Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JMS

  1. I am looking for the defences that were set up in the Dardanelles in the Cold war, colorfully enough, the Turks apparently got some 9.4inch guns from the UK, but is there anywhere were I can find what else they had to defend the straits up to Istanbul? Thanks!
  2. Hola Enrique, You realise that the reason the Okean exercises were not repeated was that they were a disaster, don't you? The Soviets came around to the notion that central control from the shore didn't work (guess they didn't want to learn from German experience...) and started to build bigger ships as flagships for balances task forces (the Kirovs) although sometimes they took the concept too far (the SSV-33 Kapusta class), and switched their exercises to a "defend the Rodina" scenario (Fleetex 83 & 85 were both centered in defending the Norwegian Sea).
  3. JMS

    National Anthems

    The submarine song? http://bubbleheads.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/...g.html#comments
  4. Mmmm, after re-reading it, it can be only a change for a better propellor, I'm not sure ... Nope, they didn't get a pump-jet, I read somewhere (recently) that it was studied but that it needed changes to the hull to be efficient and it was just not possible.
  5. JMS

    Back from Hawaii

    Echo that, congratulations!
  6. This pic, for example, shows a pennant number that looks very much like 'D343'. At least to me. But D343 was apparently a Fletcher. Most are undated (boooh) but you can see they had the 35mm dual turrets fit in most, so they would be between 1987-88 (when they were refitted by Combat Fleets and Conway's). D349 I reckon it's difficult to see due to the angle, but I enhanced the photo on GIMP and is 349 indeed - D343 was Fletcher named Iskenderun which was stricked in 1981, so too soon to get Harpoon. I wanted this to update the Vassal module of "Sixth Fleet" so I don't need total certainty as I am grouping a Harpoon FRAM with a non Harpoon one, but the Greeks performed a very similar update on this timeframe (1987-88) so it makes sense that the fit was permanent and fits on the procurement policies of the US vs Greece/Turkey (1/2 ratio)
  7. Thanks, revisiting Navsource it seems to me that: Kilic Ali Pasa (D349) had Harpoons, see here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/0582239.jpg Piyalepasa (D350) too, see here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0584247.jpg Gayret (D352) seems to in this photo, although quality is execrable: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0578927.jpg - there's a mention in Conway's too. Cakmak (D351) is easy, they are firing one here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0585309.jpg Adatepe (D353) doesn't seem to, this looks like the most recent photo: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0587214.jpg Tinaztepe (D355) got written off after the collision, so no modernisation. Kocatepe II (D354) I don't think so, but difficult to say: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0585905.jpg Savastepe (D348) seems to have retained a flight deck, so I would say no. http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0589034.jpg Yucetepe (D345) clearly not: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0588644.jpg The 2 Carpenters clearly not: Anitepe (D347) http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0582539.jpg Alcitepe (D346) http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0582742.jpg
  8. Hi, I am trying to track down which Gearings and Sumners were updated while on Turikish service with Harpoon and 35mm dual guns - the DB shows only 2 of them, but I have found photographic evidence 3 were so updated, so I am trying to find out how they looked in the 90s, and it seems all photos on the web were taken from the bow! Any help, please?
  9. Slightly different tack, say by 2015 the PRC has gone on an economic slump, while India is booming and the PRC is hurting from the competition, then oil is struck on the Spratleys: 1) The PRC launch a campaign to take over the Spratleys, destroying Vietnamese and Malayan outposts and deploying the ex-Varyag to the area. 2) the US condemns an unprovoked attack on its ASEAN allies, the Vietnamese go for closer ties with India (say, they get Tejas light jets at discount prices to replace MiG-21s), Indian ships start basing out of Cam Rahn. 3) A thoroughly irked PRC decides to teach the VN a lesson (they did in '79) and mines the approaches to Haiphong, Cam Rahn and Ho Chi Min city using subs, unfortunately sinking an Indian destroyer and a merchant ship 4) Amid a nationalistic uproar, the Indian government orders a blockade of Chinese shipping (to Europe and oil from the Gulf). 