In order to celebrate International Naval Wargame Day (6th August) and to finally check our scenario for the upcoming Naval Wargame Weekend at Yeovilton (4 & 5 Oct.) I played the scenario solo… Naval Command 2021 Rule Set. Specifically to check my recent adaptations. Basically it is the same scenario (and house rules) we played over a large part of 2024 and 2025: a 1986 ‘what if?’ scenario if World War III started in the Baltic. See my blogs for details about the small Campaign (2-3 days) leading to an amphibious landing of USSR troops on the West-German Baltic Coast.
Set up:
Two USSR task groups: a combattant taskgroup, consisting of a Kiev-class carrier (the ‘Baku’), 2 cruisers, some destroyers and frigates and a Charlie II-class SSGN. This task group defended an USSR amphibious group, carrying more than 3 battalions naval infantry in 'Ivan Rogov'-class, 'Alligator' and 'Ropucha'-class landing ships. To improve speed of play, on day 1 the amphibious convoy is only represented by the Ivan Rogov miniature.
The German Baltic coast was defended by a German-French Taskgroup: 3 destroyers and 2 frigates, supported by a Rubis-class SSN and 24/7 MPA support. They had the task to prevent any possible USSR landing. During ‘Yeovilton’ participants can choose between this task group, a UK task group or a Dutch task group.
Turn 1:
Both sides were in the Baltic Sea; the German-French TG on an easterly course, the Soviets on a westerly course. Both TG’s were approx. 90 nm. apart. Their supporting submarines operated in their own submarine patrol zones, about 40 nm. in front of their task groups. The NATO TG had deployed a German Atlantic MPA (radar active), a German Lynx helo (same) and frigate FGS ‘Bremen’ was active on search radars. Not unusual around the German coast… The Soviets had a Be-12 ASW waterplane active on radar, 1 Ka-27 helo (same) and 1 Udaloy-class ASW-destroyer (same). Both MPA’s closed each other at around 40 nm, but didn’t detect each other. French destroyer FS ‘Suffren’ was detected at a distance of 70 nm. by the radar of the Be-12. The French submarine had a first passive sonar contact on the old Sverdlov-class cruiser. The Soviet Charlie II submarine didn’t hear the NATO ships yet and no other detections or actions were taking place.
Turn 2:
The Soviets decided to launch a second Ka-27 helo and did send a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) of 2 Yak-38 VTOL-fighters on top of the Soviet task group. The ‘Baku’ stayed silent; Air Coordination & -watch was provided by the search radars of 1 of the Udaloy’s.
Both MPA’s employed a sonobuoy barrier of 10 nm. length (represented by 2 golf tees: blue=NATO, white=USSR). The Soviet admiral dispatched both Sovremenny-class destroyers away as a Surface Action Group (SAG), to find out more about the French destroyer and destroy it when it was a threat. The very modern Rubis-class SSN (beneath the blue flag) detected the noise of one of the fast moving Sovremenny’s. The Charlie II SSGN (beneath the red flag) was only once, for a short while, detected by the NATO sonobuoy barrier. Too short for a firing solution. Both sides knew there were warships out there, but what was the real picture here? There was insufficient data to raise any alarm or ask for back-up.
Turn 3:
Given the tactical situation, destroyer FGS Rommel activated her search radars. The German Lynx helo had been send towards the NATO Sonobuoy barrier to help the ‘Atlantic’. The Soviet ‘Kara’-class ASW cruiser got active on her search radars as well.
The NATO ‘Atlantic’ detected with radar the Kiev-class aircraft carrier at 54 nm. and the Be-12 detected with ESM the German FGS ‘Bremen’. FS ‘Rubis’ heard some submarine noise, in the vicinity of the last submarine-like noise…. Although this was a target-rich environment most units struggled to detect each other. In a real world situation, the German Rear-Admiral would have ordered strike aircraft on ‘alert 30’ (given the probable detection of a Soviet carrier & cruiser), but Naval Command 2021 doesn’t have such a feature…
Turn 4:
Both task groups maintained course & speed and were closing each other. This had to be the last turn for the deployed helo’s. The ‘Lynx’ detected a submarine with her dipping sonar, but the NATO sonobuoy barrier couldn’t pinpoint the submarine. However FS ‘Rubis’ could confirm the sonar contact and both the ‘Lynx’ and ‘Atlantic’ were at the scene of action. No detections on the Soviet taskgroup apart from 2 passive sonar contacts of the Russian SAG (2 ‘Sovremenny’-class) . But the Russians were not very successful either… Although the SAG was probably within range of sub-launched SM-39 Exocet of FS ‘Rubis’, the SAG was not the primary target. And both destroyers were outside torpedo-range of FS ‘Rubis’…
The combat phase started with a Mk 46 shot from the ‘Lynx’ against the ‘Charlie II’-class submarine. The small torpedo did hit the submarine (result: fire & flood), but couldn’t prevent the sudden launch of her 8 x SS-N-9 ‘Siren’ anti-ship missiles towards the NATO taskgroup. By voice alert of the ‘Lynx’ and ‘Atlantic’ the whole taskgroup activated their radars and started defending each other. FS ‘Suffren’ & FGS ‘Rommel’ fired area defense AAW missiles (Masurca & SM-1); FGS ‘Bremen’ and FS ‘Georges Leygues’ fired self-defense AAW weapons. However, 2 SS-N-9’s got through. One did hit FS ‘Suffren’ and 1 was distracted away by the EW of FGS ‘Rommel’. The ‘Atlantic’ MPA attacked the Soviet submarine with another Mk 46 torpedo, but this was a miss, due to the torpedo countermeasures of the Soviet submarine. During the combat phase the Soviet SAG was in range with their SS-N-22 supersonic anti-ship missiles, but as they hadn’t much own sensor data they choose to wait for a proper battle damage assessment on the NATO taskgroup.
During the damage control phase the crew of FS ‘Suffren’ managed to contain the damage. The damage onboard the Soviet ‘Charlie II’ escalated a little, but didn’t force her to the surface (yet).
Turn 5:
All helicopters on both sides had been relieved. Both MPA’s had refreshed their sonobuoy barriers and the Soviet CAP had been relieved as well. NATO had lost sonar contact on the Soviet submarine. All NATO ships activated their active sonar, although the French ships couldn’t use their very capable Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) as the Baltic is to shallow for this.
Both task groups maintained course. The Soviet SAG approached the NATO taskgroup but was visually seen by the nearby ‘Atlantic’ (at 26 nm.). FS ‘Rubis’ slowed down to ‘silent running’ and waited for the SAG to close in… Her 4 torpedo tubes were loaded with 2 x SM-39 Exocet and 2 torpedoes. Detections by both sides were very limited: FGS Hamburg & FGS ‘Bremen’ were detected by ESM.
Given the lack of decent battle damage assessment, the Soviet SAG was ordered to fire their potent SS-N-22 missiles towards the NATO taskgroup in bearing only launch. They fired 3 salvo’s of 2 missiles towards FGS ‘Bremen’, FGS ‘Hamburg’ and FS ‘Suffren’ (and kept 1 SS-N-22 each in reserve). After frantic Air Defense by all ships the result was limited: 1 hit at FGS Hamburg (flood, fire & structural damage). NATO response was not imminent. The German rear-admiral needed his limited stock of missiles to sink the Soviet Landing Force (if he could find it!). So no SM-39 Exocet salvo against the Soviet SAG in retaliation…
During the damage control phase both NATO ships fought bravely their damage, although the damage escalated a little further. The Soviet submarine did a better job: all fires and flooding was terminated by the very focused crew.
