Sea Power Tactics: Overcoming the Epic Kirov Challenge!

[@christopherchartier3017]

On the “Aim-7E’s being crappy” note, yes their reliability was not good. Although the reason behind this in Vietnam was mostly due to how they were stored, the lower altitudes where the radar would fail to pick up the enemy due to ground clutter, and pilots trying to launch on maneuvering fighter sized targets out of launch parameters. Over the ocean at high altitudes against a target like a bomber which is also at high altitude, that aim-7E would have literally no problems tracking unless countermeasures were introduced

[@ramjb]

I remember watching a video some time ago about the history of the Sparrow, and I recall they mentioned there was some kind of problem with the way it was released, that broke some part of it. Can't remember well, but IIRC it was mentioned that it a problem they didn't detect until the mid-80s...so...yeah... if that's true that's yet another reason why it was not the best missile ever.

[@jeffhenry6365]

Thanks, I appreciate the effort you put into your videos.

[@ramjb]

Thanks for your kind words! It truly motivates me to keep creating and improving my videos!

[@MyBjornE]

Always nice to see how you play. Will give myself the bigger scenarios, as soon as it is possible to save the game, so you don't have to play them in one stretch

[@ramjb]

Yeah I wish the save option was there, too. Glad you enjoyed the video! :)

[@DyingCr0w]

Using those a6's and the sub's harpoons in a (somewhat) coordinated strike was a very good call. Still, you got absurdly lucky.

[@ramjb]

Well, there was luck involved, no denying it. Same as in the last episode I got hit by an AS-6 no matter what I did, in this one I might have gotten lucky (in particular the single hit that sank the Kynda). But what matters is if I put myself in the best position possible to be lucky. And I think I did... :)

[@christopherchartier3017]

Remember, there was also that glitch

[@tjh8402]

Well done on this mission so far, especially considering the problems with the planes. I saw another KZbin gamer have to attempt this multiple times because the Scott kept being sunk. I’m gonna have to watch you and him against each other to try to figure out what made the difference because you struggled a lot less than he did with this mission

[@ramjb]

yeah, I saw Stealth's video too. Stealth is a good CC, but he is not very familiar with the doctrine, tactics, weapons and platforms of the cold war and it shows in many of his videos. I happen to be an aficionado aswell, but I have read a lot about XX century warfare, equipment, etc...and have played lots of Harpoon and CMO in the past. The answer to what caused the different outcomes I think stems out of two main reasons. 1- I got a bit lucky. You always need a bit of luck in SAM-vs-Missile scenarios. For instance in my last video, the Sunda Straits one, I got horribly unlucky even while I did nothing wrong. in this one I did things right and I also got RNG on my side. 2- Luck alone is not enough, you need to max out your defensive measures to also max out your chances to shoot incoming vampires down. In this particular case, I think the main reason why he always got smashed, and I didn't, was my defensive formation. Sticking two escorts out, focusing them down the bearing of the future incoming missiles and tightening the formation gave me better and longer reach for the SM1s from those ships, while providing a much stronger interlocking defensive fire for the seaskimmers in final approach. Also...- "Best chaff ever". That also helped :D

[@tjh8402]

@@ramjb i’m really glad you saw the same video and thank you so much for that explanation! Should I ever be lucky enough to play the game, it really helps. Now that you mentioned it, I think I did feel like his formation was not quite set up right. When I would play the battle stations midway and Pacific games, when facing incoming air attack, I would usually put a picket line of escorts at the edge of the formation with carrier or battleship or whatever ships I was protecting behind them so that the escorts would take the brunt of the initial hits as well as the most time to shoot them down before they were able to attack their main target. I would constantly adjust formations based on the direction travel so that they always had that shield facing whatever direction an attack was coming from. If the main ship was a cruiser, or perhaps a battleship that was capable of protecting itself against planes, I’d usually have them broadside line astern as close as possible together, so there was as much overlapping fire on the incoming opponents for mutual protection. Conversely, when facing an enemy task force, I usually put the biggest most powerful ships upfront, so they could begin firing on and distracting the enemy. Once the battleships were dueling, then the cruisers and destroyers could close in for supporting Fire and torpedo attacks, but of course, when doing gun battles, the most important thing is to be the most broadside to your opponent. I worked hard to learn how to charge in line abreast and then turn hard into line astern so that I was hopefully close to crossing the T on an enemy formation as possible as soon as they came in range. Sorry for what turned into an essay. Always enjoy the correspondence with you.

