Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989" Updated V1.2 12-8-18

Post new mods and scenarios here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

User avatar
BeirutDude
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:44 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL, USA

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by BeirutDude »

It took me three tries but I think I replicated why you didn't have a strike on the 16th.

1. Weather kept the optical satellites from finding your forces during the Afternoon 15th and overnight 15th-16th as the storm came in.
2. You got lucky and none of the MPA aircraft found you before the ASuW strike was assigned on the 16th.
3. Thus the ASuw mission RTBed.

So randomly you lucked out! Fog of War. 07/16 Backfire Strike from a test run (Some NATO removed for speed).

Image
Attachments
0716 backfire strike.jpg
0716 backfire strike.jpg (138.27 KiB) Viewed 84 times
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!
Ancalagon451
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:04 am

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by Ancalagon451 »

So, I had a strike less than three hours in the scenario, then a second one more or less a day after ( I think there was in the ballpark of twenty-six hours later). This didn't seem wrong to me since roughly matched a rearm time of 20 hours plus some extra time for the bombers to complete landing queues before start rearming, and the strike event to trigger after rearming was complete. That second one it's when I killed them while mustering.

If I understand you correctly, there should have been yet another strike between those two, still during the first day of the scenario? Done by fresh bombers which didn't participate in the first one I suppose?

If that's so I seriouly doubt I would have survived, but I suppose it is a way to cut short the lull after the first battery of strikes [:D].

Ancalagon
GThomas63
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:37 pm

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by GThomas63 »

Just started playing this. Looks good. A couple questions:

1. I noticed the Roosevelt is down for repairs. Is its Carrier Air Wing on the way to Norway?
2. I always thought the plan was for a MEB (and associated fixed wing assets) to fly into Norway within a few days of hostilities starting and marry up with prepositioned equipment. True/False?

Perhaps this was ommitted to make it more of a "fair" fight but it seems like NATO would marshal more fixed wing (at least one carrier or USMC/USAF/ANG and position them in Iceland/Shetlands/Norway) before "running the gauntlet." Similar to the OOB's in the Northern Fury scenarios.

Thanks for creating this!
User avatar
BeirutDude
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:44 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL, USA

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by BeirutDude »

Sorry this took so long to reply but I'm working mid-shifts and never at my best then [:D]

So yes then the second strike was about on time. I was toying with maybe adding a second Soviet SAG around Frunze. I did add the basing for the SSNs/SSGNs
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!
User avatar
BeirutDude
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:44 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL, USA

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by BeirutDude »

Just started playing this. Looks good. A couple questions:

1. I noticed the Roosevelt is down for repairs. Is its Carrier Air Wing on the way to Norway?

Two AS-4 Kitchens hit her catching much of the air wing on the flight and hanger decks. (truth is the air wing just weighed the scenario too heavily toward NATO. The original version had the Roosevelt in the SAG [CVBG] and it just wasn't a contest!).
2. I always thought the plan was for a MEB (and associated fixed wing assets) to fly into Norway within a few days of hostilities starting and marry up with prepositioned equipment. True/False?

Yes and no. The Northern Wedding and Ocean Safari exercises had the amphibs bring at least a MAU to two MAUs to Norway in the late 70s and early 80s. As I recall toward the end of the cold war '87-'91 some USMC equipment was stockpiled in the caves for the Marines to marry up with but I don't think that was ever completed. Interestingly we are currently returning to stockpiling prepositioned forces in Norway.
Perhaps this was ommitted to make it more of a "fair" fight but it seems like NATO would marshal more fixed wing (at least one carrier or USMC/USAF/ANG and position them in Iceland/Shetlands/Norway) before "running the gauntlet." Similar to the OOB's in the Northern Fury scenarios.

Yes it was just a NATO slaughter of the Northern Banner Fleet in playtesting with more aircraft and the CVBG (either tipped the balance too much). Just goes to show how far the Soviet Union was outclassed at the time the Berlin Wall fell! I've attached the last playtest with the USS Roosevelt CVBG and additional NATO aircraft included & I think you can see how much they just skew the scenario in favor of the West. By 1989 the Soviets were just too far behind, with a few good units, but not the overall top to bottom skills of NATO. BTW the "No Roosevelt" variant in that ZIP was the beginning of the variant that eventually became "The Gauntlet"

I also played with creating a Med variant of the first 7 days of the war (still am actually) and it is just a Soviet slaughter! Between the UK, Italy, France and US and with no decent bases/logistics the Soviets are simply butchered. Also nobody ever explained to me how the Badgers and Backfires were getting past Turkey's AAW/ADA/SAMs and Incirlik, so they really had to cross over Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to have any chance and that brings them into the NATO AAW intercept range from Italy and Greece. Bottom Line, the Soviet Med fleet/deployment was doomed! All they could do was die well...
Thanks for creating this!

Enjoy
Attachments
NorthernW..rsion12.zip
(1.19 MiB) Downloaded 18 times
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!
Ancalagon451
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:04 am

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by Ancalagon451 »

Sorry this took so long to reply but I'm working mid-shifts and never at my best then

Don't worry, family, work and friends comes always first.
So yes then the second strike was about on time. I was toying with maybe adding a second Soviet SAG around Frunze. I did add the basing for the SSNs/SSGNs

Not sure about giving the Soviets more units, they have already deployed a pretty big chunk of ships, and in the scenario narrative they have alredy fought the NATO out of the North Atlantic, they are bound to have taken casualities on the way.

About the subs, I'm not sure it can work even if it was my idea to start.

I made some test runs after the last post and I found that they CAN be returned to base and redeployed with time for a second strike within a three day scope IF you use a pair of Lua scripts to put them at flank speed when they declare RTB and to take them out of it when they return to the combat zone.

But after that I found the rearming time proper for an Oscar it's almost a whole day and adding that to the transit times push the timetable well within the fourth day, when the scenario has probably ended, and that it's if you don't cut last day like I suggested, if you do then they run out of time before redeploying.

Perhaps with the Charlie or the Echoes would be doable, since they carry much less missiles, I haven't tested with those ones.


Ancalagon

User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5880
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by Gunner98 »

Yes and no. The Northern Wedding and Ocean Safari exercises had the amphibs bring at least a MAU to two MAUs to Norway in the late 70s and early 80s. As I recall toward the end of the cold war '87-'91 some USMC equipment was stockpiled in the caves for the Marines to marry up with but I don't think that was ever completed. Interestingly we are currently returning to stockpiling prepositioned forces in Norway.


From my research for Northern Fury, there was some (not sure how much) USMC winter equipment BV-206 etc and some standard kit (Tanks, LAVs) pre positioned up near Bardufoss. I think that the plan was for the MEU to arrive with its kit on the ESG and a flyover element (Bn+, Bde- size?) to meet it in Norway. I read about it a couple years ago and it was apparently practiced at least once.


B
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
User avatar
BeirutDude
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:44 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL, USA

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by BeirutDude »

Yes I think about a MAU/MEU (in my days they were MAUs, I was attached to the 24th MAU Hq) of equipment by about 1985-7 time frame. But for Northern Wedding 82 I recall ARGs with USS Nassau and USS Guadalcanal involved in the exercise and not much prepositioned. By 1987 I was doing ASW at Cecil Field, Fl so I lost touch with how much was prepositioned but I'm pretty sure it never was a full MAB/MEB.

Northern Wedding...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Wedding

Ocean Safari 85...
https://www.navy.mil/ah_online/archpdf/ah198601.pdf
Prestocking for a U.S. Marine Corps Expeditionary Brigade.

In 1981 American and Norwegian authorities signed an agreement to store the heavy equipment of a U.S. air-landed Marine expeditionary brigade (known as the NALMEB) in the central Norwegian county of Trøndelag. The original plan was to store the equipment in northern Norway, which was where the brigade would operate if it were deployed. This was hindered by strong political opposition in Norway, and a compromise solution had to be found farther south. As compensation, the heavy equipment for South Norwegian Brigade 6 was stored in the north. Also, the Marine brigade’s air element was allowed to fly directly to its designated airfields in the north. The net result was thus a considerable strengthening of the defense of northern Norway.

What was the opposition to prestocking for the Marines in northern Norway all about? First, there were those who opposed any prestocking in Norway for the U.S. Marine Corps. Second, there were those who supported it in principle but not in northern Norway. The general opposition to prestocking must, I believe, be seen as a repercussion of the broad and general political opposition in Norway to the war in Vietnam. The war, which had ended in 1975, was still fresh in memory. Also, the Marine Corps was seen as the epitome of American expeditionary capability; Norwegian politicians feared that prestocking its equipment would pull the country into American global strategy. There were also those who
felt that storing equipment for foreign troops could undermine the Norwegian base policy, while others pointed to the fact that because the brigade was nuclear capable, the presence of its equipment would represent a challenge to the nation’s nuclear policy.

Those who supported prestocking in principle but opposed it in northern
Norway feared that a storage site there would provoke the Soviets and thus be contrary to the long-standing Norwegian policy of low tension in the north. This, by the way, was a general problem with the Maritime Strategy, as many Norwegians saw it. For the Norwegian government, which wanted to tie the United States to the defense of Norway, on the one hand, and on the other to minimize internal debate and political division over defense and security policy, handling the strategy was a difficult balancing act.24

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/v ... nwc-review

also found this that confirms what we're both saying cold weather equipment and some MAU support equipment by 1987.
The United States12 has a bilateral treaty with
Norway to participate in the defense of Norway
with a brigade size unit from the United States
Marine Corps.13 This unit will have some of its
equipment and supplies prestocked in Norway
(finished in 1989). The size of the unit is
determined, but no unit has been earmarked. A
standing headquarters (4th MAB) is responsible for
all planning for Norway. Participating units in
exercises in Norway come all from FMF Atlantic.
FMF Atlantic also sends units to the Mediterranean
and Okinawa (MAU) on a permanent basis and also
units to other parts in Europe, the Middle East,
Central America/Carribbean Ocean. FMF Atlantic is
also responsible for planning of a MPS
configurate MAB (6th MAB).
All these deployments mean the unit (MAB) which is
going to Norway is task-organized prior to the
deployment from available ready forces and sent to
winter training at training bases in CONUS for 4-6
weeks before they leave for Norway

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... 987/KK.htm
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!
User avatar
BeirutDude
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:44 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL, USA

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by BeirutDude »

Well I never thought they would be able to rearm and return to battle, but I did like your idea of the base giving them a direction to sail in when their primary weapons were expended. So that was why I did it.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!
Ancalagon451
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:04 am

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by Ancalagon451 »

You have a point here, it gives a more elegant behavior to the enemy AND denies the player some points unless he aggresively hunts for the retreating subs.
Witch is better than leaving them trying to (almost always unsuccesfully) torpedo some ship and pointlessly dying in the process.

Ancalagon
User avatar
BeirutDude
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:44 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL, USA

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by BeirutDude »

Agreed, but it was your idea/point! [&o]

Thanks.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!
Ancalagon451
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:04 am

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by Ancalagon451 »

Thats the funny thing, I proposed it only for the rearming capability. Didn't see the other much more achievable benefits until you pointed them.

Talk about tunnel vision

Ancalagon
GThomas63
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:37 pm

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by GThomas63 »

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude
Just started playing this. Looks good. A couple questions:

1. I noticed the Roosevelt is down for repairs. Is its Carrier Air Wing on the way to Norway?

Two AS-4 Kitchens hit her catching much of the air wing on the flight and hanger decks. (truth is the air wing just weighed the scenario too heavily toward NATO. The original version had the Roosevelt in the SAG [CVBG] and it just wasn't a contest!).
2. I always thought the plan was for a MEB (and associated fixed wing assets) to fly into Norway within a few days of hostilities starting and marry up with prepositioned equipment. True/False?

Yes and no. The Northern Wedding and Ocean Safari exercises had the amphibs bring at least a MAU to two MAUs to Norway in the late 70s and early 80s. As I recall toward the end of the cold war '87-'91 some USMC equipment was stockpiled in the caves for the Marines to marry up with but I don't think that was ever completed. Interestingly we are currently returning to stockpiling prepositioned forces in Norway.
Perhaps this was ommitted to make it more of a "fair" fight but it seems like NATO would marshal more fixed wing (at least one carrier or USMC/USAF/ANG and position them in Iceland/Shetlands/Norway) before "running the gauntlet." Similar to the OOB's in the Northern Fury scenarios.

Yes it was just a NATO slaughter of the Northern Banner Fleet in playtesting with more aircraft and the CVBG (either tipped the balance too much). Just goes to show how far the Soviet Union was outclassed at the time the Berlin Wall fell! I've attached the last playtest with the USS Roosevelt CVBG and additional NATO aircraft included & I think you can see how much they just skew the scenario in favor of the West. By 1989 the Soviets were just too far behind, with a few good units, but not the overall top to bottom skills of NATO. BTW the "No Roosevelt" variant in that ZIP was the beginning of the variant that eventually became "The Gauntlet"

I also played with creating a Med variant of the first 7 days of the war (still am actually) and it is just a Soviet slaughter! Between the UK, Italy, France and US and with no decent bases/logistics the Soviets are simply butchered. Also nobody ever explained to me how the Badgers and Backfires were getting past Turkey's AAW/ADA/SAMs and Incirlik, so they really had to cross over Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to have any chance and that brings them into the NATO AAW intercept range from Italy and Greece. Bottom Line, the Soviet Med fleet/deployment was doomed! All they could do was die well...
Thanks for creating this!

Enjoy
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I really think NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic would have done an excellent job of clearing the Norweigian Sea of the Soviets. Especially since this scenario takes place right after VADM "Hammerin Hank" Mustin was in charge. NATO would have marshalled quite a force to turn the Norweigian Sea in to a "NATO Lake" and follow on, if necessary into the Barents.

User avatar
BeirutDude
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:44 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL, USA

RE: Scenario for Playtest "The Gauntlet 1989"

Post by BeirutDude »

I suggest you try the earlier version of the scenario with the Roosevelt CVBG. You only need to play it for about 24 hours, cause there's just nothing left of the Northern Banner Fleet after that! BTW, the plans I remember had two U.S. CVBGs going north of the GIUK Gap, so even the scenario I put forward is tame.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

I was Navy, but Assigned TAD to the 24th MAU Hq in Beirut. By far the finest period of my service!
Post Reply

Return to “Mods and Scenarios”