Turn 6:
The Soviet Admiral had reasons to believe that he was successful: he had scared away some NATO warships and was still able to conduct his amphibious landing. His ‘Charlie II’-class submarine kept eyes on the NATO taskgroup. So he pressed on. Both Sovremenny-class destroyers turned around in order to re-join the ASW & AAW screen around the extended Soviet taskgroup. The German rear-admiral adjusted his screen: all operational units to the northern flank of the screen and all damaged ships to the southern flank. The course changed 20 degrees away from the last position of the ‘Charlie II’. Bonus: the operational ships had 8 longer-range RGM-84 Harpoon and 8 longer-range MM-40 Exocet missiles. Much better than the old MM-38 missiles (half the range) of (damaged) FS ‘Suffren’ and FGS ‘Hamburg’. Most NATO units were reloading their self defense Air Defense missile systems (Crotale, NATO Sea Sparrow, guns & chaff).
Both sides used their air assets to get closer to have a better look at their enemy task groups. The ‘Atlantic’ detected the ‘Kara’-class cruiser. Based on the detections of the carrier and (now) both cruisers, the German rear-admiral ordered a strike against this threat. The designated strike package would be 4x A6 ‘Intruder’ bombers (with bombs). It would take 2 turns to arm them & transit towards the target (arrival: turn 9). The NATO taskgroup had to support them with a target update.
Turn 7:
The (new) NATO MPA deployed a new sonobuoy barrier, in order to protect the NATO taskgroup but also to keep track of the ‘Charlie II’ and the known Soviet surface units. The (new) Be-12 also deployed a new barrier, taken into account the known course & speed of the Soviet taskgroup. It was about time to relieve the ASW helo’s as well… the NATO taskgroup was focussing on the immediate torpedo threat of the ‘Charlie II’. So the German ‘Lynx’ relieved the French ‘Lynx’ and started dipping for the ‘Charlie II’. The new NATO sonobuoy barrier detected the Soviet submarine, but the ‘Lynx’ did not. The MPA tried it with her MAD (magnetic anomaly detecter), but was not sure… In the meantime a fresh Soviet Ka-27 helo detected FGS ‘Bremen’ with radar (at 18 nm.). The NATO MPA detected the radar-active Udaloy-class destroyer.
NATO air assets attacked the last known position of the ‘Charlie II’ but 2 Mk 46 torpedoes did find nothing…
Turn 8:
Both sides got closer and closer (up to approx. 40 nm!) but bad dice had negative influence on detections. NATO was waiting for her strike package to turn up, but USSR didn’t have a proper target to request a strike and kept this option for later, during the amphibious landing. Anyhow her ‘Charlie II’ had still eyes on target… After her unsuccessful attack, the ‘Lynx’ had collected 2 x Mk 46 torpedoes from the nearest frigate en returned to the scene of action. The NATO MPA had still 4 Mk 46’s available. The NATO taskgroup was splitting up: the operational combatants turned north (to be able to fire all their long range SSM’s towards the Soviets) and the damaged ships moved slowly south-east.
Suddenly the NATO sonobuoy barrier detected the Soviet submarine again. The ‘Lynx’ had now also a solid sonar contact! The NATO surface units (a little closer) detected with radar some Soviet units: a ‘Krivak I’ frigate, the ‘Ivan Rogov’ Landing Ship Dock and the Sverdlov-class cruiser (again). The Be-12 waterplane detected destroyer FGS ‘Rommel’.
Combat! The ‘Lynx’ dropped it’s first Mk 46 and scored a hit. The damage was extensive and forced the damaged nuclear submarine to the surface. The air assets couldn’t use their ASW torpedoes anymore, as their depth settings didn’t allow to fire at vessels with depth ‘0’ (to protect their colleague ASW frigates - don’t worry, this is not in the rules. I happen to know this)! So they left the scene of action, to allow the ASW frigates to open fire (gun?). Preferably the German rear-admiral would expend an old MM-38 Exocet on this submarine on the surface, which happened to be just outside gun-range… His MM-38 units unfortunately were all in the south and don’t have a clear field of fire. So FGS ‘Bremen’ was ordered to engage the crippled ‘Charlie’ II with 1 long range RGM-84 Harpoon (at a distance of 12 nm.) and did sink her.
