Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
In fact, most radar warning receivers Uboats carried were pretty much trash. Metox could only deal with early radar (wouldn't detect centimetric wavelenght radar signals), Naxos was atrociously bad; actual initial detection range was between 5-8km, it gave plenty of false alarms and demanded the head of the receiver to be removed before diving (Metox also needed removal, but it was a much easier task; IIRC a naxos-fitted Uboat skipper was lost on a crash dive because he took too long in taking the damned thing off). And Tunis was a much improved version of Naxos, giving better range but (as far as I can remember) still no bearing information. And it also needed removal of the mast top before diving.
If you have map contacts enabled your crew will makr enemy ships on the map if their location is identified by visual or sonar from your crew. If you lock a target with periscope it will also be painted on the map, eaven if your crew doesnt see it. Well, or at least didnt see it before you pointed out to them where it is.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3297209189
Note the contact says "Radar detector contact".
And uboats actually do carry active radar systems as well. Look up FuMO 30 and FuMO 61, if anyone is interested.
Edit: did more reading, and it seems even the Metox (and presumably all further developments) can give bearings by the amplitude of the received radar signal and the direction of the antenna, which had to be manually rotated.
Yes, right. I just thought, my answer is not complete ;) some later versions where able to give a bearing. A very good device was the "Naxos", it gave a bearing and a distance.
Naxos, inititallly wasn't able to give bearing. It was only the later iterations that were able to give a rough estimation. And no Radar Warning Receiver of WW2 was able to give a distance.
And while later iterations were good for 20-30km (depends on the source), Naxis initially had a range of only 5-8km. No, it wasn't "very good". That's why the germans scrambled to develop Tunis (which was a composite system with two RWR systems for two different wavelenghts).
Some comments on the pdf in the link you gave. Don't take this the wrong way, it's a very interesting read, particularily so the technical part of it, but the sources he used, or rather, how to cites them, leads to a very slanted view of the system as it really was during WW2.
1- R.V. Jones was "impressed" by the Wüzburg, but not in a particularily positive way. His comments about the system were on the lines of "as most things german, it was engineered to an unneccesary point". I actually know quite a bit about Mr. Jones' opinions on the matter, as I've read his memories "Most Secret War", and again, impressed he was, positively so, not so much.
2- Mr. Lovell's quote is taken out of context, and forgets to mention that the nighfighters were having success with the Flensburg RWR (homing on to Monica emissions), not because of Naxos Z. In fact, the general consensus in the german night fighter force being that Naxos Z (the airborne version) was pretty much useless (as confirmed by the Ju-88 crew that landed by accident on England in July 1944). To the point that after that event, Monica was retired from Bomber Command's bombers but H2S were kept on being used without any change until the end of the war.
3-Mr. Trenkle's experiment "proof" of the ability of the system to detect 3cm WL emissions is of little consequence. Had Naxos been good for that purpose, the germans wouldn't have scrambled to develop Mücke (the integrated system in Tunis able to detect 3cm emissions). By every available account of german sources, Tunis (which also integrated Naxos) was very effective, Mostly because of Mücke, while Naxos was not.
From uboataces.com:
The Naxos was a reliable unit,and later versions were even capable of indicating the direction of approaching aircraft, but the short detection range of 5,000 meters meant that U-boats had only one minute’s warning. The British quickly became aware of the Germans new capability, and as newer generations of British radars were developed to counter the Naxos, the Germans continued to improve the device.
From Uboat.net:
The original Naxos I had a vertically polarized antenna, with poor results as the British radars initially used horizontal polarisation. (This seems to have been a case of the German designers being smarter than the British ones, with unfortunate consequences.) Naxos Ia had a triple antenna, with elements crossing each other at 45 degrees to avoid this problem. Over 1000 sets of Naxos I were produced, for U-Boot installations but also for the Luftwaffe, the original customer.
(Later versions of Naxos could indicate the approximate direction of enemy aircraft carrying the radar. But this was useful primarily for aircraft, and probably was not installed in submarines?)