[@ramjb]

@@tjh8402 You got the basics right. Formation management is extremely important for success in this kind of games, something I learned by heart back in the days I played Harpoon. Managing axises of threat is really, really important, positioning your ships according to the expected threats and the possible bearings they come from. Your ideas of formations for a WW2 game are right on the money. Pickets and outter escorts to present an AAA barrage from as far from the main target as possible if planes are a threat, big ships at the van if the enemy has big guns on a big ship as the main danger. On the missile age it becomes a bit more complex, but the bare essentials are those: identify the main threat and reposition your assets accordingly to maximize your ability to counter said threat. Of course everything comes with a tradeoff. Deploying to max out your ability to fight off one kind of threat might open you to others. For instance, By deploying the ships in the way you see in this video, I became vulnerable to other kind of threats - you'll see more in part 2 of this video, which I just posted up. But in this scenario the undeniable strongest threat was Kirov and I had to deploy my ships in the way you see here. It might open me to other kind of dangers, but that's how warfare is sometimes. It's the old adage of "If you pull the blanket over your head, your feet are exposed". You rarely can ever cover all your bases, it is the way it is.

[@ElGordodeAlemana]

I still think that the Udaloy is the true monster in this game. Imagine if it had the SS-N-22 instead of the 14, like the newer models do.

[@ramjb]

There's a single Udaloy II. And yes, that platform I also like a lot. The AA cover is short range but insane in rate of fire and efficiency...and Sunburns are really dangerous missiles

[@artruisjoew5473]

i think one of the problems that this game have, is that it inhereted the cold waters CIWS system - in the sense that the CIWS has a flat percent chance at intercepting missiles, which makes the brute force method of stacking CIWS on top of CIWS unrealistically effective and you see that a lot in the soviets case with all the CIWS turrets, whereas IRL it is doubtful if the soviet crew could even effectively respond in time to sea skimming missiles if they were not fore warned (and would later be proven by the russian crew that, in fact, they could not respond in time, as proven by the now artificial reef Moskva.) IRL CIWS is so marginally effective that it is essentially disregarded as dead weight as the western navies started to move away from it since the 2000s, often in favor of more missiles for reliable defense such as the RAM system, or even in the US's case, several burkes were launched without any CIWS as it is seen as not much more than deadweight, as all the missile interceptions in the past were achieved by missiles, and CIWS generally was never relevant. you can see this pattern with USS Stark's CIWS essentially doing nothing, and other exocet missiles being intercepted by sea darts by the brits during the golf war.

[@ramjb]

I think that is shared with all the naval games there have been. From the old Harpoons to CMO, Fleet Command, and now Sea Power. Yeah, CIWS is more or less a very last resort to cover all bases if everything else fails. But for what is worth and with my experience with the game thus far, it really has a really low success rate. of course if you stack a lot of ships in close proximity with CIWS those low chances get multiplicated and then you see more missiles destroyed by it. And I think the missile also matters. I've had harpoons (not a lot, but some) destroyed by enemy CIWS...but harpoons were small and fragile. Shipwrecks...I'm yet to see one shot down by it. as for their effectiveness in real life...I can't really tell. I guess someone who actually worked on those ships for real might know more than I do. I just play with what the game offers to me...or throws at me :D

[@christopherchartier3017]

What’s your opinion on the HELIOS system?

[@tjh8402]

The extra narrative subtitles added after is always a welcome addition to your videos and helps explain and understand the action so much better.

[@pinelandsound]

Jesus Loves You All