Turn 9:
Four A-6 ‘Intruder’ bombers turned up from the south (German coast) and flew in 1 direct line towards the position of ‘Ivan Rogov’ (representing the Soviet amphi. group). The NATO MPA provided targeting information towards the 4 bombers. The German rear-admiral tried to synchronize this strike package with his own attack.
FS ‘Rubis’ decided to actual deploy (under water) within her 30 nm. radius submarine patrol zone and deployed north of the Soviet taskgroup, less than 10 nm of ‘Sverdlov’-class cruiser! In reaction 2 Soviet SS-N-14 capable ships (‘Krivak’ I and ‘Kara’-class cruiser) turned towards her and tried to close in on her.
So FGS ‘Bremen’ fired 7 RGM-84 Harpoons at ‘Ivan Rogov’ and FS ‘Georges Leygues’ fired 4 x MM-40 Exocet towards the carrier ‘Baku’ and 4 MM-40 towards the nearest Sovremenny-class destroyer. However, the Soviet CAP (2 x Yak-38 fighters) was never detected but showed up to engage the incoming bomber package! The Soviet fighters took out 2 A-6 bombers with their short range IR missiles… And then the remaining bombers had to pass an Udaloy-class destroyer. The destroyer fired at the 2 bombers and passing 7 Harpoons and took out 1 bomber and some Harpoons. The targeted Sovremenny took out 2 of the 4 Harpoons, same as the ‘Baku’. The Soviet SS-N-14 combatants had no realistic air defense capability against the sea skimming missiles. The remaining A-6 bomber came in low over ‘Ivan Rogov’ and hit her with 4 bombs. The 5 remaining Harpoons flew towards the damaged ‘Ivan Rogov’ (3) and the nearest ‘Ropucha’ class Landing Ship Tank (2). ‘Ivan Rogov’ did sink, the ‘Ropucha’ had extensive structural damage, the ‘Sovremenny’ was on fire and had structural damage and the ‘Baku’ was hit by 2 x MM-40, resulting in fire, floods & structural damage.
The Soviet ‘counter attack’ focused on the submerged FS ‘Rubis’. In bearing only launch the Soviet ships fired at her assumed position. 1 SS-N-14 was distracted by the submarine’s counter measures. A second SS-N-14 didn’t miss… However, she was still able to launch her 2 SM-39 Exocet against ‘Sverdlov’, as well as a salvo F-17 torpedoes. 2 x SM-39 hit ‘Sverdlov’ at starboard side, as we’ll as 1 torpedo. The damage to the cruiser was extensive, resulting in a 50% speed-limit, limits to her weapons & sensors and multiple fires & floods. FS Rubis herself had also a lot of damage, but she was not forced to the surface… (where she would be out-gunned by the cruiser!).
At the end of turn 9, ‘Ivan Rogov’ (including her 1 battalion Naval Infantry) was sunk and one of the 3 ‘Ropucha’ LST’s had structural damage. The ‘Sverdlov’ cruiser, important for Naval Gunfire Support (NGS) during the amphibious landing, was now slower (speed: 4) than any landing ship, but was still able to conduct NGS. ‘Plan B’ for NGS (the 2 Sovremenny’s) had at least 1 slightly damaged Sovremenny, but both were still able to conduct NGS. Both had 1 SS-N-22 anti-ship missile each remaining.. ASW-wise, the Soviet taskgroup was still fully operational (minus a small number of spent SS-N-14 missiles). The big question was the damage on ‘Baku’: it was important to keep that under control, otherwise a raging fire through her hangar could play havoc with her important transport helo’s (amphib. landing) and very important CAP fighters…(to defend against future NATO air attacks).
