Jump to content


Photo

Air bourne Radar detection of surfaced subs


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Moore

Michael Moore

    Private

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 31 July 2008 - 07:17 AM

I can't seem to find the rule regarding detection of surfaced subs by radar equiped Aircraft.Espeacialy the dedicated VLR like the B-24, PBY Cat, Sunderland etc.This A/B radar dramaticaly increased the effectiveness of these Sub Killers. Would anyone care to help. .........SOE

#2 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 271 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 31 July 2008 - 09:59 AM

It depends if you're talking Tactical or Campaign Air Ops.For Tactical Air Ops, it doesn't really seem to be covered too well.3.8.1 mentions you use the small numbers in parenthesis on the Radar Detection table for subs, but that paragraph's context seems more about detection from a surface ship.3.2.2 under the Optional Rules states a schnorkel is too small to be detected by ASV or SW radar or acquired by ASW aircraft.MAD is only mentioned in a "Now Hear This" box on page 3-9, and Leigh Lights aren't mentioned at all.For Campaign Air Ops:4.5.4 talks about using the ASV row of the Air Search table for radar equipped aircraft. Note the Air Search table does not have small numbers in parenthesis like the Radar Detection tables.In Amendment 1, there is some additional text for 4.5.4.

#3 Michael Moore

Michael Moore

    Private

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 31 July 2008 - 01:07 PM

Tactical of course , Maybe thru this discusion some of these issues can be adressed.Its going to be a major aspect once Mal Wrights cruel seas convoy serries are released,Thanks ....SOE

#4 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 217 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 05:07 AM

We shall see... I am not so sure AS is going o be fun to game.but here is a pdf that may help you.RATS ... the site won't allow a pdf to be uploaded.Go Here... it has all US RADAR and MAD and Sonobouys... as of 1943 ... enjoy.http://history.navy.mil/library/online/radar.htm

#5 Michael Moore

Michael Moore

    Private

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 05:56 AM

I actualy have most of the data you linked me too (thank you) Im interested in any house rules or official GQ3 rules covering the chance of Detection and distance detection may be attempted. There are rules for Subs detecting A/c via radar tho I belive they mistake "metox and Naxos" type detectors for emitters.They are not clear on A/c detecting subs visualy or by Radar . From 42 onward Ac began wracking up an impressive kill rate and improvements in Radar communication and weopons helped a great deal......SOE

#6 Michael Moore

Michael Moore

    Private

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 06:29 AM

Mal Wrights Cruel Seas serries if you are not familiar is a fantastic simulation of Convoy Battles.Detection and Combat resolution are resolved using GQ3 ( the game is desighned to be used with any rule system) GQ3 is the recomended rules according to the cover of the playtest set.For the first time Convoy Battles can be played and depicted realisticaly. which means that you are faced with all the choices and situations of an Escort commander circa 1939-40, 1941-1942 the sections covering 43 to 44 and 44 to 45 are still in preplaytest devolopement.The game is fast Easy and hella fun and i belive it will revitalise Naval Gaming and spur model makers to expand thier current lines (alla GHQs decision to include V&W class DDs in this years line up), when playing this game you have to survive weather, wolfpacs , air attacks . Investigate HF/DF detections use Radar to find the uboats in fog and squalls (and to avoid collision) due to the unique game mechanics no one game will ever be the same some will have little action most have more action then you can stand, by the end of the 2-4 hours it takes to fight a big game you will be a twiching sweatty wreck but you will never have had as much fun in your life. I can't wait to buy this game..........SOE

#7 Michael Moore

Michael Moore

    Private

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 06:29 AM

Mal Wrights Cruel Seas serries if you are not familiar is a fantastic simulation of Convoy Battles.Detection and Combat resolution are resolved using GQ3 ( the game is desighned to be used with any rule system) GQ3 is the recomended rules according to the cover of the playtest set.For the first time Convoy Battles can be played and depicted realisticaly. which means that you are faced with all the choices and situations of an Escort commander circa 1939-40, 1941-1942 the sections covering 43 to 44 and 44 to 45 are still in preplaytest devolopement.The game is fast Easy and hella fun and i belive it will revitalise Naval Gaming and spur model makers to expand thier current lines (alla GHQs decision to include V&W class DDs in this years line up), when playing this game you have to survive weather, wolfpacs , air attacks . Investigate HF/DF detections use Radar to find the uboats in fog and squalls (and to avoid collision) due to the unique game mechanics no one game will ever be the same some will have little action most have more action then you can stand, by the end of the 2-4 hours it takes to fight a big game you will be a twiching sweatty wreck but you will never have had as much fun in your life. I can't wait to buy this game..........SOE

