pmaidhof

Bah.... The venerable "MAGTF" Marine Corps Air Ground Task Force, coming in three flavors to the enemies of freedom. Marine Expeditionary Unit (a reinforced battalion packaged with fixed and rotorary wing aviation). Marine Expeditionary Brigade (a task organized formation with battalion/squadron maneuver elements) Marine Expeditionary Force (a tasked organized corps level organization with multible division and air wing elements) Not too prevelent in H4.1 terms, but I have strong feelings.

Find Army Times article here. Sherman with major role at Bastogne found Staff report Posted : Monday Dec 29, 2008 7:12:48 EST Army historians have identified a World War II-era tank on display at Rose Barracks, Vilseck, Germany as being the first tank to enter American lines 64 years ago in relief of besieged 101st Airborne Division soldiers during the Battle of the Bulge. Called the “Cobra King,” the M4 Sherman tank was used by the 4th Armored Division’s C Company, 37th Tank Battalion to break the German encirclement of U.S. forces at Bastogne, Belgium on Dec. 26, 1944. Army historians from U.S. Army Europe and the Patton Museum at Fort Knox, Ky., used serial numbers and registration numbers to verify the tank’s identity. The tank was built in mid-1944 at the Detroit Tank Arsenal, and is one of only 254 “Jumbo” models of the M4 to come off the arsenal’s assembly lines. Because of its historical importance, USAREUR officials expect the tank will be displayed at the National Museum of the Army after construction of that facility is completed at Fort Belvoir, Va. The relief of Bastogne signaled the defeat of the Germany Army in the Battle of the Bulge, a desperate attempt by Hitler to split Allied forces in central Europe by launching a mammoth armored offensive through the hilly and wooded Ardennes region of Belgium and Luxemburg. The Bulge, or Ardennes Offensive, was the biggest battle in Army history, involving an army group of 800,000 soldiers. While a stunning victory, it resulted in the deaths of some 19,000 soldiers.

There is a second edition, South Atlantic War 2, from Clash of Arms that I enjoy quite a bit. The first was by Game Designers Workshop but applies to the H3 paper rules. Scenarios mostly address individual tactical situations throughout the campaign. Most of the scenarios which do not require detailed aircraft mission planning, but provides you with the forces and general situation, and allows you to get right into the "combat" portion. Also found within SAW2 is the Ground Combat System (GCS) rules and limited data to re-fight some of the Falklands ground battles. (There are also GCS scenarios and forces in High Tide, but no rules as SAW2 is the only module with them). A note on GCS is that a new GCS is planned as part, albeit a late part, of the Trilogy unification project. I have enjoyed my SAW2 to the point that the booklet's binding now has to be clipped together to ensure I do not lose anything.

Hi Cibotx, I agree completely with what Tony has outlined. You can get away with pencil, paper, ruler, protractor, calculator, and two ten-sided dice. I have found graph paper very helpful. free online graph paper. As the rules can be considered somewhat detailed, start small and progress from there. If you want to get right into larger scale naval engagements, I'd recommend Shipwreck, which can also be played with the aforementioned items. Shipwreck in UK or strangecargogames in the US. I did not post a link as I am not getting the site today. They have been around a while, I have ordered the shipwreck and tankwreck rules as well as a number of the 1/6000 ships and 1/1250 aircraft over the years. The owner has been bouncing between CA and the FL keys for work so they have been somewhat timely response-challenged for the past year or so, but I must say that I have never been dissatisfied with them. Or Red Banner as Tony pointed out. Hope you enjoy whatever game you go with.

For the young, and young at heart... Norad

Ho Ho Ho Merry Christmas!

Slow/High Speed Towed Arrays are declared in the remarks column of Annex M1 Sonar Systems. The effects of Slow/High Towed Array Sonar and the applicable speeds are found on Page 4-11, in “Own Ship Sonar Speed Modifiers”. Hope that helps

Find Navy Times article here Navy orders 8 new Virginia-class subs By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Dec 23, 2008 7:03:14 EST As expected, the Navy announced on Monday a $14 billion contract to buy eight new Virginia-class submarines. The fixed-price incentive, multiyear procurement contract was awarded to General Dynamics Electric Boat, lead shipyard for the Virginia-class submarines. Electric Boat’s facilities at Quonset Point, R.I., and Groton, Conn., share equally in building the submarines with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding’s Newport News shipyard in Virginia. In making the announcement, Rear Adm. William Hilarides, program executive officer for submarines, told a group of reporters at the Pentagon that more than 12,000 companies of all sizes located in 48 states take part in building the Virginia-class subs. The first of the eight submarines, the North Dakota (SSN 784) — so far the only vessel in the group to be named — was authorized in the 2009 defense act. The Navy plans to ask for SSN 785 in 2010 and thereafter ask for two submarines each in 2011, 2012 and 2013. The eighth ship in the group, SSN 791, is scheduled to be delivered in 2019. The new group of subs is referred to collectively as Block III. Previous Virginia-class submarines were authorized in two groups of five subs each. With the new contract, 18 submarines of the class are in service, under construction, on order or authorized. The Navy plans to buy 30 Virginia-class submarines. According to General Dynamics, the contract immediately provides $2.4 billion to fund construction of the North Dakota and carry out advanced procurement for SSN 785. Significant economies of scale will be realized, the company said, by the ability to purchase materials, parts and components for multiple ships at one time. The Block III submarines will be the first of the class to be fitted with the Virginia Payload Tubes, a development of the modified former ballistic missile launch tubes in the Ohio-class converted cruise missile subs. Two VPTs in the bow of each of the new submarines will replace 12 vertical launch tubes used for Tomahawk cruise missiles in previous submarines. The 92-inch-wide VPTs each can hold six cruise missiles. The new subs also will feature the Large Aperture Bow Array of sound-detection gear, replacing the traditional sonar sphere of earlier ships. Hilarides said the LAB Array provides improved passive listening capability over traditional spheres using transducers. The Navy claims the LAB Array and VPTs, along with more than two dozen other modifications, shaved $40 million per submarine beginning with the 2012 ships. Hilarides noted the price for the each of the two submarines in 2012 will be $2 billion, calculated in 2005 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, he said, the actual price in 2012 will be $2.6 billion. Reaching the goal of a $2 billion submarine represented a lengthy effort by the Navy and its shipbuilders, Hilarides said. He commented that to lower ship prices, “Steady, stable and long construction runs are the key to controlling costs in shipbuilding.” The Navy also worked to the line on what it wants the submarines to do. “Requirements on the Virginia class have been extremely stable from the beginning,” Hilarides noted. No new submarine contracts are now scheduled to be awarded for several years. Hilarides said that negotiations for the next group, Block IV, would begin in about 2012. As for what possible design changes might be incorporated into those new submarines, Rear Adm. Cecil Haney, director of the Submarine Warfare Division, declined to answer. “That would be premature,” he said at the Pentagon. “I want to see more reports from commanders after deployment.” The submarine-building community praised the new agreement. “This contract will provide good jobs not just in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Virginia, but in thousands of communities across the country as our vendors gear up for increased production on the Virginia class,” Electric Boat president John Casey said in a statement. Matt Mulherin, general manager of the Newport News shipyard, said in a statement that the agreement “brings stability to the submarine program, to our work force and to the shipbuilding supplier industrial base for the next decade.”