Both sides were in the Baltic Sea; the German-French TG on an easterly course, the Soviets on a westerly course. Both TG’s were approx. 90 nm. apart. Their supporting submarines operated in their own submarine patrol zones, about 40 nm. in front of their task groups. The NATO TG had deployed a German Atlantic MPA (radar active), a German Lynx helo (same) and frigate FGS ‘Bremen’ was active on search radars. Not unusual around the German coast… The Soviets had a Be-12 ASW waterplane active on radar, 1 Ka-27 helo (same) and 1 Udaloy-class ASW-destroyer (same). Both MPA’s closed each other at around 40 nm, but didn’t detect each other. French destroyer FS ‘Suffren’ was detected at a distance of 70 nm. by the radar of the Be-12. The French submarine had a first passive sonar contact on the old Sverdlov-class cruiser. The Soviet Charlie II submarine didn’t hear the NATO ships yet and no other detections or actions were taking place.
Turn 2:
The Soviets decided to launch a second Ka-27 helo and did send a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) of 2 Yak-38 VTOL-fighters on top of the Soviet task group. The ‘Baku’ stayed silent; Air Coordination & -watch was provided by the search radars of 1 of the Udaloy’s.
Both MPA’s employed a sonobuoy barrier of 10 nm. length (represented by 2 golf tees: blue=NATO, white=USSR). The Soviet admiral dispatched both Sovremenny-class destroyers away as a Surface Action Group (SAG), to find out more about the French destroyer and destroy it when it was a threat. The very modern Rubis-class SSN (beneath the blue flag) detected the noise of one of the fast moving Sovremenny’s. The Charlie II SSGN (beneath the red flag) was only once, for a short while, detected by the NATO sonobuoy barrier. Too short for a firing solution. Both sides knew there were warships out there, but what was the real picture here? There was insufficient data to raise any alarm or ask for back-up.
Given the tactical situation, destroyer FGS Rommel activated her search radars. The German Lynx helo had been send towards the NATO Sonobuoy barrier to help the ‘Atlantic’. The Soviet ‘Kara’-class ASW cruiser got active on her search radars as well.
The NATO ‘Atlantic’ detected with radar the Kiev-class aircraft carrier at 54 nm. and the Be-12 detected with ESM the German FGS ‘Bremen’. FS ‘Rubis’ heard some submarine noise, in the vicinity of the last submarine-like noise…. Although this was a target-rich environment most units struggled to detect each other. In a real world situation, the German Rear-Admiral would have ordered strike aircraft on ‘alert 30’ (given the probable detection of a Soviet carrier & cruiser), but Naval Command 2021 doesn’t have such a feature…
Turn 4:
Both task groups maintained course & speed and were closing each other. This had to be the last turn for the deployed helo’s. The ‘Lynx’ detected a submarine with her dipping sonar, but the NATO sonobuoy barrier couldn’t pinpoint the submarine. However FS ‘Rubis’ could confirm the sonar contact and both the ‘Lynx’ and ‘Atlantic’ were at the scene of action. No detections on the Soviet taskgroup apart from 2 passive sonar contacts of the Russian SAG (2 ‘Sovremenny’-class) . But the Russians were not very successful either… Although the SAG was probably within range of sub-launched SM-39 Exocet of FS ‘Rubis’, the SAG was not the primary target. And both destroyers were outside torpedo-range of FS ‘Rubis’…
During the damage control phase the crew of FS ‘Suffren’ managed to contain the damage. The damage onboard the Soviet ‘Charlie II’ escalated a little, but didn’t force her to the surface (yet).
Turn 5:
All helicopters on both sides had been relieved. Both MPA’s had refreshed their sonobuoy barriers and the Soviet CAP had been relieved as well. NATO had lost sonar contact on the Soviet submarine. All NATO ships activated their active sonar, although the French ships couldn’t use their very capable Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) as the Baltic is to shallow for this.
