Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.
HarpGamer

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

broncepulido

Members

  • Joined

  • Last visited

View Profile Find content

Posts posted by broncepulido

  4. On 12/18/2024 at 3:55 AM, donaldseadog said:

    Done and dusted, pretty much same as with AGI so I won't bore anyone with a second AAR. Ive now also knocked over the blues while playing for the red side, quite a tussle mostly manipulating my naval ships and subs, the aircraft didn't come into play until most of the hard work was done. Putting together a report might take a bit of time, it was a busy exercise.

    You've done a great job putting this together as a HC scenario Enrique, thanks heaps. It's a ripper.

    Don

    Thanks very much, Don!!!

  9. On 11/30/2024 at 3:08 AM, donaldseadog said:

    I was thinking about the developing systems using semi-submerged drones, in HC I see a snorkeling sub as the closest sim. I recall some of the ukraine drones were being fitted with short range SAM for self protection.

    What weapons were the Russians using against the semi-sub drones? I guess if a genuine snorkeling sub there are differences to a sem-sub drone, as the drone would be vulnerable to a hit  where most gunnery aimed at a sub (even at snorkel) would skip off water surface as would be at a low angle (unless the round hit the snorkel)

    Maybe a CIWS would be at a trajectory angle steep enough ?

    I think not about the surface skip, historically even was some anti-submarine guns employed operationally, at short distances.

    In fact I was searching for historical ones I remember, but found this recent example:

    https://www.navylookout.com/the-kingfisher-gun-launched-anti-submarine-munition/

    • Like 1

  12. Some sources:

    A very impressive book: “Tupolev Tu-22 Blinder”, by Sergei Burdin and Allan E Dawes, Pen & Sword 2006.

     

    https://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/341tbap.htm

    https://tu22.ru/batle/21-polki/21-341-tbap

     

    https://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/30omrap.htm

    https://ava.org.ru/rap/30m.htm

    https://tu22.ru/batle/21-polki/22-30-omrap

     

    https://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/199ogdrap.htm

    https://tu22.ru/batle/21-polki/29-199-odrap-2

    https://gazeta-licey.ru/public/55625-lyotchik-bozhey-milostyu

    Russian video of 199: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1nNdVYMf0Q

     

    https://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/290odrap.htm

    https://tu22.ru/batle/21-polki/18-290-odrap

     

    https://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/5gvmrap.htm

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-й_гвардейский_минно-торпедный_авиационный_полк

    https://multiurok.ru/files/muziei-istorii-5-gho-ghvardieiskogho-konstantsskog.html

    https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сімферополь_(аеропорт)

     

    https://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/124mrap.htm

     

    https://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/2gvmrad.htm

     

    First regiment with Tu-22M2 Backfire-B (1975):

    https://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/943mrap.htm

     In September 1975, the 2nd Squadron of the Regiment began retraining for the Tu-22M2. The 3rd Squadron remained armed with Tu-16KS aircraft.
           In 1983, the 3rd Squadron of Tu-16KS aircraft was disbanded. Only two squadrons of Tu-22M2 missile carriers remained in the regiment.
           In 1986, the 943rd MRAP was re-equipped from Tu-22M2 to Tu-22M3 aircraft.
           In 1992, the combat strength of the 943rd MRAP included 23 Tu-22M3 and 4 Tu-16K.
           After the disbandment of the 2nd Guards Command in November 1994, MRAD 943rd MRAP became a separate regiment as part of the Black Sea Fleet Air Force.
           Since 31.08.1996, the 943rd OMRAP at Oktyabrskoye Air Force was disbanded. The Tu-22M3 aircraft of the 943rd OMRAP and the 5th Guards MRAP, 39 in total, were divided between Ukraine (20 aircraft) and Russia (19 aircraft). The Russian Tu-22M3 aircraft were transferred to storage at Ostrov Air Force. Some of them, after undergoing repairs at the ARP in Chkalovsk (Kaliningrad Region), were subsequently transferred to the 568th Guards OMRAP of the Pacific Fleet Air Force. And the Ukrainian Tu-22M3 were disposed of between October 2000 and April 2006:

    https://ava.org.ru/bap/40m.htm

     

    https://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/regiment/bap/52gvtbap.htm

    https://ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru/ALL_OUT/AiKOut10/Ab6590/Ab6590001.htm

     

     

    SAM in Crimea:

    https://www.ww2.dk/new/pvo/sam/174zrbr.htm

    Fighters:

    https://www.ww2.dk/new/pvo/1dpvo.htm

     

    https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/18-та_окрема_дальня_розвідувальна_авіаційна_ескадрилья_(Україна)

     

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/История_Воздушных_сил_Украины

     

    https://tu22.ru/zarozhdenie-i-osvoenie/60-ispytaniya-i-modifikatsii-tu-22

     

    https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ту-22

     

    VP-5 Mad Foxes based at Catania-Sigonella in the time period:

    http://www.gonavy.jp/VP_Deploy71f.html

     

    VP-5 aircrafts, then based a NAS Sigonella (Catania-Sigonella, almost useless in this scenario):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP-5

     

    https://www.archives.gov/research/still-pictures/publish-photos

  14. Hot Start with tovarich Tupolev, JFK in the Med 1988.

    View File

    Hot Start with tovarich Tupolev, JFK in the Med 1988.

    Hot Start with tovarich Tupolev, JFK in the Med 1988.

