Does using SONAR..

[TigerShark808]

give away your position?

I have never used this in-game because I usually die before this tech is available. So Now that I have decided to start in mid 42. I have it and now ask " does using it give away your position"

Thanks!

[Torplexed]

According to the manual using the fathometer around escorts should put you in danger of giving your position away, but according to the game users here it doesn't.

[Ford Prefect]

using it for depth, no, I've sat around pinging away merrily as a test and gone completely unoticed.

Not certain about the active sonar for range finding.

[Melonfish]

*slaps head*
see i've been refraining from checking my depth when DD's are around. bugger it i'll ping away now!

[Toolworx]

Only one way to find out....
I will let you know in a few hours

[flakmonkey]

Pinging to check depth cant be detected in game but using active sonar to ping a target WILL give you away.
I pinged a destroyer when i first got sonar installed on my boat, pretty much right away it turned my direction, ran up to full speed and dropped a whole bunch of DCs.

[Melonfish]

Originally Posted by flakmonkey

Pinging to check depth cant be detected in game but using active sonar to ping a target WILL give you away.
I pinged a destroyer when i first got sonar installed on my boat, pretty much right away it turned my direction, ran up to full speed and dropped a whole bunch of DCs.

And thats what you get for letting Bernard lean on the sonar equipment!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Melonfish

*slaps head*
see i've been refraining from checking my depth when DD's are around. bugger it i'll ping away now!

They could indeed hear that in real life. How realistic do you want to be?

[Fader_Berg]

I'm used to ping destroyers all the time, to know where they are. It sure doesn't seems like they catch it.

[Erich dem Roten]

You must be getting lucky, enemy ships can definitely pick up an active SONAR ping.

But yeah, depth ranging is undetected in SH3...though I think in SH4 it can give you away (not really sure, while I own it I deleted SH4 within 10 minutes of installation).

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Erich dem Roten

I deleted SH4 within 10 minutes of installation).

It's soooo boring isn't it?

[Erich dem Roten]

It definitely doesn't have the allure of the Atlantic, that's for sure. Maybe I'll give it a try again after the GWX team gets done with it.

[Ford Prefect]

I played it for a while before I got SHIII, the massive expanses of absolute nothing dotted with sampans bored the hell out of me. When I did find a decent target it was always in the shallows (and there are alot stretching for miles!) so if there were escorts I got depth charged to bits. I never came across any decent targets in deep water where my boat was meant to be, so I gave in.

As you say, once it's had the full treatment from GWX like SHIII has, I'll give it another go.

[TigerShark808]

Thanks for the advice guys!

I pinged the heck out of a couple of DD since asking this question and they failed to detect me. They went on with there business. So as of now Ill just say they don't hear/detect you.

Anyways..have givin up my 1942 career for a restart in 38. I just don't like skipping ahead If I have not earned it. Would explains why I have never set foot in a XXI .

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I played it for a while before I got SHIII, the massive expanses of absolute nothing dotted with sampans bored the hell out of me. When I did find a decent target it was always in the shallows (and there are alot stretching for miles!) so if there were escorts I got depth charged to bits. I never came across any decent targets in deep water where my boat was meant to be, so I gave in.

SH4 will always be a different animal than SH3 since the Pacific and Atlantic submarine wars were alike in only that they pitted submarines versus an ASW system and not a very effective one in Japan's case.

One statistic alone highlights the difference between the two campaigns, and that is: German U-Boats lost: 785 versus US Submarines lost: 52 ( 2 of which were lost in the Atlantic Ocean ) The Atlantic war obviously involved many more submarines and was the more intense conflict for it.

The sheer volume of ships sailing in convoys crossing the North Atlantic from West to East and vice versa provided the U- Boat Fleet with an enormous number of targets for their deadly torpedoes. The U-Boats hunted in packs, the first boat to sight a convoy would home in his mates until a sufficient number of boats were able to gather and then attack in numbers. With bases in occupied France they didn't have as far to go.

In contrast, US submarines were based in Hawaii and in Brisbane, and Fremantle in Australia. They had a very long haul to reach their killing fields. In the vaster Pacific Japanese traffic was more dispersed as their ships often sailed alone and there were far fewer of them as Japan didn't have the Allied shipbuilding muscle. In addition, Japanese ships sometimes pulled into shallow water or inlets along their route for the night. US subs tended to hunt alone, although sometimes they operated as a group of three boats. Aircraft reconnaissance was not available like in the North Atlantic, thus making the finding of a suitable target much more difficult.

Aircraft went from being a nuisance in the Atlantic to being the most powerful enemy of the U-Boats sinking almost 50% of the total lost. Japan never quite grasped the potential of ASW aircraft and only sank 2 US subs by air.

In order for a Pacific submarine campaign sim to be less dull and as 'intense' as the Atlantic it would have probably have to be heavily ahistorical.