GHQ Models Forums

We sure could use some new Modern micronaughts. The following article is just a small suggestive on how far the 1/2400 scale line is falling behind.
The fact remains that the PLA has the ship and the potential is there, no matter the weight of truth in the article about it actually being active.
Right now we have no Chinese types, no Japanese, very few Indian ships (in the form of boughten ships of other navies),the Brits are now working on a new full fledged carrier(HMS Queen Elizabeth), and even the Russians are now in the plans of building at least 2 more larger full cariers. Oh and some Arliegh Burke FltIIas are really needed ...

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... 21640.aspx

Subject: China paints naval markings on former Russian aircraft carrier Varyag
Zhang Fei 8/23/2005 10:49:18 PM
Looks like the PLA is building up its force projection capabilities. For the doubters out there, the Japanese economy was about 1/10 the US economy when WWII broke out. But the Imperial Japanese Navy blasted the combined European and American navies in East Asia out of the water at the outset of WWII. This bears watching.

By Robyn Lim
China has taken another step toward seeking to project maritime power far beyond its shores, by painting naval markings on a former Soviet aircraft carrier that it originally purchased as a floating casino. According to a report in a recent issue of Jane's Defence Weekly, shipyard workers in the northeastern city of Dalian have been repairing the badly damaged Varyag in a fresh sign that the Chinese navy is once again pursuing its goal of developing a working aircraft carrier.

That is further evidence that China's leaders are miscalculating, by wanting too much too soon and pursuing a muddled maritime strategy that is likely to backfire. China's former paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping, must be spinning in his grave. Comprehending that the Soviet Union could not sustain vast military spending on the basis of a command economy, he set China on a different course. Deng intended to build up China's wealth and power by means of engagement with market forces, while ensuring that the Communist Party remained in control.

But Deng intended to do so gradually, since he was astute enough to realize that moving too quickly in this direction would only frighten other countries into forming a counterbalancing coalition. As a veteran political commissar in the military, and Long March veteran, Deng was able to insist that military modernization be the last of China's "four modernizations." But his successors, engineer-bureaucrats lacking military experience, do not possess Deng's wisdom or his cachet with the military. And now the rebuilding of the Varyag will set alarm bells ringing that it could become the first in a fleet of Chinese aircraft carriers.

The Varyag was one of two full-deck aircraft carriers the Soviet Union was building when the Cold War ended. It was designed to carry the naval variant of the Sukhoi-27 fighter aircraft (which China now produces under license). Sold to China ostensibly for use as a floating casino, the Varyag soon ended up in its present location -- a naval shipyard in Dalian.

China has been showing signs of interest in aircraft carriers for some time. In 1985, it bought the old Australian carrier Melbourne, ostensibly for scrap. The Melbourne was eventually broken up, but not until it had been extensively studied, and a replica flight deck built for Chinese pilots to practice carrier take offs and landings. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, China bought two Kiev-class carriers, Minsk and Kiev. Although kept in amusement parks in Chinese ports, these are sure to have been scrutinized by Chinese military experts.

Judging from the latest activity in Dalian, China now seems bent on repeating the mistakes of the "risk fleets" of Germany's Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz before World War I, and Soviet Admiral Sergei Gorshkov in the 1970s. Neither Tirpitz nor Gorshkov sought to match ship for ship the fleets of the then-dominant maritime power, respectively Britain and the United States. Rather, as continental powers with huge land armies, Germany and the Soviet Union sought to achieve hegemony over the Eurasian land mass by depriving the dominant maritime power of the ability to play its historic role of global offshore balancer. But Germany and then Russia succeeded only in provoking the formation of a counterbalancing coalition led by the dominant maritime power of the time.

Today China is seeking hegemony on a smaller scale, over the southeastern edge of Eurasia. But even that is a threat that the United States, as the dominant maritime power, cannot afford to ignore. Neither can Japan, an archipelago that needs maritime protection and which has been alarmed by more aggressive Chinese nuclear submarine activity, including an intrusion into its territorial waters and activity off Guam last November.

China's new assertiveness is already showing signs of provoking the formation of a balancing coalition led by the United States, the current dominant maritime power. Straws in the wind include the rapid improvement in strategic connections among the United States, Japan and India. Australia, another U.S. ally, has a new fleet of capable conventional submarines as well as strike aircraft.

Until recently, Chinese naval strategy has focused on the more modest goal of seeking to deter the U.S. navy from intervening in a Taiwan crisis. This sea-denial strategy involved building (and buying from Russia) more conventional submarines, which are better suited than nuclear submarines for operations in the shallow waters of the Taiwan Straits, while developing anti-ship cruise missile platforms and ballistic missiles with maneuverable warheads to deter the U.S.

Now by showing fresh signs of also trying to develop a carrier battle fleet capable of projecting Chinese power over great distances, something which not even the Soviet Union managed to do, Beijing is pursuing an expensive and risky goal that only serves to muddle its maritime strategy in a way that will prove counterproductive.

The best strategy for the U.S. is to stand back and let China make such a strategic error. For example, there is no need for America to counter China's more aggressive submarine activity by increasing its deployment of surface ships and nuclear submarines in the region. Rather, America should concentrate on remaining forward deployed with the right force structure to respond to the real threat -- a Chinese attempt to seize Taiwan. That includes, for example, the U.S. marines in Okinawa, who are only a 90-minute flight away from Taiwan. The best way for the U.S. to deter a Chinese attack is to show it has the capability to respond by rapidly putting forces on the ground in Taiwan and the Marine Corps., which specializes in combined-arms tactics, are ideal for this purpose.

China is also posing a maritime challenge that Japan cannot afford to ignore and which can best be met by further strengthening the U.S.-Japan alliance, with much greater emphasis on interoperability. By once again raising the specter of using aircraft carriers to deploy its power over a greater distance, China's muddled maritime strategy only serves to accelerate the development of a counterbalancing coalition to curb its military ambitions.

Hate to break it to you John, but if I have understood it correctly from reading between the lines in other topics and GHQ announcements, GHQ has no intention of enlarging the modern naval range at this moment.

IIRC it was mainly due to disappointing sales and lack of interest in the line. In other words, the range is pretty much dead right now.

The real shame is that, that is the case. The problem is 2 fold. 1) fiding those that are interested enough to play in the first place and 2) Finding someone who is competent enough to give a good game.

While only one crisis almost ignited the Cold War in Europe the Navy on the other hand well.....

As a friend of mine in Marine Intel once said. "If you knew how many times the US navy has almost started WW3 you would never sleep."

I have Japanese ships ( modern) & some Chinese as well. Have Italian Ventorio Venetto and Andrea Doria.

Chris,

Which Chinese ships do you have?

Paul

Rutgervanm wrote:Hate to break it to you John, but if I have understood it correctly from reading between the lines in other topics and GHQ announcements, GHQ has no intention of enlarging the modern naval range at this moment.

IIRC it was mainly due to disappointing sales and lack of interest in the line. In other words, the range is pretty much dead right now.

Yes,I realize the line being dead, that is why the article above is written and submitted to this forum. It is hoped that bringing current events and arrival of new units to the forefront by us here will help show GHQ there is an interest.How else would one suggest to resurrect a dormant line?
Especially one that is already there, incomplete, and falling further behind.
I've resorted to using 1/6000 scale because of the availability of units, but its not GHQ standard. Thats the real problem GHQ set the standard and left us "hanging"...

There are several obstacles to modern naval wargaming. First, there really needs to be a new set of rules. Our club used to play Harpoon but it took too long to prepare the game with all the forms and information. The game took too long to play with more than four ships. Some of us are trying Shipwreck which is a much quicker game, but then some players complain it isn't complex enough. Then on top of that no gamer can agree on which navies to collect. The problem is that there have been few actual modern naval combats, and everything remains a "What-if?" scenario. Granted, some of those what-ifs are very interesting!

Then, if GHQ did make more miniatures, what would you have them make? Previous posts have indicated that our forumites have a hard time agreeing on request priorities.

The scenario is everything to a naval game. Ships do not fight over terrain, so tactics depend on the mission! The mission depends on the strategic goals.

My favorite request for GHQ is to create a few ships that any side can use - Merchant vessels. They create a good reason for naval forces to be involved, whether for guarding convoys or sinking them. I would recommend a Supertanker, a Container ship, and a general merchandise vessel.

Whether you have someone guarding them in the Persian Gulf, carrying supplies to the Falklands, transporting relief goods to a third world country, or attempting to pass blockades, I think these miniatures would be the most useful of all.

Just a thought,

Mark in Utah
Armchair Admiral since '75

There are more than just 'what-ifs'. 1982 Falkland/Malvinas campaign. GHQ makes three ships, all on one side. With some kitbashing you can make two more for the opposing side. But there are dozens of good scenarios with no ships to fill those gaps - no GHQ ships that is. Other manufacturers are stepping up to fill those gaps. 10th 20th and 25th anniversary for this war have all passed GHQ by. Maybe they'll engage in time for the 50th.

Paul

You're right, Paul, the Falklands conflict immediately springs to mind for naval wargamers. Additionally, there were small naval actions in the Arab/Israeli, Persian Gulf and Pakistan/Indian conflicts.

Actually I should be more specific and say ship-to-ship actions, as we all know how busy naval forces have been in supporting ground actions.

I had a couple of ideas over the weekend about possibilities for GHQ modern naval gaming. We've all discussed the general idea of the "What-if" scenarios, but that would include a huge selection GHQ would have to make and it would be hard to satisfy the potential customers.

Now if GHQ focused instead on purely historical actions, there are a couple possibilities. First, they could focus on the historical actions which included mostly small missile boats, such as the Arab/Israeli actions. The benefit there would be smaller models to work on producing. A second idea would be for GHQ to focus on choosing one particular conflict, say Falklands, and create a very thorough selection of models that would be very appealing to the collector and modeler as well as wargamer. Something with a more complete collection than competitors offer.

Just some thoughts,
Mark in Utah

I hate to see such a beautiful line of ships and aircraft go dormant like this, but I do understand the marketing and economics behind it. In order to revive this line, its going to require a spark to ignite it. Here's some ideas or "sparks" to get it going:

1. A package approach - don't just build more models, put together a new set of rules, scenarios and a scenario generation system. Copy FOW - it worked for them. Make the rules simple, abstract all that filing that Harpoon demands, complex rules can come later. Make the research easy for newbies by making it available with the product line. Sell the paints specific to the models or countries and package them like FOW did. Make TO&E's for various navies and time periods downloadable PDF's or include with the models. Run demo games and give away product to the victor (get 'em hooked the way drug dealers do!).

2. Build out the complete TO&E's for the Falkland's War, even sell it as a gaming system with a few special rules for the time period. Perhaps sell ship sets covering the various task forces involved - same for aircraft.

3. The world is a changing place, China and India are growing fast, their economies are helping fund some powerful naval and air assets. Both of these countries are dependent on foreign oil and other natural resources that are already in high demand by the existing industrial powers. Can you smell the conflict scenarios yet? There's hords of them. Many would involve competion for the oil coming out of the gulf. Look at Japan with a powerful navy and increasingly powerful neighbors all vying for the same natural resources. You know the Japanese are already nervous as they see US presence shrinking, China and India growing, North Korea still a rogue state, Russian resurgence. Even Thailand has built a small carrier to counter against pirates. Modern day piracy on the high seas - what a scenario!

Right now its kinda like a catch-22, the line is so underdeveloped that no one wants to buy, but to cover the cost of building more models you need people to buy.

That's my two cents.

Chris

I forgot one, link the Wermacht '47 line and this one together. Perhaps if some late war ships or what-ifs were built for the W47 line, they might entice some of us WWII naval guys to look beyond 1945 and spark an interest in ships with new weapons systems like the early missiles and the SCB-27 carrier conversions that went on after WWII ended. Might be a good link to modern naval gaming if we had a transition between the two.

Chris

This thread (although needed) is beginning to make me feel like I'm back in land survival school back in the day. Bunch of young aviators sitting around a small fire (survival TV) cooking lichen in crisco and sucking on pine needles (trying to convince ourselves they taste like popcorn and G&Ts) all the while talking about surf and turf dinners and our favorite beer. We know its not the real thing and we know we're not likely to get the real thing but we talk about it anyway...

So I was thinking with a couple of additions they could also package up an Operation EARNEST WILL / PREYING MANTIS group. Sahand / Sabalan model maybe a PF-103 model a couple tanker/super tanker types and a Leahy model and I think they're good to go the other players are already there.

Paul

Right now I'm scratch building the Kuznetzov. I also have a feww packs of the 1/700 scale Su-33(There are some that will be SU-35s),and some Su-33Us.I'm working on raisng a Russian CBG. Thank god I've got some Udaloys and sovremennys.
Just in the last two weeks we have got Harpoon 4.1 to work for us to where we can play numerous ships and planes. To us the 15sec half engagement turns were a nightmare on the mind and not relly enjoyable. Using H4s excellent data we made things work in 3 minute turns and 1 minute engaement turns.
Getting these things accomplished now brings us to a scenario.Just recently playing WWII Solomons we decided to use this as a scenario. The Solomons being a large group of islands just begs for a terrorist group(TW Wariors) or trianing camps. That will be the start of it. Now for a twist;the Russians will be sending in the Kuznetzov CBG to supply combat aircraft to Honnaira or the old Henederson field(this airfield is large jet capable now days) to help support this group or groups. Of course the US will send in forces CBG and amphibious warfare group (sure could use some of those brand new AWS that are now out!) . This group is of course full of marines ( modern micro armour could also use Mod inf in newer kit and some of the new USMC amphib vehicles too).
Well thats a small sampling of what we use moderns for.

MV Faina?

Don S.

Donald M. Scheef wrote:MV Faina?

Don S.

On September 25, 2008, the Faina was hijacked by about 50 Somali pirates from the Somalia Youth Coast Guard, also identified as the "Central Regional Coast Guard." The ship was allegedly headed to Mombasa, Kenya, from Ukraine with 33 Soviet made T-72 tanks, weapons including rocket-propelled grenades and anti-aircraft guns, and ammunition on board, when it was captured. The pirates said they were unaware of the ship's cargo before they captured it. However, the pirates claim that documents found onboard indicate the weapons cargo was destined for Juba, in southern Sudan, instead of to Kenya as originally understood.

The pirates demanded US$20 million (€14.4 million) in ransom for the ship, and promised that they would fight to the death if attacked. At first the pirates demanded US$35 million, but reduced the demand. The pirates are thought to be attempting to move toward the pirate haven of Eyl in Somalia in an attempt to unload some of the cargo there. Sugule Ali, a spokesman for the pirates onboard the Faina said that "...There is no shortage of food supply and all the crew members are healthy and well including ours."[

The American destroyer USS Howard, the Ticonderoga class Aegis missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf, along with two Royal Navy Type 23 frigates, engaged the Faina in pursuit within several hundred yards to prevent the pirates from unloading the cargo. As of October 1, at least five warships have surrounded the Faina and the Russian missile frigate Neustrashimy is en route, though as of September 27, the ship was already reported as having reached Somali waters.

US helicopters and planes of an unknown origin have also been flying over the Faina.Warships from the United States and other navies have blockaded the MV Faina in a port off Somalia's Indian Ocean coast. However, pirates are attempting to unload small weapons from the cargo near the village of Hinbarwaqo, even while warned not to by the surrounding navy ships.

On the ship, tensions have been reported to rise and a fight between rival pirates may have resulted in the death of three pirates. However, this report was denied by the pirates, instead saying that they were celebrating Eid ul-Fitr, and were "...happy on the ship, and we are celebrating."