WolfOfCampscapel

You're looking at the surface-to-surface range/Phit of the 5" gun, I think. It's far worse vs. aircraft/missiles. Base air defense stats 0.35 at 2.6 nm / 0.10 at 5.2, according to my High Tide annex C2. Then again, the Phalanx does better than you reckoned. The SAMs probably are your best chance to stay undamaged, considering the shrapnel factor.

If lunatics count as citizens of Luna, sure (While if not, wrong continent.)

Whee! That's what I assumed. Nice to have it verified.

No, since that's not equivalent statements. If we extend your example a bit: For example: An active HF sonar can be detected by other HF (same band) or MF (next lower band) sonars; AND An active MF sonar can be detected by other MF (same band) or LF-MF (next lower band) sonars; AND An active LF-MF sonar can be detected by other LF-MF (same band) or LF (next lower band) sonars; AND A passive MF sonar can detect active MF (same band) or LF-MF (next lower band) sonars. ... they don't match. The passive MF must detect the active HF, and not an active LF-MF. Right?

Yes, the example is clear, but what the rule _says_ is that a MF active sonar _is detectable by_ MF and LF-MF passive sonars. Isn't it? "are detectable by sonars with the same or the next lower frequency band" Which contradicts the example. To be consistent, the example would need to read "Thus, an MF sonar could detect MF and HF transmissions but not LF-MF and LF transmissions". Or be changed to "a MF active sonar could be detected by MF and LF-MF passive sonars but not by HF or LF passive sonars"

Hello everyone. Harpoon noob signing on here. Was in a European Navy once but never saw the deck of a ship. Anyway, just wanted to point out that 4.4.5.1.4 tells us that a ship going active with their sonar count as a Loud target. Hmm. Is it just me, or is the rule and its example contradicting each other about what frequency sonars can detect each other? Not listed as H4.1 errata, though. Depending on which is right, it might come into play here, getting the poor old shallow-water subhunter detected from even further away. A Primaguet DD with towed passive array deployed seems like a more fair match, 1976 vs 1979 instead of 1976 vs 1962 As for the ACM gen ... if you notice, the "Torp Ph" and "Evasive Manvr" columns don't change at all depending on ACM gen, only depending on torpedo seeker gen. So you did right, AFAICT.