H4 questions i always wanted answers to

[TonyE]

If a submarine is moving along at a depth of 125m, and it moves into an area of ocean where the depth of water changes from 200m to 75m, does the submarine crash? Or would the game umpire rule the sonar detects the change in depths and inform the captain of the need to change depths so he could plot new movement?

 

Depends upon the particular umpire. If I were the umpire leniency is the rule, inform the player and move the sub into some less than ideal yet legal depth. I probably wouldn't hold up the game to let that player provide a new depth; they can optimize the next turn.

[CV32]

If a submarine is moving along at a depth of 125m, and it moves into an area of ocean where the depth of water changes from 200m to 75m, does the submarine crash? Or would the game umpire rule the sonar detects the change in depths and inform the captain of the need to change depths so he could plot new movement?

 

Depends upon the particular umpire. If I were the umpire leniency is the rule, inform the player and move the sub into some less than ideal yet legal depth. I probably wouldn't hold up the game to let that player provide a new depth; they can optimize the next turn.

 

I agree. I think it would be more than a little harsh to impose a collision on the submarine. Presumably they are traveling with the aid of charts anyway (although they might not be perfect), or in poorly charted waters, using other means (e.g. bathythermograph) to determine local depth.

[VCDH]

I'd probably give him a warning or two but after that, I'd probably ground him out with a noise short at the least. Also, running with the bathythermograph could also mean a speed penalty since there is a lag between getting the data and processing it.

 

Later

D

[kcdusk]

I'm currently reading Barracuda 945 by Patrick Robinson. And i just found a data annex for the Barracuda. Its not very quiet, its extremely quiet.

[CV32]

I'm currently reading Barracuda 945 by Patrick Robinson. And i just found a data annex for the Barracuda. Its not very quiet, its extremely quiet.

 

The Project 945 Barracuda (NATO Sierra I) SSN? The rating is Vquiet in H4/HT.

[kcdusk]

I didnt realise it was in high tide ... i found a H version of it at this site.

 

http://membres.multimania.fr/harpoon4/

 

So thanks for the heads up.

[kcdusk]

The A-10 warthog can carry 6 AGM-65 missiles. Both 5.3.9 EO and 5.3.10 (IIR) say an aircraft can launch as many weapons as their ROF allows as long as their is a seperate guiding unit for each weapon.

 

1. there doesnt appear to be a ROF for the A-10 so i assume it can only fire a single AGM-65 at a time, correct?

 

2. if there are special forces on the ground to "operate" an AGM-65 then could two be fired (one controlled by A-10 and the other by the ground unit)?

 

3. the A-10 has a Laser Spot Tracker under sensors. Can someone quote me a page/rule where i can find out more about it?

 

4. the A-10 has a Gun Attack rating of 12.0, is this rating used against other aircraft ie 12.0 - defense rating and then use the table on page 6-6? If so this is a fearsome weapon to use against other aircraft!

[CV32]

The A-10 warthog can carry 6 AGM-65 missiles. Both 5.3.9 EO and 5.3.10 (IIR) say an aircraft can launch as many weapons as their ROF allows as long as their is a seperate guiding unit for each weapon.

1. there doesnt appear to be a ROF for the A-10 so i assume it can only fire a single AGM-65 at a time, correct?

 

It depends on the version of Maverick (there are several), but the EO and IIR versions do not fall under the ambit of Rules 5.3.9 and 5.3.10. (This isn't spelled out very well in the rules). They are 'launch and leave' or 'fire and forget' weapons and have no datalink with the launching aircraft, and thus no need (or mechanism) for operator control. I guess in H4 terms they go direct to terminal guidance mode without passing Go and without collecting $200.

 

The pilot uses the weapon seeker to select a target, centers the crosshairs, locks the target and shoots the missile. No further intervention required.

 

So, in theory, the A-10 could shoot Mavericks as quickly as he can find, choose and fire on targets.

 

2. if there are special forces on the ground to "operate" an AGM-65 then could two be fired (one controlled by A-10 and the other by the ground unit)?

 

The only Maverick version where ground forces might become involved in the process would be the laser guided AGM-65E. Since there is no active 'control' of the actual missile, they would simply be involved in laser designating a target for the missile. (Note that the AGM-65E is a USMC weapon).

 

3. the A-10 has a Laser Spot Tracker under sensors. Can someone quote me a page/rule where i can find out more about it?

 

This is the AN/AAS-35(V) Pave Penny system. Its essentially the same as a marked target seeker without the built in laser rangefinder. See page 4-18. (This is the tool for finding and attacking those targets marked by laser by other forces, such as the ground forces above).

 

4. the A-10 has a Gun Attack rating of 12.0, is this rating used against other aircraft ie 12.0 - defense rating and then use the table on page 6-6? If so this is a fearsome weapon to use against other aircraft!

 

Doesn't the GAU-8 have a relatively low ATA rating compared to traditional air-to-air guns like the M61 Vulcan?

[kcdusk]

The annex lists the AGM-65 specifically as being EO (IIR) --> yet you say 5.3.9 and 5.3.10 dont apply?. How badly written is it???!!!

 

Since the annex does not specify which version of AGM-65 can be carried by the A-10, can i choose from all of them?

 

Geese, so the Laster Spot Tracker is really the AN/AAS-35(V) Pave Penny system? You really need to know your stuff outside the annexs. I still cant find the Pave Penny in the Radar Annex? Maybe its not a radar. Regardless, reading the annex it looks like the A-10 does not have any kind of radar? Hard to believe.

 

M61 Vulcan has a rating of 4.0 compared to the GUA-8 30mm of 12.0. So not even close. Count me as surprised, and this is why i asked re the rules and do i have it right.

 

Thanks for the responses. Appreciate it.

[CV32]

The annex lists the AGM-65 specifically as being EO (IIR) --> yet you say 5.3.9 and 5.3.10 dont apply?. How badly written is it???!!!

 

The rule is for datalink controlled weapons. The AGM-65 Maverick is not such a weapon. I wouldn't say the rules are badly written - quite the opposite - but as with many things in life, there are exceptions to every rule.

 

Since the annex does not specify which version of AGM-65 can be carried by the A-10, can i choose from all of them?

 

Depends on how much realism you're going for. The versions of Maverick are distributed among the services - USAF, USMC, Navy. Obviously the A-10 isn't typically going to be carrying USMC or Navy weapons.

 

Geese, so the Laster Spot Tracker is really the AN/AAS-35(V) Pave Penny system? You really need to know your stuff outside the annexs. I still cant find the Pave Penny in the Radar Annex? Maybe its not a radar. Regardless, reading the annex it looks like the A-10 does not have any kind of radar? Hard to believe.

 

In this case, the laser spot tracker is the Pave Penny. Aboard another aircraft type, it could be another system. It is not a radar, and yeah, the A-10 does not have a radar. It was developed for the low and slow visual battle - where a radar would not have been particularly useful and well, the technology of the time did not suit the mission.

 

M61 Vulcan has a rating of 4.0 compared to the GUA-8 30mm of 12.0. So not even close. Count me as surprised, and this is why i asked re the rules and do i have it right.

 

There is more at play here than simply the weapon's brute force firepower, such as the aircraft's own maneuverability in air to air combat. Someone more familiar with the air to air gunnery rules can speak to that.

[CV32]

There is more at play here than simply the weapon's brute force firepower, such as the aircraft's own maneuverability in air to air combat. Someone more familiar with the air to air gunnery rules can speak to that.

 

Chatted about this with TonyE briefly on IRC. He reminded me that it is the offensive ATA rating that is important in air to air gunnery, rather than the Gun Atk values. See the dogfight rules under 6.3.3.3.

[kcdusk]

From some engagements i've run recently, it seems small ships often have a better chance of detecting large ships due to ESM detection ranges (large targets are picked up via ESM at greater ranges than small targets) and even when a large ship has greater radar range, radar LOS more than evens things out (again, large targets detected before small targets). So much so that even large ships with radars of greater range than small ships radars, are dectected before the small target because of the Radar LOS limits.

 

Am i right?

[TonyE]

From some engagements i've run recently, it seems small ships often have a better chance of detecting large ships due to ESM detection ranges (large targets are picked up via ESM at greater ranges than small targets) and even when a large ship has greater radar range, radar LOS more than evens things out (again, large targets detected before small targets). So much so that even large ships with radars of greater range than small ships radars, are dectected before the small target because of the Radar LOS limits.

 

Am i right?

 

I'm finding it a little tough to follow your argument/understand the case you are making but...

 

Large ships Radar LOS vs Small ship and Small ship vs Large ship is about 24nm

Large vs Large is about 28nm

Small vs Small is about 19nm

 

Agreed on the handiness of ESM!

[broncepulido]

I think Kcdusk mean a small ship is harder to detect than a big ship. And yes, as in the real world, a small inflatable boat without electronic emissions is a very small target, almost indetectable by electronic surveillance methods (for the radar is a very small target and for passive ESM theorically undetectable, it has not electronic emissions, perhaps can be detectable the electronic emissions of the spark-plug or the engine at very short range), visually and IR/electroptically it's also a very hard target (it's very small and it's between the waves), his acoustic signature is also small (and it can have a electric/noise reducted engine or not engine at all) and in the other extreme, a big warship, as a CV, CG, DD, FF (stealth considerations aside) has a big electronic (also with the radars and communications inactive), visually/IR/electroptic and acoustic signature, and it's habitually far more easily detected.

[CV32]

I think Kcdusk mean a small ship is harder to detect than a big ship. And yes, as in the real world, a small inflatable boat without electronic emissions is a very small target, almost indetectable by electronic surveillance methods (for the radar is a very small target and for passive ESM theorically undetectable, it has not electronic emissions, perhaps can be detectable the electronic emissions of the spark-plug or the engine at very short range), visually and IR/electroptically it's also a very hard target (it's very small and it's between the waves), his acoustic signature is also small (and it can have a electric/noise reducted engine or not engine at all) and in the other extreme, a big warship, as a CV, CG, DD, FF (stealth considerations aside) has a big electronic (also with the radars and communications inactive), visually/IR/electroptic and acoustic signature, and it's habitually far more easily detected.

 

While all of that is generally true, it isn't what kcdusk is driving at.

 

As I understand him, he is saying that under H4 rules, "large targets are picked up via ESM at greater ranges than small targets".