General remarks:
Similar fictional 1986 Baltic Campaign as 2024, but now at ‘action speed’ (ahum) and…the intended 3 stages (‘sea’, ‘amphibious landing’ and ‘land’) are interconnected. Meaning: if you lose a unit in an earlier stage, you have lost this unit for the whole campaign! Second objective of this Campaign: final rehearsal of our intended demonstration of the scenario at the upcoming Naval Warfare Society Yearly Naval Wargame Weekend at Yeoilton, UK (4-5 October 2025), which we would like to participate. I attended the 2023 edition. So I slimmed down the scenario a bit and developed some victory objectives for both sides.
Intel Brief: NATO and the Warsaw-Pact (WP) in military conflict with each other. Triggered by sudden occupation of Poland by WP-forces. ‘Moscow’ mobilized troops of the Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GSFG) and moved those towards the DDR-West Germany border. NATO Intelligence indicates that some Soviet units has moved west towards the border between the Baltic Coast and the Elbe river. Parts of Soviet formations have crossed at least 10 km. inside Western-Germany. No nuclear weapons have been used and politicians of both sides seem to be trying to keep the conflict as much as possible localized and prevent escalation. Limited land & air fighting between NATO forces and WP-forces have been conducted for 2 days in the Western-Germany / DDR border area between the Baltic Coast (Rostock / Wismar) and Brandenburg, DDR. The border with Czechoslovakia seems to remain quiet. Conflicting indications that Warsaw Pact is preparing amphibious move towards Lubeck or Kiel to expand the WP-incursion into Western-Germany. NATO determined to prevent Warsaw-Pact escalating conflict into a maritime BALTIC conflict. Expect no military or intelligence support from Sweden or Finland; both neutral countries want to stay out of trouble. No wartime convoy system in the Baltic activated yet and no sea-mines deployed…
General Wargame Rules:
Similar fictional 1986 Baltic Campaign as 2024, but now at ‘action speed’ (ahum) and…the intended 3 stages (‘sea’, ‘amphibious landing’ and ‘land’) are interconnected. Meaning: if you lose a unit in an earlier stage, you have lost this unit for the whole campaign! Second objective of this Campaign: final rehearsal of our intended demonstration of the scenario at the upcoming Naval Warfare Society Yearly Naval Wargame Weekend at Yeoilton, UK (4-5 October 2025), which we would like to participate. I attended the 2023 edition. So I slimmed down the scenario a bit and developed some victory objectives for both sides.
Intel Brief: NATO and the Warsaw-Pact (WP) in military conflict with each other. Triggered by sudden occupation of Poland by WP-forces. ‘Moscow’ mobilized troops of the Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GSFG) and moved those towards the DDR-West Germany border. NATO Intelligence indicates that some Soviet units has moved west towards the border between the Baltic Coast and the Elbe river. Parts of Soviet formations have crossed at least 10 km. inside Western-Germany. No nuclear weapons have been used and politicians of both sides seem to be trying to keep the conflict as much as possible localized and prevent escalation. Limited land & air fighting between NATO forces and WP-forces have been conducted for 2 days in the Western-Germany / DDR border area between the Baltic Coast (Rostock / Wismar) and Brandenburg, DDR. The border with Czechoslovakia seems to remain quiet. Conflicting indications that Warsaw Pact is preparing amphibious move towards Lubeck or Kiel to expand the WP-incursion into Western-Germany. NATO determined to prevent Warsaw-Pact escalating conflict into a maritime BALTIC conflict. Expect no military or intelligence support from Sweden or Finland; both neutral countries want to stay out of trouble. No wartime convoy system in the Baltic activated yet and no sea-mines deployed…
General Wargame Rules:
- Ship miniatures: 1:3000 scale; can stay active ’24/7’.
- Air miniatures: 1:600/1:700 scale. Helicopters can stay airborne for max. 4 turns; patrol aircraft for 8 turns, fighters active for max. 3 turns (Yak-38 VSTOL only 2 turns) and bombers conduct 1 attack and return to base.
- Rule Book maritime wargames: Naval Command 2021 Edition.
- Each start of a (following) wargame reflects the end situation of the former wargame, taking into account damage and losses of participants. The start situation can be adapted by certain rules/rules of engagement, which might require a dice roll.
- House Rule: units at sea/air may conduct more than 1 detection/turn: either vis., radar, sonar etc. The number of detections within 1 type (radar, sonar, etc.) is equal with their sensor rating related to this type. This provides modern units several advantages.
