pmaidhof

Call me a cynic, maybe in the post-9/11 world of 2002-2003, maybe Iran felt it would be better to keep a low profile on the nuclear arms development front while US/western forces were displaying a willingness to use offensive military force in two of its border countries, and a third border country was told essentially either you are with us, or you will be considered an enemy as well. Iran may also have been given the same message as Pakistan, but given Iran's position, relations with the west or lack thereof, etc, they chose to just lay low for a while. As the US became increasingly involved in the ongoing Iraqi insurgency vice the offensive combat actions of the late winter/spring of 2003, Iran chose to become more confrontational, supporting certain Iraqi resistance elements, ramping up nuclear programs, challenging western forces in the northern Persian Gulf, etc. I would not be too quick to have one-big group hug with Iran just yet. Speak softly, carry a BIG stick, and verify what they are or are not doing at those facilities. This should be done by UN Mandate, with accountability.

That would involve a mighty big assumption of "pilot" proficiency. For example I have FA, but you and a few others can attest there is a reason for my infantry background, a compelling reason for me to stay on terra-firma.

Yeah, I'd agree, especially not having to crunch all the numbers - but then again that's fun too in a sick, sort of twisted way.

Hey now, let's stop all the bickering and chust-thumping and come up with the situation you want to see. 2x F-14D vs 2x F-18E or something else? Approaching head on or is another side "jumped"? Dstance apart at start? Any other start criteria? If it's this small number of aircraft getting in close, it might be better modeled by something like Clash of Arms "The Speed of Heat" instead of the abstracted furball in H4. I'm really annoyed at you guys as I just put TSoH back up in the attic on Saturday! Longer range engagement would stay in H4.1 and basically boil down to detection and launch of the radar-guided death ray

Report: Brit navy ill-equipped for a major war The Associated Press Posted : Sunday Dec 2, 2007 11:37:19 EST LONDON — Britain’s navy is no longer equipped to fight a major war because of years of underfunding and cutbacks, a newspaper said Sunday, quoting what it described as a leaked Ministry of Defense report. The Sunday Telegraph said the navy would have to struggle even to repeat its role in the Iraq war and is “far more vulnerable to unexpected shocks” because of its “under-resourced” fleet of “aging and operationally defective ships.” The paper said the report was ordered by Defense Secretary Des Browne and concludes: “The current material state of the fleet is not good; the Royal Navy would be challenged to mount a medium-scale operation in accordance with current policy against a technologically capable adversary.” Asked about the report on Saturday night, the Ministry of Defense said it always declines to comment about “leaked documents.” But it said it issued a statement saying: “The government values the Royal Navy greatly,” has invested billions of pounds in new ships and submarines, and ordered two new aircraft carriers “which will be state of the art technology and allow us to project force around the globe.” The ministry said the new ships will be far more capable than their predecessors. Find Navy Times article here.