5) Iran protests the boarding of its tankers, Pakistan starts escorting Chinese shipping out of the Gulf, to a Mid Ocean Rendezvous Point with the PRC Navy. US/EU urges both sides for restrain. 6) An Indian plane tracking the Chinese convoys is shot down by... (choose, Pakistani fighters or J-15s from Varyag). 7) In retaliation, the Indian Akula attacks the PRC convoy sinking tankers and escorts - the Indian government launches also a retaliatory attack on the Pakistani Navy airbase at Karachi (IIRC PNS Mehran) 8) A new Indo-Pakistani war erupts 9) the USN/EU forces are deployed to escort international shipping in the area, friction ensues with the Iranians. 10) for whatever reason (USN shoots down an airlines like in '88, or the PRC bribes them, or for internal reasons), Iran decides to close the strait to international shipping, this is too much for the "international community" and they decide to put an end to the whole issue "neutralising" Iran, the Chinese step up their support, etc, etc.
  10. This is a 1, comments below: Up to here, OK, I can buy this, although the Chinese have a lot to loose, starting with their oil. Indonesia lacks resources to do all of this at the same time, they would be overwhelmed in short order. Same issue as above, plus the Pakistanis and Saudis are allies, not enemies. And Oman? Iran can close the strait if it whishes without invading Oman. Yemen and the Saudis are enemies and have been for a long time. Israel is way more powerful than Egypt and Syria combined, even if you add Jordan - the Egyptians have nothing to gain, same as the Jordans. This is impossible, Algeria and Morocco are mortal enemies and remain at odds over Western Sahara Plausible is it was against Iraq, but both Iran and Turkey share the same outlook on the Kurds and its not very friendly. Problem is, Albania, for practical effects lack a military and there's nothing they want on the Greek side of the border, on the Kosovo side, however... Highly likely nobody will notice this, just like the war over Congo went unreported. IIRC the Chinese already have an stake on the canal. They already have significant influence thanks to their buys of resources, they don't need military power. What can happen is that India and the PRC get in a ruckus and the Indians may try to blockade the flow of oil to China. India has already proved to be friendly to Vietnam, and there's the ASEAN and the Spratlys thing.
  11. Once, I worked out Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising to 1st June 1987. This scenario sounds better to me, and you can add a twist, the USSR reached a separate peace with France, and the new D-Day must happen on the North Sea coast of Germany/Netherlands...
  12. Can't believe I overlooked this thread until now!! First of all, a reading recomendation: http://thedeadhandbook.com/ Focusing on 1983 you have very real crisis going on that could have sparked a preemptive move by the USSR: - In April FleetEx 83 saw the USN operating 3 carriers off Kamchatka, including an accidental overflight of the Soviet Kurile islands that earned the local PVO commanders a major reprimand, see fotos here: http://www.cv41.org/photos/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=18586 - September saw the shooting down of KAL 007 over Sakhalin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 and a false alarm on the Soviet early warning system. - November livened things up with Able Archer 83 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 Further, the Chief of the General Staff was Nikolai V. Ogarkov, who coined the term Revolution in Military Affairs and did not kid himself about the lead the West was building in terms of weaponry (smart weapons, night vision systems, etc.) You can easily conjure the Soviets feeling cornered and trying to achieve a quick military solution (a la Galtieri/Falklands) in order to neutralise NATO (occupying Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark, plus the N. part of Norway). I don't see them going into France for the reasons mentioned above, nor do I see the US using battlefield nukes because: - collateral damage would be mostly in West Germany - The Soviets had loads of SS-20 to retaliate - things could escalate out of hand. On another matter, although the Soviets exercised for the use of nukes and trained for a nuclear battlefield (so did NATO), I seriously doubt they would ever get the green light to use them from the political leaderships and there are abundant testimonies in this regard at the National Security Archie and the Cooperative history project (previously the Parallel history project on NATO and WP).
  13. JMS

