NATO CIWS...

[bollocks]

I'm sure there's been many posts about this in the past, but it still hasn't been tended to.
I'm seeing CHAMs get struck by one missile, alone, and die, when they have "Good" CIWS. Their weapon systems are firing too late, meaning the missile hits the CHAM before it had a chance to fire. I've seen moskits take down 3-4 missiles at a time when they have "bad" CIWS.
It seems to me that the NATO CIWS systems rely a lot on missile defence, when their gattling gun CIWS, such as DARDO seen on Po-hangs, and the bullet-type CIWS on kongos, struggle to eliminate several projectiles at once. Where as I look at a Nanushka, or turantul, taking out atleast 5 AS missiles, on their own.
The redfor CIWS does no necessarily need nerfing, but the NATO CIWS needs buffing up, a lot. I shouldn't see CHAMs going down from one AS missile, AT LEAST 2.
No, this isn't about skill, these are the mechanics of the game.

[bollocks]

Originally posted by Tova:

its true the nato CIWs systems are alot shorter range in this game, check the udaloy ciws range its insane longrange.

the cham has 2 CIWS 1 on the front and 1 on the back, try parking the cham sideways to the direction you expect missiles to come from so both can fire apon it. same with the po-hang for both its ciws and cannon.

I do, the only thing that seems to work is sailing the CHAMs away from the AS missiles so that the CIWS has time to think "Oh, there's a missile coming, OH I NEED TO START SPRAYING BULLETS AT IT *Brrrrrrrrr* "

[Astral Mist]

The CWIS is indeed 'good', but it only has one of the damned things. That's why you need 2-3 CHAMs or supporting vessels to have a good chance at stopping anti-ship missiles. Lone CHAMs are sitting ducks, and have about a 50/50 chance of getting hit by any AS missile, at least that I've found. Additionally, yes, their CWIS is short-ranged. Larger ships have longer-ranged CWIS, and stuff like the La Fayette can help quite a bit.

TL;DR don't except a really cheap ship to provide perfect protection. If you think that the Ulad having 'excellent' AS makes it immune, you should see the fact that it costs 500 points, you only get one, and my favorite tactic for killing it as NATO is to spam 2-5 AS planes at it because some of the missiles will get through and ruin the Ulad's day.

[jigsaw556]

i hope you know that in real life the cwis is the last line of defence, its not meant for standalone defence. if a asm makes it past the interception missile, immediatly all hands prepare to evacuate. my source is former naval petty officer 2nd class lotemple who worked in the cic with the cwis system. i don't think it needs a buff because it accuratly depicts its real life counterpart.

[Azrael20]

Let's face it, NATO ships aren't good at all. They aren't meant to be in this game. Just forget about silly cham-su-ris and focus on those 1000 KPH, harpoon-toting F-111s, F/A-18E/Fs, CF-18 ASUWs, pengiun-toting F-16s, weird british missile-toting tornadoes, etc. All with 1,000 KPH and excellent ECM, so that you can make a huge HATO plane train of doom.


bye bye sovremenny, bye bye PACT

[RedEntropy]

Originally posted by ARCHANGEL:

i hope you know that in real life the cwis is the last line of defence, its not meant for standalone defence. if a asm makes it past the interception missile, immediatly all hands prepare to evacuate. my source is former naval petty officer 2nd class lotemple who worked in the cic with the cwis system. i don't think it needs a buff because it accuratly depicts its real life counterpart.

Isn't the discussion not about the fact that a CIWS (Close-in weapon system) is a defensive system but that the NATO CIWS's reaction time to aquire a target too long to be usefull?
I wonder how that plays into missile speed? I don't have the experience to know, but do AMS's in Wargame have different speeds? Because then it would make them more usefull for slower targets, while fast ASM's are harder to counter (which is realistic. Hypersonic AMS' are designed to overcome active defenses by simply being able to get within a defensive systems reaction window.)

Also do units with more sophesticated/advanced electonic systems (ie. more expensive ships) have better CIWS protection (by being able to detect a ASM from a longer range?)

[Azrael20]

Different AshMs in wargame have different speeds, just like ATGMs. It's one of the super important factors not listed in the armory. PACT P-270s are the fastest, I think. Harpoons - not so much. One of the slowest are the P-15 termits, but those pack a punch.

[Delle(DK)]

maybe a little sidestep, but my favorite tactics playing as Nato is to mostly use my ship in a defensive manner and then use example a group of 8 helicopters to attack the same big command ship at once, or 4 f18 attack at once... Reason are very simple they fire so many missiles that the big command ships cannot shoot them down when it is alone making it a very good tactic.
As you all know the big russian ships with 130mm cannons are tough to take down with nato ships, and typical the russians have more of them than you can buy of the Kongo ( nato ship with 130mm ). so it is often an uneven battle.

[Enderminion]

NATO navy is based on strike aircraft and air defence ships not missile boats

[Drache]

Originally posted by Enderminion:

NATO navy is based on strike aircraft and air defence ships not missile boats

Tell that to the USS Arleigh Burke, USS Ticonderoga, and the new DDG 1000. They greatly out "missle" their competition.

[orcbuster]

Originally posted by Drache:

Originally posted by Enderminion:

NATO navy is based on strike aircraft and air defence ships not missile boats

Tell that to the USS Arleigh Burke, USS Ticonderoga, and the new DDG 1000. They greatly out "missle" their competition.

Actually those are still considered rather lightly armed compared to their heavy USSR/russian counterparts who have long been dominant in terms off ASM technology and interception systems.

Take a look at the Kirov/ushakov for example.

[Azrael20]

Originally posted by Drache:

Originally posted by Enderminion:

NATO navy is based on strike aircraft and air defence ships not missile boats

Tell that to the USS Arleigh Burke, USS Ticonderoga, and the new DDG 1000. They greatly out "missle" their competition.

1. 8 subsonic 227kg warhead AshMs
2. 8 subsonic 227kg warhead AshMs
3. Exactly 0 AshMs

vs things like the Admiral Gorshkov (8 supersonic 500kg warhead AshMs), Kirov (20 supersonic 750 kg warhead AshMs), or Slava (8 supersonic 1,000 kg warhead AshMs)

[Drache]

Originally posted by Xenospartan653:

Originally posted by Drache:

Tell that to the USS Arleigh Burke, USS Ticonderoga, and the new DDG 1000. They greatly out "missle" their competition.

1. 8 subsonic 227kg warhead AshMs
2. 8 subsonic 227kg warhead AshMs
3. Exactly 0 AshMs

vs things like the Admiral Gorshkov (8 supersonic 500kg warhead AshMs), Kirov (20 supersonic 750 kg warhead AshMs), or Slava (8 supersonic 1,000 kg warhead AshMs)

The Ticonderoga Class has as standard loadout of 26 Tomahawk Missiles, however note that the 2 x 61 Cell VLS can be clustered to hold many more Tomahawk Cruise Missiles at a cost of ASWs or SAMs. While most the of the AshM variants are out of service, there is no doubt the modular construction of the 109E's could be modified to 109B's should war make it necessary.

The same can be said for the DDG 1000, though the class only has 80 Cells and the Arleigh Burke 96 Cells.

While the Slava is a fair comparison, @ 12k Tons to the American 9k - 11k Tons. The Carrier and Battlecruiser are not in the same class at 45k Tons and 28k Tons.

Any other comparison would be like comparing the WW2 Japanese Kongo Class Battlecruiser (14 in guns) to an American New Orleans Class Heavy Cruiser (8 in guns).

[Ville Valste]

Originally posted by Drache:

Originally posted by Xenospartan653:

1. 8 subsonic 227kg warhead AshMs
2. 8 subsonic 227kg warhead AshMs
3. Exactly 0 AshMs

vs things like the Admiral Gorshkov (8 supersonic 500kg warhead AshMs), Kirov (20 supersonic 750 kg warhead AshMs), or Slava (8 supersonic 1,000 kg warhead AshMs)

The Ticonderoga Class has as standard loadout of 26 Tomahawk Missiles, however note that the 2 x 61 Cell VLS can be clustered to hold many more Tomahawk Cruise Missiles at a cost of ASWs or SAMs. While most the of the AshM variants are out of service, there is no doubt the modular construction of the 109E's could be modified to 109B's should war make it necessary.

The same can be said for the DDG 1000, though the class only has 80 Cells and the Arleigh Burke 96 Cells.

While the Slava is a fair comparison, @ 12k Tons to the American 9k - 11k Tons. The Carrier and Battlecruiser are not in the same class at 45k Tons and 28k Tons.

Any other comparison would be like comparing the WW2 Japanese Kongo Class Battlecruiser (14 in guns) to an American New Orleans Class Heavy Cruiser (8 in guns).

Woah, we're talking about kilotons now? Since when have standard cruise missiles had nuclear warheads as standard payload?

[GrandHardy]

I'm guessing he was talking about displacement

[Astral Mist]

Originally posted by Ville I Valste:

Originally posted by Drache:

The Ticonderoga Class has as standard loadout of 26 Tomahawk Missiles, however note that the 2 x 61 Cell VLS can be clustered to hold many more Tomahawk Cruise Missiles at a cost of ASWs or SAMs. While most the of the AshM variants are out of service, there is no doubt the modular construction of the 109E's could be modified to 109B's should war make it necessary.

The same can be said for the DDG 1000, though the class only has 80 Cells and the Arleigh Burke 96 Cells.

While the Slava is a fair comparison, @ 12k Tons to the American 9k - 11k Tons. The Carrier and Battlecruiser are not in the same class at 45k Tons and 28k Tons.

Any other comparison would be like comparing the WW2 Japanese Kongo Class Battlecruiser (14 in guns) to an American New Orleans Class Heavy Cruiser (8 in guns).

Woah, we're talking about kilotons now? Since when have standard cruise missiles had nuclear warheads as standard payload?

I believe he's talking about their displacement.