Expanding Naval Air Wings (part 2)

Returning from the Naval Wargames Weekend at Yeovilton and in the possession of a new book on Aircraft Carriers the shipyard came to life.. The package from China contained 1:700 scale YAK-141 'Freestyle' VTOL fighters and a package from Poland had arrived as well...

Expanding the Russian Airwing for the 4th Kiev-class helicopter-cruiser: the current airwing consisted of 5 x YAK-38 'Forger' VTOL sub-sonic fighter bombers (scale 1:600) and several Ka-25 'Hormone' ASW helo's (which go as more modern Ka-27 'Helix' ASW helo's as well). During naval wargames the YAK-38 were mostly used as CAP, but they were never a match against 1970s or 1980s western attack aircraft. So I bought a couple of super-sonic YAK-141 (scale 1:700) in China.

Testing of the YAK-141 was historically done on the 4th Kiev-class carrier ('Baku'), but all tests ended around 1991 (when the Soviet Union collapsed). The aircraft was never taken into production, the 'Baku' was renamed into 'Admiral Gorshkov' and within 10 years all Kiev-class units were sold/scrapped... Anyhow, I now have a theoretical 1990s airwing consisting of 5 x YAK-141, supersonic (Mach 1.4?), equipped with radar and decent anti-ship missiles (like Kh-31 and Kh-35) and air-to-air missiles (like radar-guided R-77 and IR-guided R-73 with a range of 10 nm.).

The American Airwings for USS Enterprise (CVN 65): I have 2 Air Wings: a 1960s Air Wing, consisting of 4 x F-8E 'Crusader' fighters, 4 A-4 'Skyhawk' bombers, 4 A-6 'Intruder' bombers and 1-2 E-2B 'Hawkeye' radar aircraft (to be used to stop Communist take-over of the world?) and a 1980s Air Wing, consisting of new fighters (F-4 'Phantom II' with radar-guided missiles), same bomber types and additional ASW capacity (4 x S-3 'Viking' ASW-aircraft and 2 x SH-3 Seaking ASW helo's). Supported by the more modern E-2C 'Hawkeye'.

The American Airwing for USS 'Wasp' (LHD-1): during the last year or so I had collected several (mostly British) aircraft for this amphibious ship. So now I am able to compose a 1990s Air Wing (consisting of Harrier VSTOL fighter bombers, 3 x MH-47 'Chinook' and 4 x MH-53 'Sea Stallion' transport helo's) and a 2020s Airwing (consisting of F-35B VSTOL 'Lightning' fighter-bombers and 6 x V-22 'Osprey' transport aircraft). Together with several LCAC amphibious craft my Americain Amphibious capacity has been expanded. For the 1990-2020s I can conduct a 'traditional' amphibious operation, but for future operations (Taiwan?) the USS 'Wasp', together with 2 modern 'San Antonio' -class LPD's can conduct a much faster and more far-reaching ship-to-shore movement.

The German Airwing for the 'Graf Zeppelin' aircraft carrier: The Germans started to build their first

carrier in 1937 but during the war the final construction was twice suspended. She was about 90 % ready when she was finally scuttled by the Germans in January 1945. Her intended Airwing consisted of Bf 109T fighters and Ju-87C 'Stuka' bombers; either as dive bombers or torpedo bombers! So I bought 8 x Bf 109 fighters and 6 x Ju-87 'Stuka's'. I still have to figure out how to conduct air attacks within my WW2 ruleset ('Naval Thunder' and 'General Quarters 3.3')... Anyhow, I now have a 1943-ish German aircraft carrier (and Airwing) which I can use against British carriers like HMS 'Ark Royal' or against an allied Taskgroup.

Additional helicopters: I painted recently a lot of helicopters (scale 1:600), which I dispensed over the fleets. The French got 1 Super Frelon transport helo onboard their aircraft carrier or amphibious ship FS 'Foudre'. The Chinese got 3 Super Frelons for amphibious transport (to operate from their Type 075 LHD and/or their Type 071 LPD). The US, Japanese and Argentine fleets got acces to 1 SH-3 Seaking ASW-helo each and the Canadian, Indian and Iranian fleet as well. The American MH-53 Sea Stallion helo's can also be used as Americain MCM-helicopters. And the Russian modified 'Ivan Gren'-class LPD (hull 3 and 4) and the 'Kuznetsov' aircraft carrier can now use 2 modern Ka-52K 'Hokum' assault helo's (still 3 to paint). I also painted 2 Mi-6 'Hook' very large transport helo's in USSR colors, which can be used by USSR, Russia and Vietnam (to name a few countries).

Next job (Part 3): develop an older French carrier capacity (around a 1980s Clemenceau-class carrier with F-8 'Crusader' fighters and Super-Etendard bombers), older British carrier capacity (with jet fighters & bombers between 1960 and 1980) and several Indian carrier-type capabilities (1990s to current)...

Naval Wargames Weekend at Yeovilton (Oct 2025)

Myself and Edzard van Zanten participated in the Naval Wargames Weekend (4 & 5th October) at the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton, Somerset. This is a yearly event, organized by the Naval Wargames Society. We left Holland at Friday by car and returned on Monday. We did set up our Naval Wargame at a 8 x 6 ft table. We used Naval Command 2021 rules, adapted with some House Rules. We used 1:3000 ships (mostly NAVWAR) and 1:600 aircraft (metal and 3D-printed). The weekend was very well organized by Simon Stokes. Over the weekend there were approx. 20 participants (at 7 tables) and some 25 additional spectators.

We started our 2-day 'campaign' at Saturday morning. The initial plan was that we played the Russian Amphibious Force in the Baltic and that any spectator could choose 1 of 3 NATO Taskgroups, to participate in the game by defending the German coast. We prepared a brief explanation of the wargame rules and an intel brief for potential participants. Most people who brought Naval Wargames were very busy with their own game (like us) and the amount of 'free roaming' spectators was limited at the beginning of the day. So we adapted our initial plan: I choose the Netherlands Taskgroup and we started the play. During the morning we managed to attract the attention of a spectator, which seemed interested in the game. So we explained a lot to him during the actual game: how to 'fight' with the different miniatures, how the different sensors (radar, sonar) work, etc. He listened and participated for the rest of the day! Due to the demonstration character of this game the actual combat 'speed' was low and we only conducted 2 turns during Saturday. 

During these 2 turns the Soviet Taskgroup got a decent picture of what was happing around her Amphib

Group. The NATO Taskgroup, first sidetracked by the discovery of a Soviet nuclear submarine (Charlie 2 class, armed with SS-N-9 anti-ship missiles), finally found some Soviet Amphibious ships (their main target). However, most NLD ships were detected as well. Although HNLMS Tromp (F801) took out the Soviet Be-12 patrol aircraft with a SM-1 missile, both Soviet Sovremenny's destroyers launched SS-N-22 supersonic missiles successfully against HNLMS Tromp (F801) and HNLMS Kortenaer (F807). The attack by HNLMS Jacob van Heemskerck (F812) with 8 RGM-84 Harpoon's against one of the Sovremenny's was not successful as the unit was very well protected by a 'solid' AAW screen of accompanying warships. Sunday morning we continued the game (with the same spectator!). NATO was down to 3 frigates and an undisclosed submarine. During the combat phase of turn 3 the Soviet submarine attacked HNLMS Jacob van Heemskerck. Two missiles hit, resulting in extensive damage... However the remaining 2 Dutch frigates, submarine and the P-3C Orion had found an important part of the Soviet Amphibious Taskgroup and launched their 16 RGM-84 Harpoons at

them. The Soviet Air Defence became overwhelmed and the Landing Ship Dock 'Ivan Rogov' (with 1 battalion of Naval Infantry onboard) became severely damaged/crippled. During this turn Soviet Yak-38 fighters downed the Dutch P-3C patrol aircraft as well. Just before lunch it was difficult to determine which side had actually won. Both sides had almost reached their victory conditions: close to 30% of the Soviet Land Forces was killed but the encounters had cost NATO a lot of ships and aircraft... As a demonstration, the game showed our spectator very much of what Naval Command 2021 Rule system can do. 

Sunday afternoon we visited the Fleet Air Arm Museum, which is always fun. During the weekend I bought two interesting books (one from John Curry and the other at the Museum Shop). The book about Aircraft Carriers will help my investigations in and painting of current aircraft carriers and their Airwings.

Verdict:

1. We played with more than 40 units (ships & aircraft). Together with the verbal explanations towards

the spectator/participant as a result both detection phases of turn 1 and 2 took a lot of time. That is not very handy for spectators to such a show, because they might only be interested for say 15 minutes (as they wish to look at other games as well)...  Next time we should focus on a shorter demo/game?

2. Participation at Yeovilton gives you the chance to meet authors/designers

of Naval Wargame Rules and publications 'in the flash' (like David Manley, John Curry, etc.), which can result in interesting discussions with them. You also see a lot of lesser known Naval Wargames together and even some Naval Wargames 'in development' (like 'Snorkers'). As you can discus with the players/ designers/ builders, you can learn a lot. So I saw a game in which aircraft rules ('Wings at War') and ship rules were combined. And at least 2 people advised me to look into the Naval Wargame 'Seastrike'. And I got an idea to make islands (out of floor carpet).

3. Unfortunately I had insufficient time during the weekend to follow a Naval Wargame with pre-Dreadnought or WW1 miniatures... Sad, because I recently got interested in that period (no missiles, no aircraft..).

Final preparations for 'Yeovilton' Naval Wargame Weekend

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). 

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!

Expanding my Naval Air Wings

When you have model aircraft carriers (scale 1:3000, mostly NAVWAR) you need the right aircraft with it as well.. I use 1:600 or 1:700 scale aircraft so I am able to recognize them. 1:3000 aircraft would be much more difficult. The aircraft miniatures are from Pico Armour (USA), Tumbling Dice (UK) and ‘Odzial 8’ (Poland). The Flight deck decals from ‘Flight Deck Decals 2400’.

The Dutch Air Wing for HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81).

HNLMS Karel Doorman was a ex-British ‘Colossus’-class light aircraft carrier. The Netherlands acquired it in 1948 and it got a major refit in 1955-58 (an angled flight deck, 1 steam catapult, a new island with modern Dutch radars). NAVWAR has 2 models for this ship: N1202 and the refitted (Argentine) model: N91. Both have their specific flight deck decal from ‘Flight deck decals 2400’. It was sold to Argentina in 1969.

I have 2 Air Wings: a 1954 Air Wing, consisting of 6 x Fairey ‘Firefly’ Mk4 fighter/reconnaissance aircraft (yellow nose) and 4 Grumman ‘Avenger’ ASW aircraft (to be used in the last Dutch Colonial War in Indonesia?) and a 1962-‘68 Air Wing, consisting of 4 Grumman ‘Tracker’ ASW aircraft and several Sikorsky S-58 ASW helo’s (to be used against the USSR?). With these I can play 1950’s air-to-air engagements, 1950’s ASW engagements and 1960’s ASW engagements (together with my Lockheed ‘Neptune’ maritime patrol aircraft). The colors of most of those aircraft are the same as the British in this time period, so the aircraft can also be used for a 1960’s British carrier (which I don’t have yet…although I do have 4 British painted F-4 Phantoms Fighters, 4 British painted Gannet ASW aircraft & 8 British painted Buccaneer bombers). The Grumman ‘Trackers’ can also be used on my Argentine version of the carrier (1982 Falkland War).

The British Air Wing for HMS Hermes (R12) & Invincible-class carriers
Although Great Britain started building HMS Hermes as a light aircraft carrier at the end of WW2, the carrier was only finished in 1957, with an angled deck, new radars and a steam catapult. She was refitted in 1981 and got a 12 degree ski jump, lost her angled deck & steam catapult (current model; NAVWAR: N126A). She served during the Falkland War as one of the 2 carriers with Harrier V/STOL fighter/bombers. HMS Hermes was sold to India in 1987 (INS ‘Viraat’). Her British Air wing consisted of 12 Sea Harriers (FRS1), which was expanded to some RAF ‘GR3’ ground-attack variants during the ‘Falklands’ and 16 Sea King ASW helo’s.

The ‘Invincible’-class CVH (N123) consisted of 3 ‘baby’ carriers, which were designed in the 1970s around the Sea Harrier aircraft and ASW helo’s. As the economical alternative to the much more wanted CVA-01 big fleet carrier… These were the first carriers with a ski jump on their flight deck. During the Falkland War her normal Air Wing of 9 Sea Kings and 4-5 Sea Harriers was extended.
I have a big British Air Wing. Around HMS Hermes you can see 2 modern (grey) Sea Harrier FA2, a (grey) Seaking ASW helo and a Chinook transport helo. Around HMS Invincible (R05) you can see Sea Harrier FRS1 (in older dark blue colour), together with dark blue Seaking ASW helo and Lynx ASW helo’s. In the back of the photo you can see HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) with 2 F-35B’s. With the British Air Wing I can play historical and ‘what if?’ battles around the 1982 Falkland War, the 1990s War in Bosnia and potential conflicts against Russia, any clash in the Indian Ocean and around Taiwan (against China).

The Russian Air Wing on a modified Kiev-class carrier
This is a NAVWAR model of ‘Baku’ (N728A), during the collapse of the Soviet Union renamed in ‘Admiral Gorshkov’ (project 11433), a slightly modernized Kiev-class aircraft carrier (project 1143). Her Air Wing consisted of approx. 12 x YAK-38 VTOL fighter/bombers and 12-14 Ka-27 ASW helo’s. The carrier has been sold to India in 2004 and extensively refitted as INS ‘Vikramaditya’. A 1:3000 3D-printed model of this I am about to order from Historical Board Games, USA. 
I have 1 Russian Air Wing, consisting of 5 (dark blue) Yak-38 and several Ka-25/27 helicopters. With these I can play 1990’s air-to-air engagements and ASW engagements against NATO. For the Indian version I need an Air Wing of MIG-29K aircraft…

The Russian Air Wing for Admiral Kuznetsov

This is a NAVWAR model (N726) of the Russian ‘Admiral Kuznetsov’ (project 11435), who became operational at the end of 1990. Her sister ship (not finished) was sold by Ukraine to China in 1998 and became operational as type 001 ‘Liaoning’. The model is that of ‘Liaoning’, with her Chinese flight deck decal. The ships have a 12 degree ski-jump and no catapults. The Air Wing for ‘Kuznetsov’ were naval variants of existing Russian Air Force MIG-29 fighters (approx. 10), Su-27 fighter/bombers (approx. 15), 2 x Su-25 bombers and helo types.
My Russian Naval Air Wing consist of 4 x (light blue) Su-33 (new name for SU-27K), 2 (dark blue) Mig-29K and several Ka-27 ASW helicopters. With these I can play ‘what if?’ scenarios against NATO in the Arctic Sea or the Mediterranean. The future of Kuznetsov is in severe doubt: the ship is in bad shape, a part of her crew is forced to fight in Ukraine and there are rumours Russia can’t afford an aircraft carrier any more…

The Chinese Air Wing for ‘Liaoning’ (pennant nr. 16)

This is a NAVWAR model (N726) of the Russian ‘Admiral Kuznetsov’ with the flight deck decal of ‘Liaoning’. The Chinese Navy started operating with the ship around 2012. The ship has been refitted around 2019. The Air Wing for ‘Liaoning’ consist of approx. 24 (grey) Shenyang J-15 fighter/bombers, which came into service around 2013 and (grey) Z-9 ASW helo’s. The ‘J-15’ is to be considered a Chinese unofficial clone to the Russian SU-33 (naval variant of Su-27 onboard ‘Kuznetsov’). With these Chinese aircraft I can play ‘what if?’ scenarios around Taiwan or a ‘what if?’ encounter between Indian & Chinese carrier battle groups in the Indian Ocean. For that I am about to order 3D printed Indian carriers from Historical Board Games, USA. Which will need an Air Wing of MIG-29K or Dassault Rafale-M.

Besides this, I am still painting additional aircraft for the Air Wings of the British ‘Queen Elizabeth class’ carrier (3D printed; some F-35B painted), the French ‘Charles de Gaulle’ nuclear carrier (N227; 1 x E-3C Hawkeye and 6 Rafale-M painted), Italian ‘Cavour’ carrier (N428; some F-35B painted), Japanese ‘Izumo’ carrier (Fujimi 3d printed; several F-35B painted) and the 1960s USS ‘Enterprise’ (N623; several F-4 & Skyhawk aircraft bought; some S-3 Viking ASW aircraft painted). 

