PDA

View Full Version : Use Of The Observation Periscope On The Surface?



HeavyRabbit
01-26-2010, 11:40 AM
It has occurred to me that if one is on the surface, one could raise the periscope to max height, and then get a substantially farther horizon line at which to observe enemy ships, over and above, literally, what one could observe from just the conning tower height.

Of course, I would think it would lower the stealth threshold somewhat, but if it's only for a few seconds, to do a 360 degree sweep, I would imagaine that it could substantially increase one's perpective on one's surroundings.

Does anyone here do that, or has done that?

Just wondering.

uniquewave
01-26-2010, 01:00 PM
I have thought about that too. In theory it would work, though I have no idea how much or how effective it would be. In SH though I would guess that the camera elevation has no effect on the view distance, your still only going to see the 8km or 16km sphere or what ever it is. So going up would only affect how far you could see down, technically.

In reality though I wonder if this would work. I would think that since you could observe with your eyes on the surface it would probably be better than the periscope because you can see better. The naked eye probably would see a tiny glint of an aircraft or streak of grey smoke on the horizon before the periscope could even though the scope is higher than said eye.

Kaleun1961
01-26-2010, 06:06 PM
I remember reading about this somewhere at some time. A study was conducted and came to the conclusion that the loss of stealth was not worth it. This was especially true once the Allies began to deploy search radars on planes and escorts. The Germans also experimented with a form of towed helicopter but it too wasn't worth the bother. In the end, the Germans found convoys the old fashioned way, through visual and aural observation, intelligence and aerial patrols. That last part is a bit ironic. Originally it was intended that the FW 200 Kondor 4-engined patrol plane would serve as the eyes of the U-boat fleet. Because of the shortage of planes and internal politics of the Third Reich, it usually worked out that the U-boats found convoys for the Kondors to bomb, instead of the Kondors finding the convoys for the U-boats.

FW-200 Kondor Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_200)

uniquewave
01-26-2010, 06:32 PM
I wonder what it is like to look through a real periscope, not what is portrayed in media. It's quite amazing to me. But I wouldn't believe that it would be the greatest visual quality after you take the fraction of light that is lost after reflecting and going through lenses, minus the extra effect of lens defects.

I want a real vintage scope that I can install in my living room to look out side just for fun. That would be hilarious. I could turn my den into a Command room complete with guages and controls. Heck I might as well turn the bedroom into a Torpedo room. I will check Ebay for the supplies tonight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

HeavyRabbit
01-26-2010, 07:04 PM
I wonder about that, also...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You are one funny SOB!

That is called being a vouyuer, which is very, very, naughty.

Naught, naught, nay, nay!!!

Please send any relevant pics, if you have them.

LOL

PhantomKira
01-26-2010, 11:31 PM
The Americans did it in the Pacific. The called it, surprisingly enough, "high periscope". So I would think that there would be some benefit, depending on risk/reward balance.

Of course, that was Americans in the Pacific where things were getting easier, not harder. A different ball of wax.

Kaleun1961
01-27-2010, 02:09 PM
The American submarine campaign is the lesser known success story of WW2. U-boats seem to get all the "glamour" coverage, but theirs was a losing war. They started out ahead of their foes, but lacked the numbers and long term investment in technology necessary to win. They came out behind in the race for technology and lost. The American sub fleet in the Pacific started the war with significant challenges. First of all, they lost their bases in the Philippines, which meant they had to rebase in Australia or Pearl Harbor. That meant long hauls to get to their patrol zones. As well, like the Germans, they had to contend with faulty torpedoes. However, the US Navy possessed the patience required to see things through. The US subs took advantage of new technology and also faced a foe that didn't put the proper emphasis on ASW that the British did. The Japanese were loath against "defensive" warfare, which is how they regarded the fight against American submarines. They didn't even know how to properly use their own subs; Japanese war theory was that the sumbarine was to be used against enemy naval vessels, not as merchant killers.

That the Americans used the technique you described shows that they could afford to. US subs also deployed radar, which meant they could detect and track enemy shipping at distances greater than visual conditions. The Germans progressed through the war in such a way that they had to put as little as possible of the periscope and schnorkel heads above water as possible, lest they be detected by radar.

uniquewave
01-27-2010, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by HeavyRabbit:
I wonder about that, also...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You are one funny SOB!

That is called being a vouyuer, which is very, very, naughty.

Naught, naught, nay, nay!!!

Please send any relevant pics, if you have them.

LOL

Well I wouldn't have any dirty motives for such a setup. Where I live there isn't any houses, just trees. So if I did see anyone with it they shouldn't be there anyhow. Anyone have a 2cm AA gun that they don't want? There's a lot of pesky deer around here that eat my vegetables. I would use a 10.5cm Deck gun but I think it would fall through the roof.

uniquewave
01-27-2010, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:
The Americans did it in the Pacific. The called it, surprisingly enough, "high periscope". So I would think that there would be some benefit, depending on risk/reward balance.

Of course, that was Americans in the Pacific where things were getting easier, not harder. A different ball of wax.

Where did you hear of the Americans using such a tactic? I would like to see that.

PhantomKira
01-27-2010, 09:32 PM
uniquewave is unique in that he lives in an area where even with a periscope, he can't see his neighbor. Wherever did you manage to find such a place in today's day and age?

When my parents first moved out here, they were the only house on my Great Aunt's old farm. Now it's full, the usual, "Ex-Farmfield Estates" that seem to be springing up all over the place here. Farmers are growing houses, not crops. Not good. Not good at all.

Dad had one traffic light between the house and work. I'll have to get back to you with the latest count, but it's gotta be close to 20.

Too many peoples!!!

Okay, rant over.

Anyway...

I think Eugene B. Fluckey mentions high periscope patrol in his book about his experiences as skipper of the USS Barb, Thunder Below! c. 1992 by the Board of Trusties of the University of Illinois. It's a very good book. I recommend it highly.

Pacific tidbit for you:

It was standard practice for the Americans to replace unsuccessful skippers after a maximum of two patrols, successful after a maximum of four. It was felt that even with a successful skipper, the strain would lead to loss of edge, but more importantly, there came a time (as the Germans well understood) when a skipper was more valuable as an instructor to the next wave than he was at the front.

Mr. Fluckey managed to find the right arms to twist and was allowed a fifth patrol with Barb. I'm not an expert on the Pacific, but I'll bet this was one of only very few if the only five patrol skippers.

HeavyRabbit
01-28-2010, 09:12 AM
So, I guess my thoughts about the "high periscope" were not so hypothetical, after all...

Interestingly, the reason I came up with the idea, was because I was on one of those 90,000+ ton cruiseliners, about 600 miles out to sea, on my way to Bermuda, a while back, in which I took my small yet powerful binoculars. On the upper decks, which are about 12-15 stories tall, I could see way farther to the horizon, than on a low deck.

I was looking for whales, which in five cruises, I have not seen a single one.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

However, I did once see a waterspout, which I assume was a whale.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

(Off Bermuda, and the Carib, the flying fish are really fun to watch.)


One other observation: It was really cool to actually see the curvature of the earth, when looking at the horizon, while out to sea, beyond the sight of any land.

Anyway, as to where one lives, I also can't imagine living in a place where there are only trees, as frankly, I happen to live right in the middle of what is supposedly the most densely populated immediate area in the entire United States, being that I am surrounded by huge highrise residential buildings.

Kaleun1961
01-28-2010, 11:31 AM
I've seen whales many times from the decks of CN Marine ferries plying between North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland. A shame you spent all that money on a cruise and didn't see whales. However, that aside, I'm sure you had a better time at sea than I did on those ferries.

HeavyRabbit
01-28-2010, 12:52 PM
Funny, my GF and I were in Sydney, on our second of five cruises all over the Western North Atlantic (Puerto Rico, US & Brit Virgin Islands, Bahamas, twice to Canada, Bermuda) since 2004.

We pulled into Sydney at about 8:00 am on a Sunday morning.

There was NOBODY at the dock to let us off the ship!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

3,600 people trapped on a huge ship, until finally, workers showed up in the late morning to let us off.

It's a really small town, and at the time, the exchange rate with the US dollar was excellent.

A cab driver took us to Louisburg.

I have never seen such dense pine woods in my life.

In Colonial times, Nova Scotia was known as "The Land of the Lost", which believe me, is perfectly understandable.

http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac344/HeavyRabbit/Halifax/Nova%20Scotia/P9150329.jpg

http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac344/HeavyRabbit/Halifax/Nova%20Scotia/P9150356.jpg

gazpode_l
03-20-2010, 03:04 PM
PhantomKira
I've had a lookup of your book and Im going to try and either buy it or hire it out from my local library - privded the have it in stock!!!