AAR-STANAVFORLANT

[CV60]

1446Z AGM-12B Bullpup A hits KANIN

1446Z Bullpup has a near miss on KANIN, detonates close aboard, causing flooding

1447Z 2-AS.37 Martel hit KYNDA

1447Z Bullpup A impacted KYNDA

1447Z Two AS.37 Martel impact KANIN

1447Z Bullpup A hits the KYNDA

1447Z Bullpup has a near miss on KYNDA, detonates close aboard, causing flooding

1447Z AJ.168 Martel hit MOD KASHIN

1447Z SA-N-1b Goa shoots down an F-104

1447Z AJ.168 Martel hit MOD KASHIN

1447Z RGM-84A Harpoon IP hits KYNDA

1448Z RGM-84A Harpoon IP misses the sinking KYNDA and targets the BORIS CHILIKIN, hitting it.

1448Z AJ.168 Martel hit BORIS CHILIKIN

1448Z AJ.168 Martel hit BORIS CHILIKIN

1449Z All aircraft are egressing. The KYNDA has sunk. The remaining ships of the KYNDA SAG are on fire and sinking.

[CV60]

1500Z HMS ACTIVE is detached from NATO SAG for SAR at site of HMCS OTTAWA sinking. NATO SAG to proceed for SAR effort at site of KYNDA SAG sinking.

1614Z HMS ACTIVE engages OKEAN AGI with guns

1620Z OKEAN AGI sinks.

1635Z P-3C RTB from KYNDA SAG SAR

1636Z P-3B RTB from HMCS OTTAWA SAR

1650Z NATO SAG commences SAR operation.

1745Z P-3C ON HMCS OTTAWA SAR STA

1756Z HMS ACTIVE arrives for HMCS OTTAWA SAR

SIDE: Soviet Union
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x BPK Kanin [Pr.57A Gnevny]
1x BPK Kashin Mod [Pr.61M]
1x Ka-25BSh Hormone A
1x RKR Kynda [Pr.58]
3x Tu-16RM-1/2 Badger D
1x VTR Boris Chilikin [Pr.1559V]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
3x AK-630 30mm/65 Gatling Burst [400 rnds]
1x AK-726 76mm/60 Twin Frag Burst [2 rnds]
2x Generic Flare Salvo [4x Cartridges, Single Spectral]
14x SA-N-1b Goa [M-1M/P Volna-M/P, 4K91 / V-601]
9x SS-N-3a Shaddock [P-6, ASM]



SIDE: NATO
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x CH-124A Heltas [Sea King]
1x DDH 205 St. Laurent
1x F-104G Starfighter [CF-104C]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
42x 114mm/55 Mk8 HE(MP) HE
4x 20mm/85 M61A1 Vulcan Burst [100 rnds]
8x AGM-12B Bullpup A
4x AIM-9N Sidewinder
6x AJ.168 Martel
242x AN/SSQ-41B Jezebel LOFAR
27x AN/SSQ-47 Julie Active Range-Only
5x AS.37 Martel [ARM]
4x RGM-84A Harpoon IP
60x Type 17053 Passive Directional [Mk1c]
101x Type 17054 Active Directional [Mk1c]
54x Type 30059 LOFAR [Mk1c]



SIDE: Neutral Shipping
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------



SIDE: Soviet Fishing Fleet
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x SSV Okean


EXPENDITURES:
------------------

[CV60]

After Action Report

I made several mistakes in this game. Although it didn’t cost me, the use of the NATO SAG to close KYNDA SAG was a high risk/low payoff action. Closing a SAG equipped with SHADDOCK missiles that considerably outranged my own HARPOONS puts several NATO destroyers in danger. As the airstrike demonstrated, the HARPOONs really weren’t needed. By the time they impacted, the KYNDA SAG had effectively been destroyed. Had the HORMONE A flown just 10 degrees further north, it might have seen the NATO SAG, and I could be crying in my beer over its loss. The F-5 I had on CAPSTA was there specifically placed there to address the possibility of a Soviet Helo operating in the area. However, the long range, and lack of an air to air radar on the F-5 made timely intercepts difficult. That problem was illustrated by the F-5 having to BINGO before the intercept, leaving the relieving F-104 to accomplish the mission. Of note, I also had a Shackelton AEW aircraft in the area, but it never saw the HORMONE. I believe that for radars of this era, the lack of sighting of the HORMONE by the Shackelton is very believable outcome. I included the NATO SAG as part of the strike package to demonstrate a simultaneous multi-axis attack. Against a human opponent, putting the NATO SAG this close to the KYNDA prior to the airstrike would not have been a good idea.

The biggest mistake I made was the mishandling of the HMCS OTTAWA. My thought was to use it to entice the KYNDA SAG further south. In retrospect, I should have kept the HMCS OTTAWA over the horizon, and used its embarked helo to rig the OKEAN AGI, thereby indicating the presence of a NATO combatant in the area. I didn’t do this, because the idea didn’t occur to me until it was too late.

[Tomcat84]

Thanks for the very nice AAR! Interesting to read up on some surface stuff

[CV60]

I'm glad you enjoyed it. If there is an interest, I may do more like this, as a way to discuss some aspects of basic naval strategy and tactics

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

Thanks for the very nice AAR! Interesting to read up on some surface stuff

[ojms]

ORIGINAL: CV60

I'm glad you enjoyed it. If there is an interest, I may do more like this, as a way to discuss some aspects of basic naval strategy and tactics

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

Thanks for the very nice AAR! Interesting to read up on some surface stuff

Look forward to more of the same!

[Eambar]

Appreciate the AAR, very interesting. I would be keen to see similar, I really learnt a lot on multi-strike planning and what to do (or not) when outranged.

Cheers,

[mikkey]

Nice and interesting AAR, thanks for sharing it CV60.

[Varangian]

Thanks for the AAR.

When I played, HMS ACTIVE was attacked by SSMs (I believe they were Styx)
but did not respond with its Sea Cats and was hit.
Can the Sea Cats engage the Styx? Or did I do something wrong or is there a possible bug.

I tried a few tests with ACTIVE ungrouped etc, but no joy.

Thanks for any help.

[MR_BURNS2]

ORIGINAL: Varangian

Thanks for the AAR.

When I played, HMS ACTIVE was attacked by SSMs (I believe they were Styx)
but did not respond with its Sea Cats and was hit.
Can the Sea Cats engage the Styx? Or did I do something wrong or is there a possible bug.

I tried a few tests with ACTIVE ungrouped etc, but no joy.

Thanks for any help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Cat

She is command guided, manually by a human operator who has both missile and target in sight, very much like early ATGM. The chance to hit a missile must be remote at best.

[Varangian]

Thanks for the reply.

I did more experimentation and found that it was a weapons arc issue,
turning the ship to just the right direction wrt the incoming SSMs
allowed the Sea Cats to engage (which as you suggested they did poorly).

I looked and could not find an in-game way of knowing the weapons arcs,
or setting an ROE to automatically maneuver the ship to unmask weapons when attacked.

Thanks again

[MR_BURNS2]

Great AAR CV60, learned a lot from it, thanks!

@Varangian

Baloogans wiki may help you there, he has engagement arc data on some units, it is all a big WIP though and there are some errors, you can see the arc though.

http://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index. ... ID=1000126

Getting to see the engagement arcs in game is probably just a matter of time when you consider how fast the CMANO team adds new features.

[magi]

this was interesting..... The only comment I would make… Is that it is common for allied surface groups to have to operate inside of the Soviet missile envelope... during this era and later... as they have such extreme missile range… and the key ingredient… Is not to allow them to have targeting solution on your assets.... which you successfully employed…

[CV60]

Thanks. For the AAR, I wanted to demonstrate a multi-axis/multi-platform attack, so I closed the KYNDA SAG with the NATO SAG, and used my CAP to blind the Soviets by destroying the airborne SSC platforms (the HORMONES and TU-16s). That is one way to neutralize the considerable Soviet missile range advantage. But even with planning, it was still a near-run thing, as despite my best efforts, a HORMONE almost got a targeting solution on my SAG. Airpower alone could sink the KYNDA, making the SAG's Harpoons unnecessary in such a situation. IMHO, a better plan would have been to focus the airstrike on the missile-equipped KYNDA and MOD Kashin, keeping the NATO SAG outside the engagement envelope, and using it to sink any Soviet vessels that survived the NATO airstrike.

this was interesting..... The only comment I would make… Is that it is common for allied surface groups to have to operate inside of the Soviet missile envelope... during this era and later... as they have such extreme missile range… and the key ingredient… Is not to allow them to have targeting solution on your assets.... which you successfully employed…