of pages of IJN tech documents were recovered, then there'd be a time-lag before it could all be translated, sorted, published & distributed to USN fleet staff. I'll recommend to you John Prados' "Combined Fleet Decoded" (Naval Institute Press, 1995) - it's well-written & fairly comprehensive - he begins by describing the USN 'language officer' program as it existed during the Tokyo earthquake of 1923, and does not neglect to describe the IJN intelligence efforts against the American target.

Sardaukar -> RE: All things radar... (6/2/2013 10:13:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmalter Prob was, the thing was oxygen-fueled, that stuff is kinda volatile, a hit on your loaded LL mount or reserve torp store could ruin your day. Can't be arsed at present to look up the action, but an IJN admiral died when, as a result of a gun-hit, an LL oxy-flask rocketed through his flagship's bridge & eviscerated him. That is exactly what happened to CA Mikuma at Midway, hit set off several LL torpedoes and it sunk. CA Mogami suffered similar bomb hit, but they had wisely ditched their LLs before.

spence -> RE: All things radar... (6/2/2013 12:08:20 PM)
quote: That is exactly what happened to CA Mikuma at Midway, hit set off several LL torpedoes and it sunk. CA Mogami suffered similar bomb hit, but they had wisely ditched their LLs before. A clearer demonstration of the hazards posed by those oxygen propelled torpedoes could not have been devised in a laboratory. I believe Suzuya also suffered a catastrophic explosion of its torpedoes after a either a near miss or hit on the mount by a 5 inch shell in the Battle Off Samar i n 1944.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875