Periscope recon

[Nami Koshino]

I was reading in Clay Blair's Silent Victory that US submarines were occasionally assigned the mission of taking reconnaissance photographs of enemy-held beaches with periscope mounted cameras. A tiny darkroom had to be set up onboard to develop them. It was found by Navy photographers that the camera that was best suited for this particular job was a German-made model called the Primarflex. Since Hitler's Germany wasn't likely to be in the market to sell the US Navy any it might want, ads were put into US photographic trade journals to buy previously used Primarflexs from the American public. Eventually ten were procured and were used on all future submarine photo missions until a purpose built camera could be designed.

It did make me curious if subs in the game can determine any details about a LCU in a island they might be adjacent to. Clearly, Japanese submarines have something of advantage in this regard if they are of the type that carry a Glen onboard and send it on a recon mission.

[RangerJoe]

No. At least, not that I am aware of unless you load a sacrificial unit to invade.

[Alfred]

Subs may increase the DL of an enemy TF. They don't gather data on enemy LCUs.

Alfred

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

No. At least, not that I am aware of unless you load a sacrificial unit to invade.

Which could only be a special forces unit fragment, on a transport sub.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Subs may increase the DL of an enemy TF. They don't gather data on enemy LCUs.

Drat. I had several rolls of Fuji film I was saving up for gathering data on enemy LCUs (Lovely Civilian Units.)

[Ian R]

Hollywood!

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

No. At least, not that I am aware of unless you load a sacrificial unit to invade.

The game does not allow sub intel on LCUs, but IRL they could probably do what aircraft recon did - count the latrines the Japanese built over the water to get an estimate of the number of troops present.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Subs may increase the DL of an enemy TF. They don't gather data on enemy LCUs.

Alfred

Alfred always gives such focused answers.[&o]

"They don't gather data on enemy LCUs." It is an intriguing answer. I have always felt that subs do play a role in gathering sigint. I have nothing to prove or disprove this assumption that is not anecdotal.

I am playing an ironman game, where I have gotten into the habit of looking at Allied sigint daily and comparing it to actual Japanese actions. It is very interesting, but I am looking at the text and have no idea where the subs are that "might" be contributing.

Anyhow, even were Alfred to declare that "Subs do not influence sigint" I would still probably play that way. It just feels good.[:)]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Subs may increase the DL of an enemy TF. They don't gather data on enemy LCUs.

Alfred

Alfred always gives such focused answers.[&o]

"They don't gather data on enemy LCUs." It is an intriguing answer. I have always felt that subs do play a role in gathering sigint. I have nothing to prove or disprove this assumption that is not anecdotal.

I am playing an ironman game, where I have gotten into the habit of looking at Allied sigint daily and comparing it to actual Japanese actions. It is very interesting, but I am looking at the text and have no idea where the subs are that "might" be contributing.

Anyhow, even were Alfred to declare that "Subs do not influence sigint" I would still probably play that way. It just feels good.[:)]

Alfred's answers are always nuanced to the original question which was about periscope intel. I see no reason why sub radios would not have the chance to pick up enemy chatter, and the closer they are the better the chances.

[jmalter]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Anyhow, even were Alfred to declare that "Subs do not influence sigint" I would still probably play that way. It just feels good.[:)]

There's prob'ly more than a few aspects of my gameplay that are purely, "This is the way *I* think it should work,
so I'll do it my way b/c it satisfies my sense of realism."

For example, when my TFs transit the Panama Canal, I task them to arrive to the closer side. On arrival they are
sent to the port on t'other side. After the transit, they are ordered on to their destination. Since I play 2-day
turns, this results in some delay! Part of me knows this is dumb b/c military convoys & combat ships would've been
prioritized to burn through the canal at its maximum capacity, but I feel it's more 'realistic' to treat it as a
substantial choke-point.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: jmalter

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Anyhow, even were Alfred to declare that "Subs do not influence sigint" I would still probably play that way. It just feels good.[:)]

There's prob'ly more than a few aspects of my gameplay that are purely, "This is the way *I* think it should work,
so I'll do it my way b/c it satisfies my sense of realism."

For example, when my TFs transit the Panama Canal, I task them to arrive to the closer side. On arrival they are
sent to the port on t'other side. After the transit, they are ordered on to their destination. Since I play 2-day
turns, this results in some delay! Part of me knows this is dumb b/c military convoys & combat ships would've been
prioritized to burn through the canal at its maximum capacity, but I feel it's more 'realistic' to treat it as a
substantial choke-point.

I don't know that the RL transfer time is through the entire Panama Canal system, but there would be time spent in the locks waiting for filling or emptying of the lock and some sections between locks require slow speeds to prevent the ship's wake from causing landslides. An extra day for transit seems reasonable, but the three days the game imposes seems a bit much.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

... An extra day for transit seems reasonable, but the three days the game imposes seems a bit much.

There are two different transit times.

Eastern USA to destination Panama. Thence Panama to destination Balboa. The aggregated time of the two hops is different than that of Eastern USA to destination Balboa in a single hop.

Alfred

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: jmalter

I don't know that the RL transfer time is through the entire Panama Canal system, but there would be time spent in the locks waiting for filling or emptying of the lock and some sections between locks require slow speeds to prevent the ship's wake from causing landslides. An extra day for transit seems reasonable, but the three days the game imposes seems a bit much.

You are ignoring Liberty!

I am generally in favor of anything that slows the pace of the game down.

[RangerJoe]

If I recall correctly, when the USS Essex first went through the Panama Canal the lights around the locks were to close and needed to be moved. They did not wait - The USS Essex moved them! [X(]

I think that later they became hinged or were relocated.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

... An extra day for transit seems reasonable, but the three days the game imposes seems a bit much.

There are two different transit times.

Eastern USA to destination Panama. Thence Panama to destination Balboa. The aggregated time of the two hops is different than that of Eastern USA to destination Balboa in a single hop.

Alfred

I am aware of that, but the previous poster was positing that making two hops is more realistic. IIRC the hop from Cristobal to Balboa takes three days, and I was suggesting that one day would have been more realistic for the programming.
I often take cargo/tanker ships that arrive in Balboa and send them to Cristobal to load up because that base has been built to a larger port and has more stocks. Then I send them direct to a needy base on-map and change their home base.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If I recall correctly, when the USS Essex first went through the Panama Canal the lights around the locks were to close and needed to be moved. They did not wait - The USS Essex moved them! [X(]

I think that later they became hinged or were relocated.

Talk about rushing a ship into service! [:)]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If I recall correctly, when the USS Essex first went through the Panama Canal the lights around the locks were to close and needed to be moved. They did not wait - The USS Essex moved them! [X(]

I think that later they became hinged or were relocated.

Talk about rushing a ship into service! [:)]

The hull could go through the locks but the topside was a wee but wider! [:'(]

[fcooke]

IIRC the Iowas wer designed to squeeze through the canal. Which ended up giving the a nice length to beam ratio and helped to aid their high speed. The 'as designed' Montanas gave up on the canal and would to have sailed around. Nice that Essex ships had that elevator that folded up, otherwise more than lights would have been taken out......

[RangerJoe]

There is talk about widening the Canal. I also read where China wants to make another Canal somewhere else.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There is talk about widening the Canal. I also read where China wants to make another Canal somewhere else.

They wanted to build one across Nicaragua, from Brito to Punta Gorda but it sounds like the plans have fallen through.