MAD Question (Full Version)

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



Message

oaltinyay -> MAD Question (9/4/2015 8:08:30 PM)

1. WHen does MAD become available for Japanese planes ?

2. Does it make a difference ?



HansBolter -> RE: MAD Question (9/4/2015 8:32:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

1. WHen does MAD become available for Japanese planes ?

2. Does it make a difference ?




I believe Japan Mutually Assured its Destruction on December 7th. [:D]



oaltinyay -> RE: MAD Question (9/4/2015 8:42:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

1. WHen does MAD become available for Japanese planes ?

2. Does it make a difference ?




I believe Japan Mutually Assured its Destruction on December 7th. [:D]



Sehr lustig Herr Bolter ...

I add a third question : When does the N-6 Radar for Kates become available ?



n01487477 -> RE: MAD Question (9/4/2015 10:39:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

1. WHen does MAD become available for Japanese planes ?

2. Does it make a difference ?

Not very much, but then Magnetic Anomaly Detection wasn't very effective in the war either.
quote:


3. When does the N-6 Radar for Kates become available ?




[image]local://upfiles/19798/B656B33D53084E42B7766624D185C59A.jpg[/image]



n01487477 -> RE: MAD Question (9/4/2015 10:39:46 PM)

double post ... when will they upgrade the forum software?



crsutton -> RE: MAD Question (9/4/2015 10:43:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

1. WHen does MAD become available for Japanese planes ?

2. Does it make a difference ?


Very little that I can see. It is like finally getting that bicycle that you always needed at the same time your neighbor just bought his fourth Lamborghini. The reality is that the Allied qualitative edge is growing exponentially so much faster than the Japanese.



dr.hal -> RE: MAD Question (9/5/2015 12:53:49 AM)

Isn't there a Japanese aircraft that starts the war with MAD??? Or am I MAD???



jwolf -> RE: MAD Question (9/5/2015 2:43:20 AM)

I don't know if the Japanese start with MAD but in my game May 1942 my Japanese opponent said he just recently was able to upgrade some ASW planes with MAD. It's possible this got priority in the research queue so came out a bit earlier than usual; I don't know.



geofflambert -> RE: MAD Question (9/5/2015 2:50:28 AM)

You, playing the game, must have a code, that you can live by,
And so, become an elf, because that MAD is just a fly by.
Teach your pilots well, that MAD alarm will never ring nigh,
And learn them silhouettes, the ones you go by.
Don't they ever ask you why, 'cause you would cry, 'cause you don't know why.
So just look at them and siiiigh, 'cause you can't tell why.

MAD is worthless. Just train crews for ASW, give them planes then assign them to choke points and ports. They'll get it done.



AW1Steve -> RE: MAD Question (9/5/2015 3:39:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

You, playing the game, must have a code, that you can live by,
And so, become an elf, because that MAD is just a fly by.
Teach your pilots well, that MAD alarm will never ring nigh,
And learn them silhouettes, the ones you go by.
Don't they ever ask you why, 'cause you would cry, 'cause you don't know why.
So just look at them and siiiigh, 'cause you can't tell why.

MAD is worthless. Just train crews for ASW, give them planes then assign them to choke points and ports. They'll get it done.



MAD in the GAME is worthless. IRL it's a sub killer. Maybe I'm prejudiced , but having operated it for 20+ years I can attest it's not worthless. In mid 1943 the 1st USN squadron (VP-5 , the MAD foxes , still known by that to this day) pretty much shut down the mediterrean sea to U-boats. But like a lot of other things in the game , (like the atomic bomb) it really doesn't. Oh well. [:)]



geofflambert -> RE: MAD Question (9/5/2015 3:48:22 AM)

Can you state that MAD (the initial Japanese version) was not worthless?



AW1Steve -> RE: MAD Question (9/5/2015 5:35:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Can you state that MAD (the initial Japanese version) was not worthless?

Worthless? No. It was not used to best tactical advantage. But new devices seldom are. How well did the allies use RADAR early in the Guadalcanal campaign? [:)]



n01487477 -> RE: MAD Question (9/5/2015 11:19:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

I don't know if the Japanese start with MAD but in my game May 1942 my Japanese opponent said he just recently was able to upgrade some ASW planes with MAD. It's possible this got priority in the research queue so came out a bit earlier than usual; I don't know.

It doesn't matter if the planes have MAD in '42, the device is not operational until the device is available.



Wijter -> RE: MAD Question (9/8/2015 7:33:42 PM)

From the editor
Japanese MAD is Device 1919
Available from 4406
Range is 1 (= 1.000 yards), so you should fly low

Japanese groups used MAD equipped AC to detect dived submarines on daytime patrols, at night they used Radar.



Alpha77 -> RE: MAD Question (9/8/2015 7:55:57 PM)

Seems here is some confusion re MAD. [:-]

In reality, MAD is only useful to detect dived subs BUT not far away from the airplane. It also would be almost useless to detect subs build with non magnetic steel. In game it seems to work as a kind of low tech radar (?). So MAD can detect subs on the surface in this game, which MAD canīt do.

Maybe we should ask A.E. Neuman from MAD ?

http://www.jordanorlando.com/other/donmartin/pages/don_martin_02.html


Neuman says that all subs in WW2 could be detected by MAD. They were all build with "normal" steel. Here is a sub that MAD would have difficulty with:
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/German-Navy/Submarine/Type-206-class.htm



Alpha77 -> RE: MAD Question (9/8/2015 8:25:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

I don't know if the Japanese start with MAD but in my game May 1942 my Japanese opponent said he just recently was able to upgrade some ASW planes with MAD. It's possible this got priority in the research queue so came out a bit earlier than usual; I don't know.


Not possible asfaik. The MAD arrival date should be fixed. And a plane that can get it exists at wars start already. This one and others can not get this device before the scheduled date (imho). Which would be 6/44 per posted above.



AW1Steve -> RE: MAD Question (9/9/2015 1:56:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Seems here is some confusion re MAD. [:-]

In reality, MAD is only useful to detect dived subs BUT not far away from the airplane. It also would be almost useless to detect subs build with non magnetic steel. In game it seems to work as a kind of low tech radar (?). So MAD can detect subs on the surface in this game, which MAD canīt do.

Maybe we should ask A.E. Neuman from MAD ?

http://www.jordanorlando.com/other/donmartin/pages/don_martin_02.html


Neuman says that all subs in WW2 could be detected by MAD. They were all build with "normal" steel. Here is a sub that MAD would have difficulty with:
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/German-Navy/Submarine/Type-206-class.htm



Excuse me, but WHO says MAD doesn't work for surfaced subs? MAD works on anything magnetic, of decent size , and within range. As a matter of practice I would often turn on my MAD as we were passing over surface ships (what we called a "rigging run") simply to provide practice and calibration on a known target of known size and depth (0 feet!) . MAD is perfectly usable on a surfaced sub , but under almost every circumstance I can think of any surfaced sub in MAD range should well be in visual. But like using RADAR to acquire a target you already have a visual on (except a thunder cloud) it isn't really necessary. [:D]

Now about non-magnetic subs. There have been such beasts , but they are very expensive , both to build and maintain. The Soviet Navy had their Alfa and Mike class subs made of titanium. The soviets referred to the Alfa's as "golden fish" as one boat used up almost their entire years production to build just one boat (and a great deal of that years Naval budget). The West Germans built several small boats of non-magnetic steel , but that was due to the mine threat , not MAD. And it was a budget buster .


