kcdusk

Left my notes at work, so update still to come, including results of Buc with Sea Eagle (!). "Trust" CV32? No worries if its in a SITREP. Just making sure i was reading my Annex correctly. Correct re Harpoon not on a Buc. Sea Eagle was used and it looks similar to Harpoon. Does anyone else play "pen and paper" Harpoon, or mainly the PC version?

I cant see that the AS37 is a terminal manouver missile ... total response tonight after i finish work. Also, I'm going with the Buccanear using a (da da dummmmm), Harpoon. That is the name of the game, after all.

I'm going to re-run this with the corrections. Then i'm doing to do a NATO v similar for comparison. What NATO or USA aircraft is likely to perform Air to ship duties?

Some excellent points for me to follow up, thanks. Time for me to hit the books ...

Two Mirages’ are tasked with engaging a Perry class frigate. In the war room based not far from the coast, the two Mirage pilots go over their plan to attack their Perry class target. Each Mirage has an option to carry one of two weapons, and the pilots have decided to carry one of each in a co-ordinated attack. Piper 1 will carry an AS-37 missile, which is an anti radiation missile that will home in on the Perrys radar while she has it active. Under this blanket of radar darkness, Piper 2 will launch its AS-30 from a range of 5 miles. The pilots consider the most likely case that the Perry turns her radar off and is unable to direct air defences against the AS-30, which inflicts major damage on the Perry including numerous critical hits. Best case, the Perry leaves her radar on to direct anti-air defences, and the AS-37 hits as well. Neither pilot wishes to consider the worst case scenario. The Mirages surface search radars are only good out to a distance of 8.0 miles. So they are “vectored” onto the target while cruising at medium altitude. At a distance of 30 miles out both Mirages “hit the deck” and go to low altitude and full military power of 670kts. Piper 1 launches its AS-37 anti radiation missile from a range of 30 miles, and continues to fly towards the Perry in an effort to provide 2 targets and some protection to Piper 2 which is carrying the other guided missile which has a relatively short range of 5.0nm. The opposition Perry is a very sophisticated vessel. Her air search radar picked up both bogies at a range of over 100 miles and has been tracking them since, even after both Mirages dropped to Low altitude. The Perry detects the anti radiation launch and has to decide whether to keep her radar on or “go blind”. If the Perry goes blind, her main air defence system (Phalanx) is inoperable while her secondary air defence system (76mm) might actually have a higher chance of success if the radar is off. If he keeps his radar active, he can see what is happening around him but provides the AS-37 with an opportunity to impact his vessel. The Captain of the Perry decides to trust the technology around him, and keep his radar active. This means the Mirages potentially have 2 missiles which could hit the Perry, however the captain is backing his air defences will keep him safe from harm. The AS-37 anti-radiation missile arrives at the Perry and is the first combat resolution required. While at a range of 3.5nm the Perry fires her 76mm anti-air gun, and because the AS-37 is non-manoeuvring it becomes an easy “kill” for the large calibre weapon. Splash one anti-radiation missile. Having cleared this hurdle, the Perry is in very good shape to see off Piper 2. In fact, the Perry is able to go on the offensive. When both Mirages are at a range of 16.0 miles she fires 3 SM1MR missiles at the incoming bogies. 2 missiles are designated for Piper 1 with the remaining missile assigned to Piper 2. Without any countermeasures, each Mirage has a 60% chance of being hit by the anti-air missile. Missile 1 & 2 both hit Piper 1, bringing it down. Missile 3 hits Piper 2, also ending its mission. Despite being attacked by an anti-radiation missile, by keeping its radar active the Perry was able to shoot down the incoming missile and engage and defeat 2 opposition aircraft before they could get into range to launch their primary anti-ship missile. Follow up points I selected Mirage 5’s (French) because it’s a plane I was familiar with as a kid. Its only now, with all the data and information in Harpoon that I’m able to start to work out its strengths and weaknesses as I see them from my non-military background. I selected the Perry as a target, because it seems to be a “common” USA ship and so was numerically likely to be in the firing line. I started the scenario by looking at what the Mirage options were, and I thought I could get the Perry to turns its radar off and see if Piper 2 could get a hit with its own missile without opposition. Of course, it didn’t turn out this way but I don’t see what other options the Mirage pilots had. The SM1MR weapon system really turned the tide in the Perrys favour by allowing her to go on the offensive. Once the anti-radiation missile was on its way, I put myself in the shoes of the Perry captain, what would he do? It felt strange to turn its radar off, even though initially I thought that’s what I would have to do. What convinced me to keep the radar on though was the Phalanx system and its 80% chance of killing off the anti-radiation missile. If the 76mm missed, there was still an excellent chance the Perry would not “take a hit”. So I kept radars on. Moving down the options available to the Perry, I came across the SM1MR and its 25.0 mile range, far in excess of the 5.0 mile range the Mirage anti ship missile had, and it was scenario over. For kicks, I assumed the last Mirage still had its AS-30 anti-ship missile and was able to release it at the Perry from 5 miles. And again, the 76mm was able to knock down the inbound missile. 6.4.1.1 air defense gun hit chance modifiers say non-manouevering aircraft above vlow and slower than 1,000kts have their hit chance doubled, so this works against the AS-30. Making matters worse, it doesn’t qualify for any defensive benefits. Its too slow, too high (ie not sea skimming) and not stealthy to get any defensive benefits and is shot down easily by the Perrys secondary defence system (The Phalanx seems much more capable than the 76mm gun but was never called into action).