#8 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 217 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 06:53 AM

This was posted to the CONVOY ATLANTIC forum 4 June;Re Detection Distances – Following data taken from “U-Boats in the Bay of Biscay: and Essay in Operations Analysis”, by the good Mr Brian McCue, pgs 64 – 66. Quote - SWEEP WIDTHS OF ALLIED DETECTION EQUIPMENT We now turn to the difficult task of finding a priori operational sweep widths for the equipment used in the Bay of Biscay. Most available accounts are of test-range performance, not operational use, and such tests are notoriously optimistic. In addition, visual ranges depended on weather conditions, and the range of any piece of equipment – including the human eye – depended strongly upon the altitude of the airplane from which it was used. As mentioned earlier, the ASV Mk II L-Band radar had a nominal range of up to 10 miles, and the ASV Mk III had arrange of less than 15 miles. Morse and Kimball cite 10 miles as the “theoretical” range of the human eye as a detector of surfaced submarines, and estimate a factor-of-two real-world degradation attributable to “fatigue, etc.” A detailed table of Koopman’s supports both numbers. Koopman also points out that a spotter of a submarine or other small craft usually detects the wake rather than the vessel itself. The “realistic” ranges in tables 5 and 6 reflect the above estimates, including an across-the-board degradation by a factor of two, as cited for the human eye. Application of this factor to the radars is justifiable not only as a standard treatment of test data – Waddington recommends a factor of two and a half – but also by experience outside the Bay of Biscay, on the Moroccan Sea Frontier. Sternhell and Thorndike state as a rule that early radars did not outrange vision except at night or in bad weather, and that the ASG – the American S-band radar – had an operational sweep rate of 2,500 square miles per hour. Assuming the standard airplane speed of 150 knots, the ASG then had a range of 8.3 miles: Waddington states that the ASG was 60 percent better than the ASV III, leading to a range estimate of 5.2 miles for the ASV III. The ASV Mk III and the human eye also had to contend with snorkels as targets; Sternhell and Thorndike’s estimates of these detection ranges are shown as well. Because these estimates come from wartime experience and already reflect considerable degradation from test results given in the same source, no further factor of two was applied. They do not, however, come from sweep rates, so that we are in no danger of committing circular reasoning. Table 5 – Realistic Detection Ranges Detector----------vs Submarine----------vs SnorkelASV Mk II------------------5--------------------not usedASV Mk III-----------------5---------------------0.05Vision------------------------5--------------------0.30 SWEEP WIDTHS OF GERMAN WARNING RECEIVERS Just as radar or visual lookout has a sweep width for a particular type of target, a warning receiver has a sweep width for a particular type of search radar: it will detect as many passing searchers beyond half the width as it will overlook within that distance. Unfortunately, quantifications of performance are even more difficult to find for radar warning receivers than for radars. According to one source, the Metox “could detect an airborne [ASV Mk II] radar as much as ten to fifteen miles away.” Sternhell and Thorndike say that Vixen, the countermeasure to Naxos, worked only if the contact initially appeared at a range of 15 miles or more, implying that Naxos had a range of at least 15 miles against the ASV Mk III. The estimate of a two-mile visual-detection range for submarines’ sighting of low-flying aircraft sweeps many human factors under the rug, but is a reasonable point estimate. Again, these numbers reflect operational, not test, experience, so no degradation factor applies. Nor are they based upon sweep rates, so we are not embarking upon a circular calculation. Table 6 – Realistic Counter-Detection Ranges Warning Device----------------------Range (miles)Metox-----------------------------------------15Naxos-----------------------------------------15Vision (day)----------------------------------2 Unquote




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users