- House Rule: certain weapons are limited in range (20 mm AA-gun can’t reach the 12 nm. edge of the ‘close range’ band). The most realistic range of weapons is to be used (Source: OSINT or ‘Harpoon’ data).
- House Rule: use of (air dropped) sonar buoys: they deploy on a line of 10 nm. At both ends 1 sonar buoy, either passive or active. 2 passive successful detections results in: crossfix (successful location of submarine or surface vessel); only 1 passive detection results in 1 bearing of a location, no distance information.
- Use of nuclear weapons is not allowed. Long range nuclear-capable weapons (like Tomahawk, SS-N-12, etc.) is therefore not allowed.
Set up of the game:
- 4 x 6 ft. sea mat horizontal orientation east-west; southern West-German beach starts in south west corner. USSR forces within 30 nm of north east corner; NATO forces at least 80 nm. west of USSR surface forces (center of submarine patrol zones may be not closer than 50 nm.).
- USSR Amphibious Taskgroup: proceed at best speed towards German beach. Restricted ROE: defend yourself if NATO attack on convoy is plausible. Engage no merchants or Swedish/Finnish combatants. Vis. identification is not required; passive identification (ESM or sonar) of NATO unit is sufficient. Victory: major victory = 2 Battalions Land Forces surviving this naval wargame and at least 2 Mi-8/17 transport helo’s. Minor victory: at least 50% of USSR combatants (carrier, cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine) survives naval wargame.
- NATO Taskgroup: find USSR Amphib. Convoy and stop Amphibious ships. Prevent Amphib. landing at German or Danish Coast. Restricted ROE: attack only WP combatants (incl. landing ships). Engage no neutral ships. Vis. identification is not required; radar/sonar identification (either active or passive) of WP-unit is sufficient. Major victory: at least 50% of larger USSR landing ships (LSD, LST) is destroyed (‘vessel kill’) Minor victory: 40% of larger USSR landing ships is not Amphib. capable anymore (‘mission kill’). Other minor victory (in case of not sinking the USSR Landing Force): 60% of NATO sea- and air forces survives the Naval wargame and can engage the enemy next wargame.
Set up of the game:
- 4 x 6 ft. sea mat horizontal orientation east-west; southern West-German beach starts in south west corner. USSR forces within 30 nm of north east corner; NATO forces at least 80 nm. west of USSR surface forces (center of submarine patrol zones may be not closer than 50 nm.).
- USSR Amphibious Taskgroup: proceed at best speed towards German beach. Restricted ROE: defend yourself if NATO attack on convoy is plausible. Engage no merchants or Swedish/Finnish combatants. Vis. identification is not required; passive identification (ESM or sonar) of NATO unit is sufficient. Victory: major victory = 2 Battalions Land Forces surviving this naval wargame and at least 2 Mi-8/17 transport helo’s. Minor victory: at least 50% of USSR combatants (carrier, cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine) survives naval wargame.
- NATO Taskgroup: find USSR Amphib. Convoy and stop Amphibious ships. Prevent Amphib. landing at German or Danish Coast. Restricted ROE: attack only WP combatants (incl. landing ships). Engage no neutral ships. Vis. identification is not required; radar/sonar identification (either active or passive) of WP-unit is sufficient. Major victory: at least 50% of larger USSR landing ships (LSD, LST) is destroyed (‘vessel kill’) Minor victory: 40% of larger USSR landing ships is not Amphib. capable anymore (‘mission kill’). Other minor victory (in case of not sinking the USSR Landing Force): 60% of NATO sea- and air forces survives the Naval wargame and can engage the enemy next wargame.
- NATO Taskgroup (TG) consist of 2 ASW-frigates (Dutch & UK), 1 Dutch AAW-frigate (HNLMS Tromp, with SM-1MR) accompanied by HNLMS Zuiderkruis fleet tanker (represented by HNLMS Amsterdam). The submarine HNLMS Zwaardvis (represented by HNLMS Walrus) is in direct support. On call (ashore): 4 UK ‘Buccaneer’ bombers, 4 Danish F-16 fighters (CAP) and Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) support. Task group has 16 Harpoon SSM’s (range: 70 nm.) and 4 MM-38 Exocet (range: 22 nm.).
- 1 Oil Rig and 2 merchant vessels are in the area. All 3 use navigation radars.