Yeah, good point about the Spruance. I dont have any knowledge on units roles or tactics, except for whats in the Data Annexs. So advice or background on units is good.

All 3 units ran blindly fast for a time, putting distance between themselves and the point of contact, and any possible torpedoes launched in their direction. At some point, they all slowed, checked they were not being chased. The hunt for a needle in a haystack started over again. The weather had not improved, sea state of 5 remained. This was likely good news for the submarines. It was the Krivak that took up the search first, and most actively. With passive range of only half a mile the Krivak was searching with its active sonar. However the state of the seas (x 0.5) and anechoic coating (x 0.5) meant the LA class submarine would have to be within a mile and a half to even have a chance of being detected. The Krivak was perhaps nothing more than bait. The LA class was cruising along slowly too, above the layer, taking stock of what its own passive sonar could pick up. Under current conditions the LA class could detect the Krivak beginning at 6 miles. And the Delta at 3 miles. Skulking below the layer was the Delta. By chance (random die roll for start locations) the Delta was again between the Improved LA class submarine and the Krivak. The Deltas passive sonar had a number of items working against it, and would prove to be remarkably ineffective. A very quiet target, in a noisy sea, on the other side of the layer, combined to give an effective sonar range at most of half a mile. Perhaps the only benefit the Delta had compared to the Krivak was that at least it would be more difficult to find compared to the surface ship. The game plan was for the LA Class to find and fire on the Krivak, hopefully giving its position away and allowing the Delta an even chance at finding her. Suddenly, the LA gets a ping! The contact is noted as a submarine of some sort, and immediately a Good TMA is obtained. No shot is taken however, as the submarine has not been positively identified. Unknown to the LA class is that the range is 3.0 miles. Contact is lost for 9 minutes. When it is regained, the LA determines that it’s a Russian submarine but cannot discern its class. A TMA solution is recalculated and comes back Good! No shot is taken, and unknown to the LA Class the range is now 1.0 mile. The pattern is repeated at half a mile, however the Delta has a chance of detecting its opposition but fails. At zero range, the LA class identifies the submarine as the Delta and 2 torpedoes are launched. The Delta fails to detect anything, even the launch of the torpedoes. Launching torpedoes at such close range sends me searching through my rule book. I was not able to find anything on “minimum ranges”. Because of the vast size of the ocean and any number of rounding variables, while I have the range listed as 0.0 miles, I allow the torpedo to run its course to the Delta assuming the real range is “less than” half a mile. Even so, in writing this down it feels “wrong”. At 0.25 of a mile (400 meters) it seems too short a time for a torpedo to go active and engage an enemy submarine. In the interests of seeking an outcome, two torpedos are fired. Wires break 20% of the time. T1 = OK. T2 = breaks. T1 is a 3rd generation MK48 torpedo against a target that hasn’t heard the noisy launch, as such there are no evasive manoeuvres or countermeasures released, resulting in a 75% chance of the Delta being hit. (Die roll …..) the first Mk 48 torpedo slams into the Delta II. 75 damage points are inflicted. The Delta II is a huge submarine, and rolls with the punch (167 damage points less 75 damage points leaves 92 remaining). The Delta II has its top speed underwater reduced from 24kts to 18kts. 6 critical hits are recorded. Critical hits come in over the comms “Pressure hull, engineering, engineering, Bridge, engineering and flooding”. The first critical hit is enough to finish off the Delta II. A pressure hull critical hit results in catastrophic flooding and being below the layer, and it is unable to perform an emergency surface and immediately sinks. A mountain of white water explodes to the surface. The Krivak, some 7 miles away, fails to detect it. The crew aboard the LA class are rocked violently from side to side, the torpedo had only just left its tube, before it seemed to erupt right next to them. The sonar operator is laying on the floor, having fallen from his seat, unable to hear anything due to the ringing in his ears. Disorientated, he points uselessly to his ears to indicate “he cant hear anything”. Across the room, one of the officers working the charts mutters under his breath “man down”. Its unclear if he was referring to the sonar operator, the sinking Delta or a basket that was made against the current president whom had been playing defence with his hands down. The LA waited pensively in silence, waited for ambient noise to return to normal so they could re-establish their surrounds. Ping! Contact!, Soviet warship. Good TMA. (silence), lost him sir! Ping! Contact! Soviet warship, Krivak class! TMA is good! Decision time for the Captain: how far away was the Krivak? They’d picked her up twice now, in the last 9 minutes. Was the Krivak as close as the Delta had been? Or more distant? Did he risk active sonar to determine range, with the risk of alerting the Krivak and giving his position at the same time? If he launched did he set the fish for fast speed but shorter range, or slow speed with longer range? Thinking the options through he realised the contact must be reasonably close, given the condition of the sea topside. 9 minutes had passed since it was first detected, so whatever range there was, was closing. Launch 2 tubes! Unknown to the Captain but known to us, range at time of firing was 4 miles. 2 x Mk48 torpedoes speed off into the black. Both trailing wires. 3 minutes later they were just over halfway to their intended target, and a critical time was reached for the Krivak. She failed to detect either incoming torpedo! Forfeiting the chance to jinx or release countermeasures. Both torpedoes hit home. The Krivak sinks quickly. Observations: The units in this scenario came about simply because I happened to have there stats with me at the time and it saved digging my data annexs out to come up with new units. Submarines use passive sonar so that they are harder to detect. But using passive sonar only gives a bearing and an opportunity to classify a target, not a distance. Not knowing the distance can be very disconcerting for the submarine. The Krivak was using its active sonar. The sea was noisy, the Krivaks passive sonar is next to useless (0.5 mile range), so it made tactical sense (to me) to go active. However both the loud explosion of the Delta and the noisy weapon launch of the final two torpedoes, were more likely to be heard by passive sonar than the active sonar. The Krivak was using the wrong sonar type at the wrong time. The sea state (level 5) favoured the Improved LA class submarine, which was already at an advantage because of its higher level of specifications. But this still didn’t feel like a walk in the park that the result might indicate on paper. Next up, I hope to pit a USA Class ship (I chose the Perry in the end) against a state of the art Soviet sub (I have since chose the Akula class. These bad boys look deadly). Which USA class ship should I use? I thought the Perry was more of an anti-submarine ship than say the Kidd class. The Perry is smaller (presumably cheaper), more numerous and its role is probably to screen more valuable ships. But comparing the two, it seems the Kidd is more capable (even if ASW is not its intended role). Both have 2G towed acoustic counter measures, both are quiet, both have helecopters (which I have tended not to use), so that’s all a wash. But surprising to me, the Kidd has better sonar (4.7nm passive range compared to the Perrys 3.0nm passive range).

Took about 2.5 hours of real time to play this out. Krivak's going to have trouble finding the LA i think, with rough seas (sea state: 5). We'll see.

In the middle of the North Atlantic, a storm is blowing topside producing level 5 seas. A Russian Krivak steams at 15kts towards its rendezvous point. 10 miles ahead of her a Delta II nuclear submarine prowls, making sure the way is clear. At the same time, an Improved LA class submarine is heading towards them. Neither side is aware of the others approach. The engagement started with 30 miles separating the combatants. A combination of her poor passive range and the state of the sea meant the Krivak was essentially traveling blind. Besides, the Delta II was employed to do the detection work if any submarines were in their way. Like all good submariners are taught, the Delta was travelling using passive sonar. Its true she had a better chance of detecting the LA class sub, almost double the chance of the Krivak. But the LA had 2 huge advantages over the Delta II. One, the old Delta was a noisy boat. And two, the LA’s passive sonar was twice as sensitive than the Delta’s. Combined, this meant the LA could potentially detect the Delta at a range of 23 miles, while the Delta would have to wait until the distance closed to 1.3 miles. The difference in technologies and build dates was that great. The distance closed reasonably quickly, and the LA picked up a ping on its sonar when the range was just on 15 miles (although using passive sonar, they did not know the distance). The sonar operator had his wits about him and against the odds immediately identified the contact as a Russian Delta. The LA class was able to keep contact for 3 of the next 4 tactical turns (3 minute turns). At that point, the NATO sub slowed to 8kts while both soviet opposition remained unaware of the enemy stalking them nearby. When the range between the two submarines closed to 7 miles, the LA class picked up a second contact, and again was able to identify the contact straight away (Krivak). The Captain of the LA called for a TMA on the Delta and Krivak. It took 9 minutes before a good solution was obtained on the Delta and a fair solution was made on the Krivak. Having a good target solution and not knowing the distances involved either of the contacts, the decision was made to fire 4 torpedos. 2 fast running wire guided torpedoes were fired at the Delta, which at this stage was only 2.3 miles away. A fast running and a slow running torpedo with no wires was fired at the Krivak, which unknown to the LA class was still 12 miles distant. The first 2 torpedoes arrived on the Delta almost immediately. Having detected the launch, speed was increased, evasive manovours were taken and acoustic countermeasures released. Incredibly, both torpedoes missed! The Krivak was unaware of the battle taking place ahead of her or the two torpedoes on her bearing. The fast running torpedo arrived on target …. And missed. A short time later the slow running fish arrived …. And missed as well! Despite being unseen and having good fire solutions, all 4 torpedoes missed their targets (in game terms, for various reasons each of the 4 torpedoes had a hit probability of 45%. 4 die rolls were made and all were over 45!). The Delta II did not have a fix on the LA sub and broke off, eventually radioing the danger to the Krivak. Meanwhile the Improved LA class submarine broke off too, unsure if her position had been pinpointed because of the noisy launch. The stalk would have to start again from scratch.

