Sensor Orders of Battle - Inaccuracies

Sensor Orders of Battle - Inaccuracies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Command: DLCs >> Command: Northern Inferno

Message

EWCS -> Sensor Orders of Battle - Inaccuracies (10/24/2015 5:41:14 AM)
I have been gaming since the early harpoon days, before that, it was Grey Seas/Grey Skies. Great to see another version with Northern Inferno (NI), however after purchase, it is disappointing to still see the same inaccuracies with sensor ranges and equipment fits. Not sure what you use as source info or if these unrealistic ranges are put in to speed up game play. I recall I did provide an update to the Canadian sensors when I noticed discrepancies in the original Command program. Some of the equipment names, like the AN/UPD-501, did appear to trickle into NI, but its detection range in NI is unrealistic. In addition, the true EW equipment fails to get mentioned on some units or there is an error in the type of equipment or platform used. At a glance and for instance, the AN/WLR-1(X) Family was initially purchased in 1965 by the Canadian Navy and served up until the late 1990s- The 1A variant was only carried on HMCS NIPIGON, all remainder of the steamers, with the exception of the Improved Restigouche (IRE) Class, carried the 1C. The IRE and the Iroquois Class carried the 1F. On a good day, its detection ranges were somewhere between 500-600nm against certain aircraft radars. The WLR was a great piece of equipment and was the mainstay of the US Navy for many years, even after the compromise when USS PUEBLO, which used the WLR-1A, was captured. The AN/UPD-501 was trialed in 1952 and became the only SHF receiver until the WLR came along. It was widely fitted to the Canadian Fleet, including the Neptune, CP-121 Tracker, the Argus and the Avenger aircraft. In its day (1952-1965)it was the creme la creme, however it was crystal driven and could only operate when its surface search, early warning and navigation radars were turned off. If not the crystals would burn out and one had to crawl up the mast and replace them. The detection range for surface radars was less than 40 nautical miles and against Airborne radar it wasn't that much farther and not the 800nm as quoted in NI or the original Command. The SRD-501 was introduced during the mid 70s vice the timeline quoted. I also see you indicate the HELTAS CH-124 Seaking for the 1975 era. It wasn't available until the late 1980s when the Canadian Navy started doing tail operations with HMCS FRASER. Don't get me wrong, your game is awesome and I apologize if I am appearing critical. It is really a great tool for tactical Electronic Warfare people, however to be more realistic, its data needs to be more accurate. V/r Robert EWCS

.Sirius -> RE: Sensor Orders of Battle - Inaccuracies (10/24/2015 9:29:42 AM)
Thanks for your comments and have made note of them, these will be on the to do list for the CWDB and will be updated quote: ORIGINAL: EWCS I have been gaming since the early harpoon days, before that, it was Grey Seas/Grey Skies. Great to see another version with Northern Inferno (NI), however after purchase, it is disappointing to still see the same inaccuracies with sensor ranges and equipment fits. Not sure what you use as source info or if these unrealistic ranges are put in to speed up game play. I recall I did provide an update to the Canadian sensors when I noticed discrepancies in the original Command program. Some of the equipment names, like the AN/UPD-501, did appear to trickle into NI, but its detection range in NI is unrealistic. In addition, the true EW equipment fails to get mentioned on some units or there is an error in the type of equipment or platform used. At a glance and for instance, the AN/WLR-1(X) Family was initially purchased in 1965 by the Canadian Navy and served up until the late 1990s- The 1A variant was only carried on HMCS NIPIGON, all remainder of the steamers, with the exception of the Improved Restigouche (IRE) Class, carried the 1C. The IRE and the Iroquois Class carried the 1F. On a good day, its detection ranges were somewhere between 500-600nm against certain aircraft radars. The WLR was a great piece of equipment and was the mainstay of the US Navy for many years, even after the compromise when USS PUEBLO, which used the WLR-1A, was captured. The AN/UPD-501 was trialed in 1952 and became the only SHF receiver until the WLR came along. It was widely fitted to the Canadian Fleet, including the Neptune, CP-121 Tracker, the Argus and the Avenger aircraft. In its day (1952-1965)it was the creme la creme, however it was crystal driven and could only operate when its surface search, early warning and navigation radars were turned off. If not the crystals would burn out and one had to crawl up the mast and replace them. The detection range for surface radars was less than 40 nautical miles and against Airborne radar it wasn't that much farther and not the 800nm as quoted in NI or the original Command. The SRD-501 was introduced during the mid 70s vice the timeline quoted. I also see you indicate the HELTAS CH-124 Seaking for the 1975 era. It wasn't available until the late 1980s when the Canadian Navy started doing tail operations with HMCS FRASER. Don't get me wrong, your game is awesome and I apologize if I am appearing critical. It is really a great tool for tactical Electronic Warfare people, however to be more realistic, its data needs to be more accurate. V/r Robert EWCS

AdmiralSteve -> RE: Sensor Orders of Battle - Inaccuracies (10/24/2015 3:30:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EWCS Don't get me wrong, your game is awesome and I apologize if I am appearing critical. It is really a great tool for tactical Electronic Warfare people, however to be more realistic, its data needs to be more accurate. V/r Robert EWCS Robert, first, I'll assume its Senior Chief but us little guys down here in the bilges appreciate the breathing encyclopedia that you appear to be. This game wouldn't remotely touch my interest if it wasn't for "critical" comments and experience of people such as yourself and a lot of others that play this game feel the same. I'll let you look for the scuttlebutt of a particular person who apparently has similar interests and experiences yet decided to take his comments the opposite direction. His lambasting of CMANO, I believe had him shunned from the site. Thanks again for your comments and service. Steve

magi -> RE: Sensor Orders of Battle - Inaccuracies (10/24/2015 6:54:48 PM)
I'm impressed.... Yup for sure....

EWCS -> RE: Sensor Orders of Battle - Inaccuracies (10/27/2015 2:15:41 AM)
Hi Sirius I have been using these tools for many years which help provide great situational and tactical awareness. I sent all of the Canadian data to Mike M over a yr ago. I presume you may of used it because I saw mention of the UPD-501 (which not many too many open sources mention). In a previous life, I was an EW Specialist and a Weapons Director(Surface Warfare Officer/ E7/8 equivalent in the USN)and retired young from the Canadian navy. I have extensive EW operational experience and a strong order of battle and electronic order of battle knowledge. This also includes the history and migration of EW and Radar equipment during and since ww2 which includes, Canada, US, Germany, Norway, UK, Australia,and New Zealand. My posting the other day only mentioned a few of the errors I sighted. Should you require any assistance from an unclassifed perspective, I am willing to assist you (pro-bono) to help you resolve. For your consideration, V/r Robert www.ewcs.ca

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.560547