Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons.

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 >> Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 8/21/2015 3:03:08 PM

scottb613

Posts: 186
Joined: 8/9/2014
Status: offline

Hi Folks,

Circa 1973 - U.S. CVN vs U.S.S.R SAG - no standoff weapons.

Been playing through a scenario where a carrier battle group has to take on a surface action group - just wondering what the best tactics would be... My aircraft have getting decimated in the attack runs and figured there has to be a better way...

I send up a jammer with a SEAD strike (Shrikes) as probably the only standoff weapons I have - then move into and attack with the main strike package loaded with Rockeyes and Iron Bombs... The aircraft get decimated by the cruiser.... I've tried highs attacks - low attacks - multiple jammers - etc etc etc... What would the standard naval doctrine of this period dictate in such a scenario ? I'm assuming these runs should really be on the deck with all sensors off... The only guy I have broadcasting anything is the jammer... Was jamming not effective back in 1973 ?

Thoughts ?

Regards,
Scott

Post #: 1

RE: Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 8/21/2015 3:25:21 PM

wild_Willie2

Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline

You have run into the exact problem that spurred the development of standoff weapons in the first place, it was determined that it would be nearly impossible to neutralize a heavily defended target without suffering excessive losses..

Try to bait the target into turning on its radar and then hit it with your Shrikes (takes a lot of skill and luck) while at the same time sending in your jammers and attack AC at zero altitude and full afterburner to attack the target head on (don't forget to pop up at the last moment in order to gain sufficient release altitude). If your lucky, you'll hit it, but you will suffer significant losses in doing so.

Btw, Turning off your radar will not make a difference as your radar can only confirm your presence to the enemy and as your AC are already flying strait into the enemy AA and SAM umbrella this is moot.

< Message edited by wild_Willie2 -- 8/21/2015 4:52:40 PM >

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to scottb613)

Post #: 2

RE: Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 8/21/2015 3:43:28 PM

jmarso

Posts: 73
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline

Adding to what the previous poster said, do all that with as large a force as you can- try to overwhelm the enemy defenses with numbers so enough leak through to score hits. If you go at it piecemeal you'll get eaten alive- piecemeal. Give 'em the kitchen sink!

Also, from a broader perspective, look at all the resources any particular scenario gives you. You may be able to sink an enemy SAG with submarines rather than getting half an air wing blown away in an alpha strike. Just stuff like that. Depends on the scenario and what's going on, of course.

< Message edited by jmarso -- 8/21/2015 4:45:25 PM >

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 3

RE: Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 8/21/2015 3:43:52 PM

ExNusquam

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline

From Caygill's "Flying the Buccaneer", p.74

quote:

By the mid to late 1960s the increased sophistication of Soviet defensive systems meant that the chances of a successful strike with acceptable losses when using conventional 'iron' bombs was becoming less likely. The limitations of the Buccaneer's weapons system for this type of attack were also a concern and there was a pressing need for the introduction of some form of stand-off capability.

p.78

quote:

When carrying out conventional bombing attacks, in order to achieve the required damage levels it was necessary to saturate the defences to the extent that sufficient weapons reached the target. To do this, co-ordinated attacks were made by formations of Buccaneers. These involved up to eight aircraft with a mix of attack modes being adopted, the first using the relatively invulnerable toss mode to soften up the target's defensive capability before the second wave struck with highly vulnerable, but more accurate visual attacks. Such co-ordinated attacks were easy to get wrong...

So to answer your question, conventional attacks on USSR ships by the 70's was not likely to be successful. If you must do it, hit from multiple directions with enough aircraft to ensure that the ship is killed despite losses, and against a group it would likely be impossible to do without taking unacceptable losses. Stephen Coonts (former A-6 pilot) has written fiction about doing doing anti-ship attacks where an A-6 would be paired with an EA-6 for cover. I haven't actually tried that tactic in CMANO, but it could be interesting.

In 1973 however, your A-6s and A-7s should have access to Walleye's, which should give you enough standoff to avoid the worst of the defenses, especially since you can turn outbound as soon as the weapons are in the air. Walleye's do have limitations, but given the low Pk of Soviet SAMs (SA-N-1), you should be able to work around them.

(in reply to scottb613)

Post #: 4

RE: Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 8/21/2015 8:46:11 PM

scottb613

Posts: 186
Joined: 8/9/2014
Status: offline

Hi Folks,

Thanks for all the information - taking it all onboard...

