"Surface Battle Group?" Topic

Has anyone played this ruleset? Any thoughts? Battle reports?

It is a pretty good rule set. Just do a search on The Miniature Page, there are a number of discussions. The only issue and this goes for every modern naval rule set. He who shoots 1st wins. Modern Naval combat is very deadly, missiles are big and fast. I think where this rule set shines, and I have not done it yet, is a campaign game. I think it will really lend itself for that.

Mike

Pretty much true, especially if you have technological parity, or better over your opponent.

About the only way to survive the first salvo is for you to have better countermeasures, and defensive systems than your opponent(s).

Many Soviet vessels didn't bother with surface-to-surface missile reloads, since they didn't figure they'd survive long enough to use them, once the firing started.

uhmm…. considering the pretty low hit rate of missiles even USN ones I am still very doubtful of a lot of modern rule set. Look this way the USS Stark was hit by two Exocets with still plenty of propellant and survived. During Praying Mantis the harpoon hit ration was around 45% and still you needed severals to sink a single Iranian FFG. Silkworm were used in at least two occasions against USN warship and none hit. In one case there is even the chance that it was shot down by a 76mm round with IR fuse. A lot of argie Exocets simply failed. There is not a wealth of evidence to make or disprove a contention. Harpoon for example has a lot of factors reducing SSM effectiveness.

I am not even persuaded the SSM reload problem was linked to the perception of their lack of survivability but more about size of the missiles, installation, tac tics and assumption of operating close to ports.

Said that i found the main problem of SBG being the scale chosen, you still need a lot of space to play. In the end it is not 'better' (for lack of any better word) than Harpoon, nor easy as shipwreck and did not give any real innovation for me. Probably I am too much wedded in Harpoon the the weapons level and to the fleet series for the operational approach.

True, though with Soviet/Russian doctrine, and larger, better, faster missiles than the ones you sighted, swamping the defenses is a real threat (or was), back in the day.

Granted, the late Cold War US vessels were a lot better at self-protection, and fleet defense, so have considerably more survivability than many of the early to middle period ships.

A ship being hit by one, or two missiles, even if their warheads doesn't go off, is usually pretty heavily damaged, so would be a mission kill, even if it isn't sunk.

"Many Soviet vessels didn't bother with surface-to-surface missile reloads"

Actually the Soviets were the ones who fitted reloading systems on their larger ships. Most Western designs didn't carry reloads. The main exception being thoseships that used their SAM launchers to launch Harpoon, and even there the number of weapons carried was limited.

I don't know if it is fair to say that a "Lot of Argie Exocets simply failed." As I recall, they only had 6 of them. And only one French contractor trained to set them. One was used in trainng, two were fired at the HMS Sheffield, and one missed. Two hit the Atlantic Converyor. The last hit the destroyer HMS Glamorgan.

Phil,
Two at Sheffield, one hit, one missed.
Two at Atlantic Conveyor, one seduced by Ambuscade's chaff, one hit.
One at Invincible, (probably Exeter,) missed.
So that's 40%

See Burden, Rodney A, et al(1986) "Falklands the Air War" (Poole: Arms and Armour.) And, Rivas, Santiago (2012) "Wings of the Malvinas" (Manchester:Hikoki.)

The missile that hit Glamorgan was a surface to surface Exocet removed from one of the Argentine destroyers or frigates. My cousin was on Glamorgan at the time. He says that his claim to fame was that he identified the missile as hostile BEFORE it hit!

Cheers,
Bertie

If something is coming closer it tends to be hostile :)