First Campaign Report: the 1986 Land Battle in Germany

End of the Campaign

During 2024, my mate and I took several steps to perfect our 'What If?' Third World War campaign: in May '24 we practiced tactical submarine attacks on the Russian amphibious convoy (to comprehend the Anti Submarine Warfare Rules of Naval Command 2021). At the end of September '24 we went through the amphibious landing step by step, as it would be carried out on the West German coast in 1986. Partly with the help of a tailor-made beach mat, we gained insight into how many landing ships we needed, what the order of the different attack waves should be and how we should deal with the scale transition from 1:3000 [sea] to land [6mm/1:285]). In December '24 we played this landing tactically, in 2 phases (2 days). Here we gained experience with, among other things, Naval Gunfire Support within the rules of Naval Command 2021. In between, based on the experiences, I wrote proposals to improve the fleet lists of Naval Command 2021 and at the beginning of February '25 we played the final: the land skirmishes in West Germany, after the Russian Landing Forces were beached.

The Land War (Rules: Fist Full of TOW’s)

For this last part of the Campaign we used a different Rule Book: ‘Fist Full of TOWs’ (2011). Focused on Land Warfare from 1915 to 2015 and use of '6 mm' (scale 1:285) army units. We used a very nice and specially prepared 4 x 6 ft. land mat, together with our 4 ft x 70 cm. beach mat. In

front of the beach a scale 1:700 Destroyer (Sovremenny-class) and 2 LCVP (landing craft Vehicle & Personnel) were present to mimic the Russian Landing Task Group. The Soviet landing Force at the beach consisted of a Motor Rifle Regiment, consisting of 3 Motor Rifle Battalions (BMP-1 tracked vehicles), 1 Tank BAT (T-72A) and 2 reconnaissance platoons (BRDM-2 wheeled vehicles). As NATO had already attacked the Russian Task Group at sea, the starting scenario was that 2 German companies Panzer Grenadier (Marder 1A1 tracked vehicles) were defending the coast and that a battalion of Leopard 2 tanks was 'on call'. One Company Panzer Grenadier was hidden in the small village 'Klein Dorf', the other company occupied 'Hill 117'.

As I would play 'NATO', being a former naval officer, I suddenly had to study Land Warfare Rules and understand what a tank and Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) actually can do. So what are the differences between a naval war game (Naval Command 2021) and a Land Warfare Game (Fist full of TOW's)?

• different scale: 1 cm = 1 nautical mile vs. 1 inch = 100 m. Result: during good visibility, players can see the whole 4 x 6 ft land mat. Result: there is not really a ‘detection phase’, which can take quite a long time within a Naval Wargame (especially if you are looking for a submarine).
• terrain is suddenly an issue… Line of Sight (vs. tree cover or different heights) is something you want to have.
• troop quality seems to be a big part of Land Warfare capability
• miniatures: for a Naval Wargame we use 1 miniature for 1 ship (or aircraft); within Land Warfare (at 6 mm) one miniature tank/vehicle/etc. at 1 base resembled 3 tanks/vehicles/etc. Following the logic: 1 battalion = 3 Companies. And 1 Company = 3 platoons. So my Leopard 2 Tank Bat held 27 tanks on 9 bases: each base (1 tank) was a platoon of 3 Leopard tanks.
• Fist Full of TOW’s used D6 dice vs D10 for Naval Command.
• during the movement phase there are no alternating moves between the attacker and the defender (like in 'Naval command' or 'Ship Wreck') but within the 'Fist Full of Tow' Rule Set one side conduct all their moves & firing (!) and than the other side. It sounds bad but it isn’t, because during the movement phase the other side can have some of its own units in ‘overwatch’ (‘look-out’ functionality) and they are allowed to open fire if the other side conducts its movement and/or ends up in a ‘close combat’ situation (within 1 inch of each other).
• within Land Warfare ‘armour’ and ‘penetration’ of artillery requires roll of dice and calculations, which is comparable to a WW1 or WW2 Naval Wargame with armoured vessels.
• within Naval Command 2021 and in Fist Full of TOW’s both ship classes and types of land units are to use different speeds.
• Fist Full of TOW’s had specific rules for Naval Gunfire Support (by ships) and air attacks. 
  
  
    The Game

Victory conditions: USSR would have total victory if it would conquer 'Kleindorf' village, Hill 245 and Hill 833. If 2 of the 3 objectives would be conquered by the Land Forces it would be a marginal victory (for the USSR). A draw would be the situation when the Landing Force would be able to only take 1 of its objectives. When no objectives would change side, NATO would have a marginal victory.
Deployment: 2 German Company (each: 3 Marder IFV platoon bases) at the coast; their Tank BAT 'on call'. One Company defends 'Kleindorf' (one road inland); the other defends Hill 117, next to the other inland road. Troop quality: good. USSR Motor Rifle Regiment (3 BMP 1- and 1 T-72 Battalions) unloading at the beach. Troop Quality: fair. 1 Sovremenny-class DDG at sea, on-call for NGS (2 twin turrets 130 mm).

Turn 1 (USSR initiative/attacking force)

1 BMP-1 Battalion left the beach and reached the dunes opposite Kleindorf. The other BMP-1 BAT got to the top of the dunes, opposite Hill 117. The second landing wave (the other half of the Soviet Regiment) assembled at the beach. Deployed German Companies stayed under cover and maintained 'overwatch', out of firing range. The Soviets, on top of the dunes, are now spotted and the German Tank BAT is requested for.

Turn 2 (USSR initiative/attacking force)

1 BMP-1 BAT deploys opposite of Kleindorf village. During ‘overwatch’ 1 defending Marder platoon opens fire with 20 mm auto cannons, out of the hedge cover. The other forward deployed Marder platoon opens fire (at longer range) with Milan anti-tank weapons at the same Soviet BAT. Result: 2 destroyed BMP-1 platoons. 

The second BMP-1 BAT tried to close towards Hill 117 (second axis of attack). The 3 Marder platoons on the Hill open fire in ‘Overwatch’, but missed all!

The second half of the Soviet Regiment reached the top of the dunes. 

During the Defender Turn 2 phase, the German Leopard 2 Tank Battalion showed up: 1 company tanks moved towards Hill 245, overlooking ‘Kleindorf’. The other 2 companies followed the road, passed ‘Dunkelwald, towards Hill 117. Germany was not allowed a ‘fire phase’ as the units in range already fired during ‘overwatch’.

Turn 3 (USSR initiative/attacking force)

The whole Soviet Regiment is now in Western Germany. The landing ships are returning to the Taskgroup at sea. The Sovremenny-class destroyer (1 fire unit) is ready for NGS. The Soviet reconnaissance platoon has spotted 20 mm and Milan fire out of the hedges around Kleindorf.

The destroyer opened fire with both turrets at both reported Marder locations, but because they remained in cover they were not hit.

During the Soviet movement phase, 4 platoons BMP-1 are closing in on the hedges and 3 platoons tried to move around the hedges of Kleindorf. However, the 2 Marder platoons kept on firing during ‘overwatch’ and destroyed (again) 2 platoons BMP-1. During the resulting ‘close combat phase’ at the hedges the remaining dismounted Soviet infantry of this 4 platoon attack was mopped up by the better quality Panzer Grenadier. During the same Soviet movement phase, the 2nd half of the Regiment came over the dunes and pivoted towards Kleindorf. During ‘overwatch’, the Marder Company at hill 117 was more lucky than last turn and destroyed 2 platoons BMP-1 with Milan fire. The remaining BMP-1 joined the shifted Soviet attack axis towards Kleindorf.

During the Soviet Fire phase 2 T-72 platoons opened fire on the defending Panzer Grenadier in front of Kleindorf. 1 Marder platoon was destroyed, but its dismounted infantry was still holding the line. Not impressed by the first round of NGS (unsuccessful), the Soviet command never used the destroyer again during this game..

During the Defender turn 3 phase I had to do something, because the Soviets now seem all to be heading towards Kleindorf, which was only defended by 2/3 left of the Company Panzer Grenadier, supported by 1 Company Leopard 2 at hill 245. So I kept the other Company Panzer Grenadier in ‘overwatch’ at hill 117 and moved the ‘reserve’ platoon Marders of the Company out of the village (where it was hiding) towards the hedges around the village, to help hold the line. The Leopard 2 tanks rushed over the road to close the range towards the deployed Soviet T-72 tanks. As the Leopard 2 has a very good stabilized 120 mm gun, it can fire on the move, which they did! During the firing phase the Germans tanks destroyed some T-72’s and BMP-1. Because the Soviet BMP-1’s used all their speeds for movement they were not allowed (Rule book) to use their AT-3 ‘Sagger’ anti-tank missiles to make a difference.

Turn 4 (USSR initiative/attacking force)

Although the first Soviet push towards Kleindorf was stalled, the danger remained. The Soviet move towards Kleindorf was conducted by an almost intact T-72 BAT and a more battered BMP-1 BAT. The other BMP-1 BAT came out of the woods (‘Meerwald’) and tried to confront the Leopard 2’s with their long range AT-3 ‘Saggers’. During the Soviet manoeuvre towards Kleindorf the Leopard 2 company at hill 245 in ‘overwatch’ destroyed 3 T-72 platoons out in the open at long range (lucky dice!). And the Marder Company still in overwatch at hill 117 took out a company BMP-1 which formed an AT-3 ‘Sagger’ threat to the Leopard 2’s at the road. However, during the firing phase the Soviet Forces focussed on the very capable Leopard tanks and during the following AT-3 cross fire, supported by T-72 125 mm gun fire several Leopards were hit…. but not penetrated, so still in the game!

We were now near (real world) dinner, so we overlooked the ‘results’: the attackers had more damage so far than the defenders and those damned Leopard 2’s seemed to be very tough tanks with a formidable range, speed and accuracy advantage over T-72’s. Even if the Soviets were able to take ‘Kleindorf’, it would be a ‘draw’. But…. the Soviets had still a lot of BMP-1, equipped with long range AT-3 ‘Sagger’, so it wasn’t over yet…    

What’s next?

We decided that this was the end of the ‘controlled’ Campaign steps. We tried 3 Rule Sets: 2 for Naval War Gaming and 1 for Land Wargaming. ‘Naval Command 2021’ (with some house rules) and ‘Fist Full of TOW’s’ had proven to be sufficient to play this fictional 1986 Third World War scenario. We now go back to the drawing board and try to ‘slim down’ the scenario, taking into accounts all the learning points of the several steps, and play the Campaign again at tactical speed in 3 takes (sea, landing, land). With, realistically, the start situation of a wargame reflecting the results (damage, etc.) of the former wargame(s). So, if you lose landing ships during the sea encounter, you have less tanks/fighting vehicles during the Land Battle at the end … 

All variants of a Dutch cruiser!

I finally got all the variants of the Dutch last cruiser type! One of the lesser known features of NAVWAR (producer of 1:3000 naval miniatures) is that they provide for some ‘future’ or ‘planned’ warships. Some have been build, but some never…

The Dutch ‘Zeven Provincien’ class cruisers consisted of 2 light cruisers. These vessels were designed in 1938 as improved and enlarged versions of the Dutch 1936 ‘De Ruyter’ light cruiser (which has been destroyed by a Japanese torpedo during the 1942 Battle of the Java Sea). Both ships were designed with 10 guns of 5.9 inch (Bofors): 2 twin turrets and 2 triple turrets. They were planned to carry 2 water planes (for reconnaissance) and had some armour. Both vessels (at that stage named as ‘Eendracht’ and ‘Zeven Provincien’) were in a very early stage of construction (25% and 12%) when the Netherlands was overrun by the German Army in May 1940. Although the Germans tried to continue the building proces (the ships were called ‘Kreuzer Holland 1’ (KH 1) and KH 2, they were never finished. Unfortunately the 5.9 inch guns were never delivered by Sweden and were used for the Swedish ‘Tre Kronur’ class cruisers! 
After the war, the Dutch navy had 2 unfinished cruiser hulls and still a desire to complete them. However a different design was required, as radar had replaced water planes and the atomic bomb required some protection against fall out. New drawings resulted in an adapted design: 8 x 5.9 inch Bofors guns in 4 twin turrets, 4 twin Bofors turrets of 57 mm guns and 8 single 40 mm guns. Not one but 2 funnels and lots of brand new Dutch radar systems. Their armour was already part of the hull and so it remained. Both ships were commissioned in 1953 as HNLMS ‘De Ruyter’ (C801) and HNLMS ‘De Zeven Provincien’ (C802). Most of the time these cruisers were used as flagship for a (Dutch) Task Group. 

During the 1960’s the newest ship was used for a modernization: HNLMS De Zeven Province deleted her aft gun armament, which was replaced with a twin launcher for RIM-2 Terrier missile system, together with some associated US radar systems. There was no money available to re-arm the first ship as well. Therefore HNLMS ‘De Ruyter’ (C801) was sold to Peru in March 1973, as BAP ‘Almirante Grau’. And HNLMS ‘De Zeven Provincien’ (C802) was also sold to Peru, 2 years later (as BAP ‘Aquirre’), because the Royal Netherlands Navy converted in those days from a ‘complete navy’ (with 1 carrier, 2 cruisers, destroyers, etc.) into a primarily Anti-Submarine Warfare navy (with frigates, submarines and MPA’s).
BAP ‘Aquirre’ apparently wasn’t allowed (by the USA) to use the RIM-2 Terrier system, so the ship was re-designed as a helicopter cruiser: with helo-deck and hangar for Seaking helo’s. Both ships sailed on for a lot of years. BAP ‘Aquirre’ was decommissioned in 1999 and scrapped in 2000. BAP ‘Almirante Grau’ was decommissioned in 2017 and sold to be scrapped.

My four 1:3000 miniatures are from NAVWAR. I painted the original 1938 design as HNLMS ‘Eendracht’ (planned to be commissioned in 1943; NAVWAR nr. ‘N8911’). HNLMS ‘De Ruyter’ (C801) is painted as she (and her sister ship) was finished and commissioned in 1953 (NAVWAR nr. ‘890’). HNLMS ‘De Zeven Provincien’ (C802) is painted as the RIM-2 Terrier equipped variant (after 1964; NAVWAR nr. ‘N890A’). And BAP ‘Aguirre’ (CH 84) is painted as the helicopter cruiser variant (after 1976; NAVWAR nr. ‘N8M2’). 

1st Campaign Report: 1986 Soviet Amphibious Landing in Northern Germany ('Naval Command 2021' Rules) - Part 2

Recap: We conducted a rehearsal for the (never happened) 1986 Soviet landing (behind NATO lines) of the West-German Baltic coast on 29th September 2024 (see Battle Report 10th Oct.). Executed the first part of the tactical play on 1st Dec. in approx. 4 hrs. (see Battle Report 4th Dec.); with some minor damage to 2 Soviet covering Forces (1 old Sverdlov-class cruiser and 1 Udaloy ASW-destroyer) and 1 sunk Type 206 West-German submarine. Following is Part 2, conducted on 15th December in approx. 5 hrs. From now I call it a Campaign Report, as this Part 2 will be followed with possible 2 other reports covering the actual fight on the beach and the movement inland of the Soviet Land Forces. To speed things up a little, the starting point for Part 2 was 15-20 nm. from the beach (as the max. convoy speed of the Landing Forces was just 5 kts./turn.).

Set up: The set-up and scenario was the same as Part 1: 1:3000 ship miniatures & 1:600 aircraft on a 4 x 6 feet sea mat, with a 'custom made' cloth beach mat on one of the 4 ft. sides superimposed. As a distance scale we used (recommended Rule Book): 1 cm. = 1 nautical mile. General war existed between NATO and the Warchau-Pact, with lots of fighting in both Germanies. The Soviet Amphibious Strike Group was somehow slimmed down with regards to covering forces: The Landing Ships (Ivan Rogov-, Alligator-, Ropucha-, Polnocny- and AIST-class units) were guarded by 1 x Sverdlov-class cruiser (flag ship), 2 x Moskva-class helicopter carriers, 2 x modern Sovremenny DDG, 1 x modern Udaloy ASW DDG, 1 x old Kashin AAW destroyer, 1 Krivak III frigate and 1 Kilo-class submarine. Lots of Ka-25 and Ka-27 ASW-helicopters and 6 Mi-8/17 transport helo's with 3 attack helo's. At the nearest East German airfield 4 Su-24 Fencer bombers were available to the Strike Group commander for air-strikes.

The West-German coast was guarded by 3 x mobile 152 mm vehicles (actual: 'Dana' Czech wheeled Howitzers; scale: 6 mm.) on one of the islands, a MPA patrolling the coast (West-German Brequet 'Atlantic' was replaced by an UK 'Nimrod', fitted out for ASW) and at sea a small force of 1 Danish Type 207 submarine and 1 'Niels Juel' corvette was present, more than 90-100 nm. away from the Soviets. NATO had 6 x Danish F-16's available on a nearby Danish airfield for maritime tasks.

The aim of this Naval War Game was to continue the tactical phase, but also to try out NGS (Naval Gunfire Support by ships; see Chapter 23 'Gunnery' and Ch. 31 'Littoral Operations' for this) and Air Strike planning (Ch. 25). To make it less predictable when an air strike would happen, we decided that if a potential target was detected the airstrike would only be launched after the D10 dice would present '8' or higher. First turn (after a target detection) you were only allowed to throw 1 D10 dice for this, second turn: 2 x D10, etc. If you were consistently unsuccessful, the airstrike would happen at the 4th turn (after detection of the target) anyway.

Turn 1. NATO had the initiative. The Nimrod MPA flew at medium altitude with her search radar active. Both Danish vessels coming from the North were passive; the Type 207 submarine (Type 209 from NAVWAR) was at shallow depth. All Soviet combatants were active on radar (based on Part 1; the Amphibious Strike Group was previously detected and attacked by NATO), but the landing ships remained silent (to 'hide' within the Strike Group). The Soviet Kilo-class sub was deployed at the open sea flank of the Strike Group. The Soviet ships continued their course towards the southern beach and deployed the first amphibious wave (6 troop transport Mi-8 helo's & 4 AIST-class air cushion vehicles). A Soviet SAG (Surface Action Group), consisting of the damaged Sverdlov-class cruiser and 1 Sovremenny DDG had set sail towards the small island, to neutralize the NATO coastal gunnery threat (which had slightly damaged the Udaloy DDG in Part 1). A Ka-27 helicopter was deployed at sea skimming height to look out for those guns. In the detection Phase the Ka-27 visually detected the most western 152 mm wheeled gun. The Udaloy DDG detected the Nimrod, but the Nimrod was unable to detect the modern Udaloy at 45 nm. Because of her modern search radar the Nimrod was allowed a second detection (own house rules) and was able to detect the larger (& older) Moskva helicopter carrier at 64 nm. Both Russian and Danish submarines (silent running) didn't detect each other at shallow depth at intermediate range. All other detections were unsuccessful. 

During combat phase the Sverdlov cruiser remaining operational 6-inch guns (only 2 fwd triple turrets) opened fire at a range of 20 nm. and destroyed the mobile 152 mm coastal gun (battle damage assessment by Ka-27). It was good to see that Naval Command 2021 Chapter 23 and 32 came to the same conclusion with regard to damage due to Naval Gunfire Support (NGS). 

Turn 2. NATO kept initiative. Sensor status unchanged. The 1st Soviet amphibious wave did set foot on the West German beach and started unloading. Given the tactical situation, I realized I would like the Nimrod MPA to deploy a sonobuoy field to look for a possible Soviet submarine at the open sea side of the Soviet Strike Group.

Unfortunately I couldn't find sufficient suggestions in the Rule Book how to do that... So we made at the spot a new house rule: based on the passive sonar table of Chapter 17.5 we decided that sonobuoys (at the surface) were limited to intermediate/close range to detect submarines. Partly based on own experience, I suggested to work with a 10 nm line of sonobuoys, presented by 2 outer sonobuoys. During the detection phase, an MPA was in this way allowed to detect all units within intermediate range of that deployed sonobuoy line and such that both outside buoys were allowed one passive sonar detection on each target. Possible results (per possible target): 2 x no detection, 1 passive detection/1 no detection (result: passive detection, but no location) and 2 passive detections. Only with 2 detections a MPA was able to make a cross bearing, resulting into an exact location. We agreed on this new 'house rule'. Nimrod detected with active radar the Sverdlov-class cruiser and with ESM the 2nd Moskva-class helicopter carrier. Based on this, it was decided that the Soviet Amphib Strike Gp was detected and a request for air strike (by F-16) was sent. The Soviet and Danish submarines closed in on each other at 'silent running' and were unable to detect each other... The Ka-27 helo of the Soviet SAG found a second 152 mm. coastal gun.

Both ships closed in to surprise this 152 mm. gun as well. During the combat phase the NATO coastal gun (initiative!) opened fire on the Sverdlov cruiser (size 8) and scored 3 damage markers. The Sverdlov returned fire with both forward triple 152 mm. guns and neutralized the gun ashore (size 1). During the following Damage Control phase the Sverdlov-class cruiser was able to put out the fire and stop the floods. The Soviet admiral onboard realized he might run out of luck next time, so decided to call in an air attack (Su-24 bomber) on the island.

Turn 3. USSR got initiative. Sensor status unchanged. The first amphibious wave unloaded the assault troops. The now more damaged Soviet flagship turned away from the island, guarded by the 100% operational Sovremenny-class DDG. The Soviet and Danish submarines closed in on each other at 'silent running' and were still unable to detect each other...(now at a range of 30 nm.)  During the navigation phase Nimrod MPA deployed the sonobuoy line. Niels Juel class closed in the Soviet Strike Gp. Throwing 1 Dice, the Soviets got a '8' and their Su-24 air attack was put on the table! NATO had 'no joy' with regards to the F-16 strike... Detection phase: The sonobuoy line did have the Kilo-class submarine zone and the Kashin class DDG within intermediate range. The submarine was not detected, but the Kashin DDG was with 1 sonobuoy-bearing (passive detection, but no location at 21 nm.). Nimrod unable to get an ESM bearing on the Kashin... Niels Juel unable to get an ESM-bearing on the retreating SAG at 77 nm.

In the attack phase 4 x SU-24 'Fencer' bombers dropped a lot of bombs on the buildings at the West German island, including the remaining 152 mm. mobile gun. Gun neutralized.

Turn 4. USSR kept initiative. Sensor status unchanged. The following amphibious wave got into position. The now empty troop transport helo's returned to the ships. 1 Mi-24 'Hind' helicopter remained above the beach supporting the assault troops. NATO used 2 D10's to throw a '8' or higher (for F-16's air attack) but was unsuccessful. The Ka-27 helo landed on the Sovremenny DDG (Soviet SAG). The Kilo-class sub did detect the Danish Type 207 sub passively. However the Nimrod detected via sonobuoys the Kilo-class as well. 1 marker; no location. The Type 207 was unable to detect her opponent.

Turn 5. USSR kept initiative. Sensor status unchanged. 4 AIST-class air-cushion vehicles returned to the Task Force. Wave 2 (several Ropucha-class Landing Ship Tanks) beached their ships at the beach. Troop transport helo's landed on both Moskva-class carriers for refuel & reload. NATO used 3 D10's to throw a '8' or higher (for F-16's air attack): again unsuccessful! Niels Juel class corvette continued her course towards the Soviet Strike Group. Now at 67 nm of retreating SAG (house rule: range RGM-84 Harpoon missile: 70 nm. - and not '50'). The only detection Nimrod was capable of: ESM bearing on Sovremenny (at 44 nm.). Still radar contact on Sverdlov. 

Based on this targeting information, Niels Juel fired her 8 RGM-84 Harpoon missiles towards Sverdlov. As they are sea skimming, SA-N-7 and AK630 close-in weapon system of the escorting Sovremenny-class DDG opened fire, resulting in 2 splashes. The 37 mm AA-guns of the Sverdlov cruiser didn't have a chance. 6 Harpoons did hit the already damaged cruiser and the cruiser went down engulfed with black smoke and fire. However, the admiral and some crew members were rescued by the Sovremenny. He asked for a helo transfer to the Moskva-class carrier to continue his command of the Amphibious Strike Group.

 Turn 6. NATO got initiative. Niels Juel went active on radar & sonar. Partly because she expected a counter attack by escorting Sovremenny but also she feared a possible encounter with the Kilo-class sub. As this was the 4th turn after the F-16 air attack request, the attack package showed up (house rule: automatically). Both submarines (silent running) were now very close: 8 nm. The 3rd amphibious wave (2 x Alligator-class) arrived at the beach. The Ropucha's were still off-loading their units. Both Moskva class carriers were in the process of re-launching the troop transport helo's for a second air lift towards the beaches. The Soviet Strike Group did send 2 Ka-25/27 helo's and 2 destroyers (Sovremenny & Kashin) towards the location where the 8 Harpoons came from, to investigate how large the attacking NATO Taskgroup was... Both Danish ships remained unable to detect the Kilo-class sub. However the Type 207 was able to detect with her passive sonar the fast sailing Kashin class at 40 nm distance! The Nimrod went to low altitude, to remain outside the AAW bubble of the incoming Soviet destroyers and be able to attack the Kilo-class sub (if located). The Kilo had a passive sonar detection on Niels Juel. 

In the Combat phase 6 Danish F-16's attacked the Moskva-class carrier 'Moskva'. I couldn't find a specific anti-shipping armament package for these Danish F-16's, so I chose a GBU-31 JDAM package (found at the Naval Command 2021 Facebook page) at sea skimming level. Both helikopter carriers could only use their 57 mm. twin guns against this low flying threat (SA-N-3 unable), with no results.

The nearby Krivak III opened fire with SA-N-4 and splashed 1 F-16 at an impressive range of 8 nm. (following the Rules; SA-N-4 can be used <12 nm.). 10 JDAM's landed on the 'Moskva' (resulting in 20 damage points) and the ship went down...just after she flew off her transport helo's. The 5 remaining F-16's did zig-zag between the ships, flew towards the nearest island en cleared the scene.

Turn 7. USSR got initiative. Sensor status unchanged. The 4 returning AIST-class picked up survivors of the F-16 air attack on the 'Moskva'. The admiral arrived by helo with a limited number of his staff at the remaining Moskva-class helicopter carrier and exercised command from there. All landing ships were at the beach now (unopposed!), deploying troops and vehicles in large numbers. The troop carrying helo wave was flying towards the beach. The Nimrod MPA dropped a second sonobuoy line to have a better chance to localize the Soviet submarine. Flying low, her radar & ESM intercepts were less successful. Unfortunately she was still unable to localize the Kilo-class submarine, and the remaining Moskva-class carrier... One of the Soviet helo's was able to detect the Niels Juel-class corvette. 

Resulting in a busy combat phase: The Sovremenny launched, based on targeting info by the helo, a salvo of 4 x SS-N-22 'Sunburn' high speed anti-ship missiles at range 45 nm. According to the Naval Command 2021 rules these missiles (weight: 4,000 kg. speed Mach 2,2) were sea skimming!? Anyhow, following the rules and unlucky dice, Niels Juel was unable to splash any SS-N-22...  3 lock-on's resulting into a sunken corvette...See below for my comments regarding that engagement. The second attack was by the Soviet Kilo-class sub on Niels Juel. She fired 4 guided torpedo's in bearing-only launch at a range of 10 nm. (on passive sonar detection) but unlucky dice resulted in 4 x miss! The third attack was a SA-N-7 engagement by the Sovremenny against the Nimrod at low altitude at a range of 23 nm! Possible within the rules (SA-N-7 can engage air targets within the AD distance band 12 to 30 nm. range). Nimrod splashed...

After 5 hours naval gaming we went for dinner. End of Part 2. Amphibious landing was successful, but the Soviet Amphibious Strike Group lost 1 Helicopter carrier (with essential deck space for Mi-8/Mi-24 helo's), 1 old cruiser (with relevant NGS capability) and had a slightly damaged Udaloy-class ASW destroyer. The TF had still 60-70% of her anti-shipping capacity, 100% of her submarine capability and Landing Force capability and probably 60% of her maritime Air Defense capability. NGS capability was down to 40-50%. NATO tried with very limited force (overstretched?) to interfere with this Soviet operation but was not very successful. However, if NATO assigns more attack missions to the cause that might change. NATO still has a submarine at the scene and the Soviet admiral has reasons to fear a second air attack on his landing area. He definitely needs Combat Air Patrol (CAP)!

Verdict. Naval Command 2021 has many playable components of modern maritime warfare! Within the last 2 games we really pushed it to the limits with our 'out-of-mind' amphibious landing (and connection with 6 mm Land miniatures), but so far we are pleasantly surprised. Naval Gunfire Support (NGS) by ships (or coastal guns firing at passing ships) worked very well (assuming the coastal gun has the same distance / damage factor as a naval gun with similar caliber)! Even the on-the-spot house rule regarding the use of sonobuoys seemed to work out and can also be adapted (longer/shorter than 10 nm, etc.). It requires more 'datapoints' (more wargaming) to find out which is the best. Eg. you could include not only passive sonobuoys, but also 1 or more active ones (which in reality are more expensive), which gives instantaneous a location of the submarine. And maybe we can find some unclassified examples of buoy-patterns, so that we get a better simulation of how large such a field is? However, Air Defense is an area in which, after 4-5 games using 'Naval Command 2021', I still seem to struggle applying the rules properly... This game, 3 issues surprised me (initially). 

Issue 1. A Nimrod at low height was shot down by a single-arm SA-N-7 fired by a Sovremenny at a range of 23 nm! SA-N-7 is according to the USSR Master list capable to fire up to medium range (which is max. 30 nm.). Remember, during Part 1 of this Campaign we already thought that the SA-N-7 range (up to medium range) is too optimistic! And... at medium range/low altitude the SA-N-7 has an AD-modifier of '3' (the highest number available within the table!). As a former Air Defence Officer I was surprised (again), so next day I started an investigation. This SA-N-7 rating surpasses even the SA-N-6 primary AD weapon of the Slava-class and Kirov-class cruisers (which has '2' for the whole medium range). According to the USSR Masterlist/AD weapons you are let to believe that SA-N-7 is the most potent Russian AD weapon (sarcasm alert). However, OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) says: SA-N-7 is the navalized version of the land-based 'Buk' AD system. There are 2 different missiles types: 9M38 and the more modern 9M317. The older one has a max. theoretical range of 30 km (16 nm.), the newer one of 50 km. (27 nm.). According to OSINT: practical range for these missiles, as claimed by the manufacturer(!), are 25 km versus high altitudes, 18 km. for targets below 1 km altitude and 12 km. versus inbound anti-ship missiles (6-7 nm.). This particular points out to 2 potential 'problems'. For AD, 'Naval Command 2021' works with 'range bands': Close (0-12 nm.), Medium (12-30 nm.) and Long (30-100 nm.). At first I assume that the quality rating for SA-N-7 is wrong, especially at medium range. But second, how do we take into account actual / realistic engagement ranges within those rather large & rude range bands? One could choose mentioning the actual ranges or.... one could decide to stick to the rude range bands, but rounding the range to the nearest range band limit. So the SA-N-7 should have had (in my opinion) an actual range of let say 7 nm. against anti-ship missiles or the whole range band of close range (< 12 nm). I assume that the 9M317 missile is for the more modern SA-N-12 version (onboard the newest Chinese Sovremenny's-class, Indian Talwar-class and Russian Grigorovich-class)?

Issue 2. In the game the Niels Juel-class corvette was unable to shoot down any SS-N-22 Sunburn. In my memory / professional experience those 3 Niels Juel-class units were reasonably armed. They were equipped with Mk 48 Mod 3 Vertical Launch System for RIM-7 NATO Sea Sparrow. However, looking into OSINT after this 1986 game, I realized that the Mk 48 VLS was installed not before 2000 and this midlife upgrade was (understandably) not yet mentioned in the Denmark Fleet List of 2021. The Fleet List described the original configuration: the 8 cell Mk 29 NATO Sea Sparrow trainable launcher. My memory / knowledge did let me down! I also saw that SS-N-22 Sunburn is rated within the game with a high & realistic defense rating of '13'. Given the low rating for the Air Defense radar of the Niels Juel-class ('1') and the lack of CIWS onboard it would be near impossible for her to defend against SS-N-22. However, looking further into the Denmark Master list for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow and looking into the fleet list entry for Niels Juel I spotted a mis-match. The Masterlist rates RIM-7 with: 2 (ss) 2 (low) 1 (medium) [which I understand with my missile knowledge], but the Niels Juel entries gives: 1 (ss), 2 (low), 2 (medium) [which I understand less]. The Master list of the USA gives the same rating as the Master list of Denmark, so is there a typo error at Niels Juel? Which didn't help her defense? If you read following point 3, you will understand that actually the ship was double 'handicapped': her lowest AD modifier for RIM 7 Sea Sparrow was for 'SS'.... 

Issue 3. The Sunburn engagement pointed another thing out to me. Apparently, according to the USSR Master list the SS-N-22 is a sea skimmer!? I was surprised to read that, so I looked into OSINT after the game (as I don't have acces to classified data anymore). Lots of websites copy each other and write down the (Russian) statement that it flies sea skimming at 7-20 meter altitude. A 4,000 kg missile at Mach 2,3 from the 1970s/1980s. I find it difficult to believe that... How to continuously compensate your altitude for sea state at that speed and the rude electronics of the altimeter? The subsonic and older SS-N-2, SS-N-7, SS-N-9 flew at 60-40 meters altitude (source: same OSINT), to prevent flying into the bumpy sea. Even modern supersonic Russian missiles have problems flying below 10 meters altitude... I found only a very few websites which stated that SS-N-22 flies at 20 m. height and after lock-on (missile radar activates at around 6-7 nm distance from expected target) it descends to 7 m. I expect that impact wil occur at 7 m. above the waterline, but that most of the trajectory it will fly at approx. 20 m. altitude. That is different than a sea skimming Harpoon or Exocet, I reckon. But thinking about it longer than a couple of seconds, you could - for the sake of sufficient game play- keep the missile description at 'SS' as the SS-N-22 remains a very difficult weapon (and the rule system doesn't take into account the high speed of some missile, resulting in less reaction time). Suggestion: use a footnote: 'missile rated as 'ss' due to supersonic speed, resulting in very limited reaction time'.

Additional USSR Fleet List pages for 'Naval Command 2021'

Based on our 1986 Amphibious Naval Wargames of the last months (and bought miniatures), I needed some additional Soviet/Russian ship descriptions in the USSR Fleet List of 'Naval Command 2021' Rule set. There are Grisha- & Grigorovich-class frigates, Alligator-, Polnocny- & AIST-class amphibious units, T-43 minesweeper and Don-, Berezina- & Boris Chilikin-class Naval Auxiliaries. They are posted on the 'Naval Command 2021' Facebook page; free to use and hopefully included/adapted in a future version of Naval Command.

Battle/1st Campaign Report: 1986 Soviet Amphibious Landing in Northern Germany ('Naval Command 2021' Rules) - Part 1

Recap: During the ‘table top’ exercise (see my BLOG October 10th, 2024) we determined how to conduct a Soviet Amphibious Landing in the Baltic on the West German Baltic Coast (1986 Cold War fictional scenario) within the rule set of Naval Command 2021. In October we concluded:
4 AIST-class air-cushion vehicles delivered 2x CIE Naval Inf. & 2x PLT Naval Inf.
6 Mi-8 transport helo’s delivered 6 PLT air assault (wave 1)
5 Ropucha-class LST’s delivered 3 CIE T-72 tanks, 2 CIE Naval Inf, 2 PLT recon & 2 PLT Anti-Air.
6 Mi-8 transports helo’s delivered another 6 PLT Air Assault (turn 5)
1 Alligator-class LST delivered: 1 artillery battery (6 guns) & 10 trucks
1 Ivan Rogov-class delivered 10 T-72 (1 CIE) & 30 BMP (vehicles for 1 BAT) & Commander Land Forces HQ
Reserve: 1 Alligator, loaded with 10 trucks, artillery battery (6x 2S1), field hospital.

On Sunday 1st december 2024 we played the same scenario, now under tactical circumstances. The Soviet Amphibious Taskgroup was almost the same, but now the West German coast would be defended by a West German submarine, a Brequet Atlantic MPA and NATO aircraft would be standing by to attack the Taskgroup when it was properly detected.
The Naval Wargame was conducted with 1:3000 ship miniatures and 1:600 aircraft on a 4 x 6 ft blue sea mat with a (cloth) 4 ft x 2 ft cm print of a beach superimposed over the short (4 ft) side of the sea mat. We used the Naval Command 2021 rule set; slightly adapted to our needs. Although I acquired 2 Soviet T-43 minesweepers since the last game, we didn’t look into mine warfare aspects. As targets for a possible ‘Naval gunfire support’ (NGS: artillery support by naval ships in support of the Land Forces (Chapter 32.2 and 32.3)) I had included a couple of 6 mm. Land Forces artillery pieces on an island in front of the coast. For submarine operations it was decided that all was ‘deep’, except near the coast or the island.

During Turn 1 NATO had the initiative. The German Brequet Atlantic was radar active patrolling the West German coast; the German Type 206 submarine (Type 209 NAVWAR) sat quiet in her submarine patrol zone near the island (blue flag in above picture). Of the Soviet Taskgroup only the Udaloy (upfront) and 1 Sovremenny (right flank) destroyer were radar active; the Udaloy was also active on sonar.
The German Type 206 passively detected the Udaloy active sonar at 25 nm. Also the Atlantic MPA detected the Udaloy; at 70 nm. by active radar. The Soviet Kilo-class upfront (red flag) was unable to passively detect the tiny German Type 206. However, the big sonar of the Udaloy was able to detect the Type 206, resulting in 1 marker. The Soviet Sovremenny detected the Atlantic MPA by active radar. No combat phase, but NATO got an enemy report from the Atlantic MPA that at least 2 Soviet destroyers were near the German coast. That triggered the planning for a possible NATO air attack on those vessels, as they might be part of the Soviet Taskgroup (of which NATO didn’t have an exact location).

During turn 2 USSR had the initiative. 2 Soviet Ka-27 ASW helo’s deployed to the front of the ASW-screen around the Soviet Taskgroup, to investigate the initial sonarcontact by the Udaloy destroyer. The Taskgroup proceeded as planned. The Atlantic MPA descended to ‘low’ and turned towards the 2 Soviet radar contacts, keeping out of their AAW weapons. The MPA detected the Berezina-class tanker at 70 nm. The German Type 206 moved silently towards the Udaloy and detected the Soviet Kilo-class submarine as well. The Kilo-class was not able to detect the much smaller Type 206 submarine. The Udaloy was unable to remain in sonar contact with the type 206. Both Ka-27 ASW helo’s were struggling to get sonar contact at the Type 206 as well.
Based on the detection of 2 Soviet destroyers and their tanker, surrounded by a couple of unidentified radar contacts, it was decided by NATO that the Soviet Taskgroup had been found and a detailed air-attack planning started.

During Turn 3 USSR kept the initiative. The Udaloy ASW-destroyer closed in at the silent German Type 206. The Soviet Krivak 2 ASW-frigate at the opposite flank became active on sonar and radar and maintained position. The Taskgroup proceeded towards the German coast. Frustated activated the Soviet Kilo-class submarine her powerful sonar, to try to find the Type 206… The Atlantic MPA flew towards the Kilo-class, but had to stay outside the AAW-‘umbrella’ of the Soviet Udaloy. In the meantime the Atlantic detected the Krivak 2. Although considered a very bold move, the Kilo-class sub was able to detect the Type 206. Worse, also the Udaloy detected the type 206 again. Three markers, the German sub was located; 20 nm. away from the SSN-14 equipped Udaloy. During the combat phase only the Udaloy was able to fire: 2 SSN-14 on the location of the Type 206: both missed, due to countermeasures deployed by Type 206 and/or dodgy firing solutions. The NATO air attack planning was still ongoing.

During turn 4 USSR kept the initiative. The Type 206 dived below the thermocline layer to ‘deep’. Initially all Soviet units lost sonar contact on her. Unfortunately, the Udaloy found the sub again quickly. A Ka-27 ASW helo closed in on this position. The Type 206 detected a nearby Sovremenny destroyer. The Atlantic MPA kept her distance towards the Soviet AAW-capable warships and could not detect or attack the Soviet Kilo-class. During the combat phase the nearby Ka-27 helo attacked the Type 206 with 2 homing torpedo’s. 1 hit, resulting in 1 Fire and 2 structure damage markers. The continuing fire resulted in a third structural damage marker. Damage control by the tiny sub didn’t help. She was crippled and couldn’t perform her mission…

During turn 5 USSR kept the initiative. More combatants within the Soviet Taskgroup went ‘active’, as the flagship (Sverdlov-class cruiser) was convinced a NATO airstrike on the Task Group was a strong possibility. Both Grisha-class ASW-frigates became ‘active’, as well as the old Kashin-class AAW destroyer. The Taskgroup was now protected by 2 Sovremenny destroyers (SA-N-7 AAW-system), 1 Udalaoy (SA-N-9 VLS), 1 Kashin (SA-N-1) and several SA-N-4 capable ships (Krivak 2, Grisha). The Soviets kept hunting the crippled Type 206. A second Ka-27 fired 2 torpedo’s at her and she sank. However, during the ASW hunt the Udaloy did close the German island within 20 nm. The unknown and undetected deployed 152 mm howitzers opened fire on the Udaloy at 17 nm and did hit her once, resulting in 1 fire damage and 2 structural damage. Her helo pad was therefore destroyed. Still no sight of a NATO air attack.

During turn 6 USSR kept the initiative (again!). The NATO strike package (4 Buccaneers with a total of 16 Sea Eagle ASM, protected by a pair of Harrier FRS-1) showed up. Split into 2 flights and moved into position at very low level. 

The Udaloy - on fire- tried to move away from the hostile island. During the combat phase 2 Buccaneers fired at the 2 front Ropucha-class LST’s. The other 2 Buccaneers fired from the left flank towards the Sverdlov Cruiser (assessed to be the flagship) and 1 of the 2 Moskva-class helicopter cruisers. Following the Naval Command 2021 Rule Set, a lot of Soviet ships were able to shoot at the incoming Sea Eagle anti-ship missiles. Mind you, these were crossing targets (and not incoming targets) for most of the time, outside -real world- max. range of those Soviet AAW weapons. I can’t imagine that a AIST air cushion vehicle can hit a passing subsonic Sea Eagle at 4-5 nm with her radar guided AK 230 (30 mm. self defense gun; actual range < 1,5 nm); but according to the rules she can (Rule: this system can hit within 12 nm.- CLOSE RANGE)! And those 2 single-arm SA-N-7 systems of a Sovremenny did fire many SA-N-7’s at crossing targets at a range of > 12 nm. (Rules: at MEDIUM range < 30 nm.). A more realistic range of SA-N-7 against crossing targets is prob. <12 nm. I think ‘Naval Command 2021’ is too optimistic about Russian AAW and doesn’t take into account Rate of fire and/or the amount of fire channels… 

Anyhow, the Sverdlov cruiser was substantial damaged by 2 Sea Eagles, but the 12 Sea Eagles aimed at the Ropucha’s and the Moskva-class cruiser were all ‘splashed’ (even by very old SA-N-1, SA-N-3, SA-N-4 or AK-230). 

And then we went for dinner - real world. Which was the end of this tactical game.

This enjoyable Naval Wargame took us approx. 4 hours to play. There was no time left to conduct the actual landing at the beach or to conduct Naval Gunfire Support… The plan is therefor to play ‘Part 2’ of this game on December 15th and start closer to the German coast (in order to conduct the actual landing). I assume we leave the damaged Sverdlov-class out of the equation but keep the slightly damaged Udaloy in …

Preparation for ‘Part 2’:
- prepare missing Ship Data Cards for: T-43 minesweeper, Polnocny LCT, Grisha ASW-corvette, Berezina-class tanker.
- think about some (temporary?) base for all the Landing Ships of the Task Group. So you have to move 1 large base, instead of lots of individual ships.

Additional Remarks, after some investigation (some days later).

I looked into the actual ranges (and reaction times) of the Soviet Naval SAM-systems: SA-N-1, SA-N-3 and SA-N-4 are probably unable to fire at a sea skimming 'Sea Eagle' missile. For rate of fire: SA-N-4 twin launcher: 2 missiles/min. reload time SA-N-7 (Sovremenny) single-arm launcher: 24 sec! Max. distance AK-630/AK-230 and SA-N-5/8 against air targets: approx 2 nm. Max. range SA-N-4 and SA-N-7: 7 nm. Verdict: most of the Sea Eagles couldn't be hit and would probably reach their targets... with severe hits on 2 Ropucha's, 1 Sverdlov and 1 Moskva-class.