It is 4.4.2.4 Bearing Ambiguity and Towed Array Stabilization (Optional Rule) Also of note, the Akula being at Intermediate II depth puts it below the Layer/Thermocline. See 4.4.4.1, but essentially if the layer is between the sonar and the target, whether active or passive, the sonar range is halved. There is an exception when the scenario sea state is 5 or higher, the roughness of the seas prevent the layer from forming. Bearing Ambiguity only requires a turn (of the array) to eliminate...once the false bearing will develop a very high line of sight rate. I don't know how the rules deal with it. From 4.4.2.4. A course change of 45-135 degrees port or starboard, then restabilization of the towed array which is dependent upon sonar platform's speed and whether considered a long or short length of the array, and then passively re-acquiring the target. Time in Tactical Turns Speed (kts) 5 10 15+ Short Array 2 1 1 Long Array 3 2 1

It is 4.4.2.4 Bearing Ambiguity and Towed Array Stabilization (Optional Rule) Also of note, the Akula being at Intermediate II depth puts it below the Layer/Thermocline. See 4.4.4.1, but essentially if the layer is between the sonar and the target, whether active or passive, the sonar range is halved. There is an exception when the scenario sea state is 5 or higher, the roughness of the seas prevent the layer from forming.

I'm not certain if it is an optional rule as I do not have my rules in front of me at the moment, but something to consider is when employing passive towed arrays there can be ambiguous detections, and additional steps need to be taken to determine to which side of the array the contact is being detected. I'll double check later.

Or a single straw and a handful of napkins.

Hey KC, Buried in the following thread, Amur vs Perry and Burke, was a solo attempt at getting past a screening Perry to get at a Burke conducting maritime inspections. I guess that my first questions/observations are what is the size of the "playing" area. What is the general situation, has war broken out, are tensions high, is the US force actively searching for subs? Are the opposing forces on a converging course? In my example I randomized the patrolling Perry's course, and despite that it was in relatively restricted waters, the Amur SS was able to slip past undetected. Also in some of my older LCS scenarios I found that diesel subs, in this case a Kilo, could essentially do whatever it wanted provided it was not very, very close to, or under, its passively searching opponents. LCS Subs Thoughts The drawback for the Kilo was its relative slowness while submerged, and therefore it unability to get where it could influence the "battle". LCS a stroll through dangerous waters Who knows for sure.

Aaaahhh, HCStrikerFictDB

I'd recommend that it be placed in Tony's hypothetical DB. What is its name again Tony?

Scarier...it was already quite scary in some of my earlier gaming, both Harpoon and Shipwreck. BrahMos attack discussion

Although I was not paying enough attention at the time, the images here and on Navy Times are very remenicent of the doomed A-12 Avenger II, the Flying Dorito.

Thanks RA-5C (Patrick...I think), good gouge.

Well done guys.

No ETA, public at least, that I am aware of.

Per Sitrep #35 October 2008, Atlantic Navies is done, to be followed by Harpoon Naval Review '09 in March. Once Atlantic Navies is out, work will begin on Harpoon 5. I know from recent sitreps that a decent amount of work has already been completed in the harmonization between Harpoon and the earlier era rules.

I'm not certain as for paper I have H4.0/H4.1 whereas HCE follows along H3 paper rules. I'm sure that Tony or Brad will answer more knowingly.

Ship (towed array) vs. submarine Long Ranged Air-to-Surface anti-ship attack Naval Group Air Defense SEAD at Sea Offensive Counter Air: Sweep and Escort Airfield Denial

Not the the dastardly tugboat..., oh the evil.

KC, glad you find this a constructive place to ask questions and contribute. I find that as well. As Brad noted it is not to take away anything from the other resources as they do have many very helpful and knoweldgeable people there. I'll always try and answer your H4 questions, either by referencing the quesion in the rules, recreating the situation, or both. More often than not, others will chime in here as well. When I get stumpted, more often than I'd prefer, I do not hesitate asking harpoon guru's here and elsewhere. I've had much success in that regard. The goal is to enjoy the game.