[kbosak]

Originally Posted by emsoy

The scenario setup & force disposition looks great. Curious about what your background is hehe

Theoretical physicist 36yrs old. Full civilian. UAV designer. Submerged Harpooner since nineties.

Originally Posted by emsoy

...Kolonka range...

Thank you those explanations are 100% ok. Except ONE thing: most people will complain, since official figures are never taking account rare cases. This should be something that doesn't makes think a retired navy recruit 'what a kid designed that, it is more than our radars was'

Originally Posted by emsoy

The Kolonka in the Command database is not a search sensor, it is slaved to
other sensors and is only used to ID targets detected by those sensors.

In reality it is not how it works. It is all-around backup system with which in practice you can destroy floating mine from 2nm, terrorist RIB or something. It is the worst thing for shoting down AA and certainly not aircrafts. Do you know what Kołonka-221 is? A steel frame, round nest with optical sights not better than most binoculars, not even stabilised. No way you can spot anything flying from distance unless the mount is 100% stable.
It is a very primitive contraption, not a real optical system with fancy LCD.
Here it is, 660 class, Kolonks is above AK-630M (this steel cylinder-shaped frame)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_Corvette.PNG
BTW I was mistaken, there is indeed quad strela-2 on class 660, between kolonka and AK-630M

Originally Posted by emsoy

If slaved to a radar at distant targets, it can still see contrails for targets at up to 40nm.

Slaving it to radar? 'John, south west, south west' you can hear on intercom. The guy rotates the mount and tries to think on estimating target length and guess its distance.

Originally Posted by emsoy

Thanks! This is very useful information! Good info on Polish platforms has been very hard to come by.

I would like to be able to edit some details manually since a list is HUGE.
Maybe a smaller sub-database.
Take a look:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-176
German tarntul 1.
30mm gatlings on the rear, but Bass Tilt fire control radar on top cannot direct strictly into rear 180deg heading.

Originally Posted by emsoy

Do you have more info on the Grom system?

Editing access can be a bit difficult, but if you send me a list of the changes you want to see made I'll make them here and pass on to you for approval.

Originally Posted by emsoy

12nm is the max practical range for most systems, beyond that accuracy drops sharply. What systems/ammo would you want to use and what ranges would you like to fire at?

Tried to use Turkey Firting 155/L52 howitzer simulating polish Krab battery,
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Krab

Those things fire into 35km range by design. Distance from polish border to Baltijsk is 23km = 14Nm, S-300 is 5km to the south from that, one coudl also use bosted 122mm polish MLRS to 35-45km, or czech DANA guns. If a small raid is possible, a few short-lived suppressions are possible, or not, depending on ground situtation. Certainly those woudl be able to defend polish coast, keep in mind russians have all 130mm and polish ships have 76mm so evaluating if anything could be done with field arty is interesting by itself purely for shore bombardment scenario, not intending to shot with howitzers onti shipos maybe except direct dire from a few Nm.

Originally Posted by emsoy

Yeah this is a very difficult call... We also had complains when AI-controlled ships did _not_ use their SARH SAMs in anti-ship mode. So...

Cmoon, this is for triggerhappy ppl. The last thing you spend on the Baltic is 80% of SAMs. You simply turn around and run, hoping they send some fat flying targets after you in order to improve balance of power..

Originally Posted by emsoy

That is correct, MANPADs in Command are not capable against missiles.

Generally agree in 99%.
Unless it is a smokingy 1st generation crap, maybe. You can see it roaring at 200 m AGL, like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raduga_KS-1_Komet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-15_Termit
Since those are NOT much different from half-scale MIG-15 at low altitude.

Originally Posted by emsoy

The Goalkeeper has 20% longer range against air targets and 50% against surface targets in Command. Do you think the difference should be larger?

For sure. They were marketing it claiming for years that it has been proven that you need many hits with 20mm in order to get hard kill on a missile, while a single DU shell from gkeeper guarantees warhead penetration (which is in a middle of the missiles, fron are batteries, seekers, guidance). This meant that Sunburn woudl get through even with multiple hits.
Using TNT equiv for shellsss... that have PURELY kinetic energy... 35mm Oerlikon is the smalles with explosive warhead, and even then subammo is used kinetic way, narrow cone. in calibers up to 30mm in most platforms it is pure kinetic thing, the equations I have posted.
Kinetic energy Ek=m*v^2/2.
Destructive power=Ek*ammo_coeff, Goalkeeper has extra bonus due to APFSDS Du shells (it is GAU-8 from A-10 Warthog, in fact. Can pierce all tanks from above).
So this is only analysis about a single bullet.
The rest is MOA precision (1MOA for goalkeeper and most non-gatlings, some 3MOA for phalanx, armor of the target (ignored, a missile), deflection probability(ignored, a missile) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_angle
all this multiplied by missile cross section gives number of hits.

Whatever you do I think things should not be made by US style wishful thinking that Phalanx shots Sunburn with 85% from 1Nm and the carcass is not even damaging the target - lowering kill probability based on kinetic bullet energy looks like simplest thing to implement correctly, withotu throwing a ton of bizarre knobs into database of several thousands armaments. There a few hits per any misisle in order to 20mm to be effective.

Some polish navy sources:
-rendered movies:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa9yFleOhkzkfPVQoNZUhwQ
-equipment
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marynarka_Wojenna

Some imbalance problems: Garpun surface search radar has longer range even OTH!) than Sea Giraffe 150 on 660 Orkan. The problem is that Tarantul is 1980 russian equipment, Sea Giraffe is 2005 swedish tech. What is the chance... What you did is that you took passive mode range for Plank Shave radar, when one ship illuminates and the others receive. The problem is, with such a crude ECM modelling as we have in games, such use evaporates the ship that is closer to enemy and it is a marginal application. Certainly cannot imagine more surface range from that than from AN-SPS55 on OH perry.

Polish manpads GROM:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grom_%2...w_rakietowy%29
Is heavily modified and improved IGLA1 (motor, seeker, guidance, well everything but airframe).
Quoted range 5500m (3Nm), ceiling 3500m 1.9Nm
has built-in IFF of unknown range.
Max 13..14s flight time.
Engagement envelope: incoming target 400m/s, chasing 320m/s, AVERAGE flight speed 680m/s, max around 800m/s +/- 100m/s.
Here you have russian manpads speeds and ranges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla
Those systems have in theory min range something like 500m, min altitudes agains helos iaround 10m GL.


----------------------
Polish platform differences to bring them to real life:
660 Orkan [P.660] 2013: (three)

*Remove all sonars, ST240 Toadfish.
*CRM-200 is being easily detected in the game, while in face it has some
0.01W emission power and 10-20Nm practical ranges.
http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/a...-morski-rm-100
http://www.pit.edu.pl/index.php?p=oferta&id=29&idk=
'CRM means Silent Naval Radar'
*Should put 4xdouble RBS-15 Mk3 mounts, not 4x1.
*AKM-630 mounts excludes frontal 30deg
*AK-176M excludes rear 35deg
*Quad Grom manpads excludes frontal 40deg
*Grom manpads near the bridge, 180deg port and 180deg stdb

OH Perry x2:
*Remove all ammo fro standard arm and phalanx mounts
*Change torpedoes to triple MU-90 mount and one-two reloads for onboard Kaman Seasprite

Kaszub x1:
*Sonar is http://cmtm.pg.gda.pl/files/2012/04/...ja-opisowa.pdf
now called MG-322DSP, and always had circular radiation pattern, not as modelled

Tarantul x2:
*They should be Tarantul-1 without sonar, without ECM, with radar certainly not OTH

ORP Orzel 877R x1:
*replace SA-N-8 mast launcher by Grom manpads.
*not sure, if they have any ASW torpedos, those are TEST-71 x4 in certain loadouts

Kobben x4:
*remove all NT-37C asw torpedoes
*they use Tp 613 type, submarine version

NOTE: I have some problems understanding why there are dual entries for both 613 and 617 torpedoes, with vastly different range but same speed. I have a book on that with curves and so many data but at the end, it is just approx simulation so the idea is, why double entries in database.

How one can limit battery chargning state and fuel in the scenario?
Woudl be best to limit max rnages and carrying capacity on all those submarines to about 60% of original state.