This is for you Brains. Al Jaber Airbase This scenario is found in the Sands of War Expansion Kit. It takes place on maps 6 and 7. The USMC player is assigned the mission of securing the airfield building on map 7 and clearing Iraqi forces from all hexes within 4 hexes of the airfield buildings. The Iraqi player wins if these conditions are not met. If, despite the USMC player achieving his objectives, the Iraqi player can cause a hesitation in either the Marine infantry or tank battalion, the game is considered a draw. The Iraqi player can set up north of the 0800 hexrow on Map7. That places them no closer than 4 hexes of the airfield buildings, and the Iraqi player is given mines, trenches, wire, and bunkers. I set up a defensive line along the 0700 hexrow and centered on the airfield buildings 1km to the south. The Iraqi Mechanized battalion occupied only a limited frontage of these defensive works due to command range considerations. The counter attack would come from the northeast, in the form of the 1st and 2nd Tank Battalions, followed up with the Third Tank Battalion coming in from the northern map edge as reinforcements on Turn 1. The Marines start in or south of the east-west wadi on Map 6. The first thing noticed is that 1st Battalion 7th Marines (1/7) is traveling on their black cadillacs, while 3rd Tank Battalion is obviously using tracked movement. I decide to punch the tanks forward with the mission of securing the airfield buildings and order 1/7 to march forward in order to link up and on order clear the building 1km to the north of the airfield. Visibility for this scenario is only 10 hexes or 2500m. Turn 1 sees no contact. Turn 2 there is contact . USMC fires up the first Iraqi tank battalion causing one damaged T-55 platoon, seemingly harmless until at the end of the player turn that T-55 battalion fails its cohesion roll, abandoning the damaged vehicles and retreating max movement, out of LOS. Iraqi ineffectively fires Milan missiles from the defensive position as 2nd Tank Battalion (T-62’s) assumes as the lead unit in the counter attack. Turn 3 sees USMC 3rd Tank Battalion and Iraqi 2nd Tank Battalion go toe-to-toe, as the Iraqi 3rd Tank Battalion (T-55) comes up on line with the 2nd. DPICM salvoes crash into 2nd the Iraqi skirmish line. By Turn 4, I notice that I have a serious Gun-Target Line problem as a good portion of 1/7 has the tank duel between it and its objective. Essentially the USMC player is hosed scenario wise due to the Iraqi battalion defensive position sitting fat, dumb, and happy within the 4 hex radii of the airfield buildings. Iraqi’s expend their final rounds of Milan with nothing to show for it. USMC 3rd Tank Battalion is taking rounds as good as they are giving them, although it is beginning to become a concern. Turn 5 sees the end of the Iraqi T-62 platoon and M60A1’s and TOWs (finally!) get good hits capped off by a successful DPICM strike. Iraqi 2nd Tank Battalion hesitates, and then fails cohesion, when all is said and done, there is simply one tank platoon left of that battalion. Turn 6. A 1/7 dragon team finally gets in on the action but the dancing missiles miss their intended target. A reacting T-55 scores yet another hit on a Marine tank platoon. There is somewhat of a breakthrough as the Iraqi 1st and 3rd Tank Battalions are both hit and both fail their subsequent cohesion rolls, retreating backward out of the action. Turn 7 has the bloodied USMC 3rd Tank Battalion take Al Jaber airfield and the weaker half of 1/7 essentially get within small arms range of the Iraqi defensive position. It was here where I called the gme since there was not enough time and combat power for the USMC to push the Iraqi mechanized battalion from its improved position. Lessons Learned/Questions. Reaction Fire – Iraqis could have benefited more if Reaction Fire could be triggered from enemy fire as well as movement. Has this topic come up in these rule’s discussion before? My Gun-Target Line issue described above. Boo Hiss! Killed the scenario for all intents and purposes. Shame on me. TOW HMMWV sections/platoons are tough to utilized during an advance. If you leave them in operwatch they end up out of command. I suppose in a truly competitive game, that’s where the staff units could come in and command the overwatching TOW units for a turn or two. I need to revisit the “Regroup”, and “Take Command” optional rules. Again - I need to get the infantry vs Infantry battle process down. I'll keep these counters separate and try this scenario again in the near future.

Cool, but I still hold out hope for the RC submarine.

Thanks Herman. The join-RTB-Force Refuel has worked a handful of time today without any more problems.

Thanks Brad. So the possible work-around is, in sequence, order tankers to return to base (i.e. "Land Air" button), join tankers with those to be refueled, then force refuel by combo alt+r? Also, is the rule of thumb for assigning the number of tankers to a number of others or is it a matter of varying types of a/c within the group? In this case you mention 2 tankers for the 2x Prowlers and 3x Hornets. Thanks again.

I'm confident that this question has been answered in the past, but searches of the various folders did not come up with the answer. In practicing various strikes, I launched 3x strikers, and 2x prowlers, 1x S-3B Viking Tankers in support. I know the hotkey for forcing refuling is "alt+r". Im fairly certain that the refueler must be in the same group and the intended refuelees, so while they flew to the rendezvous point separately, I joined them. I then did the alt+r to no apparent effect. I tried it unsuccessfully with three aircraft types in the group, and then just two - the tanker and strikers - What would a typical refueling procedure look like in HCE? Thanks

That's what the Attack Squadron Commander told me. I ran another attack from the carrier. Due to my impatience, it was 4x F/A-18C/D equipped with 6x ADM-141C ITALD decoys each, 2x A-6E (GP), and supported by 2x EA-6B. Target was the Libyan Chemical Plant. The SAM barges as well as the northern-most Sa-10b battery, have been destroyed previously. Those Libyan air forces that have taken off have been harsely dealt with. It has been some time since any have launched. With the EA-6B section in support just off the coast, the two sections of 2x F/A-18C/D were assigned to precede the A-6E attack on the chem plant with decoy attacks on on the Sa-10b battery from both the northwest and northeast. While the decoys lead the way, the section of 2x A-6E's came in low. All worked according to plan until the Intruder egress when both were downed by unknown SAM in the vicinity of the destroyed "SA-10 Site 1" whose report indicates destroyed, and whose icon is somewhat "grayed out". As this scenario is a HC re-integration "test", the coordinated attack with electronic warfare and decoys went well, 'cept for the minor glitch of losing the two Intruders. Practice Practice Practice.

Thet are tough. I had a multi directional attack on a previously damaged Sa-10b battery with 2x EA-6B support. Attackers came in at Very Low and Military Power (probably suicidal) and did destroy the site, but a second "already damaged" site was not suppressed enough, knocking down 3x A-6Eand 1x F/A-18D. Practice Practice Practice.

Sunk, Now to deal with the land based Sa-10b's!

Thanks for clarifying. As you know I was non-HCCE (now HCE) compliant for some time.

SAM Barges. IIRC they cannot be sunk, probably derelic hulls sitting on the bottom. If launching anti-radiation missiles at a radar-guided SAM installation, do the combat effects take their toll on the "appropriate" radar sets of the installation?

I'm toying around in the 1.0 Vengeance found in the Mediterranean Battleset. I am maneuvering the CVBG back out of the Adriatic Sea and have both a CAP and an AEW + CAP up. The AEW aircraft detected a DDG Suffren in the Libyan port of Tubruk, which I investigate, outside of game, to find out it is a French built AAW destroyer. I believe that the French have had an on again off again love affair with Libya - is this ship considered hostile Libyan Navy, hostile French Navy, or friendly French Navy? Enjoying HCE...again.

I would not have guessed that in 1 BILLION years. Thank you, now go eat turkey.

Tony, For the unwashed heathens such as myself...WHAT does this MEAN, Man? BTW, Happy Thanksgiving to those of us who celebrate today (belated to Brad, Herman, Dale, et al.)

Before I installed it, I burned my own copy for back up. A .pdf copy of the users manual, if not already accompanying the download program (haven't fired it up yet), would be nice.

On Friday, I hope I'm not singing the refrains of: Christmas is coming... The goose is getting fat, Please put a copy of HCE in this old man's hat.

From the never ending battles over Thorpe Bridge, the following report is of a short skirmish using the GDW Assault (circa 1983) rules (as I describe as a manual TacOps). For those not familiar, the overall scenario was derived from a USMC Tacical Decision Game "problem found in the Marine Corps Gazette. The actual problem can still be found on the MCA's website. MCA TDG 99-4. Thorpe Bridge can be located on the center right of the TDG map. My hand drawn map of the environs around Thorpe Bridge is here. Hexes are 250m each. The bridge is centermass but partially obscured by flash on scotch tape..., damn scotch. Since Assault was US Army-NATO centric Marines never made an appearance if you discount the Royal Dutch Marines in a module called Chieftan. I homebrewed my LAV-25's and AAV's after comparing like vehicles from the rule's author's later game called Sands of War, TacOps, and other sources. I came up with a frontal armor of 5, Flank armor of 4, and Movement Allowance of 4, so 5-4-4. The gun perfomance was that of the M2 Bradley's 25mm chain gun which appears in the game. The opposing force is an OPFOR Regimental Reconnaissance Company of two platoons of BMP-2 and two platoons of BRDM-2. They approach in combat formation along Highway 9, from the north. The USMC LAR Company consists of three LAV-25 platoons and a section of LAV-25 (Company HQ), and enters along Highway 9 from the south. Turns are 5 minutes long and are essentially Move - Spot - Fire - Move - Spot. During the phasing players movement turns, the non-phasing may conduct opportunity fire provided they have assumed a "Cover"ed position their last movement turn. The first turn saw both forces enter the map, each proceding toward Thorpe Bridge. Turn 2 had the USMC move in its first movement phase and then spot one stack of OPFOR consisting of single platoons of both BMP's and BRDM-2 at a range of 2,750m. OPFOR has not yet spotted the LAVs. The second Movement Phase had two platoons enter into cover, while the third platoon and HQ moved to the west, up onto the lip of the high ground on Leon Ridge. During OPFOR's first movement, it gets to a range of 1,750m when the two platoons in cover open up, destroying the two steps of both the BMP and BRDM-2 platoons (each platoon consists of 2 steps, HQ or sections have only one step). The remainng OPFOR recon spot the firing LAV's, and in the ensuing Fire Phase the BMP platoon fires ATGMs and Small Caliber AP (SCAP) rounds missing with both (targets were in cover). The BRDM-2 fires wildly with its pea shooter, also missing. Since the Fire Phase is for both sides and considered simultaneous, the LAVs that moved to the hill now see the firing OPFOR and fires up the two platoons of BMPs and BRDMs respectively, at a range of 2,250m. I look forward to finding the time to now have the remainder of the OPFOR Regiment arrive, pushing south along with some Marines from the south. Who knows. All in all, rated enjoyable.