Carrier warfare in the Coral Sea 1942 ('Pacific Command')

Within the ‘Amsterdam6Shooter’ Wargame Club we tried out the Pacific Command Rule Set for WW2 carrier warfare. Within Naval Wargame, battles between carriers are always a challenge as they normally fight outside visual or radar range. So, at your traditional 4 x 6 ft ‘battle space’ you require a scaled range to be able to fly hundreds of miles…how? And… ships, even Task Forces, can ‘hide’ in the vast empty spaces of the Pacific Ocean. How to mimic/play this? ‘Pacific Command’ uses a ground scale of 1 inch to 10 nautical mile. So a traditional 4 x 6 foot sea mat represents 480 x 720 nm. (most strike aircraft can reach to 160—240 nm.). Your Taskforces (TF’s) are initially represented by round colored fiches (with the TF name on it; a Fiche has a diameter of 15 nm.) and those navy assets are to be hidden in stacks of multiple dummy fiches. So both sides have a couple of stacks of unmarked same-color fiches and the other side can’t see where the TF’s actually are. So you have to start the game with the reconnaissance proces. Within those stacks a referee has issued additional fiches with ‘surprise events’, like ‘the enemy was able to read your radio transmissions’ or …. The air wing of carriers is represented by red (CAP aircraft) and black (strike aircraft) playing cards; the numbers on the cards don’t mean anything. And each side gets a number of ‘Command Fiches’ each turn. You need a Command Fiche to move a stack, conduct a reconnaissance action or send out an attack package, etc.

We played the historic scenario of ‘Coral Sea’; 1942 (level 3; 6 turns). I played the USA side. I had 1 Task Force, consisting of 2 Fleet carriers, 7 Heavy Cruisers, 1 Light Cruiser and 11 destroyers. My combined Airwing consisted of 8 squadrons of fighters (for CAP and/or reconnaissance) and 24 squadrons of strike aircraft (for strike and/or reconnaissance). I had also command of Tulagi Airfield on one of the Solomon Islands, with 10 fighter squadrons.
My opponent (Japan) had several TF’s with in total 2 Fleet carriers, 1 Light carrier, 3 Amphibious Groups and a lot of cruisers and destroyers. Japan had to take the Airfield and proceed south with those Amphibious Groups (to attack Australia in a next phase of the war).
As this rule set was new to us, we had lengthy discussions about how to understand the rules, in order to deploy our forces to the best. Later we found out that the best deployment (to win the game on victory points) was not always the same as a military sound deployment. So USA deployed 4 stacks of red fiches (only 1 stack contained US TF01) near the islands, in order to defend against the expected Japanese attack. However, Japan deployed her 3 white stacks (containing 5 TF’s) over the full 720 nm. length of the sea mat… And they only had to sail 480 nm. south to gather Victory Points. Oops, I didn’t see that coming.
With hind side (while writing this report) I realized that according to the Task Force Sheet some cruisers could launch aircraft from their catapult, but apparently those ships were not credited with aircraft? 

Turn 1 (Japan initiative)
At the beginning USA and Japan got their ‘Command Fiches’. Japan got 5, USA got 6 Fiches.  Japan deployed her airwing above her carriers (but that is only made visible on the JAP Task Force Sheet, not on the map/stacks). USA deployed her CAP’s around the airfield and her airwing around her 2 carriers (only visible on USA Task Force Sheet, not on the map). Japan moved her furthest away stack 8 inch (80 nm.) forward (to the south. Cost: 1 Command Fiche). USA conducted a reconnaissance task from the Tulagi Airfield on the nearest Japanese stack (no detection, due to bad dice. Cost: 1 Command Dice).
Second Command Fiche: Japan moves her second stack 8 inches to the south. USA (Tulagi airfield) conducts a second reconnaissance attempt against the nearest Japanese stack and reveals that this is JAP TF 02 (Light carrier). However also ‘unexpected event nr 3’ has been revealed with this action, so USA is now ‘punished’ with the fact that US radio codes have been expose to the enemy…
Third Command Fiche: Japan and USA moves each one of their stack 8 inches. Although the Japanese stack of TF 02 is revealed, an US strike against it is out of range. Tulagi airfield has only fighter squadrons and the strike aircraft of the US TF 01 are out of range.
Fourth Command Fiche: Japan conducts reconnaissance (probably from one of her 2 previous moved stacks) on the US stack to which US TF 01 belongs, but sees only 2 dummies… In return, USA (Tulagi Airfield) conducts a third reconnaissance on the stack of JAP TF 02 and reveals the Amphibious Group, destined for the airfield. During this reconnaissance proces I revealed also an ‘unexpected event’, resulting in a 6-inch repositioning (backwards) of the revealed Japanese TF 02 near the Solomon Islands. So the Japanese TF 02 was fully revealed and almost back to her starting position. But still out of range of US strike aircraft…
Fifth Command Fiche: Japan conducts a reconnaissance on another US stack, but finds only a ‘unexpected event’; resulting in 1 loss of an US ‘Command Fiche’ and 1 JAP gain of a ‘Command Fiche’! USA moves 1 stack 8 inch forward (to which US TF 01 belongs, but the opponent doesn’t know that).
Sixth Command Fiche: only Japan has a sixth Fiche. During a JAP reconnaissance on an US stack it encounters an ‘unexpected event’ and looses a  ‘Command Fiche’ (which she doesn’t have anymore this turn). USA gains a Command Fiche and uses this to move a stack 8 inches closer.

Turn 2 (USA initiative).
USA gets 6 Command Fiches, Japan 5. All Airwings are deployed again.
First Command Fiche: USA and JAP stacks move closer towards each other.

2nd Command Fiche: USA closes Japanese stacks. Japan conducts reconnaissance on an US stack full of dummies.
Third Command Fiche: USA conducts a successful reconnaissance on the nearest JAP stack. It finds JAP TF 01 (with 2 fleet carriers), but as this is still out of striking range, I decided to put this TF 01 Fiche back in the stack and not disclose this succes towards Japan. Japan conducts reconnaissance on an US stack full of dummies.
Fourth Command Fiche: USA reveals during reconnaissance an ‘unexpected event’ and looses (again!) a ‘Command Fiche’. The JAP Amphibious Group hides themselves in ‘the fog of war’ and is not visible anymore (and can not be attacked unless revealed again). The Japanese now have 1 extra ‘Command Fiche’.
Fifth Command Fiche: Tugla Airfield is unable to reveal the advancing JAP stack. The JAP stack comes closer and with their 6th (gained) Command Fiche, Japan attacks Tulagi Airfield. USA personnel destroys the remaining US aircraft and equipment, but the US presence on the Solomon islands is terminated… Two victory points for Japan!

Turn 3 (Japan initiative).
USA gets 6 Command Fiches, Japan 5. All Airwings are deployed again. What is the situation on the map? Given the fact that unrevealed stacks can only travel 8 inch/turn, it is near impossible for Japanese Amphibious Groups to reach the southern border of the map in the remaining turns…So the best option to gather more JAP Victory Points is to sink USA carriers. They are in range (JAP aircraft have a range advantage over USA strike aircraft) and have become more ‘visible’ as most US ‘dummy’ stacks now have been revealed.

First Command Fiche: Jap TF02 and Amphibious Group leaves Solomon islands and tries to rendez-vous with other JAP stacks. Note: this makes sense in a military way, but doesn’t help gathering Victory Points. USA fails to conduct a successful reconnaissance on a JAP stack.
Second Command Fiche: JAP stack (with 2 fleet carriers; USA knows this but didn't told JAP) and US stack (with 2 fleet carriers; officially unknown to JAP) closes each other.
Third Command Fiche: JAP reconnaissance attempt by 1 strike package reveals both US fleet carriers. As the USA ships are detected by strike aircraft on a reconnaissance mission, within striking range (and the fact that JAP is allowed within the rules to conduct coordinated attacks), the whole JAP airwing (18 attack squadrons) is allowed to deploy at once (!). US TF 01 is allowed to defend this reconnaissance-turned-into-attack by 8 fighter squadrons (CAP, in the picture as Fokker G-1 fighters) and AAW fire from her surface combatants. The outcome of the fight is determined by loads of dice.

USA fighters shoot down 3 attack squadrons and the AAW fire from the escorts shoots down only 2 attack squadrons, so 13 attack squadrons throw a lot of dice, resulting in hits on both USA carriers (throw of ‘6’) and hits on 3 destroyers. Carriers and destroyers sink, giving Japan an additional 2 Victory Points (1 for each carrier).
What can the USA still do? The revealed USA TF01 now only consist of cruisers and destroyers and can only attack the JAP TF01 by gunfire. However, it has no speed advantage over the Japanese fleet so it can’t come closer than the current 16 inch (160 nm.). Every future Command Fiche step the USA TF will be attacked by the Japanese carrier aircraft, until all USA ships are sunk…. So the only way is to try to sail away?

Anyhow, we decided that Japan won this Naval Wargame (and that -if this was for real- it probably had major impact on the next historic battle ‘Midway’! Or the intended JAP amphibious landing on North Western part of Australia…  

Verdict
The actual playtime of this naval wargame was approx. 2 hours. Personally I consider myself a tactical & miniatures Naval Wargamer with interest in simulations. Although I really appreciate the thinking proces of the game developer how to get the vast distances of carrier warfare and 'the fog of war' into the game, I missed the technical play of more tactical games. And the marvelous pictures in the Game book (see below) puts you on the wrong foot! As a player you're not standing on the bridge of a high value unit. The focus of the game is to achieve victory points (VP) on a very big map. USA started this game with 5 VP. According to the rules, USA retained at the end 5 VP’s but Japan had only gathered 4 VP, as there was no time left during the last 3 turns to get additional VP’s for getting JAP Amphibious Groups to the southern edge of the ‘battle space’. But everybody understands that Japan had won this specific Naval Wargame; not only tactical but also strategical: 2 USA carriers sunk and the Soloman islands free to occupy by JAP.

In the aftermath discussion I was advised that it probably was better if I had revealed the presence of the JAP TF 01 in turn 2 / 3rd Command Fiche. Because a revealed TF/stack can only sail with a speed of 4 inches/turn (vs. 8 inches/turn for an unrevealed stack). However… with the aim to get Amphibious ships from the Northern edge of the battle space to the Southern edge (with the solely reason to get VP’s) and my military sound (?) efforts to try to defend the Solomon islands by concentrating my stacks in that corner - which didn’t make sense in the play… I have my doubts if I like this kind of (almost) board game. Maybe I can get used to it? It has definitely positive things: you can play this quick, it requires much thinking and has a good detection phase. But you can't play this solo.

Vulcan MR: a possible maritime patrol aircraft (what if..?)

Because I am fond of the 1950’s Avro Vulcan strategic bomber (the shape, the sound…) and I have this book, ‘Nimrod’s Genesis’ (see the picture), I decided I needed a ‘What if....?’ Vulcan miniature for my modern Naval Wargaming. Not as a strategic nuclear bomber, but as a Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA).

The book describes the history of the British ‘Operational Requirement 350’, the replacement proces of the Avro Shackleton Maritime Reconnaissance (MR) plane of the 1950s and 1960’s. One of the possible replacements was apparently an adapted Avro Vulcan B2 bomber, as ‘Vulcan MR’. Anyhow, ‘Requirement 350’ stirred up some discussions so a better OR was issued in 1963: OR 357. And another, OR 381… Finally it was decided in 1966 to develop the Hawker Siddeley ‘Nimrod MR’ out of a civilian airliner, the ‘Comet’. And the rest is history as they say.

As I mostly use the ‘Naval Command’ rule set for modern Naval Wargaming, I tried to develop some statistics for the ‘Vulcan MR’ (as this is obviously not in the fleetlist UK). The ‘Vulcan MR’ was developed with a 9-person crew (including 2 pilots) with forward and rear-looking radars, 120 sonobuoys and 8 torpedoes. The data is not conclusive about which radar would be used, so I decided to take a radar rating between ‘Shackelton’ (+1), S-2 'Tracker' (+2) and P-2 ‘Neptune’ MPA’s.

EW-value: 8; Defence: 9 (mainly because of high speed); Air-to-Air: 0 (speed); Air-to-surface: 0; Radar: +2; ESM: 1 (?)

Loadout: ASW; 8 x Mk 44/46 torpedoes or depth charges. Sonobuoys (Sonar: +1, 4 turns on scene); possible MAD (pod under the wing?)

What do you think?

The other pictures are of 1:600 scale models of Vulcan bomber (painted as a Vulcan MR) and a Nimrod MPA.

Actually... in the 1970's Vulcan B2 bombers have been used a couple of years (1973-1976?) in a 'MRR' role (Maritime Radar Reconnaissance). The H2S Mk9 (bombing) radar of the Vulcan could perform wide area surveillance from high altitude to provide a 'surface' picture. This was very handy to keep an eye on the expanding deployments of the Soviet Navy, control the Exclusive Economic Zone and during the 3rd 'Cod War' (with Iceland). But those Vulcans had no additional operators on board or anti-submarine capability as the 'MR' version would get...

Battle Report: 1942 Indian Ocean Raid ('Naval Thunder' Rule Set)

This Naval Wargame is a scenario that could have happened in the Spring of 1942. The Indian Ocean raid, also known as ‘Operation C’ or Battle of Ceylon in Japanese, was a naval sortie carried out by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) from 31 March to 10 April 1942. Japanese intentions to mount a major offensive into the Indian Ocean were placed on hold in March 1942; strong naval forces were needed in the western Pacific against the United States, and the Japanese Army refused to allocate troops for an invasion of Ceylon. In response, the IJN developed Operation C, a plan for an aggressive raid into the Indian Ocean in early April. Operation C aimed to destroy the British Eastern Fleet, and disrupt British lines of communications in the Bay of Bengal in support of the Burma Campaign.

This Naval Wargame is not 100% historic accurate, but an possible engagement between a Japanese Taskgroup and a British Taskgroup. Both Taskgroups consist of 1 Battleship, 2 heavy cruisers and 2 fleet destroyers. No submarines or aircraft are involved. As we used the Naval Wargame Rules of ‘Naval Thunder’ the intention was 2 Taskgroups of comparable strength. We started ‘building’ those Taskgroups with comparable points within the limits of ship types. 
Battleships: the 16-inch gun 1920s Japanese ‘Nagato’ (not limited by any Treaty; re-engined and re-armoured in 1934-’36; 668 points) vs the 14-inch gun 1940s ‘King George V’ (limited by the Washington- and London Naval Treaties; 663 points).
Heavy cruisers: the 8-inch gun 1930s Japanese ‘Nachi’ (within limits of the 1922 Washington Treaty; 198 points) and the 8-inch gun 1920s scout-cruiser ‘Furutaka’ (re-armed and re-engined in 1930s; 127 points). The British heavy cruisers were the 8-inch gun 1920s ‘Kent’-class HMS Berwick (Washington Treaty limits; 161 points) and of almost similar design HMS Norfolk (Washington Treaty limits; 142 points). The Japanse cruisers had the advantage of carrying a longer range heavier torpedo and (together) had a little more points than the radar equipped British.
Fleet destroyers: the Japanese had 2 destroyers of 1940s ‘Kagero’-class (not limited by a Navy Treaty; 68 points each), equipped with six 5-inch guns and the Type 93 ‘Long Lance’ 24-inch torpedo. The British had 2 destroyers of the 1940s ’N'-class (London Treaty limits; 65 points each), equipped with six 4.7-inch radar guided guns and standard 21-inch torpedoes.
So the British Taskgroup had a more ‘standardized’ group of ships, but the Japanese had this 16-inch gun battleship, more potent heavy cruiser ‘Nachi’ and long range torpedoes… Britain had 1096 points; Japan: 1129 points.

Tactical situation:
It is Spring 1942. The Japanese Surface Action Taskgroup is sailing in the Indian Ocean, in front of their carrier Taskgroup, looking for British warships. British intelligence has got knowledge of this and the Royal Navy has dispatched a Surface Action Taskgroup to find the Japanese. All British ships are radar equipped. The Japanese still rely on their visual fire control means.. No air support is available.
Set Up:
Rules: Naval Thunder Battleship Row (& ‘Bitter Rivals’ extension). We didn’t use any optional Rules. The Rules don’t roll for ‘initiative’; manoeuvres and gun battles are supposed to happen simultaneously. 1:3000 scale ships (NAVWAR & Fijimi). Seamat: 6 x 4 ft. Distances in inch. Starting positions: 38 inches apart. There is no specific detection phase and we figured out that the distance scale in use is approx. 1 km. per inch? Following the suggestions within the Rules, the ships can open fire from turn 1. A big difference compared the Naval Wargame Rules for post-WW2 engagements: finding the enemy and building a ‘recognized maritime picture’ is a key feature of those Games. 

Turn 1

HMS King George V (blue flag) sails towards the enemy. On her port side is a British line-formation of 2 ’N’-class destroyers followed by 2 heavy cruisers. At the horizon a Japanese battleship is visible, accompanied with several smaller warships. The bigger Japanese ships change course to port, in order to be able to use all their heavy guns. Two Japanese smaller ships, probably destroyers, speed forward, towards the English line formation. The British battleship fires with her 10 x 14-inch guns at her opponent battleship, taking out 1 main

battery turret of ‘Nagato’. In the same time Nagato fires with her main battery (8 x 16-inch) at the cruiser HMS Berwick, hitting her, resulting in a minor flooding (blue droplet counter). Her (older) secondary battery also fires at HMS Berwick but miss. HMS Berwick fires all her 8-inch guns at medium range at the incoming Japanese destroyers and hits ‘Kagero’ 3 times, destroying the ship at once. HMS Norfolk fires at long range at the second ‘Kagero’-class destroyer and hits her in the engine room, resulting in a speed limit. The Japanese cruisers fire also at the British cruisers: the ‘Nachi’ fires her main guns (10 x 8-inch) at long range and secondary guns at HMS Berwick, resulting in multiple penetrating hits and mounting damage… ’Furutaka’ fires at HMS Norfolk at long range with her 6 main guns and destroys her torpedo mount on port side. Both British destroyers and 1 remaining Japanese destroyer fire at each other, without hitting.

Turn 2
The British formation continuous course and speed. The Japanese adjust their course a little to improve shooting chances.
HMS King George V fires her 10 main guns (radar guided) at medium range at battleship ‘Nagato’. Two penetrating hits results in rudder damage, fire and flooding.. Firing with her secondary battery against Japanese cruiser ‘Nachi’ missed. ‘Nagato’ fires for a second time at HMS Berwick with her main and secondary guns but all missed! (bad dice).
The damaged cruiser HMS Berwick fires at medium range (22,5 inch) with her 8-inch guns at the remaining (damaged) ’Kagero’-class destroyer and sinks her. HMS Norfolk had trained her guns on this target as well, but the Japanese vessel was already a sinking wreck…
‘Nachi’ keeps firing at HMS Berwick at long range, but missed with all 10 guns! The older ‘Furutaka’ fires again at the last British cruiser in the line-formation and hits her twice, resulting in flooding.    
The 2 British destroyers fire with their 4.7-inch guns at the ‘Nachi’ at extreme range, but all miss. 
During the Damage Control Check, HMS Berwick has accumulated a lot of damage (38 hull points out of a total of 44 during 2 turns) and conducts a command check: positive; so remains in the formation. The flooding of HMS Norfolk results in a severe list, influencing her speed and weaponry. The ‘Nagato’ manages to repair 1 rudder but the other rudder will play havoc with her maneuverability…

Turn 3

The damaged rudder of ‘Nagato’ forces the battleship 90 degrees to port, away form the British Taskgroup. Both Japanese heavy cruisers adjust their course to keep their guns towards the British. The British line-formation is broken up: the damaged cruisers turns port towards the ‘Nachi’ and both destroyers speed forward at max. speed towards the enemy and prepare for a torpedo attack.

To support her destroyers to get closer to the enemy, HMS King George V fires with all her main guns at ‘Nachi’ at medium range: only 1 critical hit, taking out one of her secondary guns. Her secondary guns hit a secondary gun of ‘Nachi’. ‘Nagato’ can, due to her rudder manoeuvre only fire with her aft turret but misses at King George V.
HMS Berwick fires with 2 forward 8-inch turrets at medium range at ‘Nachi’ and takes out 1 main turret.. However at the same time the very capable ‘Nachi’ returns fire with four 8-inch turrets at medium range at HMS Berwick. The 2 penetrating hits, resulting in fire and additional flooding, finishes her off and HMS Berwick sinks with the loss of many crew… HMS Norfolk, under severe list, fires also at ‘Nachi’ with her 2 forward turrets. Only hitting once… ‘Furutaka’ fires at HMS Norfolk and hits a main battery turret (white square counter)!
Both British destroyers are closing the enemy. They fire their 4.7-inch guns ‘Nachi’, resulting in smaller damage.

      During the Damage Control Check ‘Nagato’ repairs her second rudder and is maneuverable again! HMS Norfolk, the remaining British cruiser, is unable to keep the ongoing flooding within limits. The severe list remains, her speed is halved and her weaponry is limited.
So, the Japanese Taskgroup lost her destroyers in the battle, but has still an operational, slightly damaged battleship and 2 operational heavy cruisers. The British have an undamaged battleship, 2 destroyers and a very damaged cruiser…

Turn 4
Both battleships turn to port and continue a course so they can fire at each other at medium range. 1 British destroyer speeds towards ‘Nagato’ and the other towards both Japanese heavy cruisers. Both Japanese cruisers, now close together, focus mainly on HMS Norfolk, partly because their 8-inch guns have a challenge to penetrate the very robust armour of HMS King George V.
‘Nagato’ 6 remaining 16-inch guns miss HMS King George V at medium range, but her secondary battery fires succesfully at 9,5 inch at the fast closing British destroyer and sinks her! HMS King George V fires her 10 x 14-inch guns at medium range at ‘Nagato’, resulting in 4 devastating penetrating hits: flooding, fire, destruction of a secondary gun and damage in an engine room… 
Her secondary battery fires at medium range at ‘Nachi’, resulting in fire and rudder damage!

HMS Norfolk fires also at ‘Nachi’ at medium range and damages a 8-inch main turret and adds flooding… ‘Nachi’ returns fire at HMS Norfolk with 3 remaining 8-inch turrets and damages another sec. battery and torpedo mount onboard the now crippled cruiser. ‘Furutaka’ fires at HMS King George V at medium range with 6 x 8-inch guns without being able to penetrate her armour…
The remaining British destroyer (picture above, right hand corner) opens fire at short range with all her 4.7-inch guns at ‘Nachi’: 5 hits. Fire spreads, all sec. guns of ‘Nachi’ starboard side are damaged. At 4 inch distance the destroyer launches 2 salvo’s of 5 x 21-inch torpedo’s at the smoking heavy cruiser.. ‘Nachi’ launches almost simultaneously her 24-inch long-range torpedoes at HMS King George V…. A whopping amount of 6 British torpedo’s hit ‘Nachi’ and she sinks.. The Japanese torpedoes miss HMS King George V. 
During the Damage Control Check ‘Nagato’ (picture below, left side) has accumulated a lot of damage lately: her remaining speed is ‘1’ and therefor is not allowed to make any course changes… HMS Norfolk is still floating (just). The Japanese Taskgroup is now severely handicapped and limited: her battleship is crippled in enemy territory and will have great problems to reach a safe harbour for repairs. She can only be escorted by the heavy cruiser ‘Furutaka’ (in the middle of the picture), which seemed out-maneuvered for the end-fase of this naval wargame. Battleship HMS King George V is almost not damaged, in full fighting order. Unfortunately British destroyers don’t carry torpedo reloads onboard, so she cannot finish off the Japanese battleship or heavy cruiser. And the torpedo mounts of HMS Norfolk have been hit during this battle…

Turn 5

‘Nagato’ is unable to turn towards a safe haven and prepares for her final battle. The crew can only hope that the Japanese carriers are in range and manage to send aircraft to attack the British Taskgroup… HMS King George V closes in on ‘Nagato’…
‘Nagato’ fires with 6 x 16-inch guns at medium range (23 inch) at HMS King George V. One penetrating hit, resulting in flooding. Her sec. battery fires at long range (24 inch) at HMS Norfolk, destroying a main battery and damaging her engine room! In return, the British battleship fires with her main battery of 10 guns at an almost stationary ‘Nagato’ at medium range. 6 hits of which 3 penetrating. Damage: main battery, sec. battery and minor flooding… The sec. battery of HMS King George V fires at 12 inch distance at ‘Furutaka’: 2 penetrating hits, damaging her sec. battery and generating flooding.
‘Furutaka’ tries to finish off HMS Norfolk: her 6 main guns fires at short range at the crippled HMS Norfolk, while HMS NorfolK struggles to defend herself. The severe list of the British cruiser prevents proper use of her main guns; only the sec. battery has the elevation to reach the Japanese cruiser. Only 1 hit on ‘Furutaka’, resulting in additional flooding. The Japanese cruiser has less problems hitting her enemy: 2 penetrating 8-inch hits on HMS Norfolk are the last nail on her coffin: she sinks. The sec. battery of ‘Furutaka’ fires at the British destroyer and damages one of her forward twin guns.
However, this British destroyer fired at short range at ‘Furutaka’ as well and hit her 3 times (penetrating)! The annoying destroyer managed to take out one of her 8-inch twin turrets, starts a fire and damage her engine room… 
During the Damage Control Check: the continuing flooding of ‘Nagato’ results in complete loss of speed! Her main battery is now halved (4 guns remaining). The fighting value of heavy cruiser ‘Furutaka’ is limited due to loss of some main guns, accumulating damage and engineering challenges. The British lost their crippled heavy cruiser and the only valuable asset they have is a fully operational, lightly damaged battleship. Her flooding is stopped. The N-class destroyer has very limited value: no torpedoes and 60% of her gun-armament left.  

Turn 6
Both Japanese ships can’t manoeuvre very much. HMS King George V maneuvers towards a favorable position to shoot at the dead in the water ‘Nagato’. 
‘Nagato’ fires at short range at HMS King George V. She can only use 4 main guns. One sec. battery is damaged onboard the British battleship. Although the 140 mm sec. battery of ‘Nagato’ hits the British battleship 3 times, non are penetrating. HMS King George V is determined to revenge the sinking of HMS Norfolk and fires with all she has on ‘Furutaka’ at a close range of 7,5 inch. 5 penetrating hits is the final blow to the older cruiser and she sinks, unable to fight back.

Turn 7
The only remaining Japanese ship is dead in the water. The British battleship fires her 10 main guns at short range: 8 hits, of which 4 penetrating. Another main battery is destroyed and twice the engine room is hit. Hits by the British sec. battery starts a fire, but that is quickly extinguished by the Japanese crew.. Although at the same time 2 main Japanese 16-inch twin turrets return fire at HMS King George V (damaging a British sec. battery) the situation is hopeless for Japan. At the end of this last turn the ‘Nagato’ has only 1 main twin turret left, speed 0 and no hope for survival… The British Taskgroup, at great cost, stopped the Japanese incursion into the Indian Ocean.   

Verdict
This was our second ‘Naval Thunder’ ruled Naval Wargame. Although both Taskgroups looked similar, we both were a little puzzled by the outcome. I feared the mighty 16-inch guns of ‘Nagato’ but bad dice of my opponent didn’t help those guns. Radar guided guns (like the British) made a difference probably? And destroyers can sink quickly (3 destroyers during this game), but with some luck and courage they can sink a cruiser or battleship!
Most gun duels were at medium range during this encounter. It really becomes dangerous for an opponent when you fire at close range… Nice to see how the torpedo rules actually worked.
I am still struggling making notes on the ships data cards (as I also made notes for this blog), so it was quite difficult to read my notes.