GIUK #2, Gauntlet (NATO) - another one

GIUK #2, Gauntlet (NATO) - another one (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition >> After Action Reports

Message

VictorInThePacific -> GIUK #2, Gauntlet (NATO) - another one (11/27/2008 6:11:44 AM)
My feeble contribution. Disclaimer: I am using the original version of the game. From what I have seen on this forum, that should not have too much effect on what happened. You can tell me if I am wrong. This is a report on GIUK #2, “Gauntlet: Small Opposed Transit”. It does not read as a piece of prose, rather it is mostly reported as a chronological record. There are no graphics here, because I do not have that technology, and in any case, I am more interested in the tactical problem than pictures. There is not too much here beyond what others have already reported, but I do offer some refinements and numerical analysis. This cameo scenario clearly illustrates the weakness of unsupported submarines in the presence of airpower (see sub, kill sub), even if it’s just a few helicopters, the weakness of unsupported ships in the presence of superior detection, and the general weakness of a scattered force composed of specialized units. This last comment also suggests what strategy the Soviets should employ. *************** Nov. 30, 1031 Captain’s Log, Lt. Cdr. H. Sulu, Commander, Convoy NP15 Convoy NP15 is presently 327 nm SW of Narvik, travelling at 15 kn. Our ETA is 22 h from now. This gives us a 6 h margin for contingencies. Visibility is 21 nm. All 4 helicopters are armed for anti-sub work. Satellite surveillance has detected no Soviet surface units in the area. SSN Tireless swept our route yesterday and detected no enemy submarines. COMNORNORTH further advises us that the only aircraft the Soviets have available in this area are a handful of older aircraft flying from Banak. All sensors are on standby, and we will continue to keep a low profile until detected. <note 1> Convoy NP15 is formed as an inverted Y, with the Brave (Type 22/2 FF; good point defense) in front, and the Boone (Oliver Perry FF; good area defense) in the middle. Ship separation is 5 nm. Ship’s Log, Boone, 1416 Sonar room on the Brave reports sub contact 40 nm N. All ships full stop. Brave launches Lynx 1. Boone launches Seahawk 1. Ship’s Log, Boone, 1435 Lynx 1 reports arrival above sub. Lynx 1 commences standard ASW procedure. Seahawk 1 is standing by. Ship’s Log, Boone, 1437 Sonar has exact contact on sub, traveling S at 5 kn, shallow depth, 37 nm from Brave. Signature matches Victor II. Ship’s Log, Boone, 1444 Lynx 1 drops 2 x Stingray torps directly above sub. One hits immediately; the other misses. Critical hit. Sub sunk. Lynx 1 RTB. <note2> Ship’s Log, Boone, 1450 Convoy resumes course at 15 kn. Seahawk 1 commences passive AEW procedure, 100 nm ahead. Ship’s Log, Brave, 1602 Lynx 1 ready. Ship’s Log, Boone, 1719 Seahawk 1 RTB. Launch Seahawk 2 for passive AEW. Ship’s Log, Boone, 1729 Seahawk 2 reports 1 x Nanuchka III by ESM, 127 nm N of convoy. Ship’s Log, Boone, 1730 Seahawk 2 reports 1 x Nanuchka III by ESM, 116 nm N of convoy. Ship’s Log, Boone, 1740 Seahawk 2 activates SS radar. Ship’s Log, Boone, 1741 Seahawk 2 obtains exact fix on Nanuchkas. 2 x Nanuchka III 126 nm N of convoy, in Vestfjorden mouth, moving E at 5 kn. Ship’s Log, Boone, 1742 2 x Lynx rearmed with Sea Skua. Convoy alters course NNW for favorable Harpoon attack position. <note 3,4> Ship’s Log, Boone, 1828 Narvik radar reports 2 x airplanes inbound 75 nm to the NE (from Banak). Ship’s Log, Boone, 1831 Seahawk 2 turns radar off and heads for Boone at VL altitude, below air search radar. Captain’s Log, Lt. Cdr. H. Sulu, Commander, Convoy NP15 With Soviet fighters roaming about, it is too risky to operate helos more than 20 nm from the Boone. I do not want to set a helo up as a target near the convoy, because this may attract airplanes, which may then locate the convoy, which may then be exposed to long-range missile attack. This means that we will lose contact with the Nanuchkas. The Nanuchkas are now 120 nm away, still moving at 5 kn. I want to close the range by 50 nm. This will take 3 h at our present course and speed. Ship’s Log, Boone, 1845 Contact with Nanuchkas lost. Ship’s Log, Boone, 2024 Contact with airplanes lost. Visibility 6 nm. Ship’s Log, Boone, 2030 Seahawk 2 RTB. Launch Seahawk 1 for passive AEW. Ship’s Log, Boone, 2035 Seahawk 1 reports 2 x Nanuchka III by ESM, 93 nm to NE. Ship’s Log, Boone, 2036 Seahawk 1 activates SS radar. Ship’s Log, Boone, 2037 Seahawk 1 obtains exact fix on Nanuchkas. 