RE: The all seeing eye of Glen

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 4/30/2006 6:40:10 PM

juliet7bravo

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline

"Glen spotting a vessel in the open sea"

If they could be launched in the open ocean (as history and Chez both assures us is possible) then even a short radius recon around the sub would greatly extend the subs "line of sight" and thus the area sub could effectively search. Didn't the Germans go so far as to play around with "manned kites" towed behind subs to try and search a larger area? A 90 knot AC with 5 hour endurance would have to be better than a "kite" for this task, or sticking a guy on top the periscope sheers. I'd have to think this would be a great asset in an anti-shipping role, especially in a shipping lane outside the reach of LB ASW AC. Completely realistic, as long as it doesn't have the capability to fly on just about every day, never has OP losses, and can't search a 2 hex radius, ect.

The issues raised about sea states, search radius, OP losses ect. are all valid, and all have impact far beyond "nerfing" the Glen.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 91

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 4/30/2006 7:00:43 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

I-21:

19 May 1942:
Early in the morning, Warrant Flying Officer Ito conducts a recce flight over Suva. He sights a Glasgow-class light cruiser and seven submarine chasers in the harbor and returns to the submarine one and a half hours later.

24 May 1942:
The I-21's Glen reconnoiters Auckland, New Zealand. As a result of a heavy squall, Ito fails to detect any vessels in the harbor. When flying over the Auckland airfield at 1,315 feet, landing lights are switched on for him by the New Zealanders.

29 May 1942:
35 miles NE of Sydney, Australia. WFO Ito is launched from the I-21 to make a pre-midget submarine attack reconnaisance in his Glen. Ito is caught by three searchlights over Cockatoo Island, but manages to escape.

At 0420, a floatplane with its navigation lights on is sighted as it circles twice over the harbor near where the heavy cruiser USS CHICAGO (CA-29) is anchored. It is thought to be an American plane, but eventually RAAF fighters are sent up to intercept, but they are unsuccessful. While landing in heavy seas, Ito's plane capsizes and is later scuttled. Ito reports sighting a "battleship". He also spots the converted hospital ship ORANJE. Captain Sasaki orders an attack on Sydney harbor by his midget submarines.

25 January 1943:
The I-21 launches her plane for a recce flight over Sydney. The pilot reports the presence of a heavy cruiser and some ten smaller vessels stationed at the harbor entrance.

19 February 1943:
WFO Ito makes another recce flight, taking photos of the New South Wales coast. His plane is detected by radar but is not attacked.

30 May 1943:
The I-21 evacuates 10 midget submarine crews from Kiska. (This is interesting because in another TROM it is mentioned that Several Midget Crews were evacuated from Guadacanal by Sub as well, which is interesting because I presumed that the crews of those midgets were lost while operating off Guadacanal).

8 October 1943:
The I-21 launches her plane for a flight over Suva.

..................

I-36 This is only the second OP loss I have read about, and at Night!

10 August 1943:
Returns to Yokosuka for overhaul. The I-36 is fitted with an E27 Type 3 radar detector.

31 August 1943:
Cdr Inaba receives a verbal order to reconnoiter Pearl Harbor from HQ, SubRon 1. The I-36 commences Yokosuka E14Y1 "Glen" floatplane launch and recovery tests in Inland Sea.

8 September 1943:
Departs Yokosuka to patrol off Hawaii.

19 September 1943:
The I-36 arrives W of Hawaii. Her radar detector registers the work of numerous American ship-based radars.

21 September 1943:
The I-36 is transferred E of Hawaii to avoid detection, but numerous contacts are still made.

16 October 1943:
After sunset, the I-36 surfaces 120 nms S of Pearl Harbor. Her E14Y1 floatplane is assembled in ten minutes and launched from the catapult.

One hour and twenty minutes later Cdr Inaba receives the signal from the returning floatplane. The partially submerged I-36 heads for the rendezvous point while maintaining contact with the pilot on a long-wave channel. The fliers report sighting four carriers, four battleships, five cruisers and 17 destroyers at anchor.

By 2330, the pilot of the Glen reports that his plane is low on fuel and that he has lost the bearing to the submarine. The I-36 surfaces and heads towards the location of the aircraft at full speed, with navigation lights switched on. Contact with the Glen is lost.

Aprial 22(ish) 1944(Third OP Loss I have found)

Majuro. At 1455 (JST), the I-36 launches her Glen floatplane that flies over the anchorage at 3,900 feet. The observer reports sighting 11 carriers and three battleships. Upon return, the pilot of the E14Y1 fails to locate the submarine. Contact is re-established only by dawn the next morning. The aircraft is scuttled, rather than recovered, to escape detection.

I could post stuff like this all day, but I will atempt to restrain myself

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to juliet7bravo)

Post #: 92

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 4/30/2006 7:06:13 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

I-30:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AT SEA:

6 May 1942:
The I-30's "Glen" floatplane sights elements of the British Fleet en route from Durban to Madagascar.

Look at all these Sorties flow by her Glen on this patrole, and they repaired the Glen as well:

7 May 1942:
Indian Ocean. Gulf of Aden. The I-30 launches her floatplane to reconnoiter Aden.

8 May 1942:
Indian Ocean. Gulf of Aden. The I-30 launches her Glen to reconnoiter Djibouti.

19 May 1942:
The I-30 launches her floatplane to reconnoiter Zanzibar and Dar-es Salaam. The pilot sights one merchant in the harbor and one 4,000-ton vessel departing. During landing, one of the Glens floats is damaged, but it is hoisted aboard.

20 May 1942:
The flagship I-10 catapults her Glen floatplane that reconnoiters Durban, South Africa. There are at least 40 merchant ships in the harbor, but Ishizaki is after warships. The Glen is not sighted and the Japanese make no attacks that would reveal their presence. During the week, the I-10's aircraft also overflies East London, Port Elizabeth and Simonstown.

That same day, the I-30 carries out periscopic observation of the port at Kilindini (Mombasa).

24 May 1942:
At night, the I-30 carries out a periscopic observation of Diego Suarez at the northern tip of Madagascar at Antsiranano, on the Indian Ocean.

29 May 1942:
At night, the I-10's floatplane reconnoiters the harbor at Diego Suarez. The plane sights the HMS RAMILLES, an old 29,150-ton ROYAL SOVEREIGN-class battleship, at anchor in the bay. Also in the harbor are the destroyers HMS DUNCAN and ACTIVE, corvettes HMS GENISTA and THYME, troopship HMS KARANJA, hospital ship ATLANTIS, tanker BRITISH LOYALTY, 10,799-ton merchant LLANDAFF CASTLE and an ammunition ship.

< Message edited by Brady -- 4/30/2006 7:09:22 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 93

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 4/30/2006 7:39:00 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

BRADY. Please notice that virtually every one of your examples is a "RECCON" mission of a fixed point. NOT an open ocean "NAVAL SEARCH". I don't think anyone has any objection to Glens being used for reccon..., it's naval search that the game's system abuses. A submarine is not an aircraft carrier that can sail along launching and recovering aircraft throught the day.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 94

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 4/30/2006 8:09:34 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

But it was striking to me that the logs Brady posted described recon missions only, and not once reported that a Glen spotted such-and-such vessel in the open sea. Sure, that doesn't mean that Glens weren't used in the air-search role -- but it might well suggest that Glens weren't very effective in that role. Why would the logs tell us the Glen spotted a vessel in such-and-such harbor but would omit telling us about the Glen sotting a vessel in the open sea?

Hi, Grotius,

I-10 sank several ships during its patrols. I think its fair to assume that some of those may have been initially located by its Glenn. The TROM is too limited in detail to verify whether this is true or not. I used to have a book on Japanese sub operations but I haven't been able to find it in years. Guess I'll have to find another one that may detail how the Glenn was used in the scouting role. But that is what the entire aircraft-carrying sub concept was designed for... to scout ahead of the fleet and to locate targets for itself.

As someone pointed out, its not the search capability of the Glenn that should be questioned. Its the way WitP conducts air searches in general. Its basically a range circle around a base and everything inside it is subject to detection even though there may only be one search aircraft available.

True air searches consisted of searching sectors the size of which depended upon the furthest range to be searched and the number of available aircraft. The primary search emphasis would be towards the perceived threat axis. It would be nice in WitP II takes this into account. Basically it would require the ability to input a threat axis. For example, if you are expecting the enemy to make a move from a base to your north, you would tell the computer to focus the search to the north. The resulting search plan would resemble a cardioid pattern.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 95

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 4/30/2006 8:15:39 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

Mike- I did find an example of a open ocean "Naval Search" and posted it above, also the TROM's realy dont cover all aspects of the subjects daily movements and operations, when comparing them to Some Cruzer operations as an example, they dont list all the Naval Searchs they preform either. A lot of the Sub's Say they Spoted this or that in the TROM's but they dont say how they spoted them.

As noted before by others the launch and recovery of these planes from the Subs was something that took very little time, 10 min was all that was required in one example above to get a Glen up and away. So stoping to do this is not eating up a lot of time. Nore is the recovery of these planes by Subs or any other ship class capable of doing so.

I do think though that all Float planes should be subject to Sea State Weather limatations on their Flight op's.

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 96

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 4/30/2006 8:22:32 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

Chez

quote:

True air searches consisted of searching sectors the size of which depended upon the furthest range to be searched and the number of available aircraft. The primary search emphasis would be towards the perceived threat axis. It would be nice in WitP II takes this into account. Basically it would require the ability to input a threat axis. For example, if you are expecting the enemy to make a move from a base to your north, you would tell the computer to focus the search to the north. The resulting search plan would resemble a cardioid pattern.

This has always been a point of some concern for me, finialy they came up with a code that alowed the shorting of the search radious and increased the likely hood of dection withen that shortned radious increased the density of the planes invloved...if you follow, But the Big peave remained, not being able to Slice the Pie so to speak, espichaly when say half of it is over land! As an example; if the base is say on the West Coast, half the planes are doing a "Naval Search" over Oregon!

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 97

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 4/30/2006 10:27:08 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

As I previously pointed out the Glenn's range and speed are such that it could search with a fairly low POD (unless absolutely clear WX) to a radius of 1 hex during an AM or PM Air Phase. The game gives it an endurance of 480 (presumably miles) so I assume that converts to a range of 4. The plane is thus searching an area 16 times larger than was possible during each air phase. That's a bit much.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 98

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/1/2006 12:18:15 AM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

But the Big peave remained, not being able to Slice the Pie so to speak, espichaly when say half of it is over land! As an example; if the base is say on the West Coast, half the planes are doing a "Naval Search" over Oregon!

So very true. Sector search was (and still is) the order of the day. Full circular searches would only be conducted by units (such as carriers) that have penetrated a defensive perimeter such as during the Doolittle raid or by units on islands that could be hit from any direction. ASW search from island bases is another situation I can think of where the enemy could be found anywhere.

Midway is a prime example of how sector searches were used on both sides. No one was looking "behind them" so to speak. They were putting all their resources ahead and to the sides to gain the earliest possible detection.

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 99

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/1/2006 1:32:42 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

Jake:

Cruising speed 120 kt at 2,000 m
Climb to 3,000 m
in 6 min 5 sec
Service ceiling 8,730 m
Range 1,128 naut miles

........................................................

Glen:

Maximum speed 133 kt at sea level
Cruising speed 90 kt at 1,000 m
Climb to 3,000 m
in 10 min 11 sec
Service ceiling 5,420 m
Range 476 naut miles

..............................

So the Glen has about half the range of the Jake acording to the stats (a little less than half) In the Game it has about half the range 4 hexes as aposed to 8 I beleave for the Jake. Each Hex in the Game is 60 NM, so it would take about 2.5 hours to fly out to the range limit, and 2.5 to fly back, takes 10 min to launch...

..............................

Check out the OS2U:

Cruise Speed: 116 mph (186 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 19,000 feet (5,791meters)
Initial Climb Rate: 890 feet (271 meters) per minute
Range: 982 miles (1580 km)

Game Range Is I beelave 5 hexes

...................................

The Radious of search is an abstracted represenatation of a likely are that the plane(s) will find a target in, presuming one is their to find. The more planes that are capable of flying the search mishion the greater the chance of suxcess, for the Glen, or say a Cruzer with a pair of float planes on board and set to 50%, your going to have a low probabality of finding a TF with a given radious at Max range, this is how the game work's, their not saying any one plane will search the whole area, it is a krap shoot, the variables are the same for all "Naval Searches".

< Message edited by Brady -- 5/1/2006 1:37:28 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 100

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/1/2006 1:45:17 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

If they could be launched in the open ocean (as history and Chez both assures us is possible) then even a short radius recon around the sub would greatly extend the subs "line of sight" and thus the area sub could effectively search. Didn't the Germans go so far as to play around with "manned kites" towed behind subs to try and search a larger area?

Yes and Yes.

There are cases of Glens in the middle of the great gap between Oahu and the US Coast spotting ships effectively. BUT the Glens COULD NOT operate in even moderate seas. ONLY in very calm conditions could they land (takeoff is less a problem). The problems with such ops are that sometimes you don't know what the weather will be in future (when you land) - and sometimes you cannot find that tiny sub again! The glider idea was for subs. Surface ships did it sometimes - with kite baloons. Invented by the Russians before WWI - the very first "aircraft carrier" used baloon observers! Japan has kite baloons for observers in military service - in my mechanical games I allow players to put them on raiders. [We want student military officers to learn to think creatively].

(in reply to juliet7bravo)

Post #: 101

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/1/2006 1:49:55 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

So the Glen has about half the range of the Jake acording to the stats (a little less than half) In the Game it has about half the range 4 hexes as aposed to 8 I beleave for the Jake. Each Hex in the Game is 60 NM, so it would take about 2.5 hours to fly out to the range limit, and 2.5 to fly back, takes 10 min to launch...

IF game stats were properly entered (they are in RHS) - the range of a Jake would be 21/7/5 hexes (transfer/extended/normal range). A Glen would be 9/3/2 hexes. This assumes no reserves and is not wholly realistic - these are optimistic values that risk losing the plane if there is a bad wind or combat. More realistic values would be 20/6/5 for Jake and
8/2/2 for Glen. In short - a Glen only is useful at a range of 2 hexes - in game terms. For technical reasons, in practice, it probably should only be used at one hex range - and historic missions virtually always were. I would not think the Glen was too severely limited if this were imposed - but I cannot imagine it being popular - and I followed Joes rule "follow the data"]

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/1/2006 1:51:38 AM >

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 102

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/1/2006 1:53:17 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The Radious of search is an abstracted represenatation of a likely are that the plane(s) will find a target in, presuming one is their to find. The more planes that are capable of flying the search mishion the greater the chance of suxcess, for the Glen, or say a Cruzer with a pair of float planes on board and set to 50%, your going to have a low probabality of finding a TF with a given radious at Max range, this is how the game work's, their not saying any one plane will search the whole area, it is a krap shoot, the variables are the same for all "Naval Searches".

While this is true for long range air searches - and more or less true for medium range ones - it is false for Glen! What matters with Glen is, first, altitude - you can see over a hundred nautical miles in clear conditions - and, second, you can go investigate what is that over there pretty fast.
A glen can see almost as far as it can go! [In practical operational terms its nominal radius is 120 nautical miles]

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/1/2006 1:54:22 AM >

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 103

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/1/2006 1:55:28 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

So very true. Sector search was (and still is) the order of the day. Full circular searches would only be conducted by units (such as carriers) that have penetrated a defensive perimeter such as during the Doolittle raid or by units on islands that could be hit from any direction. ASW search from island bases is another situation I can think of where the enemy could be found anywhere.

Midway is a prime example of how sector searches were used on both sides. No one was looking "behind them" so to speak. They were putting all their resources ahead and to the sides to gain the earliest possible detection.

We could have 60 degree search sectors. I do it all the time in private games. Maybe this is an option for future work?

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 104

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/1/2006 2:03:29 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

As I previously pointed out the Glenn's range and speed are such that it could search with a fairly low POD (unless absolutely clear WX) to a radius of 1 hex during an AM or PM Air Phase.

Incorrect. The probability of detection is so high, if a plane missed anything I would consider shooting the observer. IF you bother to go flying at 500 feet you will begin to understand what you can see from the air you can not from a ship. You can also fly higher than this and get even more range (but lose the ability to spot a submerged submarine).
I took my daughter up in a plane at the aviation museum at Tillimook - the former airship station - and she spotted two whales before the season for them had begun. We simply circled a while - and they broached (because whales need to breathe) - so we could confirm it on film. You have a remarkably good chance of seeing a submerged submarine from the air in daylight without fog. An actual surface ship is fully visible to an observer on the surface to 8 nautical miles (navy training) - and hull down considerably more. If you put the observer 100 feet up - on a mast - you can see about 16 nautical miles well enough to call the fall of shot - and you can see mastheads much farther out. A plane extends these ranges by more than an order of magnitude - so that you can see a ship so far away you cannot identify it. In fact, if the ship is moving, you see the wake at truly vast distances.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 105

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/1/2006 2:07:31 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

As noted before by others the launch and recovery of these planes from the Subs was something that took very little time, 10 min was all that was required in one example above to get a Glen up and away.

Drilled IJN crews could assemble an aircraft in 6 minutes. Japanese submarines had a way to pre-warm up the engine too! The First Submarine Flotilla - operating four vessels with a two or three planes on each - bombers larger than the Glen and real high speed recon planes -
could surface, assemble, launch, and form up at altitude in 42 minutes.

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 106

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/1/2006 2:31:25 AM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

Part of the problem, or rather just how WiTP seams to handel the range equation, is that while the glen may have a range of 4, it like many other planes will almost Never spot a TF on Naval Search at max range. My experance with these ingame is that they will with some certainity spot TF's at 2 hex range and closer with some ashurance 3 hex's it's gets prety chancy and Never I have I sean them spot anyhting at 4 hexes distant on a Naval search. Thats not to say it hasent happened, but it is rare indead.

I dont dispute that the ranges are wacked for many planes in WiTP, clearly they are, it would be nice to see them all tweaked.

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 107

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/1/2006 2:56:17 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

I dont dispute that the ranges are wacked for many planes in WiTP, clearly they are, it would be nice to see them all tweaked.

They are - in RHS. The planes have been available to test for some time.
A complete test file set releases to day to testers - and probably tuesday for everyone. There are lots of changes. Allied bombers in general are much longer legged - and Pete and Glen lost range. Whole missing categories of planes were added - including heavy transports, gliders, the first designed to purpose ASW plane in the world, submarine bombers and - if they are planes - blimps. [They do fly in real life - but not in code - or you might say they fly really low. Their patrol altitude was typically a few hundred feet - so this is not too far off. Code limits you to 24 hours of flying - and in some conditions Blimps can do better than that - they have fuel and they also can drift - and eventually we mastered long patrols. They only come on line slowly - there are 30 by 1945 and none when the war begins on the west coast. By Jan 1943 there are only 3 - so it is a slow start.] I gave the Q1W1 Lorna and blimps MAD gear too. [It took a long time to figure out what that means in code terms?]

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 108

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/1/2006 4:17:31 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

quote:

Incorrect. The probability of detection is so high, if a plane missed anything I would consider shooting the observer. IF you bother to go flying at 500 feet you will begin to understand what you can see from the air you can not from a ship. You can a

In point of fact I have flown on SEARCH MISSIONS looking for ships on the open sea with the aid of surface search radar to boot and it is you who is incorrect claiming a high POD for objects 30 miles either side of one's trackline. That is feasible but in the real world is wishful thinking.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 109

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/1/2006 6:32:26 AM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

In point of fact I have flown on SEARCH MISSIONS looking for ships on the open sea with the aid of surface search radar to boot and it is you who is incorrect claiming a high POD for objects 30 miles either side of one's trackline. That is feasible but in the real world is wishful thinking.

I agree with you, Spence. I've posted on this subject before.

The formula for the theoretical visual horizon is: 1.23 X SQRT(altitude in feet). So a plane flying at 500 feet has a visual horizon of 27.5 nm. But that is the theoretical range. The actual practical range is probably half that.

Plus other factors must be taken into account such as weather conditions and seastate. Then there is the size of the target. What time of day is it? Is the sun low on the horizon? Is the aircraft heading into the sun or away from it? An observer looking up sun may only have an effective visual range of 2-3 miles while the observer on the other side of the aircraft may be able to see 8-10 miles. Does the observer have binoculars? Two factors often overlooked is the amount of aircraft vibration and how long has the lookout been at his position. Current Navy lookout standards on the P-3 call for rotating the observer every 20-30 minutes, sooner on a bright day. Looking in the direction of the sun is a good way to get the equivalent of snow blindness.

The effect that seastate has on visual search cannot be over estimated. Just the presence of whitecaps greatly reduces the chances of detecting a smaller target and also helps breakup a ship's wake, making it less detectable unless the ship is steaming at 20+ knots.

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 110

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/2/2006 6:16:22 AM

von Beanie

Posts: 295
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Oak Hills, S. California
Status: offline

I will admit to abusing the submarine-based search capability because the game allows for it

. No one has mentioned that if you play a game with Player Defined Upgrades you can change the Glens to Alfs to extend the sub-based search range to 7 hexes. Careful placing of the subs at key places gives a pretty complete picture of what's coming and going. In fact, I make the changes to the search planes on all ships (CAs and BBs).

On the other hand, there's no land-based intelligence at the ports themselves. Spies were always a real concern, and could report the arrival and departure of task forces, as well as which ships were present in a port. So although I'm abusing the sub-based searches, I'm confident the overall intelligence picture is reasonably realistic.

Any overhaul of the search capabilities should take this method of abuse into consideration also.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 111

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/2/2006 4:37:08 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Someone once posted something that was quite interesting to do with the Glens. He suggested putting them on cruisers to give a surface force the "signature" of a sub. When the bad guys send an ASW force to investigate, the cruiser force would blow them out of the water.

I never tried this myself but it does seem pretty devious.

(in reply to von Beanie)

Post #: 112

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/2/2006 5:12:37 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

In point of fact I have flown on SEARCH MISSIONS looking for ships on the open sea with the aid of surface search radar to boot and it is you who is incorrect claiming a high POD for objects 30 miles either side of one's trackline. That is feasible but in the real world is wishful thinking.

OK. Feel free to disagree. I admit AMERICANS won't spot very often in THIS age (WWII is different).

When Elat was sunk by Styx missiles (in 1967) her lookouts spotted them inbound - the enemy never even left port to attack the destroyer at sea.
I was assigned to solve the problem of detecting and engaging, which was hard, becuse our search radar could not see missiles (they are too small) and we had no confidence American observers would either. But CNO at the time believed (correctly as it turned out) that we could detect the missiles radars - they needed to find a moving target - and often the radars of the unit which would fire the missiles - IF we learned to "think passively" (which is almost as un-American as being a diligent observer).

Even so, I trained special observers to WWII era Japanese standards, although we didn't have as good optics, we nearly did. I feared missiles guided by infra red (they were in fact made but not given to North Viet Nam - something I didn't want to depend on) - so I wanted a backup system. I have a British attitude (master the basics) - so we fielded even .50 cal MGs in the AAA role (found to still matter as late as 1982) - and regular mortars to help with distributing chaff (before chaff rockets were yet invented).

I will rephrase: IF I trained the observer, and the weather is good, and he failed to detect any surface vessel bigger than a small craft, I would consider shooting him. I expect him to spot even an airplane without fail at 50 miles - never mind a ship.

There is, however, something you were not taught (which I got from Saburo Sakai) - a visual trick called "focus on infinity." Frankly I didn't believe in it - but as a young sailor I visited an observatory (at Meadowbrook Hall) where an astronomer was teaching elementary school children. I asked him about it - and he taught us all - even children - how it works - so we could see STARS in daylight. If you cannot see a first magnitude star EVERY TIME there is one over the horizon in clear conditions, you will indeed not spot ships or planes at 30, 50 or even 100 miles. But people I train can and will.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 113

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/2/2006 5:20:06 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The formula for the theoretical visual horizon is: 1.23 X SQRT(altitude in feet). So a plane flying at 500 feet has a visual horizon of 27.5 nm. But that is the theoretical range. The actual practical range is probably half that.

This is incorrect - in the sense the formula cannot be right - it is a useful rule of thumb for close in ranges. The USN does not teach this in this way - they make you memorize points in the function - and how to know where these points are.

News flash: The Earth is almost a sphere (very little distortion). So a linear function of altitude will not yield range. In fact, as you gain altitude, you gain range much faster than at a linear rate.

