Seems like everything comes down to weapons stores. Agree?

[LoBlo]

In all the high end peer vs peer scenarios (Russia, China, India, USA, UK, etc) it seems like everything always comes down to how many weapons stores each side has and how whose's stores are depleted faster.

In all the complexity of CMO's modeling a replay of any scenario seems to revolve around who runs out of missiles first.

If any layperson's were to take away some nuggets of wisdom from this game's modeling it would seem that investment in cheap, abundant, and 're-supplable' munitions are the key to naval and airforce developement.

There's an old saying that wars are won by logistics.

lb

[thewood1]

There have been many discussions and resources posted on the concept of missile and ammo attrition battles. Might want to search "attrition"

[AKar]

Yes, this is a major consideration. Even more so to smaller defensive forces that reasonably do not expect to (and indeed have the defense forces for the very purpose not to) ever fire in anger(*). Just the two of all the major reasons I think are towards the top are the storage requirements and the fact that most munitions have 'best before dates'. The two are obviously interrelated as well.

Even in their.. containerized form, high-end weapons tend to occupy a lots of space. As most today have specifically everything possible on them: electronics, (solid) propellants, batteries, thermal batteries, explosives of various speeds, and so on, they sleep best in their containers and in, say, cool and dry places. This peace time cool and dry place has its own issues in running it, in terms of security and not being too.. targetable.

On the other hand, things such as shells, or even better, rifle cartridges, tend to be rather easy to store, as they are somewhat their own containers.

(*) A practical accounting question: optimize the amount of warheads so that you'd never have to rely into your stockpile due to its deterrence and while having the minimal costs. In practice, in the times of lull, I'd expect the most to think in lines of having enough in stock for a brief, localized event, and that they could always get better supplied should any tensions seem likely. I'd expect the weapon manufacturers to have a good time right now.

[Blast33]

Maybe the importance of the amount of weapons is so high because in CMO it seems vere easy (too easy) to find targets.

In real life you have a complex civil infrastructure and vegitation, civil communications, traffic etc.
In CMO there are (often) only targets.
To find a ship, tank or air defense system is not easy.

This also attributes to your conclusions about the numbers game IMHO.

[LoBlo]

There have been many discussions and resources posted on the concept of missile and ammo attrition battles. Might want to search "attrition"

Thanks, will do

[Gunner98]

Not everything... but lots of things.

Training, moral, motivation, initiative, inspiration and luck play a role as well. CMO roles much of that into Proficiency levels which may or may not do all of those factors justice. Initiative and inspiration have a lot to do with how a player plays I suppose and since it is a game it is also supposed to be fun.

Logistics however is a key factor and scenario design should take it into account. If you're just learning how to design a scenario however, it may not be front of mind. Also if you're just learning how to play, maybe it is a bridge too far. It is an interesting subject which takes on growing importance firstly as the evolution of missile technology takes precedence ~ starting in the mid 60s, but getting more and more prevalent until the early 90's. That however coincides with the end of the Cold War and the demise of massive defence spending. Now when nations only count their stock of high end A2A or A2G missiles in dozens and not thousands - it should (or could) be a decisive factor.

It is easy to strap on a GBU kit onto a bomb, but how many AIM-120s or AGM-154s or do you have... or how many are you allowed to expend?

B

[Dimitris]

...and yet players like e.g. SeaQueen keep coming up with, and thankfully demonstrating to the rest of us, new and imaginative ways to do more with less, get the most out of the tools at hand, and achieve decisive results even in peer-conflict setups.

[LoBlo]

...and yet players like e.g. SeaQueen keep coming up with, and thankfully demonstrating to the rest of us, new and imaginative ways to do more with less, get the most out of the tools at hand, and achieve decisive results even in peer-conflict setups.

Good ol Seaqueen!

I remember reading his post back when he was on Dangerous Waters. His analysis and insight put his post on another level.

Where are this 'imaginative ways'? In downloadable scenarios?

lb

[thewood1]

I would just search his name. He has a low signal to noise ratio so most of what you find will be useful.

[LoBlo]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... e-polaris/

Looks like the French found the same issue with depleted stores and quickly. In that regards, this seems to validate CMO accuracy quite a bit. Real Naval Battles are like RL street fights. You think you know what its going to be like, but when the fist start flying it turns into two people swinging wildly with everything they've got.

Hm... I wonder if there's some disruptive technology that could take advantage of the uber expensive, limited stores most warships field now. Everyone's looking at drones as the potential new threat as 1000 cheap drones swarming can overwhelm defensive stores. Maybe we will start seeing drone ships with thousands of cheap switchblade like drones hidden in unarmored stealth UUVs or disguised as commercial ships. Can you image how many switchblades one could house in a Ohio SSGN?

[stww2]

One thing to keep in mind is that it shouldn't be assumed warship defenses would not also evolve if such weapons evolved. The current paradigm of warships being armed with sophisticated AAW systems to take down a small number (relatively, compared to the cheap drone swarm concept) of similarly high-end anti ship missiles exists because that currently is the most likely and most dangerous threat profile warships are expected to face. So while the hypothetical drone swarm might be a theoretical problem for current warship defenses, it is also possible that developing and deploying weapons optimized to counter such swarms (improved AAA, CIWS, lasers, jammers, etc) would also be relatively trivial if the need for such weapons became paramount. The aforementioned Switchblade (per Wikipedia) has a range of 6.2-25 nm and a maximum dash speed of 85-100 knots (depending on the model), which doesn't exactly sound like the most imposing ASuW threat, particularly in a world where the swarm threat was anticipated and warship defenses adapted accordingly (we'll handwave away the delivery problem). Granted, you can theorize threats with greater range and speed and with stealth capabilities...but at that point they're probably no longer cheap.

[LoBlo]

25 nm is still beyond LOS and about the range of a modern heavyweight torpedo. Doubling that range by a small increase in diameter or length is probably easy and cost likely scale favorably.

There's some initial efforts for lasers. Remember the drone swarms that were harassing USN DDGs? They really didn't have any counter despite years of warning that this capability was coming. How well a laser CIWS and 30mm autocannons will fair against 200 simultaneous drones is something only top secret naval weapon developers can know. Perhaps we will see the return of massive amounts of AA guns and lasers like the old WWII warship eras.

Naval architects historically don't seem successful when 'proactive'. Just look at LCS. They generally stick to countering the tactics they are already aware of. They react to a new threat when they see it in action to be able to directly counter. Otherwise, they've invested in a hypothetical that may not manifest before the enemy has even dedicated its logistical resources. Hence the WWII battleship had to be shoved off the apex by carriers. It didn't leave voluntarily until forcefully displaced.

Its an extremely interesting and thought provoking part of warfare. USN looks mostly focused on ASBM and HSGV, but those head even deeper down the same path of bigger, more expensive, less sustainable defense weapon stores again. Makes the problem worse, not better.

Its interesting to notice DARPAs investment in coordinated autonomous swarming logic. How this plays out over time will be very interesting and hard to predict...

[maverick3320]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... e-polaris/

Looks like the French found the same issue with depleted stores and quickly. In that regards, this seems to validate CMO accuracy quite a bit. Real Naval Battles are like RL street fights. You think you know what its going to be like, but when the fist start flying it turns into two people swinging wildly with everything they've got.

Hm... I wonder if there's some disruptive technology that could take advantage of the uber expensive, limited stores most warships field now. Everyone's looking at drones as the potential new threat as 1000 cheap drones swarming can overwhelm defensive stores. Maybe we will start seeing drone ships with thousands of cheap switchblade like drones hidden in unarmored stealth UUVs or disguised as commercial ships. Can you image how many switchblades one could house in a Ohio SSGN?

The new disruptive technology will be directed energy weapons.

[LoBlo]

The new disruptive technology will be directed energy weapons.

I hate that term. "Directed Energy". All weapons are directed energy. A bullet is lethal because of its 'directed energy'. They should just call them what they are.... Lasers. They're just afraid to get laughed at, so they change the terminology.

Lasers as disruptive big-expensive weapon stores? Doesn't seem like the dwell times and ranges will be good enough for a long time. Not to mention the weather sensitivity.

[thewood1]

Most likely the answer to drones will end up being EW. The places where drones have been successful are where EW has been either locally weak or non-existent. As countries better assess the threat of low- and mid-cost drones, disrupting their comms will be relatively simple and effective.

In more peer-oriented engagements, autonomous drones will require more direct counters. But effective autonomous drones require more cost and infrastructure that limit who and when they are used.

[LoBlo]

Most likely the answer to drones will end up being EW. The places where drones have been successful are where EW has been either locally weak or non-existent. As countries better assess the threat of low- and mid-cost drones, disrupting their comms will be relatively simple and effective.

In more peer-oriented engagements, autonomous drones will require more direct counters. But effective autonomous drones require more cost and infrastructure that limit who and when they are used.

War Zone had an interesting interview with a Ukrainian pilot. His perspective is that the Russians have adapted to the Bayraktar drones and they have rapidly lost their initial effectiveness.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/u ... gle-drones

The eternal cycle of counter and counter-counter and then counter-counter-counter continues.