New scenario: Polish Navy vs Baltic Fleet 2013

[kbosak]

Hi all, I have made and tested a complete scenario based on real life data:


Actual state of readiness for Polish Navy in 2013 using public data sources and approximated platforms where available. The idea is to simulate shore defenses response to surprise attack from Russian Baltic Fleet from Baltijsk (Kaliningrad) naval base.
Modifications of the original game platforms include:
2x Tarantul I:
-should have no sonar
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-sensor model wrong Shave range in active mode should be around 30Nm, no OTH
-sensor model wrong Kolonka on all units visual targetting range should be 10nm or less, not 40
-Wine Glass ECM is only installed in Tarantul III, removed.
2x OH Perry:
-has no Phalanx ammo and no Mk13 launcher at all
-added four SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-mazine has 2x MU90 for seasprite
-changed main trop launcher to 2x triple MU90
-should add Kaman Seasprite
Stocks: -PWM has bought MU90 16-18 torpedos, OHP full salvo is 12, a few fired for exercices. Therefore max 2 spares per ship
-36 RBS-15 MK3 missiles, therefore 8 per each project 660 and a few spares.
1xKaszub
-changed torpedo mount to TEST-71ME, firing only into frontal arc
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
3x660 Grom:
-in fact carries 8x RBS15 mk3, while keeping only 4 containers during regular sailing
-removed false quad strela launchers, there are none
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
4xKobben:
-changed torpedo type to 613 Sub
-incomplete torpedo tubes (only 4 loaded with 613)
-no ASW torpedo for thsi type
-added one SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-should limit kobben battery range somehow, very old
1x877E Kilo:
-added one SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-ASW torpedos are now TEST-71ME
-removed Strela II mast
-should limit battery range, old
M28 Bryza, Mi-14 not included yet
-Shore AA batteries only guesstimate for initial wartime deployment after 24h notice
-Only eastern coast fixed radar posts are marked


Russian enemy are two surface groups of Baltic Fleet from Baltijsk.


All real radar placements of plish coastal defences and even NATO backbone long-range radars.

1. I would like to submit the scenario for testing.

2. I would like to edit/clean up polish platform set, since there are multiple entiries that is a random mixture of guesstimates, wishful hopes of polishplanners and copy-pasting from western/eastern original ship versions.
The list is LONG and has many tiny details. Can I get some limited editing access to it?

3. Spotted game problems:
-it is practically impossible to use towed or even mobile 155mm howitzers in order to suppress Baltijsk naval base from polish territory. Ridiculous 12nm range of modelled platforms and inability to fire 'onto approx position'. Without this trick everything depends on Russian S-300PMU placed relatively close to the border.
-AI overuses AA missiles for surface fire, which gives good results with US TICO maybe, bo wastes all russian magazines (sovremenny and gremashtshy) without much effect. I believe it shoudl be fired only on explicit ctrl+F1 order of fire.

-for no reason MU90 is fired automatically at close range onto enemy surface combatants, guidance is ok, but there is always 0% hit probability. Of course it is a pure ASW torpedo.
-it appears russian manpads are never fired agains missiles. In practice their modern versions (Igla) are useful in frontal arc even against N-22 Styx, with minimal chance.

Goalkeeper damage points are badly modelled.
Kinetic energy is (30mm/20mm)^3 =3.4 times more than Phalanx and range shoudl be higher also.
Makes difference for large russian supersonic missiles which reorted to need a few hits from phalanx to get stopped.
If you are unsure what a single bullet can do, assume that mass and therefore knetic energy rises as third power of mass. This, recalibrated to 20mm as unity, gives the following damage points:
5.45 0.02
7.26 0.05
12.7 0.26
14.5 0.38
20 1.00
23 1.52
30 3.38
35 5.36
40 8.00
57 23.15
60 27.00
76 54.87
100 125.00
127 256.05
130 274.63
152 438.98
155 465.48
Clearly, 465 for 155mm bullet is too much (would sink two FFG) therefore once can say DP from bullets is about 10-20 times overestimated in terms of DP in this example.

