New scenario: Polish Navy vs Baltic Fleet 2013

[emsoy]

Hi KBOSAK,

Have made a number of mods and additions, and also have a few questions. Please see below:

Did a complete rebuild of Tarantul boats as per your specifications, the boats are indeed Tarantul I not III. Also added 2000 version with Quad Grom mount.
- 434 Gornik [Pr.1241RE Tarantul I] -- Poland (Navy), 1984, 4x
- 434 Gornik [Pr.1241RE Tarantul I] -- Poland (Navy), 2000, 4x

OHP:
- Removed CWIS and Mk13 mount, as they have no ammo.
- Added a 2008 version of the class with MU90 torpedoes to match the 2008 version of the SH-2G.
- Is the Grom system made up of MANPADS or Quad launcher systems?

Kaszub:
- Added new entry with new sonar MG-322DSP Vychegda, "240 Kaszub [Pr.620] -- Poland (Navy), 2008"
- When was TEST-71ME installed?
- Is the Grom system made up of MANPADS or Quad launcher systems?

660 Orkan:
- Updated gun mount arcs and RBS-15 qty per your request.
- I think ST240 Toadfish was installed ca 2008?
- CRM-200 has a 1kW power output in Command to maximize range. Not entirely sure this should be changed?
- Grom MANPADS in addition to Quad mount?

Kobben:
- Added "294 Sokol [Type 207, Kobben Class]" carrying Type 617 torps only, which is the export designation for Tp 613.
- Only 4 of the eight torpedo tubes are used? Did I get that right?
- Does Poland carry MANPADS on these operationally? Are you sure it is practically possible to fire these SAMs from the subs?

Kilo:
- When was TEST-71ME installed? Some sources claim these subs were used in the anti-ship role only.
- When was Grom installed?

Mi-14 versions already in the database:
Mi-14PL Haze A -- Poland (Navy), 1982, Mi-14PW
Mi-14PL Haze A -- Poland (Navy), 2002
Mi-14PL Haze A -- Poland (Navy), 2007
Mi-14PS Haze C -- Poland (Navy), 1982, 5x

Added:
M28B Bryza 1R [An-28 Copy] -- Poland (Navy), 1995, 7x
Arty Bty (155mm/52 Self-Propelled Krab Howitzer x 6) -- Poland (Army), 2013

Misc corrections:
- Fixed Tarantul I Bass Tilt radar arc
- Removed one AK-630 on Polish Tarantul I

The reason we have separate database entries for submarine and ship torpedoes is because surface ships use the torps out to the maximum kinematic range while subs do
not.

The Garpun is credited with a 70nm+ OTH range against large targets, and 24nm against small targets. The OTH capability was needed to fire the SS-N-2D out to its maximum range, apparently. The Sea Giraffe 150 has a different role it seems. I can give it OTH capability in the database if it has this in real life. Ditto for AN/SPS-55.

Thanks!

[kbosak]

"boats are indeed Tarantul I not III. Also added 2000 version with Quad Grom mount."

I have screwed up. It turns out that polish navy is using grom as pure manpads, either from submarine kiosk or side galleries of the of ship's bridge,
but all quad mounts are retained for original strela-2M only. They should be interchangeable in theory, but apparently ther is some minor detail like voltage, rails width, whatever.

OHP:
"- Removed CWIS and Mk13 mount, as they have no ammo"
I have spotted that on the photos physically CIWS is still there, but ammo is not and infact the system is not operational as repeated many times on navy enthusiasts forums. I have edited on my scenario by making null ammo count for this, but on the other hand, most probably search radar is never enabled as well so erasing the mount is closer to reality.
-Remember Polish Navy has no single standard arm nor harpoon and is not planning to have. So MK13 mount is physically there on OHP, but similar situation as with phalanx. Those ships are simply manpower-intensive huge boat chasers with good sensors keeping headcount for better times, which may never arrive. Witt updated MU-90 torpedos, also for their seasprite, with practically no reloads (20pcs or so for the whole navy)

"- Is the Grom system made up of MANPADS or Quad launcher systems?"
looks like in teh navy there are only strela-2M on quad launchers, grom as pure manpads (single tube).
apparently there are two wrobel mounts available on polish ships
ZU-23-2MR Wróbel (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZU-23-2M_Wr%C3%B3bel)
and
ZU-23-2MR Wróbel II (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZU-23-2MR_Wr%C3%B3bel_II)
the second one has reportedly handling issues when swithing between guns and rocket (assume a few good seconds ofdelay), this is why all mounts with wrobel (v1) stay on ships where they are.
So also Wrobel II uses Strela-2M and not Grom

Kaszub:
This is an ASW corvette since always and wake-homing torpedo on it... was a TOTAL surprise.
What I know for sure is that polish navy is using TEST-71 ASW torpedo on ORP Orzeł (877E Kilo), Kaszub being build during the fall of commmunism, so the only reasonnable guess for 533mm ASW torpedo is TEST-71.

660 Grom:
about toadfish VDS:
http://fotoforum.gazeta.pl/photo/2/c...WS6Zr5uGdX.jpg there is NOTHING between AK630M and the tail. No lift, no place for a reel. And it would make no sense at all to put a sonar on them. Those are not Pauk-style boats, those are fast and noisy, small surface cobatants Tarantul-style, without a single armament agains submarines. This toadfish idea is rumor copypasted from swedish sub hunters, I think. Swedes wre obsessed about sub-chasing, and grom 660 basically uses their command&control, but not with all its possible flavours.


Kobben:
"- Only 4 of the eight torpedo tubes are used? Did I get that right?"
In my scenario I have empied half of them by default since I suppose total stocks of those ammo is not more than 16-20pcs for all Kobbens. Buying of MU-90 was cut from 32 to somehting like 20 for financial reasons alone, and type 612 was simply haded over Danish Navy with Kobbens. This means if they wer shipped with full salvo plus a few more, there is no more than a few left per ship after several naval exercices, possibly add bad maintenance etc...
"- Does Poland carry MANPADS on these operationally? Are you sure it is practically possible to fire these SAMs from the subs?"
This is not sure if those are streal-2m or grom but is quite possible given it was mentioned as practiced in Kilo to have one maybe two manpads which years ago coudl be only strela-2m. Of course it is fired only when completely surfaced. Basically as mean of self-defense in K-19 widowmaker scenario .

Kilo:
"- When was TEST-71ME installed? Some sources claim these subs were used in the anti-ship role only."
Read this several times on polish naval forums.

Kobben & Kilo,
"- When was Grom installed?"
Only supposed. Only after mobilisation. For sure that igla launcher mast mentioned in your original database for Kilo is not there, probably never was. Grom is VERY popular in polish armed forces (500-800 pcs? locally built and is supplementing several hundreds of strela-2M) so no wonder one or two will be handled to navy for the most precious units like submarines.

Kobben:
This page suggests that:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobben
they have the following sensor suite after upgrades:
sonar changed
CSU-83 (DBQS-21) sonar suystem composed of: CSU 3-4 medium/high freq avtive/passive sonar
FAS 3-1 passive hull array
PRS 3-15 passive rangefinder sonar array
radar changed to Kelvin Hughes Typ 1007 navigation radar

Tarantul:
"Misc corrections: - Removed one AK-630 on Polish Tarantul I"
NONONO! Tarantuls all have two, Pauk on the same hull has one.
Both have only one fire control radar.
Pauk is ASW or KGB/boirderguard and no ASuW, Tarantuls are pure ASuW.
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okr%C4%99ty_projektu_1241
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QUYTiYwMQ6.../s1600/OS3.jpg

Tarantul:
"The Garpun is credited with a 70nm+ OTH range against large targets, and 24nm against small targets. The OTH capability was needed to fire the SS-N-2D out to its maximum range, apparently."
And this is a kludge.
Ther reality is, most missile boats CANNOT fire their missiles OTH because their mast is too low for radar horison. I have read about this Garpun on FAS site. It is OTH ONLY if one of the boats acting as emitter is closer, then the reciever boats can be further away and those are OTH. Emitter is not OTH so effectively from tactial point of view for simple scenarios as we have it is NON-OTH radar for all practical purposes, if we make if miraculous OTH it starts working better than high-positioned surface search on a missile destroyer or even OHP what is a nonsense. radar horison (mount altitude and target altitude) is what dictates max range except a few very special radars, more power on large radars only makes sure that you can detect even the smallest object up to the max radar horison and this is where big destroyer radar winds: by height and power, but only a dozen miles or so.
This is a problem for Polish Navy: how to direct all those RBS-15, even STYX MOD C, and NSM of course, havin a few stupid M-28 Bryza that are easy to be shot down and even them have some 120km radar range... but for a frigate like OHP or Sovremenny. So this is reality and I think we should not provide a kludge to make 'hero boats' appear on the map in order to feel better.

I am afraid of a few radar simulation issues, it seem to me after playing several games that:
-In the game, enabling any radar is counted as enabling practically all radars, from the point of view of ESM. In reality ships use sectorized low power navigation radars, and only one enables all radars. In the game, if yo enably any radar, you can detect and classify it quite easily.
-RBS-15 III (not II) has land strike capability like tomahawk (but it is GPS+inertial thing). Yet in the game it searches for surface radar-detectable target, therefore orbiting around let's say enemy airfield until out of fuel.
-in reality IR STYX missiles were able to strike heated, metal oil tanks during iran-iraq war, just to let you know.
-radar sites have no limit on number of traced targets, the with neva alone you can basically survey large part of airspace
-generic surface radars and others as well show optimistic range at low altitudes, something like 30% more than official polish navy publications/coverage maps even if we include the fact that those shore-mounted towers are taller than a big cruiser mast. This leads me to thinking, that as basic equation, you use ranges, instead of using radar horison range equation which is roughly:
http://www.radary.az.pl/zasieg.php
dist[km]=3.57*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2)), h1 and h2 in meters are emitter and target altitude. This implementation of the lowest possible detection altitude would solve Falkland scenario mystery and add a lot of intersting effects to the simulation.
-First contact scenarios are IMO badly designed, it should not start with all ships withing range of each other otherwise it becomes a random lottery based on ESM. (who blinks first). This is not reality since the ships do not appear from vacuum, and detection ranges for surface radars seem to be vastly overestimated.