As a radar and countermeasures guy I got to do this sort of thing a good deal - because radar signals are almost like light (they actually bend slightly in some cases - but we pretend they are like light even then).
Further, I would always track everything in my neighborhood, by every means possible. I would have radar plot a track and then see if I (or an operator) could track entirely WITHOUT radar - single station passive detection INCLUDING ranging. To do that I had to use a German formula (published in a US technical intelligence document) which permits you to calculate range for altitude of the emitter (= observer if visual). I got to the point I could track an aircraft WITHOUT using radar and be within 10% of its real range - doing the calculations in my head in an era before calculators or computers like we have now. So trust me on this: the function is wrong. The earth really is curved, and range is not a linear function of observer altitude.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 114

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/2/2006 5:22:03 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Someone once posted something that was quite interesting to do with the Glens. He suggested putting them on cruisers to give a surface force the "signature" of a sub. When the bad guys send an ASW force to investigate, the cruiser force would blow them out of the water.

I never tried this myself but it does seem pretty devious.

... but there is no need for such action. you can achive the same with keeping sub equipped glenn and SC TF in sam hex. And you would avoid complaints about being gamey

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 115

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/2/2006 5:22:26 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Plus other factors must be taken into account such as weather conditions and seastate.

Here we agree. This likely is in code now. If it isn't, we need to be fair - all observers get the same ability on both sides.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 116

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/2/2006 5:28:52 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

An observer looking up sun may only have an effective visual range of 2-3 miles while the observer on the other side of the aircraft may be able to see 8-10 miles.

US Navy teaches a SURFACE observer (not even on the masthead) has 100% visibility for 8 nautical (not statute) miles. If you really only can see ships at 8-10 miles from an airplane - you are not doing as well as real observers can from the masthead (oops - surface!).

For a sense of actual line of sight distances, go look at a very high frequency surface search radar. For practial purposes, its beams travel line of sight. You will spot every ship within 16 nautical miles, and probably even periscopes and rafts within 8, unless it is rough weather.
You will spot large ships well in excess of 30 nautical miles - and I have seen islands with mountains at 75. IF surface search radar can see it - I can take you outside and put glasses on that bearing - and you will see it too - unless inhibited by fog or haze. If you are trained in diligent human visual search technique, you will spot the target without knowing it was there, from the radar. This mattered to me - I like to sail with radar OFF - because a smart enemy listens for radar signals. And even with it on - I wanted backup detection: the radar can go down - or be a casualty - or not be able to see a small target - like a missile head on. I trained observers to spot the missile too small for radar detection - and I expect observers so trained to report. I don't leave it to change - I make them practice.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/3/2006 2:50:20 AM >

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 117

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/2/2006 5:33:15 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The effect that seastate has on visual search cannot be over estimated. Just the presence of whitecaps greatly reduces the chances of detecting a smaller target and also helps breakup a ship's wake, making it less detectable unless the ship is steaming at 20+ knots.

This is quite true. The nightmare case is trying to spot in conditions like the South Atlantic with winter approaching (as in the Falklands War) - or where I live - in the Gulf of Alaska - which is as rough as the North Atlantic (waves 40 feet are not rare). But warships do not (or should not) pull their lookouts in heavy weather - they are still useful. However, I admit only the Japanese navy (in our day as well as WWII) actually goes to sea to train in really bad weather.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 118

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/2/2006 5:36:43 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

I will admit to abusing the submarine-based search capability because the game allows for it . No one has mentioned that if you play a game with Player Defined Upgrades you can change the Glens to Alfs to extend the sub-based search range to 7 hexes. Careful placing of the subs at key places gives a pretty complete picture of what's coming and going. In fact, I make the changes to the search planes on all ships (CAs and BBs).

I don't like house rules - but this is plain wrong. ONLY a big sub could operate bigger seaplanes - and then they have to wait for a sub plane - like the M6A1 - which real world was intended for the game role you describe by Adm Yamamoto. [He insisted on building type AM and the I-400 types for this role - the attack ability was a secondary mission]. But they had to expand a Type B sub to make the AM able to handle a larger plane. Glens may not be restricted by code, but should be by common sense.

(in reply to von Beanie)

Post #: 119

RE: The all seeing eye of Glen - 5/2/2006 7:04:16 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Someone once posted something that was quite interesting to do with the Glens. He suggested putting them on cruisers to give a surface force the "signature" of a sub. When the bad guys send an ASW force to investigate, the cruiser force would blow them out of the water.

I never tried this myself but it does seem pretty devious.

... but there is no need for such action. you can achive the same with keeping sub equipped glenn and SC TF in sam hex. And you would avoid complaints about being gamey

Now that sounds like something I may try.....

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen