SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > Silent Hunter 3 - 4 - 5 > Silent Hunter 4: Wolves of the Pacific
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-28-07, 06:13 PM   #1
tater
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
Default Did IJN ships have DF or radar warning gear?

Japanese DF capability was supposed to be decent, but I'm unsure of their capabilites at sea. Certainly this capability was an assumption of prewar USN doctrine, and why our subs kept quiet.

Radar detection is more vague, though I seem to recall reading about attempted setups (using radar) that the US skipper thought was detected.

I ask because all the sns files have blank spots for DF and radar detection gear...

tater
tater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-07, 06:46 PM   #2
CanadianSilentHunter
Seaman
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 35
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tater
Japanese DF capability was supposed to be decent, but I'm unsure of their capabilites at sea. Certainly this capability was an assumption of prewar USN doctrine, and why our subs kept quiet.

Radar detection is more vague, though I seem to recall reading about attempted setups (using radar) that the US skipper thought was detected.

I ask because all the sns files have blank spots for DF and radar detection gear...

tater
Tater I know we've had our disagreements in the past ( I'll even give you that the zero is only a fighter, 99.99 % of the time) DF while at sea was of a hit and miss variety when it came to the IJN. I've never heard of them having much luck with radar, especially earlier in the war and at sea. Don't hold me to that, but when I'm at the library tomorrow I will check this out furthur. I'll get back to you tommorow.
CanadianSilentHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-07, 07:42 PM   #3
tater
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
Default

Cool. I looked in the sensors dat file, and I cant see DF or RWR stuff in there though, so it might be moot.

I was thinking more of just "detection" rather than location, really. Probably very late war.

tater
tater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-07, 08:08 PM   #4
Packerton
Sonar Guy
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Newfoundland,Canada
Posts: 398
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
Default

Ahh a Fellow Canaidian

How are ya?
Packerton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-07, 09:11 PM   #5
-Pv-
The Old Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,434
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
Default

I have read accounts of IJN using radar detection for US subs near the end of the war. The story of the Shinano sinking mentions detecting the US sub radar (they KNEW it was a US military radar and suspected it was a sub) which instigated an attempt by one of the escorts to find the sub which nearly succeded until the carrier captain got nervous and called the escort back in fear of a possible wolfpack.
-Pv-
-Pv- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-07, 10:34 PM   #6
nematode
Seaman
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 40
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0
Default

Japanese land based RDF was excellent. It's possible that that capability was instrumental in the loss of Amberjack, Grampus, and Triton during Adm Fife's early 43 "playing checkers with submarines" campaign, in which he required the boats to maintain more frequent radio contact than was the norm.

However Japanese shipborne RDF capability was not as good, certainly nowhere near the level of sophistication achieved by the Allies. My impression is that crews on IJN ships could fairly regularly intercept radio transmissions from nearby Allied subs, and make decently accurate assumptions about their proximity, but not bearing.

The Japanese had shipborne radar warning receivers; both metric- and centimetric-wavelength RWR's were operational by April 1944, and they slowly found their way into the fleet. Late 44 might be considered the date at which they were in fairly widespread use. Capabilities as follows:

E-27 (Kai-3) detected radar signals of 0.75-4.0 meters at ranges up to 300km using non-directional antennae mounted on each side of the bridge plus a "Racket" style antenna mounted on a rotatable pedestal to determine bearing of signal. 2500 units were delivered.

Model 3 (3 Gata) detected radar signals of 3-75 centimeters through a small directional bridge-mounted parabolic antenna. 200 units were delivered.

I don't have much operational data on the use of these devices within the IJN, and in particular, how many centimetric-wavelength RWR sets were installed, and by when. A fleet full of meter-wavelength RWRs in 1944 would have done them very little good.
nematode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-07, 10:57 PM   #7
tater
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
Default

I figured out how to add sensors just now.

Now I need to see if the RWR and DF nodes were just stuff they planned to add but never did.

tater
tater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-07, 01:36 AM   #8
LukeFF
Silent Hunter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 3,610
Downloads: 41
Uploads: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tater
I figured out how to add sensors just now.

Now I need to see if the RWR and DF nodes were just stuff they planned to add but never did.
I imagine the RWR ones should work. SH3 makes extensive use of RWR sets, so I imagine the coding for them is still in the engine. After all, if they can fit German surface ship radar to sampans...
LukeFF is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.