Ahh - Walleyes - that's what I'm missing - it's not included in the scenarios load out - 1973 should have them carried in a CVBG's inventory - no ? The Rockeyes included do nothing to a cruiser... I'll mod the scenario...

Will "light" cloud cover prevent their use - can you see though "light" ?

Also - the enemy never shows that "jammed" indication when a jammer is working - is that normal now with the updates or do you think there may be an issue ?

Regards,
Scott

< Message edited by scottb613 -- 8/21/2015 9:48:40 PM >

(in reply to ExNusquam)

Post #: 5

RE: Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 8/21/2015 10:11:58 PM

Rory Noonan

Posts: 2816
Joined: 12/18/2014
From: Brooklyn, NY
Status: offline

I don't think there's ever been a 'jammed' on enemy units. AFAIK 'Jammed' is only for friendly units experiencing enemy jamming, and 'Jam' is for friendlies that are actively jamming.

(in reply to scottb613)

Post #: 6

RE: Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 8/21/2015 10:13:47 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottb613
Will "light" cloud cover prevent their use - can you see though "light" ?

If it's a problem just fly lower.

(in reply to scottb613)

Post #: 7

RE: Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 8/22/2015 12:05:33 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scottb613

Hi Folks,

Thanks for all the information - taking it all onboard...

Ahh - Walleyes - that's what I'm missing - it's not included in the scenarios load out - 1973 should have them carried in a CVBG's inventory - no ? The Rockeyes included do nothing to a cruiser... I'll mod the scenario...

Will "light" cloud cover prevent their use - can you see though "light" ?

Also - the enemy never shows that "jammed" indication when a jammer is working - is that normal now with the updates or do you think there may be an issue ?

Regards,
Scott

Just looking and A-7, A-6, A-4 all have Walleye loadouts in their 1972 variants on up in the newest DB variant.

Walleye's are optically guided weapons and they can be used in light clouds. There is a limit though which makes sense.

See Apache's note above on the Jammed thing.

Thanks!

Mike

< Message edited by mikmyk -- 8/22/2015 1:10:22 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to scottb613)

Post #: 8

RE: Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 8/24/2015 11:29:14 PM

StellarRat

Posts: 188
Joined: 9/14/2009
Status: offline

I wonder if going in silent and as fast as possible at wave top level would work? Is skip bombing simulated? It seems that maybe with enough planes coming in from different angles you might have a chance. If I remember correctly in those days missiles had a problem with low level aircraft. Surviving the AAA fire might be another story.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 9

RE: Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 8/25/2015 12:06:39 AM

mikmykWS

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline

That's a valid tactic as well although you're still playing the odds a bit. A-4 is very small and maneuverable.

_____________________________

(in reply to StellarRat)

Post #: 10

RE: Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 8/29/2015 3:57:47 PM

nimitz68

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/11/2014
Status: offline

One refinement to the good advice above - attacking from multiple angles may NOT be advisable. Take a look at the firing arcs of the SAM systems on the ship(s) you're attacking. If for instance they have firing and guidance arcs forward and aft with no overlap, only attack from either forward or aft. That way you're saturating one SAM system and leaving the other idle since it can't be brought to bear against you. True you may end up entering the firing arc of the other system on egress, but hopefully you at least get the planes in to deliver their ordnance in the first place.

(in reply to mikmykWS)

Post #: 11

RE: Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 8/31/2015 11:06:52 PM

StellarRat

Posts: 188
Joined: 9/14/2009
Status: offline

I just had another admittedly bizarre thought, I wonder if "dumb" rockets might not be effective weapons? Since modern ships aren't very armored it seems to me that firing a couple of rockets pods (AT Zuni's?) (instead of getting even closer to drop bombs) might not do a lot of damage. Just a thought. I haven't tried anything like this.

(in reply to nimitz68)

Post #: 12

RE: Tactics - 1973 - no standoff weapons. - 9/1/2015 12:35:27 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

Even if you can't sink the ship, if you mess up the radars and weapons systems bad enough, it'll be essentially out of action anyhow. Sometimes it's hard to tell how much damage you've actually achieved on a ship, though. All you can tell is that it's burning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StellarRat

I just had another admittedly bizarre thought, I wonder if "dumb" rockets might not be effective weapons? Since modern ships aren't very armored it seems to me that firing a couple of rockets pods (AT Zuni's?) (instead of getting even closer to drop bombs) might not do a lot of damage. Just a thought. I haven't tried anything like this.

(in reply to StellarRat)

Post #: 13