Can anyone suggest some good harpoon flavoured novels? Would anyone recommend these authors? Michael DiMercurio Joe Buff Jeff Edwards

Well ....... what happened next???

Hello CV32 (& others). I'm a pen & paper harpoon guy. But i have loved reading the AAR and scenario ideas in the PC section. Couple of quick questions; 1. Will Harpoon play on a mac? 2. How long (time) roughly do the smaller scenarios take, or how long do you spend playing a game (i know you can modify the game speed up/down)? 3. Can anyone point me to any real life Sub v Sub AAR's (even training drills) that i could read?

Hang in there Sharker. When i started, the learning curve was steep. Like you, i asked a few questions here and was soon able to get into it. I've played a lot (maybe 15?) of small scenarios. Just little DIY stuff to get started, single unit against single unit because it is time consuming. Sub verse sub, Sub verse ship, ship verse ship. Aircraft rules seem quicker and easier. I've played a couple of 2 v 1 scenarios out, but thats the most i'll go to using graph paper. Its worth having a read of many of the after action reports that are available. They can show you what others have been doing, theres often some clarification arounds rules, and they can be inspirational. Generally, give this page a look http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/forum/12-scenario-design-discussion/ If your using a Perry, this scenario specifically might help http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?/topic/15225-victor-iii-v-perry-class/ Stick with it. Its a great game, worth learning - you do learn allot about real life capabilities and from that flows tactics. It can be slow, but i've always found it allot of fun.

I've read the blurb at CoA. Does anyone know more about the game ... 1. is Steel Typhoons a pen and paper game like harpoon? 2. does anyone know if you can control individual sub, plane, or ship (like in Harpoon)? 3. Or is the game more "massed combat" of navies rather than individual units? 4. solitaire?

Excellent work fellas. I heard about this the other day, logged in here to readup on the latest, and am looking forward to reading the articles. South Atlantic War (module) II?

I'm an absolute newb when it comes to ships & their weapon systems. Everything in my "analysis" is just what i've assumed from reading H4.1 data annexs. Part of the reason for the write up, was to help me see how ships stack up, what extremes there might be in terms of ranges, to hit chances etc. ... basically to try and get a feel for which ships are good/bad and what the advantages and disadvantages are. From the earlier "Perry" post, i knew at the start that trying to determine which ship is "better" was going to be hard, and would depend on how you defined "better". Better overall? Better at its specific role? It all depends on how you frame the question. Good points about how many targets each unit can track and engage. I picked it up through my reading, but didnt think to mention it. I didnt know the Atlant was called a "Slava". You have no idea how often i wrote Atlanta during my draft! Yes, thanks about the Block I thing. Again, i read Block II came out in 1984 and made a mental note to mention it, but sometimes i'm taking so much in and not writing it down for later recollection, stuff gets missed. Warhorse, great comment/pickup about the towed sonar. Its stuff like that i appreciate, "tactics" almost of how to use something. I was thinking it was only there as a "spare" but what you've pointed out about the layer makes allot of sense, but isnt something i'd have thought of. Thanks everyone for going through the write up.

Physically Both ships were made in 1983, so that is where I will draw the line for comparison, how capable were each when they first floated. Both are Medium size warships. The Ticonderoga gains a small advantage because it is "quiet" whereas the Atlant is "noisy". Small advantage Ticonderoga. The Ticonderoga is capable of 30kts while the Atlant is slightly faster at 32kts. Is this much of a difference? Its equivalent to 2 miles per hour faster. Or 48 miles over a 24 hour period (depending on the scale of your game). To be honest, the difference would be close to none in my own games. Even. The Ticonderoga has 204 damage points while the Atlant has 232. Its a small difference in the Atlants favour. Is an extra 28 damage points material? Let me try for some perspective. A Maverick causes 27 damage points, an Exocet missile inflicts 33 damage points, Harpoon is 45 damage points and a Russian Grumble (found on the Atlant) causes 18dp. Whereas I think 2kts is not worthy of an advantage in terms of speed, I think an extra 28 damage points is worthy of an advantage. Apart from being able to absorb an extra Maverick for example, it will also impact on the amount of critical hits when the damage ratio is calculated. Small advantage Atlant. The Ticonderoga has CPP (controllable pitch propellers. See 3.1.1) while the Atlant doesn't. CPP allows faster acceleration & faster deceleration. In my view this would only be an advantage in close-in combat, most likely encountered when outrunning torpedoes are involved. Very small advantage Ticonderoga. Determining an overall grade comes down to the Ticonderoga being quiet and the Atlant having 28 extra damage points. Which advantage would you rather have? I was leaning towards the quiet vessel using the "prevention (of detection)" is better than a cure (having more damage points available). But this really only applies when submarines are involved, so maybe the small advantage isnt even that big, in fact maybe the advantage swings back to the Atlant since those extra damage points come into play whether the opposition is a submarine, aircraft or another ship! Grrrrrrr. Too close to call, Even. Sensors Given both ships birthdays are the same year, it will be interesting to see the difference in Sensor performance, which often ends up being a straight IT comparison of the day. Countermeasures Ticonderoga ACM: 2G towed ECM: 3G Jam & Decoy ESM: 3G Atlant ACM: None ECM: 2G Jam & Decoy ESM: 2G A clear advantage to the Ticonderoga in all 3 cases. The Atlant doesn't have any acoustic countermeasures and is a generation behind in terms of electronic countermeasures and electromagnetic support measures. Advantage Ticonderoga. Surface radar Ticonderoga surface 57 32 18 10 6 Atlant surface 30 30 20 11 6 Interesting how the Ticonderoga can detect large and medium sized ships at longer range, and then the Atlant can detect smaller ships at longer ranges. Even. Air radar Ticonderoga air 284 213 159 68 20 Atlant air 243 153 114 49 15 The Ticonderoga can detect air units out at longer ranges, so it appears to have a small advantage. Sonar Ticonderoga has a hull mounted sonar with an active range of 4.7nm and a passive range of 2.1nm, low frequency - medium frequency. Atlant has a hull mounted sonar with an active range of 3.8nm and a passive range of 0.9nm, medium frequency. The Atlant also has a towed array sonar with the same details (3.8nm/0.9nm/MF) as its hull mount. A bit off topic, but the Ticonderoga looks to have a massive advantage when it comes to engagements against submarines. The Atlant doesn't seem to be equipped to deal with them at all. The Atlant is less agile, has no acoustic countermeasures & while it has a competent sonar it is not as powerful at the Ticonderoga's (see the example under Perry v Cornwall to see the large impact a small difference in sonars has in detecting submarines). Its true the Atlant has a backup towed sonar that the Ticonderoga doesn't have, but it is not enough. Advantage Ticonderoga. The Ticonderoga has the advantage in countermeasures, surface radars are even, air radar is small advantage Ticonderoga and sonar is advantage Ticonderoga as well. Big advantage to the Ticonderoga in this most important category, where being able to detect the enemy and fire first is often who wins the engagement. 3. Weapons Defence first. The Ticonderoga has 2 mounts x 127mm 5.2nm 35% 10% manual load, small magazine 2 mounts x Mk 15 Phalanx 1.2nm 80% 50% SSC, manual load, small magazine 2 mounts x Mk 38 Bushmaster 1.5nm 15% 5% manual load, small magazine 4 mounts x 12.7mm 2 mounts x SM2SR II or III block (ROF 4) 90.0/100nm 2G/3G 5/6ATA SSC Atlant 6 mounts x 30mm 1.8nm 60% 30% SSC, manual load, small magazine 1 mount x 6A Grumble (ROF 8) 40.5nm 3G 6.0ATA SSC 6 targets with 2 missiles each 2 mounts x 4B Gecko (ROF 2) 6.5nm 2G 4.5ATA SSC 2 missiles at same target Close in air defence favours the Ticonderoga. That Phalanx system which is sea skimmer capable and has such high too hit numbers is hard to beat. But I have to admit I'm impressed by the Atlats long range air defence. The Grumble and Gecko launchers have high ROF & are SSC. I don't think there is a clear winner here. I don't think I can pick a close winner either. I have not delved into which arcs each weapon covers, it adds too much complication and I am not convinced there is any benefit at that level. Even. Worth noting both ships have manual loading and small magazines for many of their weapons which is another thing I did not expect. I can understand smaller frigates having limited space and therefore small magazines, but not larger cruisers. Offensive capability Ticonderoga 2 mounts x 127mm 13.0nm 65% 33% 12/4 damage points light armour penetration. manual load, small magazine 2 mounts x SM2SR II or III block (ROF 4) 25nm 2G/3G 5 damage points Harpoon (ROF 8) 75nm 3G 45 damage points surface skimmer, terminal manouver, (I"m not sure what "3W" means in the remarks?) Atlant 2 mounts x 130mm 12.5nm 65% 33% 35/11 damage points light armour penetration Sandbox (ROF 4) 300nm 3G 167 damage points terminal dive Grumble (ROF 8) 25nm 3G 18 damage points Gecko (ROF 2) 6.5nm 2G 3 damage points I'll admit, i'm surprised at how under gunned the Ticonderoga is. Apart from those Harpoons its pretty light on for offensive weaponry. The Atlant by contrast looks pretty formidable against the Ticonderoga. Those Sandboxs look like fun! However while they pack great power (range 300nm and high damage points 167) i wonder if they are ever able to land a blow, not being sea skimmers i figure they will be easier to shoot down? But if even one got through, its game over! By contrast the Ticonderoga needs to land 4 or 5 harpoons to cause an equivalent amount of damage. Guns and the odd smaller missiles cancel each other out. In the heat of warefare i'm betting one Sandbox will ruin your day. Against surface targets its Advantage Atlant. The Ticonderoga has 6 torpedo tubes and 3rd generation Mk 46 torpedos with a range of 6.0nm moving at 45kts doing 11 points of damage against submarines only. The Atlant has 10(yikes!) torpedo tubes and 1st generation SET-65 torpedos with a range of 8.3nm moving at 40kts doing 51 points of damage against submarines only. Both Cruisers are only able to use their torpedoes against submarines. Ticonderogas advantage is 3rd generation torpedoes. Atlants advantage is its 51 points of damage. While they only do 11 points of damage, i think being 3rd generation trumps the 1st generation soviet torpedoes. Advantage Ticonderoga. Both ships have helicopters. No grade given. Overall 1. Physical advantage Even. 2. Sensors advantage Ticonderoga . 3. Weapons. Air defence even. Anti-surface advantage Atlant. Torpedoes advantage Ticonderoga. 4. Overall it feels closer than i would have thought. The Ticonderoga's ability to detect a foe combined with higher generation countermeasures makes me think it could survive a conventional battle better than the Atlant. And like a boxer with a good jab, the Ticonderoga looks more likely to land smaller blows on a regular basis against the Atlant which comes across as a bit of a one-hit-wonder, throwing haymakers. Its game over if it lands a punch, but many of them wont hit their target. I prefer the Ticonderogas countermeasures, ability to engage submarines and surer if less powerful offence. Have i missed anything? Do you agree? Any surprises?