2 x Nanuchka III, 91 nm away, 98 nm NE of convoy, in Vestfjorden mouth, moving SSE at 5 kn. Ship’s Log, Boone, 2039 Convoy alters course N. Will engage in 2 h. Seahawk 1 deactivates SS radar. Ship’s Log, Boone, 2140 Seahawk 1 activates SS radar. 2 x Nanuchka III 85 nm NE of convoy, in Vestfjorden mouth, moving SSE at 5 kn. Will engage in 1 h. Seahawk 1 deactivates SS radar. Ship’s Log, Brave, 2145 Launch Lynx 1. Launch Lynx 2. Both Lynx head for Nanuchkas at VL altitude. Ship’s Log, Boone, 2155 All ships come to 20 kn. Ship’s Log, Boone, 2221 Lynx report range 10, 11 nm to nearest Nanuchka, on her starboard bow, and holding position. Both Nanuchkas moving SSE at 5 kn. Boone is 73 nm from Nanuchka 1. Boone launches 4 x Harpoon. Convoy slows to 15 kn. Ship’s Log, Boone, 2228 Harpoons are 9 nm to target. Both Lynx commence attack run. Lynx 1 reaches launch range, fires 4 x Sea Skua, and commences rapid withdrawal. 2 x Harpoons hit. Nanuchka 1 breaks in two and sinks rapidly. Lynx 2 withdraws without launching. Both Lynx RTB. Ship’s Log, Boone, 2240 Freighters alter course NNW. Both frigates alter course E at maximum group speed to engage Nanuchka. Brave takes the point. Captain’s Log, Lt. Cdr. H. Sulu, Commander, Convoy NP15 I am ordering the freighters to stay outside of Siren range. With one Nanuchka sunk, the remaining 6 Sirens should not penetrate the area SAM defense of the Boone. Nevertheless, the remaining Nanuchka appears to present the greatest threat to the freighters. There are no other Soviet ships in the area, and probably no airplanes or subs. We could evade and still make Narvik, but that Nanuchka may cause problems later. The Boone and Brave will engage and sink her, with support from 2 Lynx helos, which will be available by the time we close to Exocet range. Ship’s Log, Boone, 2315 Nanuchka alters course to SW at 19 kn. Both frigates alter course NE, reduce speed to 15 kn. <note 5> Ship’s Log, Boone, 2328 Seahawk 1 RTB. Launch Seahawk 2 for passive AEW. Ship’s Log, Brave, Dec. 1, 0000 2 x Lynx ready (Sea Skua). Launch Lynx 1. Launch Lynx 2. Both Lynx head for Nanuchka at VL altitude. Ship’s Log, Boone, Dec. 1, 0009 Max group speed (29 kn). Ship’s Log, Boone, 0013 Lynx 1,2 report Siren launch. 5 x Siren: 26 nm to Boone, 23 nm to Brave. Lynx 1,2 depart target area. Boone, Brave withdraw at maximum group speed (29 kn). Ship radars ON. Boone, Brave launch SAMs, destroy Sirens. <note 6> Ship’s Log, Boone, 0016 Nanuchka launches 1 x Siren: 27 nm to Boone, 24 nm to Brave. Boone kills it with SAMs. Ship’s Log, Boone, 0018 Both frigates and both Lynx return at maximum speed to engage Nanuchka. Freighters are now 61 nm N of Nanuchka and slow to 5 kn. Ship’s Log, Brave, 0022 4 x Exocet launched at Nanuchka. Ship’s Log, Boone, 0023 Exocets are 9 nm to target. Both Lynx commence attack run. Ship’s Log, Boone, 0024 Lynx 1,2 reach launch range, fire 4 x Sea Skua each, and commence rapid withdrawal. Nanuchka shoots down 4 x Exocet, 1 x Sea Skua. Ship’s Log, Boone, 0025 3 x Sea Skua hit. Massive secondary explosion observed. Nanuchka sinks rapidly. Both Lynx RTB. Ship’s Log, Boone, 0026 Freighters alter course ENE. 190 nm to Narvik. ETA 13 h. Frigates alter course N to rejoin freighters. All ships 15 kn. Ship’s Log, Boone, 0100 Boone, Brave radars on standby. Ship’s Log, Boone, 0300 Convoy is completely reformed. Ship’s Log, Boone, 0720 Message received from COMNORNORTH for Lt. Cdr. H. Sulu. Captain’s Log, Lt. Cdr. H. Sulu, Commander, Convoy NP15** Convoy NP15 is presently 90 nm SW of Narvik, travelling at 15 kn. Our ETA is 6 h from now. We still have a 1 h margin for contingencies. No Soviet naval forces are expected this close to Narvik, COMNORNORTH advises us that our supplies are badly needed and must be unloaded ASAP. All anti-ship missiles, as well as 16 standard missiles, have been expended, so we are in need of resupply ourselves. We are, however, still fully prepared for ASW missions. Notes: <1> In retrospect, this is a bad idea. Surface ships have NO defense against torpedoes launched at short range. Therefore enemy subs must be destroyed at more than 30 nm. Since passive sonar is unlikely to detect stationary subs, SOMETHING has to use active sonar. The risk is that the SOMETHING will be detected at a much greater range. However, there will always be defenses to the additional threats. In this scenario, the defense is that the Soviets have no units that the NATO frigates can’t defeat. Also, in principle, one Seahawk would always be scanning the area ahead and around the convoy with its 100-nm range SS radar (at medium altitude). The fuel capacity of a Seahawk is such that the second Seahawk will always be ready