    In Madrid

    Y tiempo libre! que algunos todavia tenemos trabajo!!
  14. Hi Tony, So snorkeling has an effect after all? how often fo subs snorkel? Thanks!
  15. JMS

    In Madrid

    Hola Enrique, estás todo el dia en el congreso?
  16. Mor fuel to the fire, I was rereading some of my Air International issues from 1993 and found some interesting nitpicks on the AMI: The AIM-9B was the only air to air weapon for the F-104G, so when retired, they were toothless. The F-104S used AIM-9Ps before AIM-9Ls. Then on an old Air Forces monthly issue, I found an article by a former Sea Harrier pilot that mentioned that the radar on the F-104S was so poor that the AMI pilots relied on the AIM-9L as their main AtoA weapon.
  17. Took some digging but finally found who was in the European Sidewinder Consortium led by Germany: Germany, Norway, Italy and the UK http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%207-3/Harper.pdf Moving now to the trade registers we can assume the following are AIM-9F Germany to Turkey: 1110 AIM-9B Sidewinder-1A SRAAM (1989) 1990-1991 (1110) Ex-FRG; aid But the other transfers just don't appear IMO: Germany to Netherlands: 900 AIM-9L/M Sidewinder SRAAM 1983 1985-1989 (900) $78 m deal; AIM-9L version; from European production in FRG ( incl production of components in Netherlands) Italy to Turkey: 200 AIM-7E Sparrow BVRAAM (1974) 1975-1977 (200) For F-104S combat aircraft Norway to Denmark: (1500) AGM-12B Bullpup ASM (1962) 1963-1969 (1500) AGM-12B Bullpup-A version; for F-100D and F-104G combat aircraft; incl production of components in Denmark as part of European production line for AGM-12B (with assembly in Norway) Norway to Turkey (2500) AGM-12B Bullpup ASM (1962) 1962-1969 (2500) AGM-12B Bullpup-A version; incl production of components in Turkey as part of European
  18. Got a source? A large and not fully conclusive answer here : http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=17578 Not too sure according to the SIPRI registers, Germany vs other NATO nations: Germany (FRG) R: Denmark (1000) Cobra Anti-tank missile (1962) 1964-1965 (1000) Cobra-1600 version Greece (2500) Cobra Anti-tank missile (1965) 1967 (2500) Financed by NATO; Cobra-1600 version (50) SUT AS/ASW torpedo (1967) 1969-1970 (50) For Type-209 (Glavkos) submarines (50) SST Seal AS torpedo (1969) 1971-1972 (50) For Combattante-2 (Navsithoi) FAC and Type-209 (Glavkos) submarines (150) SST Seal AS torpedo (1974) 1975-1978 (150) For Combattante-3 (Laskos and Kavaloudis) and Jaguar (Hesperos) FAC and Type-209 (Glavkos) submarines (50) SUT AS/ASW torpedo (1975) 1977-1978 (50) For Type-209 (Glavkos) submarines 34 MILAN Anti-tank missile 1986 1986 34 Italy (60) Kormoran-1 Anti-ship missile 1980 1982-1983 (60) For Tornado combat aircraft Turkey (28) SST Seal AS torpedo (1973) 1976-1978 (28) For Type-209/1200 (Atilay) submarines 6250 MILAN Anti-tank missile (1975) 1976-1981 (6250) $632 m deal (incl 438 launchers) (28) SST Seal AS torpedo (1978) 1981-1989 (28) For Type-209/1200 (Atilay Class) submarine 5000 MILAN Anti-tank missile 1980 1981-1985 (5000) Deal also incl 249 launchers; part of FRG aid programme 1110 AIM-9B Sidewinder-1A SRAAM (1989) 1990-1991 (1110) Ex-FRG; aid L: Italy (15000) Cobra Anti-tank missile (1971) 1972-1983 (15000) Cobra-2000 version; most assembled/produced in Italy (13000) MILAN Anti-tank missile 1981 1982-1999 (13000) MILAN-2 version; ordered from French-FRG Euromissile company; most produced in Italy Netherlands 900 AIM-9L/M Sidewinder SRAAM 1983 1985-1989 (900) $78 m deal; AIM-9L version; from European production in FRG ( incl production of components in Netherlands) Turkey (6000) Cobra Anti-tank missile (1963) 1964-1973 (6000) Probably most assembled/produced in Turkey; Cobra-1600 and probably Cobra-2000 version UK (18000) MILAN Anti-tank missile 1976 1977-1989 (18000) Incl MILAN-2 version; ordered from French-FRG Euromissile company; most produced in UK (offsets incl production for export via Euromissile until 1991)
  19. While on a roll, the Omani Hawker Hunter, armed with a couple of AIM-9Ps + 2 drop tanks http://www.dstorm.eu/pages/en/oman/hunter.html
  20. I happen to think you can do land combat despite shortcomings there are places where it adds tremendous flair and tension to scenarios, Phillipine Crunch being a good example). The abilities as they stand certainly can reinforce that spotting an opposing ground force can be very difficult. We think of the huge open ocean but if you don't have eyes in the air you can have a troop formation a few miles away and never even notice it. When you do notice it in HC it may have moved a few klicks before you next get eyes in the area, will you even find it again... Sure, but you are missing some effects that are essential, like different terrains - in HC everything is flat.
  21. I agree, you can't do land combat with Harpoon, so it would be the phibs vs land installations like Beachead red and such.
  22. My thought was more along the lines of doing away with the landing craft entirely, and abstracting the ammunition up to a point, for example: LHA: Marine battalion of 1000 men would equal, say, 4 Infantry companies or 16 platoons LHD: 2 companies or 8 platoons LST: 2 companies or 8 platoons LCU: 1 company or 3 platoons etc. The firepower for the loadouts already exist in the helicopters, so it would be a question of creating the platoon "SSM" for the landing ships - already there are numerous larger landing ships in the DB, and this will do away with the LCUs/LCAs/landing boats and will give an additional capacity for the patrol boats. The Virginia SSNs already have SEAL teams, this would be similar for the landing ships.
  23. I had one of this insane ideas the other day, the problem with simulating amphibious warfare is that the only way to do it now is to have the landing ships x time on station, but would it be possible to create standard weapon loadouts simulating the troops and something similar for the defences, like assault helicopters have now? So you will have platoon, company, battalion weapon loadouts with LAND attack capability and something similar (which already exists in terms of brigades and divsions) for defenders - probably the battalion would be superfluous and could be replaced by x Cos - there's something similar on subs and the LCS in the form of SF teams - but this would take space for the air loadouts? You are the experts, what do you say?
  24. I tried again and again (this time with iterative saving) but couldn't reproduce the problem, trying a new tack with a scenario with plenty of subs.
  • Create New...