One of my favourite games used to be 2nd Fleet, due to its focus on the cold war / greenland-UK-iceland gap. And one of my favouite units froms that game was the "Ticonderoga". With that as my starting point, i set out to find an approximate Soviet equivalent to compare it too. I quickly found the Project 1164 Atlant. I'd never heard of it. The Atlant is same type of ship (CG) and it even has the same build year (1983). On paper, it looks to be the perfect match of NATA v Soviet guided missile cruisers. How do they stack up from a H4.1 point of view? Coming soon 1. Physically 2. Sensors 3. Weapons 4. Overall

Full discussion up.

Just realised i missed "sonars" under the sensors write up. I'll adress it tonight when i put the next update up.

Hey, thanks for the comments. Main post updated. Fingers crossed another slow day at work and i can finish this off. Next, i hope to do a similar comparison of a NATO v Soviet unit that may have gone head to head. Well done TonyE about the Perrys single screw ... i had picked it up in the Perrys notes of my data annex (double engineering critical hits) and hoped it would be a surprise to people! Still, i'm happy that the game is able to take the real life issue into account somehow, it lends credability to the rules and makes each unit unique rather than each cardboard ship being the same as the next. I'm sure the issue of "best" and how to define a "winner" will come up again when i get to the end and am able to take everything into account. I'm sure others reading this may have their own views also. I wonder what the split is here between USA and European based posters? And if nationality will colour anyones thinking?