...tick...tick...tick...

While ASW Training is nowhere near the levels it should be, what did the Swedish Sub and crew do for the year it hung out in San Diego....oh yeah...never mind. Coronado

Wargames of the 70's and 80's have such allure, it's unreal. Whether is nostalgia or just plain cool, I don't know. I have spent the better part of the 21st Century re-acquiring many of the wargames that, over the years, I jettisoned for whatever the reason. I demand an AAR Tony.

N. Korea thanks U.S. for fighting pirates By Burt Herman - The Associated Press Posted : Friday Nov 9, 2007 8:26:16 EST SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea expressed rare gratitude Thursday for U.S. help in ending a high-seas standoff with Somali pirates, a sign of warming ties between the longtime foes fostered by progress on Pyongyang’s nuclear disarmament. The U.S. Navy’s aid to North Korean sailors last week was unprecedented in the half-century of hostility between the Cold War enemies, according to the Naval Historical Center in Washington, D.C. The North’s Korean Central News Agency hailed the maritime collaboration as a “symbol of cooperation” between the two countries “in the struggle against terrorism.” “The pirates’ recent armed attack on our trading ship was a grave terrorist act perpetrated against a peaceful ship,” KCNA said. “We feel grateful to the United States for its assistance given to our crewmen.” The last notable maritime encounter between the two countries was in 1968, when the North seized the USS Pueblo while it was on an intelligence-gathering mission off the North Korean coast and held 82 Americans as prisoners of war for 11 months. The USS Pueblo is the only active-duty U.S. warship in the hands of a foreign power and remains on display as a tourist attraction in Pyongyang. Navy records show the ship was in international waters when it was captured, but North Korea insists it was inside the Korean coastal zone. In a dramatic turnabout nearly four decades later, the U.S. Navy came to the aid of the North Korean cargo ship Dai Hong Dan, whose crew overpowered Somali pirates in a bloody battle. After the crew regained control of the ship, Navy personnel boarded it at the North Koreans’ invitation to treat wounded sailors and hijackers. “This is a very interesting new direction between the U.S. and North Korea,” said Maochun Yu, a professor of history at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. “It adds a little bit of complexity between the U.S. and North Korea. This one adds a human face, shows humanitarian aid is part of the U.S. mission.” In an unusually detailed report, the KCNA news agency said the destroyer James E. Williams and a helicopter rushed to the scene and “helped the (North Korean) sailors in fighting, threatening the pirates” via radio. Seven pirates disguised as guards boarded the vessel Oct. 29 while it was in port in Mogadishu, Somalia, KCNA reported. It said they demanded $15,000 and to be taken wherever they wanted. The North Koreans fought back after seizing weapons from two pirates guarding the ship’s engine room and regained control 20 hours after being taken captive, KCNA said. One pirate was killed. “As shown by our crewmen through their actions, it is the disposition of the Korean people to fight out any terrorist act on the spot though they are empty-handed,” the report said in the first public mention by the North of the episode. Washington has downplayed the significance of its assistance to the North — even though the two countries remain technically at war since the Korean War ended in a 1953 cease-fire. The U.S. led a U.N.-authorized coalition in the three-year conflict, and 28,000 American troops remain deployed in South Korea. “We fulfilled our responsibilities as a responsible member of international maritime organizations and treaties and responded to a distress signal on the high seas,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in response to the North’s expression of gratitude. It was the second time in two months that Pyongyang has thanked Washington, reflecting the friendly mood between the two countries spawned by progress in their prolonged standoff over the North’s nuclear weapons programs. In September, the North’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement thanking the U.S. for providing emergency relief supplies after the worst floods in decades devastated the impoverished nation. Pyongyang shut down its sole functioning nuclear reactor in July under a February deal with the U.S., China, Japan, South Korea and Russia in exchange for political and economic concessions. It is now moving to disable its atomic facilities by year-end under watch of U.S. experts, meaning they will not be able to be quickly restarted. One of the North’s key demands in exchange for cooperating on disarmament has been to be removed from a U.S. blacklist of states that sponsor terrorism. In Thursday’s report on the ship hijacking, North Korea sought to advance such hopes. “It is the consistent principled stand of the government to oppose all sorts of terrorism,” KCNA said. “We will continue to render international cooperation in the fight against terrorism.” North Korea was put on the terrorist list for involvement in the 1987 bombing of a South Korean civilian jet that killed all 115 people aboard. Find NavyTimes article here.