- interpretation of photo’s: green acrylic radarscreen tokens: unit is active detected (radar or sonar). Blue radarscreen token: unit is passively detected (ESM or sonar). 2 white golf Tees: sonobuoy line of 10 nm. Green token ‘activated’: ‘radar on’. Red flag: either USSR submarine patrol zone or USSR flagship. Blue flag: NATO. Damage tokens: blue water drop (flood), yellow flash (fire).
Turn 1 (NATO initiative): NATO TG deploys ‘Atlantic’ MPA and 1 ‘Lynx’ helo in front of own TG. Only 1 Dutch ASW frigate activates radar & sends radar picture via datalink to TG. NATO Submarine patrol zone outside 50 nm. of USSR TG. HNLMS ‘Zwaardvis’ at shallow depth.
Turn 1 (NATO initiative): NATO TG deploys ‘Atlantic’ MPA and 1 ‘Lynx’ helo in front of own TG. Only 1 Dutch ASW frigate activates radar & sends radar picture via datalink to TG. NATO Submarine patrol zone outside 50 nm. of USSR TG. HNLMS ‘Zwaardvis’ at shallow depth.
USSR deploys Be-12 waterplane MPA and 1 Ka-27 ‘Helix’ helo (both radar active) in front of USSR TG. Very limited amount of Russian ship radars active, to prevent early detection by NATO.
During the detection phase a lot of ships and aircraft tried to detect each other; either active or passive. Took a lot of time to make the calculations! USSR had better luck with the dice as NATO… USSR detected the ‘Atlantic’ MPA, Dutch fleet tanker and the Dutch flagship. Result: USSR Admiral assumed a probable NATO TG coming towards him. NATO submarine detected the ‘Kashin’-class destroyer passively, but had not reported this to his TG Commander (yet). There was no combat phase as everybody was still outside range..
Turn 2 (NATO kept initiative): USSR Admiral assumed worst case scenario (NATO had probably detected the Amphibious TG) and deployed 2 Yak-38 from the ‘Kiev’-class on CAP-duty. And ordered a Su-24 strike and additional MIG-29 CAP from a DDR airfield. To properly control those CAP aircraft, both an ‘Udaloy’-class and 1 ‘Sovremenny’-class destroyer activated their Air Defence radars. The ‘Kiev’-class carrier ‘Admiral Gorshkov’ might have better sensors for this (the only ship with ‘SkyWatch’ phased array radar), but by not using them at this moment, it hides herself (and the Amphibious TG) behind those 2 ‘ordinary’ destroyers. Additionally, a second Ka-27 ASW helo was being deployed up front.
During the detection phase a lot of ships and aircraft tried to detect each other; either active or passive. Took a lot of time to make the calculations! USSR had better luck with the dice as NATO… USSR detected the ‘Atlantic’ MPA, Dutch fleet tanker and the Dutch flagship. Result: USSR Admiral assumed a probable NATO TG coming towards him. NATO submarine detected the ‘Kashin’-class destroyer passively, but had not reported this to his TG Commander (yet). There was no combat phase as everybody was still outside range..
The Dutch ‘Atlantic’ MPA deploys sonobuoy’s northeast (NE) of the NATO TG. During the detection phase only 1 sonobuoy has a passive sonar detection on the noisy Russian nuclear sub, north of NATO TG, resulting in 1 detection marker. The ‘Atlantic’ has a radar detection of one of the ‘Udaloy’-class in the East, but is unable to detect the larger ‘Sverdlov’-class cruiser. HNLMS ‘Tromp’ detects the Russian Be-12 MPA radar transmissions at 65 nm. Some of the merchant vessels are detected by both sides. The Dutch Rear Admiral gets convinced that a Soviet TG of unknown size is at sea…
The Russian ‘Charlie I’-class (deep) detects passively the UK Type-22 ASW frigate, south of her. Which is also detected, by active radar, by a Ka-27 helo. The Be-12 MPA detects HNLMS ‘Tromp’, but not the Type 22 ASW frigate or the ‘Lynx’ helo. Anyhow, The Soviet Admiral gets a better picture of the incoming NATO TG. However, he is still out of range with his missiles and the requested Su-24 ‘Fencer’ airstrike has not arrived yet. The NATO TG has not yet detected the USSR Amphibious ships or the major combatants (aircraft carrier or cruiser, which would point out to something substantial).
The Russian ‘Charlie I’-class (deep) detects passively the UK Type-22 ASW frigate, south of her. Which is also detected, by active radar, by a Ka-27 helo. The Be-12 MPA detects HNLMS ‘Tromp’, but not the Type 22 ASW frigate or the ‘Lynx’ helo. Anyhow, The Soviet Admiral gets a better picture of the incoming NATO TG. However, he is still out of range with his missiles and the requested Su-24 ‘Fencer’ airstrike has not arrived yet. The NATO TG has not yet detected the USSR Amphibious ships or the major combatants (aircraft carrier or cruiser, which would point out to something substantial).
Turn 3 (USSR initiative): HNLMS ‘Tromp’ (flagship & AAW Commander of NATO TG) activates her 3D AD-radar, convinced that the NATO TG has been detected. The Dutch rear-admiral ordered a Buccaneer-strike and F-16 CAP. The Russian TG also activated more radars, but not the ‘Kiev’-class carrier, at the rear of the convoy. The ‘Charlie I’ class SSGN deployed suddenly inside her own submarine patrol zone and rose to shallow depth (so she could use her SS-N-7 missiles). Simultaneously the Dutch sonobuoy lost sonar contact with this change of depth and in accordance with the rules a re-roll of dice was allowed. Resulting in a passive detection! The Russian Be-12 MPA deployed a sonobuoy line in front of the Dutch submarine. And the Dutch ‘Atlantic’ dropped a second sonobuoy line in front of the new anticipated position of the ‘Charlie’-class SSGN. The up-front ‘Lynx’ ASW-helicopter moved north, towards the possible position of the ‘Charlie I’.
.jpeg)
For a further engagement (against the NATO and Russian submarine) was no time (dinner was waiting), so we only did the Damage control phase of this 3rd turn. The crew of the hit ‘Udaloy’-class managed to stop the flood (the ‘flood’ marker away). The remaining structural damage (at sea not repairable) resulted in a permanent ‘2 cm’ speed penalty and loss of her helicopter deck. The much smaller HNLMS Kortenaer was less successful. Her damage control parties couldn’t stop the floods, which resulted in an additional ‘systems’ damage marker…
End of part 1: today we only managed to conduct 3 turns, just as it was getting interesting… Both submarines were detected (the Dutch submarine is even within SS-N-14 striking range) and both strike packages are expected to go airborne within a couple of turns. So within a couple of weeks there will be part 2…
What did we learn so far:
1. Making notes (and pictures) and explaining naval tactics during the wargame, slows it down…How to improve?
2. The detection phase with many ships/patrol aircraft (more than 20) takes a lot of time, especially when you have to look up during each detection attempt EW-, radar-, sonar- and Noise-ratings out of Fleet Lists (in this case: USSR, NLD, UK & Generic Vessels - for the merchants!). We might have a possible solution to improve search speed for this.
3. We had (again) a discussion about the use of AD markers. I didn’t use them (read my explanation at turn 3) but my opponent did use them, apparently without much trouble…(although his successful firing units were VLS equipped destroyers with high rate AD radars, so it takes a lot of engagements before the AD marker system really ‘hurts’…).
4. While writing this Campaign report, I read more details about the AD-systems we used. Although some knowledge you would like to know isn’t available on the internet… Anyhow, I read that the rate of fire of the Mk 13 SM1 single-arm launcher was 8 sec., so I could have fired more SM1MR missiles against the first salvo SS-N-7 (as I had 2 SPG-51 FC channels available and a flight time of 2-3 min…). I also read that the first versions of SA-N-9 became operational after 1986, and that some years later they could engage more than 2 targets simultaneously… How many FC channels were available on a Udaloy I couldn’t find. Anyhow, Naval Command is not meant as a simulation, so I have to stop this ‘doubts’.
5. Another successful use of our own house rule regarding sonobuoy’s. The ASW-part of the wargame was really interesting!
6. During the fog of war, you forget things: HNLMS Kortenaer forgot to use her Goalkeeper CIWS against the SS-N-7… And the USSR fighter controller possibly forgot to use the short range IR-missiles (AA-8) onboard the Yak-38 ‘Forger’ CAP-aircraft to use against the incoming Harpoons. During the (calculated) flight time of about 8 min. of the Harpoons he might be able to send those 2 aircraft forward and fire their AA-8 Air-to-Air missiles? Looking into OSINT, I couldn’t find how good/bad the AA-8 IR-sensor was in a head-on engagement (‘all aspect’ IR sensor)?
7. While realizing that the actual miniatures I used for the Dutch fleet tanker and the Dutch submarine were too new (after 1986), I tried to use the fleet list for the intended 1975 HNLMS Zuiderkruis (non existent, so I used my own of 1995 HNLMS Amsterdam) and 1972 ‘Zwaardvis’-class submarine (developed myself). However just before the wargame I realized that the ‘Ropucha’-class LST’s were brand new (as were the 2 ‘Udaloy’-class DDG). But the latest ‘Kiev’-class carrier (with the phased array radar and the capable SA-N-9 SAM-system) became operational after 1987… And I found out (after the game) that HNLMS Zuiderkruis was only equipped with a Goalkeeper CIWS after 1990… Did I mention that Naval Command is not a simulation game?
8. Last discoveries: ‘Kiev’-class carriers don’t carry SA-N-2 ‘Goblet’ Air Defence systems, but SA-N-3 ‘Goa’ (Fleet List typo error). Torpedo armament of Sovremenny- and Udaloy-class has been mixed up in the 2021 USSR Fleet List: Sovremenny has actually 2 twin 533mm TT and Udaloy (ASW focus) has 2 quadruple 533mm TT.
1. Making notes (and pictures) and explaining naval tactics during the wargame, slows it down…How to improve?
2. The detection phase with many ships/patrol aircraft (more than 20) takes a lot of time, especially when you have to look up during each detection attempt EW-, radar-, sonar- and Noise-ratings out of Fleet Lists (in this case: USSR, NLD, UK & Generic Vessels - for the merchants!). We might have a possible solution to improve search speed for this.
3. We had (again) a discussion about the use of AD markers. I didn’t use them (read my explanation at turn 3) but my opponent did use them, apparently without much trouble…(although his successful firing units were VLS equipped destroyers with high rate AD radars, so it takes a lot of engagements before the AD marker system really ‘hurts’…).
4. While writing this Campaign report, I read more details about the AD-systems we used. Although some knowledge you would like to know isn’t available on the internet… Anyhow, I read that the rate of fire of the Mk 13 SM1 single-arm launcher was 8 sec., so I could have fired more SM1MR missiles against the first salvo SS-N-7 (as I had 2 SPG-51 FC channels available and a flight time of 2-3 min…). I also read that the first versions of SA-N-9 became operational after 1986, and that some years later they could engage more than 2 targets simultaneously… How many FC channels were available on a Udaloy I couldn’t find. Anyhow, Naval Command is not meant as a simulation, so I have to stop this ‘doubts’.
5. Another successful use of our own house rule regarding sonobuoy’s. The ASW-part of the wargame was really interesting!
6. During the fog of war, you forget things: HNLMS Kortenaer forgot to use her Goalkeeper CIWS against the SS-N-7… And the USSR fighter controller possibly forgot to use the short range IR-missiles (AA-8) onboard the Yak-38 ‘Forger’ CAP-aircraft to use against the incoming Harpoons. During the (calculated) flight time of about 8 min. of the Harpoons he might be able to send those 2 aircraft forward and fire their AA-8 Air-to-Air missiles? Looking into OSINT, I couldn’t find how good/bad the AA-8 IR-sensor was in a head-on engagement (‘all aspect’ IR sensor)?
7. While realizing that the actual miniatures I used for the Dutch fleet tanker and the Dutch submarine were too new (after 1986), I tried to use the fleet list for the intended 1975 HNLMS Zuiderkruis (non existent, so I used my own of 1995 HNLMS Amsterdam) and 1972 ‘Zwaardvis’-class submarine (developed myself). However just before the wargame I realized that the ‘Ropucha’-class LST’s were brand new (as were the 2 ‘Udaloy’-class DDG). But the latest ‘Kiev’-class carrier (with the phased array radar and the capable SA-N-9 SAM-system) became operational after 1987… And I found out (after the game) that HNLMS Zuiderkruis was only equipped with a Goalkeeper CIWS after 1990… Did I mention that Naval Command is not a simulation game?
8. Last discoveries: ‘Kiev’-class carriers don’t carry SA-N-2 ‘Goblet’ Air Defence systems, but SA-N-3 ‘Goa’ (Fleet List typo error). Torpedo armament of Sovremenny- and Udaloy-class has been mixed up in the 2021 USSR Fleet List: Sovremenny has actually 2 twin 533mm TT and Udaloy (ASW focus) has 2 quadruple 533mm TT.
