A very good point. As I say, I only know what I've heard, and that could be wrong.

Look here. Notice the location of the VHF antenna.

http://www.maritime.org/tour/pier.php

Yes in that diagram you notice there is a loop antenna and a radio antenna. The loop was for DF and recieving VLF transmissions. The other antenna is for VHF radio ops. Now in the photo and expalaination in the link I just provided in the post before this one you see that the VHF antenna was moved forward to the Scope shear rather than in between. I am sure that early tower configs used the cable style antenna but when as the war progressed they moved to the "stick or mast style and mounted them on the shears. Thus back to my old assertion that yes, you can transmitte and recieve while at radar depth.

VHF
 

If you do some research into VHF, and its application during the war, you will notice two things. It is capable only of line of sight reception and transmission, meaning that is a relatively short range method of communication. This limitation on VHF still exists today. Also the following procedural guidelines were in place regarding communications using VHF:


5305. Very-high-frequency (VHF) tactical radiotelephone circuits have proved their value in war. The following general rules are set forth for the guidance of responsible commanders in the use of such circuits in wartime:
a. They may be used for initial contact reports, emergency maneuvers, and the transmission of important information when visual means are prohibited or too slow.
b. Only a minimum of transmission should be permitted during darkness or reduced visibility.
c. Caution must be exercised in the use of plain language transmissions of vital importance which would be of value to the enemy if intercepted.
5306. Detailed instructions supplementing or modifying the foregoing general principles shall be issued by responsible commanders as appropriate and necessary, depending on the situation existing.

Note that under conditions of darkness or reduced visibility, when submarines or other vessels might be within range without being detected, use of VHF radio was discouraged.-RF

The above referenced procedural statment can be found here: http://www.virhistory.com/navy/flory/id11.html

From the Straub website (http://www.ka8vit.com/subops/subop1.htm):

"VHF TRANSCEIVERS:
Later on in WWII SCR522 and SCR624 VHF transceivers were added to the Radio Room. These were multi channel crystal controlled transceivers used primarily to communicate with aircraft, particularly during Life Guard operations."

Redmane, this seems consistent with your observation that VHF is (and was) only useful for LOS.

J0313, I don't mean to denigrate your expertise, but an independent source would certainly confirm your statements. There seems to be considerable evidence against your position, and so far, no evidence that supports it. Do you have family members who remember such submerged transmisions from their WW2 days? A first-person account you have read? NavPers manuals?

BTW, the diagram at HNSA is of a Balao, IIRC. The Balao class was the standard US fleet boat at the end of the war, and didn't enter service until mid-43.

Okay. I dont want to get off on a tangent here. The only point I am trying to make is that Fleet boats with the proper conning tower configuration could make transmisssion at parascope depth. Wether they did so commonly or thier procedures in doing so are not important to my point.

I guess this will never be solved. There arent any first person accounts that I can find. So I will continue looking but its probably going to be fuitless.

And besides this whole thing took off when ERS3 made his comment about not having an antenna out of the water when submerged. Well it sure looks like there is a few out of the water at radar depth. Granted VHF was only for LOS. As far as ranges go. I havent been able to find anything on what the ranges for those sets are. But I am going to keep looking.

Don't feel too bad
 

Ultimately, you are not wrong in asserting that a US Fleet Type boat could both transmit and receive at radar depth. The only provisos are that they would have to have a VHF rig, and the communication would be limited to the capabilities of that gear. In other words, Fleet units close enough to receive the signal could do so, but by no means would it be possible for the boat to contact a ground station on this gear unless in range, not blocked by any interference, and the ground station would also need to have the appropriate gear. Additionally, I make this observation: I have been at radar depth on approach to a target in high sea states, had the periscope raised just enough to clear the housing, and had it be regularly washed by the wave action. So there also would be that factor of limitiation on the VHF.

[EDIT] Found this on Wiki regarding standard range of VHF transmissions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_frequency

Okay, you're still trying to make a fight out of this and blame someone else. This kind of behavior is not allowed here.

Check this out. http://books.google.com/books?id=7qz...ntenna&f=false.

Look at page 165 and 166. Bottom right of 165. Upper left of 166 and tell me what you read there.

.

No I'm not. Just stating a fact.

J0313, Steve is trying to tell you something important. If a policeman pulls you over and says that you need to slow down, it is prudent to take his advice. There is nothing to be gained by arguing yourself into a ticket.

I read that the boat could transmit via radio at periscope depth, provided they could get the antenna clear of the water. What I don't read is that this arrangement was still in place on the Fleet type boats used during the war.

Apples and oranges...
 

Well, since I was a Navy Communications Officer and Electronic Systems Engineer for nearly the first decade of my career...and I do have first person experience with submarine radio communications in GUPPY-converted Fleet Boats... I suppose I could make a couple of points here.

The discussion is, to some degree, mixing apples and oranges. In WWII, receiving broadcast messages and sending Contact Reports to HQ (which is the game "issue" that started this discussion), dealt with HF CW ("Morse code") radio communications. Tactical communications with other ships and aircraft was done with VHF and UHF voice radio as well as voice/CW at the low-HF/high-MF frequencies.

The primary Fleet Broadcast in the 60s and 70s was still the "Fox" broadcast, even though by then it was a machine-encrypted radio-teletype system and in WWII it was a Morse code, manually encrypted system (yeah, we had "Enigma" machines too). Yes, there were early TTY communication links being used during the war, but they were almost exclusively land-line (including transatlantic cable). Towards the end of the war, such technology was starting to be implemented in the forces afloat, but the equipment wasn't yet suitable for submarines.

There's a world of difference between transmitting and receiving equipment used in WWII and now-days. But, back when I started out, we were still using the WWII equipment and systems on the shore-side of long-haul communications. The long-haul system, both send and receive, was high frequency (the "HF" part of HFDF) 3-30MHz. HF is also commonly known as "short-wave" radio; the wavelength is 100-10m (higher freq = shorter wavelength). The full-wave transmitting towers at NAVCOMSTAs Washington D.C. (Annapolis), Wahiawa (Lualaulei), HI and Stockton (Dixon), CA were landmarks that I remember well.

I can assure you that an HF radio signal, of as little as 500W at the transmitter, can be received via sky-wave refraction, at a distance of some 6000 miles or more and at a receiving antenna depth (not keel depth!) of 33 ft (10m) or more. You're not pushing a signal through the water, you're bouncing it off an ionospheric scattering layer. The trick is that the receiving antenna is a bare long-wire, or two or three in parallel, insulated from ground and connected to an ungrounded receiver, the earth is the ground plane for the signal transmitter at the radio communication shore station. The signal strength that can be detected by a full-wave or half-wave wire antenna is incredibly small; a few milliwatts will generate a very solid signal voltage. Remember, you're picking up a radio wave that is between 10 and 100m long...it will definitely penetrate the water to a depth equal to the wave-length. We routinely had to practice establishing long-haul duplex terminations across the Pacific, between Japan, Guam, Hawaii, and California, with 100W transmitters (the really good operators could do it with 10W!).

It doesn't work in reverse, the transmitting antenna has to be high-and-dry, or at least not immersed in good old salt-water; that will definitely attenuate the outgoing signal, totally. You need to be well above the water's surface to use it as the antenna's ground plane. As I noted, the shore station transmitting antennas were 350ft tall full-wave towers. Typically, the shipboard HF transmitting antennas were both long-wire (10-50m or so) and base-loaded 8ft and 16ft whip antennas. In the case of WWII US submarines, the whips were retractable, but not nearly capable of being extended sufficiently above the water when at periscope depth or radar depth to keep from being grounded by passing waves (US subs also had rod antennas incorporated in the SD radar supports). Early-on, US subs also had retractable, vertical wire antennas, consisting of a mast with a cross-head that supported two or more wires per side.

Most of the 1/4 wave and dipole VHF and UHF tactical radio antennas were small and could certainly be attached to or incorporated into a periscope, radar antenna mast, the shears, or a snorkel mast. Those you could use while the boat was submerged at either periscope or radar depth; I can guarantee they don't work underwater though.

Although it's too late to make this long story short...getting back to the topic...for both US and German WWII submariners, receiving HF "broadcast" messages at shallow depths was possible and done routinely, but transmissions to HQ had to be done on the surface.

Thank you for this info. I have a question. Could it be done in calm sea's?

CaptBones, you've settled most of our questions. I still have just one. Most of the US accounts I've read describe receiving radio transmissions at shallow depth, as you say about 30ft antenna depth. But the German accounts routinely describe receiving messages at 30 meters. In your professional opinion, what was the reason for this difference?

EDIT: I regret that my terminology confused you. By "pushing the signal through the water", I did not mean to imply that the signal propagated through water all the way from the transmitter to the sub, only the last few meters. I recognize that it was primarily atmospheric propagation.

Thanks
 

Thanks Capn, your expertise and knowledgeable reply is appreciated.:salute:

You didn't bring it up again after my warning because it was a fact. You brought it up again because you wanted to show you were right. Otherwise it didn't need to be mentioned at all. This is your last warning.

Thank you for that wealth of information. I was an apprentice radioman myself in 1969-70, so you would think I'd have some of that knowledge, but I wasn't in long enough to learn that much, or to retain it after I got out.

I might be able to help shed some light on that. It was my understanding that the mentioned depth was closer to 20 meters, but I haven't read the same accounts you have, so you may be right. Don't forget that whatever the depth was, it was measured at the keel. The Type VII u-boat is 9.4 meters from the keel to the top of the conning tower. If 20 meters is correct then the recieving antenna at that depth is only 10.6 meters beneath the waves, or about 35 feet, which is in line with what CaptBones gave for the US boats. If it was indeed 30 meters then the antenna depth would be closer to 70 feet, so that does invite questions.