From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Subject: Re: Hussein
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:35:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.050339.1209@ccu.umanitoba.ca> youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes:

>(The Greatest) writes:

[Saddam never would have gotten to a carrier deleted]

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the carriers (America, I believe)
>damaged by a torpedo or mine during DS? A nice quiet Foxtrot in the Gulf could
>damage and possibly sink a carrier, especially if the attack was coordinated
>with an air strike.

A foxtrot isn't overwhelmingly quiet (for a diesel) and has lousy
electric time compared to western boats.  I think that if the Iraqi
Navy actually had a couple of subs (hmmm..say a Kilo?) the USN never
would have put a carrier into the gulf until they were sunk.  Given
the total air superiority and the relative smallness of the gulf the
subs would have been sunk before being able to hit any US carriers.

The saturation airstrike that I suggested is limited to how many
decent anti-ship missiles the Iraqis could have bought before the war.
The Argentines would have cleaned up on the Brits IF they had more air
launched Exocets.  The Iraqis MIGHT have caused some damage on a
carrier IF they had sufficient numbers of missiles and sufficent
numbers of suicidal pilots to charge the carrier(s).  The assumption
is that the mythical charge would have occured just before or just
after the deadline to withdraw real early on.

>>if the numer of planes that would have required ever sortied they would
>>have thrown everything they had against them. Most have them would have gotten
>>smoked as they were clearing their runways. In HARPOON! using the very best

>Please do not use a videogame as reference.  The computer opponent in
>Harpoon is inconpetant at best.  I have sunk an american carrier six times
>in nine tries in various situations in this game, once with a pair of
>Foxtrot subs, 20 Bear Bombers with AS-6's, and some surrveilance ships.

Harpoon is also a board game...which means your opponents aren't quite
as brain dead (we hope ;-).  The rules are still a tad brain dead
(sensor rules are buggy for ASW...I find it it impossible to sneak
subs around) but hey there aren't many better "simulations" out there.

The computer version is even more buggy but 360 is not high on my list
for any quality control or programming excellence awards.  Even given
that I'd still classify Harpoon as a simulation rather than a video
game.  

The key is to use "accepted" and "simple" strategies against the
computer opponent...mostly because it handles air assets so poorly.
You throw X aircraft with Y missles against a CVBG and see roughly
what happens.  The configuration for the group is supposedly close to
what the USN might use (ASW perimiter, a Hawkeye snooping about, a few
F14s as CAP).  The aircraft get more missile kills than I'd expect but
that is offset by the generally lousy performance of the Aegis (which
I expect to do better).  As the CVBG I can beat a multi regiment
backfire raid almost every time...I think I could do it against a
human opponent simply because the game doesn't take into account pilot
fatigue.  I can orbit a heavy CAP till doomsday...something I don't
think a single CV can sustain.

>>Christopher Keith.

Nigel
--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction