Periscope recon

Periscope recon (Full Version)

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

Message

Nami Koshino -> Periscope recon (8/7/2020 6:07:53 AM)
I was reading in Clay Blair's Silent Victory that US submarines were occasionally assigned the mission of taking reconnaissance photographs of enemy-held beaches with periscope mounted cameras. A tiny darkroom had to be set up onboard to develop them. It was found by Navy photographers that the camera that was best suited for this particular job was a German-made model called the Primarflex. Since Hitler's Germany wasn't likely to be in the market to sell the US Navy any it might want, ads were put into US photographic trade journals to buy previously used Primarflexs from the American public. Eventually ten were procured and were used on all future submarine photo missions until a purpose built camera could be designed. It did make me curious if subs in the game can determine any details about a LCU in a island they might be adjacent to. Clearly, Japanese submarines have something of advantage in this regard if they are of the type that carry a Glen onboard and send it on a recon mission.

RangerJoe -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 6:31:13 AM)
No. At least, not that I am aware of unless you load a sacrificial unit to invade.

Alfred -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 6:45:17 AM)
Subs may increase the DL of an enemy TF. They don't gather data on enemy LCUs. Alfred

Ian R -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 7:52:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe No. At least, not that I am aware of unless you load a sacrificial unit to invade. Which could only be a special forces unit fragment, on a transport sub.

Shellshock -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 9:33:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Subs may increase the DL of an enemy TF. They don't gather data on enemy LCUs. Drat. I had several rolls of Fuji film I was saving up for gathering data on enemy LCUs (Lovely Civilian Units.) [image]local://upfiles/37092/488A2B4E982C4453883964ECD0BD3D47.jpg[/image]

Ian R -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 11:37:44 AM)
Hollywood! [image]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G_EjDIkuU-Q/Ucpcci5J4dI/AAAAAAAAI-Y/npBwEhFXEns/s320/1941+-+2.jpg[/image]

BBfanboy -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 2:12:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe No. At least, not that I am aware of unless you load a sacrificial unit to invade. The game does not allow sub intel on LCUs, but IRL they could probably do what aircraft recon did - count the latrines the Japanese built over the water to get an estimate of the number of troops present.

Lowpe -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 2:19:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Subs may increase the DL of an enemy TF. They don't gather data on enemy LCUs. Alfred Alfred always gives such focused answers.[&o] "They don't gather data on enemy LCUs." It is an intriguing answer. I have always felt that subs do play a role in gathering sigint. I have nothing to prove or disprove this assumption that is not anecdotal. I am playing an ironman game, where I have gotten into the habit of looking at Allied sigint daily and comparing it to actual Japanese actions. It is very interesting, but I am looking at the text and have no idea where the subs are that "might" be contributing. Anyhow, even were Alfred to declare that "Subs do not influence sigint" I would still probably play that way. It just feels good.[:)]

BBfanboy -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 2:32:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Subs may increase the DL of an enemy TF. They don't gather data on enemy LCUs. Alfred Alfred always gives such focused answers.[&o] "They don't gather data on enemy LCUs." It is an intriguing answer. I have always felt that subs do play a role in gathering sigint. I have nothing to prove or disprove this assumption that is not anecdotal. I am playing an ironman game, where I have gotten into the habit of looking at Allied sigint daily and comparing it to actual Japanese actions. It is very interesting, but I am looking at the text and have no idea where the subs are that "might" be contributing. Anyhow, even were Alfred to declare that "Subs do not influence sigint" I would still probably play that way. It just feels good.[:)] Alfred's answers are always nuanced to the original question which was about periscope intel. I see no reason why sub radios would not have the chance to pick up enemy chatter, and the closer they are the better the chances.

jmalter -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 2:48:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe Anyhow, even were Alfred to declare that "Subs do not influence sigint" I would still probably play that way. It just feels good.[:)] There's prob'ly more than a few aspects of my gameplay that are purely, "This is the way I think it should work, so I'll do it my way b/c it satisfies my sense of realism." For example, when my TFs transit the Panama Canal, I task them to arrive to the closer side. On arrival they are sent to the port on t'other side. After the transit, they are ordered on to their destination. Since I play 2-day turns, this results in some delay! Part of me knows this is dumb b/c military convoys & combat ships would've been prioritized to burn through the canal at its maximum capacity, but I feel it's more 'realistic' to treat it as a substantial choke-point.

BBfanboy -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 2:53:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmalter quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe Anyhow, even were Alfred to declare that "Subs do not influence sigint" I would still probably play that way. It just feels good.[:)] There's prob'ly more than a few aspects of my gameplay that are purely, "This is the way I think it should work, so I'll do it my way b/c it satisfies my sense of realism." For example, when my TFs transit the Panama Canal, I task them to arrive to the closer side. On arrival they are sent to the port on t'other side. After the transit, they are ordered on to their destination. Since I play 2-day turns, this results in some delay! Part of me knows this is dumb b/c military convoys & combat ships would've been prioritized to burn through the canal at its maximum capacity, but I feel it's more 'realistic' to treat it as a substantial choke-point. I don't know that the RL transfer time is through the entire Panama Canal system, but there would be time spent in the locks waiting for filling or emptying of the lock and some sections between locks require slow speeds to prevent the ship's wake from causing landslides. An extra day for transit seems reasonable, but the three days the game imposes seems a bit much.

Alfred -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 3:01:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy ... An extra day for transit seems reasonable, but the three days the game imposes seems a bit much. There are two different transit times. Eastern USA to destination Panama. Thence Panama to destination Balboa. The aggregated time of the two hops is different than that of Eastern USA to destination Balboa in a single hop. Alfred

Lowpe -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 3:04:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: jmalter I don't know that the RL transfer time is through the entire Panama Canal system, but there would be time spent in the locks waiting for filling or emptying of the lock and some sections between locks require slow speeds to prevent the ship's wake from causing landslides. An extra day for transit seems reasonable, but the three days the game imposes seems a bit much. You are ignoring Liberty! I am generally in favor of anything that slows the pace of the game down.

RangerJoe -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 3:04:11 PM)
If I recall correctly, when the USS Essex first went through the Panama Canal the lights around the locks were to close and needed to be moved. They did not wait - The USS Essex moved them! [X(] I think that later they became hinged or were relocated.

BBfanboy -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 6:23:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy ... An extra day for transit seems reasonable, but the three days the game imposes seems a bit much. There are two different transit times. Eastern USA to destination Panama. Thence Panama to destination Balboa. The aggregated time of the two hops is different than that of Eastern USA to destination Balboa in a single hop. Alfred I am aware of that, but the previous poster was positing that making two hops is more realistic. IIRC the hop from Cristobal to Balboa takes three days, and I was suggesting that one day would have been more realistic for the programming. I often take cargo/tanker ships that arrive in Balboa and send them to Cristobal to load up because that base has been built to a larger port and has more stocks. Then I send them direct to a needy base on-map and change their home base.

BBfanboy -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 6:25:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe If I recall correctly, when the USS Essex first went through the Panama Canal the lights around the locks were to close and needed to be moved. They did not wait - The USS Essex moved them! [X(] I think that later they became hinged or were relocated. Talk about rushing a ship into service! [:)]

RangerJoe -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 7:40:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe If I recall correctly, when the USS Essex first went through the Panama Canal the lights around the locks were to close and needed to be moved. They did not wait - The USS Essex moved them! [X(] I think that later they became hinged or were relocated. Talk about rushing a ship into service! [:)] The hull could go through the locks but the topside was a wee but wider! [:'(]

fcooke -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 7:51:53 PM)
IIRC the Iowas wer designed to squeeze through the canal. Which ended up giving the a nice length to beam ratio and helped to aid their high speed. The 'as designed' Montanas gave up on the canal and would to have sailed around. Nice that Essex ships had that elevator that folded up, otherwise more than lights would have been taken out......

RangerJoe -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 7:57:58 PM)
There is talk about widening the Canal. I also read where China wants to make another Canal somewhere else.

Shellshock -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 8:06:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe There is talk about widening the Canal. I also read where China wants to make another Canal somewhere else. They wanted to build one across Nicaragua, from Brito to Punta Gorda but it sounds like the plans have fallen through. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/NicaraguaCanal.5.jpg/288px-NicaraguaCanal.5.jpg[/img]

rustysi -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 8:45:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe There is talk about widening the Canal. I also read where China wants to make another Canal somewhere else. No, they built another along side if it.

rustysi -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 8:47:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shellshock quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe There is talk about widening the Canal. I also read where China wants to make another Canal somewhere else. They wanted to build one across Nicaragua, from Brito to Punta Gorda but it sounds like the plans have fallen through. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/NicaraguaCanal.5.jpg/288px-NicaraguaCanal.5.jpg[/img] Though area to build a canal in due to it being geologically active.

BBfanboy -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 9:39:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shellshock quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe There is talk about widening the Canal. I also read where China wants to make another Canal somewhere else. They wanted to build one across Nicaragua, from Brito to Punta Gorda but it sounds like the plans have fallen through. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/NicaraguaCanal.5.jpg/288px-NicaraguaCanal.5.jpg[/img] Probably found MS13 or whatever that gang calls itself too difficult to deal with ...

Zorch -> RE: Periscope recon (8/7/2020 11:01:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Shellshock quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe There is talk about widening the Canal. I also read where China wants to make another Canal somewhere else. They wanted to build one across Nicaragua, from Brito to Punta Gorda but it sounds like the plans have fallen through. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/NicaraguaCanal.5.jpg/288px-NicaraguaCanal.5.jpg[/img] Probably found MS13 or whatever that gang calls itself too difficult to deal with ... Money and environmental concerns are the issues. It would be a sea level canal, i.e., no locks needed.

NigelKentarus -> RE: Periscope recon (8/8/2020 2:42:58 AM)
[image]local://upfiles/37092/488A2B4E982C4453883964ECD0BD3D47.jpg[/image] [/quote] We used to call that 'Eyeball Liberty".

Ian R -> RE: Periscope recon (8/8/2020 3:35:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jmalter Since I play 2-day turns, this results in some delay! Part of me knows this is dumb ... Actually, all that not moving and sitting a port (even undocked) gives an experienced crew an improved chance to repair some accumulated system points damage, so you are probably saving time before that ship needs a major yard period to repair engine damage. This is especially true where you have convoys going on and off the map - they are not accumulating further damage off map. So not dumb at all.

Ian R -> RE: Periscope recon (8/8/2020 4:03:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fcooke IIRC the Iowas wer designed to squeeze through the canal. Which ended up giving the a nice length to beam ratio and helped to aid their high speed. The 'as designed' Montanas gave up on the canal and would to have sailed around. Nice that Essex ships had that elevator that folded up, otherwise more than lights would have been taken out...... I have a vague recollection that there was a project started to widen the canal to take the Montanas, in August 1939, which ultimately continued to 1942. Although a lot of excavation was done, funding was cut after the war. The new panamax locks took advantage of that unfinished work. A quick google and more than you need to know about the canal, go to slide 36 -> http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/panama-canal-2012/rogers-panama-canal-background-minimum.pdf

rustysi -> RE: Periscope recon (8/8/2020 6:17:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Shellshock quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe There is talk about widening the Canal. I also read where China wants to make another Canal somewhere else. They wanted to build one across Nicaragua, from Brito to Punta Gorda but it sounds like the plans have fallen through. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/NicaraguaCanal.5.jpg/288px-NicaraguaCanal.5.jpg[/img] Probably found MS13 or whatever that gang calls itself too difficult to deal with ... Money and environmental concerns are the issues. It would be a sea level canal, i.e., no locks needed. IIRC there was a push back in the day to build the first canal here, but corruption got in the way. Just before it was decided where the U.S. would build, those who had land or whatever in Panama that would benefit, claimed some volcano erupted in Honduras.

rustysi -> RE: Periscope recon (8/8/2020 6:32:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NigelKentarus [image]local://upfiles/37092/488A2B4E982C4453883964ECD0BD3D47.jpg[/image] We used to call that 'Eyeball Liberty". Back in the day I used to work at the horse race tracks in the NYC area on their betting computers. Part of our responsibilities included monitoring the infield tote boards for problems. As such we had camera with pan, tilt, and zoom mounted high up in the grandstand. There were many times where we were monitoring the crowd instead, especially on days when they opened the infield to the public.[:D]

fcooke -> RE: Periscope recon (8/8/2020 12:00:38 PM)
when I was still working, we were fitting out a new building and the contractors had a 'code' on the walkies for when there was 'activity' in the residential building across the street. Productivity dropped through the floor.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.796875