Enemy ever shoot by radar?

[Armistead]

TM0/RSRD

I don't know, but last night was strange. I decided to ambush Kurita in the San Bern, I do have every ship in this group set to elite crew ratings, plus a tad stronger AI and I was in a Tambor, just wanted to see if I could survive it.

The TF came on, had them on radar, I was 7nms in the front at decks awash, but engines still on, about 25 ft. I was taking another radar measurement when I heard the sound of shells flying overhead, cams were off, so I went to bridge and saw a few shells landing near. I turned away flank, my broadside was to them. I had contacts on, the nearest DD was 5nms' away, but coming very fast, large ships with radar were 6-8nms away in the group. I, nor the crew could make a visual, shells kept flying so I dived, decoy and went flank. However, least 4 of the DD' came to attack. I wasnt sure of the Tambors dive depth, seldom use it, but took it down to 440, but the elite escorts boxed me in and worked me over why the TF went by.

I swear, even with my settings I can't figure out in a dark night, no moon, light fog that they could see me from that range even with my AI and elite settings. I've never heard of the enemy shooting by radar, just wondered if possible, doubt it.....but last night made me wonder.

[pabbi]

What year was it. Could it be that they had a radar detector. Not saying they had just curious.

[Armistead]

Oh, they had radar, know that, APR was picking it up, just wonder if any way they ever shoot by radar if your settings are uber.

[Tempest555]

APR? Sorry what is the ancronym-and the in game IJN can detect your radar late war?

[Hylander_1314]

TMO may be the only megamod, not sure though, that gives the player a radar detector on the sub.

I have found though, that unless you go decks awash, or submerge completely, the Japanese ships with radar will pick you up at around 10nms. Without tweaking the AI sensors or crew ratings.

[troopie]

I'm pretty sure he's simply asking whether the ships can use radar for gunfire direction. :yep:

[Armistead]

I'm pretty sure he's simply asking whether the ships can use radar for gunfire direction. :yep:


:up:

[pabbi]

Not sure what it was like in real life, but it seems too me that Japs shooting by radar is not historically correct.

[Webster]

shooting without visual contact is pure fiction, its like throwing a dart in the air hoping to get lucky.

they can fix your range by radar but they cannot get a fix on your position, speed, course, or redirect fire for accuracy so it is incorrect to have that happen.

the detection range can be adjusted for accuracy in visual contact but then they might be unrealisticly blind to you when radar should make them know your position so its hard to get everything right with this game and often you have to accept one thing being wrong for others to work accurately and give you the most realistic overall experience with the game.

Ducimus spent many long hours trying to get as much right as he could so IMO what he has is the best compromise between realism and realistic feel for how it should be. there are way more limitations to what you can do with this game then people realise because of all the interconnections with files. while you might be able to change all sorts of things it often cant be done without breaking the realism of other things.

[Armistead]

shooting without visual contact is pure fiction, its like throwing a dart in the air hoping to get lucky.

they can fix your range by radar but they cannot get a fix on your position, speed, course, or redirect fire for accuracy so it is incorrect to have that happen.

the detection range can be adjusted for accuracy in visual contact but then they might be unrealisticly blind to you when radar should make them know your position so its hard to get everything right with this game and often you have to accept one thing being wrong for others to work accurately and give you the most realistic overall experience with the game.

Ducimus spent many long hours trying to get as much right as he could so IMO what he has is the best compromise between realism and realistic feel for how it should be. there are way more limitations to what you can do with this game then people realise because of all the interconnections with files. while you might be able to change all sorts of things it often cant be done without breaking the realism of other things.

I use my own env, but it's fairly tweaked to match TMO, except better visuals with moon, other than that tweaked RSRD crew ratings to elite, which obvious gives them more skill, but getting shot at decks awash from
5-6nms at night with no moon....made me wonder if it's possible for them to shoot by radar if settings were uber, not that it would be realistic in the real world historically for Japan then.

Tweaking env and sensors isn't hard as you know, just time consuming as heck testing each change.

[troopie]

shooting without visual contact is pure fiction, its like throwing a dart in the air hoping to get lucky.


:hmmm: Are you talking in-game or IRL?

I'm no historian, but, the allies certinaly had Radar directed gun controll during WWII. However, the axis i'm sure, did not.

I don't wanna make like an 'arm chair expert' but it's fairly common knowlage that Washington hit Kirishima under 'blindfire' conditions at night using radar.

With no idea regarding your mods I'd hope that's not how the Japs were hitting you.

However, Sharnhorst hit Glorious at ~ 24km's visualy, so if there was a BB in your TF it's possible I s'pose. But for them to spot your tower at 12.6k's at night? Well... Maybe they just knew where to look, thanks to radar?

[Sailor Steve]

I'm no historian, but, the allies certinaly had Radar directed gun controll during WWII. However, the axis i'm sure, did not.
By "Axis" I assume you mean the Japanese. The Germans had it from the beginning, at least on capital ships. According to Dudley Pope's Battle of the River Plate KMS Graf Spee certainly did have Fire Control radar.

The Japanese started installing FC radar sets on battleships and heavy cruisers in late 1944, far to late to be of any use.

I should have much better information in a couple of weeks, when my copy of Norman Friedman's Naval Firepower arrives.

[Ducimus]

If there's capital ships in that task force, they have a larger visual detection range then destroyers.

[troopie]

By "Axis" I assume you mean the Japanese. The Germans had it from the beginning, at least on capital ships. According to Dudley Pope's Battle of the River Plate KMS Graf Spee certainly did have Fire Control radar.

The Japanese started installing FC radar sets on battleships and heavy cruisers in late 1944, far to late to be of any use.

I should have much better information in a couple of weeks, when my copy of Norman Friedman's Naval Firepower arrives.

Nice work. I shouldve picked up on that, i was reading up on River Plate last week!:oops:

[Webster]

I use my own env, but it's fairly tweaked to match TMO, except better visuals with moon, other than that tweaked RSRD crew ratings to elite, which obvious gives them more skill, but getting shot at decks awash from
5-6nms at night with no moon....made me wonder if it's possible for them to shoot by radar if settings were uber, not that it would be realistic in the real world historically for Japan then.

Tweaking env and sensors isn't hard as you know, just time consuming as heck testing each change.

somewhere in the files (cant remember which) but you can adjust the hit to miss ratio for the guns which wont stop the sniper shots by gunners from unreal distance but they will miss a whole lot more as they should.

i never played with it much but i think it gets too unreal to keep missing at close range so i left it alone since they still get you with sniper shots.

IMO the DD gunners should score a hit no more then one out of 20 shots over 5000 and 5000-3500 one out of 10 shots and under 3500-2500 1 in 3 shots and under 2500 dead on target. larger ships one out of 7 shots at over 5000 and 5000-3500 one out of 5 shots and under 3500 dead on target.

a lot has been made about stable gun platforms on ships vs subs that move all over but a stable gun doesnt mean its on a stable deck. the decks are constantly moving up and down and rolling so the gun systems are trying to compensate and you dont always hit what you aim at with something as small as a sub tower.

yes they are pretty accurate and some gun locations (depending on the ship) wouldnt have trouble with deck movements but ship guns should not be as accurate as they are in the game, especially the DD which move around as much as subs do.

[Sailor Steve]

IMO the DD gunners should score a hit no more then one out of 20 shots over 5000 and 5000-3500 one out of 10 shots and under 3500-2500 1 in 3 shots and under 2500 dead on target. larger ships one out of 7 shots at over 5000 and 5000-3500 one out of 5 shots and under 3500 dead on target.
A fair assessment. Actual on-target ration at ranges of 5000 yards and less seems to have been around 12%, which comes to 2.4 out of 20.

a lot has been made about stable gun platforms on ships vs subs that move all over but a stable gun doesnt mean its on a stable deck. the decks are constantly moving up and down and rolling so the gun systems are trying to compensate and you dont always hit what you aim at with something as small as a sub tower.
'Stable gun platform' refers to battleships and heavy cruisers. As you say, a destroyer is anything but stable. The advantage it has is in the three and four gun salvoes it's capable of.

yes they are pretty accurate and some gun locations (depending on the ship) wouldnt have trouble with deck movements but ship guns should not be as accurate as they are in the game, especially the DD which move around as much as subs do.
Again I agree. Even merchants are not at all accurate. The other thing that's missing from the game, though, is the effect of a hit on a submarine vs. a merchant or destroyer. One hit on a submarine can ruin its effectiveness, including its ability to dive. U-boat.net has many reports from merchants which opened fire on u-boats. The immediate effect was that the submarine declined battle and dove, not to be seen again.

Agreed the surface ship guns should be less accurate, but they should also be more deadly to a sub.

[Webster]

Agreed the surface ship guns should be less accurate, but they should also be more deadly to a sub.


i think they made a trade off with the game because of the over accurate guns which meant the game wouldnt be very popular if one shell equaled death as it should and most likely did in real life.

all to often they are long distance bullseye hits on the tower :doh: and that just frustrates me to no end to see something so unrealistic (and im no realism junky) i just like to see things look semi normal.

[Armistead]

Yea, those escorts can really ruin your day with brutal accuracy from long range, may also have to do with crew ratings, most mods left the merchants and capital ships with lower crew ratings, taking the time only to increase escorts.

I really like Trav's mod, although he took all his mods down and left, but one or two shots from a DG can ruin your sub, mass damage and even sink it. Also one bomb hit from a plane can sink your sub. What I like is if you flood on the surface, you can sink, instead of remaining floating with every compartment flooded. Funny, I took a bomb hit last night from a plane and it ruined my engines, so couldn't move, then along comes a plane that released a torp from about 2000 yards that scored a perfect hit, causing my sub to sink from the surface. Then my sub rolled over due to the flooded side and went to the bottom. Some issues I don't like, but overall has the best sub damage zones for realism I've seen.

I think in my case it was a visual due to uber settings, but mostly some of the recent env. changes I made, tweaked it and it seems more realistic even though escorts are still elite.

I've also found that even in rough water, if you find the right direction you can get a fairly stable platform, seems something to do with wind direction.