Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

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.

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.

quote:

Oh come on now Chez

Cid is quoting top secret data compiled by the Japanese in 1066BC and currently held under extremely heavy guard under a mountain in North Korea; right next to the stockpile of captured Japanese Thorium bombs I believe.

quote:

We're talking visual horizon here. You know! That point where an object can no longer be seen due to the curvature of the earth! What the formula defines is a visual or radar SURFACE footprint from a given point of altitude.

quote:

A one hundred foot altitude yields a theoretical visual horizon of 12.3 nm.

quote:

I assume you are using ESM as you used the term emitter. Exactly how are you computing the altitude and range if angle above the horizon and emitter power levels aren't known?

quote:

I've also spent many a flight hour with my head pressed against the bubble observer windows in the P-3 searching for air and surface contacts in all kinds of weather conditions throughout the world.

quote:

Why do you keep referring to radar? My point is visual search!

quote:

How much time did the Stark have? 10-20 seconds or so? And this was with a fully alerted ship with all systems operational and in use (except CIWS which was in standby) and an AWACS overhead to boot.

quote:

As far as visually spotting a missile headon, all that does is give a lookout a chance to duck. Its already too late to engage with manual systems.

quote:

this is why us pilots never argued with the jezebels in the P-3...jezebel starts spewing formulas...the pilot's ears start bleeding...pilot looks over to co-pilot and rolls his eyes...TACCO and navigator start yelling at each other over which search pattern will work best...pilot tells the TACCO to relax, it's a clear day...fly another 5 miles in a random zig-zag pattern and flight engineer spots the contact over the rim of his coffee cup...pilot tells jezebel to go back to sleep until we need to do the next RIG...

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again



2) Every system on USS Stark was down. Not one was even on standby or manned. Nor could ANY of the three different weapons bear on the primary threat axis. The ship had been in a hot (shooting) war zone - a war in which 80% of the missiles fired hit bouys - a clue they had no idea what they were shooting at - but the captain did not follow any reaonable policy at all. He even had allowed an engineering test illegal except far in the open ocean - that is against regulations - so he was not able to maneuver at full capability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Thanks for those TROMs, Brady. They do show pretty active Glen recon missions -- but maybe not so much "Naval Search" as it's modeled in WITP. I mean, mostly the logs show Glens dispatched to recon particular targets: PH, Noumea, Santa Cruz Island, etc. Obviously a Glen would report any enemy vessel it saw on the way to the target, but you don't see many instances of a Glen reporting a contact in the open ocean, do you?

The point of contention here isn't that the Glen should have it's powers limited, but that they weren't hardly used and unreliable, or that they could only be used in the calmest seas. The issue of 'no search' only comes up not because they can't do it IRL, but because it gives them lots of power they shouldn't have in the game, because of the bias against their being used beyond the slightest degree because of alleged lack of use. If a plane can recon a port, something often more imminently dangerous than spotting ships at sea, then surely it can spot fleets. Whether the IJN used them very much in that role is immaterial, as the new commander should have that basic option. Of course there's always the possibility of getting a toggle option for these who quiver at the sight of the mighty plane spotting fleets. Any plane that can recon a port, and was used int hat role, should surely be able to search for a fleet.

I hope I'm not opening up on you Grotius when I say this, but it really does make me ill that it seems that virtually every capability of IJ in this game in being called into question that such-and-such capability shouldn't be granted to them because we don't have extensive documentation of it's being done. Besides that point, since we already know that the IJN was often using it's subs, even non-Glen ones for reconnning the sea, just why would they not use the Glen for navy searches when they're just as capable of that as a float plane?

Good point Charles. I would really like to see those who speak in favor of the Glen produce some real life examples where it was used to hunt down shipping at sea. (And no, one or two times in 4 years doesn't count.) If it's to be a usable "game mechanic", it needs to have been used IRL on a regular basis as well. As far as I can tell, sub-launched floatplanes were used almost exclusively for "niusance raids". Even in the period before Midway, the Japanese didn't try to arrainge for some of their subs to launch floatplanes to scout PH for the US CV's. Instead they tried to use one to refuel a Flying Boat for the mission. The game makes the Glen into a useful weapon, but the Japanese could not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
I hope I'm not opening up on you Grotius when I say this, but it really does make me ill that it seems that virtually every capability of IJ in this game in being called into question that such-and-such capability shouldn't be granted to them because we don't have extensive documentation of it's being done.

No worries, I enjoy reasoned and civilized discussion of an issue, and your post certainly qualifies as that. For what it's worth, I've played the IJN four or five times in PBEM, and the Allies once, and I've often posted on what I see as the ahistorical massing of Allied air power very early in the game. So I hardly "have it in" for the IJN. 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? Then again, my concern may be a broader one -- that air search is still too effective in WITP, even after having been toned down as compared to Uncommon Valor.

As for the Pete, there's nothing to complain about -- it's pretty useless, isn't it? :)

quote:

Good point Charles. I would really like to see those who speak in favor of the Glen produce some real life examples where it was used to hunt down shipping at sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

this is why us pilots never argued with the jezebels in the P-3...jezebel starts spewing formulas...the pilot's ears start bleeding...pilot looks over to co-pilot and rolls his eyes...TACCO and navigator start yelling at each other over which search pattern will work best...pilot tells the TACCO to relax, it's a clear day...fly another 5 miles in a random zig-zag pattern and flight engineer spots the contact over the rim of his coffee cup...pilot tells jezebel to go back to sleep until we need to do the next RIG...

That is the great paradox of the P-3 Navy. The one guy whose eyeballs are supposed to be focused on round dials INSIDE the cockpit is the one who always spots the target first! It must be the bloodshot eyes of the FE that filters out all that glare!

And what do you mean sleep? What Jez guy ever slept on a P-3? Don't answer that!

"What's that? Set 4? Come on SS2, hurry it up! Damn, when's flight gonna Set 3? Cool! 3's set, now I can smoke while we check the gear. Condition 3 check complete, Tacco. Kilo Alpha. Hey, SS2, wake me when we're onstation. Don't forget the coffee. ZZZzzzZZZzzz."

Chez

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

quote:

you picked on the poor SS2 for coffee? my jez always yelled at the AO or the IFT for coffee...maybe because sensor 2 was always putting on his poopy suit for "practice" for the crusty sensor 1