Both task groups maintained course. The Soviet SAG approached the NATO taskgroup but was visually seen by the nearby ‘Atlantic’ (at 26 nm.). FS ‘Rubis’ slowed down to ‘silent running’ and waited for the SAG to close in… Her 4 torpedo tubes were loaded with 2 x SM-39 Exocet and 2 torpedoes. Detections by both sides were very limited: FGS Hamburg & FGS ‘Bremen’ were detected by ESM.
Given the lack of decent battle damage assessment, the Soviet SAG was ordered to fire their potent SS-N-22 missiles towards the NATO taskgroup in bearing only launch. They fired 3 salvo’s of 2 missiles towards FGS ‘Bremen’, FGS ‘Hamburg’ and FS ‘Suffren’ (and kept 1 SS-N-22 each in reserve). After frantic Air Defense by all ships the result was limited: 1 hit at FGS Hamburg (flood, fire & structural damage). NATO response was not imminent. The German rear-admiral needed his limited stock of missiles to sink the Soviet Landing Force (if he could find it!). So no SM-39 Exocet salvo against the Soviet SAG in retaliation…
During the damage control phase both NATO ships fought bravely their damage, although the damage escalated a little further. The Soviet submarine did a better job: all fires and flooding was terminated by the very focused crew.
Turn 6:
The Soviet Admiral had reasons to believe that he was successful: he had scared away some NATO warships and was still able to conduct his amphibious landing. His ‘Charlie II’-class submarine kept eyes on the NATO taskgroup. So he pressed on. Both Sovremenny-class destroyers turned around in order to re-join the ASW & AAW screen around the extended Soviet taskgroup. The German rear-admiral adjusted his screen: all operational units to the northern flank of the screen and all damaged ships to the southern flank. The course changed 20 degrees away from the last position of the ‘Charlie II’. Bonus: the operational ships had 8 longer-range RGM-84 Harpoon and 8 longer-range MM-40 Exocet missiles. Much better than the old MM-38 missiles (half the range) of (damaged) FS ‘Suffren’ and FGS ‘Hamburg’. Most NATO units were reloading their self defense Air Defense missile systems (Crotale, NATO Sea Sparrow, guns & chaff).
Both sides used their air assets to get closer to have a better look at their enemy task groups. The ‘Atlantic’ detected the ‘Kara’-class cruiser. Based on the detections of the carrier and (now) both cruisers, the German rear-admiral ordered a strike against this threat. The designated strike package would be 4x A6 ‘Intruder’ bombers (with bombs). It would take 2 turns to arm them & transit towards the target (arrival: turn 9). The NATO taskgroup had to support them with a target update.
Turn 7:
The (new) NATO MPA deployed a new sonobuoy barrier, in order to protect the NATO taskgroup but also to keep track of the ‘Charlie II’ and the known Soviet surface units. The (new) Be-12 also deployed a new barrier, taken into account the known course & speed of the Soviet taskgroup. It was about time to relieve the ASW helo’s as well… the NATO taskgroup was focussing on the immediate torpedo threat of the ‘Charlie II’. So the German ‘Lynx’ relieved the French ‘Lynx’ and started dipping for the ‘Charlie II’. The new NATO sonobuoy barrier detected the Soviet submarine, but the ‘Lynx’ did not. The MPA tried it with her MAD (magnetic anomaly detecter), but was not sure… In the meantime a fresh Soviet Ka-27 helo detected FGS ‘Bremen’ with radar (at 18 nm.). The NATO MPA detected the radar-active Udaloy-class destroyer.
