Naval Combat & Winchester

So, I've been playing Command : Modern Operations and, having no idea how it works I've been doing I guess like weapon tests. For example, Kirov vs Ticonderoga. I find the results particularly interesting as this software is used for NATO simulations, but also because they were so NOT what I expected and raise a few questions.

I'll concentrate on the first example I mentioned. I plopped the two ships down just over curve of earth and started steaming toward each other, understandably expecting a very lopsided engagement.

After contact, the first unexpected event was the Kirov ripple firing its entire complement of ASMs. This is not a given as I have seen ships fire one or two before in later tests. I shrugged, expecting the Tico to get obliterated, but a few moments later it proceeded to ripple fire a massive barrage of interceptors, 30-40 attempting to double tap each inbound missile.

To my surprise, the Tico successfully shot down 15 of 16 inbounds. Of course, that 16th that squeaked through was a doozy and crippled the Tico, but didn't sink it... and then... what? The Kirov was winchester. Now, in game, I closed to gun range which I quickly determined was futile and finished the Tico with a S-300 or two. But it makes me ask several questions.

Firstly, are defenses really this effective? It seems it's a lot easier to build a halfway decent interceptor than a ASM with a reasonable chance of success.

Secondly, what would actually happen in a winchester scenario like that? I was one interceptor from having two warships glaring at each other at close range. Would somebody really close to guns? Such would result in guaranteed damage to both ships, they ain't exactly armored these days. Would they use a ''next best substitute'' like I did with the S-300? Or would they simply shrug, say they gave it their best shot and go home, ala the first ironclad battles?

After taking a hit like that the Tico would be retiring off the field, the Kirov won that fight and the Tico would be ineffective at that point.

You had an entire Ticonderoga's battery focused on a single attack axis. This should demonstrate to you that single vector and limited attacks against the kind of defenses that are present are going to have a hell of a time getting through. You have to overwhelm it with multiple attack axes, and sheer numbers of missiles. 16 is not remotely enough.

To put it another way, you just played rock paper scissors, the kirov played rock, the tico played paper, and the kirov won. Thats a win against a hard counter, either bring more rocks and overwhelm it, or... go get some scissors (submarine) and kill it that way.

Also the Kirovs deck guns will make mincemeat of a surface combatant, soviet surface guns are murderously good in that kind of scenario.

The Ticonderoga isn't really an equivalent surface combatant to the Kirov either, this is not a peer v peer engagement even though both are cruisers. The Ticonderoga is a defensive asset, not a surface engagement offensive asset. The Kirov is 100% a surface engagement combatant.

If you want equivalencies or balance of fire, the proper opponent would be a forrestal and its air wing... not the Ticonderoga.

the Kirov for reference is why the Iowa's got reactivated in the 80's...

If you want to get into doctrine and what a soviet captain in that situation should be doing now that his big punch is gone... He should be steaming at flank to close the distance and get his incredibly lethal deck gun capability to bear. The Tico should be running like hell because she is severely hurt and will not last long in that kind of engagement.

The other question is why the Kirov would unleash his best ship killing capability at a purely defensive opponent, again this is like shooting your longbows directly at the opponents castle wall (and still winning) as opposed to at their troops on the wall, or in front of the wall, or really anything else...

The Ticonderoga at this point is probably effectively out of the war for multiple months, and now requires resources to protect and repair, all of which is probly a bigger effect than actually sinking it would be.

No, no, I know a Kirov and Tico are completely different categories of warship. I was just surprised with the volume of fire both engaged in and the effectiveness of the SM-2s against wave skimming supersonic ''ship killers''. I understand it's not a particularly realistic scenario in many terms, however a Kirov attacking a CVBG will indeed be trying to batter through escorting defenses. I just REALLY expected those to get through a lot easier than they did. As you say, it emphasises the importance of vecroring attacks and sheer volume.

I was also really curious how that scenario would go, obviously the Tico would want to retreat after taking a hit like that, and it seems reasonable the Kirov would allow it so as to prolong resource attrition. In the case both were still combat effective, your position is they would indeed engage in a gun fight, though? Very interesting.

I have read a lot about the ships themselves, but seeing a simulated battle play out raisee some questions and possible scenarios I had never considered. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts

-edit

Regarding attack axises, in a limited engagement like this, radar seek time and number of FCRs would be an issue, right? Too many vectors and not enough radars to guide enough weapons to intercept inbounds

It really doesnt behoove either combatant to hold back an this scenario (or really any scenario) just think, if those 16 missiles from the kirov are strung out 2 at a time, then the Tico is only dealing with 2 at a time sequentially, with plenty of time between each pair.

However if all 16 cross its max engagement range at the same time, if it can only shoot a limited number at a time, the survivors will keep getting closer.

As for the tico unleashing everything at once, it really behooves it to for the same reason. 1-1 is a bad rate when you really cant let a single one of those missiles through, so much better to double or triple up and increase your odds of killing each missile. Even if this runs the tico out of weapons, it stopped the attack, which is its job.

What makes you think a game's representation of such a scenario has anything to do with reality? :)

I mean for a start you could ask why the Kirov only had 16 SSMs to fire, when the real one has 20 :D .

What makes you think a game's representation of such a scenario has anything to do with reality? :)

 

I mean for a start you could ask why the Kirov only had 16 SSMs to fire, when the real one has 20 :D .

#1 I guess you're really disappointed in DCS then. Also, in general I would not attribute much to a game, except for ones that go to considerable detail like DCS or CMO, both of which are used as a basis for military simulations.

#2 My bad. I was imagining the Moskva from DCS, which has two rows of eight. The Kirov uses VLS so my count was doubtless off.

#1 I guess you're really disappointed in DCS then.

Yes :)

Also, in general I would not attribute much to a game, except for ones that go to considerable detail like DCS or CMO, both of which are used as a basis for military simulations.

I don't know anything about CMO other than your own account for it above, so cannot comment on that. But I certainly don't think DCS goes into "considerably detail" when it comes to the naval stuff.

#2 My bad. I was imagining the Moskva from DCS, which has two rows of eight. The Kirov uses VLS so my count was doubtless off.

Ok - I thought you had counted the launches and my point was that if they made such a basic oversight in regards to the load, then it probably shouldn't be taken at face value for the much more nitty-gritty details about the systems involved.

Anyway, the P-700 system on the Kirov class is not really VLS - although installed below deck, it uses inclined launchers like most Soviet SSM designs.

I'm very new to CMO and can't comment too much on accuracy. They are supposed to be used by NATO for simulations, and their detail seems minute. Like the Kirov had a dozen radars, several sonars, and just overwhelming reams of data just on the sensors. I can't pretend to know what most of it means. I can barely manage rudimentary actions. I was pretty impressed watching F-15s and MiG-29s dogfight in 3d, though. I am sure they're less detailed by a mile than DCS, not being focused on that theatre exclusively, but they behaved a LOT as I expected and ..... Uh... the AI seemed better pilots than ours in maneuvering and responding to missile launches, as well as working together.

About DCS, no it has very little detail about ships, obviously, but it is known for extremely detailed aircraft which is what I was referring to. While imperfect, it's a very reasonable ''gauging stick'' for what the aircraft are capable of generally.

I did not know that, but seems reasonable. They look like VLS, but I can see due to dimensions of the hull why they would simply be recessed, angled launchers.

I'm very new to CMO and can't comment too much on accuracy. They are supposed to be used by NATO for simulations, and their detail seems minute. Like the Kirov had a dozen radars, several sonars, and just overwhelming reams of data just on the sensors. I can't pretend to know what most of it means. I can barely manage rudimentary actions. I was pretty impressed watching F-15s and MiG-29s dogfight in 3d, though. I am sure they're less detailed by a mile than DCS, not being focused on that theatre exclusively, but they behaved a LOT as I expected and ..... Uh... the AI seemed better pilots than ours in maneuvering and responding to missile launches, as well as working together.

Sounds interesting :)

About DCS, no it has very little detail about ships, obviously, but it is known for extremely detailed aircraft which is what I was referring to. While imperfect, it's a very reasonable ''gauging stick'' for what the aircraft are capable of generally.

Oh yes I agree - DCS it is primarily a flight simulator and I never really expected naval warfare to reach the same level of sophistication as the aerial warfare, but there is(to say the least) room for improvements......even in comparison with DCS' ground warfare.

I did not know that, but seems reasonable. They look like VLS, but I can see due to dimensions of the hull why they would simply be recessed, angled launchers.

Yes. The P-700 system was originally designed for submarines - more specifically Pr. 949("Oscar class) SSGNs and one of the primary requirements was the ability to launch from a submerged state, which involved flooding the launch blocks with seawater to equalize pressure(like with torpedo tubes) prior to launch. Interestingly this procedure remains for the system when installed on surface ships :) .