under water view?

[RICH12ACE]

when a sub is under water is the scopes the only way to look a round?? [under water] or is there another way?

[MaxT.dk]

You can use External View (set it under Options > Gameplay settings > Realism)

[SteamWake]

If he has external view turned on.

You can also press the period . key (main keyboard not numpad) to get a "chase" view.

Also keep in mind that subs did not use periscopes to look around underwater. When submergerd sonar was their only eyes.

[Snowman999]

when a sub is under water is the scopes the only way to look a round?? [under water] or is there another way?

Escape trunk . . .

[Julius Caesar]

Also keep in mind that subs did not use periscopes to look around underwater.

Why?

[MONOLITH]

I'd like to know too.

I tend to crack open the OBS peri just a tad when being persued by a DD just to check where he is.

Works great.

[nomad_delta]

MONOLITH: I'd never thought to try that, 'cause I figured the underwater visibility range was way too short to be useful. Do you have any kind of 'increased underwater visibility' mods installed?

Also I hear there are 'sub nets' in some harbors, which I suppose using the scope underwater would be the only way to detect or avoid.

Curious, what did real life submarines do about sub nets if they didn't use the scopes underwater? Just pick a random course and hope for the best?

nomad_delta

[IRONxMortlock]

MONOLITH: I'd never thought to try that, 'cause I figured the underwater visibility range was way too short to be useful. Do you have any kind of 'increased underwater visibility' mods installed?

Also I hear there are 'sub nets' in some harbors, which I suppose using the scope underwater would be the only way to detect or avoid.

Curious, what did real life submarines do about sub nets if they didn't use the scopes underwater? Just pick a random course and hope for the best?

nomad_delta
I thought all but the very brave (or perhaps the very stupid) avoided enemy harbours like the plague?

In regards to using the scope in a harbour to spot things underwater I'd say this would be almost impossible. I've been diving on many wrecks in harbours and most have very poor water visibility.

[GTHammer]

MONOLITH: I'd never thought to try that, 'cause I figured the underwater visibility range was way too short to be useful. Do you have any kind of 'increased underwater visibility' mods installed?

Also I hear there are 'sub nets' in some harbors, which I suppose using the scope underwater would be the only way to detect or avoid.

Curious, what did real life submarines do about sub nets if they didn't use the scopes underwater? Just pick a random course and hope for the best?

nomad_delta


I've used the periscopes to look around while underwater but I have an increased visibility mod that was part of the "die slowly" package that lets me see farther in the dark/underwater....Looking around would probably be pretty hard without the mod/In real life.

[MONOLITH]

MONOLITH: I'd never thought to try that, 'cause I figured the underwater visibility range was way too short to be useful. Do you have any kind of 'increased underwater visibility' mods installed?

I am using the 60M underwater visibility mod.....

However, I noticed that it only seems to affect the 'free cam' view, and not the 'follow sub/next ship' views. So far all I know, what I see through the scopes while underwater is stock view.


While perhaps not totally realistic, I am after all playing a game and I don't mind a little 'extra feature' here and there. I personally find it very cool to be 100 feet down, and look up through the obs scope to see which way that pesky DD is turning.

And since water visibility varied greatly by ocean, temperature, time of day, etc, who's to say it was never done in real life? Certainly seems plausible. At the very least, against the noonday sun, you could see the shadow of the escort passing overhead.


And sub nets and mines? In shalllow water lit by the sun? You bet you should crack open that scope and have a peek. You guys will save yourselves a ton of frustration, and it's sort of cool looking around underwater anyway.

That's how I got the sig pic of that pesky fish. :|\\

[SteamWake]

I'd like to know too.

I tend to crack open the OBS peri just a tad when being persued by a DD just to check where he is.

Works great.

Thats cool to do in game but... in real life you probably cant see past the end of your own boat if that far.

Plus you run a risk of water intrusion into the scope. Not a good thing.

[CaptBC]

I don't think that you want all that water running down around the scope when it is not sealed down tight!:down:

CaptBC

[ryanwigginton]

I also use the obs periscope to dodge DC runs with NO mods. I thought the name obs meant exactly that, it's for observing. I noticed it doesn't extend as far as the attack scope, which to me confirmed it was for submerged use. Otherwise... why? It has no extra zoom... if you don't use it underwater then, it's only good as a spare.