NATO air assets attacked the last known position of the ‘Charlie II’ but 2 Mk 46 torpedoes did find nothing…
Turn 8:
Both sides got closer and closer (up to approx. 40 nm!) but bad dice had negative influence on detections. NATO was waiting for her strike package to turn up, but USSR didn’t have a proper target to request a strike and kept this option for later, during the amphibious landing. Anyhow her ‘Charlie II’ had still eyes on target… After her unsuccessful attack, the ‘Lynx’ had collected 2 x Mk 46 torpedoes from the nearest frigate en returned to the scene of action. The NATO MPA had still 4 Mk 46’s available. The NATO taskgroup was splitting up: the operational combatants turned north (to be able to fire all their long range SSM’s towards the Soviets) and the damaged ships moved slowly south-east.
Suddenly the NATO sonobuoy barrier detected the Soviet submarine again. The ‘Lynx’ had now also a solid sonar contact! The NATO surface units (a little closer) detected with radar some Soviet units: a ‘Krivak I’ frigate, the ‘Ivan Rogov’ Landing Ship Dock and the Sverdlov-class cruiser (again). The Be-12 waterplane detected destroyer FGS ‘Rommel’.
Combat! The ‘Lynx’ dropped it’s first Mk 46 and scored a hit. The damage was extensive and forced the damaged nuclear submarine to the surface. The air assets couldn’t use their ASW torpedoes anymore, as their depth settings didn’t allow to fire at vessels with depth ‘0’ (to protect their colleague ASW frigates - don’t worry, this is not in the rules. I happen to know this)! So they left the scene of action, to allow the ASW frigates to open fire (gun?). Preferably the German rear-admiral would expend an old MM-38 Exocet on this submarine on the surface, which happened to be just outside gun-range… His MM-38 units unfortunately were all in the south and don’t have a clear field of fire. So FGS ‘Bremen’ was ordered to engage the crippled ‘Charlie’ II with 1 long range RGM-84 Harpoon (at a distance of 12 nm.) and did sink her.
Four A-6 ‘Intruder’ bombers turned up from the south (German coast) and flew in 1 direct line towards the position of ‘Ivan Rogov’ (representing the Soviet amphi. group). The NATO MPA provided targeting information towards the 4 bombers. The German rear-admiral tried to synchronize this strike package with his own attack.
FS ‘Rubis’ decided to actual deploy (under water) within her 30 nm. radius submarine patrol zone and deployed north of the Soviet taskgroup, less than 10 nm of ‘Sverdlov’-class cruiser! In reaction 2 Soviet SS-N-14 capable ships (‘Krivak’ I and ‘Kara’-class cruiser) turned towards her and tried to close in on her.
So FGS ‘Bremen’ fired 7 RGM-84 Harpoons at ‘Ivan Rogov’ and FS ‘Georges Leygues’ fired 4 x MM-40 Exocet towards the carrier ‘Baku’ and 4 MM-40 towards the nearest Sovremenny-class destroyer. However, the Soviet CAP (2 x Yak-38 fighters) was never detected but showed up to engage the incoming bomber package! The Soviet fighters took out 2 A-6 bombers with their short range IR missiles… And then the remaining bombers had to pass an Udaloy-class destroyer. The destroyer fired at the 2 bombers and passing 7 Harpoons and took out 1 bomber and some Harpoons. The targeted Sovremenny took out 2 of the 4 Harpoons, same as the ‘Baku’. The Soviet SS-N-14 combatants had no realistic air defense capability against the sea skimming missiles. The remaining A-6 bomber came in low over ‘Ivan Rogov’ and hit her with 4 bombs. The 5 remaining Harpoons flew towards the damaged ‘Ivan Rogov’ (3) and the nearest ‘Ropucha’ class Landing Ship Tank (2). ‘Ivan Rogov’ did sink, the ‘Ropucha’ had extensive structural damage, the ‘Sovremenny’ was on fire and had structural damage and the ‘Baku’ was hit by 2 x MM-40, resulting in fire, floods & structural damage.
What about the adaptations?
