Author Topic: HiTech,Pyro, still considering no "Bar Dar" under 500 feet? (Read 1527 times)

Lizard3 · « **Reply #45 on:** November 14, 2001, 04:41:00 PM »

er...time of blanket depends on alt. of the drop.

GearDwn · « **Reply #46 on:** November 14, 2001, 11:27:00 PM »

Lizzard just hit the dar for same effect...

I too am stepping up to remove bardar below 500 ft AGL, I want to know that the valleys and mountains can mask my app. to a base.

I like the idea of an alerting system say within 2 miles, when below bar dar, seems that would be when a real life vis could be attained.

On the GV side when a structure is destroyed an alert gets sent.. (including ack) bases that close to a gv spawn should have A2G birds patrolling for them anyway.

Well just my .02

really no complaints just think a few refinments can really balance the real deal guys and the quick quakers.

Gwjr2 George Walker

38isPorked · « **Reply #47 on:** November 16, 2001, 11:48:00 AM »

"Name one plane varient we currently have in AH that had any form of Air to Air radar in cockpit during WW2"

Thats easy. P-38M

K West · « **Reply #48 on:** November 16, 2001, 11:55:00 AM »

Besides the P-38? There was also the F6F-5N, F4U-2, ME-262B1A-U1 and the JU-88G1 for four aircraft right off the top of my head.

I do wish the DOT radar only showed one color. IFF was not that advanced, to say the least in WWII, and I think if we're to have inflight DOT radar it should not be so exact.

And of course no dar under 500 feet

Westy

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]

Karnak · « **Reply #49 on:** November 16, 2001, 12:06:00 PM »

Er, we don't have any varients in AH that had radar in the cockpit.

At the same time we don't have any that didn't have radios with ground control personnel directing them at some point in the war either.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #50 on:** November 16, 2001, 12:11:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak:
Er, we don't have any varients in AH that had radar in the cockpit.

At the same time we don't have any that didn't have radios with ground control personnel directing them at some point in the war either.

What we DO have is built in game play concessions, I'm for reducing some of those concessions such as bar dar. After all, most in this sim have been doing online sims a very long time.

Karnak · « **Reply #51 on:** November 16, 2001, 01:08:00 PM »

Ripsnort,

I know that.

I was responding to the specific question, and insinuation that we should have no info.

I would like to try the no bar dar below 500 feet, except for vehicles.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #52 on:** November 16, 2001, 01:14:00 PM »

Rgr that Karnak, I was just relating to that person via your post in quotes, LOL!

oki · « **Reply #53 on:** November 24, 2001, 09:27:00 AM »

Yep, bar dar makes about 40% of EVERY map useless. How about drone like PBYs that patrol around a countries airspace (ala F22 Raptor) that can be downed to eliminate bar-dar for that area (say 3x3 squares around that PBY) and the replacement PBY flies in from off map or has its own bases to replace the downed one. So in a nutshell a computer controlled PBY relays bar-dar and even dots if enemy in visual distance for an area 3x3 grids or whatever around it but can be shot down eliminating bar-dar info. Worked great in F22 Raptor. Even if not using PBYs use ground radar stations that can be disabled for x # of mins.

pbirmingham · « **Reply #54 on:** November 28, 2001, 01:53:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furious:
My opine:

So you could sneek up to a base, but at very close range you would still be detected and have a dot on the dar. This of course neglects radar shadows and atmospheric anomolies.
[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Furious ]

Not all *that* close, either, according to your chart. For an antenna on the ground, an attacker at around 50 feet, 7 or 8 miles away, would be above the radar horizon. That's most of a sector right there. If the radar were atop the tower, say 25 feet, you could see anything within 12.5 miles, if it were 150 feet or higher, and your 50-foot target is visible from 12 miles or so. Thirty-six miles would be the range for 500-foot-high targets with this tower-mounted radar. Let's not even think what it would be like if the radar were on a nearby hill.

Considering that transportable (3000-lb, fits in a gooney) radar sets used by the US in WWII had a range of 150 miles (I cite Eric Bergerud, _Fire in the Sky_, page 463,) I don't think our current bar dar is all that unreasonable. Dot dar may be more so, but viewed as an abstraction of the guidance one would get from a ground controller, it's not altogether ridiculous.

Yeah, it eliminates the element of surprise, but it seems to me that surprise in the air war in WWII had more to do with lax vigilance, than with equipment shortcomings. The incoming Pearl Harbor raid was detected by radar, but misinterpreted. Bodenplatte happened on New Years' Day and was a failure anyway. I just don't think surprise happened as a result of radar being lacking.

Hell, hblair's excerpt about the Ploesti raid points out that the treetop raid *did not* avoid German radar, and the bombers got creamed as a result.

While I think the datalink aspect is a bit fanciful, it helps make up for aspects of reality that would be hard to model (like being vectored in on bogies by a controller, for example.)

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Runny ]

Lizard3 · « **Reply #55 on:** November 28, 2001, 03:24:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by O'Westy:
Besides the P-38? There was also the F6F-5N, F4U-2, ME-262B1A-U1 and the JU-88G1 for four aircraft right off the top of my head.

Westy

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: O'Westy ]

What sim are you flying? We dont have ANY of those varients in this sim. That P-38M aint here either.

pimpjoe · « **Reply #56 on:** November 28, 2001, 07:46:00 PM »

i like the idea of no dar bar under 500 ft. AFL. but common guys you're gettin to "precise" lon what you want for realism.for example: someone was saying something about how accurate the dar is and dont want it that accurate. lets remember...we're talkin bout the MA here. Historical Accuracy should be for sinario's, not the MA.

just my opinion