Wargasm

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Wargasm

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> After Action Report >> Wargasm

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Wargasm - 9/8/2014 11:50:35 PM

Lawdog1700

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/6/2014
Status: offline

I have been playing this scenario since the designer originally posted it on the Mods and Scenario board for testing. I have probably played it at least 10 times, only finishing it twice because it was unplayable (on my PC anyway) until after the latest patch that seems to have really corrected aerial refueling.

In any case, this is an amazing scenario. Well researched and very detailed. A little depressing to see American cities go up like miniature suns, but obviously accurate for the situation.

I have had a lot of fun playing out this nightmare. Not sure how others have done, but for what its worth...

SIDE: USAF
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x Radar (AN/FPS-66)

EXPENDITURES:
------------------

SIDE: 92nd Strategic Wing
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
34x B-52D Stratofortress

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
9x SM-65E Atlas
9x SM-65E Atlas RV
76x AGM-28B Hound Dog
12x AGM-28B Hound Dog
24x Generic Chaff Salvo [8x Cartridges]
21x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
52x B-28 Strategic Bomb [1.45mT Nuclear]
6x ADM-20B Quail
2x 12.7mm/50 MG Burst [160 rnds]

SIDE: US Civilian
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
23x Marker (City)

EXPENDITURES:
------------------

SIDE: USSR
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
8x Marker (City)
31x Marker (Target)
5x Marker (Town)
2x Rail Bridge (150 Tons)
1x Structure (Dam)

EXPENDITURES:
------------------

SIDE: Soviet PVO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
166x 23mm ZU-23-2
60x SA-2a Guideline Single Rail
10x Vehicle (Fan Song A [SNR-75])
39x Vehicle (Spoon Rest A [P-12])
187x SA-2b Guideline Single Rail
30x Vehicle (Fan Song B [SNR-75])
12x SA-3a Goa Twin Rail
3x Vehicle (Flat Face A [P-15])
3x Vehicle (Low Blow [SNR-125])
3x Vehicle (Side Net HF [PRV-11])
3x Vehicle (TV Camera)
90x Yak-28P Firebar
99x MiG-19PM Farmer D
2x Single-Unit Airfield (1x 2001-2600m Runway)
45x MiG-19S Farmer C
10x Single-Unit Airfield (2x 2601-3200m Runways)
16x Radar (Big Mesh [P-30])
9x MiG-15bis B Fagot
16x Single-Unit Airfield (1x 2600-3200m, Runway)
109x MiG-21PF Fishbed D
117x Su-9B Fishpot
45x MiG-17PF Fresco D
27x MiG-17F Fresco E
27x Yak-25M Flashlight A
1x Radar (Token)
27x Yak-25M Flashlight A
6x SA-7a Grail [9K32 Strela-2] MANPADS
2x Vehicle (Fan Song C [SNR-75M])
2x Vehicle (Spoon Rest C [P-12])
1x Single-Unit Airfield (1x 1401-2000m Runway)
2x MiG-21F-13 Fishbed C

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
43x AA-1a Alkali Mod 2 [RS-2US]
13x 23mm NR-23 x 2 Burst [40 rnds]
22x AA-2a Atoll [R-3S]
5x AA-3 Anab C [R-98R, SARH]
2x AA-3 Anab D [R-98T, IR]
41x SA-2b Guideline [SA-75M Dvina, 11D / V-750V]
9x 23mm ZU-23-2 Burst [20 rnds]
8x SA-3a Goa [5V24, V-600P]

SIDE: Soviet RSVN
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x Marker (Target)
10x SSM Silo (SS-7 Saddler [R-16])
12x 23mm ZU-23-2
18x SA-2c Guideline Single Rail
3x Vehicle (Fan Song C [SNR-75M])
3x Vehicle (Spoon Rest B [P-12NP])
9x SS-4 Sandal Mod 1 TEL

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
14x SS-9 Scarp Mod 1 [R-36, 18mT Nuclear]
14x SS-9 Scarp Mod 1 RV [18mT Nuclear]
2x SA-2c Guideline [S-75N Desna, 13D / V-750VN]

SIDE: Soviet Military
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
5x Marker (Target)

EXPENDITURES:
------------------

As a side note, I am truly disheartened at how unreliable the Hound Dog was. I had about 50% failure to detonate. Actually, I had a more than 50% failure to detonate on the Atlas missiles. Hard day for democracy.

Post #: 1

RE: Wargasm - 9/9/2014 3:24:21 AM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

Thank you for posting your AAR and for the kind words! For what it's worth, the Soviet ICBM's are often pretty awful at this period in time but those big warheads do horrible things to the tightly-packed US cities when they function as designed. It looks like you managed to slaughter the PVO but the RSVN appears to have survived long enough to empty their silos.

Any suggestions to make it better?

-C

(in reply to Lawdog1700)

Post #: 2

RE: Wargasm - 9/9/2014 3:11:03 PM

Lawdog1700

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/6/2014
Status: offline

Again, thanks for a great scenario. I actually tried to hit the Soviet silos with my Atlas missiles but, alas, most of those failed to detonate. I did get a few of their silos though. It seems like every time I play I fire multiple Atlas' at the Chita complex and usually only 1 will actually detonate. The last play through I fired 4 (with about 2 minutes in between each launch)and again, 1 detonation.

It seems like the B-52s are not really capable of reaching the more distant targets in the scenario. I have been a student of the Cold War for many years and I thought the B-52s would have more range than they did. I'm sure its correct, but I was stationing my Stratotankers over the Aleutians (and, later, over Kamchatka)and I was getting the B-52s to about Komsomolsk before they would turn around. That was fine for Hound Dogs but not so good for bombs.

In the end, I learned a lot. A B-52D at 40,000 feet is dead if Soviet SAMS see it. Sadly, that means that all my (successful)B-52 bomb runs were "low and slow" and the NUDET took the planes as well as the targets (they will be remembered).

Not a lot of improvements to be made here. Amazing, I will be playing it again after I take a break and play a carrier scenario.

My only request would be a sequel with the western Soviet Union. A lot of work, I'm sure...

(in reply to Lawdog1700)

Post #: 3

RE: Wargasm - 9/9/2014 4:03:10 PM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

Thanks.

I think that you need to attack targets like the Chita complex from the north, tanking over the East Siberian Sea on the way in and out. Thanks to CMANO's round world, Great Circle routes tend to take you over the densest PVO defences. Coming in from the north makes the defence harder and the un-refuelled distance shorter, I think.

While writing the scenario I was amazed by the difficulty inherent in the plan and even now fail to fully understand why SAC's Bomber Barons fought the introduction of the ICBM as long and as loudly as they did. However, my respect for the Alert crews grew exponentially as most had to be aware of the odds against them as it is evident that the bomber leg of the nuclear triad was by far the weakest. Hopefully at some point CMANO will model lob-toss bombing as currently it is very difficult for the Player (and virtually impossible for the AI) to escape self destruction when using megaton nuclear gravity bombs. However I expect that this is probably an accurate recreation of the real problem.

I am so very happy that Wargasm-1962 is not a truly historical scenario but I did try to capture the essence of SAC's rather horrifying mission.

A sequel? Am actually in the early stages of building a new scenario using the missiles in Turkey and a B-47 Wing staging out of Morocco as per SAC's forward deployment doctrine of the time. Must be careful though as there is scope for massive scenario creep and Wargasm-1962 was quite big enough.

For more on the bureaucratic and political fight within the USAF and the Pentagon to build an American ICBM, see A Fiery Peace in a Cold War: Bernard Schriever and the Ultimate Weapon by Neil Sheehan.

-C

(in reply to Lawdog1700)

Post #: 4

RE: Wargasm - 9/9/2014 6:00:31 PM

Lawdog1700

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/6/2014
Status: offline

Indeed. After reading 15 Minutes: General Curtis Lemay and the Countdown to Nuclear Annihilation I could only imagine the kind of dedication it took to be part of a SAC bomber crew back in those dark days. I haven't read the book you recommended and I will probably try to start it later today.

Your next scenario idea sounds great. I look forward to testing/playing it.

I thought about the more northern route for the B-52s, but I am not sure it will be better, though it may have allowed me to reach Chita with Hound Dogs. Though my big hope is that my Atlas' will perform better. I will try it on my next play-through and let everyone know how it goes.

As you can see, my last game I was going for a "counter-force" strategy as opposed to "counter value". I hit a lot of "targets" but lots of cities and towns escaped.

< Message edited by Lawdog1700 -- 9/9/2014 7:04:20 PM >

(in reply to Lawdog1700)

Post #: 5

RE: Wargasm - 9/9/2014 6:19:13 PM

Lawdog1700

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/6/2014
Status: offline

One additional comment though. Wasn't the SS-9 only in flight testing in Sept. of 1963, and deployed some time after that? Shouldn't the Soviets be using SS-7s at the time the scenario is set?

(in reply to Lawdog1700)

Post #: 6

RE: Wargasm - 9/9/2014 9:43:13 PM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lawdog1700

One additional comment though. Wasn't the SS-9 only in flight testing in Sept. of 1963, and deployed some time after that? Shouldn't the Soviets be using SS-7s at the time the scenario is set?

There should not be any SS-9 (R-36) sites in the scenario, the only Soviet ICBM's that can reach the States should be the R-16's (SS-7) in silos although in 1962 they should be on soft launchpads. I just checked the scenario and all should be SS-7's or SS-5's (aimed at the PRC) and several batteries of FROGS.

At this time the Soviets had only about 20-30 operational missiles capable of reaching the CONUS whereas SAC had perhaps 200-300 with well over 100 on alert and a large number already in hardened silos. This in addition to the Polaris SSBN fleet that was increasing almost monthly and to which the Soviet Union as yet had no counter for. Including any significant Soviet ICBM force was using scenario-author's licence to encourage at least limited counterforce targeting by the Player in line with the emerging counterforce doctrine being adopted by the United States at the time.

Thanks.

(in reply to Lawdog1700)

Post #: 7

RE: Wargasm - 9/9/2014 9:55:50 PM

Lawdog1700

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/6/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lawdog1700

EXPENDITURES:
------------------
14x SS-9 Scarp Mod 1 [R-36, 18mT Nuclear]
14x SS-9 Scarp Mod 1 RV [18mT Nuclear]
2x SA-2c Guideline [S-75N Desna, 13D / V-750VN]

Actually, I had a more than 50% failure to detonate on the Atlas missiles. Hard day for democracy.

I noticed the discrepancy while playing. The SSM silos I was hitting were clearly for SS-7s. However, the missiles that were hitting CONUS (goodbye Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco) were SS-9s with the 18mT warhead. Is it possible that when setting up the scenario that you put SS-9s in the SS-7 silos?

(in reply to Lawdog1700)

Post #: 8

RE: Wargasm - 9/9/2014 10:35:36 PM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

Eureka! In the CWDB, the SS-7 (R-16) Facility uses the SS-9 (R-36) weapon and re-entry vehicle. Could be an error or perhaps an attempt to reduce the DB workload by duplicating certain weapons that produce similar terminal effects. Check the weapons notes in the CWDB viewer. CMANO teaches something new most days.

Nice catch by the way and from the scenario designer's point of view - Whew...

-C

(in reply to Lawdog1700)

Post #: 9