[emsoy]

Originally Posted by kbosak

"boats are indeed Tarantul I not III. Also added 2000 version with Quad Grom mount."

I have screwed up. It turns out that polish navy is using grom as pure manpads, either from submarine kiosk or side galleries of the of ship's bridge,
but all quad mounts are retained for original strela-2M only. They should be interchangeable in theory, but apparently ther is some minor detail like voltage, rails
width, whatever.

Thanks, have restored the Strela and removed the quad Grom. Also added Grom MANPADS from 2000 onwards. Sounds ok?

Originally Posted by kbosak

OHP:
"- Removed CWIS and Mk13 mount, as they have no ammo"
I have spotted that on the photos physically CIWS is still there, but ammo is not and infact the system is not operational as repeated many times on navy enthusiasts
forums. I have edited on my scenario by making null ammo count for this, but on the other hand, most probably search radar is never enabled as well so erasing the
mount is closer to reality.

Thanks, also removed the AN/SPG-60 STIR.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-Remember Polish Navy has no single standard arm nor harpoon and is not planning to have. So MK13 mount is physically there on OHP, but similar situation as with
phalanx. Those ships are simply manpower-intensive huge boat chasers with good sensors keeping headcount for better times, which may never arrive. Witt updated MU-90
torpedos, also for their seasprite, with practically no reloads (20pcs or so for the whole navy)

"- Is the Grom system made up of MANPADS or Quad launcher systems?"
looks like in teh navy there are only strela-2M on quad launchers, grom as pure manpads (single tube).
apparently there are two wrobel mounts available on polish ships
ZU-23-2MR Wróbel (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZU-23-2M_Wr%C3%B3bel)
and
ZU-23-2MR Wróbel II (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZU-23-2MR_Wr%C3%B3bel_II)
the second one has reportedly handling issues when swithing between guns and rocket (assume a few good seconds ofdelay), this is why all mounts with wrobel (v1) stay
on ships where they are.
So also Wrobel II uses Strela-2M and not Grom

Great, retaining the original Wrobel II on the Goplo and Orlik classes, with ZU-23-2 and Strela-2M.

Also updated a couple more Polish ship with Wrobel (gun-only).

Originally Posted by kbosak

Kaszub:
This is an ASW corvette since always and wake-homing torpedo on it... was a TOTAL surprise.
What I know for sure is that polish navy is using TEST-71 ASW torpedo on ORP Orzeł (877E Kilo), Kaszub being build during the fall of commmunism, so the only
reasonnable guess for 533mm ASW torpedo is TEST-71.

Makes sense, have given the ships TEST-71ME and torpedo wire control.

Originally Posted by kbosak

660 Grom:
about toadfish VDS:
http://fotoforum.gazeta.pl/photo/2/c...WS6Zr5uGdX.jpg there is NOTHING between AK630M and the tail. No lift, no place for a reel. And it would make no
sense at all to put a sonar on them. Those are not Pauk-style boats, those are fast and noisy, small surface cobatants Tarantul-style, without a single armament
agains submarines. This toadfish idea is rumor copypasted from swedish sub hunters, I think. Swedes wre obsessed about sub-chasing, and grom 660 basically uses their
command&control, but not with all its possible flavours.

I'm convinced. Copy-pasted your text into the unit's "design comments" for future reference

Originally Posted by kbosak

Kobben:
"- Only 4 of the eight torpedo tubes are used? Did I get that right?"
In my scenario I have empied half of them by default since I suppose total stocks of those ammo is not more than 16-20pcs for all Kobbens. Buying of MU-90 was cut
from 32 to somehting like 20 for financial reasons alone, and type 612 was simply haded over Danish Navy with Kobbens. This means if they wer shipped with full salvo
plus a few more, there is no more than a few left per ship after several naval exercices, possibly add bad maintenance etc...
"- Does Poland carry MANPADS on these operationally? Are you sure it is practically possible to fire these SAMs from the subs?"
This is not sure if those are streal-2m or grom but is quite possible given it was mentioned as practiced in Kilo to have one maybe two manpads which years ago coudl
be only strela-2m. Of course it is fired only when completely surfaced. Basically as mean of self-defense in K-19 widowmaker scenario .

Okay I'm keeping the full 8-round torpedo loadout and letting the scenario designers reduce the load if they want

I'm slightly sceptical about the Grom on Kobben. Not entirely sure they'd ever use that operationally...

Originally Posted by kbosak

Kilo:
"- When was TEST-71ME installed? Some sources claim these subs were used in the anti-ship role only."
Read this several times on polish naval forums.

Have updated the sub with 2x TEST-71ME tubes, as per request

Originally Posted by kbosak

Kobben & Kilo,
"- When was Grom installed?"
Only supposed. Only after mobilisation. For sure that igla launcher mast mentioned in your original database for Kilo is not there, probably never was. Grom is VERY
popular in polish armed forces (500-800 pcs? locally built and is supplementing several hundreds of strela-2M) so no wonder one or two will be handled to navy for
the most precious units like submarines.

Hmm okay leaving Grom out of the Kilo, allowing scenario designer to add the MANPADS if needed.

Also removed the Igla installation.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Kobben:
This page suggests that:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobben
they have the following sensor suite after upgrades:
sonar changed
CSU-83 (DBQS-21) sonar suystem composed of: CSU 3-4 medium/high freq avtive/passive sonar
FAS 3-1 passive hull array
PRS 3-15 passive rangefinder sonar array
radar changed to Kelvin Hughes Typ 1007 navigation radar

Hmmm okay... I'm not so sure.

The CSU 3-4 was a late 1970s system. The Kobben class originally carried AN 407 and was upgraded with the early-1990s PSU 83F. The PSU 83F is not associated with the CSU 3-4. Rather, the AN 407 which is related to AN 410 is also known as CSU 3-2. So could be some confusion here?

I have not found any evidence that suggest the Kobben class was ever fitted with the FAS 3-1, which is a CSU 83/90 supplementary flank array. Probably because the sub is too small for flank arrays?

Ditto for PRS 3-15, which is fitted to the Ula class but probably not Kobben. Ula is fitted with DBQS-21N while the upgraded Kobben had/have DBQS-21F.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Tarantul:
"Misc corrections: - Removed one AK-630 on Polish Tarantul I"
NONONO! Tarantuls all have two, Pauk on the same hull has one.
Both have only one fire control radar.
Pauk is ASW or KGB/boirderguard and no ASuW, Tarantuls are pure ASuW.
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okr%C4%99ty_projektu_1241
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QUYTiYwMQ6.../s1600/OS3.jpg

Thanks, restored

Originally Posted by kbosak

Tarantul:
"The Garpun is credited with a 70nm+ OTH range against large targets, and 24nm against small targets. The OTH capability was needed to fire the SS-N-2D out to its
maximum range, apparently."
And this is a kludge.
Ther reality is, most missile boats CANNOT fire their missiles OTH because their mast is too low for radar horison. I have read about this Garpun on FAS site. It is
OTH ONLY if one of the boats acting as emitter is closer, then the reciever boats can be further away and those are OTH. Emitter is not OTH so effectively from
tactial point of view for simple scenarios as we have it is NON-OTH radar for all practical purposes, if we make if miraculous OTH it starts working better than
high-positioned surface search on a missile destroyer or even OHP what is a nonsense. radar horison (mount altitude and target altitude) is what dictates max range
except a few very special radars, more power on large radars only makes sure that you can detect even the smallest object up to the max radar horison and this is
where big destroyer radar winds: by height and power, but only a dozen miles or so.

Hm yeah but there is surface ducting which allows radars to see beyond the horizon. Under good conditions surface-to-surface detections can be made out to 100nm.

It could very well be that the Garpun wasn't capable of surface ducting. Do you have a link to the FAS article?

Amongst others, Band Stand [Monolit] is credited with a 100nm OTH-SW (Surface Wave) targeting capability for SS-N-22.

Originally Posted by kbosak

This is a problem for Polish Navy: how to direct all those RBS-15, even STYX MOD C, and NSM of course, havin a few stupid M-28 Bryza that are easy to be shot down
and even them have some 120km radar range... but for a frigate like OHP or Sovremenny. So this is reality and I think we should not provide a kludge to make 'hero
boats' appear on the map in order to feel better.

Agree 100%, we should not give platforms capabilities they don't have in RL.

Originally Posted by kbosak

I am afraid of a few radar simulation issues, it seem to me after playing several games that:
-In the game, enabling any radar is counted as enabling practically all radars, from the point of view of ESM. In reality ships use sectorized low power navigation
radars, and only one enables all radars. In the game, if yo enably any radar, you can detect and classify it quite easily.

Our current implementation is a lot better than other sims like this but as you point out there are still some limitations. The human player can manually select what radars to use, but there are no AI logics to handle this. We'll look into this later on, but it is a very complex subject.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-RBS-15 III (not II) has land strike capability like tomahawk (but it is GPS+inertial thing). Yet in the game it searches for surface radar-detectable target,
therefore orbiting around let's say enemy airfield until out of fuel.

Okay have registered a bug report on this and assigned to me. Thanks!

Originally Posted by kbosak

-in reality IR STYX missiles were able to strike heated, metal oil tanks during iran-iraq war, just to let you know.

Thanks, we need further refined (read: more complex) models for this to work right.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-radar sites have no limit on number of traced targets, the with neva alone you can basically survey large part of airspace

Yes this is a limitation in the current model. Been looking at this, but we're not quite sure how to get the 'contact selection' to work well without
driving players nuts and generating 1000 support tickets. "My radars are not detecting the bogies I want them to!"

Originally Posted by kbosak

-generic surface radars and others as well show optimistic range at low altitudes, something like 30% more than official polish navy publications/coverage maps even
if we include the fact that those shore-mounted towers are taller than a big cruiser mast. This leads me to thinking, that as basic equation, you use ranges, instead
of using radar horison range equation which is roughly:

We take both transmitter and contact height into account.

Originally Posted by kbosak

http://www.radary.az.pl/zasieg.php
dist[km]=3.57*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2)), h1 and h2 in meters are emitter and target altitude. This implementation of the lowest possible detection altitude would solve
Falkland scenario mystery and add a lot of intersting effects to the simulation.

3.57*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2)) or 4.12*Sqrt(h) is a textbook approximation. We use earth radius, tangent angle, etc to calculate surface angle and blah blah blah.

According to our sources the radar horizon is typically 20-30nm depending on sensor and contact height, and visual horizon is 15-20nm. So think our model is fairly good?

If there's an error it could be that we've put the radars too high on the ships, and the contact superstructure is too high as well.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-First contact scenarios are IMO badly designed, it should not start with all ships withing range of each other otherwise it becomes a random lottery based on ESM.
(who blinks first). This is not reality since the ships do not appear from vacuum, and detection ranges for surface radars seem to be vastly overestimated.

Agreed, the model could/should probably be refined. Coming up with good models that cover all possibilites is quite a challenge.

[kbosak]

>Kobben manpads
>I'm slightly sceptical about the Grom on Kobben. Not entirely sure they'd ever use that operationally...
I would say the Kobbens themselves are hardly operational, they have maybe 50-75% of their original endurance on batteries.
On the other hand this manpads is just a tube that can be carried easily. It is highly probable
it will be issued to submariners in order to be able to kill a lone subhunter helo, it is so easy to get
into shallow sands somewhere in the baltic and stick your hull up in the air. I know this is not 2WW but this might make
a difference between death and life.

>Kobben sonars:
You know more in this case than me. I have only pointed to the article.

>Radars & OTH
>Hm yeah but there is surface ducting which allows radars to see beyond the horizon.
of course and this is included in the equation I gave you with 3.75*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2))
for radar horison. An equation for optical horison has smaller coefficient, but this is something like 20% less
for most wavelength only. So the ducting is not same as multibouncing in which case it becomes OTH radar
but explain to me why should such radar from 1980 be so much powerful than say swedish Giraffe from 2010?
I am only asking where is the catch, that Russians has something better than all other nations in this subject of surface radars.
Maybe I have missed a huge topic.

>ESM and multi vs single radar enabling
>Our current implementation is a lot better than other sims like this but as you point out there are still some limitations. The human player can manually select what radars to use, but there are no AI logics to handle this. We'll look into this later on, but it is a very complex subject.
What I am trying to say, there might be a bug or 'absurdally powerful ESM' syndrome,
since playing in GOD mode I am observing how the ship can be seen from distance (who fires upon me),
and I swear, for two ships 200Nm apart, you can detect OHP by ESM no matter which radar it enables.
Worse, when you enable CRM-200 on type 206 Flaming, you get instant detection from sovremenny just around the hill 120km north-east from Gdansk, what is ridiculous.
since this radar is soemthign like 12NM range 1W (one watt peak!) power, with something like 0.1W under regular conditions.

>According to our sources the radar horizon is typically 20-30nm depending on sensor and contact height, and visual horizon is 15-20nm. So think our model is fairly good?
Looks very advanced! It might be interesting to enable editing altitude on generic radars (like for observation posts).
Maybe let's don't tweak in the area. Concerning first contact scenarios, it is sufficient to move the russians further north
at the beginning in order to remove general randomness of this scenario.

>Su-22M4
According to my best knowledge those are not carryign any guided missiles at the moment and it is doubtful
if they EVER had (this is about kedge/kerry/kyle toys).
Nothing guided being fired on their exercices ever landed in the press.
Now comes more delicate thing:
S-5K and S-8KO rockets differ by a factor of 4 in payload and seriously in penetration (57mm is said to be good for soft
vehicles and infantry, 80mm one is the smallest one good agains airstrips). In the game they both have roughly 1DP and this is unbalanced,
why use S-8KO in the game?

Personally I find a few details annoying during gameplay:
-cannot change aircraft Callsign once they are in a base, this makes difificult to make true-to-life names
-in many cases when trying to assign correct amoutn of stock ammo on airfields, it would be so much more convenient
to have max value+current value instead of being forced to select among 2/2 and 10000/10000 style mounts.
-you can destroy 3000m long airstrip with 3 batteries of Grad missiles just by putting it into fire.
no imagine salvo of 24 grad launchers killing entire Czerniakhovsk airbase. Makes no sense, they shoudl cover at best 3km2
of soft targets, while the base is 6km2 full of bunkers, trenches and uderground fuel dumps (Google Maps).
-MLRS launchers are not counted as single rockets. This is problematic: consider mlrs above 200mm,
Uragan in particular with 300mm. What happens you cannot interecept them in teh game due to special handling logic.
Net results you can take uragan and pick with 1-3 missiles as many single targets as you want and nobody will respnd with aa fire.
This is ridiculous, those rockets are in the size of anything that polish AA would be happy to fire even until lack of ammo.
-For artillery, arror is often given in % of azimuth and % of range, we have this data here or there so it coudl be implemented
-ammo logistics for US guided bomb munitions ammunitions is more complex as the guidance pods are attached to the iron bombs.
for example, Poles have ordered:
340 bombs Mk82
230 bombs Mk84
270 conversion kits making a bomb
Mk82 into GBU-38B/B (Mk82)
or
Mk84 into GBU-31B(V)1
270 conversion kits making a bomb
Mk82 into Paveway II
or
Mk84 into Paveway III

Therefore there is a mix of what can become what depending on targets, note that
MK84 is twice as heavy as Mk82 but less of the former are carried.
This creates completely irregular usage patterns.
For example all mk84 can become either laser or tv guided,
but there is not enough kits to do the same with MK82, and even if you make all MK84 as tv,
all MK82 must then become either laser or unguided.

-------

A few polish equipment reflecting reality of our defence agains russia.
Polish 122mm MLRS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR-40_Langusta
is polish modernized BM-21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad
using
fragmentation-HE rockets "Feniks" with 42km range
and
cargo rockets (DPICM? chocolates?) 32km.

This is important to simulate the fact we keep in check southern Kaliningrad airfields.

And then goeas 155mm L52 Krab howitzers
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Krab
http://www.militis.pl/bron-pancerna/...ubica-krab-dp1
is is said their range was specifiec in public order to be 40km and appears to have been confirmed

[emsoy]

Originally Posted by kbosak

>Kobben manpads
>I'm slightly sceptical about the Grom on Kobben. Not entirely sure they'd ever use that operationally...
I would say the Kobbens themselves are hardly operational, they have maybe 50-75% of their original endurance on batteries.
On the other hand this manpads is just a tube that can be carried easily. It is highly probable
it will be issued to submariners in order to be able to kill a lone subhunter helo, it is so easy to get
into shallow sands somewhere in the baltic and stick your hull up in the air. I know this is not 2WW but this might make
a difference between death and life.

Fair enough I'm leaving it up the scenario author to do the final per-scenario adjustments.

Originally Posted by kbosak

>Kobben sonars:
You know more in this case than me. I have only pointed to the article.

>Radars & OTH
>Hm yeah but there is surface ducting which allows radars to see beyond the horizon.
of course and this is included in the equation I gave you with 3.75*(sqrt(h1)+sqrt(h2))
for radar horison. An equation for optical horison has smaller coefficient, but this is something like 20% less
for most wavelength only. So the ducting is not same as multibouncing in which case it becomes OTH radar
but explain to me why should such radar from 1980 be so much powerful than say swedish Giraffe from 2010?
I am only asking where is the catch, that Russians has something better than all other nations in this subject of surface radars.
Maybe I have missed a huge topic.

I know for a fact that even commercial nav/surface search radars are capable of making surface detections out to 60nm under the right conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_duct

As far as I know the Giraffe is a target indicator radar, and not really an OTH fire-control system? If the Giraffe is indeed capable of making OTH-SW contacts then I'll update the Giraffe, but would like to back this up with hard facts.

Originally Posted by kbosak

>ESM and multi vs single radar enabling
>Our current implementation is a lot better than other sims like this but as you point out there are still some limitations. The human player can manually select
what radars to use, but there are no AI logics to handle this. We'll look into this later on, but it is a very complex subject.
What I am trying to say, there might be a bug or 'absurdally powerful ESM' syndrome,
since playing in GOD mode I am observing how the ship can be seen from distance (who fires upon me),
and I swear, for two ships 200Nm apart, you can detect OHP by ESM no matter which radar it enables.
Worse, when you enable CRM-200 on type 206 Flaming, you get instant detection from sovremenny just around the hill 120km north-east from Gdansk, what is ridiculous.
since this radar is soemthign like 12NM range 1W (one watt peak!) power, with something like 0.1W under regular conditions.

In real life, ESM systems produce rather impressive ranges. The reason is that the ESM systems have amazing senstitivity and radars are a lot more powerful than they have to be. I'll post up some more info on this in my next post.

Originally Posted by kbosak

>According to our sources the radar horizon is typically 20-30nm depending on sensor and contact height, and visual horizon is 15-20nm. So think our model is fairly
good?
Looks very advanced! It might be interesting to enable editing altitude on generic radars (like for observation posts).
Maybe let's don't tweak in the area. Concerning first contact scenarios, it is sufficient to move the russians further north
at the beginning in order to remove general randomness of this scenario.

Yes we'd like to implement more randomness, but this is further down on our to-do list. Anyway will take a look at the scenario and see if I can create more fog-of-war to make it more difficult for the player.

BTW, antenna height for ground-based sensors is already in the database, so the new RM-100 surveillance radar that I added last night will have a height of 22m above the ground, increasing horizon range.

Originally Posted by kbosak

>Su-22M4
According to my best knowledge those are not carryign any guided missiles at the moment and it is doubtful
if they EVER had (this is about kedge/kerry/kyle toys).
Nothing guided being fired on their exercices ever landed in the press.

There are several sources that state that the Kh-29T (AS-14 Kedge) was used by Poland on the Su-22M-4 during the Cold War. It could very well be that the weapons were later withdrawn as their seeker, warhead and/or rocket motor expired.

So what we need to do is find out when the ex-Soviet A/G missiles were withdrawn. Probably after 10-15 years, so 2000-2005?

Polish Su-22M-4 also used the AS-7:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krzesiny_52RB.JPG

I'm less sure about the AS-9 though.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Now comes more delicate thing:
S-5K and S-8KO rockets differ by a factor of 4 in payload and seriously in penetration (57mm is said to be good for soft
vehicles and infantry, 80mm one is the smallest one good agains airstrips). In the game they both have roughly 1DP and this is unbalanced,
why use S-8KO in the game?

In Command, the S-8KO is capable of penetrating 201-500mm RHA while the S-5K can only penetrate 91-140mm RHA.

The S-8KO has a 3.6kg HEAT warhead with 0.9 kg HE, so it has 0.9 damage points (DP). S-5K has a 1.36kg HEAT warhead, but I do not know how much HE it had and so temporarely used 1DP for this warhead. I've now recued it to 0.35 DP, but if you have info on the exact HE weight please let me know.

If you know the exact exposive type that would help also, as we're simulating a whole bunch of different exposives types and convert the explosive power to TNT equivalents.

For instance, the Mk84 2000lb GPB has 429kg/945lb of Tritonal which is equal to 643.5kg of TNT. In Command, 1x Damage Point (DP) = 1kg TNT, and the sim handles the conversion from Tritonal to TNT equivalents automatically. Thus, the Mk84 will inflict 643.5 DP rather than 429 DP.

Neat, huh

Originally Posted by kbosak

Personally I find a few details annoying during gameplay:
-cannot change aircraft Callsign once they are in a base, this makes difificult to make true-to-life names

This is high on our to-do list (esp my own to-do list!), along with deleting a specific aircraft. We've had so many other issues that have been given higher priority, but we'll probably get to this one pretty soon.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-in many cases when trying to assign correct amoutn of stock ammo on airfields, it would be so much more convenient
to have max value+current value instead of being forced to select among 2/2 and 10000/10000 style mounts.

We always recommend using the 0/10000 weapon record for ammo dumps.

If you want to save time when adding weapons to ammo dumps you can create an SBR INI file and load the magazines all-in-one.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-you can destroy 3000m long airstrip with 3 batteries of Grad missiles just by putting it into fire.
no imagine salvo of 24 grad launchers killing entire Czerniakhovsk airbase. Makes no sense, they shoudl cover at best 3km2
of soft targets, while the base is 6km2 full of bunkers, trenches and uderground fuel dumps (Google Maps).

Yes this sounds unrealistic. Can you send me a savegame showing this and I'll look into it. Thanks!

Originally Posted by kbosak

-MLRS launchers are not counted as single rockets. This is problematic: consider mlrs above 200mm,
Uragan in particular with 300mm. What happens you cannot interecept them in teh game due to special handling logic.
Net results you can take uragan and pick with 1-3 missiles as many single targets as you want and nobody will respnd with aa fire.
This is ridiculous, those rockets are in the size of anything that polish AA would be happy to fire even until lack of ammo.

Hmmmm yeah this is a tough one... Can you send me a list of the battlefield rockets you think should be interceptable by SAMs, so that we can discuss this?

We currently have the M26 MLRS rockets implemented as interceptable rockets, where as 155mm GPS-guided arty shells are not. So should probably implement the BM-27 the same way.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-For artillery, arror is often given in % of azimuth and % of range, we have this data here or there so it coudl be implemented

Yeah we currently use CEP at max range.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-ammo logistics for US guided bomb munitions ammunitions is more complex as the guidance pods are attached to the iron bombs.
for example, Poles have ordered:
340 bombs Mk82
230 bombs Mk84
270 conversion kits making a bomb
Mk82 into GBU-38B/B (Mk82)
or
Mk84 into GBU-31B(V)1
270 conversion kits making a bomb
Mk82 into Paveway II
or
Mk84 into Paveway III

Okay but the JDAM tail kits for Mk82 and Mk84 aren't interchangeable, ditto for the Paveway kits esp since they are PW II and PW III. So there are some rather important details in the kit quantities that have been left out.

So what we basically know is that there are 570 bombs and 530 guidance kids, so 40 bombs have no kits.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Therefore there is a mix of what can become what depending on targets, note that
MK84 is twice as heavy as Mk82 but less of the former are carried.
This creates completely irregular usage patterns.
For example all mk84 can become either laser or tv guided,
but there is not enough kits to do the same with MK82, and even if you make all MK84 as tv,
all MK82 must then become either laser or unguided.

[emsoy]

Kh-29T, here:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4162/1843/1600/b.jpg

[emsoy]

Originally Posted by kbosak

A few polish equipment reflecting reality of our defence agains russia.
Polish 122mm MLRS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WR-40_Langusta
is polish modernized BM-21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad
using
fragmentation-HE rockets "Feniks" with 42km range
and
cargo rockets (DPICM? chocolates?) 32km.

This is important to simulate the fact we keep in check southern Kaliningrad airfields.

Do you have more information on this system? The info above isn't enough to make a good implementation.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by kbosak

And then goeas 155mm L52 Krab howitzers
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Krab
http://www.militis.pl/bron-pancerna/...ubica-krab-dp1
is is said their range was specifiec in public order to be 40km and appears to have been confirmed

Yeah have given the Krab system with Base Bleed ammo a 20nm range.

[emsoy]

Copy-paste from this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm...&key=&#3483728


Here are some screenshots from the Radar Calc MS/Excel sheets I've used to balance out the radar model. It should give some clues about the input parameters and also the model's complexity. Note that stats from public sources are in black, my wilda$$ guessimations are in red. Lots of comments here and there. And yes, we only have one operating mode per radar set, which is the most typical operating mode.

Since the Command sensor code is written in Visual Basic, we use the _exact_same_ code in both the simulator and the above MS/Excel spreadsheet. Pretty neat huh!

The 1980-2015+ database contains 1838 (finished) radars and they've all been balanced out like this. Yes, that was a insane job. The 1950-1979 database has a load of earlier sets extinct by 1980. The database editor has the same VB sensor code as the sim and the MS/Excel spreadsheet, and thus also does a bunch of sample calcs in the editor itself just to make sure the input params aren't out of whack.








Here are some range estimations for some ESM sets against five typical radar sets. Again, black stats are from public sources, red are my wilda$$ guesses. And as for radars, this was a big job as well.

And as you can see, high-end ESM/ELINT sets produce some pretty ridiculous range estimates against powerful radars hehe.





Here are some ECM vs radar examples. As you can see it is pretty complex. Black stats come from declass sources, red stats are my guessimations.

The effects assume the target radar antenna points directly at the jammer beam. Sidelobe jamming (which Command also simulates) has less effect.

[kbosak]

Originally Posted by emsoy

Do you have more information on this system? The info above isn't enough to make a good implementation.
Thanks!
Yeah have given the Krab system with Base Bleed ammo a 20nm range.

Concerning WR-40 Langusta,
it is strictly BM-21 launcher withh no reloads on the truck as before,
the difference is in things that are very important but not simulated at all in the game: the use of GPS+INS, full automation, 7.26mm protected cab for the entire crew and probably ABC secured.
I would just copy-paste BM-21 specs, extrapolate linearly CEP, apply ranges as I have stated, max car speed is now 53mph and it is heavier but otherwise it is essentially the same system.
The ammunition is 122mm of a new type but compatible with BM-21, yet I think standard BM-21 cars don;t have aiming instrumentation for those new larger pages.
http://www.altair.com.pl/magazines/a...article_id=272

If you want to order a few examples online, webpage of their maker is here:
http://www.hsw.pl/1076/artillery-equipment
http://www.hsw.pl/czytaj/649
interesting piece of equipment,
http://www.hsw.pl/czytaj/875
Langusta with reloads like RM-70

Polish Su-22M-4 also used the AS-7:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krzesiny_52RB.JPG
Therefore we have a new loadout:
-no ECM pod
-2x fuel tanks
-2x atoll (here not sure of the type)
-2x kh-29L (one more thing, it looks it should be L=laser version, su-22M4 has laser designator in nose cone, and I see no camera head for tv initial guidance at launch phase on thsi airplane).
-in total 40x S-5K 57mm

Btw Time To Ready dialog box is not having its default focus on OK button so you always have to click with mouse or use tab-enter. Mildly annoying.

>>>We always recommend using the 0/10000 weapon record for ammo dumps.
Not the best solution as it hides logistics problems: if you are doing aviation dispersal, you don,t want to cheat by bringing 300 guided antiradar missiles to some remote wooden base if there is no storage for it, using ferry flights (for example to keep it all out of SRBM range, but in reality preventing further use). Therefore I suggest making manually editable min and max count for each ammo.

In attachment: a simple setup, BM-21 and howitzers vs 3000m 'generic airstrip' with its hangars etc. It is best to do a standalone scenario for testing purposes, but the situtaion is clear: airfield gone in 1h with all tanks, hangars, bunkers and 45 planes evern using 2 BM-21 BTYs.

[emsoy]

Okay just a quick note, the following features are now being worked on:

- SAM in ASuW role as Doctrine option (will enable/disable AI use of SAMs against ships for unit/group/mission/side)
- Hold Position option for mobile facilities (mobile units will not move to engage targets)
- Change callsigns for aircraft
- Delete specific aircraft

Neat?