Gents,
I am in the final phase of the set up of the new scenario. I now need that the CiC of each team tells me the position of all the ships in the squadron. You may send me a map, a kmz file or a text telling me where your ships are.
Best regards to all,
Francis
PS: j'ai r¨¦dig¨¦ ce mail en anglais par soucis de simplicit¨¦, en partant du principe que les joueurs francophones comprennent l'anglais. Si ce n'est pas le cas, dites-le moi.
|
Re: Op. Soberania / La bataille de Wollaston
Laurent,
thanks for your
feedback. A couple of comments
- You¡¯re right,
the historical context looks very fine for a bigger scenario. I¡¯m
working on it for years, but I haven¡¯t found yet the good formula.
Historical data is scarce and conflicting, Ground combat (as well as
naval / air support) is of high importance in this scenario but
proves very difficult to integrate with naval operations. It¡¯s
difficult to set up a game with so many different tempos?: air
operations are fast, naval operations are slow, submarine operations
are very slow, and land operations are even slower. Si I need time no
think and work about the subject before this scenario is ready to
play.
- Thanks for the
offer of a macro. Anyway, it would be a waste of effort to begin a
work right now. I have already make such things (not with macros but
a lot of formulas) for Seekrieg, butI¡¯m not ready yet to do it for
Harpoon, because modern naval combat is much more complicated than
WWII surface combat. It¡¯s essential to have more experience before
such a work starts, otherwise one may go in a wrong direction.
- For the moment I
am working on a new process of generating kmz files for Long Lance
(Seekrieg). It¡¯s not actually a whole new process but an
improvement of the elder system, that, hopefully, will be easier and
faster to use. When the work of WWII surface game will be finished
(hopefully soon), I will adapt it to Harpoon. One major problem is
that in Harpoon, the tempo of operations is not linear. In Long
Lance, ships can turn at the end of each 30 seconds segment. In
Harpoon, units can turn whenever they want during a 30 minutes
intermediate turn. During a 3 minutes tactical turn, ships will turn
like in Long Lance (at the end of each 30 seconds segments), but
torpedoes must be able to turn every 15 seconds, and aircraft in an
attack run might change course every 3 seconds or less. It¡¯s
difficult to integrate units with such different speeds and turning
capacity. I¡¯m thinking a lot about it but haven¡¯t found yet the
best combo of realism and speed of play.
- You¡¯re right, I
should not have given you the spreadsheets of the DD (and
auxiliaries) if I wanted you to be captain Barbuzzi only. There was
an incoherence between my wish to simulate accurately the chain of
command and the way I organized and ran the game. Anyway, It is a
problem without perfect solution. I am disappointed by most wargames
that give players too much control over their units, and I wish to
simulate difficulties of command in combat (one player = one level of
decision only), but it¡¯s not possible to achieve that.
- I have very little
scientific background and knowledge and am unable to make the link
between real world statistics of a sensor and its range in Harpoon.
Anyway, you should use Harpoon 3 data with caution, since the game is
about 30 years old and definitively obsolete. At this time, the
authors a very optimistic opinion of naval sensors and weapons.
Anyway, I had a discussion with C. Carlson about the SQS-4, and he
confirmed me that the system cannot operate passively. In fact, it
can in theory, but the range is so short (may be 0.1 nmi) that it is
totally useless in most situations.
In final analysis,
if the sonar range against a torpedo is one quarter of of the range
against a submarine, actual range against the Mk27 fired by the
Simpson would be no more than 300 yards.
- I will continue to
run PBEM game, hopefully with you.
Best regards,
Francis
Oups!? D¨¦sol¨¦ Pascal!? ? ? Salutations, ? Laurent Leclerc ? ? Hello Laurent
Le pilote du Tracker c'¨¦tait Pascal 
Cdt
Pascal? ? De : "Laurent Leclerc"
A : [email protected]
Envoy¨¦: lundi 5 Avril 2021 05:46
Objet : Re: [laguerrenavale] Op. Soberania / La bataille de Wollaston
? Hi, ? Following the AAR of Francis about the ¡°Bataille de Wollaston¡±, let met thank him for his time and dedication running this complicated scenario. The experience was enlightening and stressful, pretty much what it should have been in real life. ? As for my experience, while the scenario was presented to me by Francis as a ASW hunt, the scenario preparation document sent to us and force composition didn¡¯t emphasized this aspect at all.? Reading the scenario I got the impression many other people could be involved, and expected submarine and air attack (was terrified of confronting an Oberon SS), amphibious operation and even a Chilean surface action group in the later phase of the scenario.? Also, for an antisubmarine hunting scenario, the Grupo de Traballos Dos (GdT2) was ill equipped.? With no passive sonar, all I could do was layout my destroyer on an arc in front of my flagship and support ship, allowing me to detect a submarine laying in wait on my path, and thus forcing him to evade my destroyer then running back to engage my ship, but not much more.? I toyed with the idea of using an Alouette with MAD detector and run diamond around my formation, but the end result wasn¡¯t much better, with diamond about 5 miles wide, and relatively low chance of detection.? So I kept the helo in waiting mode, converting it in ASW mode upon detection by the Chilean maritime search aircraft.? Also, trying not to give too much information to the enemy, I opted to maintain the radar silence as long as no enemy was detected. In retrospect, I should have activated all radar upon starting of the scenario, giving me an additional way of detecting the submarine while it was surfaced. ? When Yannick patrol, and excellent sonobuoy placement, provided a contact within 10 nm, which was slightly outside the patrol zone of the ARA Salta, I jumped on the occasion and sent two destroyers to hunt him and ordered the launching of the helicopter.? If I was wrong, my destroyer would have had time to bring the Salta on the surface, and if I was right, it was my sole chance of hitting the submarine before it sink my ship.? The rest is well described by Francis.? ? We were very very lucky.? On pretty much all other circumstances (had been an Oberon SS, have had less luck on sonobuoy placement and detection, etc¡) this scenario began with the torpedoing of the Belgrano and/or transports, and thus loosing the scenario, starting a frantic hunt for the sub.? With little to no way of knowing from where the attack was coming from. ? The Gearing/AllenM.Summer class are not good anti-submarine warfare platforms, with no passive sonar and no onboard helicopter, but made for fair ASW pursuit ship, and got the job done rapidly and effectively. ? Then some comments on Francis conclusion: ? ¡°°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õ ? - The result of the battle is disappointing for both sides, since both Chile and Argentina did loose a unit. In final analysis, it is a minor and costly victory for Argentina since the mission (escorting the amphibious ships to the landing point on Wollaston island) is accomplished. ¡°
? L.Leclerc: True, loosing a destroyer to gain the Wollaston was a heavy price.? But, as the scenario was played, my destroyers had little awareness of what was happening below (speaking of the torpedo).
? ¡°2. With hindsight, it appears that scenario was poorly designed. It would have been better to use US and Russian units from the published supplements. While all the units in the game are in ¡°America¡¯s Navies¡±, it is probable that the submarine and destroyers in Chilean / Argentinian service were subject to some modifications. Moreover, it was not sound to set up a scenario in such restricted and shallow waters. Last, the scenario was not balanced. The poor old Simpson was no match for the three Argentinian destroyers supported by a Tracker.¡± ? L.Leclerc: Absolutely, but this scenario was also very much all of nothing.? As said above, if the Tracker sonobuoy placement and detection had been less effective, I wouldn¡¯t have detected the sub, and it would have closed the distance without interference.? Replace the Simpson by an Oberon, gives the Chilean more maritime patrol and/or a light air attack capability and the scenario would have run differently.? On my perspective, the interest of the scenario was everything else that was yet to come (opposed amphibious assault, potential air attack, then maritime patrol around the Wollaston).? The scenario seem to be more interesting as a whole campaign. ? - There was nothing wrong with the players, who had few opportunities to shine. The one in command of the Tracker won the day by setting up a good ASW patrol and being lucky: one of his sonobuoys landed very close to the Simpson. Thereafter, it was a question of time before Simpson was sunk.
? L.Leclerc: Fully agree, Yannick had it all, and that point alone give us the game.? ? - The aim of the game was to set up a simple ASW scenario that we could play fast, in order to learn about submarine / antisubmarine tactics, and the best way to run a PBEM game. I am afraid it was not 100% successful. We did not play that fast, and we had little opportunities to learn about submarine / ASW tactics.
? L.Leclerc:? The layout of the scenario wasn¡¯t lending well for a ASW match.? And I don¡¯t think the Argentine had a proper ASW platform available (Drummond corvettes do they have passive sonar?).? And the scenario depended solely on the Tracker, and possibly it could be a better way of playing it with the Argentinan playing a pair of Tracker while the Chilean having a single sub, or a pair of sub.? ? ? - I am afraid there is no ¡®simple¡¯ scenario for Harpoon. Running a game is always complex. There are always a lot of dice rolls : ? Simpson had two sonar, and 6 targets, so there were each turn 12 passive sonar detection rolls for the Simpson ? The ARA had 3 destroyers using active sonar, so there were three more active sonar detection detection rolls, plus 3 more for AIR. ? Since active sonar could be detected by passive sonar, there were six more detection rolls for Simpson. ? The Tracker could use 4 passive sonobuoys each turn, so there were four more detection rolls. ? Total : 28 detection rolls, not counting MAD, attempts to identify the target and TMA. I understand that I am responsible of the situation and should have elaborated a scenario with less units.
? L.Leclerc: Yes, ASW is a complex and difficult subject, and while Harpoon describe it well, playing this on table or by email become difficult.? That¡¯s the kind of thing that could be well managed by a spreadsheet and some macros to run the dices.? I did similarly complex spreadsheet in the past and could come up with something when things will calm out.? Interested? ? - The way I run PBEM games does not work well for tactical games and needs to be improved. Generating kmz files requires too much operations and is too slow. I am working on this.
? L.Leclerc: Do you need help?? Can you describe the process? ? - There were issues with the way the spirit of game is understood. It is once again my fault since I set up a game that let the problem happen. It¡¯s not a problem however, since we can think and discuss about the problem. In short, the player in command of the Task Group should have acted as Captain Barbuzzi, CO of General Belgrano. When the ASW chase began, he acted as the CO of each DD. In theory, he should instead have given orders to the DD by TBS, but: ? It was probably not clear for him; my fault. ? As commander of a cruiser lacking ASW weapons, he was not in position to direct the chase of Simpson, since it was logical that the Belgrano stays out of the action. ? Even if the Belgrano did not run away, it¡¯s not practical to run an ASW action with a player sending messages by VHF and the referee commanding the 3 DD. It¡¯s necessary to have a player for each warship involved. ? If so, the Argentinian team grows to 5 players, too much for what was initially designed for a simple and fast game. ? So, what is the best way to do things ?
? L.Leclerc: ?Well, having all seven spreadsheet every turns to revise/update and send back to you brought me to believe I ¡°controlled¡± all seven ships, where the Captain Barbuzzi was more a secondary player not really involved in the hunt, while I also took the role of the destroyer captain.? I understand you want to get and obtain the feeling of a commanding officer in that context, but afterall, we are only a few, doing this in our free time, with some knowledge (limited in my case) of maritime warfare. Finally, to run a game effectively and rapidly, you need fewer players and possibly them running more role also. Otherwise, you involve more players, and/or take more role yourself, which complicate dramatically the complexity and duration of turns and game. ? ? - The scenario shows ¡®holes¡¯ in the rules / my understanding of the rules. Many, many questions and observations arose during the game. Among them: ? It is not clear whether active sonar can detect torpedoes (and how if it¡¯s possible).
? L.Leclerc: From my understanding, the SQS-4 operating a 10kHz, with speed of sound at 1510m/s, the distance between sound wavefront is 151mm and thus the minimum size of detectable object. Same logic apply to radar and laser.? Thus the SQS-4 could be able to sense a torpedo, but the returning echo would be very small thus maximum range detection for a torpedo should also be much smaller.? With a signature roughly 225 time smaller (95m vs 6.2m), the (Reference?: , page 32), the maximum detection range should be about a quarter of what is normally achievable on a submarine, thus 625 yards for 50% detection chance on a torpedo, while the SQS-4 can achieve 50% at 2500 yards.? Also, in Harpoon 3 ships databook, the SQS-4 had a very short range passive mode, thus allowing the detection of torpedo in the vincinity and/or active sonar used by the enemy. ? ? - ? The management of time is sometimes problematic. Sometimes, a Tactical Turn is too long and too many conflicting things happen in less than 3 minutes.
? L.Leclerc: What you did was excellent and worked pretty well, if not for the fact that I could hardly adjust my course to do ASW mortar launch. For a PBeM game, you don¡¯t have alternative. ? - ? With no passive sonar and no AIR, the DD did not know that two Mk 27 torpedoes guided by active sonar were in the water. Normal ?
? L.Leclerc: As stated above, the destroyer should have detected torpedo going very close and at least give us some awareness of what was happening. But a 12 knot electric torpedo should be very difficult to detect. ? - ? It is not clear how many targets a sonar can track at once.
? L.Leclerc: Look at the reference above, on page 32, the display of the QHB sonar, becoming the SQS-10 then the SQS-4, should be very similar.? With human involved without electronic assistance, I would tend to a limit of 4 tracks at once. ? - ? The submarine ended damaged on the sea bed (50 m depth). Could the DD still detect him with active sonar ?
? L.Leclerc: Would depend of the seabed.? With a shallow flat sand zone, a submarine would provide some echo.? Then the coming Alouette would have provided MAD detection capability allowing the detection of the sub.? Grenades and mortars would have followed. ? - Could the torpedoes still attack him ? ? The torpedo re-attacks did not work well with my home rules. I had to break movements in 15 seconds increments.
? 9. The rules are complex and it¡¯s not easy to use them correctly. I made lots of mistakes during the game. Among them: ? I forgot, during the first turns, that Simpson could use both sonars at once. ? I forgot that torpedoes did not mask other targets. The sonobuoys should have given more precise data to the Tracker during the last turns of the game. It had however little consequence on the game. ? I was not rigorous with the launching of torpedoes, which started moving during the turn they were launched. Actually, Harpoon v rules state that the launch takes place in the Planned fire phase, at the end of the end, and that the torpedoes start moving during the movement phase of the next tactical turn. ? Simpson should not have fired a salvo of 2 active homing torpedoes spaced 5¡ã. There must be 15¡ã between them to avoid interference. ? I failed to apply correctly the rule for torpedoes reattacks. The torpedoes should have traveled 1000 yards on a straight line before beginning the reattack maneuver. ? L.Leclerc: Understood.? Don¡¯t be too hard on yourself, running all this by PBEM is incredibly complicated, and you do it pretty well. Hope you¡¯ll enjoy continuing doing this, and hope you¡¯ll still want me as a player. ? Salutations, ? Laurent Leclerc ? ? Sorry, I forgot the English version of the text. The Harpoon Scenario 'Operation Soberania' (now called The Battle of Wollaston Island) is finished. The scenario and after action report have been uploaded to the 'Files' section of the discussion group. The scenario is in French but the AAR have been written in English, so the English speaking people can read it - and hopefully enjoy it. As usual, comments are welcome. ? Le?jeu. 1 avr. 2021 ¨¤?12:31, Francis Marliere via <marlieref=[email protected]> a ¨¦crit?: la partie Harpoon Operation Soberania (ou la bataille de Wollaston) vient de se terminer. Je vais d¨¦poser le sc¨¦nario et le compte-rendu dans la partie 'Files' du groupe de discussion. J'attends vos remarques, commentaires et propositions avec impatience.
|
Re: Op. Soberania / La bataille de Wollaston
Oups!? D¨¦sol¨¦ Pascal!? ? ? Salutations, ? Laurent Leclerc ? ? Hello Laurent
Le pilote du Tracker c'¨¦tait Pascal
Cdt
Pascal? ? De : "Laurent Leclerc"
A : [email protected]
Envoy¨¦: lundi 5 Avril 2021 05:46
Objet : Re: [laguerrenavale] Op. Soberania / La bataille de Wollaston
? Hi, ? Following the AAR of Francis about the ¡°Bataille de Wollaston¡±, let met thank him for his time and dedication running this complicated scenario. The experience was enlightening and stressful, pretty much what it should have been in real life. ? As for my experience, while the scenario was presented to me by Francis as a ASW hunt, the scenario preparation document sent to us and force composition didn¡¯t emphasized this aspect at all. ?Reading the scenario I got the impression many other people could be involved, and expected submarine and air attack (was terrified of confronting an Oberon SS), amphibious operation and even a Chilean surface action group in the later phase of the scenario.? Also, for an antisubmarine hunting scenario, the Grupo de Traballos Dos (GdT2) was ill equipped.? With no passive sonar, all I could do was layout my destroyer on an arc in front of my flagship and support ship, allowing me to detect a submarine laying in wait on my path, and thus forcing him to evade my destroyer then running back to engage my ship, but not much more.? I toyed with the idea of using an Alouette with MAD detector and run diamond around my formation, but the end result wasn¡¯t much better, with diamond about 5 miles wide, and relatively low chance of detection.? So I kept the helo in waiting mode, converting it in ASW mode upon detection by the Chilean maritime search aircraft.? Also, trying not to give too much information to the enemy, I opted to maintain the radar silence as long as no enemy was detected. In retrospect, I should have activated all radar upon starting of the scenario, giving me an additional way of detecting the submarine while it was surfaced. ? When Yannick patrol, and excellent sonobuoy placement, provided a contact within 10 nm, which was slightly outside the patrol zone of the ARA Salta, I jumped on the occasion and sent two destroyers to hunt him and ordered the launching of the helicopter.? If I was wrong, my destroyer would have had time to bring the Salta on the surface, and if I was right, it was my sole chance of hitting the submarine before it sink my ship.? The rest is well described by Francis.? ? We were very very lucky.? On pretty much all other circumstances (had been an Oberon SS, have had less luck on sonobuoy placement and detection, etc¡) this scenario began with the torpedoing of the Belgrano and/or transports, and thus loosing the scenario, starting a frantic hunt for the sub.? With little to no way of knowing from where the attack was coming from. ? The Gearing/AllenM.Summer class are not good anti-submarine warfare platforms, with no passive sonar and no onboard helicopter, but made for fair ASW pursuit ship, and got the job done rapidly and effectively. ? Then some comments on Francis conclusion: ? ¡°°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õ ? - The result of the battle is disappointing for both sides, since both Chile and Argentina did loose a unit. In final analysis, it is a minor and costly victory for Argentina since the mission (escorting the amphibious ships to the landing point on Wollaston island) is accomplished. ¡°
? L.Leclerc: True, loosing a destroyer to gain the Wollaston was a heavy price.? But, as the scenario was played, my destroyers had little awareness of what was happening below (speaking of the torpedo).
? ¡°2. With hindsight, it appears that scenario was poorly designed. It would have been better to use US and Russian units from the published supplements. While all the units in the game are in ¡°America¡¯s Navies¡±, it is probable that the submarine and destroyers in Chilean / Argentinian service were subject to some modifications. Moreover, it was not sound to set up a scenario in such restricted and shallow waters. Last, the scenario was not balanced. The poor old Simpson was no match for the three Argentinian destroyers supported by a Tracker.¡± ? L.Leclerc: Absolutely, but this scenario was also very much all of nothing.? As said above, if the Tracker sonobuoy placement and detection had been less effective, I wouldn¡¯t have detected the sub, and it would have closed the distance without interference.? Replace the Simpson by an Oberon, gives the Chilean more maritime patrol and/or a light air attack capability and the scenario would have run differently.? On my perspective, the interest of the scenario was everything else that was yet to come (opposed amphibious assault, potential air attack, then maritime patrol around the Wollaston).? The scenario seem to be more interesting as a whole campaign. ? - There was nothing wrong with the players, who had few opportunities to shine. The one in command of the Tracker won the day by setting up a good ASW patrol and being lucky: one of his sonobuoys landed very close to the Simpson. Thereafter, it was a question of time before Simpson was sunk.
? L.Leclerc: Fully agree, Yannick had it all, and that point alone give us the game.? ? - The aim of the game was to set up a simple ASW scenario that we could play fast, in order to learn about submarine / antisubmarine tactics, and the best way to run a PBEM game. I am afraid it was not 100% successful. We did not play that fast, and we had little opportunities to learn about submarine / ASW tactics.
? L.Leclerc:? The layout of the scenario wasn¡¯t lending well for a ASW match.? And I don¡¯t think the Argentine had a proper ASW platform available (Drummond corvettes do they have passive sonar?).? And the scenario depended solely on the Tracker, and possibly it could be a better way of playing it with the Argentinan playing a pair of Tracker while the Chilean having a single sub, or a pair of sub.? ? ? - I am afraid there is no ¡®simple¡¯ scenario for Harpoon. Running a game is always complex. There are always a lot of dice rolls : ? Simpson had two sonar, and 6 targets, so there were each turn 12 passive sonar detection rolls for the Simpson ? The ARA had 3 destroyers using active sonar, so there were three more active sonar detection detection rolls, plus 3 more for AIR. ? Since active sonar could be detected by passive sonar, there were six more detection rolls for Simpson. ? The Tracker could use 4 passive sonobuoys each turn, so there were four more detection rolls. ? Total : 28 detection rolls, not counting MAD, attempts to identify the target and TMA. I understand that I am responsible of the situation and should have elaborated a scenario with less units.
? L.Leclerc: Yes, ASW is a complex and difficult subject, and while Harpoon describe it well, playing this on table or by email become difficult.? That¡¯s the kind of thing that could be well managed by a spreadsheet and some macros to run the dices.? I did similarly complex spreadsheet in the past and could come up with something when things will calm out.? Interested? ? - The way I run PBEM games does not work well for tactical games and needs to be improved. Generating kmz files requires too much operations and is too slow. I am working on this.
? L.Leclerc: Do you need help?? Can you describe the process? ? - There were issues with the way the spirit of game is understood. It is once again my fault since I set up a game that let the problem happen. It¡¯s not a problem however, since we can think and discuss about the problem. In short, the player in command of the Task Group should have acted as Captain Barbuzzi, CO of General Belgrano. When the ASW chase began, he acted as the CO of each DD. In theory, he should instead have given orders to the DD by TBS, but: ? It was probably not clear for him; my fault. ? As commander of a cruiser lacking ASW weapons, he was not in position to direct the chase of Simpson, since it was logical that the Belgrano stays out of the action. ? Even if the Belgrano did not run away, it¡¯s not practical to run an ASW action with a player sending messages by VHF and the referee commanding the 3 DD. It¡¯s necessary to have a player for each warship involved. ? If so, the Argentinian team grows to 5 players, too much for what was initially designed for a simple and fast game. ? So, what is the best way to do things ?
? L.Leclerc: ?Well, having all seven spreadsheet every turns to revise/update and send back to you brought me to believe I ¡°controlled¡± all seven ships, where the Captain Barbuzzi was more a secondary player not really involved in the hunt, while I also took the role of the destroyer captain.? I understand you want to get and obtain the feeling of a commanding officer in that context, but afterall, we are only a few, doing this in our free time, with some knowledge (limited in my case) of maritime warfare. Finally, to run a game effectively and rapidly, you need fewer players and possibly them running more role also. Otherwise, you involve more players, and/or take more role yourself, which complicate dramatically the complexity and duration of turns and game. ? ? - The scenario shows ¡®holes¡¯ in the rules / my understanding of the rules. Many, many questions and observations arose during the game. Among them: ? It is not clear whether active sonar can detect torpedoes (and how if it¡¯s possible).
? L.Leclerc: From my understanding, the SQS-4 operating a 10kHz, with speed of sound at 1510m/s, the distance between sound wavefront is 151mm and thus the minimum size of detectable object. Same logic apply to radar and laser.? Thus the SQS-4 could be able to sense a torpedo, but the returning echo would be very small thus maximum range detection for a torpedo should also be much smaller. ?With a signature roughly 225 time smaller (95m vs 6.2m), the (Reference?: , page 32), the maximum detection range should be about a quarter of what is normally achievable on a submarine, thus 625 yards for 50% detection chance on a torpedo, while the SQS-4 can achieve 50% at 2500 yards.? Also, in Harpoon 3 ships databook, the SQS-4 had a very short range passive mode, thus allowing the detection of torpedo in the vincinity and/or active sonar used by the enemy. ? ? - ? The management of time is sometimes problematic. Sometimes, a Tactical Turn is too long and too many conflicting things happen in less than 3 minutes.
? L.Leclerc: What you did was excellent and worked pretty well, if not for the fact that I could hardly adjust my course to do ASW mortar launch. For a PBeM game, you don¡¯t have alternative. ? - ? With no passive sonar and no AIR, the DD did not know that two Mk 27 torpedoes guided by active sonar were in the water. Normal ?
? L.Leclerc: As stated above, the destroyer should have detected torpedo going very close and at least give us some awareness of what was happening. But a 12 knot electric torpedo should be very difficult to detect. ? - ? It is not clear how many targets a sonar can track at once.
? L.Leclerc: Look at the reference above, on page 32, the display of the QHB sonar, becoming the SQS-10 then the SQS-4, should be very similar.? With human involved without electronic assistance, I would tend to a limit of 4 tracks at once. ? - ? The submarine ended damaged on the sea bed (50 m depth). Could the DD still detect him with active sonar ?
? L.Leclerc: Would depend of the seabed.? With a shallow flat sand zone, a submarine would provide some echo.? Then the coming Alouette would have provided MAD detection capability allowing the detection of the sub. ?Grenades and mortars would have followed. ? - Could the torpedoes still attack him ? ? The torpedo re-attacks did not work well with my home rules. I had to break movements in 15 seconds increments.
? 9. The rules are complex and it¡¯s not easy to use them correctly. I made lots of mistakes during the game. Among them: ? I forgot, during the first turns, that Simpson could use both sonars at once. ? I forgot that torpedoes did not mask other targets. The sonobuoys should have given more precise data to the Tracker during the last turns of the game. It had however little consequence on the game. ? I was not rigorous with the launching of torpedoes, which started moving during the turn they were launched. Actually, Harpoon v rules state that the launch takes place in the Planned fire phase, at the end of the end, and that the torpedoes start moving during the movement phase of the next tactical turn. ? Simpson should not have fired a salvo of 2 active homing torpedoes spaced 5¡ã. There must be 15¡ã between them to avoid interference. ? I failed to apply correctly the rule for torpedoes reattacks. The torpedoes should have traveled 1000 yards on a straight line before beginning the reattack maneuver. ? L.Leclerc: Understood.? Don¡¯t be too hard on yourself, running all this by PBEM is incredibly complicated, and you do it pretty well. Hope you¡¯ll enjoy continuing doing this, and hope you¡¯ll still want me as a player. ? Salutations, ? Laurent Leclerc ? ? Sorry, I forgot the English version of the text. The Harpoon Scenario 'Operation Soberania' (now called The Battle of Wollaston Island) is finished. The scenario and after action report have been uploaded to the 'Files' section of the discussion group. The scenario is in French but the AAR have been written in English, so the English speaking people can read it - and hopefully enjoy it. As usual, comments are welcome. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Le?jeu. 1 avr. 2021 ¨¤?12:31, Francis Marliere via <marlieref= [email protected]> a ¨¦crit?: la partie Harpoon Operation Soberania (ou la bataille de Wollaston) vient de se terminer. Je vais d¨¦poser le sc¨¦nario et le compte-rendu dans la partie 'Files' du groupe de discussion. J'attends vos remarques, commentaires et propositions avec impatience.
|
Re: Op. Soberania / La bataille de Wollaston
Hello Laurent
Le pilote du Tracker c'¨¦tait Pascal
Cdt
Pascal?
?
De : "Laurent Leclerc"
A : [email protected]
Envoy¨¦: lundi 5 Avril 2021 05:46
Objet : Re: [laguerrenavale] Op. Soberania / La bataille de Wollaston
?
Hi,
?
Following the AAR of Francis about the ¡°Bataille de Wollaston¡±, let met thank him for his time and dedication running this complicated scenario. The experience was enlightening and stressful, pretty much what it should have been in real life.
?
As for my experience, while the scenario was presented to me by Francis as a ASW hunt, the scenario preparation document sent to us and force composition didn¡¯t emphasized this aspect at all. ?Reading the scenario I got the impression many other people could be involved, and expected submarine and air attack (was terrified of confronting an Oberon SS), amphibious operation and even a Chilean surface action group in the later phase of the scenario.? Also, for an antisubmarine hunting scenario, the Grupo de Traballos Dos (GdT2) was ill equipped.? With no passive sonar, all I could do was layout my destroyer on an arc in front of my flagship and support ship, allowing me to detect a submarine laying in wait on my path, and thus forcing him to evade my destroyer then running back to engage my ship, but not much more.? I toyed with the idea of using an Alouette with MAD detector and run diamond around my formation, but the end result wasn¡¯t much better, with diamond about 5 miles wide, and relatively low chance of detection.? So I kept the helo in waiting mode, converting it in ASW mode upon detection by the Chilean maritime search aircraft.? Also, trying not to give too much information to the enemy, I opted to maintain the radar silence as long as no enemy was detected. In retrospect, I should have activated all radar upon starting of the scenario, giving me an additional way of detecting the submarine while it was surfaced.
?
When Yannick patrol, and excellent sonobuoy placement, provided a contact within 10 nm, which was slightly outside the patrol zone of the ARA Salta, I jumped on the occasion and sent two destroyers to hunt him and ordered the launching of the helicopter.? If I was wrong, my destroyer would have had time to bring the Salta on the surface, and if I was right, it was my sole chance of hitting the submarine before it sink my ship.? The rest is well described by Francis.?
?
We were very very lucky.? On pretty much all other circumstances (had been an Oberon SS, have had less luck on sonobuoy placement and detection, etc¡) this scenario began with the torpedoing of the Belgrano and/or transports, and thus loosing the scenario, starting a frantic hunt for the sub.? With little to no way of knowing from where the attack was coming from.
?
The Gearing/AllenM.Summer class are not good anti-submarine warfare platforms, with no passive sonar and no onboard helicopter, but made for fair ASW pursuit ship, and got the job done rapidly and effectively.
?
Then some comments on Francis conclusion:
?
¡°°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õ
?
- The result of the battle is disappointing for both sides, since both Chile and Argentina did loose a unit. In final analysis, it is a minor and costly victory for Argentina since the mission (escorting the amphibious ships to the landing point on Wollaston island) is accomplished. ¡°
?
L.Leclerc: True, loosing a destroyer to gain the Wollaston was a heavy price.? But, as the scenario was played, my destroyers had little awareness of what was happening below (speaking of the torpedo).
?
¡°2. With hindsight, it appears that scenario was poorly designed. It would have been better to use US and Russian units from the published supplements. While all the units in the game are in ¡°America¡¯s Navies¡±, it is probable that the submarine and destroyers in Chilean / Argentinian service were subject to some modifications. Moreover, it was not sound to set up a scenario in such restricted and shallow waters. Last, the scenario was not balanced. The poor old Simpson was no match for the three Argentinian destroyers supported by a Tracker.¡±
?
L.Leclerc: Absolutely, but this scenario was also very much all of nothing.? As said above, if the Tracker sonobuoy placement and detection had been less effective, I wouldn¡¯t have detected the sub, and it would have closed the distance without interference.? Replace the Simpson by an Oberon, gives the Chilean more maritime patrol and/or a light air attack capability and the scenario would have run differently.? On my perspective, the interest of the scenario was everything else that was yet to come (opposed amphibious assault, potential air attack, then maritime patrol around the Wollaston).? The scenario seem to be more interesting as a whole campaign.
?
- There was nothing wrong with the players, who had few opportunities to shine. The one in command of the Tracker won the day by setting up a good ASW patrol and being lucky: one of his sonobuoys landed very close to the Simpson. Thereafter, it was a question of time before Simpson was sunk.
?
L.Leclerc: Fully agree, Yannick had it all, and that point alone give us the game.?
?
- The aim of the game was to set up a simple ASW scenario that we could play fast, in order to learn about submarine / antisubmarine tactics, and the best way to run a PBEM game. I am afraid it was not 100% successful. We did not play that fast, and we had little opportunities to learn about submarine / ASW tactics.
?
L.Leclerc:? The layout of the scenario wasn¡¯t lending well for a ASW match.? And I don¡¯t think the Argentine had a proper ASW platform available (Drummond corvettes do they have passive sonar?).? And the scenario depended solely on the Tracker, and possibly it could be a better way of playing it with the Argentinan playing a pair of Tracker while the Chilean having a single sub, or a pair of sub.? ?
?
- I am afraid there is no ¡®simple¡¯ scenario for Harpoon. Running a game is always complex. There are always a lot of dice rolls : ? Simpson had two sonar, and 6 targets, so there were each turn 12 passive sonar detection rolls for the Simpson ? The ARA had 3 destroyers using active sonar, so there were three more active sonar detection detection rolls, plus 3 more for AIR. ? Since active sonar could be detected by passive sonar, there were six more detection rolls for Simpson. ? The Tracker could use 4 passive sonobuoys each turn, so there were four more detection rolls. ? Total : 28 detection rolls, not counting MAD, attempts to identify the target and TMA. I understand that I am responsible of the situation and should have elaborated a scenario with less units.
?
L.Leclerc: Yes, ASW is a complex and difficult subject, and while Harpoon describe it well, playing this on table or by email become difficult.? That¡¯s the kind of thing that could be well managed by a spreadsheet and some macros to run the dices.? I did similarly complex spreadsheet in the past and could come up with something when things will calm out.? Interested?
?
- The way I run PBEM games does not work well for tactical games and needs to be improved. Generating kmz files requires too much operations and is too slow. I am working on this.
?
L.Leclerc: Do you need help?? Can you describe the process?
?
- There were issues with the way the spirit of game is understood. It is once again my fault since I set up a game that let the problem happen. It¡¯s not a problem however, since we can think and discuss about the problem. In short, the player in command of the Task Group should have acted as Captain Barbuzzi, CO of General Belgrano. When the ASW chase began, he acted as the CO of each DD. In theory, he should instead have given orders to the DD by TBS, but: ? It was probably not clear for him; my fault. ? As commander of a cruiser lacking ASW weapons, he was not in position to direct the chase of Simpson, since it was logical that the Belgrano stays out of the action. ? Even if the Belgrano did not run away, it¡¯s not practical to run an ASW action with a player sending messages by VHF and the referee commanding the 3 DD. It¡¯s necessary to have a player for each warship involved. ? If so, the Argentinian team grows to 5 players, too much for what was initially designed for a simple and fast game. ? So, what is the best way to do things ?
?
L.Leclerc: ?Well, having all seven spreadsheet every turns to revise/update and send back to you brought me to believe I ¡°controlled¡± all seven ships, where the Captain Barbuzzi was more a secondary player not really involved in the hunt, while I also took the role of the destroyer captain.? I understand you want to get and obtain the feeling of a commanding officer in that context, but afterall, we are only a few, doing this in our free time, with some knowledge (limited in my case) of maritime warfare. Finally, to run a game effectively and rapidly, you need fewer players and possibly them running more role also. Otherwise, you involve more players, and/or take more role yourself, which complicate dramatically the complexity and duration of turns and game. ?
?
- The scenario shows ¡®holes¡¯ in the rules / my understanding of the rules. Many, many questions and observations arose during the game. Among them: ? It is not clear whether active sonar can detect torpedoes (and how if it¡¯s possible).
?
L.Leclerc: From my understanding, the SQS-4 operating a 10kHz, with speed of sound at 1510m/s, the distance between sound wavefront is 151mm and thus the minimum size of detectable object. Same logic apply to radar and laser.? Thus the SQS-4 could be able to sense a torpedo, but the returning echo would be very small thus maximum range detection for a torpedo should also be much smaller. ?With a signature roughly 225 time smaller (95m vs 6.2m), the
(Reference?: , page 32), the maximum detection range should be about a quarter of what is normally achievable on a submarine, thus 625 yards for 50% detection chance on a torpedo, while the SQS-4 can achieve 50% at 2500 yards.? Also, in Harpoon 3 ships databook, the SQS-4 had a very short range passive mode, thus allowing the detection of torpedo in the vincinity and/or active sonar used by the enemy.
?
?
- ? The management of time is sometimes problematic. Sometimes, a Tactical Turn is too long and too many conflicting things happen in less than 3 minutes.
?
L.Leclerc: What you did was excellent and worked pretty well, if not for the fact that I could hardly adjust my course to do ASW mortar launch. For a PBeM game, you don¡¯t have alternative.
?
- ? With no passive sonar and no AIR, the DD did not know that two Mk 27 torpedoes guided by active sonar were in the water. Normal ?
?
L.Leclerc: As stated above, the destroyer should have detected torpedo going very close and at least give us some awareness of what was happening. But a 12 knot electric torpedo should be very difficult to detect.
?
- ? It is not clear how many targets a sonar can track at once.
?
L.Leclerc: Look at the reference above, on page 32, the display of the QHB sonar, becoming the SQS-10 then the SQS-4, should be very similar.? With human involved without electronic assistance, I would tend to a limit of 4 tracks at once.
?
- ? The submarine ended damaged on the sea bed (50 m depth). Could the DD still detect him with active sonar ?
?
L.Leclerc: Would depend of the seabed.? With a shallow flat sand zone, a submarine would provide some echo.? Then the coming Alouette would have provided MAD detection capability allowing the detection of the sub. ?Grenades and mortars would have followed.
?
- Could the torpedoes still attack him ? ? The torpedo re-attacks did not work well with my home rules. I had to break movements in 15 seconds increments.
?
9. The rules are complex and it¡¯s not easy to use them correctly. I made lots of mistakes during the game. Among them: ? I forgot, during the first turns, that Simpson could use both sonars at once. ? I forgot that torpedoes did not mask other targets. The sonobuoys should have given more precise data to the Tracker during the last turns of the game. It had however little consequence on the game. ? I was not rigorous with the launching of torpedoes, which started moving during the turn they were launched. Actually, Harpoon v rules state that the launch takes place in the Planned fire phase, at the end of the end, and that the torpedoes start moving during the movement phase of the next tactical turn. ? Simpson should not have fired a salvo of 2 active homing torpedoes spaced 5¡ã. There must be 15¡ã between them to avoid interference. ? I failed to apply correctly the rule for torpedoes reattacks. The torpedoes should have traveled 1000 yards on a straight line before beginning the reattack maneuver.
?
L.Leclerc: Understood.? Don¡¯t be too hard on yourself, running all this by PBEM is incredibly complicated, and you do it pretty well. Hope you¡¯ll enjoy continuing doing this, and hope you¡¯ll still want me as a player.
?
Salutations,
?
Laurent Leclerc
?
?
Sorry, I forgot the English version of the text.
The Harpoon Scenario 'Operation Soberania' (now called The Battle of Wollaston Island) is finished. The scenario and after action report have been uploaded to the 'Files' section of the discussion group. The scenario is in French but the AAR have been written in English, so the English speaking people can read it - and hopefully enjoy it.
As usual, comments are welcome.
?
Le?jeu. 1 avr. 2021 ¨¤?12:31, Francis Marliere via <marlieref= [email protected]> a ¨¦crit?:
la partie Harpoon Operation Soberania (ou la bataille de Wollaston) vient de se terminer. Je vais d¨¦poser le sc¨¦nario et le compte-rendu dans la partie 'Files' du groupe de discussion.
J'attends vos remarques, commentaires et propositions avec impatience.
|
Re: Op. Soberania / La bataille de Wollaston
Hi, ? Following the AAR of Francis about the ¡°Bataille de Wollaston¡±, let met thank him for his time and dedication running this complicated scenario. The experience was enlightening and stressful, pretty much what it should have been in real life. ? As for my experience, while the scenario was presented to me by Francis as a ASW hunt, the scenario preparation document sent to us and force composition didn¡¯t emphasized this aspect at all. ?Reading the scenario I got the impression many other people could be involved, and expected submarine and air attack (was terrified of confronting an Oberon SS), amphibious operation and even a Chilean surface action group in the later phase of the scenario.? Also, for an antisubmarine hunting scenario, the Grupo de Traballos Dos (GdT2) was ill equipped.? With no passive sonar, all I could do was layout my destroyer on an arc in front of my flagship and support ship, allowing me to detect a submarine laying in wait on my path, and thus forcing him to evade my destroyer then running back to engage my ship, but not much more.? I toyed with the idea of using an Alouette with MAD detector and run diamond around my formation, but the end result wasn¡¯t much better, with diamond about 5 miles wide, and relatively low chance of detection.? So I kept the helo in waiting mode, converting it in ASW mode upon detection by the Chilean maritime search aircraft.? Also, trying not to give too much information to the enemy, I opted to maintain the radar silence as long as no enemy was detected. In retrospect, I should have activated all radar upon starting of the scenario, giving me an additional way of detecting the submarine while it was surfaced. ? When Yannick patrol, and excellent sonobuoy placement, provided a contact within 10 nm, which was slightly outside the patrol zone of the ARA Salta, I jumped on the occasion and sent two destroyers to hunt him and ordered the launching of the helicopter.? If I was wrong, my destroyer would have had time to bring the Salta on the surface, and if I was right, it was my sole chance of hitting the submarine before it sink my ship.? The rest is well described by Francis.? ? We were very very lucky.? On pretty much all other circumstances (had been an Oberon SS, have had less luck on sonobuoy placement and detection, etc¡) this scenario began with the torpedoing of the Belgrano and/or transports, and thus loosing the scenario, starting a frantic hunt for the sub.? With little to no way of knowing from where the attack was coming from. ? The Gearing/AllenM.Summer class are not good anti-submarine warfare platforms, with no passive sonar and no onboard helicopter, but made for fair ASW pursuit ship, and got the job done rapidly and effectively. ? Then some comments on Francis conclusion: ? ¡°°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õ ? - The result of the battle is disappointing for both sides, since both Chile and Argentina did loose a unit. In final analysis, it is a minor and costly victory for Argentina since the mission (escorting the amphibious ships to the landing point on Wollaston island) is accomplished. ¡°
? L.Leclerc: True, loosing a destroyer to gain the Wollaston was a heavy price.? But, as the scenario was played, my destroyers had little awareness of what was happening below (speaking of the torpedo).
¡°2. With hindsight, it appears that scenario was poorly designed. It would have been better to use US and Russian units from the published supplements. While all the units in the game are in ¡°America¡¯s Navies¡±, it is probable that the submarine and destroyers in Chilean / Argentinian service were subject to some modifications. Moreover, it was not sound to set up a scenario in such restricted and shallow waters. Last, the scenario was not balanced. The poor old Simpson was no match for the three Argentinian destroyers supported by a Tracker.¡± ? L.Leclerc: Absolutely, but this scenario was also very much all of nothing.? As said above, if the Tracker sonobuoy placement and detection had been less effective, I wouldn¡¯t have detected the sub, and it would have closed the distance without interference.? Replace the Simpson by an Oberon, gives the Chilean more maritime patrol and/or a light air attack capability and the scenario would have run differently.? On my perspective, the interest of the scenario was everything else that was yet to come (opposed amphibious assault, potential air attack, then maritime patrol around the Wollaston).? The scenario seem to be more interesting as a whole campaign. ? - There was nothing wrong with the players, who had few opportunities to shine. The one in command of the Tracker won the day by setting up a good ASW patrol and being lucky: one of his sonobuoys landed very close to the Simpson. Thereafter, it was a question of time before Simpson was sunk.
? L.Leclerc: Fully agree, Yannick had it all, and that point alone give us the game.? ? - The aim of the game was to set up a simple ASW scenario that we could play fast, in order to learn about submarine / antisubmarine tactics, and the best way to run a PBEM game. I am afraid it was not 100% successful. We did not play that fast, and we had little opportunities to learn about submarine / ASW tactics.
? L.Leclerc:? The layout of the scenario wasn¡¯t lending well for a ASW match.? And I don¡¯t think the Argentine had a proper ASW platform available (Drummond corvettes do they have passive sonar?).? And the scenario depended solely on the Tracker, and possibly it could be a better way of playing it with the Argentinan playing a pair of Tracker while the Chilean having a single sub, or a pair of sub.? ? ? - I am afraid there is no ¡®simple¡¯ scenario for Harpoon. Running a game is always complex. There are always a lot of dice rolls : ? Simpson had two sonar, and 6 targets, so there were each turn 12 passive sonar detection rolls for the Simpson ? The ARA had 3 destroyers using active sonar, so there were three more active sonar detection detection rolls, plus 3 more for AIR. ? Since active sonar could be detected by passive sonar, there were six more detection rolls for Simpson. ? The Tracker could use 4 passive sonobuoys each turn, so there were four more detection rolls. ? Total : 28 detection rolls, not counting MAD, attempts to identify the target and TMA. I understand that I am responsible of the situation and should have elaborated a scenario with less units.
? L.Leclerc: Yes, ASW is a complex and difficult subject, and while Harpoon describe it well, playing this on table or by email become difficult.? That¡¯s the kind of thing that could be well managed by a spreadsheet and some macros to run the dices.? I did similarly complex spreadsheet in the past and could come up with something when things will calm out.? Interested? ? - The way I run PBEM games does not work well for tactical games and needs to be improved. Generating kmz files requires too much operations and is too slow. I am working on this.
? L.Leclerc: Do you need help?? Can you describe the process? ? - There were issues with the way the spirit of game is understood. It is once again my fault since I set up a game that let the problem happen. It¡¯s not a problem however, since we can think and discuss about the problem. In short, the player in command of the Task Group should have acted as Captain Barbuzzi, CO of General Belgrano. When the ASW chase began, he acted as the CO of each DD. In theory, he should instead have given orders to the DD by TBS, but: ? It was probably not clear for him; my fault. ? As commander of a cruiser lacking ASW weapons, he was not in position to direct the chase of Simpson, since it was logical that the Belgrano stays out of the action. ? Even if the Belgrano did not run away, it¡¯s not practical to run an ASW action with a player sending messages by VHF and the referee commanding the 3 DD. It¡¯s necessary to have a player for each warship involved. ? If so, the Argentinian team grows to 5 players, too much for what was initially designed for a simple and fast game. ? So, what is the best way to do things ?
? L.Leclerc: ?Well, having all seven spreadsheet every turns to revise/update and send back to you brought me to believe I ¡°controlled¡± all seven ships, where the Captain Barbuzzi was more a secondary player not really involved in the hunt, while I also took the role of the destroyer captain.? I understand you want to get and obtain the feeling of a commanding officer in that context, but afterall, we are only a few, doing this in our free time, with some knowledge (limited in my case) of maritime warfare. Finally, to run a game effectively and rapidly, you need fewer players and possibly them running more role also. Otherwise, you involve more players, and/or take more role yourself, which complicate dramatically the complexity and duration of turns and game. ? ? - The scenario shows ¡®holes¡¯ in the rules / my understanding of the rules. Many, many questions and observations arose during the game. Among them: ? It is not clear whether active sonar can detect torpedoes (and how if it¡¯s possible).
? L.Leclerc: From my understanding, the SQS-4 operating a 10kHz, with speed of sound at 1510m/s, the distance between sound wavefront is 151mm and thus the minimum size of detectable object. Same logic apply to radar and laser.? Thus the SQS-4 could be able to sense a torpedo, but the returning echo would be very small thus maximum range detection for a torpedo should also be much smaller. ?With a signature roughly 225 time smaller (95m vs 6.2m), the (Reference?: , page 32), the maximum detection range should be about a quarter of what is normally achievable on a submarine, thus 625 yards for 50% detection chance on a torpedo, while the SQS-4 can achieve 50% at 2500 yards.? Also, in Harpoon 3 ships databook, the SQS-4 had a very short range passive mode, thus allowing the detection of torpedo in the vincinity and/or active sonar used by the enemy. ? ? - ? The management of time is sometimes problematic. Sometimes, a Tactical Turn is too long and too many conflicting things happen in less than 3 minutes.
? L.Leclerc: What you did was excellent and worked pretty well, if not for the fact that I could hardly adjust my course to do ASW mortar launch. For a PBeM game, you don¡¯t have alternative. ? - ? With no passive sonar and no AIR, the DD did not know that two Mk 27 torpedoes guided by active sonar were in the water. Normal ?
? L.Leclerc: As stated above, the destroyer should have detected torpedo going very close and at least give us some awareness of what was happening. But a 12 knot electric torpedo should be very difficult to detect. ? - ? It is not clear how many targets a sonar can track at once.
? L.Leclerc: Look at the reference above, on page 32, the display of the QHB sonar, becoming the SQS-10 then the SQS-4, should be very similar.? With human involved without electronic assistance, I would tend to a limit of 4 tracks at once. ? - ? The submarine ended damaged on the sea bed (50 m depth). Could the DD still detect him with active sonar ?
? L.Leclerc: Would depend of the seabed.? With a shallow flat sand zone, a submarine would provide some echo.? Then the coming Alouette would have provided MAD detection capability allowing the detection of the sub. ?Grenades and mortars would have followed. ? - Could the torpedoes still attack him ? ? The torpedo re-attacks did not work well with my home rules. I had to break movements in 15 seconds increments.
? 9. The rules are complex and it¡¯s not easy to use them correctly. I made lots of mistakes during the game. Among them: ? I forgot, during the first turns, that Simpson could use both sonars at once. ? I forgot that torpedoes did not mask other targets. The sonobuoys should have given more precise data to the Tracker during the last turns of the game. It had however little consequence on the game. ? I was not rigorous with the launching of torpedoes, which started moving during the turn they were launched. Actually, Harpoon v rules state that the launch takes place in the Planned fire phase, at the end of the end, and that the torpedoes start moving during the movement phase of the next tactical turn. ? Simpson should not have fired a salvo of 2 active homing torpedoes spaced 5¡ã. There must be 15¡ã between them to avoid interference. ? I failed to apply correctly the rule for torpedoes reattacks. The torpedoes should have traveled 1000 yards on a straight line before beginning the reattack maneuver. ? L.Leclerc: Understood.? Don¡¯t be too hard on yourself, running all this by PBEM is incredibly complicated, and you do it pretty well. Hope you¡¯ll enjoy continuing doing this, and hope you¡¯ll still want me as a player. ? Salutations, ? Laurent Leclerc ? ? Sorry, I forgot the English version of the text. The Harpoon Scenario 'Operation Soberania' (now called The Battle of Wollaston Island) is finished. The scenario and after action report have been uploaded to the 'Files' section of the discussion group. The scenario is in French but the AAR have been written in English, so the English speaking people can read it - and hopefully enjoy it. As usual, comments are welcome. ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Le?jeu. 1 avr. 2021 ¨¤?12:31, Francis Marliere via <marlieref= [email protected]> a ¨¦crit?: la partie Harpoon Operation Soberania (ou la bataille de Wollaston) vient de se terminer. Je vais d¨¦poser le sc¨¦nario et le compte-rendu dans la partie 'Files' du groupe de discussion. J'attends vos remarques, commentaires et propositions avec impatience.
|
Bonjour ¨¤ tous,
j'ai d¨¦pos¨¦ dans la section 'Files' le mod¨¨le d'interface de jeu pour Long Lance (qui servira de base pour l'interface Harpoon ¨¤ venir). Pour l'instant elle est en anglais mais elle sera traduite d'ici peu.
N'h¨¦sitez pas ¨¤ me faire par de vos remarques.
Francis
Gents,
I have uploaded the latest version of the interface for Long Lance.
It's still possible to improve the document before the game starts, so comments and suggestions are welcome.
Francis
|
Re: Op. Soberania / La bataille de Wollaston
Sorry, I forgot the English version of the text.
The Harpoon Scenario 'Operation Soberania' (now called The Battle of Wollaston Island) is finished. The scenario and after action report have been uploaded to the 'Files' section of the discussion group. The scenario is in French but the AAR have been written in English, so the English speaking people can read it - and hopefully enjoy it.
As usual, comments are welcome.
Francis
Le?jeu. 1 avr. 2021 ¨¤?12:31, Francis Marliere via <marlieref= [email protected]> a ¨¦crit?: Bonjour ¨¤ tous,
la partie Harpoon Operation Soberania (ou la bataille de Wollaston) vient de se terminer. Je vais d¨¦poser le sc¨¦nario et le compte-rendu dans la partie 'Files' du groupe de discussion. J'attends vos remarques, commentaires et propositions avec impatience.
Francis
|
The following files have been uploaded to
the Files area of the [email protected] group.
By: Francis Marliere <marlieref@...>
|
Op. Soberania / La bataille de Wollaston
Bonjour ¨¤ tous,
la partie Harpoon Operation Soberania (ou la bataille de Wollaston) vient de se terminer. Je vais d¨¦poser le sc¨¦nario et le compte-rendu dans la partie 'Files' du groupe de discussion. J'attends vos remarques, commentaires et propositions avec impatience.
Francis
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Sounds interesting. What spaces are available?
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021, 19:03 Francis Marliere, < marlieref@...> wrote: Operation Mirmillon is an operation of the French Navy against Libya in 1984 that remained secret for almost 30 years. In late 1984, France was withdrawing forces from Chad. The French Navy sent a CVBG in the Mediterranean in case things went wrong and Qaddafi attacked Chad. The historical plan was either to strike Misratah airbase or to send Special Forces sink warships in harbor. Eventually, Qaddafi did not attack Chad and operation Mirmillon was just a show of force. The scenario assumes that Libya tries to invade Chad and that tensions rise between France and Libya.
Hi Francis,
What's Mirmillon about?
Stephen
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 07:28, Francis Marliere < marlieref@...> wrote: Sorry to answer late, I did not see your message. I am sorry but this game is running for a while and it's not possible to accomodate another player.
I will probably organize a follow-up game when this one finishes. Anyway, you can also join the other Harpoon game (Operation Mirmillon).
Francis
Is there any space available?
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, 12:43 Francis Marliere, < marlieref@...> wrote: Yes, it is, or may be it's better to say it was designed as, a simple ASW scenario opposing a Chilean submarine and an Argentinina Task Force. The aims are to gain experience with submarine and antisubmarine warfare and to improve the way I run PBEM games.
Hi Francis,
Is this a Harpoon game?
Stephen
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 10:56, Francis Marliere < marlieref@...> wrote: Bonjour,
je viens d'envoyer les compte-rendus pour le tour 1642-1645. Svp, envoyez-moi au plus vite les ordres du tour suivant. On teste ce tour-ci les ordres au format texte uniquement.
Francis
|
Sounds interesting. What spaces are available?
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021, 19:03 Francis Marliere, < marlieref@...> wrote: Operation Mirmillon is an operation of the French Navy against Libya in 1984 that remained secret for almost 30 years. In late 1984, France was withdrawing forces from Chad. The French Navy sent a CVBG in the Mediterranean in case things went wrong and Qaddafi attacked Chad. The historical plan was either to strike Misratah airbase or to send Special Forces sink warships in harbor. Eventually, Qaddafi did not attack Chad and operation Mirmillon was just a show of force. The scenario assumes that Libya tries to invade Chad and that tensions rise between France and Libya.
Hi Francis,
What's Mirmillon about?
Stephen
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 07:28, Francis Marliere < marlieref@...> wrote: Sorry to answer late, I did not see your message. I am sorry but this game is running for a while and it's not possible to accomodate another player.
I will probably organize a follow-up game when this one finishes. Anyway, you can also join the other Harpoon game (Operation Mirmillon).
Francis
Is there any space available?
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, 12:43 Francis Marliere, < marlieref@...> wrote: Yes, it is, or may be it's better to say it was designed as, a simple ASW scenario opposing a Chilean submarine and an Argentinina Task Force. The aims are to gain experience with submarine and antisubmarine warfare and to improve the way I run PBEM games.
Hi Francis,
Is this a Harpoon game?
Stephen
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 10:56, Francis Marliere < marlieref@...> wrote: Bonjour,
je viens d'envoyer les compte-rendus pour le tour 1642-1645. Svp, envoyez-moi au plus vite les ordres du tour suivant. On teste ce tour-ci les ordres au format texte uniquement.
Francis
|
Operation Mirmillon is an operation of the French Navy against Libya in 1984 that remained secret for almost 30 years. In late 1984, France was withdrawing forces from Chad. The French Navy sent a CVBG in the Mediterranean in case things went wrong and Qaddafi attacked Chad. The historical plan was either to strike Misratah airbase or to send Special Forces sink warships in harbor. Eventually, Qaddafi did not attack Chad and operation Mirmillon was just a show of force. The scenario assumes that Libya tries to invade Chad and that tensions rise between France and Libya.
Hi Francis,
What's Mirmillon about?
Stephen
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 07:28, Francis Marliere < marlieref@...> wrote: Sorry to answer late, I did not see your message. I am sorry but this game is running for a while and it's not possible to accomodate another player.
I will probably organize a follow-up game when this one finishes. Anyway, you can also join the other Harpoon game (Operation Mirmillon).
Francis
Is there any space available?
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, 12:43 Francis Marliere, < marlieref@...> wrote: Yes, it is, or may be it's better to say it was designed as, a simple ASW scenario opposing a Chilean submarine and an Argentinina Task Force. The aims are to gain experience with submarine and antisubmarine warfare and to improve the way I run PBEM games.
Hi Francis,
Is this a Harpoon game?
Stephen
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 10:56, Francis Marliere < marlieref@...> wrote: Bonjour,
je viens d'envoyer les compte-rendus pour le tour 1642-1645. Svp, envoyez-moi au plus vite les ordres du tour suivant. On teste ce tour-ci les ordres au format texte uniquement.
Francis
|
Hi Francis,
What's Mirmillon about?
Stephen
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 07:28, Francis Marliere < marlieref@...> wrote: Sorry to answer late, I did not see your message. I am sorry but this game is running for a while and it's not possible to accomodate another player.
I will probably organize a follow-up game when this one finishes. Anyway, you can also join the other Harpoon game (Operation Mirmillon).
Francis
Is there any space available?
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, 12:43 Francis Marliere, < marlieref@...> wrote: Yes, it is, or may be it's better to say it was designed as, a simple ASW scenario opposing a Chilean submarine and an Argentinina Task Force. The aims are to gain experience with submarine and antisubmarine warfare and to improve the way I run PBEM games.
Hi Francis,
Is this a Harpoon game?
Stephen
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 10:56, Francis Marliere < marlieref@...> wrote: Bonjour,
je viens d'envoyer les compte-rendus pour le tour 1642-1645. Svp, envoyez-moi au plus vite les ordres du tour suivant. On teste ce tour-ci les ordres au format texte uniquement.
Francis
|
Sorry to answer late, I did not see your message. I am sorry but this game is running for a while and it's not possible to accomodate another player.
I will probably organize a follow-up game when this one finishes. Anyway, you can also join the other Harpoon game (Operation Mirmillon).
Francis
Is there any space available?
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, 12:43 Francis Marliere, < marlieref@...> wrote: Yes, it is, or may be it's better to say it was designed as, a simple ASW scenario opposing a Chilean submarine and an Argentinina Task Force. The aims are to gain experience with submarine and antisubmarine warfare and to improve the way I run PBEM games.
Hi Francis,
Is this a Harpoon game?
Stephen
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 10:56, Francis Marliere < marlieref@...> wrote: Bonjour,
je viens d'envoyer les compte-rendus pour le tour 1642-1645. Svp, envoyez-moi au plus vite les ordres du tour suivant. On teste ce tour-ci les ordres au format texte uniquement.
Francis
|
Is there any space available?
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, 12:43 Francis Marliere, < marlieref@...> wrote: Yes, it is, or may be it's better to say it was designed as, a simple ASW scenario opposing a Chilean submarine and an Argentinina Task Force. The aims are to gain experience with submarine and antisubmarine warfare and to improve the way I run PBEM games.
Hi Francis,
Is this a Harpoon game?
Stephen
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 10:56, Francis Marliere < marlieref@...> wrote: Bonjour,
je viens d'envoyer les compte-rendus pour le tour 1642-1645. Svp, envoyez-moi au plus vite les ordres du tour suivant. On teste ce tour-ci les ordres au format texte uniquement.
Francis
|
Yes, it is, or may be it's better to say it was designed as, a simple ASW scenario opposing a Chilean submarine and an Argentinina Task Force. The aims are to gain experience with submarine and antisubmarine warfare and to improve the way I run PBEM games.
Hi Francis,
Is this a Harpoon game?
Stephen
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 10:56, Francis Marliere < marlieref@...> wrote: Bonjour,
je viens d'envoyer les compte-rendus pour le tour 1642-1645. Svp, envoyez-moi au plus vite les ordres du tour suivant. On teste ce tour-ci les ordres au format texte uniquement.
Francis
|
Hi Francis,
Is this a Harpoon game?
Stephen
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 10:56, Francis Marliere < marlieref@...> wrote: Bonjour,
je viens d'envoyer les compte-rendus pour le tour 1642-1645. Svp, envoyez-moi au plus vite les ordres du tour suivant. On teste ce tour-ci les ordres au format texte uniquement.
Francis
|
Bonjour,
je viens d'envoyer les compte-rendus pour le tour 1642-1645. Svp, envoyez-moi au plus vite les ordres du tour suivant. On teste ce tour-ci les ordres au format texte uniquement.
Francis
|
Bonjour,
je viens de g¨¦rer le tour 1639-1642 de la partie Harpoon 'Op¨¦ration Soberania'. Je remercie par avance les joueurs concern¨¦s de m'envoyer les ordres du tour suivant (1642-1645) au plus vite.
Bon courage ¨¤ tous,
Francis
|
Bonsoir Francis,
si je comprends bien, tu vas g¨¦n¨¦rer 2 pages pour chaque nouveau tour et enrichir le doc au fur et ¨¤ mesure,
tout en gardant les derni¨¨res pages qui servent de r¨¦sum¨¦ ?
Arnaud
|
Stephen Hunter