Escorts use of ASDIC

[Captain Nemo]

A quick question, in SH3/GWX why do the warships escorting a convoy only use their ASDIC (i.e. active sonar) once they are aware of an enemy submarine in the vicinity? Was this how it was used in real life or is it a limitation of the SH3 game engine?

From what I have read, ASDIC operators were employed 24 hours a day listening to their active sonar sets rather than just relying on hydrophones to hear a submerged contact.

Your views greatly appreciated.

Nemo

[Hinrich Schwab]

What sources did you read stating that active sonar was used 24/7? I know from various sources I have read regarding American doctrine during the time that banging around with active sonar constantly was considered a tactical mistake because it telegraphs the position of the convoy the escorts are protecting to the sub well beyond ASDIC's maximum effective range. I remember several stories, including one from one of Dick O'Kane's books stating that they found convoys because escorts were blindly banging its active sonar, letting everyone know where they were.

Likewise, the only advantage to constantly using active sonar is to compel subs to remain outside the ASDIC range. A fortunate sub skipper can launch a torpedo from long to extreme range and still get kills.

I doubt seriously this was an error on the game's part. I would really like to compare sources to see if it is possible to reconstruct the actual ASW doctrine regarding this issue.

[Captain Nemo]

You make a fair point regarding active sonar giving away a convoys location, however, the u-boat would need to be submerged to hear it and a lot of the time they were roaming around on the surface.

I can't recall specific sources where I read about active sonar being used 24/7 but to detect a submerged u-boat effectively it would surely need to be used most of the time to deter a submerged attack. This is why in the early stages of the war u-boats attacked on the surface at night where ASDIC was useless.

Nemo

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Captain Nemo

You make a fair point regarding active sonar giving away a convoys location, however, the u-boat would need to be submerged to hear it and a lot of the time they were roaming around on the surface.

I can't recall specific sources where I read about active sonar being used 24/7 but to detect a submerged u-boat effectively it would surely need to be used most of the time to deter a submerged attack. This is why in the early stages of the war u-boats attacked on the surface at night where ASDIC was useless.

Nemo

Surface attacks sidestepped the ASDIC issue. The U-Boat Commander's Handbook recommended the surface attack to avoid detection, but nothing was said about constant active ASDIC usage being the cause. Likewise, the surface attack avoids issues with rangefinding through the comparatively poor night vision of the periscopes of the day. Another issue in favor of the surface attack was having the diesels available to run down a convoy. All except the most burdened convoys could easily outrun a submerged u-boat.

However, in the context of the games, the escorts without radar are much better at spotting a u-boat than historical records would indicate. Surface attacks, historically, were much more practical and successful. In fact, they were so successful that the US fleet boats began emulating this particular German tactic with success.
In the game, the AI visual range is static and always at its peak, given weather conditions and veterancy of the specific unit. This makes submerged attacks more pragmatic in the games...at least from my experience.

I feel I am kind of stating the obvious to a member who has been around the block longer than I have, but I have no reason to believe that all active-all the time was used by the Allies with the sources I read. It is a shame you cannot remember that source you read as I really would like to compare notes on this.

EDIT: If anyone reading this knows of some good resources regarding Allied ASDIC doctrine, I would really like to see that. I found the available resources on the open net rather lacking regarding period ASW tactics. To those willing to help, please do not give me a Wikipedia link as they are not acceptable to me regarding true academic research.

[Captain Nemo]

Originally Posted by Hinrich Schwab

I feel I am kind of stating the obvious to a member who has been around the block longer than I have, but I have no reason to believe that all active-all the time was used by the Allies with the sources I read. It is a shame you cannot remember that source you read as I really would like to compare notes on this.

I always find it interesting to hear other members views, hence why I posted this question in the first place.

I am trying to remember the source that has given me the impression that active sonar was used more or less continuously by escorts protecting convoys, but I have read so many books non-fiction and fiction about the Battle of the Atlantic, that it is difficult to remember and pinpoint the exact source.

Nemo

[Sailor Steve]

WW2 active sonar could only project a beam in one single direction at a time, and the range was limited. Hydrophones can also only listen in one direction at a time, but a sweep with the hydrophones will let the operator hear anything the device is pointed toward, and they have a much longer range.
http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/sonar/chap1.htm#1A

I do have a book on sound propogation and underwater studies, but unfortunately it is in storage along with the rest of my library. I keep trying to get all my books into my apartment, but with no luck.

Originally Posted by Hinrich Schwab

To those willing to help, please do not give me a Wikipedia link as they are not acceptable to me regarding true academic research.

I find that just a little bit snobbish. When properly sourced, Wiki articles can be a valuable tool, sometimes containing information not found in any other online source. Any online source can be tainted, and none are to be trusted fully. This also goes for many published books, which are also considered "not acceptable" by most true academics. If it isn't a primary source it can't be fully trusted, and even they should be cross-researched.

I agree that any online reference should not be used unless proper sources are cited, but that holds true for any website, not just Wikipedia.

[Gargamel]

Even the sources may not be accurate either. The article published in the NEJM. Stating vaccinations causes autism 10 years ago, the author was recently convicted of fraud in falsifying that data.

[Captain Nemo]

Thanks for the link Sailor Steve. On page 44 it says:

"Since the speed of surface escort ships produces a noise level too high for efficient listening, they depend heavily on echo-ranging to detect submarines. In fact, surface escorts echo-range continuously".

This is what I have always thought. Any other views?

Nemo

[LGN1]

From this page http://jproc.ca/sari/asd_gen.html it seems they were pinging all the time...

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I find that just a little bit snobbish. When properly sourced, Wiki articles can be a valuable tool, sometimes containing information not found in any other online source. Any online source can be tainted, and none are to be trusted fully. This also goes for many published books, which are also considered "not acceptable" by most true academics. If it isn't a primary source it can't be fully trusted, and even they should be cross-researched.

I agree that any online reference should not be used unless proper sources are cited, but that holds true for any website, not just Wikipedia.

Call it what you wish, Steve. I work in the education industry and Wikipedia is not accepted as a reliable source by the academic community. Likewise, I have personally seen enough plagiarism, insufficient sourcing, overreliance on individual sources and bias in enough wiki articles to utterly reject it as a viable tertiary source. If you feel it is snobbish, then I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it vehemently. However, the fact of the matter is that Academia rejects Wikipedia and I do not see that changing nor do I plan on jeopardizing the viability of any of my research by using their articles. For a quick reference or an informal brief, it is sufficient. For scholastic research, Encyclopedia Britannica it is not.

[Captain Nemo]

Originally Posted by LGN1

From this page http://jproc.ca/sari/asd_gen.html it seems they were pinging all the time...

Thanks for the link, an interesting read. So if we conclude that escorts continuously used active sonar searching for u-boats, I wonder why it wasn't implemented in the game?

Nemo

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Hinrich Schwab

Call it what you wish, Steve. I work in the education industry and Wikipedia is not accepted as a reliable source by the academic community.

I understand. My justification is based on the word of a history professor who frequents these boards, whose arguments I plagiarized myself. His comment was that no internet source is to be taken seriously, and likewise with most published books. He also commented that for internet discussions it is more than valid as long as one can verify the sources used. For true academic purposes only a fully researched and verified document will do, and you are unlikely to find any of those on the internet, especially concerning the subjects we discuss here.

Likewise, I have personally seen enough plagiarism, insufficient sourcing, overreliance on individual sources and bias in enough wiki articles to utterly reject it as a viable tertiary source.

Again I understand. On the other hand some time ago a local troll called me to account for using Wiki, yet the author of the article cited more that twenty references to the subject at hand, and a search of the 'net uncovered several other sources that verified everything in the article.

I agree that using Wiki as the sole source of information for an argument is a bad idea, but I see nothing wrong with using it as a springboard for initial information, especially if the purpose is to explore all the possible sources.

If you feel it is snobbish, then I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it vehemently.

Not that you feel that way. It was something about the way you said it that set me off. Perhaps because I didn't see it as necessary in the first place.

However, the fact of the matter is that Academia rejects Wikipedia and I do not see that changing nor do I plan on jeopardizing the viability of any of my research by using their articles. For a quick reference or an informal brief, it is sufficient. For scholastic research, Encyclopedia Britannica it is not.

Again I understand. But Subsim is not Academia, and never can be. Even now I'm reading a fascinating new source on the development of the British destroyer through the First World War, written by the most respected author on the subject, and I'm finding discrepancies and vagaries galore. Even though he cites primary sources I still question the validity of several of his assertions. If I were to write a review of the book I would have to mention that in some cases I find the older sources to be more credible. On the other hand I have no access to primary sources, so any judgement I make has to be based on what little I have, and I have to trust somebody at some point.

With that in mind I stand by my assertion that while any internet source should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, Wiki is no worse than any other as a basic starting point, and has on many ocassions proved very helpful.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I understand. My justification is based on the word of a history professor who frequents these boards, whose arguments I plagiarized myself. His comment was that no internet source is to be taken seriously, and likewise with most published books. He also commented that for internet discussions it is more than valid as long as one can verify the sources used. For true academic purposes only a fully researched and verified document will do, and you are unlikely to find any of those on the internet, especially concerning the subjects we discuss here.

I see where the professor is coming from, but he sounds a bit behind the times. As far as denying all internet sources, I think he meant all open net sources. I doubt he would turn his nose up to a source dredged up from EBSCO or JSTOR.

Again I understand. On the other hand some time ago a local troll called me to account for using Wiki, yet the author of the article cited more that twenty references to the subject at hand, and a search of the 'net uncovered several other sources that verified everything in the article.

*sigh* Trolls. Still doing damage long after they are gone. I have found articles like the one you have described on Wiki. However, I couldn't do anything with them because it was Wiki. I simply cross-referenced the citations and drew my own conclusions.

I agree that using Wiki as the sole source of information for an argument is a bad idea, but I see nothing wrong with using it as a springboard for initial information, especially if the purpose is to explore all the possible sources.

I would be a liar and a hypocrite if I said I never did the same thing. However, there is a difference between a quick refresher and hardcore research. I know it is obvious and stating it is kind of silly, but I just wanted to make it clear.

Not that you feel that way. It was something about the way you said it that set me off. Perhaps because I didn't see it as necessary in the first place.

I was trying to save myself some frustration. I didn't want to have a well-intentioned individual send me a Wiki source that I could do nothing with. Last time I worked with a Wiki article, I literally bounced around it and two websites trying to figure out who plagiarized who.

Again I understand. But Subsim is not Academia, and never can be. Even now I'm reading a fascinating new source on the development of the British destroyer through the First World War, written by the most respected author on the subject, and I'm finding discrepancies and vagaries galore. Even though he cites primary sources I still question the validity of several of his assertions. If I were to write a review of the book I would have to mention that in some cases I find the older sources to be more credible. On the other hand I have no access to primary sources, so any judgement I make has to be based on what little I have, and I have to trust somebody at some point.

With that in mind I stand by my assertion that while any internet source should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, Wiki is no worse than any other as a basic starting point, and has on many ocassions proved very helpful.

Yet Subsim has a passion that many academics do not have. That is what I like about it. My only real concern is that I cannot help but get the impression that, despite the genuine and earnest desire to be as historically accurate as possible when discussing Subject No. 1, the second an academic shows up, people get upset.
To be fair, I know for an absolute fact that this aggravated by many bona fide jerks in academia. The first one that comes to mind is the late James L. Stokesbury. I just finished reading his A Short History of the Korean War and I was so utterly disgusted with his condescending, stereotypically politicized tirade masquerading as a historical analysis that I am in the early stages of composing a challenge to my alma mater to relegate this piece of twaddle to optional reading. The entire time I was reading the thing, I was cursing him for being one of the reasons why the layman hates academics so much.

...I am rambling...

I think we just had a disagreement from bad experiences in our respective past. I think everything is clarified just fine.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Hinrich Schwab

I was trying to save myself some frustration. I didn't want to have a well-intentioned individual send me a Wiki source that I could do nothing with. Last time I worked with a Wiki article, I literally bounced around it and two websites trying to figure out who plagiarized who.

I understand.

Yet Subsim has a passion that many academics do not have. That is what I like about it. My only real concern is that I cannot help but get the impression that, despite the genuine and earnest desire to be as historically accurate as possible when discussing Subject No. 1, the second an academic shows up, people get upset.

This is true. Unfortunately when trying to make a game as accurate as possible it's difficult to know where to draw the line.

To be fair, I know for an absolute fact that this aggravated by many bona fide jerks in academia. The first one that comes to mind is the late James L. Stokesbury. I just finished reading his A Short History of the Korean War and I was so utterly disgusted with his condescending, stereotypically politicized tirade masquerading as a historical analysis that I am in the early stages of composing a challenge to my alma mater to relegate this piece of twaddle to optional reading. The entire time I was reading the thing, I was cursing him for being one of the reasons why the layman hates academics so much.

Makes sense to me. I live far outside the world of University and study, and yet I find myself studying all the time. I'm currently reading an honest biography of the James Brothers. I say "honest" because the author provides seemingly endless end notes, and has researched every other book on the subject, and when there are several different versions of any particular tale he shows all of them, including which version came from which source and while giving his opinion on the veracity of a particular version says up front that it is only his opinion and why. That is my kind of book.

...I am rambling...

Please explain why this is a bad thing?

I think we just had a disagreement from bad experiences in our respective past. I think everything is clarified just fine.

I have a bad habit of starting off on the wrong foot, and apologizing after the fact. When it leads to a good open discussion I at least get the chance to redeem myself. If we all agreed on everything we wouldn't learn anything.