pmaidhof

Please let us know how it goes.

May the force be with you...always.

Sorry Jonathan...after searching high and low through my wargaming/harpoon stuff last night and again this morning, no joy. I checked my High Tide box and it does not list the quickstart rules, which does boggle my mind as it is a complete game as you purchased it. As they are truely helpful in breaking down ASW, ASuW and AAW (although that has been revamped in recent Harpoon Naval Sitreps and to be released with the unified Admiraty Trilogy Series) I'd recommend contacting Ed over at Clash of Arms, I would think that the Quick Start rules could be had at little to no cost. Once again, sorry I could not locate mine. Our New Address: 1804 Hoffmansville Road PO Box 212 Sassamansville, PA. 19472-0212 Phone: (610) 754-0100 FAX: (610) 754-0102 or Customer Service Question? This isn't the place. For quick resolution of any issue, please send an e-mail directly to sales@clashofarms.com

How dare you lose that sub!

This link was originally posted by a member of the shipwreck yahoo group and appears to be interesting fodder for current day strait of Hormuz scenario development. MIT Press Journals - Closing Time Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz

Jonathan, Let me check on that for you. They sure do help. Pete

Cool, especially as it is the subject of my current readings about the F-8 Crusader. Sorry I do not have a technical answer for you, BUT...you could always expand the scope somewhat and have something to do with your RF-8, or Vigilante's? Scope out the targets to then be attacked, given permission from Robert Strange McNamara and his merry band of DOD whiz-kids.

LCS surface warfare mission package debuts By Philip Ewing - Staff writer Posted : Monday Jul 14, 2008 9:21:58 EDT NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER DAHLGREN, VA. — To the annoyance of waterfowl bobbing on the Potomac River, Navy gunners test-fired the 30mm modular gun Friday that will be carried as part of the surface warfare package aboard the Navy’s new multipurpose littoral combat ships. As dignitaries watched nearby — and contractors and reporters looked at video displayed in a distant building — the gun, set up on shore, loosed 30 rounds, at three rounds per second, toward the river. Navy officials are confident that if the technicians had been shooting at a hostile boat, instead of the water, they would have quickly stopped an attack. With its gun; non-line-of-sight missile system, or NLOS; Fire Scout unmanned aerial vehicle; armed MH-60R helicopter; and the attendant networks and sub-systems — all of which officially debuted here Friday — the LCS now has its surface warfare mission package. It’s the second of two mission packages delivered for the 3,000-ton customizable warships; the mine warfare package was unveiled in September and the antisubmarine package is scheduled to be unveiled in San Diego later this summer. With the surface warfare package, an LCS has what Navy officials call a triple-layered defense, designed specifically to hit small attack boats, as opposed to other warships or targets on land. An LCS captain could first try to shoot at an attacker up to 25 miles away with the NLOS, guided by the Fire Scout. Next, for closer-range targets, the ship could use its 57mm gun, carried on the forecastle. For targets closer still, the ship could use the 30mm gun, demonstrated Friday. Without the surface warfare package, each LCS still carries its 57mm gun and an Evolved Sea Sparrow missile launcher, for use against air threats. Although the Navy doesn’t quite have a ship yet on which to install the mission packages, commanders say progress is being made on both the LCS hulls: the steel LCS 1, Freedom, built in Wisconsin, and the aluminum trimaran LCS 2, Independence, built in Alabama. Both ships are in the water, said Vice Adm. Paul Sullivan, commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, and are scheduled for at-sea tests within a few weeks. Despite yard delays and cost overruns for both ships — which led Navy leaders to cancel two additional planned hulls — officials here continue to praise the concept behind the LCS, a “ship-as-truck,” in the words of Jason Gross, a spokesman for the Navy’s program executive officer for littoral and mine warfare. Just as you can throw a tool kit or camping gear into a pick-up, making the vehicle suitable for both types of jobs, so too is the LCS valuable because it can carry a customized load-out, Gross said. The ability to mix and match equipment gives the ship “focused mission capability,” as program workers call it. Critics inside and outside the Navy have said LCS achieves that “focus” by sacrificing firepower, as compared with the longer-range missiles and harder-hitting guns carried aboard cruisers and destroyers. Sullivan seemed to anticipate such critics when he spoke before the gun test-firing Friday. “If you think these [guns] are little, take a look at that bullet,” he said, motioning toward a menu of ammunition. “I wouldn’t want to be in front of it.” Find NavyTimes article here.

Murphy's Law governing Naval Aviation, "What can go wrong will" and its corollary to the law dictates that whenever something does go wrong, it will always happen at the most inconvienent moment, such as operations on the flight deck at night. paraphrased from Page 42 of MiG Master by Barrett Tillman.

...Just like slow is smooth, smooth is fast...

I'm sure a typo, but isn't it "Amateurs study Tactics, Professionals study Logistics"

Subic was still open when I went active, but was sent to Camp Lejuene. Many of the Sgts and SSgts of the time had completed WestPacs, and the stories they could tell, might even make a sailor blush...Buddha?... By the end of my active time Subic was gone, and now, given my retirement papers arrived this past Saturday, probably just a fading memory in the Navy/Marine Corps collective-memory. UnRep/VertRep are tremendous opportunities in a operationary sense...I can see how some tactical complications can make implementing it in HCE become problematic. However, lets still try to see what we can make of it.

Picked up MiG Masters - Story of the F-8 Crusader by Barrett Tillman via inter-library loan last night with the hope that it will provide some more insight into the employment of Crusaders, and more specifically into how the original scenario may be better understood. MTF

WOW, bordering on TMI (Too Much Information)

From TMP Site

During and following the "French Connection" I have been reading up on the rules, and individual ideas in the yahoo admiralty trilogy group, for more insight into such air-to-ground attacks. 6.3.5 Air Attacks on Land Targets opens with specifically "Air attacks against ground targets are resolved in the same way as those against ships." As pointed out in some of the yahoo AT threads, this seems to lend itself to come up with a table for attacks on such targets, weighting the chance of hits based on the number and size of target found on the General Attack Table. Mention of the General Attack Table seems to indicate an ability to go ahead and target point targets be individual aircraft, which although noble seems to get somewhat down in the weeds and seemlingly below the intended scale of H4.1. My recent French retaliatory strike against the Yemeni airfield was somewhat of a hybrid. I "flew" the air defense suppression aircraft to the general airfield area and began to visually search for AAA sites, the strikers "flew" to a general target...either the control tower area, or the aircraft hardstand and then proceded to drops bombs on specific targets. I seem to like the "table approach" while providing for specific groups of planes to target specific point targets - runway, control tower, etc. Other AT Group chatter was to refer to the High Tide scenario book, and more specifically to Kola Strike, Combined Arms (Deep Strike II), and "Gaming the Kola Air Defenses" appendix. That did provide some ideas for gaming AAA point defenses over the target area. These are divided into large and smaller caliber positioned around the target facility, such as the yemeni airfield, so that not all of them will be in effective range of the raid. I can see going for point targets in smaller engagements, but for larger strikes, including as a potential start point, the eight striker french attack from saturday lended itself to a more generalized attack. Any other thoughts on conducting air strikes in H4 - individual planes on point targets -or- the more general groups of planes attacking targets that would be rolled for on a weighted, random table. Thanks

In my experience F-18's were always referred to as bugs, just as instead of their "given" names CH-46, AH-1, and CH-53 were Frogs, Snakes, and Hogs respectively. I didn't know that. For non-military people in the UK, a superbug is a nasty hospital acquired infection... Hehe, yep, F-18 Hornet = Bug, CH-46 Sea Knight = Frog, AH-1 Cobra = Snake, CH-53 Sea Stallion = Hog. All Marine Corps centric, not sure about navy terminology for their contemporaries.

In my experience F-18's were always referred to as bugs, just as instead of their "given" names CH-46, AH-1, and CH-53 were Frogs, Snakes, and Hogs respectively.

Thanks BP, it was an unplanned, "off-the-cuff" project.

Wish I could take credit for it, but the mark ups were supposed to represent smoke, except for the two spider like objects which were supposed to represent missed impacts. Nice "storyline", consider it part of the AAR.

All went well for the valiant pilots of the Aviation Navale. This morning, with 4x F-8E(FN) flying top cover, 8x Etendard IV M's launched from R99 Foch on a retalitory strike against the Yemeni air base of Al Hudaydah. The primary target being the 7x MiG-21 Fishbed's located on or around the hardstand in the airbases southest corner. The secondard target is the control tower facilities. The base defenses were provided by a battery of S-60 57mm/71//SON-9. Due to the scope of the airbase the battery was broken up into pairs in order to provide essentially point defense to the MiG's, the control tower, and maintenence facilities to the northeast. 2x Etendards were assigned as air defense suppression and flew 30 seconds ahead of the main strike element. The strike element had 6x Etendards; 4x assigned the hardstand area, while the remaining 2x assigned the control tower facility. The mission began at 0600 Local. While approaching low, the Air Traffic Control radar did detect the first approaching 2x Etendards at over 32nm, but it was determined that the fact was simply noted. When that redar operator then spotted the main strike element the alarm was sounded. Assuming 2x MiG's on alert-5, I rolled a d6 (5) and added it to the 5min to account for the early morning. 2x MiG's would get airborne by 0611. Throughout the scenario, the Yemeni radar operators earned their pay. The raid was detected by thr ATC, and the SON-9 also detected both elements at 0602.0 and 0602.5 respectively (17.5nm). As the air defense planes reached their two separate target areas, they both survived barrage fire by a pair of S-60's each. A single S-60 was put out of action near the ATC facility. The Etendard near the hard stand did not initially spot the guns and ended up rushing its attack, thereby missing both guns. At 0604.0, the strikers attack. The single gun at the ATC site fires at lose range, but misses, despite the non-maneuvering target modifier. The 2x Etendards assigned the ATC planted 2x EU-2 and 2x EU-3 dumb bombs causing catatrophic damage levels. The ATC had 50DP, while 122DP's were applied. These 2x Etendards then egress. At the Hardstand, the 4x strikers made two passes, 0604.0 and 0604.5, dropping 2-stick EU-2's the first pass, and 2-stick EU-3's on the second. Passing through whithering fire of the 2x S-60's firing at close range and against non-maneuvering targets, Dash-2 and Dash -3 reported hits on the first pass, while only Lead reported a hit on the second pass. The main strike element departs as a single Etendard IV P photo reconnaissance aircraft streaks through the target area in an effort to provide enough information for the mission planners to determine if a re-attack is necessary. Here are two of the photos.

Thanks BP, the links were great. Same for the info on the 2nd Gen Decoys, it was just a thought. As I read more deeply into the H4.1 rules, if the strikers were to employ them, or any other form of evasion on their bombing run, they would have an defensive ATA of 0.5. Either way, they will apparently have a 0.5 defensive ATA on the movement phase in which they drop their ordnance. As I remember it, the aircraft, after loitering around his IP (Initial Point) comes in low, screaming fast. Pops up and inverts..."I'm in the pop!". forward air controller gives him any last words of instruction, maybe "From lead's hits, 200 North". Pilot rolls back and calls "Wings Level!" - Controller "Cleared Hot!" - BOOM! Hope to get one run through this morning.

Couple of quick questions before launch. Which would be more likely of late 1970's French naval aviators...Dive Bombing from low altitude, or horizontal laydown from Very Low? Chances of success and survival lend toward laydown. Also, can anyone think of anything that would prevent the use of High Drag EU-2 and EU-3 dumb bombs? Thanks, I think I hear Foch calling flight quarters...in french of course.

The follow-on Strike scenario will be based upon the preceding dog fight. The actual incident's aircraft came from the French aircraft carrier Foch (R99), a Clemenceau Class CV. The aircraft will be an as of yet undetermined number of Etendard IV M's armed with 2x EU-2 250kg and 2x EU-3 500kg bombs, F-8E(FN)'s flying top cover, and to be followed up by a solitary Etendard IV P reconnaissance aircraft. High Tide data annex has Etendard IV M as having 2nd Gen Decoys - anyone want to dispute that? The base will be defended by a six-gun battery of S-60 57mm/71. Targets will include the "small" 50DP control tower, "small" 5DP MiG's on the hardstand, the AAA guns are "very small" and account for 5DP. Environmental conditions will need to be pre-determined as well as potential sighting match-ups in order to speed play.

Duh, found them. Thanks for pointing them out. Makes the strike even more plausible.