[Herman]

You could ask Neal Stevens, Subsim owner, to add a download section ( http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php )for MNO scenarios so that you can post it for everyone to try.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=209959

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Herman

You could ask Neal Stevens, Subsim owner, to add a download section ( http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php )for MNO scenarios so that you can post it for everyone to try.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=209959

Done.

kbosak, I've set you up with permission to upload,

Neal

[emsoy]

Hi KBOSAK, thank you very much for your feedback Comments below:

Originally Posted by kbosak

Hi all, I have made and tested a complete scenario based on real life data:

The scenario setup & force disposition looks great. Curious about what your background is hehe

Originally Posted by kbosak

Actual state of readiness for Polish Navy in 2013 using public data sources and approximated platforms where available. The idea is to simulate shore defenses response to surprise attack from Russian Baltic Fleet from Baltijsk (Kaliningrad) naval base.
Modifications of the original game platforms include:
2x Tarantul I:
-should have no sonar
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-sensor model wrong Shave range in active mode should be around 30Nm, no OTH
-sensor model wrong Kolonka on all units visual targetting range should be 10nm or less, not 40

The range for visual/IR sensors is the max (cutoff) range for the sensor. The underlying model is a bit more complex.

The Kolonka in the Command database is not a search sensor, it is slaved to other sensors and is only used to ID targets detected by those sensors. It has a 4x maginification in the database (guessimated) which means it can ID a MiG-29 at just over 6nm, frontal aspect.

If slaved to a radar at distant targets, it can still see contrails for targets at up to 40nm. It will not make an ID at these ranges though.

If I remember correctly the Hood Wink will also be able to classify the MiG-29 as small/medium/large air contact at ca 12nm.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-Wine Glass ECM is only installed in Tarantul III, removed.
2x OH Perry:
-has no Phalanx ammo and no Mk13 launcher at all
-added four SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-mazine has 2x MU90 for seasprite
-changed main trop launcher to 2x triple MU90
-should add Kaman Seasprite
Stocks: -PWM has bought MU90 16-18 torpedos, OHP full salvo is 12, a few fired for exercices. Therefore max 2 spares per ship

Thanks! This is very useful information! Good info on Polish platforms has been very hard to come by.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-36 RBS-15 MK3 missiles, therefore 8 per each project 660 and a few spares.
1xKaszub
-changed torpedo mount to TEST-71ME, firing only into frontal arc
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
3x660 Grom:
-in fact carries 8x RBS15 mk3, while keeping only 4 containers during regular sailing
-removed false quad strela launchers, there are none
-added two SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
4xKobben:
-changed torpedo type to 613 Sub
-incomplete torpedo tubes (only 4 loaded with 613)
-no ASW torpedo for thsi type
-added one SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-should limit kobben battery range somehow, very old
1x877E Kilo:
-added one SA-14 manpads simulating Grom
-ASW torpedos are now TEST-71ME
-removed Strela II mast
-should limit battery range, old
M28 Bryza, Mi-14 not included yet
-Shore AA batteries only guesstimate for initial wartime deployment after 24h notice
-Only eastern coast fixed radar posts are marked

Do you have more info on the Grom system?

Originally Posted by kbosak

Russian enemy are two surface groups of Baltic Fleet from Baltijsk.


All real radar placements of plish coastal defences and even NATO backbone long-range radars.

1. I would like to submit the scenario for testing.

I'm pretty certain you can attach scenarios to forum posts on the 'official' support forum on Matrix Games.

Originally Posted by kbosak

2. I would like to edit/clean up polish platform set, since there are multiple entiries that is a random mixture of guesstimates, wishful hopes of polishplanners and copy-pasting from western/eastern original ship versions.
The list is LONG and has many tiny details. Can I get some limited editing access to it?

Editing access can be a bit difficult, but if you send me a list of the changes you want to see made I'll make them here and pass on to you for approval.

Originally Posted by kbosak

3. Spotted game problems:
-it is practically impossible to use towed or even mobile 155mm howitzers in order to suppress Baltijsk naval base from polish territory. Ridiculous 12nm range of modelled platforms and inability to fire 'onto approx position'. Without this trick everything depends on Russian S-300PMU placed relatively close to the border.

The general area thingie is very very tricky to do. 'Coordinate targets' (point targets) is on our to do list, will add 'area coordiante targets' to the list but like I said its tricky. Sorry!

12nm is the max practical range for most systems, beyond that accuracy drops sharply. What systems/ammo would you want to use and what ranges would you like to fire at?

Originally Posted by kbosak

-AI overuses AA missiles for surface fire, which gives good results with US TICO maybe, bo wastes all russian magazines (sovremenny and gremashtshy) without much effect. I believe it shoudl be fired only on explicit ctrl+F1 order of fire.

Yeah this is a very difficult call... We also had complains when AI-controlled ships did _not_ use their SARH SAMs in anti-ship mode. So...

Let me think a little more about this. Could make it a Doctrine setting.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-for no reason MU90 is fired automatically at close range onto enemy surface combatants, guidance is ok, but there is always 0% hit probability. Of course it is a pure ASW torpedo.

Yes its a bug hehe. We've fixed this along with another related bug in the latest internal Beta release. Should be released to the public shortly.

Originally Posted by kbosak

-it appears russian manpads are never fired agains missiles. In practice their modern versions (Igla) are useful in frontal arc even against N-22 Styx, with minimal chance.

That is correct, MANPADs in Command are not capable against missiles.

So for instance the MANPADS version of the Mistral is anti-aircraft/helo only. The reason is that the team with the MANPADS will not be able to detect, identify and fire successfully upon a small & fast target like a missile.

The Simbad/Sadral/Tetral mounts use sensors/FCS to que the mounts and those Mistrals are thus capable against anti-ship missiles in Command.

If the Grom system is similar to Simbad and the rest let me know and I'll implement the system accordingly.

The same is true for the SA-N-24 Grouse, which comes in both MANPADS mounts and 3M-47 Gibka mounts with onboard sensors and laser ranger.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Goalkeeper damage points are badly modelled.
Kinetic energy is (30mm/20mm)^3 =3.4 times more than Phalanx and range shoudl be higher also.

The Goalkeeper has 20% longer range against air targets and 50% against surface targets in Command. Do you think the difference should be larger? Remember we're using _practical_ ranges rather than max ranges. Damage to air targets is not yet simulated as it is quite complex.

Damage by non-explosive warheads is calculated in TNT equivalents. But again, for air target it doesn't matter at the moment.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Makes difference for large russian supersonic missiles which reorted to need a few hits from phalanx to get stopped.
If you are unsure what a single bullet can do, assume that mass and therefore knetic energy rises as third power of mass. This, recalibrated to 20mm as unity, gives the following damage points:
5.45 0.02
7.26 0.05
12.7 0.26
14.5 0.38
20 1.00
23 1.52
30 3.38
35 5.36
40 8.00
57 23.15
60 27.00
76 54.87
100 125.00
127 256.05
130 274.63
152 438.98
155 465.48
Clearly, 465 for 155mm bullet is too much (would sink two FFG) therefore once can say DP from bullets is about 10-20 times overestimated in terms of DP in this example.

Agreed.

We also have to take the bust size into account here, which makes things a bit more complex. And does a 50% higher burst result in 50% more hits? What about burst duration? Do the first/last rounds in a burst score more hits?

If "20mm/85 Mk15 Phalanx Blk 0 Burst [200 rnds]" has 1 DP, what would the DP for the following weapons be:
20mm/85 Mk15 Phalanx Blk 1 Burst [300 rnds]
30mm Goalkeeper Burst [240 rnds]


Thanks again for your input KBOSAK, this is very helpful for us

[kbosak]

Originally Posted by emsoy

The scenario setup & force disposition looks great. Curious about what your background is hehe

Theoretical physicist 36yrs old. Full civilian. UAV designer. Submerged Harpooner since nineties.

Originally Posted by emsoy

...Kolonka range...

Thank you those explanations are 100% ok. Except ONE thing: most people will complain, since official figures are never taking account rare cases. This should be something that doesn't makes think a retired navy recruit 'what a kid designed that, it is more than our radars was'

Originally Posted by emsoy

The Kolonka in the Command database is not a search sensor, it is slaved to
other sensors and is only used to ID targets detected by those sensors.

In reality it is not how it works. It is all-around backup system with which in practice you can destroy floating mine from 2nm, terrorist RIB or something. It is the worst thing for shoting down AA and certainly not aircrafts. Do you know what Kołonka-221 is? A steel frame, round nest with optical sights not better than most binoculars, not even stabilised. No way you can spot anything flying from distance unless the mount is 100% stable.
It is a very primitive contraption, not a real optical system with fancy LCD.
Here it is, 660 class, Kolonks is above AK-630M (this steel cylinder-shaped frame)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_Corvette.PNG
BTW I was mistaken, there is indeed quad strela-2 on class 660, between kolonka and AK-630M

Originally Posted by emsoy

If slaved to a radar at distant targets, it can still see contrails for targets at up to 40nm.

Slaving it to radar? 'John, south west, south west' you can hear on intercom. The guy rotates the mount and tries to think on estimating target length and guess its distance.

Originally Posted by emsoy

Thanks! This is very useful information! Good info on Polish platforms has been very hard to come by.

I would like to be able to edit some details manually since a list is HUGE.
Maybe a smaller sub-database.
Take a look:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-176
German tarntul 1.
30mm gatlings on the rear, but Bass Tilt fire control radar on top cannot direct strictly into rear 180deg heading.

Originally Posted by emsoy

Do you have more info on the Grom system?

Editing access can be a bit difficult, but if you send me a list of the changes you want to see made I'll make them here and pass on to you for approval.

Originally Posted by emsoy

12nm is the max practical range for most systems, beyond that accuracy drops sharply. What systems/ammo would you want to use and what ranges would you like to fire at?

Tried to use Turkey Firting 155/L52 howitzer simulating polish Krab battery,
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Krab

Those things fire into 35km range by design. Distance from polish border to Baltijsk is 23km = 14Nm, S-300 is 5km to the south from that, one coudl also use bosted 122mm polish MLRS to 35-45km, or czech DANA guns. If a small raid is possible, a few short-lived suppressions are possible, or not, depending on ground situtation. Certainly those woudl be able to defend polish coast, keep in mind russians have all 130mm and polish ships have 76mm so evaluating if anything could be done with field arty is interesting by itself purely for shore bombardment scenario, not intending to shot with howitzers onti shipos maybe except direct dire from a few Nm.

Originally Posted by emsoy

Yeah this is a very difficult call... We also had complains when AI-controlled ships did _not_ use their SARH SAMs in anti-ship mode. So...

Cmoon, this is for triggerhappy ppl. The last thing you spend on the Baltic is 80% of SAMs. You simply turn around and run, hoping they send some fat flying targets after you in order to improve balance of power..

Originally Posted by emsoy

That is correct, MANPADs in Command are not capable against missiles.

Generally agree in 99%.
Unless it is a smokingy 1st generation crap, maybe. You can see it roaring at 200 m AGL, like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raduga_KS-1_Komet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-15_Termit
Since those are NOT much different from half-scale MIG-15 at low altitude.

Originally Posted by emsoy

The Goalkeeper has 20% longer range against air targets and 50% against surface targets in Command. Do you think the difference should be larger?

For sure. They were marketing it claiming for years that it has been proven that you need many hits with 20mm in order to get hard kill on a missile, while a single DU shell from gkeeper guarantees warhead penetration (which is in a middle of the missiles, fron are batteries, seekers, guidance). This meant that Sunburn woudl get through even with multiple hits.
Using TNT equiv for shellsss... that have PURELY kinetic energy... 35mm Oerlikon is the smalles with explosive warhead, and even then subammo is used kinetic way, narrow cone. in calibers up to 30mm in most platforms it is pure kinetic thing, the equations I have posted.
Kinetic energy Ek=m*v^2/2.
Destructive power=Ek*ammo_coeff, Goalkeeper has extra bonus due to APFSDS Du shells (it is GAU-8 from A-10 Warthog, in fact. Can pierce all tanks from above).
So this is only analysis about a single bullet.
The rest is MOA precision (1MOA for goalkeeper and most non-gatlings, some 3MOA for phalanx, armor of the target (ignored, a missile), deflection probability(ignored, a missile) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_angle
all this multiplied by missile cross section gives number of hits.

Whatever you do I think things should not be made by US style wishful thinking that Phalanx shots Sunburn with 85% from 1Nm and the carcass is not even damaging the target - lowering kill probability based on kinetic bullet energy looks like simplest thing to implement correctly, withotu throwing a ton of bizarre knobs into database of several thousands armaments. There a few hits per any misisle in order to 20mm to be effective.

Some polish navy sources:
-rendered movies:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa9yFleOhkzkfPVQoNZUhwQ
-equipment
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marynarka_Wojenna

Some imbalance problems: Garpun surface search radar has longer range even OTH!) than Sea Giraffe 150 on 660 Orkan. The problem is that Tarantul is 1980 russian equipment, Sea Giraffe is 2005 swedish tech. What is the chance... What you did is that you took passive mode range for Plank Shave radar, when one ship illuminates and the others receive. The problem is, with such a crude ECM modelling as we have in games, such use evaporates the ship that is closer to enemy and it is a marginal application. Certainly cannot imagine more surface range from that than from AN-SPS55 on OH perry.

Polish manpads GROM:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grom_%2...w_rakietowy%29
Is heavily modified and improved IGLA1 (motor, seeker, guidance, well everything but airframe).
Quoted range 5500m (3Nm), ceiling 3500m 1.9Nm
has built-in IFF of unknown range.
Max 13..14s flight time.
Engagement envelope: incoming target 400m/s, chasing 320m/s, AVERAGE flight speed 680m/s, max around 800m/s +/- 100m/s.
Here you have russian manpads speeds and ranges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla
Those systems have in theory min range something like 500m, min altitudes agains helos iaround 10m GL.


----------------------
Polish platform differences to bring them to real life:
660 Orkan [P.660] 2013: (three)

*Remove all sonars, ST240 Toadfish.
*CRM-200 is being easily detected in the game, while in face it has some
0.01W emission power and 10-20Nm practical ranges.
http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/a...-morski-rm-100
http://www.pit.edu.pl/index.php?p=oferta&id=29&idk=
'CRM means Silent Naval Radar'
*Should put 4xdouble RBS-15 Mk3 mounts, not 4x1.
*AKM-630 mounts excludes frontal 30deg
*AK-176M excludes rear 35deg
*Quad Grom manpads excludes frontal 40deg
*Grom manpads near the bridge, 180deg port and 180deg stdb

OH Perry x2:
*Remove all ammo fro standard arm and phalanx mounts
*Change torpedoes to triple MU-90 mount and one-two reloads for onboard Kaman Seasprite

Kaszub x1:
*Sonar is http://cmtm.pg.gda.pl/files/2012/04/...ja-opisowa.pdf
now called MG-322DSP, and always had circular radiation pattern, not as modelled

Tarantul x2:
*They should be Tarantul-1 without sonar, without ECM, with radar certainly not OTH

ORP Orzel 877R x1:
*replace SA-N-8 mast launcher by Grom manpads.
*not sure, if they have any ASW torpedos, those are TEST-71 x4 in certain loadouts

Kobben x4:
*remove all NT-37C asw torpedoes
*they use Tp 613 type, submarine version

NOTE: I have some problems understanding why there are dual entries for both 613 and 617 torpedoes, with vastly different range but same speed. I have a book on that with curves and so many data but at the end, it is just approx simulation so the idea is, why double entries in database.

How one can limit battery chargning state and fuel in the scenario?
Woudl be best to limit max rnages and carrying capacity on all those submarines to about 60% of original state.

[emsoy]

Originally Posted by kbosak

Theoretical physicist 36yrs old. Full civilian. UAV designer. Submerged Harpooner since nineties.

Air guy, my kind of guy hehe

Originally Posted by kbosak

Thank you those explanations are 100% ok. Except ONE thing: most people will complain, since official figures are never taking account rare cases. This should be something that doesn't makes think a retired navy recruit 'what a kid designed that, it is more than our radars was'

Yeah we've discovered we need to post more information on the internal mechanics of the sim, they are quite complex. Probably need a FAQ or something also.

Originally Posted by kbosak

In reality it is not how it works. It is all-around backup system with which in practice you can destroy floating mine from 2nm, terrorist RIB or something. It is the worst thing for shoting down AA and certainly not aircrafts. Do you know what Kołonka-221 is? A steel frame, round nest with optical sights not better than most binoculars, not even stabilised. No way you can spot anything flying from distance unless the mount is 100% stable.
It is a very primitive contraption, not a real optical system with fancy LCD.
Here it is, 660 class, Kolonks is above AK-630M (this steel cylinder-shaped frame)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_Corvette.PNG
BTW I was mistaken, there is indeed quad strela-2 on class 660, between kolonka and AK-630M

Okay please check this one out:
http://www.warfaresims.com/forum/vie...p=47868#p47868

I have the impression that Kolonka is quite similar to the Galileo OG R7 manned sight. The R7 has 2.3x and 7x magnification (also in the Command database!) and a 30 and 10 deg FOV. Max 'effective' range is 2km.

So although these systems have rather long max ranges in the database, they are quite limited in capability as they do not search on their own (the system does not replace the bridge watchman). The system can see contrails when ordered to look in the right direction, it can make a rough guess on the contrail size, etc, but ID'ing stuff is quite difficult. The long max range stems purely from the fact that contrails from a very large aircraft can be seen at ranges up to 50nm (!).

If it makes sense I can remove the anti-air capability and reduce the magnification level for the Kolonka. What was the magnification settings for this system IRL?

Originally Posted by kbosak

Slaving it to radar? 'John, south west, south west' you can hear on intercom. The guy rotates the mount and tries to think on estimating target length and guess its distance.

Yeah well, hehe.

Originally Posted by kbosak

I would like to be able to edit some details manually since a list is HUGE.
Maybe a smaller sub-database.

That can be a bit difficult so only way right now is to give me a list of the stuff you want fixed. Since the Command databases cover 1950-2015+ I also need historical data on these platforms, i.e. dates when equipment was installed/removed etc.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Tried to use Turkey Firting 155/L52 howitzer simulating polish Krab battery,
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Krab

Those things fire into 35km range by design. Distance from polish border to Baltijsk is 23km = 14Nm, S-300 is 5km to the south from that, one coudl also use bosted 122mm polish MLRS to 35-45km, or czech DANA guns. If a small raid is possible, a few short-lived suppressions are possible, or not, depending on ground situtation. Certainly those woudl be able to defend polish coast, keep in mind russians have all 130mm and polish ships have 76mm so evaluating if anything could be done with field arty is interesting by itself purely for shore bombardment scenario, not intending to shot with howitzers onti shipos maybe except direct dire from a few Nm.

Hmm agree we should probably consider doing something here. Giving arty 'area targets' is a bit of a challenge, however, due to the way the targeting model is implemented. But have added this to the list of things we need to look into.

As for arty range... although you _can_ make a modern 155mm BB shell fly 40km downrange it isn't really done in practice as accuracy is (horribly) low and trajectory high. So you won't actually hit anything and the shells produce perfect target coordinates for enemy counter-battery.

In practice, arty fire is limited to 20-30km, possibly 35km or 38km in extreme cases if-you-really-have-to. Shorter ranges allows lower trajectories which reduces the chance of detection. This, when going up against the Russians, is very very important as they took counter-battery pretty seriously.

So while the max (practical) range for Krab in Command would probably be 16nm (35km) I'm not sure the arty would be used at that range for harrasing fire on the Russians.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Cmoon, this is for triggerhappy ppl. The last thing you spend on the Baltic is 80% of SAMs. You simply turn around and run, hoping they send some fat flying targets after you in order to improve balance of power..

Yeah been discussing this (for the 20th time!) with the others, and we're looking for a good solution. No promises, but lets see.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Generally agree in 99%.
Unless it is a smokingy 1st generation crap, maybe. You can see it roaring at 200 m AGL, like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raduga_KS-1_Komet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-15_Termit
Since those are NOT much different from half-scale MIG-15 at low altitude.


For sure. They were marketing it claiming for years that it has been proven that you need many hits with 20mm in order to get hard kill on a missile, while a single DU shell from gkeeper guarantees warhead penetration (which is in a middle of the missiles, fron are batteries, seekers, guidance). This meant that Sunburn woudl get through even with multiple hits.

Yes... its a shortcoming in the model as it stands now. Implementing this will be a big (hour-wise) job and will probably also generate a lot of controversy so have to thread carefully. Imagine the flamewars. "Duuuuude Ciwizzz ruuulz!"

Originally Posted by kbosak

Using TNT equiv for shellsss... that have PURELY kinetic energy... 35mm Oerlikon is the smalles with explosive warhead, and even then subammo is used kinetic way, narrow cone. in calibers up to 30mm in most platforms it is pure kinetic thing, the equations I have posted.
Kinetic energy Ek=m*v^2/2.
Destructive power=Ek*ammo_coeff, Goalkeeper has extra bonus due to APFSDS Du shells (it is GAU-8 from A-10 Warthog, in fact. Can pierce all tanks from above).
So this is only analysis about a single bullet.
The rest is MOA precision (1MOA for goalkeeper and most non-gatlings, some 3MOA for phalanx, armor of the target (ignored, a missile), deflection probability(ignored, a missile) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_angle
all this multiplied by missile cross section gives number of hits.

Yes!

Complex stuff, I think you've seen the challenges (and pain) we're facing hehe.

As for TNT equivalents, you can convert the kinetic energy to Joules and then to TNT eqv.

Or, set off 1kg of TNT and compare to the estimated amount of damage a gun burst would do, and make wild-a$$ guesses on figures.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Whatever you do I think things should not be made by US style wishful thinking that Phalanx shots Sunburn with 85% from 1Nm and the carcass is not even damaging the target - lowering kill probability based on kinetic bullet energy looks like simplest thing to implement correctly, withotu throwing a ton of bizarre knobs into database of several thousands armaments. There a few hits per any misisle in order to 20mm to be effective.

Understood, but the CWIS fires 200-300 rounds per burst (depending on model), so there is a good chance the Sunburn missile would get hit by a fair number of tungsten rounds...

One interesting book I read (can't remember the name right now) viewed the CWIS more as Damage Control than an actual weapon. The reason being that the ship would most likely be damaged if the warhead was triggered within 500m, or hit by shrapnel from a disabled missile.

The biggest issue in the sim right now (as I see it) is not the CWIS vs Goalkeeper per-round or per-burst kinetic energy, but that the anti-ship missile warhead doesn't trigger when hit.

So while CWIS and Goalkeeper probably would produce a similar number of hits, the Goalkeeper would (likely) disable the warhead further out (outside 500m), resulting in less blast/frag damage.

Originally Posted by kbosak

Some polish navy sources:
-rendered movies:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa9yFleOhkzkfPVQoNZUhwQ
-equipment
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marynarka_Wojenna

Some imbalance problems: Garpun surface search radar has longer range even OTH!) than Sea Giraffe 150 on 660 Orkan. The problem is that Tarantul is 1980 russian equipment, Sea Giraffe is 2005 swedish tech. What is the chance... What you did is that you took passive mode range for Plank Shave radar, when one ship illuminates and the others receive. The problem is, with such a crude ECM modelling as we have in games, such use evaporates the ship that is closer to enemy and it is a marginal application. Certainly cannot imagine more surface range from that than from AN-SPS55 on OH perry.

Polish manpads GROM:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grom_%2...w_rakietowy%29
Is heavily modified and improved IGLA1 (motor, seeker, guidance, well everything but airframe).
Quoted range 5500m (3Nm), ceiling 3500m 1.9Nm
has built-in IFF of unknown range.
Max 13..14s flight time.
Engagement envelope: incoming target 400m/s, chasing 320m/s, AVERAGE flight speed 680m/s, max around 800m/s +/- 100m/s.
Here you have russian manpads speeds and ranges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla
Those systems have in theory min range something like 500m, min altitudes agains helos iaround 10m GL.


----------------------
Polish platform differences to bring them to real life:
660 Orkan [P.660] 2013: (three)

*Remove all sonars, ST240 Toadfish.
*CRM-200 is being easily detected in the game, while in face it has some
0.01W emission power and 10-20Nm practical ranges.
http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/a...-morski-rm-100
http://www.pit.edu.pl/index.php?p=oferta&id=29&idk=
'CRM means Silent Naval Radar'
*Should put 4xdouble RBS-15 Mk3 mounts, not 4x1.
*AKM-630 mounts excludes frontal 30deg
*AK-176M excludes rear 35deg
*Quad Grom manpads excludes frontal 40deg
*Grom manpads near the bridge, 180deg port and 180deg stdb

OH Perry x2:
*Remove all ammo fro standard arm and phalanx mounts
*Change torpedoes to triple MU-90 mount and one-two reloads for onboard Kaman Seasprite

Kaszub x1:
*Sonar is http://cmtm.pg.gda.pl/files/2012/04/...ja-opisowa.pdf
now called MG-322DSP, and always had circular radiation pattern, not as modelled

Tarantul x2:
*They should be Tarantul-1 without sonar, without ECM, with radar certainly not OTH

ORP Orzel 877R x1:
*replace SA-N-8 mast launcher by Grom manpads.
*not sure, if they have any ASW torpedos, those are TEST-71 x4 in certain loadouts

Kobben x4:
*remove all NT-37C asw torpedoes
*they use Tp 613 type, submarine version

NOTE: I have some problems understanding why there are dual entries for both 613 and 617 torpedoes, with vastly different range but same speed. I have a book on that with curves and so many data but at the end, it is just approx simulation so the idea is, why double entries in database.

How one can limit battery chargning state and fuel in the scenario?
Woudl be best to limit max rnages and carrying capacity on all those submarines to about 60% of original state.

Okay I will get started on this, please give me a couple of days

If there are any other items you need for the next db update please post up.

[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.