    A Harpoon Commander's Edition scenario for EC2003 Battle for the Mediterranean Battleset and the HCDB2-170909 (or later) 1980-2025 era Platform Database. This scenario is designed with Advanced Scenario Editor Build 2017.013 and to be run with HCE 2015.008+ or later.

    This scenario is designed to be played from the Blue/NATO side or from the Red/Soviet. You should play a few times first the Blue side to avoid spoilers, and only later play the Red side.

    Image: An aerial port bow view of USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67), with embarked Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 3, conducting high speed manoeuvres, circa 1989 and depicting the same air wing displayed on this scenario. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) photo, # 300-CFD-DN-ST-89-02161, took by a serviceperson on duty and in consequence on public domain.

    This scenario was initially based on that titled Tattletale of the Admiralty Trilogy’s recent book “High Tide” second edition.

    But as usual my personal research of the scenario and my “rivet counter” syndrome made me complicated it, adding a great number of historically correct Soviet Long Range Aviation and Naval Aviation units to balance more the scenario.

    The Soviet supposed strategy was to neutralize the US carrier in the Mediterranean in the first hours or the first day of an open WWIII in the 1980s.

    The idea is a surprise attack from the scenario start with Soviet naval forces, trying to damage USS John F Kennedy (CV-67), exploiting the lack of readiness of her air wing the first hours of the conflict.

    Later, supersonic and subsonic Tupolev bombers of many types should finish the carrier, attacking her with long range and big supersonic missiles, with the stockpile of anti-ship missiles probably exhausted after the first three attack waves or similar (as saw in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine).

    Overflight of Greece and Turkiye are guaranteed by the usual Soviet nuclear menaces and blackmail against both countries, with only some few Greek empty airbases present.

    The Soviet target is clear, to neutralize the US aircraft carrier.

    The NATO target is even more clear, survive the aircraft carrier beyond the first day of war.

    This scenario is for me balanced, winnable for both sides, and very interesting, because the very asymmetrical forces.

    As sidenote are supplied two almost identical variants of the scenario, one with and one without Soviet AGI ships (adjusting the victory conditions by the presence of more ships), marking with their presence the relative zone of Soviet SSGNs and “aiding” on their anti-ship missile targeting, in case someone is using a game version previous to 2024.006.

    Enrique Mas, November 24, 2024.

     

    • Like 1

  15. On 3/5/2024 at 3:22 PM, TonyE said:

    I don't recall an issue but can provide some related information.

    Effects.c::FireGuns(...) only allows guns to fire against units >= SeaLevel where SeaLevel is the next altitude band above Snorkel.  In other words, the code won't fire guns at Snorkeling submarines. 

    That could be changed, I would imagine one would want a lower hit chance for a snorkeling submarine as compared to a surfaced sub.

    See H3 paper 4.2.3.2 Periscope Depth for a description of this depth.  The base H3 paper rules do not accommodate gunfire vs. submarines.  I did not check any of the addons nor the H4 nor H5 rules.

    I want clearly that gun capability (and submarines launching short range SAMs to ASW aircrafts!), but in the game engine anti-ship missiles are usually capables against surfaced submarines (in fact that was the Harpoon missile origin, to sunk surfaced Soviet SSGN type Echo before they launched their anti-ship missiles).

    • Like 1

  24. On 9/6/2024 at 9:17 PM, Julian said:

    Greetings Harpgamers,

    I am Julian Spencer-Churchill, associate prof at Concordia University (Montreal) in political science, and I have been using this scenario for my class to teach naval operations as part of my undergraduiate introduction to strategic studies class. I have always been disappointed that NATO had no submarines and the Soviet submarine threat was non-existent. I would appreciate any modifications for this scenario that modernizes it. My students have been using Harpoon for almost two decades now in the classroom.

    thank-you very much, Julian

     

     

    Revamped scenario available here. It's not tested, but probably fine because it's not very complicated. Of course I can modify any aspect of it at request, or about detected defects or so. Enjoy!

     

  25. Notes on some platforms:

    - The time period of this hypothetical scenario is set from 13 October 1997 to 14 February 1998 (I choosed Halloween, can’t avoid it!), when USS Nimitz was historically on this IOPG theatre of operations.

    -   The Iranian Mirage F1EQ (ex Iraq) have very limited capabilities and weapons this time period, but supposely alter changing of side France support it, and came operative again.

    -   USSR has survived to this date, and the First Cold War reachs 1997, to the start of WWIII.

    -   USSR platforms and in service dates are estimates about the USSR persistence.

    -   All the USSR ships are assumed as modified to use Ka-27 and variants instead of Ka-25, probably deleted from service before 1997 on this alternate timeline.

    -  Are employed estimated probable developments of Su-33M (aircraft entry 10407) and MIG-29K (aircraft entry 10468, Indian MiG-29K Fulcrum-D 14, with older R-77/AA-12 Adder missiles, produced as preseries from February 1994, but not in regular Russian services, but widely exported), in service in the mid-1990s, with air-to-ground loadouts.

    - Is the first time I have at last an excuse to employ the hypothetical unit CGN Anchar (Project 11990), in service 1995?+. More data about this project are available in this well known and recently update book: https://www.wargamevault.com/product/319433/Russias-Navy?src=hottest_filtered

     

    More data on Project 1199 Anchar casually found in the Russian Wikipedia, looking for other thing:

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Большие_противолодочные_корабли_проекта_1199

    • Like 1

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications
Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.