1. The composition of the German-French taskgroup is sufficient. Limited in helo’s (only 3 airframes) and long range SSM’s. But it has more long range SSM’s as the UK taskgroup (with only MM-38 Exocet, but they have more helo’s). Good Air Defence. Very potent VDS sonars, which you probably can’t use in the shallow Baltic Sea, but there is no rule in Naval Command 2021 who prohibits this…
2. The air strike package limited to bombs gives the ships a little more chance to defend against the strike. Especially if you have CAP as well! However, if all 4 attackers drop all their bombs, you still have a bad day…
3. The naval wargame took approx. 6 hours playing time (9 turns solo-play, making photo’s & notes) and was all about the 1st day of the 1986 Baltic Campaign. The second day is fast forward towards the actual Soviet amphib. landing (towards the beach, between some islands). That provides chances of air strikes, the actual landing and NGS towards land targets on the islands. Sufficient play for ‘Yeovilton’ I reckon.
4. I had some interesting events during this wargame: using the damaged submarine rule (extra roll to find out if the submarine is to surface); the positioning of a submarine when not covered anymore by a submarine patrol zone; etc.
5. Our house rule regards a sonobuoy barrier in combination with ASW air assets makes Anti Submarine Warfare within Naval Command 2021 more interesting. Hopefully we will see this rule back in a future update of the official Rules.
6. Our system of using a dedicated short Fleet List of all the participants of this specific game (collecting data from the country-specific Fleet Lists of Naval Command and copy them in a digital spreadsheet with tabs for ships, air defense weapons, surface weapons, aircraft, etc.) makes searching for data a little more faster. With this I could also rectify typo errors of the original Fleet Lists and add additional ships, like FS Suffren, additional Soviet Landing Ships and actual range limitations on Self Defense Air Defense weapons (to prevent that ’20 mm AA gun’ engage missiles at the edge of the ‘Close Range band (= 12 nm.)). As you probably noticed I am leaning to a degree of simulation in my Naval Wargames.. but I still think a fast play is important as well!
1. The composition of the German-French taskgroup is sufficient. Limited in helo’s (only 3 airframes) and long range SSM’s. But it has more long range SSM’s as the UK taskgroup (with only MM-38 Exocet, but they have more helo’s). Good Air Defence. Very potent VDS sonars, which you probably can’t use in the shallow Baltic Sea, but there is no rule in Naval Command 2021 who prohibits this…
2. The air strike package limited to bombs gives the ships a little more chance to defend against the strike. Especially if you have CAP as well! However, if all 4 attackers drop all their bombs, you still have a bad day…
3. The naval wargame took approx. 6 hours playing time (9 turns solo-play, making photo’s & notes) and was all about the 1st day of the 1986 Baltic Campaign. The second day is fast forward towards the actual Soviet amphib. landing (towards the beach, between some islands). That provides chances of air strikes, the actual landing and NGS towards land targets on the islands. Sufficient play for ‘Yeovilton’ I reckon.
4. I had some interesting events during this wargame: using the damaged submarine rule (extra roll to find out if the submarine is to surface); the positioning of a submarine when not covered anymore by a submarine patrol zone; etc.
5. Our house rule regards a sonobuoy barrier in combination with ASW air assets makes Anti Submarine Warfare within Naval Command 2021 more interesting. Hopefully we will see this rule back in a future update of the official Rules.
6. Our system of using a dedicated short Fleet List of all the participants of this specific game (collecting data from the country-specific Fleet Lists of Naval Command and copy them in a digital spreadsheet with tabs for ships, air defense weapons, surface weapons, aircraft, etc.) makes searching for data a little more faster. With this I could also rectify typo errors of the original Fleet Lists and add additional ships, like FS Suffren, additional Soviet Landing Ships and actual range limitations on Self Defense Air Defense weapons (to prevent that ’20 mm AA gun’ engage missiles at the edge of the ‘Close Range band (= 12 nm.)). As you probably noticed I am leaning to a degree of simulation in my Naval Wargames.. but I still think a fast play is important as well!
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten