How to get aircrafts external view and airsearch radar q
 

Hello,

IIRC, SH3 had you toggle external view and included showing aircrafts flying on top of you. If this is in SH4, I'd like to know how to enable, meaning to view aircrafts like ships (as if you were in museum).

Also, could you see aircraft contact on the surface search radar? or how to view the Air search radar pane, if there is one? or is it audible, wheel like, perhaps with the aircraft engine sound in?








SPOILER BELOW BEWARE THE CODE BOX:

Code:

---

Another thing, a bit of a cheat here, but if you play stock 1.5, if you visit the museum, toggle units, then exit and start your saved game, it would have all the torpedoes and amenities till after the war, probably mark 16 would be there for you to spend renown, only in the beginning of the war too this would work.

---

Thank you

If you mean SH3's "lock-on" view that lets you ride along with airplanes, SH4 doesn't have it. We all wish it did.

Sorry I can't answer the other questions. :sunny:

Early air warning radar would normally indicate the presence of aircraft via a vertical spike on the A-Scope as seen in the pic below:
http://www.usscobia.com/ascope.jpg?%22

I have never personally seen (or attempted to see) this in-game. I believe the advent of advanced systems with the PPI would display a blip on the screen much like the surface search radar scope. I don't know/recall if these air warning systems (w/PPI) were ever actually compact enough to place in a fleetboat which may account for the A-Scope's continued use in the subs.

does this mean that both air and surface contacts show on the PPI/Ascope? are they connected? I know the fork looking radar between the shears on the outside view or maybe the bubble maker looking (circular) radar, are the air search type radars.. So, if he says "single contact", I steer the hydrophone to his bearing and nothing sounds, then I keep the radar steady on last bearing he keeps disappearing, would that constitute an air contact? or is it a bug? Thanks Wernher and SS.

My apologies if I wasn't clear. The A-Scope does not have a PPI. The surface search scope is of the PPI type. I'm not sure how this translates in-game since I've never tried to view an air contact on the scopes. Later in the war (IRL), the larger warships (like BBs and CVs) had air-search radars w/PPI (Planned Position Indicators). They were larger units and I don't know if they were ever made compact enough (by war's end) for placement in a sub. I've seen (or think I've seen) some references by members who claim they have seen air-contacts on the surface search PPI and suggestions that they both might be interconnected somehow. I myself have never come across this.
There is a good possibility (if you don't get a sonar contact) that you're dealing with an air contact that just isn't close enough to spot you and therefore continues on it's way at the fringes of your radar range.:salute:

I've seen in other threads that historical air-search radars do not give bearings, but the reports you get from the radar room in-game do. That said, I know for a fact that air blips are not visible on your radar scopes in-game, because these are your surface radar cathodes.
That said, I'm wondering--how is it that real-life air search radars didn't give bearing info? Obviously, this technology existed, and I'd assume based on my understanding of radar that it would have to give a location information.

If you send out a radio pulse in all directions, and you get a return pulse, you will get range only, and not bearing information.

Notice that the SJ surface search radar antenna is a directional dish that rotates. The SD antenna is a fixed position that does not rotate. I don't know why they made an omnidirectional air search radar during the war. It may have had something to do with the size of the equipment, and the radar frequency needed to detect a small target like a plane.

The longer the radar waves the larger the receiver needed to get directional information. The early air search radars had large 'mattress' type ntennas that looked like a sping mattress without the padding. The antenna had to be that large to selectively receive the directional information. Early night fighter radar was also omnidirectional. They sent out a pules in all directions and they got a return (or bang as they called it). The bang from the ground was so large that it blocked out all other signals, so effectively their maximum search range was the same as their height. Early on, the new radar wasn't understood and if the target's range was increasing and they increased speed, then the Germans would also increase speed even more. It took a while to work out that they were in fact in front of the enemy and were pulling away from him. They used it because it was the first sytem to be developed and it was the only thing they had.

Only when centimetric radar was invented was it possible to have a system small enough to go in an aircraft and submarine.

If you are at sea level then you get a massive return from the sea at close range, so you can't use your set at very close ranges as the return from the sea blanks out anything near you.

Interesting stuff. If I remember correctly I believe that some U.S. subs did start to receive directional air search radars, but it wasn't until late in the war (late 44?).

I also read something else interesting about U.S. search radar. It's common knowledge that most submarines rarely used their SD radar during the war because they thought that the Japanese could detect it and immediately locate the sub. The reason they believed this was because whenever the set was turned on Japanese aircraft usually showed up in a relatively short time. It appeared that the radar was attracting enemy planes when actually the planes where there all of the time but where to far away to be spotted visually.

I'm still up in the air about the Japanese capability to detect U.S. radar sets. I finished a comprehensive book, one of a very few of it's kind, about WWII radar. Way too much info to remember. The problem with understanding Japanese capabilities during the war was that they began destroying volumes of records, prototypes and other forms of info/intel immediately upon surrendering. Extensive postwar interrogations were conducted by intelligence personnel, one such example that I saw via a film excerpt of an actual interrogation of a Japanese POW. I myself have received extensive training on questioning and interrogations, including the use of body language during such. One thing I can assure you is that since WWII, interrogation techniques have evolved considerably. What I observed in that film excerpt was a U.S. Army Captain questioning a Jap POW and leading his subject in the questioning. By "leading" I mean, he questioned in such a way as to inadvertantly suggest the answers for his captive.
I'll try to give an example of what I mean. During the questioning, the Army Captain used a translator.
Here's how it went, as best I can remember:

Army Captain: "What is the state of Japanese resupply?"
POW: "Scarce."
Army Captain: "Is that what brought you to our side, you surrendered because you had no food?"
POW: (shrugs shoulders and nods in approval).

Here, the captain provided the answer by suggesting why the POW surrendered. The POW simply nodded in agreement, rather than elaborate on any other possible reasons that may have divulged military secrets. I actually found myself laughing in disbelief of the interrogation technique used by this Intelligence Officer. I have received some of my interrogation training from courses provided by the FBI.

There are volumes of information that can be found online regarding these postwar interrogations. I certainly haven't read through them all considering their numbers and length. I have glanced over them and have seen instances of similar questioning methods, where the subject is lead to a number of possible answers. This, of course, raises serious questions in my mind regarding the validity of the answers provided by these POWs. There are a lot of instances, in books, war memoirs and other sources where conclusions are drawn (by very credible pilots, boat captains, sub commanders, etc.) about Japanese radar detection capabilities. However, these conclusions (as far as I have seen) are based on presumptions that could just as well be coincidences based on enemy contacts so numerous among the various military branches that coincidences were inevitable.
There are a lot of such coincidences mentioned in my book in which other valid possiblities are given as to why an incident (or enemy reaction) might have occurred.
Still, on the other hand, I am faced with the reality that location through radio signal triangulation was very common, easy to do given the right circumstances and practiced by all the warring powers. The Germans had the ability to detect radar signals of some frequencies and the allies had refined that ability even further. The Japanese, contrary to beliefs during WWII, were very resourceful and proficient in technical matters. It was only their perspective of "necessity" that influenced any lapse in technology. That alone, is indicative enough that the possiblility of radar detection capabilities existed. Still, yet again, there seems to be (from what I've dug up), more hard evidence to the contrary.
I'm undecided at the moment but with emphasis that they probably did not delve into that area of expertise or lagged too far behind in radar technology to catch-up by war's end.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...onfused013.gif

All of this is interesting stuff.

I don't know that much about the technicalities of radar, but the book Hunt And Kill delves into allied HFDF a little. The importance of radio direction finding was credited with being nearly as important as ULTRA in the defeat of the U-boat. This was largely because of its immediacy; decryption tended to be a long process. Emphesis was given to technical improvements that speeded up the process and later allowed sets to be put on ships. Here is a short excerpt:

You may well be right but from what research I've done, it's still inconclusive either way, with a slight edge toward the Japanese not having this capability. What amazed me the most in researching this, was the almost total lack of solid sources available. In fact, the author of my book discusses in his Preface about how long and arduous his research lasted. He has an astonishing amount of references posted, almost enough pages for a book in itself.

Shore based HFDF could be quite general in its positioning of ships, but the ship borne HFDF was very accurate and was the main tool in locating the rather chatty U-Boats around a convoy. Where was the HFDF located that is discussed in that quote?

It also has to be remembered that a major flaw in the Kriegsmarine was the ability to navigate, so their own position may have been miles off in any case.

Nesgeis:

They didn't say where the HFDF stations were. They did say that under good conditions a fix might be within 25 miles of the boat, but in some cases it might be 60 mi. off (with the U-boats 500 mi. offshore. For the shipborne units, they I didn't see any figures, but they gave a range of 30 mi, better than either sonar or radar.

I presume the accuracy was a function of distance, so the shipboard units would be much more accurate and useful when they were around.

You make a good point about the reliability of the U-505 log. I suppose they decided to accept it at face value since there would be no way to know for sure precisely where it was (prior to contact).