Can you attack using only the Radar?

[fastfed]

In history, many Submarines actually used ONLY radar to attack, they actually got all the information from the radar scope and didn't need the P-scope, they entered the information into the TDC and fired and sunk many ships using just radar..

I read this is many books and just finished reading "Submarine" that they did this..

I wonder if the radar that is not really working in SH4 will eventually work and allow us to use the radar scope to make these caculations.

[AVGWarhawk]

In history, many Submarines actually used ONLY radar to attack, they actually got all the information from the radar scope and didn't need the P-scope, they entered the information into the TDC and fired and sunk many ships using just radar..

I read this is many books and just finished reading "Submarine" that they did this..

I wonder if the radar that is not really working in SH4 will eventually work and allow us to use the radar scope to make these caculations.

If I'm not mistaken, you can send the radar info to the TDC. Same with the sonar station.

[SteamWake]

What strikes me as strange is that typically to be within the range of a torpedo you are also within "visual" range of the target. Not to mention the fact that you have to be surfaced to use it :hmm:

Mark 1 eyeball being the most precise instrument available why not make use of it ?

The ony thing I can think of is in crap weather with limited visibility.

[tater]

They had periscope radar as well. Not sure when it appeared.

[Egan]

If I'm not mistaken, you can send the radar info to the TDC. Same with the sonar station.

Can you? I thought you could only do that with Sonar?

[AVGWarhawk]

If I'm not mistaken, you can send the radar info to the TDC. Same with the sonar station.
Can you? I thought you could only do that with Sonar?

I think you can, I only messed with the radar once in 43. I think one of the switches on the board will feed the TDC....I think;)

[Sailor Steve]

I guess I'm getting old; I don't recall any accounts of attacks using nothing but radar. Making contact and getting initial ranges, sure; but I don't remember reading about them making the final attack without visual contact.

[Quillan]

I could see it happening; imagine a good storm where visibility is perhaps 300-400 yards. The radar will still show you targets at several miles range. You won't be able to to make positive ID on the targets, so you might well shoot a friendly or set the running depth wrong on the torpedoes.

With the TDC manual inputs the way they are in this game it'll probably be harder than in SH3. I once made a totally submerged attack in a XXI to see if it was possible; it was incredibly satisfying when the torpedo actually hit the target from 2100 meters, but it wasn't a quick process setting it up.

[SteamWake]

Question is really why would you ?

The aspect of the target as in abeam of you not pointed towards you could not be discearned by radar only. This would greatly increase your chances of a "deflection miss".

[XanderF]

Question is really why would you ?

The aspect of the target as in abeam of you not pointed towards you could not be discearned by radar only. This would greatly increase your chances of a "deflection miss".

Of course it would. Take a range + bearing reading a few times, mark those on the map, draw a line between the points, *poof*, you have their heading (and thus AoB).

[SteamWake]

Question is really why would you ?

The aspect of the target as in abeam of you not pointed towards you could not be discearned by radar only. This would greatly increase your chances of a "deflection miss".

Of course it would. Take a range + bearing reading a few times, mark those on the map, draw a line between the points, *poof*, you have their heading (and thus AoB).

All true but still Im of the school of Ill belive it when I see it. Besides what if they start zig zagging.

Which reminds me I dont think Ive ever seen a convoy use an erratic course. Wasent this a "standard" tactic ?

[Egan]

I guess I'm getting old; I don't recall any accounts of attacks using nothing but radar. Making contact and getting initial ranges, sure; but I don't remember reading about them making the final attack without visual contact.
Jim Calvert reports one in 'Silent Running,' where they couldn't see the targets because it was a stormy night. They got quite a few hits but received very little credit for it due to the fact a sinking had to be visually confirmed. Radar confirmation was regarded as being less than accurate. I'm pretty sure he states that it was all done with the PPI. They used a Banjo as well to aid them and fired from extreme range. Calvert was quite upset about it, as his skipper, Tommy Dykers, was transfered out of Subs at the end of the patrol and Calvert believed that the patrol results to have played a part. (They seemed to have believed that Dykers taste for night time surface attacks betrayed a lack of appetite for a Daytime Peri attack and the inevitable Depth charging follow up...:-? )

[Bilge_Rat]

Which reminds me I dont think Ive ever seen a convoy use an erratic course. Wasent this a "standard" tactic ?

The other night in the convoy attack tutorial, I was lined up in perfect position at 700 meters from two fat, overlapping tankers. I fired all six bow tubes and they turned away, ruining my shot. So there seems to be code for that, but it does not seem to happen often.

The sea was smooth as glass, so maybe they spotted the wakes.

p.s.-oh no, not the medic avatar...

[MikeJW]

When radar was first put on subs the theory was that it would be perfect for attacks. Actual use in the war showed many flaws with trying to use early radar to plot a firing solution so it was quickly abandoned and skippers went back to the scope. I've read quit a few books about subs from WW2 and never read anyone who actualy tried a radar only attack.

[fullmetaledges]

In history, many Submarines actually used ONLY radar to attack, they actually got all the information from the radar scope and didn't need the P-scope, they entered the information into the TDC and fired and sunk many ships using just radar..

I read this is many books and just finished reading "Submarine" that they did this..

I wonder if the radar that is not really working in SH4 will eventually work and allow us to use the radar scope to make these caculations.

If I'm not mistaken, you can send the radar info to the TDC. Same with the sonar station.

I havent found that button on my radar and with the radar bug where if you are on a course of 90 degrees thru 270 degrees you do not get radar contacts I don't see it as possible, maybe if you plotted the contact on the map but I do not have range rings or bearing lines on my ppi scope

[Radtgaeb]

I can't even manually operate my radar. I can't get the dern thing to turn on.

[MikeJW]

What boat you got? The older boats didnt have radar but the devsleft the stations in the model.

[Radtgaeb]

Been using a Gar.

[fastfed]

What strikes me as strange is that typically to be within the range of a torpedo you are also within "visual" range of the target. Not to mention the fact that you have to be surfaced to use it :hmm:

Mark 1 eyeball being the most precise instrument available why not make use of it ?

The ony thing I can think of is in crap weather with limited visibility.

What really suprised me, was the fact that many of these submarines, even in convoys almost all the time did surface attacks, it was very rare that they actually dove down to P depth, even with escorts around.. Seriously go get the book "Submarine" Its a great non fiction book..
It talkes about many of the historic battles from the Wahoo,Trigger and many many more..

It seems that the skippers never really dove until they fired all 10 of there loaded torps.

[akdavis]

What strikes me as strange is that typically to be within the range of a torpedo you are also within "visual" range of the target. Not to mention the fact that you have to be surfaced to use it :hmm:

Mark 1 eyeball being the most precise instrument available why not make use of it ?

The ony thing I can think of is in crap weather with limited visibility.

What really suprised me, was the fact that many of these submarines, even in convoys almost all the time did surface attacks, it was very rare that they actually dove down to P depth, even with escorts around.. Seriously go get the book "Submarine" Its a great non fiction book..
It talkes about many of the historic battles from the Wahoo,Trigger and many many more..

It seems that the skippers never really dove until they fired all 10 of there loaded torps.

Many, many submerged attacks were made, especially in '41-'42.

As far I know, the game does not include any way to send radar contact data to the TDC, nor does the radar display show bearing for manual input. This makes no sense given the availability of all that for sonar.

[MRV]

I guess I'm getting old; I don't recall any accounts of attacks using nothing but radar. Making contact and getting initial ranges, sure; but I don't remember reading about them making the final attack without visual contact.

I agree, you should know WHAT you are about to torpedo, don't you? ;)

[rcocean]

Battleship Kongo was sunk by Sealion II using a surface Radar attack.

The Awa maru was sunk by Queenfish by radar in dense fog. Four torpedoes were fired and all hit.

[LukeFF]

As far I know, the game does not include any way to send radar contact data to the TDC, nor does the radar display show bearing for manual input. This makes no sense given the availability of all that for sonar.

Agreed. Let's put that in as a suggestion for 1.3, plus the ability to add ST radar to our periscope (late in the war).