Accuracy of sub ranges - Page 4

Archive1 · 10-20-08, 09:49 PM

Webster: Yes, my friend, you gave me the contact "skwasjer". Will try to ask him. No hurry for any reply from him. I may just have to go to the link you provide. See my further explanation below. BTW: I think regarding ranges you and I are in close agreement. But maybe it's not the time or place to engage in too much argument.

vanjast: I mispoke perhaps. I can 'open' all the *.val, *.sim, *.zon, etc, files. I am just unable to modify them. That is, I can 'highlight' a file, such as surface range, but I cannot change the value, ie, I do not get the editing "I" moving icon inserted in the line of numerals that indicate the programmed range and so cannot insert different values (am I clear at what I'm trying to say here?).

vanjast · 10-21-08, 02:31 PM

difool2 · 10-21-08, 06:53 PM

The "surface vs. submerged" thing depends on your typical detection radius in both states. Before radar, and in visibility conditions which are moderate or worse, relying on your hydrophones is probably a better bet. With radar and/or a crystal clear atmosphere, staying on the surface is a better strategy.

In the game, what does this mean? Well, we end up with some really good radars on the US boats as the war progresses, and their ranges are upwards of 20-30,000 yards. Hydrophones in SH3 at least had a 32,000 meter range, while with the proper mods you would get 16K visibility (only a measly 8K in vanilla), so in that sim staying under will find you more targets. Historically tho I don't think the WW2 hydrophones that both the Allies and the Axis had would have had anything close to a 32K range, and in clear conditions in good sunlight you might see masts at 24K+ yards (as indeed you did in good old SH1). I recall several encounters in that big book on the Pacific sub war that I read where the stated range on the 'phones was a mere 5,000 or 10,000 yards, and that can be affected by a whole host of factors (sea state, to name one).

Thus in either sim underwater searches are viable options, more viable than in real life because of how the dev team simplified underwater sonic conditions (there's no convergence zones here, for ex.). But radar gives you the edge when surfaced, if it is available and won't vector the enemy onto your position.

vanjast · 10-22-08, 05:11 PM

One must always remember that Radar is line-of-sight and probably had a max range of 15Km for surface objects, whereas for air objects it is the limit of it's detectors.
There is a note somewhere that on a good day a UBoat hydrophone operator could hear a single ship at a range of ~15km, but a whole convoy anywhere between 50-100Km.
Radar definitely helps in poor visibility weather, and spotting a/c, but for surface objects I'd rely more on hydrophone.

Before anyone goes into a spin - I speak from experience (qualified military Radar Engineer (airborne/navy) , plus other airborne and navy systems ). Now I'm just generally overqualified for what I do....

A little edit:
"Radar is line-of-sight" => that is for the high frequency stuff (small aerials) carried on the subs.
"Over the Horizon" stuff is for aerials bigger than a sub itself.

peabody · 10-22-08, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archive1

vanjast: I mispoke perhaps. I can 'open' all the *.val, *.sim, *.zon, etc, files. I am just unable to modify them. That is, I can 'highlight' a file, such as surface range, but I cannot change the value, ie, I do not get the editing "I" moving icon inserted in the line of numerals that indicate the programmed range and so cannot insert different values (am I clear at what I'm trying to say here?).

You do know the values are changed at the bottom of the page and not on the highlighted item itself, right? There is a 'value' box. Don't want to sound insulting but I don't know how much you use it.
If you don't get the I in the 'value' box try a right click and select all, then type in what you want and it will replace what is there.
As for why the 'I' is not showing I don't know. Maybe a re-intall? Or have you tried the delete and backspace to see if maybe the 'I' is the same color as the background, but it actually there?
Just some ideas, until you get an answer for someone that actually knows what he is talking about.:rotfl:

Peabody

LukeFF · 10-23-08, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanjast

Before anyone goes into a spin - I speak from experience (qualified military Radar Engineer (airborne/navy) , plus other airborne and navy systems ). Now I'm just generally overqualified for what I do....

A little edit:
"Radar is line-of-sight" => that is for the high frequency stuff (small aerials) carried on the subs.
"Over the Horizon" stuff is for aerials bigger than a sub itself.

Good explanation there. WWII radar was what is known as "pulse radar." Like active sonar pinging for a target, pulse radar constantly sends out a "ping" looking for an object, hence why this type of radar is "line of sight."

vanjast · 10-23-08, 02:21 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetron

The UK invention that made portable radar a reality. Although radar was already known to both sides, the equipment was still massive and non portable. This UK invention (wiki-link) and the USA's WW2 productivity capabilities was one of the main technological contributors to 'vinning ze Var'

Read somewhere that the 'Brits' were against donating one of these to the Americans (Allies WW2 Technological Exchange Agreement), but Winston Churchill over-ruled them, and in a 'return convoy' a small box not much bigger than a shoe box, travelled on a ship with tight security. It was said that the Americans were 'blown away' when they saw the device - and very soon miniature portable radar sets appeared on most military 'vehicles'.

Essentially all high powered radar systems are 'pulsed', or they'd pop within a second. Nowdays there are many types of radar, using the microchip to do signal conditioning, etc to pick out the relevant info from the mess.
Most radars use a single frequency (limitations of the magnetron) where the frequency has known effects in the atmosphere
- High frequency is absorbed more readily and has shorter effective range, and better target definition. Smaller aerials, more line of site operation.
- Lower Frequency stuff has longer ranges and is 'bent'/'bounced' by the atmosphere so has the capability to look over the horizon. It has poorer target definition. Larger aerials.

You can see the 'similarities/opposites' in Sonar where a high frequency ping is 'bent' more easily than a lower frequency at greater depths or through thermal layers. Modern day sonars also use a 'Chirp' method, which is just a range of frequencies transmitted (Frequency sweep). To get anything intelligable from this, one needs processing power of DSP microchips of something similar.

My short story this morning... :rotfl:

10-22-08, 05:11 PM	#49
vanjast Sea Lord Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Somewhere else now Posts: 1,740 Downloads: 825 Uploads: 4	One must always remember that Radar is line-of-sight and probably had a max range of 15Km for surface objects, whereas for air objects it is the limit of it's detectors. There is a note somewhere that on a good day a UBoat hydrophone operator could hear a single ship at a range of ~15km, but a whole convoy anywhere between 50-100Km. Radar definitely helps in poor visibility weather, and spotting a/c, but for surface objects I'd rely more on hydrophone. Before anyone goes into a spin - I speak from experience (qualified military Radar Engineer (airborne/navy) , plus other airborne and navy systems ). Now I'm just generally overqualified for what I do.... A little edit: "Radar is line-of-sight" => that is for the high frequency stuff (small aerials) carried on the subs. "Over the Horizon" stuff is for aerials bigger than a sub itself. Last edited by vanjast; 10-22-08 at 06:17 PM.

10-20-08, 09:49 PM	#46
Archive1 Captain Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Washington State south of Tacoma Posts: 495 Downloads: 26 Uploads: 0	Webster: Yes, my friend, you gave me the contact "skwasjer". Will try to ask him. No hurry for any reply from him. I may just have to go to the link you provide. See my further explanation below. BTW: I think regarding ranges you and I are in close agreement. But maybe it's not the time or place to engage in too much argument. vanjast: I mispoke perhaps. I can 'open' all the .val, .sim, *.zon, etc, files. I am just unable to modify them. That is, I can 'highlight' a file, such as surface range, but I cannot change the value, ie, I do not get the editing "I" moving icon inserted in the line of numerals that indicate the programmed range and so cannot insert different values (am I clear at what I'm trying to say here?).

10-21-08, 02:31 PM	#47
vanjast Sea Lord Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Somewhere else now Posts: 1,740 Downloads: 825 Uploads: 4

10-21-08, 06:53 PM	#48
difool2 Commander Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 459 Downloads: 31 Uploads: 0	The "surface vs. submerged" thing depends on your typical detection radius in both states. Before radar, and in visibility conditions which are moderate or worse, relying on your hydrophones is probably a better bet. With radar and/or a crystal clear atmosphere, staying on the surface is a better strategy. In the game, what does this mean? Well, we end up with some really good radars on the US boats as the war progresses, and their ranges are upwards of 20-30,000 yards. Hydrophones in SH3 at least had a 32,000 meter range, while with the proper mods you would get 16K visibility (only a measly 8K in vanilla), so in that sim staying under will find you more targets. Historically tho I don't think the WW2 hydrophones that both the Allies and the Axis had would have had anything close to a 32K range, and in clear conditions in good sunlight you might see masts at 24K+ yards (as indeed you did in good old SH1). I recall several encounters in that big book on the Pacific sub war that I read where the stated range on the 'phones was a mere 5,000 or 10,000 yards, and that can be affected by a whole host of factors (sea state, to name one). Thus in either sim underwater searches are viable options, more viable than in real life because of how the dev team simplified underwater sonic conditions (there's no convergence zones here, for ex.). But radar gives you the edge when surfaced, if it is available and won't vector the enemy onto your position.

10-23-08, 02:21 AM	#52
vanjast Sea Lord Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Somewhere else now Posts: 1,740 Downloads: 825 Uploads: 4	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetron The UK invention that made portable radar a reality. Although radar was already known to both sides, the equipment was still massive and non portable. This UK invention (wiki-link) and the USA's WW2 productivity capabilities was one of the main technological contributors to 'vinning ze Var' Read somewhere that the 'Brits' were against donating one of these to the Americans (Allies WW2 Technological Exchange Agreement), but Winston Churchill over-ruled them, and in a 'return convoy' a small box not much bigger than a shoe box, travelled on a ship with tight security. It was said that the Americans were 'blown away' when they saw the device - and very soon miniature portable radar sets appeared on most military 'vehicles'. Essentially all high powered radar systems are 'pulsed', or they'd pop within a second. Nowdays there are many types of radar, using the microchip to do signal conditioning, etc to pick out the relevant info from the mess. Most radars use a single frequency (limitations of the magnetron) where the frequency has known effects in the atmosphere - High frequency is absorbed more readily and has shorter effective range, and better target definition. Smaller aerials, more line of site operation. - Lower Frequency stuff has longer ranges and is 'bent'/'bounced' by the atmosphere so has the capability to look over the horizon. It has poorer target definition. Larger aerials. You can see the 'similarities/opposites' in Sonar where a high frequency ping is 'bent' more easily than a lower frequency at greater depths or through thermal layers. Modern day sonars also use a 'Chirp' method, which is just a range of frequencies transmitted (Frequency sweep). To get anything intelligable from this, one needs processing power of DSP microchips of something similar. My short story this morning... :rotfl: