From cz Mon Aug 13 18:36:42 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA03056; Mon, 13 Aug 90 18:36:42 -0700 Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 18:36:42 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008140136.AA03056@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #1 (msgs 1-4) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 13 August 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 1 First Message: 1 Messages: 4 Topics: (1) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (2) Volume 1 Index cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (3) Re: Harpoon History frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (4) ARM Loitering tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 14:33:51 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (1) Editorial New members added since last issue: forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lee Forester) jsuo@niksula.hut.fi (Jyrki Suokas) Well, CZ has finally made it through the first volume. Soon the first volume should be archived on sunbane. Generally after 50 messages I will start a new volume. Once each volume, I will repost the guidelines (yeah that boring stuff again). This issue has the index to volume 1. In the future, I will try to stick the index on as the last message of the volume. When referencing messages, be sure to include volume number, if it is not from the current volume. -ted (disguised as CZ admin) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 15:56:04 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (2) Volume 1 Index Volume Issue Date Messages Author ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 26 July 1990 (1) Welcome cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu 2 28 July 1990 (2) Starting Conversation tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (3) List Membership cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (4) Harpoon Products tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (5) Harpoon History tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (6) Computer Versions dan@engrg.uwo.ca (7) Re: Computer Versions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (8) Captain's Edition uswmrg2!steve@uswat.uswest.com 3 30 July 1990 (9) Depth Change rabbit@eddie.mit.edu (10) Re: Depth Change tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (11) Rules Versions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (12) New List Members cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (13) PBeM Harpoon randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (14) Mac Version in Beta Test frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk 4 31 July 1990 (15) Introductory Scenario beacker@mips.com (16) PBeM Harpoon - GM Tips davisje@crd.ge.com (17) PBeM and CZ cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (18) Re: Captain's Edition tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (19) Archives cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (20) More New Members cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (21) First Team Scenario tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 5 1 August 1990 (22) Battles of WWIII Errata tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (23) New Dogfight Rules tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (24) Scenario Musings randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (25) Computer Harpoon randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (26) New Members cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu 6 2 August 1990 (27) Re: Scenario Musings tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (28) Re: Computer Harpoon dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au (29) Re: Scenario Musings d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (30) Re: Computer Harpoon d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (31) Re: PBeM Harpoon & CZ davisje@crdgw2.crd.ge.com (32) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu 7 3 August 1990 (33) Captain's Edition Errata tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 8 6 August 1990 (34) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (35) New CE Rules tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (36) Unilateral Detection randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (37) GIUK: Dawn Patrol randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (38) Re: CE Errata tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 9 7 August 1990 (39) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (40) Computer Review tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (41) No Challenge att!druco!fidder@uunet.uu.net (42) Re: GIUK Dawn Patrol dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au (43) Combat Fleets of the World tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 10 9 August 1990 (44) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (45) Recent Naval Developments tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (46) ECM tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (47) Tube-Launched Torpedoes tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 11 10 August 1990 (48) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (49) Re: ECM terryr@cse.ogi.edu (50) Re: ECM tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (51) Comparing Games tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (52) Ocean Depths tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Aug 90 02:13:27 BST (Fri) From: Frank Dunn Subject: Harpoon Editions Summary: (3) Re: Harpoon History Comment: message edited [mod note: I have edited out multiple copies of the same thing, which was apparently caused by communication difficulties. The laser material mentioned by Frank will be summarized in an upcoming issue.] Early Harpoon editions: 1981 Adventure Games Inc., 58pp one book set. Undated errata sheet no. 1 for 1981 ed. Undated rewrite of 5.2 Sonars for 1981 ed. (think both of the above were 1982 actually) Resolution 502 - a Falklands Scenario for Harpoon, 1982. Harpoon II, 1984. Two book set 88 pp in total. Undated errata and annex J & M for 2nd ed. (prob. 1984) Then GDW published it and the rest is history - as they say ;-) Also didn't realise that SitRep 5 was out GDW haven't sent me any since no. 2 which I picked up at Origins in 1989 anyway. Humpphhh, think some of the laser material in issue 4 was from me to. RN Deletions as of August 1990: HMS Conqueror, Valiant class SSN. She sank the Belgrano, decomm due to high costs of refit ($90 million) and current defence review. HMS Phoebe, Leander 2TA FF. HMS Odin, HMS Onslaught, Oberon class SS. Frank fdunn@cix fdunn@bix 100012,23 CIS Frank Dunn@MacTel "It must be jelly 'cos jam don't shake like that" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 12:13:32 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (4) ARM Loitering What follows is a summary of the rules update in SITREP 1. The US AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow and UK Alarm are ARMs that have the capbaility to loiter. After reaching the target area, they can wait for a radar to turn on and then attack it. The Tacit Rainbow can be launched by B-52, EF-111 or F-16. On launch, the player specifies the emitter type and geographic location. Upon reaching the location, it will turn on its seeker. If it finds an emitting radar of the proper type it will attack immediately. Otherwise, it circles at low alititude waiting for one to appear. The loiter time is based on the remaining range after reaching the preset location and its listed missile speed. [Note the 1990 Annex revises the stats for this weapon.] The ALARM will be operational sometime in the early 1990s. The ALARM can attack as a normal ARM or be set to loiter. It can be set with three prioritized emitter types, but cannot be retuned in flight. If it loiters, it climbs to high altitude and deploys a parachute. It remains at high altitude for 5 turns, sinks to medium alititude for 5 turns, to low altitude for 2 turns and then finally hits the surface and self-destructs. While descending, if the proper emitter type appears in the seeker footprint, it will jettison the parachute and make an unpowered attack on the target. [The article uses confusing language to describe the seeker footprint. It describes it as extending "5.4nm to each side and 16.2nm out". Is this describing a box shapped area?] -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Wed Aug 15 07:30:04 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA04247; Wed, 15 Aug 90 07:30:04 -0700 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 07:30:04 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008151430.AA04247@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #2 (msgs 5-7) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 15 August 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 2 First Message: 5 Messages: 3 Topics: (5) Questions forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (6) Re: Questions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (7) USN Middle East Deployment tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 22:44:12 PDT From: forester@garnet.berkeley.edu Summary: (5) Questions I have a few questions that some of you out there in Harpoon-land may be able to answer for me: 1) How do the Soviet type 65 torpedoes work? I have version 3.11 of the rules, which in the data annex lists this torpedo as I/Wake-F/T Act sonar. I can't find any place in the rules that explains this. Is it a wake-follower with terminal homing sonar? How could this be represented in the game? What are normal Soviet tactics for using it? 2) Will homing torpedos lose contact outside of the 0.5 to 1.0 km radius that I read about on CZ? Is there a possibility of outrunning the things if they miss on their first pass (i.e. is there any tactical doctrine to this effect in the navy)? Seems like 2.5 minutes is plenty of time to move 0.5 km. (assuming the 1-10 tac turns to attack again). 3) Can submarines ever come to an absolute stop? Could there be provisions for shutting down virtually all systems to cut down the chances of being detected, or is this somehow too counter- productive? 4) About how much fuel would a torpedo reattacking use? I'm assuming that there should be some sort of limit... 5) Are SSM's really as easy to shoot down in real life as they are is Harpoon? I've seen massive amounts of SSM's downed by SAM's, just wondering if this actually works or if it's purely theoretical at this point. Does the navy actually run tests to down 40-50 SSM's at the same time? Seems pretty expensive... 6) Can a sonar operator tell if a contact is a CZ contact? Hope this didn't get too long, I'd appreciate any insights y'all have. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 14 Aug 90 14:16:34 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (6) Re: Questions A few answers to some of the above questions. Just my personal opinion, of course ... In (5) Questions, forester@garnet.berkeley.edu writes: > 1) How do the Soviet type 65 torpedoes work? I have version 3.11 of the > rules, which in the data annex lists this torpedo as I/Wake-F/T Act > sonar. I can't find any place in the rules that explains this. Is > it a wake-follower with terminal homing sonar? How could this be > represented in the game? What are normal Soviet tactics for using > it? It is a wake-follower with terminal active homing. I seem to remember the way Larry Bond handled this at Origins 1989 was to play this as a search pattern homing torpedo (ie use rules section 6.3.4.2.2.1). But if it missed, he allowed one reattack on another target with reduced hit chance (similar to rules section 6.6.3 allows for gunfire and missiles). Basically, the Soviets hope to shoot it at a USN carrier. (Remember, the large target modifier!) > 2) Will homing torpedos lose contact outside of the 0.5 to 1.0 km radius > that I read about on CZ? Is there a possibility of outrunning the > things if they miss on their first pass (i.e. is there any tactical > doctrine to this effect in the navy)? Seems like 2.5 minutes is > plenty of time to move 0.5 km. (assuming the 1-10 tac turns to attack > again). The CZ article was about tube launched guided (ie homing or wire-guided) torpedoes using a straight run to find a target. The torpedo rules in the rules (section 6.3.4.2.2.1) describe homing torpedoes that use a search pattern. Guided tube launch torpedoes don't have to run straight. They can use the search pattern rules, if they want, but then they have to worry about mutual interference. Straight runners find their target by coming within 0.5 or 1 nm (not km!). Pattern runners, according to 6.4.3.2.2.1.1, find their target by coming within 1 nm (pattern width plus seeker range is 1 nm). The game makes the assumption (and factors range and endurance accordingly) that if the torpedo reaches seeker range it still can keep up and make all the attacks it will make. Your opportunity to evade is BEFORE it gets to seeker range. Once in seeker range, you can't evade it. The D10 roll represents the time for the first pass and reattack if any. It isn't standing still during that time. It's keeping up with the target, maneuvering to get the best angle and attacking. [My interpretation of the rules is that you only make one "to hit" roll. That takes care of all attack opportunities. You never make a second "reattack" roll, except possibly for wake-finders. The rules mention reattack only to help justify the D10 time roll.] > 3) Can submarines ever come to an absolute stop? Could there be > provisions for shutting down virtually all systems to cut down > the chances of being detected, or is this somehow too counter- > productive? I think most of what you are saying is already covered by the "running silent" sonar modifier (ie 5kts or less). Also, there are some nuclear submarines in the Data Annex listed as "natural circulation" which get an additional modifier as they can shut down their reactor pumps at low speed and just run on convection flow. You might also want to look at the "Icepick" scenario (in Battles of the Third World War). In that scenario, submarines stop and hide in the underside of the permanent ice pack. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 16:23:26 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (7) USN Middle East Deployment On the sci.military newgroup, there was an article listing USN ships (and Air National Guard units) in the Persian Gulf area. The article was by nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby), citing the 10 August 1990 Columbus Dispatch, which in turn used DoD sources and Jane's Fighting Ships. Here is a summary of the USN information in the article with hull numbers and class annonations added. Any errors introduced are my fault. There are also several ships of other nations there also. Persian Gulf CG 54 Antietam (Ticonderoga class, Aegis cruiser with VLS) CG 22 England (Leahy class) DD 971 David R. Ray (Spruance class) FFG 46 Rentz (O.H. Perry class) FFG 48 Vandergrift (O.H. Perry class) FFG 49 Robert G. Bradley (O.H. Perry class) FFG 50 Taylor (O.H. Perry class) FF 1088 Barbey (Knox class) AGF 3 LaSalle (Raleigh class) aka "Great White Ghost", the Middle Eastern Task Force Command Ship Independence Battle Group, Arabian Sea CV 62 Independence (Forrestal class) CG 29 Jouett (Belknap class) DDG 20 Goldsborough (Charles F. Adams class) FF 1063 Reasoner (Knox class) FF 1086 Brewton (Knox class) AE 32 Flint (Kilauea class) AO 177 Cimarron (Cimarron class) Eisenhower Battle Group, Red Sea CVN 69 Eisenhower (Nimitz class) 3 destroyers 2 other ships Saratoga Battle Group, Mediterranean heading toward Suez canal CV 60 Saratoga (Forrestal class) BB 64 Wisconsin (Iowa class) CG 58 Phillippine Sea (Ticonderoga class, Aegis cruiser with VLS) DD 963 Spruance (Spruance class) DDG 10 Sampson (Charles F. Adams class) FF 1082 Elmer Montgomery (Knox class) FF 1092 Thomas Hart (Knox class) AD 41 Yellowstone (Samuel Gompers class) -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Mon Aug 20 15:03:26 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA06878; Mon, 20 Aug 90 15:03:26 -0700 Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 15:03:26 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008202203.AA06878@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #3 (msgs 8-12) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 20 August 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 3 First Message: 8 Messages: 5 Topics: (8) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (9) Torpedo Questions forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (10) Re: Torpedo Questions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (11) Origins tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (12) Laser Dazzle Weapons tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 17 Aug 90 15:50:51 -0700 From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (8) Editorial The archive stuff for the first volume is all setup thanks to Dan Corrin. You will find a compressed volume one (v1.Z) and a compressed index to volume one (i1.Z) under the pub/cz directory on sunbane. Remember to be polite and FTP from sunbane outside of the 8:00 to 18:00 (US Eastern) time period on business days. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 20:00:59 PDT From: forester@garnet.berkeley.edu Summary: (9) Torpedo Questions I have a few more comments/questions about torpedoes and such... 1) It's my understanding that AH torpedoes (Acoustic Homing) are given a bearing and running time on launch, and when the time expires, they go into active homing mode. Until that time they don't acquire any targets. Is this true? Naturally if the target maneuvers in an un- expected fashion, the chances of a hit are much lower, since the torpedo will be further away when it goes active. The game seems to take this into account by having AH torpedoes automatically follow their target (Torpedo Guidance Systems, my page 28 in Harpoon 3.11), and then calculate some minuses for changing course and moving at full speed (6.3.4.2.2.1). This fails of course to take range into account- if a target moves only one turn from a predicted target zone vs. 30 turns if the torpedo needs to run for a while, there should be a huge difference in the chance to hit. Another possible problem (if I understand things right) is that the effective ranges of torpedoes such as the Mk 46 are the same whether they are tube-launched or dropped from the air. But air-carried torpedoes go into an active search mode when they hit the water, vs. tube-launched torpedoes, which can run for a while before they go active. The way I understand it now, a Mk.46 dropped by air can acquire a target up to 6 NM [certainly not km :)] away; this seems pretty far to me, hard to believe a search pattern can cover that much space. Or that the sonar is that good. It seems perhaps airborn torpedoes should only have the range of the active homing stage, about 1nm I guess, which includes the pattern as well (is that correct?). As well, would a hit modifier for AH torpedoes that depends on the time spent on a different course make sense? This is especially important for the Soviet Mk. 65, because if it is treated as an AH, it will automatically home from 30-50nm, well out of the range of most ship/sub sonars! 2) Another question I have on active homing for torpedoes is how they acquire a target at all. I was under the impression that they don't discriminate between friend or foe, and tend to acquire whatever target is closest, be it US, Soviet or a whale. Perhaps use the miss rule to reattack the next closest target? 3) If a torpedo has plenty of fuel/energy left, is there any reason for it to stop running even if it misses a target a few times? I've thought of letting them reattack anyone within 1nm (determined randomly) and charging a turn of full movement for every turn used in the attack. 4) I would think there should be some modifier for relative speed of torpedo vs. target: a torpedo that does 25 kn. might have problem maneuvering against a target doing 34kn or so. Is this reasonable? 5) Does anyone know how exactly the Soviet Type 65 works? Does it have some sort of sonar that guides it before the terminal guidance kicks in? 6) The sonar chances seem pretty good- pretty much any submarine will be picked up in a CZ unless it in running quiet. Each chance may be only 20-40%, but at normal speeds (say combined closing speed of 40kn in some cases), that means at least 5 chances at a detect, and a lot more if two ships aren't heading directly towards each other. Is this realistic? If anyone know that is... In playing, it has seemed pretty impossible to avoid CZ detection. 7) Can sonobuoys be detected on sonar when they land? Is an ID roll required? 8) Torpedoes are automatically detected on sonar, again, is an ID roll necessary? OK, that's all for now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 17 Aug 90 15:51:07 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (10) Re: Torpedo Questions Some comments about Lee's questions, just my personal opinion, of course ... Harpoon trades off detail for simplicity. You mention several cases where the limitations of its approach show through. But before you work up complicated modifiers, you should ask yourself how much difference it will make and how often it comes up. In (9) Torpedo Questions, forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lee Forester) writes: > It seems perhaps airborn torpedoes should only have the range of the > active homing stage, about 1nm I guess, which includes the pattern as > well (is that correct?). The way the rules state it in 6.2.4.2, you can only drop them on known contacts, though it does not say exactly how far away the drop can be from the known position. I always assumed you dropped them DIRECTLY on top. After all, sonar position information is kind of soft anyway. Allowing a drop within 1nm is probably reasonable also. (Remember you have to face into the wind also.) > This is especially important for > the Soviet Mk. 65, because if it is treated as an AH, it will automatically > home from 30-50nm, well out of the range of most ship/sub sonars! Remember, also the Soviet submarine has to detect something well enough for a firing solution before firing its Type 65 torpedoes. Otherwise, it just misses. >5) Does anyone know how exactly the Soviet Type 65 works? Does it have some > sort of sonar that guides it before the terminal guidance kicks in? The Type 65 uses preset (inertial) guidance in its first stage of guidance (that's the "I" in I/Wake-F/TASH in the 1990 Annex). Detailed rules for this weapon, would have it go to some preset point and then search for a wake (probably on a straight course). I don't think the Soviets have provided any public information about this weapon. But maybe we can assume it works like the old US Mk45F which was also a wake finder. The "World Naval Weapon Systems" book describes the Mk45F as using an upward looking high frequency sonar to find the wake. Once it crossed one side of the wake, it would look for the other side, then zigzag up the wake towards the ship. A countermeasure similar to blip enhance (probably just as unpopular) is to put a another ship in your carrier's wake. (However, you probably shouldn't use your flagship as wake finder bait. :-) >8) Torpedoes are automatically detected on sonar, again, is an ID roll > necessary? Probably it is easy to figure out it's a torpedo. On the other hand, to figure the exact model, I would say you need to make a roll. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 15:50:01 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (11) Origins Did anyone catch the action at Origins? Anyone attend Larry Bond's Harpoon seminar there? -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 12:14:21 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (12) Laser Dazzle Weapons What follows is a summary of the rules update in SITREP 4. According to the SITREP, Adrian Wintle, Frank Dunn and Larry Bond all had a hand in this. [Errors in the summary are my fault, of course!] Frank Dunn (frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk) is a CZ subscriber. 6.8 Laser Weapons 6.8.1 Laser Dazzle Sight (LDS) - is a point defense weapon designed to temporarily blind aircraft cockpit crews and make them abandon their attacks. It is manually aimed. 6.8.2 LDS Effectiveness - An LDS is only effective against manned aircraft attacking the ship it is mounted on. It has no director, a base Air Ph of %10, a range of 1 nm and the maximum engagement altitude is Low (capable against sea-skimmers). The effective Ph is directly proportional to the current visibility (eg, 50% visibility * 10% base Ph = 5% Ph). At night, the range is twice as long due to pilot night vision. At twilight, the range is 1.5 times. LDS is not effective against other types of targets (EO guided weapons have automatic filters and gain controls). 6.8.3 LDS Results - A hit will "dazzle" the cockpit aircrew for D10 turns. If the aircraft was flying at VLow, it has a 40% chance of crashing. At low altitude, it has a 5% chance. While dazzled, the plane must fly in a straight line. The affected crew cannot do anything but maintain the aircraft in level flight. If the aircraft is at VLow, it will climb to Low. Further LDS hits while dazzled have no effect. Known Mounts: 1. USSR Sovremennyy - add F(1) LDS 2. UK Hermes, Invincible, Type 42, Type 22, Leander classes (April 1982 on) - add P&PB/S&SB(1)2 LDS [Note, I believe this includes all Leander subtypes. Also, I think the April 1982 date applies to all listed UK classes not just Leanders.] -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Wed Aug 22 07:26:32 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA08150; Wed, 22 Aug 90 07:26:32 -0700 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 07:26:32 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008221426.AA08150@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #4 (msgs 13-16) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 22 August 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 4 First Message: 13 Messages: 4 Topics: (13) GenCon & SITREP dan@engrg.uwo.ca (14) Re: GenCon & SITREP tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (15) Re: Unilateral Detection tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (16) Revised LOS Chart tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 08:29:45 EDT From: Dan Corrin Subject: Larry Bond Seminar Summary: (13) GenCon & SITREP I was going to play in a Harpoon Tournament, and attend Larry Bond's Seminar at GenCon this year. Unfortunately he was unable to attend :-( Does anyone know what the subscription cost/procedure is for Harpoon sitrep? -Dan Dan Corrin, System Manager, Mechanical Engineering, UWO dan@engrg.uwo.ca ...!watmath!julian!engrg!dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 21 Aug 90 12:51:56 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (14) Re: GenCon & SITREP In (13) GenCon & SITREP, Dan Corrin writes: > Does anyone know what the subscription cost/procedure is for Harpoon > sitrep? The Harpoon SITREP is available directly from GDW for $8 (US$) for four issues (one year). Each issue is 8 pages of black and white Macintosh style text and graphics. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to all Harpoon players, only to people really obsessed with Harpoon, (like me, 1/2 :-). -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 20 Aug 90 15:04:34 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (15) Re: Unilateral Detection In v1 (16) PBeM Harpoon - GM Tips, davisje@crdgw2.crd.ge.com writes: >Part of the difficulty would be reconciling the tactical turns with >the intermediate turns if one side has made contact while the other >has not. The players on the "intermediate" turn side will wonder if >the GM has died or something, when they don't get results for a >couple weeks or days while the other side in tactical mode is >manuevering into position for an attack. Any thoughts on how to >handle this discrepancy? In v1 (36) Unilateral Detection, randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu writes: >Let's back up to the question of what to do in PBeM or even in blind >play, when one side detects the other, without the other detecting. >In PBeM, this is not too hard to keep secret, it just makes the blind >side suspicious when their messages from the ref become farther >between. In a refereed blind game, it would be harder. >From my experience, in live games, it's pretty hard to keep the detected side from becoming suspicious. One side starts to realize the referee is spending a lot of time with the other guys. Then you hear the roll of dice, and you know you are in trouble. There generally isn't much you can intelligently do, just because you are suspicious. Usually, you have already committed to actions for at least the next intermediate turn. The referee already has your plots in his possession. As a referee, I think the key is to make the players give you their long range plans, which will remain in effect until detection. Make certain, the players specify the state of all their sensors. Ask players what conditions justify launching their helos. (Don't let any player launch a helo, just because he is suspicious.) The referee should also limit information. He should make detection rolls. (That way, a player may not realize he even had a detection chance.) Strictly enforce realistic limits on player communication with submarine players. Use the suggested rules in "Battles of the Third World War". They make all the data in the game a little softer. The radar bearing might be off by a degree or two. The Pks in the game may be off a little. The enemy order of battle is slightly different from the scenario listing. A referee should also fake players out a little, just to keep them on their toes. Once in a while, make some extra rolls, measure some distances to non-existent units, look at the player's ship forms, ask probing questions. Players will sweat a little more. But don't get carried away, or you will slow down the game. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 13:43:50 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu Subject: (16) Revised LOS Chart Here is the updated Line of Sight Chart based on the one printed in SITREP 2. I have made minor corrections in the rounding of figures. Radar LOS is greater than geometric horizon due to refraction. These figures would not apply to exceptionally high or low frequency radar. Under ideal conditions, visual LOS should correspond to the geometric horizon. However, visual LOS as listed in SITREP 2 is less than the geometric horizon, probably taking into account less than ideal conditions. The departure from the ideal could be due to all sorts of factors too numerous to go into here (several of which were pointed out to me by Terry Rooker). Remember also to take into account environmental conditions by using the environmental rules in Annex N. For comparison, the geometric line of sight is also given. Radar Line of Sight Target VHigh High Medium Low VLow Large Medium Small Peri- Observer Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Ship Ship Ship scope ---------------------------------------------------+--------------------------- VHigh Alt 700 581 446 389 362 | 364 362 360 351 Hight Alt 581 463 327 271 244 | 245 243 241 232 Medium Alt 446 327 192 135 108 | 110 108 105 97 Low Alt 389 271 135 78 51 | 53 51 49 40 VLow Alt 362 244 108 51 24 | 26 24 22 13 -----------------------------------+--------------------------- Large Ship 364 245 110 53 26 | 28 26 24 15 Medium Ship 362 243 108 51 24 | 26 24 22 13 Small Ship 360 241 105 49 22 | 24 22 19 11 Periscope 351 232 97 40 13 | 15 13 11 2 Visual Line of Sight Target VHigh High Medium Low VLow Large Medium Small Peri- Observer Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Ship Ship Ship scope ---------------------------------------------------+--------------------------- VHigh Alt 525 436 334 292 272 | 273 271 270 263 High Alt 436 347 245 203 183 | 184 183 181 174 Medium Alt 334 245 144 101 81 | 82 81 79 72 Low Alt 292 203 101 59 39 | 40 38 37 30 VLow Alt 272 183 81 39 18 | 20 18 16 10 -----------------------------------+--------------------------- Large Ship Brdg 271 182 80 38 17 | 19 17 16 9 Medium Ship Brdg 269 180 78 36 15 | 17 15 14 7 Small Ship Brdg 267 178 77 34 14 | 15 14 12 5 Periscope 263 174 72 30 10 | 11 10 8 1 Geometric Line of Sight Target VHigh High Medium Low VLow Large Medium Small Peri- Observer Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Ship Ship Ship scope ---------------------------------------------------+--------------------------- VHigh Alt 607 504 386 337 314 | 316 314 312 304 High Alt 504 401 283 234 211 | 213 211 209 201 Medium Alt 386 283 166 117 94 | 95 93 91 84 Low Alt 337 234 117 68 45 | 46 44 42 35 VLow Alt 314 211 94 45 21 | 23 21 19 11 -----------------------------------+--------------------------- Large Ship Brdg 313 210 93 44 20 | 22 20 18 10 Medium Ship Brdg 311 208 90 41 18 | 19 18 16 8 Small Ship Brdg 309 206 88 39 16 | 18 16 14 6 Periscope 304 201 84 35 11 | 13 11 9 1 Name Height Name Height Name Height ------------------------------------------------------------------------- VHigh Alt 24700 Large Ship 40 Large Ship Brdg 25 High Alt 10800 Medium Ship 29 Medium Ship Brdg 14 Medium Alt 1850 Small Ship 19 Small Ship Brdg 8 Low Alt 310 Periscope 0.15 VLow Alt 30 Sighting distances in nautical miles. Heights in meters. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Thu Aug 23 07:35:28 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA08871; Thu, 23 Aug 90 07:35:28 -0700 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 07:35:28 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008231435.AA08871@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #5 (msgs 17-20) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 23 August 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 5 First Message: 17 Messages: 4 Topics: (17) Indian Navy davisje@crdgw2.crd.ge.com (18) Re: Torpedo Questions sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (19) MAD tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (20) Data Annex Questions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Aug 90 11:50 EST From: Jonathan E Davis Subject: Indian Naval Order of Battle Summary: (17) Indian Navy In the last couple of years, several articles have appeared in the Naval Institute Proceedings regarding the Indian navy and the ambitous roles that they are trying to accomplish in their region of the globe. Among other things, the Indians now have two small carriers for jump jets, a mixture of Soviet and UK fleet escorts, DDs and FFs, and an expanding submarine force including a leased Charlie I class and Kilo class diesel-electrics. The latest Data Annex does not list anything for this navy and the Proceedings are lacking in detail. Does anyone have additional information regarding the Indian navy's surface, air, and submarine forces for a detailed order of battle? I am interested in generating scenarios with the Indian navy in conflict with either China or Pakistan, or other regional conflicts. Jon Davis davisje@crd.ge.com -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 11:33:09 MDT From: sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Ralph Keyser) Subject: Re: (9) Torpedo Questions Summary: (18) Re: Torpedo Questions Just a few comments related to Lee's questions about torpedos. This section of the rules has given me fits on a number of occasions, so I generally just try to use what seems right when I have problems. Here's how I generally handle torps. Other suggestions and comments would be welcome. Oh, Ted's comments on trading simplicity for detail in Harpoon are right on the money. Please keep them in mind... On torpedo guidance: There are two big classes of guided torpedos, acoustic homing and wire guided. A few odd balls also exist (like the Soviet type 65), but I'll mention them later. I treat acoustic homing torps as a bearing only weapon. You launch them on a given bearing, and they run down that bearing until a target appears within 1 nm. They then make their attack, taking 1d10 turns to do so. The rules (6.3.4.2.2.1.1) say that the torpedo moves at its rated speed toward the target's position. I'm chosing to read that as where you (the attacker) think the target is located. So, the torp runs in a straight line until it acquires a target to attack. BTW, I also changed the modifiers a bit. You get -15% to hit if the target turns and goes to max speed during the attack run. This means that a good (low) die roll lets you avoid this penalty (target surprised), but most subs will be spooling up to speed as soon as they hear your torp. Also the -15% mod for depth change gets treated as: If the target and the torp are on different sides of the layer, then -15% to hit. The rules, by their numbering, seem to imply that wire-guided torps don't follow the rules on homing torpedo attacks, but I treat them that way anyway. The wires just give you a better chance of ending up within 1 nm of the target and on the right side of the layer. This means that if the wire breaks, the torp behaves just like an AH torp and runs straight until it picks up a target. Air-dropped and standoff delivery torps can be given a bearing to follow as well. This means that you could drop a torp more than 1 nm from a target, but it will run straight until it acquires the target (i.e. gets within 1 nm). OK, now for the odd-balls. Passive (French E12-18, UK Mk20, etc) get treated just like full active and active/passive acoustic homing torps, so this is a no-op. Pattern (French Z13 & Z16) can run a pattern after launch (instead of a line) while looking for a target. Wake-F (Mk45F) torps run straight until they cross a ship's wake, and then they turn to follow the wake toward the ship to get into attack range. Wakes should have a range that depends on the sea state, but I generally just call them X nm long. The Type 65 is a wake follower that you can set to make an inertial run first, so it can "turn on" the wake following at a given point. This means it doesn't follow the first wake it sees, and that can be helpful if you are firing from a crowd. On multiple attacks by 1 torpedo: I normally assume that everything is wrapped up in that single to hit die roll. The torpedo gets withing 1 nm of the target and can then take 10 more turns before it actually "hits". I assumed that might involve a couple of passes at the target. If a torp misses, then I just assume it managed to get lost or confused and is history. On relative speeds of target and torp: A torp will always be able to out manuever a sub, so the only place that speed differences matter is in the running away area. A fast sub may be able to out run a slightly faster torp. In Lee's example, if the 34 kt sub can reach speed before the 25 kt torp reaches the sub, then it is no contest. The torp will run out of gas in a few miles, and the sub is out of danger. I don't think a to hit modifier is needed. On sonar detection chances: Personal opinion. All the sensors in Harpoon seem too good. I've never had anybody sneak up on anything using the published rules. (OK, slight exaggeration :-)) I usually cut things back as part of the environment, just to make things more interesting. On sonobuoys: Passive sonobuoys can not be detected. Active sonobuoys are a different story. OK, now for some questions of my own. In the 1990 Data Annex, several torps are listed as shallow-water capable. What does that mean? The Mk46 Neartip is listed as dual-speed, but only one range figure is given. Any idea what it should be? I've noticed that the damage done to subs by most torps is lower in the 1990 Annex than in the 1987 Annex. Anyone know what prompted the change? Well, this has gone on long enough. Comments are welcomed. Just remember that all of this is personal opinion, and may not be based on real facts. Ralph Keyser Albuquerque, New Mexico sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 20 Aug 90 14:49:16 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (19) MAD I have read on the net from time to time that Harpoon treats Magnetic Anomaly Detectors (MAD) incorrectly. Harpoon portrays MAD as a search sensor. One can imagine (incorrectly) a bunch of P-3s flying in a line combing the ocean for enemy submarines. But, of course, when you look at section 5.6, you find the range is quite limited, and it won't even find submarines way down deep. So MAD isn't much of a search sensor. Net folks seem to say, that MAD is really used as an attack confirmation. You have already found the submarine, though perhaps your solution isn't too good. You make your attack run, the MAD goes off, you drop your torpedo or DC. If your MAD doesn't go off, he is either deep or far away. You may decide he is deep, and you drop on the predicted target area anyway. I suggest making the following rules addition to allow MAD usage as an attack confirmation. If making an air-dropped torpedo or depth charge attack, you may use MAD to aid the attack. If a MAD detection occurs during the movement phase in which the attack is made, MAD has successfully aided the attack. For air-dropped torpedoes, lack of a MAD detection actually penalizes your attack by 10%. A MAD assisted attack works normally. For depth charges, a MAD assisted attack adds 5%. This modifier cannot be used if the visually sighted modifier is also claimed. Any comments? -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 1990 16:57:26 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (20) Data Annex Questions In (18) Re: Torpedo Questions, sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu writes: >In the 1990 Data Annex, several torps are listed as shallow-water >capable. What does that mean? The Mk46 Neartip is listed as >dual-speed, but only one range figure is given. Any idea what it >should be? Unfortunately, as with the previous Data Annex, there are a whole bunch of typos, ambiguities and errors in the 1990 Data Annex. I have already written two letters to Larry Bond asking him about the ones I found. But you mention some things I didn't catch. I will, of course, post what I find out. I would also welcome any information people may wish to volunteer about these items or any others they find. >I've noticed that the damage done to subs by most torps is lower in >the 1990 Annex than in the 1987 Annex. Anyone know what prompted the >change? The damage formula for underwater vs. surface ships went up, but the formula for underwater vs. submarines went down. I have no idea why they were changed. The infamous Type 65 also experienced some change; it has a huge warhead now. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Fri Aug 24 12:35:32 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA09493; Fri, 24 Aug 90 12:35:32 -0700 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 12:35:32 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008241935.AA09493@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #6 (msgs 21-23) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 24 August 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 6 First Message: 21 Messages: 3 Topics: (21) Re: MAD sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (22) Re: MAD tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (23) Soviet Udaloy Class tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 16:19:33 MDT From: sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Ralph Keyser) Subject: Re: (19) MAD Summary: (21) Re: MAD Well, I agree that MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detector) isn't much of a search sensor, but I think Harpoon handles it just about right. As I understand it, the MAD system simply gives the operator a "detection" with no bearing or range information. Please correct me if my info is wrong, but I thought the Navy used a MAD contact as an indication that this might be a good place for an active sonobouy (or a torpedo if you are really confident a sub is out there). Given this, I guess I don't really see the justification for penalizing an air-dropped torpedo for not having a MAD contact. How would you see this affecting torpedos from standoff weapons (like ASROC or Sea Lance)? Another question that springs to mind: "Is a MAD contact enough of a contact to allow a torpedo launch?" The rules say you must launch a guided torpedo at a know target location, so is a 1 nm circle a known enough location? It does seem that MAD contacts should be announced more often than just once a turn in the Detection Phase. With aircraft moving twice in one turn, it seems like they should have more of a chance to pick-up on what MAD is telling them. Maybe MAD detections should come at the end of every movement phase? Your comments are welcome... Ralph Keyser Albuquerque, New Mexico sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 1990 15:30:36 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (22) Re: MAD In (21) Re: MAD, sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Ralph Keyser) writes: >Given this, I guess I don't really see the justification for penalizing >an air-dropped torpedo for not having a MAD contact. How would you >see this affecting torpedos from standoff weapons (like ASROC or Sea >Lance)? Originally, I just wanted to add a +10% for MAD. But I thought doing that would make the hit chances too high. You make a good point about standoff weapons. Somehow it seems like the additional information ought to improve your target solution. [BTW, Sea Lance was cancelled.] >Another question that springs to mind: "Is a MAD contact enough of a >contact to allow a torpedo launch?" The rules say you must launch a >guided torpedo at a know target location, so is a 1 nm circle a known >enough location? I think a MAD contact is a "known target" as far as the rules are concerned. I have been told that passive sonar information might not even be as good a 1nm circle. Also, I have heard is that passive sonars also come up with a lot of false alarms. This does not happen in Harpoon. >It does seem that MAD contacts should be announced more often than >just once a turn in the Detection Phase. With aircraft moving twice >in one turn, it seems like they should have more of a chance to >pick-up on what MAD is telling them. Maybe MAD detections should >come at the end of every movement phase? It bothers me a little that you might fly over a submarine, but fail to detect, because you are beyond the radius at the end of the phase. But I suppose, it might encourage people to slow down their Bear-Fs to realistic speeds. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 21 Aug 90 13:31:27 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (23) Soviet Udaloy Class The Soviet Udaloy DDG class is one of their most modern destroyer designs. It is optimized primarily for ASW. The book "Combat Fleets of the World 1990-1991" lists information that is somewhat different from that in the Data Annex. I suspect Combat Fleets is slightly more up to date, though it's hard to judge which is more correct. Here are the differences from the Data Annex information. Displacement: 6700 In Class: 11+3 Damage Points: 189 Crew: approx. 250 SA-N-9 System: All Udaloy ships have space for SA-N-9 and 2 Cross Swords directors. The first 7 ships have incomplete installations. Unit 1 came out of overhaul in Dec 1990, but her SA-N-9 was not installed. Perhaps, the Soviets do not intend to update the early units. (units 1 and 2, no SA-N-9 or directors installed) F&A(1)8 SA-N-9 w/64 missiles (unit 3, no director!) F&A(1)8 SA-N-9 w/64 missiles // 1 Cross Sword (unit 4, orig had 2 directors) F&A(1)8 SA-N-9 w/64 missiles // 1 Cross Sword (units 5-7) F&A(1)8 SA-N-9 w/64 missiles // 2 Cross Sword (units 8+) Additional Weapons: 2P/2S(2)4 12.7mm machine guns (unit 10) mines Radars: 3 Palm Frond 2 Strut Pair (units 1 and 2) Top Plate (units 3-6) Top Plate, Strut Pair (units 7+) Damage and Speed Breakdown: Damage: 0 47 95 142 170 189 Speed: 33 25 16 8 0 Sinks Additional Information: Built at Kaliningrad Shipyard and North Shipyard (in Lenningrad). Unit Fleet In Serv Name 1 Northern 1981 Udaloy 2 Northern 1982 Viste Admiral Kulakov 3 Northern 1983 Marshall Vasilyevskiy 4 Pacific 1984 Admiral Zakharov 5 Pacific 1985 Admiral Spiridonov 6 Pacific 1986 Admiral Tributs 7 Pacific 1986 Marshall Shaposhnikov 8 Northern 1987 Simferopol 9 Northern 1988 Admiral Levchenko 10 Pacific 1988 Admiral Vinogradov 11 Northern 1989 Admiral Kharlamov EW Equipment: 4 Bell Crown 2 Bell Shroud 2 Bell Squat (2)2 Chaff launchers 4 Foot Ball (unit 8) TACAN: 2 Round House Helo Landing: Fly Screen IFF: Salt-Pot B Salt-Pot C Since the Udaloy does not have a working SA-N-9 system, substitute the Admiral Vinogradov for the Udaloy in the "First Team" scenario (which takes place in the Pacific). (Note, the other Udaloy in the scenario only has one Cross Sword director.) If you look at the Harpoon box cover art, you can see the Udaloy (apparently it was just hit along the port bow) and a Ka-27 Helix helicopter. You can also see two AK-630s firing. The starboard Bass Tilt is just above and forward of the starboard firing AK-630. Below and aft, you can see the starboard set of torpedo tubes. One of the missing Cross Sword directors would be mounted on the platform above the twin helicopter hangers. The box with the circular feature on it just to the right of starboard hanger is the Fly Screen landing radar. On top of the aft mast along the centerline, you can see a Strut Pair radar. The aft mast has two "wings" on it. The upper one has two squat cylinders on it, which are the Round House system. The lower wing has a dome on either end, which probably houses some ECM antennae. Between the stacks you can see the boom of the utility crane. The forward mast (which is partially obscured) is also topped with a Strut Pair. Just below it on a forward pointing wing is a Palm Frond. On the starboard/port wings there should also be Palm Fronds, though I can't see any in the picture. The solid tower just forward of the forward mast should be topped with the Kite Screech, though I can't really make it out. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Mon Aug 27 09:33:28 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA10186; Mon, 27 Aug 90 09:33:28 -0700 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 09:33:28 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008271633.AA10186@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #7 (msgs 24-29) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 27 August 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 7 First Message: 24 Messages: 6 Topics: (24) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (25) Re: Indian Navy and MAD forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (26) Aegis tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (27) Game Conventions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (28) Re: MAD tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (29) Scenario Editor dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 08:46:54 PDT From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (24) Editorial I would like to once again like to encourage people to write articles for CZ. I try to send out an issue within one business day after anybody (other than me) has sent anything in. Also, I would like to encourage you to write just to comment on CZ. (Private comments should go to "cz-request". Public "letters to the editor" should go to "cz".) It's good to find out what you are doing right and wrong. I have sent some sample articles to Larry Bond. With any luck, he may mention us in a future SITREP. Also, I have fixed the index headers in the volume one archives. Attempts to automate CZ production are slowly marching forward. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 12:26:15 PDT From: forester@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: Harpoon stuff Summary: (25) Re: Indian Navy and MAD A suggestion to Jon Davis re:Indian navy- 5th fleet has a fairly recent OB for India and Pakistan, I believe. I played it once a few weeks ago (motivated by the current political situation) although we didn't set up any Indian units. It's not an elegant solution but certainly an easy one :-) A few random comments on MAD: I feel MAD is pretty useful as it is without any modifiers. I've particularly found it useful on helicopters prosecuting a sonarbuoy contact. With a LOFAR contact you have a chance to find the sub via MAD, and with a DIFAR contact and a helecopter nearby, you can easily get a solution with MAD allowing a torpedo drop. This saves all the passive solution comedy, as sprinting and course changes on the sub's part won't affect MAD. Seems pretty effective in conjunction with VL ASROC and ASROC, which don't have the 2-4 torp. load of a helecopter. I'll be spending a year in Vienna starting in a month, does anyone by any chance know any Harpoon devotees in that part of the world? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 14 Aug 90 11:05:18 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (26) Aegis After reading SITREP 3 and the Autonomous weapon rules again, I think I finally understand how Aegis is supposed to be portrayed in Harpoon. Aegis integrates the SPY-1 radar and Mk26 or Mk41 missile launchers firing SM-2 missiles and associated missile directors. Aegis is an autonomous (see 2.3.3.6 as amended in SITREP Pilot issue) system. It may only use its special capabilities against air targets detected by the SPY-1 radar. Aegis controlled missile directors are only used during the part of the turn in which missiles reach their targets. The number of missile directors is the number of missiles that can be directed at once and is termed the ``engagement limit''. During Movement Phase and Planned Fire Phase, Aegis can engage a total number of targets up to the engagement limit. During Second Air Movement Phase and Reaction Fire Phase, Aegis can again engage a total number of targets up to the engagement limit. Aegis controlled launchers may launch SM-2 missiles at full ROF in Planned Fire Phase. If the full ROF is not used, the remaining ROF, up to half of full rate, may be launched during Reaction Fire Phase. [Note, the half of full rate limit comes from the normal Reaction Fire Phase limits. Also, as is normally the case, missiles launched in Reaction Fire Phase will only travel half the distance in this Tactical Turn.] Now the loose ends: If at any time, a player finds he has more missiles in terminal phase than directors, the excess (which he chooses) automatically miss. When launched, each missile must be assigned to a specific target detected by the SPY-1. If a target is destroyed, any other missiles assigned to that target are simply removed. Target assignments may not be changed in flight. [It's kind of tricky to figure out how many missiles are going to need direction in some future air movement phase. Is there some easy way to do this in the game without having to do a lot of calculation? I am also allowing players to purposely fire a few extra missiles to "cover their bets". To counterbalance this (and for simplicity), I am not allowing target assignments to change in flight. Frankly, I don't know if Aegis can reassign targets in flight. Also, you would have to take into account such things as fuel expenditure and the magnitude of the course change. Maybe an abstract rule, like you can only change targets within the first couple of air movement phases would suffice. I guess the boost phase of the SM-2MR is pretty short. I am not sure how radical of a vector change the sustainer phase can accomplish.] -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 1990 13:15:03 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (27) Game Conventions I am going to be at Gamex '90 convention over Labor Day weekend here in Los Angeles. The convention flyer lists a Harpoon event. However, that does not necessarily mean any official event will materialize. Many times, it's the participants who organize a scenario themselves. In any case, if there is Harpoon action on Sunday or Monday, I will probably be there. (I have to run an event on Saturday, but I might be able to slip out for a while.) If anyone else is going to this con, send me a note, maybe we can battle on the high seas or something. I would actually be interested in finding out what game conventions have regular Harpoon events and compiling a list. If anyone has information, send it in. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 09:14:03 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (28) Re: MAD More MADness: In (21) Re: MAD, sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Ralph Keyser) writes: > As I understand it, the MAD system simply gives the operator a > "detection" with no bearing or range information. I thought this was the way it was too. But a rereading of the rules (which maybe need to be reorganzied!), seems to indicate you get bearing and range information too (see Sensor table on page 30 or so). Can anybody with real Navy knowledge comment? -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 14:14:00 CST From: David Low Subject: (29) Scenario Editor G'day ! Has anyone in the group tried the Scenario Editor for 360's Computer Harpoon yet? From the advertising, it seems to be just the thing I'm after ;-), but I'd much rather have a "user's opinion". In particular, I want to be able to generate scenarios from scratch, then make modifications after playing them. Can one do this with the Editor? Also, can you add platforms to the database (from memory, the F-111 is a notable exception) or will this be happening with later versions of the game itself? Any comments, observations, and IMHO's are appreciated! David. -- ___ ~~ | David J. Low / /-----^-/~~~ "I'll be back" | Atmospheric Group, Dept. Physics / /-------/~ -- Arnie | Adelaide University, Sth.Australia <__/ | E-Mail: dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Tue Aug 28 07:45:17 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA00536; Tue, 28 Aug 90 07:45:17 -0700 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 07:45:17 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008281445.AA00536@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #8 (msgs 30-32) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 28 August 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 8 First Message: 30 Messages: 3 Topics: (30) Re: LDS frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (31) MAD in Warship Commander forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (32) ESM Ranges tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Aug 90 20:12:36 BST (Sun) From: Frank Dunn Subject: (30) Re: LDS Laser Dazzle Sight (LDS) in RN service. This device was first developed to combat fast attack craft which has always been a pre-occupation of the RN given the lack of any CIWS until the 1980's, indeed one reason the 20mm and 30mm cannon that sprouted mounts so quickly on RN DDG's and FFG's after 1982 was due to the fact they had been in development as "junk bashers". The development of the LDS was first noted on HMS Euryalus (F 15 an Ikara Leander) in the Irish Sea in 1981. In 1982 in appears that some early production systems were flown out to Ascension Island to be fitted to 3 ships heading to the Falklands. Several sources make frequent mention of them being frigates, that plus other named ships seems to indicate that the following did have LDS in the Falklands: HMS Andromeda (F 57 Sea Wolf Leander) HMS Brilliant & HMS Broadsword (F 90 & F 88 both original Type 22's) A couple of sources mention that Invincible (RO 5) and HMS Hermes (R ??) had LDS in 1982, interestingly Andromeda acted as close in escort for Invincible as did either Brilliant or Broadsword for Hermes. All being Sea Wolf equipped ships and LDS too. After the Falklands the next occurances of LDS on other ships are in the Persian Gulf with the Armilla Patrol. HMS Glamorgan (D 19 County) was supposed to have LDS fitted in 1984 but in late '84 she was refitted for training purposes so the LDS must be seen in that light (sorry). Certainly from 1986/7 any ship in the Armilla Patrol should be assumed to have 2 LDS mounts fitted, known ships are as follows: HMS Beaver F 93 Type 22 Batch 2 Boxer class HMS Brazen F 91 Type 22 HMS Sheffield F 96 Type 22 Batch 2 " " HMS Coventry F 97 Type 22 Batch 2 " " HMS Bayleaf A 109 Support Oiler I'd assume that any Sea Wolf equipped ship also has LDS. From the above the LDS is prevalent in the Type 22's and Sea Wolf Leanders. I've not found any mention of the LDS on Type 42 DDG's nor the Type 23 FFG's however that doesn't mean a great deal as the mount is easy to move and fit. The MoD has given the range at 1.5 nm and there is a 2nd generation higher powered version under development. I'd guess that this would probably interface with the Sea Archer electro-optical search/tracker currently fitted to the Type 23 FFG as it has a useful and comparable range and is also mounted above the bridge deck port and starboard. Frank. fdunn@cix fdunn@bix 100012,23 CIS Frank Dunn@MacTel "It must be jelly 'cos jam don't shake like that" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 11:20:07 PDT From: forester@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: (31) MAD in Warship Commander MAD and Warship Commander (actually Sea Command) In Warship Commander, MAD has a detection radius of about 1/3 nm and can only be used against targets that have been detected by active sonar or when a passive firing solution has been obtained. Since the game usually doesn't have a referee, I think this stipulation was to keep people from using mad as a search device. When used, it has about a 50% chance of detecting the sub, +40% if the target was successfully tracked (i.e. active sonar or passive solution) the turn immediately preceding. Detection by MAD is treated like active tracking, i.e. good enough to use any weapons. This still begs the question whether or not a MAD detection actually gives bearing and range, but with such a short range, it doesn't seem to matter much - maybe depth charges would be off, but anyone using them probably wouldn't be using a helicopter so close to their ship. Torpedoes should have no problem picking up the target. Yet another quick question: Is it feasable to drop a depth charge or two as a counter-measure against a torpedo? I would imagine that it would mess up the sonar data quite a bit for a while. This would of course impair the sonar of the ship in question, but survival may be worth it. Is there any doctrine to this effect? Or would it not work? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 14:58:13 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (32) ESM Ranges What follows is a chart that lists ESM ranges between any two units. It is based on the data in the revised LOS Charts presented in earlier in v2 msg 16 and uses the same format. ESM Range Target VHigh High Medium Low VLow Large Medium Small Peri- Observer Alt Alt Alt Alt Alt Ship Ship Ship scope ---------------------------------------------------+--------------------------- VHigh Alt 770 639 490 428 398 | 400 398 396 386 Hight Alt 639 509 360 298 268 | 270 268 265 255 Medium Alt 490 360 211 148 119 | 121 119 116 106 Low Alt 428 298 148 86 57 | 59 56 54 44 VLow Alt 398 268 119 57 27 | 29 27 24 14 -----------------------------------+--------------------------- Large Ship 400 270 121 59 29 | 31 29 26 16 Medium Ship 398 268 119 56 27 | 29 26 24 14 Small Ship 396 265 116 54 24 | 26 24 21 12 Periscope 386 255 106 44 14 | 16 14 12 2 Ranges in nm. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Wed Aug 29 08:44:52 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA01162; Wed, 29 Aug 90 08:44:52 -0700 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 08:44:52 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9008291544.AA01162@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #9 (msgs 33-35) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 29 August 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 9 First Message: 33 Messages: 3 Topics: (33) MAD and Torpedo Defense terryr@cse.ogi.edu (34) More MADness tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (35) Skytrex address? davisje@crdgw2.crd.ge.com "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 08:44:57 -0700 From: Terry Rooker Subject: Torpedos and Depth Charges Summary: (33) MAD and Torpedo Defense Comment: message reference edited In (31) MAD in Warship Commander, forester@garnet.berkeley.edu writes: > This still begs the question whether or not a MAD detection actually > gives bearing and range, but with such a short range, it doesn't seem Let's clear something up. MAD is not a sensor in the normal meaning of the word. It doesn't provide bearing and range information. It detects anomalies in the earth's magnetic field, hence the name. You can see the phenomena for yourself by taking a magnetic compass and moving it near a chunk of ferrous metal. You have just built a MAD. The MAD used in ASW is much more sophisticated, but that is the basic idea. By measuring the diameter of the anomaly I guess you could infer a position, but the normal use is to release weapons when the anomaly is strongest. > Is it feasable to drop a depth charge or two as a counter-measure against > a torpedo? I would imagine that it would mess up the sonar data > quite a bit for a while. This would of course impair the sonar of > the ship in question, but survival may be worth it. Is there any > doctrine to this effect? Or would it not work? To allow time for the ship to get out of the burst radius, the depth charges would detonate well astern of the ship. I don't know what affect that would have on the torpedo sensor. I have not heard of western Navies even thinking about such doctrine, probably because most of them no longer carry depth charges. There is suspicion that the Soviets still carry their otherwise obsolete RBU style weapons as a torpedo countermeasure. It is not known whether the intended functionality is a soft kill of the homing sensor as you describe (possible if the depth bomb warheads can be set for a shallow depth), or if they are intended to actually destroy the torpedo. Obviously, the latter is more difficult. A further problem with such a doctrine is that most modern ASW weapons are designed as contact detonation, to prevent the sensor interference you describe. Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 1990 09:14:26 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (34) More MADness It looks like real world MAD does not provide range and bearing. If you fly around a little and monitor the strength of the reading (watch your "compass needle"), you might be able to figure where the signal is strongest. While we should be aware how things work in real life, the question remains about how we reconcile this with Harpoon. One possibility is just provide a "hit" reading and no range or bearing. (The referee might give you the point where you crossed the "edge" of the detection area.) With this interpretation you might want to allow this detection to occur during movement or at the end of both air movements. Purists will want to break out their plotting tables and start drawing circles all over the place. :-) Another is to play strictly acording to the rules. (It's certainly possible that there is a typo here!) You could rationalize that in a tactical turn they did "zig-zagged and flew in circles" and monitored the reading enough to figure where the signal is strongest. Thus, you get the range and bearing. This is partially compensated for by only getting to detect during detection phase. (It also represents the time necessary to figure things out.) Definitely, the latter is simpler, since you only have to check one position. I guess the question is whether it abandons too much reality for playability sake and whether this matters much to the game. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Aug 90 08:48 EST From: Jonathan E Davis Subject: (35) Skytrex address? Apparently in the pilot issue of the Harpoon SITREP, the address for Skytrex miniatures was published. When I requested a sample issue from GDW of SITREP, they sent me issue #1, and not the pilot issue. Thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Tue Sep 4 12:41:12 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA03176; Tue, 4 Sep 90 12:41:12 -0700 Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 12:41:12 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9009041941.AA03176@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #10 (msgs 36-37) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 4 September 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 10 First Message: 36 Messages: 2 Topics: (36) Computer Nuke Bug? d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (37) Gateway 1990 tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 13:09:10 MET DST From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se Subject: Fast & Dirty ASW? Summary: (36) Computer Nuke Bug? I'm just curious whether *anyone* out there have performed an attack with a nuclear weapon in computer harpoon. The only scenario in which I have got a permit to use them is Rapier (playing russian) but every time I have managed to get a chopper or something in position to drop a few kt on someone, the !@#$%*&! game dives! Have anyone even *seen* a nuke explode (own or enemy) in any scenario? -bertil- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 1990 11:44:26 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (37) Gateway 1990 I just got back from the Gateway 1990 games convention held over Labor day weekend in LA. (Earlier, I incorrectly called it Gamex 1990, which is a different convention.) I observed Harpoon in action at least two days. As far as I could tell, no official events really materialized, but enthusiatic players immediately took over. I just wish that more organized approach would be used. That way time spent on preparing forms, etc. could be avoided and newer players would not be overwhelmed. On Saturday, there was the "Second Battle of Tsushima" between US and Soviet Naval forces in the waters between Japan and Korea. Other commitments prevented me from seeing much, but second-hand reports indicate search was the key factor here. The USN hid behind an island. Through some bad luck, the searching Soviet Bears got shot down. The US found the Soviets first and were sunk by a cloud of Harpoons and Tomahawks. On Sunday, a combined land-sea situation was played set in a "Red Storm Rising" type situation. The Soviets had taken Iceland. Now, NATO was trying to retake Iceland. The USMC has stormed ashore. The Soviets on land counterattacked the beachhead, while naval forces tried to attack the amphibious ships and their escorting warships. Apparently, US searches had not picked up the Soviets until they were just about to fire. (Apparently, air superiority near the invasion site was still being hotly contested.) The land part was gamed out using some other land miniatures system. I got to play in this one for four hours as one of the Soviet players. We still had to attack a few turns before we wanted to, but such is war. Part of the Soviet naval strike was coordinated with an air attack. The ARMs launched by the airplanes managed to force the Aegis cruiser to shutoff its SPY-1 for a while. This helped the "real" missiles get through. Through some hot die-rolling, our Floggers were getting a better than expected exchange ratio with Tomcats. Some close range submarine action was also under way. Unfortunately, I never saw the outcome. When I left, some SS-N-22s and SS-N-19s were about to hit an LHD and LPH. But we were about to be overrun by a cloud of Harpoons. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Fri Sep 7 16:16:15 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA00433; Fri, 7 Sep 90 16:16:15 -0700 Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 16:16:15 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9009072316.AA00433@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #11 (msg 38) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 7 September 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 11 First Message: 38 Messages: 1 Topics: (38) Re: First Team Scenario sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 15:14:01 MDT From: sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Ralph Keyser) Subject: "First Team" After Action Report Summary: (38) Re: First Team Scenario I recalled some musings on the "First Team" scenario, so over the long Labor Day weekend I was referee for this scenario between a couple of friends who were in for the weekend. They tossed for sides, and the more experienced player ended up as the Soviets. I gave some thought to altering the scenario in favor of the US, but decided to let it go pretty much as printed. What follows is an "after action" report, and some comments based on my observations. SOVIET FORCES Frunze (Kirov class BCGN) Osmotritelnyy (Sovremennyy class DDG) Bezuprechnyy Admiral Spirodonov (Udaloy class DDG) Admiral Vinogradov Note: I remembered Ted's comments on the Udaloy class DDG and substituted the Vinogradov for the Udaloy, but forgot that the Spirodonov apparently only has 1 Cross Sword director. So both Udaloys in this scenario have dual Cross Sword directors and F&A firing arcs for the SA-N-9 SAM's as specified in the 1990 Annex. The Soviets are steaming in a reasonably tight formation at top speed (33 knots) on a heading of 180 for the American carrier group. The two Udaloy's are 1 nm ahead of the Frunze and 0.25 nm either side of the formation centerline (defined by the Frunze). The two Sovremennyy's are 0.25 nm ahead of the Frunze and 0.75 nm either side of centerline. The Udaloy's are the only ships emitting, and they are running the Strut Pair and Palm Frond radars for air and sea search. Their ESM equipment is picking up the emissions from an American E-2C. Meanwhile, roughly 100 nm away at a bearing of 200 (true) is an air attack force from the USS Midway: AMERICAN FORCES Group A - 100 nm out, 500 meters up, 550 knots 7 A-6E's: 2 Walleye II, 2 Harpoon, 1 Drop Tank 5 F/A-18's: 2 Harpoon, 2 HARM, 1 Drop Tank 1 EA-6B: 5 ALQ-99 ECM pods Group B - 97 nm out, 500 m, 550 kts 10 F/A-18's: 2 HARM, 2 AGM-65E Mavericks, 2 AIM-9L, 1 Drop Tank Group C - 102 nm out, 500 m, 550 kts 5 F/A-18's: 2 AGM-65E Mavericks, 4 Mk20 Rockeye's, 1 Drop Tank 3 A-6E's: 2 Walleye II, 2 Mk84 2000lb bomb, 1 Drop Tank 1 EA-6B: 5 ALQ-99 ECM pods The time is 0200 local, wind 160 @ 15 knots. Visibility 70%. THE ACTION BEGINS For the first 4.5 minutes, the US forces continue to close while gathering ESM information. Near the end of this time, groups A & B have climbed to 1000 m, while group C has dropped to 100 m above the surface of the ocean. The EA-6B's are preventing the Soviet air search from locating the attack force until the A-6's switch on their radars just inside 60 nm from the Soviet force. From a range of 54 nm, group A launches half its Harpoons (12), followed 30 seconds later by the remainder of the Harpoons (12 more). Group A then dives to 500 m altitude. The Soviets get the A-6 search radars on their ESM equipment, and transition all their directors to air attack mode and light up *all* their radar equipment. The two Udaloys begin turning directly toward the threat, while the rest of the force turns to about 110 degrees. The Top Steer radars burn through the jamming and spot group B about 47 nm out, still at 1000 meters. The Soviet player has not seen groups A or C, and does not know that the Harpoons have launched. He waits. The time is 0206. The Soviet player lights up the Top Dome directors on the Frunze and launches 8 SA-N-6 missiles at the American aircraft. In response, the American launches 6 HARM missiles from group B at the Top Dome directors. The SA-N-6 missiles are incredibly fast, covering the distance to the American planes in under 1 minute. The American's are lucky and only lose two planes. The HARM's take a bit longer to reach their goal, and are easily dealt with by the Soviet air defense. The American planes continue to close on the Soviet ships. The flight of Harpoons is only slightly faster than the aircraft, and are still under the radar horizon at very low altitude. Group C has dropped down on the deck at 25 meters above the water and 550 kts. Group A is down to 100 meters, and Group B has just realized that it is in trouble 1000 m up as the Soviets defeat the HARM's and launch another wave of SA-N-6s. Group B goes to afterburner and dives to 500 meters as they toggle all remaining HARMs, but they are too close to get below the radar horizon and the Grumble missiles prove deadly. Five aircraft fall to this volley. The time is 0207.5. The Soviets shut down the Top Dome directors while they deal with the dozen incoming HARM missiles. The flood of SA-N-9s from the Furnze and the two Udaloys coupled with the SA-N-7s takes out the incoming HARMs, but the last one to fall is taken by one of the Furnze's AK-630 point defense guns. The only Americans remaining on radar are the 3 F-18's diving for the safety of very low altitude about 28 nm out. Groups A & C pop up to gain a line of sight and launch a group of Walleyes. Group B has reached 25 m off the deck, but are so close to the Soviets now that they are still on radar. The Soviets launch another 6 Grumbles which take 2 planes from group B and one F-18 from group C. A scant 8 minutes have passed since the scenario started. The Soviet player is still not sure of the magnitude of the American threat. The only target he has is a single F-18 at 22 nm which he vaporizes with 4 Grumble missiles. Group A has started a circle away from the Soviets, group C is still 29 nm away and under the radar horizon, and the Harpoons and Walleyes are also just outside detection range. The EA-6Bs have broken off from their groups and are circling at very low altitude. The Soviet radars bloom with targets. All 24 Harpoons and 10 Walleyes are now visible, and the remaining 20 American aircraft show up shortly after the missiles. The Americans are on the deck at 25 meters and going flat out (for the A-6's anyway) at 570 knots. The Soviet air defense concentrates on the leading Harpoons first with the SA-N-6's, but the range is quickly short enough that the SA-N-7's from the Sovremennyys and the SA-N-9s on the Udaloys (which are a little over a mile in front of the Frunze) can join the battle. The incoming Harpoons and Walleyes have just crossed the 10 nm mark from the Frunze. The Harpoons have not gone "active" yet, but only 7 of them remain. Seven of the Walleyes remain also, but they were fewer in number at the start. The Americans toggle all 10 of their remaining HARMs from Group A, and the members of Group C launch more Walleyes to replace those that have been shot down. The Soviets launch another massive wave of air defense fire, but continue to concentrate on the missiles (and the sudden new threat from the HARMs doesn't help). The time is 0210.5. Two of the HARMs get through the Soviet defense to the Frunze, but the last of the Harpoons is shot down. One HARM was targeted on the Top Dome director for the SA-N-6 and takes one of those directors and one of the Palm Frond radars out. The other HARM was targeted on the Top Steer radar and results in a devastating airburst that not only knocks out the Top Steer, but also gets another Palm Frond, the Slim Net radar, one of the Cross Sword directors for the SA-N-9's, the Bass Tilt director for the P&PB AK-630, and disables all 4 of the starboard 533mm torpedo tubes. The Americans are now close enough that they launch 8 Mavericks from the F-18s in group C at the Bezuprechnyy. The A-6s in Group A launch Walleyes to replace those that have been shot down. The F-18s in Group A continue to close despite their lack of ordinance. A single Walleye reaches the Frunze in the next turn and 2 Mavericks reach the Bezuprechnyy. Group C decides to dump its ordinance on the Admiral Spirodonov and turns that direction. The Soviet air defence turns some of its attention to the aircraft with predictable results as 1 A-6 and 2 F-18s from Group C are downed and 2 A-6s and 1 F-18 from Group A are downed. The massive warhead on the Walleye does 181 points of damage to the Frunze. One of the hull sonars is destroyed, two of the SA-N-9 mounts are knocked out, the starboard SA-N-4 Pop Group director is disabled, the Kite Screech director is knocked out, 15 of the 20 SS-N-19 missile tubes are disabled, and the rudder and steering equipment is heavily damaged. The Frunze begins to lose way, but she is lucky since no fires have broken out and she is still capable of fighting. One of the smaller ships would have folded from the blow that the Walleye dished out. The Bezuprechnyy is not so fortunate. The two Mavericks do less damage than the Walleye, but she loses her forward SA-N-7 mount, one of the Band Stand directors for the SS-N-22, the forward Bass Tilt director for the AK-630s, the Top Steer radar, and has a major fire break out onboard. The Bezuprechnyy is badly hurt. Trailing thick black smoke, she turns and slows to begin fighting the fire. The Bezuprechnyy is out of the action. In the next 30 seconds, the remaining planes in Group C streak over the Admiral Spirodonov as Group A launches its remaining Walleyes and turns to run. The Spirodonov's defensive fire accounts for two more F-18's, but most of the Soviet fire concentrates on Group A and the incoming Walleyes. Of the free-fall weapons dropped, 1 Mk84 bomb and 2 Mk20 Rockeyes hit the Spirodonov. The cluster bombs do a fair number on sensors, directors, and weapon mounts as they take out a Strut Pair and Palm Frond radars, one of the port AK-630s, the Kite Screech director for the 100mm guns, and one of the SA-N-9 launchers. The 2000lb bomb does more serious damage with a critical hit in engineering, flooding, and elimination of the starbord torpedo tubes and both RBU6000 mounts. The Spirodonov is hurt, but not fatally, as she begins to slow due to the damage she has just taken. The remaining American planes run for the horizon, but the Soviet anti-air capability is far from destroyed. After elimination of the last Walleyes, they ravage the remaining aircraft. 3 A-6Es, 2 A/F-18s, and the 2 EA-6Bs manage to return to the Midway. COMMENTS According to the victory conditions, this was a defeat for the Americans and a decisive victory for the Soviets. The Soviets didn't lose any ships (though the Bezuprechnyy took additional damage before the fire was contained), and the Midway's attack force was pretty much eliminated. We did not make any repair roles (other than for fire), so it was hard to tell if the American's attack resulted in a "mission kill" of the Soviet force. A lot also depends on the length of time before they expect to contact the American surface force. Most of the tactical mistakes were made by the Americans. With the E-2s tracking the Soviets, there seemed to be no need for the pop-ups the Americans used before launching weapons. By staying low and launching weapons from beyond the radar horizon, the Americans could have done a much better job of overwhelming the Soviet defenses. The Americans also failed to concentrate their attacks both in time and space. The Harpoons should have been launched as one group, followed by as many Walleyes as possible, and all the HARMs should have been launched to arrive just before the main ordinance. All of these missiles probably should have been targeted at one ship (or maybe two if you were sure of your targets). By spreading out the attacks, the air defense was much better at handling the attacks, and by spreading out the damage, they failed to sink a single ship. As far as ordinance selection, I don't think I would have carried any free- fall ordinance. Stock up on Harpoons, Walleyes (the F-18 can't carry the Walleye II and the Walleye I is little better than a Maverick), HARMs, and then take Mavericks for everything else. Trying to overfly a target is just about suicide. As for the Soviets, they did just fine except for a few mistakes in targeting. A better job of this might have prevented one or two of the hits they took. One thing we talked about later was the importance of keeping the American in the dark as to which ship was which. An odd (i.e. Frunze not in the middle) formation might help along with careful selection of which radars to use. The American's job of target selection could be made even harder if the Soviet helicopters carried blip enhancers. All in all, this scenario makes it look like attacking a Soviet surface attack group is a high risk operation. Your observations or comments are welcome! Ralph Keyser sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu Albuquerque, New Mexico ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Mon Sep 10 11:06:37 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA01199; Mon, 10 Sep 90 11:06:37 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 11:06:37 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9009101806.AA01199@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #12 (msgs 39-40) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 10 September 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 12 First Message: 39 Messages: 2 Topics: (39) Re: First Team Scenario forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (40) Re: First Team Scenario tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Sep 90 16:54:03 PDT From: forester@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: (39) Re: First Team Scenario Some comments of the First Team scenario: I agree pretty much with Ralph's final comments on a good US strategy; I definitely feel that an all-missile loadout is the way to go. My strategy runs as follows: A-6's: 4 Walleye II's each F-18's 12 with 2 Harpoons, 2 Harm 1 with 4 Harm 1 with 2 Harm, 2 Mavericks 6 with 6 Mavericks In the initial approach, the planes come in at about 600 m in altitude, (low) with a plane or two popping up at 60 nm to medium altitude in order to get visual confirmation of the formation and try to figure out where the cruiser is. [My version of the rules is 3.11, where fixed wing aircraft are not allowed at very low, p.24 Aircraft Altitudes table; how low can planes operate with relative safety? The Argentines flew vlow, are our pilots trained for this as well?] At 60 nm after visual confirmation I launch all the Harpoons at the cruiser, ensuring that they have enough extra fuel to cause some fires with the missile fuel spill optional rule 7.3.2.1.4. The rest of the formation loiters until the Harpoons are just about to enter radar range at very low (24nm). No radars are on, so the Soviets so far have only seen a plane or two for 30 seconds. The turn before the Harpoons come into radar range, the planes cross the 50 nm mark and turn on radar; the A-6's stay at low, the F-18's are at afterburner speed and climb to med altitude for improved speed and visual contact. I assume that the SA-N-6's will respond in reaction fire or wait until the planned fire phase the next turn. The next turn with the SAMs in flight, the Harpoons are detected; the Soviet player must either abort the missiles fired at the planes or lose one turn of fire against the Harpoons. The Harpoons are within jamming cover of the EA-6's. If the Soviet chooses to continue the attack on the planes, 2-3% will probably get hit (60% on each). The next turn the F-18's will be within HARM range during the reaction fire phase, when the will launch half the HARM's at the Top Domes, to hit in 3 turns. Only the SA-N-7's on the Sovremeny's and the SA-N-6's can engage them at range (as well the point defense missile/guns of the Frunze) due to the restrictions of firing at crossing targets on the turn of impact (6.6.4); with jamming, small target and fast target restrictions, the Soviet missiles each have a 20% chance of hitting HARM's, rising to 30% when they are no longer in jamming range. I estimate that only 5-6 will be shot down, 7-9 if the SA-N-6's direct fire against them. Even if the top domes go off on the turn of impact (losing another turn of fire), the remaining missiles have a 42% chance of hitting, (stored memory location), giving an average of about 3-6 hits, knocking out the Top Domes and inflicting around 15-30 critical hits. The F-18's fire the rest of the HARM's, 15 and possibly less if some planes carrying HARM's are shot down in the first volley of SA-N-6's; then they slow down and dive to merge with the A-6's and EA-6's. If the Soviets direct most of their SA-N-6's and 7's at the Harpoons, they can probably shoot them all down; if they do this, the HARM's will do tremendous damage. I prefer to stage the HARM's in two slightly ofset waves so that if both the Top Domes are hit in the first wave, the rest can be toggled to the SA-N-7's on the Sovremeny's, which may not even be able to use their SA-N-7's if the range is too short and they have been engaging the Harpoons. Even if they do get defensive shots, they should only account for about 2 missles/ship, the other 4-5 (minus 1 for gun fire) will pretty much take out the SA-N-7's and cause some 20-25 crits. (When I did this I actually rolled well once and got 45 crits on a Sovremeny with 7 HARM's, pretty nasty). At this point I will have probably knocked out the SA-N-6's and maybe even most of the SA-N-7's if the Soviets haven't guessed what I'm up to. If they concentrated soley on the HARM's, the chances are still good for knocking out the Top Domes, and probably 3-6 harpoons will hit the Frunze, hopefully causing a major fire or two and putting the ship out of action. The rest of the planes stay grouped and examine the damage (fires, which hits suffered HARM hits). Assuming the SA-N-6's are out and depending on whether or not the SA-N-7's were hit, I decide on between 2-4 targets for the Walleyes and Mavericks and launch a coordinated strike from about 16nm out for the Walleyes, waiting a bit to send the F-18's in (the Maverick range is 13nm, so all the missiles will be released before any surviving SA-N-7's can shoot planes down). Basically 2-4 ships should be history from this strike, depending on how much air defense is left. The Udaloys can down about 3 Walleyes with SA-N-9's (their limited range allows them only one turn of fire), the guns 1-2. 10-12 addional Mavericks per escort are icing on the cake. The whole key I think is to knock out the SA-N-6's and get the SA-N-7's too if the Soviet player lets you. This allows your planes the chance to close range to 15nm, giving you plenty of time to evaluate the situation and launch a combined Walleye/Maverick strike. I use the harpoons as a distraction; of course, if the Soviet takes out the HARM's, several of the Harpoons should hit anyway, probably taking out the Frunze. If by some bad luck the SA-N-6's stay operational, then pick 2 targets, launch the Walleyes ASAP, close with all planes anyway (empty planes make good decoys), launch Mavericks and hope you get away with half your planes. Still a reasonable chance for a win, since all those missiles should be able to take out two ships. A few questions: 1) Can planes actually fly at Vlow altitudes (say 20-30m)? 2) I have been playing that SAM's get to fire once for every full turn that the target is in range; thus SA-N-9's (range: 8nm) get one turn of fire at Walleyes and Harpoons, which have a speed of 4.4 and 4.7nm respectively (1987 data annex, I'm a cheapskate). If it is almost another turn, as in this case, I allow an additional round of fire with the crossing-fire restriction (I haven't quantified it exactly, perhaps between 50% and 99% of range?). Does this seem reasonable? Do others play it differently? 3) Can HARM's store target motion as well as location? They seem to be able to in the game, otherwise they shouldn't have much of a chance to hit ships when the radar is down. Is this accurate or a simplification? Just curious... I'd be glad to hear criticisms/comments/improvements on the strategy I outlined above. I assume a Soviet formation with Sov's front and back, the 2 Udaloys in line in the middle and the Frunze behind them Sov Ud. Frunze Ud. Sov. Seems pretty good for defensive cover. Any ideas on better formations? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 09:52:36 -0700 From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (40) Re: First Team Scenario I agree with almost everthing Ralph and Lee have said. Nevertheless, I would like to add some comments. I realize it's always easier to analyze things with 20/20 hindsight, so please bear with me, if I seem like a nit-picker. In (38) Re: First Team Scenario, sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu writes: > Osmotritelnyy (Sovremennyy class DDG) > Bezuprechnyy If you get bored, you might add one more twist. The Data Annex reports that these things have 6 Front Domes to control the SA-N-7s. When you look at the pictures of these ships, though, it looks though like not all the Front Domes can point in the same direction. "Combat Fleets of the World, 1990-1991" speculates that only about three can point in any one direction. > The Soviets are steaming in a reasonably tight formation at top > speed (33 knots) on a heading of 180 for the American carrier group. For those that don't have the scenario, this fast transit is possible only because the scenario says no submarines are lurking about. Thus, the Udaloys are around only as more targets and to launch SA-N-9s. > Meanwhile, roughly 100 nm away at a bearing of 200 (true) is an air > attack force from the USS Midway: Just to nit pick, the force is 300nm away, else the Soviets might have already launched the SS-N-19s. > AMERICAN FORCES > Group A - 100 nm out, 500 meters up, 550 knots > 7 A-6E's: 2 Walleye II, 2 Harpoon, 1 Drop Tank > 5 F/A-18's: 2 Harpoon, 2 HARM, 1 Drop Tank > 1 EA-6B: 5 ALQ-99 ECM pods > > Group B - 97 nm out, 500 m, 550 kts > 10 F/A-18's: 2 HARM, 2 AGM-65E Mavericks, 2 AIM-9L, 1 Drop Tank > > Group C - 102 nm out, 500 m, 550 kts > 5 F/A-18's: 2 AGM-65E Mavericks, 4 Mk20 Rockeye's, 1 Drop Tank > 3 A-6E's: 2 Walleye II, 2 Mk84 2000lb bomb, 1 Drop Tank > 1 EA-6B: 5 ALQ-99 ECM pods > > The time is 0200 local, wind 160 @ 15 knots. Visibility 70%. What happened to your other two EA-6Bs? Another twist to consider is to use the aircraft endurance rules in the new Data Annex. Some planes may not need drop tanks. This might free up a centerline station. Although not specified by the scenario, you might let the US planes take a countermeasures pod on vacant centerline positions. > The Soviet air defense concentrates on the leading Harpoons first > with the SA-N-6's, but the range is quickly short enough that the > SA-N-7's from the Sovremennyys and the SA-N-9s on the Udaloys (which > are a little over a mile in front of the Frunze) can join the battle. The SA-N-7s cannot (at least according to the new Data Annex) hit seaskimmers. So the seaskimming Harpoons cannot be hit by them. > Group C has dropped down on the deck at 25 meters above the water > and 550 kts. Group A is down to 100 meters, ... This brings up the most forgotten rule in Harpoon. (I don't think it would have effected the play here.) Rule 4.4.4 (Missile Ranges) states that non-seaskimming Air-to-Surface missiles launched at or cruising at Low (or below) have their range halved. The primary application is for AS-4s and AS-6s, but it applies here too. This is one of the few reasons not to go low. > Groups A & C pop up to gain a line of sight and launch a group of > Walleyes. Just some background and details for those of you following along at home ... Walleyes are not "launch & leave" (rule 6.2.3.2). The Walleye is controlled using a TV data link. Each Walleye must be guided in by its the launch craft. The launch craft has to have LOS to the target and thus is vulnerable to return fire. Because of this, I am not very enthusiastic about using Walleyes. > The EA-6Bs have broken off from their groups and are circling at > very low altitude. At this point, the Prowlers stopped jamming, since radar LOS is necessary to jam. > The Americans are now close enough that they launch 8 Mavericks from > the F-18s in group C at the Bezuprechnyy. More background ... The AGM-65E Maverick is SALH. By rule 6.2.3.2, at least one laser designator must illuminate the target during flight of the Maverick salvo. > One thing we talked about later was the importance of keeping the > American in the dark as to which ship was which. An odd (i.e. Frunze > not in the middle) formation might help along with careful selection > of which radars to use. Also in (39) Re: First Team Scenario, forester@garnet.berkeley.edu writes: > In the initial approach, the planes come in at about 600 m in > altitude, (low) with a plane or two popping up at 60 nm to medium > altitude in order to get visual confirmation of the formation and > try to figure out where the cruiser is. I suspect the Frunze is quite a bit bigger on radar. So I don't think this is necessary. Anybody with more knowledge on the limitations of radar want to comment? > [My version of the rules is 3.11, where fixed wing aircraft are not > allowed at very low, p.24 Aircraft Altitudes table; how low can > planes operate with relative safety? The Argentines flew vlow, are > our pilots trained for this as well?] The aircraft endurance and Laser Dazzle System rules all imply that flying at Very Low is possible. I just don't allow my players to travel long distances that way, except in a plane with terrain-following systems (because it is very taxing on the aircrew.) During the actual attack run, though, they can go in real low (nominally, I say at 30m). > 3) Can HARM's store target motion as well as location? They seem to > be able to in the game, otherwise they shouldn't have much of a > chance to hit ships. I think this is covered by the "target memory" rule (as amended by the errata). After radar shutdown, ARMs with "memory" can still attack with half chance to hit. Of course, you could argue about how many turns it flew blind, target speed and the angle of approach, etc. Normally, the first ARM critical hit will destroy the targeted radar. Here the radar is off so I would not apply that rule, though it still could be destroyed by random destruction. BTW, the new Data Annex does not give the HARM target memory (ie "stores emitter location"). Personally, I think that is a typo. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Tue Sep 11 10:14:42 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA01866; Tue, 11 Sep 90 10:14:42 -0700 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 10:14:42 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9009111714.AA01866@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #13 (msgs 41-43) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 11 September 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 13 First Message: 41 Messages: 3 Topics: (41) CVW-7 and VLow Flying frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (42) Re: First Team Scenario forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (43) First Team and Ordnance tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Sep 90 22:07:58 BST (Mon) From: Frank Dunn Subject: (41) CVW-7 and VLow Flying USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN 69, CVW-7 composition: As of June 1990. VF-143 9 F-14+ VF-142 9 F-14+ VFA-136 11 F/A-18A VFA-131 11 F/A-18A VA-34 9 A-6E, 4 KA-6D VAW-121 4 EC-2C VAQ-140 4 EA-6B HS-5 6 SH-3H VS-31 5 S-3B This is the first air wing to deploy with the F-14+ and the S-3B. VLOW, as I recall the conversation last year at Origins the question was not that fixed wing aircraft could do it but for how long before they screwed up and hit the deck. Note that VLOW is allowed in computer Harpoon with a % chance that you will lose an ac the longer you stay down that low. I *think* the % mooted was around the 2%-5% mark but over what period of time I don't know. Expect the Falklands (GDW) rules to sort this out officially 'cos thats were the endurance rules came from and computer Harpoon uses all the Falklands air rules. Reality note: In the intensive low level training going on here the RAF have lost 3 IDS Tornadoes in the last 3 weeks due to one hitting the deck and the other two colliding in mid-air at low level. Frank. fdunn@cix fdunn@bix 100012,23 CIS Frank Dunn@MacTel "It must be jelly 'cos jam don't shake like that" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 17:55:50 PDT From: forester@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: (42) Re: First Team Scenario It looks like I'll have to cough up the bucks for the 1990 Annex, since the 1987 has some annoying features such as not giving the cruising altitudes for air ordinance, listing Walleye II's as L&L weapons, etc. With the "forgotten" rule 4.4.4 on missile range that Ted brought up (I don't remember ever reading it myself...but it sure is there), this does indeed make Walleyes less attractive. Still, they're better than iron bombs I think. And it only takes one hit. If the SA-N-6's cannot hit skimmers and the SA-N-7's can only bring half their directors to bear (as Ted suggests) AND the US planes can come in at Vlow, it looks pretty bad for the Soviets. A coordinated HARM/Harpoon strike on the Frunze should take it out, allowing the A-6's plenty of safety for launching Walleyes at Med. altitude. A few F-18's can stay back to direct Mavericks that are launched in coordination with the Walleyes. (I'm assuming as well that the SA-N-7's are capable against Vlow and seaskimmers; is this so in the 1990 Annex? If not, even more trouble...) Is there any way out of this for the Soviets? Perhaps lowering visibility even more and allowing the Soviets to have decoy helicopters aloft? In (40) Re: First Team Scenario, tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) writes: > I suspect the Frunze is quite a bit bigger on radar. So I don't > think this is necessary. Anybody with more knowledge on the > limitations of radar want to comment? This makes sense to me, though technically the Frunze is medium sized (though just barely). On HARM's: > I think this is covered by the "target memory" rule (as amended by > the errata). After radar shutdown, ARMs with "memory" can still > attack with half chance to hit. Of course, you could argue about how > many turns it flew blind, target speed and the angle of approach, > etc. My impression of HARMs was that they are designed primarily for taking out land-based SAM sights, which generally are not moving when they are firing. Thus if the location at the time of last transmission is stored, this won't help much against ships which should be well clear of the target zone in 30 seconds. Do they have the ability to track movement of the target radar and home on the predicted position? If not, I would suggest that they be given a chance of hitting a radar set that was turned off only on the turn of impact and not before. Of course, they can reacquire radars that go off and then on, and be toggled to other radars in flight, so that wouldn't be all that restrictive. Is my understanding of HARMs more or less correct? > Normally, the first ARM critical hit will destroy the targeted > radar. Here the radar is off so I would not apply that rule, though > it still could be destroyed by random destruction. BTW, the new Data > Annex does not give the HARM target memory (ie "stores emitter > location"). Personally, I think that is a typo. Makes sense that the specific radar won't be hit if it's off. Does anyone have a more or less concise source on the possible weapon loadouts for the planes in Harpoon? Trying to find pictures for everything seems to be a bit of trouble... I guess this could be diagrams of hardpoints with their weight limit, specific weapon restrictions, etc. Any hints on how others handle it would be appreciated. Lee Forester forester@garnet.berkeley.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 1990 08:48:28 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (43) First Team and Ordnance In (42) Re: First Team Scenario, forester@garnet.berkeley.edu writes: > It looks like I'll have to cough up the bucks for the 1990 Annex, > since the 1987 has some annoying features such as ... Even though the 1990 Annex is better in many ways, I warn you it still contains many errors and typos. > ordinance Not to pick on you, but it is "ordnance" not "ordinance" or "ordonnance". All of these words are derived from the same root, but only the first has to do with military bombs and missiles. > If the SA-N-6's cannot hit skimmers and SA-N-7s (on the Sovremennyy) are the ones that cannot hit seaskimmers. > the SA-N-7's can only bring half their directors to bear (as Ted > suggests) AND Just a suggestion and certainly not official. > the US planes can come in at Vlow ... I think most people agree with this one. > (I'm assuming as well that the SA-N-7's are capable against Vlow and > seaskimmers; is this so in the 1990 Annex? ... ) SA-N-6 (the long-range SAM) and SA-N-9 (point defense) can both engage seaskimmers. > Is there any way out of this for the Soviets? The net effect of VLow flying, shorter missile ranges for low altitude travel and restricting the SA-N-7 is a shorter range fight. Less reaction time for the Soviets. Maybe you have to push the escorts out a little further to shoot at the planes before they get too close to the Frunze. I haven't gamed this out, so I am speaking without much authority here. Maybe the victory conditions need to be changed. Afterall, the scenario was designed with the 1987 Annex in mind. > Does anyone have a more or less concise source on the possible > weapon loadouts for the planes in Harpoon? Trying to find pictures > for everything seems to be a bit of trouble... I guess this could > be diagrams of hardpoints with their weight limit, specific weapon > restrictions, etc. I am looking for such a reference too. Up to now I have used a combination of Harpoon (Data Annex, Ship Forms), GDW Air Superiority/Air Strike games and the book "Encyclopedia of Modern Aircraft Armament". (I can give out the complete publishers information the next time I bring in the book.) My take on this is that each source is from a slightly different time frame (eg before and after A-6s could take HARMs) and they all disagree in places. The Data Annex only provides common combinations, but sometimes they don't look correct to me. (But what do I know?) Ship Forms provides loadout information by hardpoint and the old 1987 Data Annex items. Air Strike/Air Superiority is perhaps too permissive and sometimes uses generic items and categories instead of specific ordnance types. The book mentioned above provides information on a large number of aircraft by hardpoint. Unfortunately, I have noticed some really obvious errors. Also some information seems dated. I have not seen any reference which really tells you which ejector racks are being used. One of the hardest things to figure out is the difference between maximum loadout and what is normal, recommended and realistic. Most modern aircraft now can carry almost anything on any big hardpoint. Yet due to excessive loss of performance or perhaps poor separation aerodynamics, you almost never see the maximums. Off hand, I think the A-6E could probably carry a 6-place ejector rack on all five of its big hardpoints for a total of 30 Mk82 bombs or Mk20 Rockeye, yet I have never seen a picture of such. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Fri Sep 14 14:08:27 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA04110; Fri, 14 Sep 90 14:08:27 -0700 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 14:08:27 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9009142108.AA04110@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #14 (msgs 44-45) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 14 September 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 14 First Message: 44 Messages: 2 Topics: (44) Re: First Team Scenario sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (45) Re: First Team Scenario tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 10:47:57 MDT From: sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Ralph Keyser) Subject: (44) Re: First Team Scenario Just some comments on the comments :-) Actually the chance to have some other folks look at a scenario has been very educational for me. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to read and comment. And now, back to our show... >> Meanwhile, roughly 100 nm away at a bearing of 200 (true) is an air >> attack force from the USS Midway: >Just to nit pick, the force is 300nm away, else the Soviets might have >already launched the SS-N-19s. Sorry, I didn't make that very clear. Just the AIR group is 100nm from the Soviets. The carrier itself is 300nm away. We didn't bother with the first part of the flight from the Midway toward the Soviets. >What happened to your other two EA-6Bs? This is a strange one. My copy of the scenario does not list *any* EA-6Bs under the Forces section of the Blue General Orders. I know that most carriers have a few (5-6) EA-6Bs, however, so we just rolled some dice to determine how many EA-6Bs were available for this raid. >Another twist to consider is to use the aircraft endurance rules in >the new Data Annex. Some planes may not need drop tanks... This would be very interesting. You might also consider the use of buddy stores and in-flight refueling to reach the target. This would complicate/expand the American's options for load-outs. Hmmmm. What about adding some KA-6s to the American forces? >The SA-N-7s cannot (at least according to the new Data Annex) hit >seaskimmers. So the seaskimming Harpoons cannot be hit by them. Ooops. I missed this one. The Russian player must have made a mistake in transferring info from the Data Annex to his reference sheet. I have it right here, and it lists SA-N-7s as capable down to VLow altitude, which is clearly a mistake. His ships must have had the SA-N-7X block II upgrade :-) >This brings up the most forgotten rule in Harpoon. (I don't think it >would have effected the play here.) Rule 4.4.4 (Missile Ranges) states Exactly right. I guess its reign as "most forgotten" remains unchallenged. Anyone have any rational behind this rule? Half range seems like a pretty severe penalty. >Walleyes are not "launch & leave" (rule 6.2.3.2)... The Walleye's LOS comes from a little TV camera in the nose of the missile. The controller has a screen in the cockpit (monochrome) and a little joystick to issue commands to the Walleye. Basically it doesn't matter what your plane does, you just watch the TV picture (relayed from the Walleye) and steer the missile to the target. They are not really launch & leave, but safer to use than 6.2.3.2 implies. For simplicity, I've been treating Walleyes as follows: You must have a LOS to launch, and the *missile* must maintain LOS to the target. The launching plane may do as it pleases after launch. A plane may only control one EO guided missile at a time. If the controlling plane is shot down, then the missile goes stupid. There should also be a penalty/restriction for single pilot aircraft if they manuever (pilot workload), but I usually don't bother. I've been assuming that most EO guidance systems work on a similar principle whether they use visible (TV) or IR light. The missiles that would require the type guidance specified in 6.2.3.2 (you can see the target during the entire missile flight) would be those with Command guidance. I worked with electronic-optical guidance for Walleyes on A-7Ds at LTV back around 1980, so I'm pretty sure about how they work. Any additional information would be welcome. I, by the way, couldn't find any guided ordnance in the 1990 annex that's listed as launch & leave. Any info on that? >The AGM-65E Maverick is SALH. By rule 6.2.3.2, at least one laser >designator must illuminate the target during flight of the Maverick >salvo. I thought the A-6s had a built-in laser designator?? This may have been a mistake on my part. >I suspect the Frunze is quite a bit bigger on radar. So I don't think >this is necessary. Anybody with more knowledge on the limitations of >radar want to comment? I think you are right. The rules just cover big blips and little blips, but you should be able to tell a cruiser from a destroyer, IMHO. >BTW, the new Data Annex does >not give the HARM target memory (ie "stores emitter location"). >Personally, I think that is a typo. Agreed. HARM *does* have the ability to store emitter location. Pencil it into your books! Ralph Keyser Albuquerque, New Mexico sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 14 Sep 1990 12:45:56 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (45) Re: First Team Scenario > This is a strange one. My copy of the scenario does not list *any* > EA-6Bs under the Forces section of the Blue General Orders. I know > that most carriers have a few (5-6) EA-6Bs, however, so we just > rolled some dice to determine how many EA-6Bs were available for > this raid. I am not sure whether this appeared in the official 3.1 errata or just from a letter I got from Larry Bond, but there should be 4 Prowlers for this scenario. > Exactly right. I guess its [rule 4.4.4] reign as "most forgotten" > remains unchallenged. Anyone have any rational behind this rule? > Half range seems like a pretty severe penalty. The idea is to impose a penalty when players use weapons meant to cruise supersonic at higher altitudes (eg AS-4, AS-6) close to the deck. However, it is sort of loosely stated. I suppose it should not apply to stuff like Maverick, which is almost always fired from low altitudes anyway, nor to low speed glide bombs. Maybe, we can work out a revised rule based on the cruising altitudes and speeds listed in the Data Annex? > The Walleye's LOS comes from a little TV camera in the nose of the > missile. The controller has a screen in the cockpit (monochrome) and > a little joystick to issue commands to the Walleye. Basically it > doesn't matter what your plane does, you just watch the TV picture > (relayed from the Walleye) and steer the missile to the target. They > are not really launch & leave, but safer to use than 6.2.3.2 > implies. I believe you are describing a mode of operation that uses a data link pod to receive the TV image and control the weapon. The GDW "Air Strike" game seems to imply you might also be able to operate it without a data pod. Do you know of any targeting mode for Walleye that does not need a data pod? (Or are they just making stuff up?) > For simplicity, I've been treating Walleyes as follows: > > You must have a LOS to launch, and the *missile* must maintain > LOS to the target. The launching plane may do as it pleases > after launch. A plane may only control one EO guided missile > at a time. If the controlling plane is shot down, then the > missile goes stupid. There should also be a > penalty/restriction for single pilot aircraft if they manuever > (pilot workload), but I usually don't bother. Sounds to me like a good way to run things. > I've been assuming that most EO guidance systems work on a similar > principle whether they use visible (TV) or IR light. The missiles > that would require the type guidance specified in 6.2.3.2 (you can > see the target during the entire missile flight) would be those with > Command guidance. Are there any true L&L systems around? Are there any TV or imaging IR systems, that can lock on to the target image and home in without any further intervention? > I worked with electronic-optical guidance for Walleyes on A-7Ds at > LTV back around 1980, so I'm pretty sure about how they work. Any > additional information would be welcome. One additional point about Walleyes (and all those GBUs). They are unpowered glide bombs. So their maximum ranges are only attainable by using high altitude launch. (A very important factor to consider if you are on the deck.) A simple way to handle this is to come up with some glide path ratio. (Assume the maximum safe launch speed.) Then you simply multiply release alititude by the ratio to determine range. Anyone have a ball-park ratio? (The GDW game "Air Strike" uses a generic ratio of 12. That means for every 152m of altitude the Walleye would travel 1nm, up to its maximum.) Another possibility (again described by GDW's "Air Strike") for Walleye with data pod is lofting. In this mode, you must know bearing and approximate range. But you don't actually have to see the target at launch. You enter a zoom climb and pitch it. After it noses over, it enters it's glide and you find the target and guide it in. For that matter, lofting is also described as an ARM attack method. Sort of a poor man's loiter, requiring very tight timing. Loft the ARM. Just when it noses over, your strike appears on the enemy radars. > I, by the way, couldn't find any guided ordnance in the 1990 annex > that's listed as launch & leave. Any info on that? You are right about that. I think the proper fix is to expand the rules on how those listed guidance systems work in game terms. > I thought the A-6s had a built-in laser designator?? This may have > been a mistake on my part. They sure do. It's part of the TRAM stuff. I think, though, Hornets need to stick a little pod on. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Mon Sep 17 10:25:51 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA05163; Mon, 17 Sep 90 10:25:51 -0700 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 10:25:51 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9009171725.AA05163@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #15 (msgs 46-49) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 17 September 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 15 First Message: 46 Messages: 4 Topics: (46) Most Forgotten Rule mwe@sundog.caltech.edu (47) Launch and Leave ted@cs.utexas.edu (48) Book Review tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (49) Re: Indian Navy tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 16:33:52 PDT From: mwe@sundog.caltech.edu Subject: (46) Most Forgotten Rule Rule 4.4.4 is, if anything, too generous in assessing only a one-half range penalty for low altitude launch of a non-cruise weapon. Remember that such weapons [including HARM!] are unpowered for most of their flight. If we ignore drag for a moment, then the weapons will follow ballistic trajectories. For an initial velocity of 300 m/sec (about Mach 1, chosen for illustrative purposes only), sea-level launch, and an optimum toss angle of 45 degrees, a weapon will travel about 9 km before impact. A weapon launched horizontally at the same speed but at 10,000 m altitude will travel 13.5 km, and a 30 degree toss from 10,000 m would give a range of 22 km. Including the effects of drag hurts the low altitude launch more, both because increasing the drag lowers the optimum toss angle, and because the air is thicker at sea level, where the low altitude launched missile spends more of its time. It isn't easy to put a HARM on a target with a long range SAM, because sneaking in below the radar horizon means you have to get ALOT closer in order to launch. The one-half range penalty used in the rules is in the spirit of HARPOON to use playable simplifications. You can add a little more realism by using vacuum trajectories, if you can get a good value for the velocity kick supplied by the weapon's booster. This method also implicitly includes the dependence on the velocity of the launching aircraft. Getting the range right would require the detailed drag curves for the missile airframe, but these are probably harder to get than the actual tac manuals for the weapons in question 8-). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 02:06:48 CDT From: ted@cs.utexas.edu (James Woodward) Subject: Re: First Team Scenario Summary: (47) Launch and Leave Comment: message index headers added In (44) Re: First Team Scenario, sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu writes: > I've been assuming that most EO guidance systems work on a similar > principle whether they use visible (TV) or IR light. The missiles > that would require the type guidance specified in 6.2.3.2 (you can > see the target during the entire missile flight) would be those with > Command guidance. In (45) Re: First Team Scenario, tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu writes: >Are there any true L&L systems around? >Are there any TV or imaging IR systems, that can lock on to the target >image and home in without any further intervention? OK, from _Jane's Weapons Systems_, 1985-86: TV Maverick (AGM-65A/B) "...On his TV monitor, the pilot sees the picture transmitted from the missile seeker. He slews the seeker to the target, locks the TV tracker on target, and launches the missile. The aircraft can take immediate evasive action (launch and leave) or fire successive missiles while the first missile homes automatically on to the target." IR Maverick (AGM-65D) "...An infra-red (IR) system provides autonomous launch-and-leave guidance both day and night, and under low visibility conditions." _Jane's_ goes on to say that the Navy model is the AGM-65F, which has an IIR seeker and additional tracking logic for ships, but has the bigger warhead of the 65E (laser) made for the USMC. The A/B and D are USAF missiles, the E is USMC, and the F is Navy. The C was mever produced; instead it's seeker was used on the E model. Both the E and F models have 136 kilo kinetic energy penetrator blast-frag warhead, instead of the 57 kg forward-firing shaped charge. The F has selectable fuzing for opimum effectiveness against various types of targets (Kirovs to paper-hulled nanuchkas and the like, I guess.) 1800 A/B's (the B has a smaller field of view for greater magnification) were test-fired, with 85% hit. 100 were fired in combat, with 87% hits. Operation flight testing of the E in the summer of 1982 resulted in 15 out of 15 hits. The data annex I have (1987) gives figures for the C model. Does the new one? I would expect EO mavericks to work very nicely against ships in the daytime, and IIR mavericks to do the job any time. As an aside, I was talking to an Air Force Colonel a few weeks ago who helped train the Saudi Air Force. He said he hoped we took along some IIR mavericks, because tanks stand out really well against the cold desert at night, when the EO doesn't work. If I were playing the US in this scenario and decide to take mavericks, I'd take F models. They've got a bigger warhead, and are really L&L. Ted Woodward (ted@cs.utexas.edu) Greetings, Royal Ugly Dudes! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 1990 09:39:02 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (48) Book Review Encyclopaedia of Modern Aircraft Armament by Christopher Chant published by Patrick Stephens Limited (in US by Harper and Row) copyright 1988 304 pp., 9.5" x 8", line drawings, photos, index ISBN 0-85059-862-1 British Pound Sterling 19.95 (US$ 29.95) This book lists aircraft ordnance data by hardpoint. As noted in the SITREP review of this book, it contains listings for quite a wide variety of fixed and rotary wing aircraft (eg the Yugoslavian Soko J-1, G-4 and IAR-93B). Each entry includes one or more black and white pictures of a plane, some text describing the different variants and their equipment and a drawing showing loadouts. The loadout diagram shows a line drawing of the plane and its hardpoints. Each hardpoint is rated for load capacity. Arrayed underneath each hardpoint in columns are stylized symbols showing how many of various air ordnance items can be carried. This seems to be the only book of its kind. I have been told that some armament information can be found in such books as "Modern Air Combat" (Bill Gunston and Mike Spick, Salamander 1983). But a book like that has its focus elsewhere and can only give data on a relatively few models. So certainly, in terms of scope, Chant's book is unmatched. Unfortunately, there are some problems too. There are several really obvious errors (eg misaligned columns in loadout diagrams). Some data seems dated (eg Shrike ARM is shown on the A-6 diagram). Finally, the armament lists are certainly not complete (eg no Mk84 bomb listed for FA-18). Also, it is not possible to tell the difference between maximum and practical, realistic loads. This is a problem shared by all references I have seen on the subject. Most modern planes can carry almost anything on a high capacity hardpoint. Certainly, one cannot put all possible armaments in the type of diagrams used in this book. So the author must choose to show what he feels are the most important types of ordnance. Also, there are limitations on publically available information in this area. Nevertheless, the author should have been able to come up with standard lists of items (including weapon racks) that would be carried on hardpoints, noting exceptions for specific planes. Overall, I would say this is a useful reference for someone interested in aircraft ordnance. However, I would regard it as a starting point and not as a definitive guide. -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 4 Sep 1990 11:44:45 PDT From: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim) Subject: (49) Re: Indian Navy In (17) Indian Navy, Jonathan E Davis writes: > The latest Data Annex does not list anything for this navy and the > Proceedings are lacking in detail. Does anyone have additional > information regarding the Indian navy's surface, air, and submarine > forces for a detailed order of battle? I am interested in generating > scenarios with the Indian navy in conflict with either China or > Pakistan, or other regional conflicts. Here are the main units of the Indian Navy according to "Combat Fleets of the World, 1990-1991". There are a few units omitted because they are either so new that no details have been released about them (and they are still in development) or they are so minor that they are not interesting from a Harpoon combat point of view. As you can see, they have a lot of UK and USSR equipment. However, a number of differences exist between Indian and UK/USSR ships. Some ships were modified for export and the Indians have made some local modifications. As time permits, I will be posting Data Annex style information on these ships classes. I will try to highlight any variations from the standard models. UK Hermes class CVH (Vikraat) 1 UK Glory class CVH (Vikrant) 1 USSR Charlie class SSGN (Chakra) 1 FRG SSK-1500 class SS 2+2 USSR Kilo class SS 7+1 USSR Foxtrot class SS 8 USSR Kashin class DDG 5 Godavari class FF 3 UK Leander class FF 6 UK Leopard class FF (Betwa) 1 UK Whitby class FF (Trishul) 1 Khukri class FFL 1+3+8 USSR Tarantul I class FFL 1+5+18 USSR Nanuchka II class FFL 3 USSR Petya II class FFL 8 USSR Osa II class PG 8 USSR Pauk class PC 2 USSR Natya class MS 12 Magar class LST 2+6 USSR Polnocny class LST 8 Rajaba Gan Palan class AO 0+1+1 Deepak class AO 2 Vikram class PC (Coast Guard) 6+1 -ted Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * ********** From cz Mon Sep 17 10:56:51 1990 Received: by penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Sendmail 5.61a+YP/2.18a) id AA05230; Mon, 17 Sep 90 10:56:51 -0700 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 10:56:51 -0700 From: cz (Convergence Zone Mailing List) Message-Id: <9009171756.AA05230@penzance.cs.ucla.edu> To: cz-dist Subject: CZ v2 #16 (msgs 50-51) Status: RO The Convergence Zone Date: 17 September 1990 Volume: 2 Issue: 16 First Message: 50 Messages: 2 Topics: (50) Volume 2 Index cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (51) CZ Guidelines cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. Submissions: cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu Administration: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu Archives: sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca (129.100.4.12) : pub/cz via anonymous FTP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 17 Sep 1990 10:33:59 PDT From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (50) Volume 2 Index Volume Issue Date Messages Author ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 1 13 August 1990 (1) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (2) Volume 1 Index cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (3) Re: Harpoon History frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (4) ARM Loitering tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 2 15 August 1990 (5) Questions forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (6) Re: Questions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (7) USN Middle East Deployment tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 3 20 August 1990 (8) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (9) Torpedo Questions forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (10) Re: Torpedo Questions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (11) Origins tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (12) Laser Dazzle Weapons tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 4 22 August 1990 (13) GenCon & SITREP dan@engrg.uwo.ca (14) Re: GenCon & SITREP tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (15) Re: Unilateral Detection tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (16) Revised LOS Chart tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 5 23 August 1990 (17) Indian Navy davisje@crdgw2.crd.ge.com (18) Re: Torpedo Questions sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (19) MAD tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (20) Data Annex Questions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 6 24 August 1990 (21) Re: MAD sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (22) Re: MAD tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (23) Soviet Udaloy Class tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 7 27 August 1990 (24) Editorial cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (25) Re: Indian Navy and MAD forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (26) Aegis tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (27) Game Conventions tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (28) Re: MAD tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (29) Scenario Editor dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au 8 28 August 1990 (30) Re: LDS frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (31) MAD in Warship Commander forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (32) ESM Ranges tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 9 29 August 1990 (33) MAD and Torpedo Defense terryr@cse.ogi.edu (34) More MADness tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (35) Skytrex address? davisje@crdgw2.crd.ge.com 10 4 September 1990 (36) Computer Nuke Bug? d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (37) Gateway 1990 tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 11 7 September 1990 (38) Re: First Team Scenario sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu 12 10 September 1990 (39) Re: First Team Scenario forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (40) Re: First Team Scenario tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 13 11 September 1990 (41) CVW-7 and VLow Flying frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (42) Re: First Team Scenario forester@garnet.berkeley.edu (43) First Team and Ordnance tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 14 14 September 1990 (44) Re: First Team Scenario sandia!ralph@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (45) Re: First Team Scenario tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 15 17 September 1990 (46) Most Forgotten Rule mwe@sundog.caltech.edu (47) Launch and Leave ted@cs.utexas.edu (48) Book Review tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (49) Re: Indian Navy tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu 16 17 Sepetember 1990 (50) Volume 2 Index cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (51) CZ Guidelines cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 17 Sep 1990 10:34:01 PDT From: cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu (CZ Administrator) Subject: (51) CZ Guidelines A periodic posting, just to remind you of the administrative details: Guidelines for The Convergence Zone Last Update: 10 August 1990 Author: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim - CZ Moderator) Welcome to The Convergence Zone! Goal "The Convergence Zone" (or just "CZ" for short) is an electronic mailing list for the discussion of the Harpoon naval wargame series and related topics. The Harpoon products include Harpoon, Captain's Edition Harpoon, Computer Harpoon, Harpoon SITREP, and various supplements for the print and computer versions. Naval topics are discussed in so far as they are related to the game or provide useful background. The goal of CZ is interesting discussions and material and just plain fun. Submissions Messages for submission to the mailing list should be sent to "cz@pram.cs.ucla.edu". CZ is published in digest form. All messages are subject to possible rejection or editing by the moderator. Rejection should be pretty rare and only occurs if the subject of a message is wholly inappropriate or if the message is offensive. (Please keep flames to a minimum!) Editing should be pretty rare also. Reasons for editing include (but are not necessarily limited to) extreme length, obvious errors and really bad formatting. Any editing will be noted. Please double check your submissions for errors and try to stay within 80 characters per line. Administration Administrative requests should be sent to "cz-request@pram.cs.ucla.edu". Once in a while, the moderator has to do real work, so please be patient. If several people on the same machine receive the CZ, please try to organize a local redistribution. When you signup, I will send you back issues from the current volume. Previous volumes are available from the archives. Archives After each volume is complete, it along with an index is placed on "sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca" (129.100.4.12) for access by anonymous FTP. Please be polite and don't FTP from 08:00 to 18:00 US Eastern time during a workday. The CZ archive volumes appear under the "pub/cz" directory in compressed format. The volumes are named v1.Z, v2.Z, etc. The index files are named i1.Z, i2.Z, etc. -ted (disguised as CZ Administrator) PS: As you have probably surmised this is the end of volume 2. Volume 2 and the index will appear shortly on the archive site. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** * CZ End * **********