under water view?

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by ryanwigginton

I also use the obs periscope to dodge DC runs with NO mods. I thought the name obs meant exactly that, it's for observing. I noticed it doesn't extend as far as the attack scope, which to me confirmed it was for submerged use. Otherwise... why? It has no extra zoom... if you don't use it underwater then, it's only good as a spare.

Well its not really modeled correctly.

It should extend higher than the attack scope, it should have a wider field of view, it should have a larger aperature.

It was not an underwater window.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by kikn79

There was a US sub (Rasher if I recall correctly) that was getting hounded by some sub chasers. They seemed to have a supernatural ability to know where they were at no matter which way they twisted or turned. After 24 hours of being held down, the captain decided to bring up the scope a bit and see what was going on. He discovered that there was an air leak in one of the pipes and they were simply watching the trail of bubbles to lead them to the sub.

I believe they closed that pipe off and was able to escape to port to have it fixed. However, the moral of the story is that yes, they used the scopes underwater at times. I don't know how well you could see the escorts around you but it was useful in this situation.

Chuck

A specific source reference would be nice. I've read many submarine books and don't recall seeing any stories of submariners using the periscope to avoid depth charges or anything of the kind. This doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that I didn't read stories like that; just that I don't recall.

I've seen water so clear we could see rocks more than 100 feet below us, and dolphins swimming under the ship, and of course divers take pictures in very clear water sometimes; but most of the time you can't see more than a few yards under water, and periscopes don't change that. It's my feeling that the water is way too clear, and using the 'scopes to dodge destroyers and depth charges is totally wrong.

[kikn79]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

A specific source reference would be nice. I've read many submarine books and don't recall seeing any stories of submariners using the periscope to avoid depth charges or anything of the kind. This doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that I didn't read stories like that; just that I don't recall.

I've seen water so clear we could see rocks more than 100 feet below us, and dolphins swimming under the ship, and of course divers take pictures in very clear water sometimes; but most of the time you can't see more than a few yards under water, and periscopes don't change that. It's my feeling that the water is way too clear, and using the 'scopes to dodge destroyers and depth charges is totally wrong.

I believe it was in Red Scorpion: The War Patrols of the USS Rasher by Peter Sasgen if I recall correctly.

Chuck

[Sailor Steve]

Thanks. I believe you about the bubbles - they were coming from the sub itself. I'll still keep my opinion on depth charges and other things until I see otherwise.

[wetwarev7]

I asked this same question about SH3 a long time ago. I think the general consensus then was that sub captains used whatever tools they had available to survive.

I 'm sure that there is a limit as to how deep you could raise the periscope without damaging it, and that there are times when the water is just too murky to see more than a couple of feet, but if conditions are right and you are above that critcal depth, why wouldn't you use it?

I believe there are times when the periscope could be used easily and effectivly underwater and I doubt that real life sub captains would disregard a very usefull survival tool because it made things too easy.

(EDIT: The fact that you can raise the scope at periscope depth indicates it is watertight, and if I understand correctly, the periscopes are allready filled with fluid are they not?)

My two cents.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by wetwarev7

I the periscopes are allready filled with fluid are they not?)

My two cents.

Most definatly not... in fact it was a pita keeping moisture out of them.

Heres an interesting periscope operating manual link. Check all the chapters on "fogging".

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/pscope/index.htm

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by wetwarev7

I asked this same question about SH3 a long time ago. I think the general consensus then was that sub captains used whatever tools they had available to survive.

I believe there are times when the periscope could be used easily and effectivly underwater and I doubt that real life sub captains would disregard a very usefull survival tool because it made things too easy.

The problem is that what anybody thinks one way or the other, or any group reaching a consensus is pretty much useless. If they actually did it, they would have mentioned it. If they did mention it and I missed it, I'll gladly be corrected; but if no one ever said anything about it then they probably couldn't do it.

[MONOLITH]

Not sure it's worth arguing about really.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The problem is that what anybody thinks one way or the other, or any group reaching a consensus is pretty much useless. If they actually did it, they would have mentioned it. If they did mention it and I missed it, I'll gladly be corrected; but if no one ever said anything about it then they probably couldn't do it.

I too have never seen a reference to using a scope in such a manner.

Even the reference given earlier about using the scope to take a peek at bubbles dident specifically state that it was done below the waterline.

[John Channing]

Thinking logically for a moment I canot believe that any Sub Captain would risk going to PD if he thought for one second that the Op-For was within the range they would have to be to be seen by a submerged periscope. No way in the world.

However...

It is standard peacetime doctrine when surfacing in known shipping lanes to raise the scope while you are still well under to check for "shapes and shadows". The surface duct can be very squirrley in re. picking up ships that are close aboard, so a visual check is almost always done during a normal surfacing evolution.

JCC

[wetwarev7]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Most definatly not... in fact it was a pita keeping moisture out of them.

Heres an interesting periscope operating manual link. Check all the chapters on "fogging".

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/pscope/index.htm

They weren't? Good Lord, I thought all quality scopes were fluid filled....I guess "quality" being the key word here...:p

However...

It is standard peacetime doctrine when surfacing in known shipping lanes to raise the scope while you are still well under to check for "shapes and shadows". The surface duct can be very squirrley in re. picking up ships that are close aboard, so a visual check is almost always done during a normal surfacing evolution.

JCC

For me, this says it all. This is all I need to justify using the scope to keep track of destroyers directly above me. Please bear in mind that I AM an expert on the subject, as my wife keeps telling me so. :p

[kikn79]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

I too have never seen a reference to using a scope in such a manner.

Even the reference given earlier about using the scope to take a peek at bubbles dident specifically state that it was done below the waterline.

It was my understanding that they were down well below PD. They were hiding from escorts, after all....

Chuck