[Milsurplus] LO radiation

[Bob Camp]

Hi

There is no argument that hydroplanes were the technique of choice. 
They could be used while the sub was underwater. That alone made them 
far more important than any technique you had to use while surfaced. 
Since the target was usually a convoy rather than a single ship the 
audio signature must have been enormous.

I think the main question is weather the Scott people were blowing 
smoke when they sold their radios.

	Take Care

		Bob Camp
		KB8TQ



On Mar 29, 2005, at 7:55 PM, Dan Arney wrote:

> My guess is that hydrophones/SONAR had far more effective range than 
> the so called UNPROVEN LO DFing. The old Liberty ships probably had a 
> very high acoustic signature even if they were trying to run silent as 
> possible.
> To DF subs are going to have to run surfaced or partly so. Even at 
> periscope depth they leave a wake in the water and at night in most 
> cases they would lay a phospercence (sp)wake.
>
> In North Atlantic sea conditions, weather conditions would make 
> navigation shaky at the best. DR, Celestial and sun lines the AP 
> triangle would be on the order of 3-6 NM. Now go to full blown winter 
> No Atlantic seas and my guess is the AP triangle is much greater than 
> 10 NM.
> Now lets add the RF noise to the picture with the sub on the surface 
> in 20 foot seas wind blowing and this poor slob trying to DF a LO  
> Hold your breath.
>
> PROOF  PROOF  PROOF OF LO DFING !!!!!!!!
>
> Hank
> KN6DI
>
> Even when I was flying and we were still carrying Stargazers as crew 
> members we felt the in stable flight with the average stargazer that 
> with two good 3 shot fixes we considered a 12 to 15 NM AP to be a good 
> fix at jet speeds.
> Now with INS/GPS systems X marks the spot.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>