MAD is rarely (and usually unsuccessful) for "Open ocean MAD hunts", and such things are generally done as training (and boredom on the part of the operator). MAD is less of a hunting device and more on a targeting device. In a restricted "choke point" that a sub must pass through you may continuously patrol with MAD equipped aircraft. But in open ocean , not so much. But once you have a general idea of location , then you commence various MAD hunting tactics and you can get targeting information refined enough to drop a torpedo or depth charge. It's extremely good for refining a "visual contact gone sinker" (a sub that you saw and dove ) or a RADAR contact. Either way you have some kind of "Datum" to base your search upon. In a 20 year career as a MAD operator I've had precisely 3 MAD contacts as 1st source of data. That's it. (And I believe I had a higher rate of success than most operators because I turned MAD any time we were low enough to use it). On two of those contacts I picked up the contact only because we were flying a MAD run on a "known target" (EXERCISE SUB) And another sub was trailing it. The other case was blind , simple luck.

So if you think of MAD as similar to a "fire control RADAR" you'll see how it fits in. You don't locate a ship or target with a fire control RADAR. You find it with something else, then use the firecontrol to aim your weapons. MAD works exactly the same way. [:)]



Skyland -> RE: MAD Question (9/9/2015 7:23:59 PM)

Why no more MAD on US P-8A ?
India having it on their P-8I.



AW1Steve -> RE: MAD Question (9/9/2015 7:48:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyland

Why no more MAD on US P-8A ?
India having it on their P-8I.


There's a lot of debate. Experienced ASW operators are horrified at giving up a useful device. Boeing and anyone involved in selling , or maintaining the aircraft says "we don't need it". Japan's P-1 also retains MAD. But the USN doesn't seem to think submarines are a threat anymore. They did not replace the S-3B Vikings on carriers , saying that short ranged helo's can pick up the slack. [:@] [:@][:@]
You probably won't hear much concern about subs and carriers till someone stuffs a couple of torpedoes up the rear of some fat arsed bird farm! [:@] After all, this is the same mentality that guards secrets with a $2 padlock , if that! [:(]



geofflambert -> RE: MAD Question (9/9/2015 8:28:27 PM)

The Wikipedia article says the operational altitude of the P-8 is too high for MAD. Even though the P-8 is Navy, I should think the CVNs should have some ASW aircraft of their own.



geofflambert -> RE: MAD Question (9/9/2015 8:37:04 PM)

Here's a pic of the P-8 next to a Japanese P-1

[image]local://upfiles/37002/E610284F87DC4F99BA887EB72A340D53.jpg[/image]



AW1Steve -> RE: MAD Question (9/9/2015 8:48:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The Wikipedia article says the operational altitude of the P-8 is too high for MAD. Even though the P-8 is Navy, I should think the CVNs should have some ASW aircraft of their own.



Yes , we'll never need MAD again. Just like in the 1960's it was decided that we'll never need to dogfight again. Yes, after ww1 we'll never need the bayonet again. Cruisers don't need torpedoes , we'll only fight long range daylight gun battles in the future. Escort fighters? What for? You know the bomber will always get through! Funny how those who say "the military doesn't need" are never the same people who have to go out and fight wars!. Yes I've prosecuted submarines from 20k feet. And if you are going against nuclear submarines in blue waters sometimes it even works. But did anyone notice that the majority of submarines in the world today are not big , fat nuclear steam kettels? But quite , small , diesel or AIP submarines? That's the problem with saying , "we'll never need"...the opposition looks at your strategy and says "HEY!" , "guess how you beat them? Do what they say they'll never need".

I'm not saying that MAD is absolutely "mission essential" , but I am saying is the more tools you steal from the carpenter's tool box, the lousier job the carpenter can do , as he can't do various jobs or deal with diverse problem. Soon all the carpenter's box will have in it is a hammer, and he'd damned well better pray that every adversary is a nail. [:(]



Numdydar -> RE: MAD Question (9/9/2015 11:06:22 PM)

So when do you think we will need Calvary divisions with real horses again [:'(]



geofflambert -> RE: MAD Question (9/10/2015 12:10:03 AM)

Immediately. I love the taste of horsemeat and no, I'm not French. The French and I also have a great appreciation of dogs and cats. Also gerbils, goldfish and anything we can catch in our basements.



wegman58 -> RE: MAD Question (9/10/2015 12:05:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So when do you think we will need Calvary divisions with real horses again [:'(]


Considering that ASW aircraft use light weight (aka SHORT ranged) torpedoes, how far will the sub be from where the torpedo was dropped if they are flying too high to use MAD???

Helos are nice, but the one time my reserve frigate squadron got to practice ASW it was because a P3 managed to find a Soviet sub (and it was Soviet back then) with a line of sonobouys (SP?). Then two KNOX, two FFG-7s and four LAMPS got to practice.



Amoral -> RE: MAD Question (9/10/2015 3:33:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So when do you think we will need Calvary divisions with real horses again [:'(]


Hard to imagine a division, but India has the 61st cavalry regiment (mit horses) for fighting in the mountains. The US used special forces on horseback in Afghanistan.



AW1Steve -> RE: MAD Question (9/10/2015 8:28:24 PM)

China has several regiment sized Calvary units. And of course US special forces utilized horse mounted units in Afghanistan (with laser rangefinders slung over their backs and saddlebags filled with money).

A better analogy might be how the US was going to eliminate all tracked vehicles (tanks, APC's and SP's) and replace them with variations of the Stryker in those roles. Fortunately reality convinced the powers that be that this was not a good idea. Or my favorite , the 1957 MOD white paper that said manned air craft were obsolete and the UK should go with strictly missiles.

But "when they say" never again will we need this or that , they are usually trying to sell something. In this case , a converted 737 that's low level performance exceeds dismal. When your plane sucks at low level , you tell everybody "you don't need low level any more". Kinda like Jordan Marsh explaining to the US government in the civil war that his boots wore out after a mile or two because " oh those boots? They were made for the cavalry!"



Skyland -> RE: MAD Question (9/11/2015 7:57:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
But "when they say" never again will we need this or that , they are usually trying to sell something. In this case , a converted 737 that's low level performance exceeds dismal. When your plane sucks at low level , you tell everybody "you don't need low level any more".


I fully agree.
I am afraid that situation is similar for KC-46 tanker. A330 MRTT is much better but the choice had to be Boeing in any case.



Sardaukar -> RE: MAD Question (9/11/2015 8:38:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The Wikipedia article says the operational altitude of the P-8 is too high for MAD. Even though the P-8 is Navy, I should think the CVNs should have some ASW aircraft of their own.



Yes , we'll never need MAD again. Just like in the 1960's it was decided that we'll never need to dogfight again. Yes, after ww1 we'll never need the bayonet again. Cruisers don't need torpedoes , we'll only fight long range daylight gun battles in the future. Escort fighters? What for? You know the bomber will always get through! Funny how those who say "the military doesn't need" are never the same people who have to go out and fight wars!. Yes I've prosecuted submarines from 20k feet. And if you are going against nuclear submarines in blue waters sometimes it even works. But did anyone notice that the majority of submarines in the world today are not big , fat nuclear steam kettels? But quite , small , diesel or AIP submarines? That's the problem with saying , "we'll never need"...the opposition looks at your strategy and says "HEY!" , "guess how you beat them? Do what they say they'll never need".

I'm not saying that MAD is absolutely "mission essential" , but I am saying is the more tools you steal from the carpenter's tool box, the lousier job the carpenter can do , as he can't do various jobs or deal with diverse problem. Soon all the carpenter's box will have in it is a hammer, and he'd damned well better pray that every adversary is a nail. [:(]


They are supposedly developing MAD-equipped UAV to work with P-8 to address the lack of MAD.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2015/01/bae-subhunting-drone.html



Lecivius -> RE: MAD Question (9/11/2015 1:41:25 PM)

I keep seeing questionable weapon platforms coming into service. Does nobody know their history in the Pentagon anymore?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.1875