before the first one has to refuel. But in this scenario, I know that actually launching these helos at the beginning will have no effect on what happens. <2> A single helo does not carry enough torps to have a good chance of sinking any modern sub. At least 4 torps should be available. Without critical damage, it takes 4 Stingray torps to sink one Victor II. In this case, the first 2 did it. In fact, the sub was sunk within one second of the first torp being launched. Never knew what hit him! Not only that, but a Victor II sonar only goes out to 35 nm. With the convoy sonar on passive, and the closest approach being 37 nm, and that when the ships were stopped, the sub was never even aware of the presence of enemy ships (although it was being pinged by Sonobuoys for 10 min). <3> The 2 Nanuchkas have a maximum of 12 SS-N-9 Siren missiles, which have a maximum range of 60 nm, although really the practical range may be as low as 20 nm, which is the range at which the Nanuchka radar detects a "silent" surface target. (The Soviets tend to have much worse detection capacity than the NATO forces, and this can be used to good effect.) Due to this short range, the NATO forces should be able to do a number on the Nanuchkas. The Sirens travel at 600 kn (www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=312&linkid=2560) = 6 s per nm. The NATO FF Brave has 2 Sea Wolf launchers and 12 missiles. range 3 nm, speed 1300 kn (?), hit 80%, 15 s cycle time. It should be able to shoot down 1 missile per cycle time with guns. The NATO FF Boone has 2 SM1 launchers and 36 missiles. range 20 nm, speed 1300 kn (?), hit 60%, 15 s cycle time. Its Phalanx gun should be able to shoot down 1 missile per cycle time. Assume that all the Sirens are launched in one batch at the Brave (you can arrange this by putting the Brave in front). The Brave will have 3 x 6 = 18 s, which gives 2 shots, killing about 3 Sirens, plus one for the guns. The Boone will have maybe 15 nm (90 s) to respond, so it will get off 6 shots, killing about 7 Sirens. One should get through, which may or may not hit the Brave. A hit will sink the Brave. This calculation is inaccurate for 3 reasons: the results will typically give more or less hits than the average result, the Boone tends to fire late, and the computer tends to spread out its Siren fire in time. If all the Sirens are launched in one batch at the Boone, the Brave won't get to shoot. The Boone should now respond over 20 nm (120 s), so it will get off 8 shots, killing about 10 Sirens, plus one for the gun. One should get through, which may or may not hit the Boone. A hit will sink the Boone. If the Sirens are launched at both NATO frigates, neither FF should be hit. In none of these scenarios do the NATO ships use up all their missiles, but in some cases they ARE limited by the launcher cycle time. What is clear from this calculation is that if one Nanuchka is sunk before it gets to launch Sirens, the other one will have no chance of hurting the NATO ships. Now let's consider under what circumstances the freighters might get shot. Are the freighter radars OFF? They should be. Then the Nanuchkas will really need to close to 20 nm before they get to shoot, in which case the Boone gets less time to respond (the Brave won't participate in this situation). Also, the gunners on the Boone might be asleep (sorry, I mean the computer fire control system might fire late). So it could easily be possible for the Boone's standard missiles to be overloaded, and while the Boone doesn't get hit, some Sirens will hit the undefended freighters. Summary: If all the Sirens are launched in one batch at one NATO ship, there is a good chance that that ship will be sunk. If all the Sirens are launched in one batch at any combination of NATO ships except the Brave, there is a good chance that at least one ship will be sunk. If all the Sirens are launched in one batch at the Brave (good point defense) plus one other NATO ship, it is unlikely that any ship will be sunk. If half the Sirens don't get launched, it is unlikely that any ship will be sunk. THEREFORE we should sink at least one Nanuchka before it gets to fire, which can pretty much be guaranteed <note 4>. Alternatively, we can use the superior NATO detection to just avoid the Nanuchkas and sneak into Narvik. <4> Consider an attack by 4 Harpoons against two Nanuchka IIIs. Assume that the attack comes in from a direction such that the second Nanuchka is as far from the Harpoons as possible. Harpoons travel at 560 kn. The SA-N-4 Gecko SAMs on the Nanuchkas have an 8 nm range. The Harpoons need 51.5 s to cross this distance. With a 15 s cycle time, the Gecko launcher on the target will get 3 shots; the remoter one will get 2 shots. Each Gecko has a 50% chance to kill a target; the Nanuchka CIWS also has a 50%. One Harpoon should penetrate the point defense. It will hit 80% of the time. One Harpoon hit will sink a Nanuchka. This is a good attack, but not guaranteed. A modification would be for the NATO ships to close to where 4 x Exocets can be added to the attack. (The standard missiles can also be thrown in at 20 nm range, but they may have other targets.) This option would give a good chance of sinking both Nanuchkas, but it runs the risk of losing the frigates, as well as the freighters, so it is inadvisable, especially if the objective is to sink one Nanuchka before it gets to shoot. Another option would be to attack with two Sea Skua-armed Lynx. The Lynx has to close to 7 nm. Its top speed is 180 kn, so it needs 20 s to travel that mile. The SA-N-4 Gecko functions at all altitudes between VL and M, so the Lynx have no safe approach altitude. A Gecko travels at 2300 kn, so it needs 12.5 s to travel 8 nm. Assume a 5 s initial reaction time and a 15 s cycle time for the Gecko launcher. The first Gecko will hit (or miss) before the Lynx launches, and the second Gecko will be on the way. If one Lynx is shot down before launching missiles, only one of the remaining Sea Skuas are likely to get through the point defense, and this is not enough to do significant damage to a Nanuchka. The result of this attack would be about 25% both Lynx lost for no damage, about 25% one Lynx lost for no damage, about 25% one each Lynx and Nanuchka lost, and about 25% one Nanuchka sunk for no damage. Not a very favorable attack. But if the first and third options are combined in such a way that the Lynx close the final mile while the Geckos are engaging Harpoons, they WILL safely reach launch range and escape, which means one Harpoon and 5 x Sea Skua expect to hit the Nanuchka, which should sink at least 90% of the time. If this best attack fails, the convoy should probably try to reach Narvik by stealth. <5> The Nanuchkas are about 55 nm away at this point. Why did they move to intercept? Our ships should still be invisible. <6> Boone fired 3,3,3 standard missiles. Brave fired 1 Sea Wolf. 5 Sirens killed. <7> The percentages stated above are the base values. There may be modifiers.

hermanhum -> Harpoon Classic Scenarios (11/27/2008 7:26:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific My feeble contribution. No such thing, IMO. All Harpoon discussion is good discussion. Thanks for taking the time to write up the AAR.

scottthecanuck -> RE: GIUK #2, Gauntlet (NATO) - another one (11/27/2008 1:11:59 PM)
great AAR thanks for the effort and time... quote: Summary: If all the Sirens are launched in one batch at one NATO ship, there is a good chance that that ship will be sunk. In my experience (admittedly very limited) the AI seems to always select at least 2 targets for SSM's and always seems to fire a full salvo.....anyone else notice any different behaviour?

CV32 -> RE: GIUK #2, Gauntlet (NATO) - another one (11/27/2008 1:25:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific I am using the original version of the game. From what I have seen on this forum, that should not have too much effect on what happened. You can tell me if I am wrong. Depends on what "original version" you're referring to. What version are you using? quote: A single helo does not carry enough torps to have a good chance of sinking any modern sub. At least 4 torps should be available. Without critical damage, it takes 4 Stingray torps to sink one Victor II. This is no longer the case in recent versions of the HCE database. Torpedo warheads have been updated to conform to most recent H4.1/HT data, and in most cases, this means that lightweight torpedo warheads are significantly more lethal, usually lethal enough to sink a submarine outright. Interesting AAR, heavy on the detail! [:)]

hermanhum -> Harpoon Classic Scenarios (11/27/2008 4:48:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: scottthecanuck quote: Summary: If all the Sirens are launched in one batch at one NATO ship, there is a good chance that that ship will be sunk. In my experience (admittedly very limited) the AI seems to always select at least 2 targets for SSM's and always seems to fire a full salvo.....anyone else notice any different behaviour? We've re-made this scenario for MP play and run it a few times. If you want to see how a Human Opponent would have reacted in an identical situation, check out: http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1023235&postcount=164 http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1023736&postcount=167 http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1028533&postcount=170

VictorInThePacific -> RE: GIUK #2, Gauntlet (NATO) - another one (11/28/2008 12:26:35 AM)
quote: This cameo scenario clearly illustrates the weakness of unsupported submarines in the presence of airpower (see sub, kill sub), even if it’s just a few helicopters, the weakness of unsupported ships in the presence of superior detection, and the general weakness of a scattered force composed of specialized units. This last comment also suggests what strategy the Soviets should employ. I would like to expand on this comment. By the way, thanks, Herman, for posting the reports, which include a good plan for the Soviet side. As all the posts on this scenario have demonstrated, the sub is extremely vulnerable to NATO airpower, even if we're only talking 4 helicopters. What to do, what to do? One option I considered was to race the sub to under the Gecko umbrella, at which point the sub would loudly proclaim its existence (active sonar), hoping for the NATO helicopters to come forward and get shot down by the Geckos. Then the sub would become deadly (invincible, actually). It could cruise right up to the convoy and sink everything in sight, and that would be a guaranteed result. Sometimes this works. Other times, the helicopters see the Nanuchkas, which then may get wiped out by Harpoons before the NATO ships are detected. Can we improve this idea? Herman's posts show how. The sub should race north, to Vestfjorden mouth, where it links up with the Floggers. The Floggers won't have much loiter time there, but there are enough Floggers that at least one can be continuously patrolling above the sub. The Nanuchkas should be hiding far enough back that Harpoons can't get them. If the sub now proclaims its existence, and the NATO helicopters come to kill it, the Flogger should shoot them down with missiles and guns, at which point the sub again becomes invincible. BUT That takes a lot of coordination of the Floggers, and you can be sure, as Herman found out, that if you miscalculate, that's when bad things happen. Also, what happens if NATO leaves the freighters behind and approaches with the Perry FF + helicopters? Now the Flogger has to run away, so the helos can kill the sub. SO the sub launches 1 type 65 torp from about 25 nm. The Perry FF runs away at top speed. This takes 1 hour. It can return at top speed (the other frigate is scanning for torps). This takes 1 hour. This can be repeated 4 times. The delay of 8 hours means the Soviets win on time (Narvik falls due to lack of supplies). And this does look like a forced win for the Soviets, because the direct route to Narvik has been blocked. Perhaps the NATO convoy can use its superior detection capacity to evade the Soviet force, swing out to sea, and enter Narvik from the north? The Soviet defense can be strengthened by combining all elements of the Soviet force in the same location: 2 Nanuchkas, 1 sub, and one Flogger. This force is essentially safe against anything the NATO force can do outside of 25 nm. Suppose the NATO force approaches to 25 nm. Now it has to contend with 12 Sirens, and as I showed above (note 3), there is a good chance of losing one FF. I would shoot at the Oliver Perry. If the missile strike works, then the NATO force has been significantly weakened, and Narvik is still interdicted. But if the Sirens miss, the sub can launch 1 (and only one) type 65 torp at one of the NATO ships (I would shoot at the Oliver Perry). This would be the optimum launch range because a) you want the NATO force to run away, and the shortest launch range is the most dangerous and makes them run longer and b) wait any longer and the Soviet force will be eating Exocets and Standard missiles as well as Harpoons. This puts the question to the NATO commander. Do you withdraw your force? Do you respond as David Farragut did (apparently he wasn't actually facing what we for the last 100 years have considered to be torpedos)? If you withdraw until the torpedo runs out of steam and then return, this will cost you 2 hours. But the Soviets can repeat this process 3 more times, so, as above, you have lost 8 hours, and Narvik will be in Soviet hands by the time you get there. To summarize: I think that the optimum Soviet strategy is to concentrate their entire force in Vestfjorden mouth. At the minimum, this should result in a Soviet win on time. Perhaps someone could suggest and possibly playtest a way in which NATO might penetrate this defense.

hermanhum -> Harpoon Classic Scenarios (11/28/2008 1:28:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific As all the posts on this scenario have demonstrated, the sub is extremely vulnerable to NATO airpower, even if we're only talking 4 helicopters. What to do, what to do? One option I considered was to race the sub to under the Gecko umbrella, at which point the sub would loudly proclaim its existence (active sonar), hoping for the NATO helicopters to come forward and get shot down by the Geckos. Then the sub would become deadly (invincible, actually). It could cruise right up to the convoy and sink everything in sight, and that would be a guaranteed result. Sometimes this works. Other times, the helicopters see the Nanuchkas, which then may get wiped out by Harpoons before the NATO ships are detected. Can we improve this idea? Herman's posts show how. The sub should race north, to Vestfjorden mouth, where it links up with the Floggers. The Floggers won't have much loiter time there, but there are enough Floggers that at least one can be continuously patrolling above the sub. The Nanuchkas should be hiding far enough back that Harpoons can't get them. If the sub now proclaims its existence, and the NATO helicopters come to kill it, the Flogger should shoot them down with missiles and guns, at which point the sub again becomes invincible. BUT That takes a lot of coordination of the Floggers, and you can be sure, as Herman found out, that if you miscalculate, that's when bad things happen. Also, what happens if NATO leaves the freighters behind and approaches with the Perry FF + helicopters? Now the Flogger has to run away, so the helos can kill the sub. SO the sub launches 1 type 65 torp from about 25 nm. The Perry FF runs away at top speed. This takes 1 hour. It can return at top speed (the other frigate is scanning for torps). This takes 1 hour. This can be repeated 4 times. The delay of 8 hours means the Soviets win on time. I get the distinct impression that you are searching for an absolute / perfect solution (strategy) for use in this scenario that will virtually guarantee the player a victory from either side. I don't think that such a strategem exists. If you play a scenario more than once, you get an idea of what the OpFor OoB is. However, when you have to look at the situation as a real commander might, you don't get all those niceties. There are no "do-overs" in war. A lot of your suggested tactics make assumptions that probably should not be made. For example, you don't know at what range you might detect a sub or at what range that sub may fire. You presume that the sub will fire at max range of 25nm and thus the target can evade the torpedo. However, what if it fires at 10nm? That torpedo is very likely going to catch you. Are you absolutely certain there there is only one sub, too? How about a few other Tangos/Foxtrots/Kilos working close ashore? Another presumption is that the Floggers are only carrying air-to-air loadouts. They can also carry AS-7 anti-ship missiles. There is no way that you as a real NATO commander can know what their loadout is. You can 'cheat' within the game, but not in real life. Also, the first time you play, you don't know what is on the enemy base. There could be Backfires, Badgers, Blinders, Fencers, or other strike aircraft. Your suggestion that the frigates might abandon their charges to go north to clear the area of missile boats or subs might be a gamble conducted by a player in a game, but probably (?) not so likely in real life. Losing both your freighters while your escorts were conducting an ASuW mission is going to be a bit hard to explain to the theatre commander, I think. [:)] Sure, there are 'game tactics' you can employ to fool a very simple AI. However, your first MP match usually teaches you, very quickly, how foolish some of them are when confronted by another cunning human opponent.

VictorInThePacific -> RE: Harpoon Classic Scenarios (11/28/2008 2:20:31 AM)
quote: If you play a scenario more than once, you get an idea of what the OpFor OoB is. However, when you have to look at the situation as a real commander might, you don't get all those niceties. There are no "do-overs" in war. True enough. So let's look at the situation from the point of view of the Soviet commander. What does HE know? 1) He has 6 Floggers. These are almost obsolete. They barely have the range to fly over the rest of his force, wave hello, and then they are already waving goodbye. And in any other aspect that a strike aircraft might have, they are as weak. 2) He has 2 Nanuchkas. For their size, they are pretty capable ships. I would say that their biggest disadvantage is that they lack detection capacity. 3) He has 1 Victor II sub. This sub has a good offensive punch, but its detection capacity is second-rate for the Soviets, and third-rate compared to NATO units. In the presence of almost any NATO ship or sub, supported by as little as 1 ASW helicopter of any type, this sub functions as no more than a target. The only way this sub has any chance of surviving if it is stationary, with sonar off, and actually even in that case, it looks like it can still get picked off. 4) His major mission is to interdict supply convoys to Narvik, at least until the ground troops have done their job. 5) He might be facing a CVBG. Well, then he will die for Mother Russia. So, based on the above knowns, and the UNknown, and the principle of concentration of force, he SHOULD concentrate his force, and it should be IN Vestfjorden mouth, because that is the choke point, and it is within range of his land-based air. The concentration of force maximizes firepower in an area which the enemy HAS to enter, and it allows the disparate elements of his force to cover each others' weaknesses. And I would argue that that conclusion is actually the best deployment of his force, in fact significantly better than any other possible deployment, and that this holds true regardless of whether he knows what he is facing or not. What I am trying to do with my discussion of the details of the Soviet strategy is determine if this particular deployment also wins the scenario or not. quote: A lot of your suggested tactics make assumptions that probably should not be made. For example, you don't know at what range you might detect a sub or at what range that sub may fire. You presume that the sub will fire at max range of 25nm and thus the target can evade the torpedo. However, what if it fires at 10nm? That torpedo is very likely going to catch you. Respectfully, no. The reason the sub would fire at 25 nm is that it wants to let the NATO ship get as close as possible. Any closer and the sub will be within the 20 nm Standard missile range, at which point the Flogger will have to withdraw, and then the sub will be vulnerable to helicopters. quote: Are you absolutely certain there there is only one sub, too? How about a few other Tangos/Foxtrots/Kilos working close ashore? No, I am not sure of this (except, of course, that I know the OB for both sides). What I do know is that that sub exists, and I want to kill it, and I am trying to drive away the Flogger which is preventing my helicopters from killing that sub. I also am moving slowly enough that I can detect any subsurface activity, and, because I have been detected, all active sensors are in use. So I can be pretty sure that there are no other subs about. Bear in mind that I have a second frigate that is also scanning. quote: Another presumption is that the Floggers are only carrying air-to-air loadouts. They can also carry AS-7 anti-ship missiles. There is no way that you as a real NATO commander can know what their loadout is. You can 'cheat' within the game, but not in real life. The problem with the AS-7 loadout, and why I think it is not very useful to the Soviets in this scenario, is that the missile has a very short range, and I doubt that the delivery platforms will survive to actually deliver their ordnance. Has anyone actually tried to attack an Oliver Perry frigate with 6 Floggers, and if so, please let us know what happens. quote: Also, the first time you play, you don't know what is on the enemy base. There could be Backfires, Badgers, Blinders, Fencers, or other strike aircraft. In that case, kiss the NATO convoy goodbye. quote: Your suggestion that the frigates might abandon their charges to go north to clear the area of missile boats or subs might be a gamble conducted by a player in a game, but probably (?) not so likely in real life. Losing both your freighters while your escorts were conducting an ASuW mission is going to be a bit hard to explain to the theatre commander, I think. Well, this is an interesting point. Actually, all your points are interesting. But this one is less easy to answer definitively. In my original post, I (Lt. Cdr. Sulu) made the following comment: "I am ordering the freighters to stay outside of Siren range. With one Nanuchka sunk, the remaining 6 Sirens should not penetrate the area SAM defense of the Boone. Nevertheless, the remaining Nanuchka appears to present the greatest threat to the freighters. There are no other Soviet ships in the area, and probably no airplanes or subs. We could evade and still make Narvik, but that Nanuchka may cause problems later. The Boone and Brave will engage and sink her, with support from 2 Lynx helos, which will be available by the time we close to Exocet range." If your primary mission is to ensure that those freighters get to Narvik (and it is), then I would argue that you should in fact NOT engage the Nanuchkas. Since you have superior detection, and some time to spare, you should probably evade the Nanuchkas by swinging out to sea, especially if the Nanuchkas do not remain IN Vestfjorden mouth, and you might even be able to swing far around and enter Narvik from the north. Of course, then you won't get to sink any ships. But if you are resolved to engage the Nanuchkas, are you going to take the freighters with you on your attack run, confident that your area defense will shoot down ALL the Sirens? Or are you going to split the freighters off and send them to an area which all your instrumentation has told you is temporarily safe while your combat units remove the only actual threat you are aware of? I don't know that there is a clear answer to this question. A related concept is discussed in the NACV battleset as the "defended sea lane", where you have scads of freighters traveling without any form of escort in areas literally crawling with enemy subs. At the risk of being more controversial than I may already have been, I am going to suggest that the best strategy for that situation is for the undefended freighters to simply stop moving until they have some form of support. Well, that is the subject of another discussion.

hermanhum -> Harpoon Classic Scenarios (11/28/2008 5:35:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific True enough. So let's look at the situation from the point of view of the Soviet commander. What does HE know? 1) He has 6 Floggers. These are almost obsolete. They barely have the range to fly over the rest of his force, wave hello, and then they are already waving goodbye. And in any other aspect that a strike aircraft might have, they are as weak. 2) He has 2 Nanuchkas. For their size, they are pretty capable ships. I would say that their biggest disadvantage is that they lack detection capacity. 3) He has 1 Victor II sub. This sub has a good offensive punch, but its detection capacity is second-rate for the Soviets, and third-rate compared to NATO units. In the presence of almost any NATO ship or sub, supported by as little as 1 ASW helicopter of any type, this sub functions as no more than a target. The only way this sub has any chance of surviving if it is stationary, with sonar off, and actually even in that case, it looks like it can still get picked off. 4) His major mission is to interdict supply convoys to Narvik, at least until the ground troops have done their job. 5) He might be facing a CVBG. Well, then he will die for Mother Russia. So, based on the above knowns, and the UNknown, and the principle of concentration of force, he SHOULD concentrate his force, and it should be IN Vestfjorden mouth, because that is the choke point, and it is within range of his land-based air. The concentration of force maximizes firepower in an area which the enemy HAS to enter, and it allows the disparate elements of his force to cover each others' weaknesses. And I would argue that that conclusion is actually the best deployment of his force, in fact significantly better than any other possible deployment, and that this holds true regardless of whether he knows what he is facing or not. I think that you mis-apply the principle of concentration of force. According to Ed Dille's "Guide to Naval Warfare" (appended to the Harpoon2 game manual), dispersal favours a weaker force since the enemy must expend time and effort in locating, classifying, and, subsequently, attacking each element individually. Although superiority and inferiority are subjective matters, I believe that the Soviet force qualifies as such. You can take a look at a copy of the H3 manual here: http://www.harpoonpages.com/ftp/harpoon2/h2manual.zip Although the version you are playing, HC97, does not allow for unknown contacts, both HCE and ANW have this capability. In HC97, once you detect something, you know that it is a hostile unit for a certainty because nothing else is possible. In HCE and ANW, unknown contacts can turn out to be anything from neutral fishing boats to schools of fish. Concentration of force would mean easier classification and destruction, in this case. You are quick to classify the Floggers as weak. This is a relative term. Against a fighter like the F-18 Hornet, it may be weak. However, against an unarmed Orion or helo, it is King Kong. When armed with AS-7 Kerry, it may be virtually impotent when attacking SAM-equipped frigates, but it is quite lethal against unarmed merchants. In your opinion, the Victor II sub is "no more than a target." That could be so in HC97, but may not hold true with ANW or HCE. From my experience in HCE, the subs appear to have significantly reduced sonar signatures. Coupled with the apparent reduction in sonobuoy range/coverage in ANW, I often do not detect submarines prior to them opening fire in HCE or ANW. Red Orders read: quote: 2.2 Red Orders: A small NATO replenishment group has been sighted along the Norwegian coast. Using the available air, surface, and submarine units, attack the group. Priority targets are the merchantmen, although the escorts may be attacked if this will further the primary mission. 2.3 Intelligence Brief: The NATO formation is believed to consist of 2-3 merchant ships, escorted by a similar number of combatants. No ships with long-range missiles are expected to be with the formation. You are drawing inferences from your accumulated experience with the scenario and not from what your intelligence reports suggest. As my favourite TV lawyers would say, "you are arguing facts not in evidence." There is nothing in the Intell report that states that the convoy will make for Narvik. You know it will because you have played it and that it is the only Blue port on the map. That convoy could be making transit for any point along the coast, or even retreating southward. quote: ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific The reason the sub would fire at 25 nm is that it wants to let the NATO ship get as close as possible. Any closer and the sub will be within the 20 nm Standard missile range, at which point the Flogger will have to withdraw, and then the sub will be vulnerable to helicopters. This reasoning is, once again, based upon the assumption that the Victor II is actually detected at extreme range (20nm+). This might occur in HC97, but I don't think it as likely in HCE or ANW. If the sub is able to penetrate further before detection, then use of the Floggers to protect it from the ASW helos is probably unnecessary. quote: ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific The problem with the AS-7 loadout, and why I think it is not very useful to the Soviets in this scenario, is that the missile has a very short range, and I doubt that the delivery platforms will survive to actually deliver their ordnance. The Floggers can be very effective if the Perry is no longer around, or, if the escorts are too distant from the merchants, the fighters could conceivably approach from the behind the merchants. This is probably much more likely in a real world situation or in MP. quote: ORIGINAL: VictorInThePacific quote: ORIGINAL: hermanhum Also, the first time you play, you don't know what is on the enemy base. There could be Backfires, Badgers, Blinders, Fencers, or other strike aircraft. In that case, kiss the NATO convoy goodbye. No, I can't agree with that. You are jumping to conclusions in believing that the big bombers will automatically be armed with the huge AS-4/AS-6 missiles because they have them in HC97. However, in ANW and HCE, these planes might be carrying any number of other loadouts including iron bombs. The Fencer can also carry AS-10 Karen, AS-12 Kegler, AS-13 Kingbolt, AS-14 Kedge. AS-14 Kedge and Kegler are available in HC97.

VictorInThePacific -> RE: GIUK #2, Gauntlet (NATO) - another one (11/28/2008 10:42:26 PM)
quote: Red Orders read: quote: 2.2 Red Orders: A small NATO replenishment group has been sighted along the Norwegian coast. Using the available air, surface, and submarine units, attack the group. Priority targets are the merchantmen, although the escorts may be attacked if this will further the primary mission. 2.3 Intelligence Brief: The NATO formation is believed to consist of 2-3 merchant ships, escorted by a similar number of combatants. No ships with long-range missiles are expected to be with the formation. You are drawing inferences from your accumulated experience with the scenario and not from what your intelligence reports suggest. As my favourite TV lawyers would say, "you are arguing facts not in evidence." There is nothing in the Intell report that states that the convoy will make for Narvik. You know it will because you have played it and that it is the only Blue port on the map. That convoy could be making transit for any point along the coast, or even retreating southward. I stand corrected. I was proceeding under the assumption that the Soviet orders were the converse of the NATO orders (i.e. to interdict Narvik), which, as Herman points out, is not the case. And while I still think that the Soviet strategy I presented is the "best" in terms of winning the scenario, which is important, I also think that it is far more important to play the game as a simulation (i.e. as realistically as possible).

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.453125