American "Perry" class Frigate contrasted to British "Cornwall" Type 22/3 Frigate. I was feeling in an analytically mood. I didn't have the patience to game out an encounter, and found myself wondering what vessel would be "better" between an early model American frigate (I ended up choosing the Perry) and a later build British vessel (which ended up being the Cornwall). I know next to nothing about any warship and saw this as an exercise to contrast some strengths and weaknesses. One of my first problems was how to define "better"? For the sake of this exercise I decided it would come down to "which vessel would I rather be on", or more simply, it became a matter of survivability. However I could see the merit in trying to make a call on which vessel better achieved its stated goal. And so suddenly, instead of comparing stats from my data annexes I found myself at wiki ... The Perry was built as an inexpensive, general purpose escort ship. Originally designed as a specialist anti-submarine ship, the Cornwall developed into a general purpose frigate for use against submarines, other surface ships and aircraft. Soooo both are frigates and general purpose in nature, however I expected the Cornwall to be better suited to ASW and the Perry better in a picket line shooting down incoming missiles. Physically The older (1977) Perry is smaller (2770std) than the 1988 built Cornwall (4280std) but both are considered small and quiet for game purposes. The Cornwall is 1knt faster at 30kts to the Perry 29kts. The difference in size partly accounts for the difference in damage points. 86 damage points for the Perry and 152 for the Cornwall. The 1977 model Perry also is a single shaft so engineering critical hits are doubled. Advantage: Cornwall Sensors One of my intrigues was comparing an OLDER American ship against a NEWER British one. America is usually seen as being more technologically advanced but in this case there is a "time" handicap since the Cornwall is 11 years younger. I thought this difference would show itself in the quality of sensors. For ease of comparison I will contrast them item by item Perry ACM: 2G towed ECM: 3G Decoy ESM: 3G Cornwall ACM: 2G towed ECM: 3G Decoy & Jam ESM: 3G Pretty close huh? The only difference being the Cornwall has Jaming electronic countermeasures. Small advantage Cornwall. I also include Radar and sonar under sensors. Looking at Radars first; Perry surface radar 36 32 18 10 6 Cornwall surface radar 41 23 13 7 4 Interesting the Cornwall can detect large ships at a greater distance than the Perry, but all other ship sizes the Perry has the smallest advantage. Perry air radar 284 213 159 68 20 Cornwall air radar I am unable to find the Cornwalls Radar 967/968 rader in my data annex (J naval radar)? Any ideas anyone? Sonar Perry has a hull mounted sonar with an active range of 3.0nm and a passive range of 1.3nm, medium frequency. Cornwall has a hull mounted sonar with an active range of 4.3nm and a passive range of 2.1nm, medium frequency. The difference in ranges doesn't appear much. However when hunting (or being hunted!) by a submarine, the ranges are "close", and the way H4.1 rules work with 25%/50%75% detection percentages, range differences are critical. For example lets look at both units trying to detect the same very quiet soviet submarine travelling at 5kts. Perry 25% chance at 2.3nm 50% chance at 1.7nm 75% chance at 0.6nm Cornwall 25% chance at 3.2nm 50% chance at 2.4nm 75% chance at 0.9nm The ranges still look close, hardly worth it. But a submarine travelling at 5kts moves 0.25nm in a 3 minute tactical turn. Both ships trying to detect the sub with range closing by 0.25nm per tactical turn looks like this. Turn Range Perry Cornwall 1 3.2nm 0% 25% 2 2.95nm 0% 25% 3: 2.7nm 0% 25% 4 2.45nm 0% 25% by the barest of margins (50% kicks in at 2.40nm) 5 2.20nm 25% 50% I think this simple table shows despite how close the sonars look, the impact is huge. The Cornwall gets 4 tactical turns to detect a submarine at 25% while the Perry has no chance at all. At a range of 2.2nm the Perry finally gets the chance to detect the sub at 25%, while by now the Cornwall has a 50% chance. The Cornwall was advertised as a specialist an anti-submarine unit, comparing their sonars i feel this is Advantage Cornwall. I've ruled a line at the year 1988. Thats when the Cornwall first came out. So thats the basis of this comparison. The Cornwall is the third edition of the Type 22 (Broadsword 22/1, Boxer 22/2 and Cornwall 22/3) so it is the most advanced. Ruling a line at 1988 means many of the improvements made to the Perry don't come into play. Is that fair? Well, the aim of this exercise was too compare an old model against a brand new model. The Perry did receive many improvements post 1988 but then we'd be comparing a new Cornwall against a re-fitted Perry and we'd be missing the point. So 1988 it is. 3. Weapons Defence first. The Perry has a single barrel 76mm air defence gun that covers the port and starboard side. Range is 3.5nm and close/long probability hit numbers of 40% and 25%. The Cornwall has two LS-30B 30mm air defence guns, one covering port side, the other starboard each under local control (sea skimmer capable). Range 1.6nm and close/long range hit numbers of 15% and 5%. It looks like the Perry has twin advantages of range and hit probability. But there is more information contained in the comments. The Perry is not sea skimmer capable, so must halve to hit numbers against sea skimmers while the Cornwalls 30mm is under local control and so it is SS capable. After taking this into account, "to hit" numbers are pretty close. Perry is still marginally in front due to its longer range (possibly preventing air burst if a missile is engaged at close range). Also the Cornwall has small magazines and is manually loaded. Manual loading is covered at 5.2 "assume it takes 2 tactical turns (instead of automatically being reloaded in the next engagement turn) to reload". I have not been able to find a section detailing the impact of small magazines. My take is, against non-SS targets its advantage Perry (range, probability to hit, reloading time). Against SS targets it is small advantage Perry (range, reload time, almost equal probability to hit). The only advantage the Cornwall has is it is able to engage two targets are a single time rather than one. In my mind this is cancelled out by the slower reload times. Air defence guns: Advantage Perry In 1988 both units had air defence missiles. Perry has a single forward facing SM1MR Block IV/V. Air range 25.0nm, second generation, ATA of 4.5. ROF = 3 Cornwall has forward and aft Sea Wolf. Air range 2.7nm, second generation, ATA of 5.0. ROF = 4 See skimmer capable. I'd have to say advantage Cornwall here. Slightly higher ROF, but more importantly being SSC is the advantage. As with the 30mm gun, the Cornwall has to manually load the Sea Wolfs. The Cornwall has 12 Sea Wolves loaded at a single time. So I do not see the manual loading being as large an issue as it was for the air defence gun. 12 Sea Wolves with a ROF of 4 means 3 salvos have been fired before reloading is required, at that point it may become an issue, but given modern day engagements, the engagement may well be over one way or the other by then anyway. The Perrys advantage is range of 25.0nm but i do not see it being enough to outweigh Cornwalls sea skimmer capability and slightly higher ROF. Advantage Cornwall. Overall advantage is hard to say. In the short term i think the Cornwall is better able to defend itself in the first round or two before reloading is required. While I feel like the Perry would hold up better under a sustained attack over a number of minutes since its able to reload faster. Even. Offensive capability The Perry has its 76mm gun with surface range 7nm and close/long probability hit numbers of 65% and 33% doing 12 or 3 points of damage. It also has SM1MR Block IV/V with a surface range of 25nm doing 5 points of damage, ROF = 3. The Cornwall has 114mm gun with surface range of 12nm and close/long probability hit numbers of 65% and 33% doing 8 or 2 points of damage. The Cornwalls Sea Wolfs cannot engage surface targets. The surface guns are even, the Perrys SM1 gives it a slight advantage which might have been more if it didn't do so little damage (5 points). Small advantage so far to the Perry. The Perry has 6 torpedo tubes and 3rd generation Mk 46 torpedos with a range of 6.0nm moving at 45kts doing 11 points of damage against submarines only. The Cornwall has 6 torpedo tubes and 3rd generation Stingray torpedos with a range of 4.3nm moving at 35kts doing 23 points of damage against submarines only. Which do you value more? Mk 46 range and speed or the singrays extra damage? Even? I'm leaning towards declaring the Cornwall better simply because it has the better sonar, and therefore its more likely to be in a position to use its torpedoes. But then i think the short range of the Stingrays mean it will need to be really close to an enemy submarine to be in effective range. I'm going to declare this even, unless anyone can mount an argument for either unit. Both ships have 2 x helicopters. I have not looked at helicopters. And while I know they are vital in the anti-submarine role I'm going to rule this even. Overall 1. Physical advantage Cornwall 2. Sensors small advantage Cornwall. Radar incomplete. Sonar, advantage Cornwall 3. Weapons. Air defence guns advantage Perry. Air defence missiles advantage Cornwall. Anti-surface ability small advantage Perry. Torpedoes even. Helicopters even. 4. Overall its feeling like the Cornwall comes out on top. The Perry has an advantage in guns (anti-air and ship). However the Cornwall has advantages in all the other areas (exempting ties). The biggest argument for me is the Cornwall being able to take almost twice as much damage as the Perry before sinking. The Cornwall wins easily in this regard and accumulates most of the other advantages as well. The Perry is billed as an all round escort. It is well rounded in regards to electronic, acoustic and ESM sensors, and its weapon systems. While i knew nothing about either ship prior to this I expected the Perry to be better suited in a picket line, and this proves correct (Cornwalls slower manual loading and small magazines being negatives in this role). The Cornwalls main task is anti-submarine and it wins out over the Perry (as expected). And it might also be better rounded overall than the Perry. I'd pick the Cornwall, the more modern ship. If you allow upgrades to the Perry to be included in later years the situation might change (harpoons!). This exercise took a good couple of hours. Starting from zero I have learnt about two similar vassals. Vital information can be found in "remarks" or "comments" to help differentiate between units. I hope the write up has been useful/interesting. I think more value would be gained if the units being compared were pitted against one another (ie NATO v Soviet). Feel free to correct me in any areas or make your own judgements using your own rational. TO FOLLOW SHORTLY 1. Physical comparison 2. Sensors 3. Weapons 4. Final call

Gotta celebrate your achievements/victories! Congrats on 10 years ... hopefully theres 10 more still to come eh?

That is an amazing amount of work. In my own scenarios i'm only ever dealing with 2 or 3 units in any engagement. Your in a league of your own.

Yes, welcome to the forum. I'd check out some of the after action reports that have been posted up here to read what others have been up too. Some describe the action like a story, others get more into the rules and describe how to game it out, which can be really helpful if your learning rules or seeing if you have interpreted them correctly. Or, ask questions here ...