[MONOLITH]

I don't think that you want all that water running down around the scope when it is not sealed down tight!:down:

CaptBC


I've been playing for a couple months now, there's not a drop of water on my monitor anywhere. ;)



Also, even at periscope depth of 60ish feet, the scope is 'opened' while under water before it breaks the surface. I doubt the engineering was so bad that 60 feet = no leaks but 40 more feet of pressure caused it to fail.

[kikn79]

There was a US sub (Rasher if I recall correctly) that was getting hounded by some sub chasers. They seemed to have a supernatural ability to know where they were at no matter which way they twisted or turned. After 24 hours of being held down, the captain decided to bring up the scope a bit and see what was going on. He discovered that there was an air leak in one of the pipes and they were simply watching the trail of bubbles to lead them to the sub.

I believe they closed that pipe off and was able to escape to port to have it fixed. However, the moral of the story is that yes, they used the scopes underwater at times. I don't know how well you could see the escorts around you but it was useful in this situation.

Chuck

[SteamWake]

I also use the obs periscope to dodge DC runs with NO mods. I thought the name obs meant exactly that, it's for observing. I noticed it doesn't extend as far as the attack scope, which to me confirmed it was for submerged use. Otherwise... why? It has no extra zoom... if you don't use it underwater then, it's only good as a spare.

Well its not really modeled correctly.

It should extend higher than the attack scope, it should have a wider field of view, it should have a larger aperature.

It was not an underwater window.

[Sailor Steve]

There was a US sub (Rasher if I recall correctly) that was getting hounded by some sub chasers. They seemed to have a supernatural ability to know where they were at no matter which way they twisted or turned. After 24 hours of being held down, the captain decided to bring up the scope a bit and see what was going on. He discovered that there was an air leak in one of the pipes and they were simply watching the trail of bubbles to lead them to the sub.

I believe they closed that pipe off and was able to escape to port to have it fixed. However, the moral of the story is that yes, they used the scopes underwater at times. I don't know how well you could see the escorts around you but it was useful in this situation.

Chuck
A specific source reference would be nice. I've read many submarine books and don't recall seeing any stories of submariners using the periscope to avoid depth charges or anything of the kind. This doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that I didn't read stories like that; just that I don't recall.

I've seen water so clear we could see rocks more than 100 feet below us, and dolphins swimming under the ship, and of course divers take pictures in very clear water sometimes; but most of the time you can't see more than a few yards under water, and periscopes don't change that. It's my feeling that the water is way too clear, and using the 'scopes to dodge destroyers and depth charges is totally wrong.

[kikn79]

There was a US sub (Rasher if I recall correctly) that was getting hounded by some sub chasers. They seemed to have a supernatural ability to know where they were at no matter which way they twisted or turned. After 24 hours of being held down, the captain decided to bring up the scope a bit and see what was going on. He discovered that there was an air leak in one of the pipes and they were simply watching the trail of bubbles to lead them to the sub.

I believe they closed that pipe off and was able to escape to port to have it fixed. However, the moral of the story is that yes, they used the scopes underwater at times. I don't know how well you could see the escorts around you but it was useful in this situation.

Chuck
A specific source reference would be nice. I've read many submarine books and don't recall seeing any stories of submariners using the periscope to avoid depth charges or anything of the kind. This doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that I didn't read stories like that; just that I don't recall.

I've seen water so clear we could see rocks more than 100 feet below us, and dolphins swimming under the ship, and of course divers take pictures in very clear water sometimes; but most of the time you can't see more than a few yards under water, and periscopes don't change that. It's my feeling that the water is way too clear, and using the 'scopes to dodge destroyers and depth charges is totally wrong.

I believe it was in Red Scorpion: The War Patrols of the USS Rasher (http://www.amazon.com/Red-Scorpion-War-Patrols-Rasher/dp/0743489101/ref=sr_1_1/002-1650360-9419265?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181662882&sr=8-1) by Peter Sasgen if I recall correctly.

Chuck

[Sailor Steve]

Thanks. I believe you about the bubbles - they were coming from the sub itself. I'll still keep my opinion on depth charges and other things until I see otherwise.:sunny:

[wetwarev7]

I asked this same question about SH3 a long time ago. I think the general consensus then was that sub captains used whatever tools they had available to survive.

I 'm sure that there is a limit as to how deep you could raise the periscope without damaging it, and that there are times when the water is just too murky to see more than a couple of feet, but if conditions are right and you are above that critcal depth, why wouldn't you use it?

I believe there are times when the periscope could be used easily and effectivly underwater and I doubt that real life sub captains would disregard a very usefull survival tool because it made things too easy.

(EDIT: The fact that you can raise the scope at periscope depth indicates it is watertight, and if I understand correctly, the periscopes are allready filled with fluid are they not?)

My two cents. :up:

[SteamWake]

I the periscopes are allready filled with fluid are they not?)

My two cents. :up:

Most definatly not... in fact it was a pita keeping moisture out of them.

Heres an interesting periscope operating manual link. Check all the chapters on "fogging".

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/pscope/index.htm

[Sailor Steve]

I asked this same question about SH3 a long time ago. I think the general consensus then was that sub captains used whatever tools they had available to survive.
I believe there are times when the periscope could be used easily and effectivly underwater and I doubt that real life sub captains would disregard a very usefull survival tool because it made things too easy.
The problem is that what anybody thinks one way or the other, or any group reaching a consensus is pretty much useless. If they actually did it, they would have mentioned it. If they did mention it and I missed it, I'll gladly be corrected; but if no one ever said anything about it then they probably couldn't do it.

[MONOLITH]

Not sure it's worth arguing about really.

[SteamWake]

I asked this same question about SH3 a long time ago. I think the general consensus then was that sub captains used whatever tools they had available to survive.
I believe there are times when the periscope could be used easily and effectivly underwater and I doubt that real life sub captains would disregard a very usefull survival tool because it made things too easy.
The problem is that what anybody thinks one way or the other, or any group reaching a consensus is pretty much useless. If they actually did it, they would have mentioned it. If they did mention it and I missed it, I'll gladly be corrected; but if no one ever said anything about it then they probably couldn't do it.

I too have never seen a reference to using a scope in such a manner.

Even the reference given earlier about using the scope to take a peek at bubbles dident specifically state that it was done below the waterline.

[John Channing]

Thinking logically for a moment I canot believe that any Sub Captain would risk going to PD if he thought for one second that the Op-For was within the range they would have to be to be seen by a submerged periscope. No way in the world.

However...

It is standard peacetime doctrine when surfacing in known shipping lanes to raise the scope while you are still well under to check for "shapes and shadows". The surface duct can be very squirrley in re. picking up ships that are close aboard, so a visual check is almost always done during a normal surfacing evolution.

JCC

[wetwarev7]

I the periscopes are allready filled with fluid are they not?)

My two cents. :up:

Most definatly not... in fact it was a pita keeping moisture out of them.

Heres an interesting periscope operating manual link. Check all the chapters on "fogging".

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/pscope/index.htm

They weren't? Good Lord, I thought all quality scopes were fluid filled....I guess "quality" being the key word here...:p


However...

It is standard peacetime doctrine when surfacing in known shipping lanes to raise the scope while you are still well under to check for "shapes and shadows". The surface duct can be very squirrley in re. picking up ships that are close aboard, so a visual check is almost always done during a normal surfacing evolution.

JCC


For me, this says it all. This is all I need to justify using the scope to keep track of destroyers directly above me. Please bear in mind that I AM an expert on the subject, as my wife keeps telling me so. :p

[kikn79]

I asked this same question about SH3 a long time ago. I think the general consensus then was that sub captains used whatever tools they had available to survive.
I believe there are times when the periscope could be used easily and effectivly underwater and I doubt that real life sub captains would disregard a very usefull survival tool because it made things too easy.
The problem is that what anybody thinks one way or the other, or any group reaching a consensus is pretty much useless. If they actually did it, they would have mentioned it. If they did mention it and I missed it, I'll gladly be corrected; but if no one ever said anything about it then they probably couldn't do it.

I too have never seen a reference to using a scope in such a manner.

Even the reference given earlier about using the scope to take a peek at bubbles dident specifically state that it was done below the waterline.


It was my understanding that they were down well below PD. They were hiding from escorts, after all....

Chuck