Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: High Altitude bombardment

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: High Altitude bombardment Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: High Altitude bombardment - 9/2/2006 10:08:35 PM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3110
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden deliciousLow altitude AA can still impact high altitude planes. I tested it.


Well then there is a problem eh?

Re: Campaign for South Vietnam. Finally found it in my folders too. 47 page manual will take me a bit to digest

Overall, this looks to be the most realistic, and complicated of all of them, though perhaps not the easiest to play, and certainly not too easy to win for US/ARVN, as reality demands.

I'd like to play a strategic simulation of the Cold War using a game engine that combines the best of both TOAW III and say Civilization 3 Conquests, a turn-based strategy in which you control the cultural, domestic, and political factors involved as well as military.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 211
RE: High Altitude bombardment - 9/3/2006 4:26:10 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I'd like to play a strategic simulation of the Cold War using a game engine that combines the best of both TOAW III and say Civilization 3 Conquests, a turn-based strategy in which you control the cultural, domestic, and political factors involved as well as military.


I could see Paradox coming up with a game like that.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 212
RE: High Altitude bombardment - 9/3/2006 5:50:12 PM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3110
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden deliciousI could see Paradox coming up with a game like that.


Hmmm. Never heard of them. Will have to check them out.

Okay, lets add Nukes to the list of unbalanced major firepower factors eh? At least for the "Next War 1979" scenario.

I'm playing allies in a PBEM. Through a preemptive first strike, I've managed to wear down the Soviet air force. It is about turn 15 in the game and the Soviets are up agaisnt my defenses in southern Germany in a line between Regensburg to Memmingen. At tile 40,68 which is spotted Super River terrain there are two units:

SSGF 35th Mot Inf, light green health, 30+122 attack, 14 defense, 0 of 18 movement, size XX (division?). Opening up a game playing the Russkies, I see that this unit has 1471 vehicles in it, 425 squads of AT, rifles, and engineers, and a total of about 290 mortars, artillery pieces, and heavy MGs

SSGF SAM SA4, dark green health, 0+0 attack, 1 defense, 0 of 8 movement, size III (regiment?) this unit comprises 27 SPSAM vehicles.

Recall that, in this scenario hexes are 14km. There is one other SAM unit within the 2 hex range for Soviet SAMs in this scenario one at 38,67

I've already played and sent the turn, but just to recreate roughly what happened I've reopened it.

I assign a total of 800 kilotons of nuke attack on it from four different SSM units. That is roughly 40 times more explosive power than Fat Man, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Sum result: 40,68 contaminated, 43% WP casualties, 0% NATO casualties

SSGF 35th Mot Inf, yellow-green health, 20+96 attack, 9 defense, 0 of 18 movement, size XX (division?)

SSGF SSM SA4, yellow-green health, 0+0 attack, 1 defense, 0 of 8 movement, size III (regiment?)

Following this, I pound the tile with plane-borne nukes, a total of 3 Tac F4s, 3 FB Buccanneers, and two FB 104s for a total of 3600 kilotons.

Sum Result: 40,68 contaminated WP 19% casualties, NATO 15% casualties.

SSGF 35th Mot Inf, yellow health, 17+82 attack, 7 defense, 0 of 18 movement, size XX (division?)

SSGF SSM SA4, yellow health, 0+0 attack, 1 defense, 0 of 8 movement, size III (regiment?)

In the actual turn I played, most of the surrounding tiles were also contaminated, but this is roughly what happened when I played it.

So in short, a 14km tile has been hit with a total of 4,400 kilotons of nuke warheads, which has killed about half of a division comprising about 15,000 guys and 1,498 vehicles, including trucks, and other non NBC vehicles as well as Tanks which are not going to be equipped to carry much more than their crews.

4,400 kiloton is 220 times more power than Fat Man which Wikipedia tells me this about

quote:

Because of Nagasaki's hilly terrain, the damage was somewhat less extensive than that in relatively flat Hiroshima. An estimated 40,000 people were killed outright by the bombing at Nagasaki, and about 25,000 were injured


then later in the same page we have:

quote:

According to most estimates, about 70,000 of Nagasaki's 240,000 residents were killed instantly,[6][7] and up to 60,000 were injured. The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile), followed by fires across the northern portion of the city to 3.2 km (2 miles) south of the bomb.[8] The total number of residents killed is believed to be as many as 80,000, including those who died from radiation poisoning in the following months.


For Little Boy we have as follows on Wikipedia

quote:

The official yield estimate of "Little Boy" was about 15 kilotons of TNT equivalent in explosive force, i.e. 6.3 × 1013 joules = 63 TJ (terajoules).[1]. However, the damage and the number of victims were much higher, as Hiroshima was on flat terrain, while the hypocenter of Nagasaki lay in a small valley.

Approximately 70,000 people were killed as a direct result of the blast, and a similar number were injured. A great number more would later die as a result of nuclear fallout and cancer.[2]

At 08:15 (Hiroshima time), the Enola Gay dropped the nuclear bomb called "Little Boy" over the center of Hiroshima. It exploded about 600 meters (2,000 feet) above the city with a blast equivalent to about 13 kilotons of TNT (the U-235 weapon was considered very inefficient, with only 1.38% of its material fissioning),[10] instantly killing an estimated 70,000–80,000 people. . . . . The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile), with resulting fires across 11.4 square km (4.4 square miles).[13] Infrastructure damage was estimated at 90% of Hiroshima's buildings being either damaged or completely destroyed.


So I hit a 14km hex with at least 12 different warheads which are all at least 10 times more powerful than Fat Man (minimum was 200 kilotons for any single unit's attack value). Even assuming some sort of diminishing volume for kilotonage at 200 kilotons, and roughly 1 mile radius of destruction for Fat Man and Little Boy at 20 and 13 kilotons, I would think a 200 kiloton bomb would obliterate at least a 1.5 km radius, i.e., a 3.2km diameter?

12 warheads X 3.2 km = 38.4km diameter area of full blast effects. Assuming perfect cooperation and coordination, and none of the pilots had to drop their payloads off target because of avoiding SSMs (there was zero Soviet air superiority to respond at this point), this means that the ENTIRE hex should have been engulfed in a fireball, and I'm supposed to believe that roughly half of this Soviet division is going to be able to survive this because they have some "NBC-fitted" metal cars to sit tight in!?! It beggars the imagination!

Can anyone who actually knows about this stuff account for whether this is realistic or not?

< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 9/3/2006 5:56:35 PM >

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 213
RE: High Altitude bombardment - 9/3/2006 6:19:33 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Hmmm. Never heard of them. Will have to check them out.


http://www.paradoxplaza.com/

They make a lot of Grand Strategic games;
Crusader Kings (1066-1453 or so)
Europa Universalis II (1415-1820) (there's a III but I've not played it)
Victoria (1836-1936)
Hearts of Iron II (1936-53)

Various utilities allow you to- in theory at least- play a continuous game from 1066 to 1953. Though you'd have a hard time not to conquer the world in that time.

quote:

So in short, a 14km tile has been hit with a total of 4,400 kilotons of nuke warheads, which has killed about half of a division comprising about 15,000 guys and 1,498 vehicles, including trucks, and other non NBC vehicles as well as Tanks which are not going to be equipped to carry much more than their crews.


Well, you have to bear in mind the law of diminishing returns. If you quadruple the amount of fissile material, you probably only double the destructive effect.

quote:

Because of Nagasaki's hilly terrain, the damage was somewhat less extensive than that in relatively flat Hiroshima. An estimated 40,000 people were killed outright by the bombing at Nagasaki, and about 25,000 were injured


Yeah. But some survived even within a short distance of ground zero.

quote:

12 warheads X 3.2 km = 38.4km diameter area of full blast effects.


.... no. 12 3.2km diameters does NOT equal one 38.4km diameter. A circle of radius 1.5km has an area of just over 7 square kilometres, for a total area of 85 square kilometres. The total area of a 14km hex is 196 square kilometres

quote:

Assuming perfect cooperation and coordination, and none of the pilots had to drop their payloads off target because of avoiding SSMs


What about the SAMs? You said your aircraft had 15% losses.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 9/3/2006 6:21:54 PM >


_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 214
RE: High Altitude bombardment - 9/3/2006 6:21:38 PM   
sstevens06


Posts: 239
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

...
So I hit a 14km hex with at least 12 different warheads which are all at least 10 times more powerful than Fat Man (minimum was 200 kilotons for any single unit's attack value). Even assuming some sort of diminishing volume for kilotonage at 200 kilotons, and roughly 1 mile radius of destruction for Fat Man and Little Boy at 20 and 13 kilotons, I would think a 200 kiloton bomb would obliterate at least a 1.5 km radius, i.e., a 3.2km diameter?

12 warheads X 3.2 km = 38.4km diameter area of full blast effects. Assuming perfect cooperation and coordination, and none of the pilots had to drop their payloads off target because of avoiding SSMs (there was zero Soviet air superiority to respond at this point), this means that the ENTIRE hex should have been engulfed in a fireball, and I'm supposed to believe that roughly half of this Soviet division is going to be able to survive this because they have some "NBC-fitted" metal cars to sit tight in!?! It beggars the imagination!

Can anyone who actually knows about this stuff account for whether this is realistic or not?



Thank you for sharing this. I assume you're playing TOAW3 (with Ralph's correction of the nuclear attack bug).

These seem like reasonable results.

You are more or less correct about the effects radii of a 200kT nuclear weapon (though there's a big difference between air- and ground-burst delivery). This calculation, however, is suspect:

quote:

12 warheads X 3.2 km = 38.4km diameter area of full blast effects.



Your calculation assumes a regular pattern of nuclear attacks across a given amount of terrain. I have doubts things would be so neat and tidy in a real nuclear attack...

A couple of things to remember:

- Hiroshima & Nagasaki were large, static targets, full of civilians with no protective equipment or training.

- Your targets were Cold War-era Soviet heavy forces, on the move. The Soviet Army of this period was extensively equipped and trained for nuclear warfighting. By 1979 most of their AFVs had NBC protection. In action during a ground invasion of West Germany, these forces would have been moving fast, making maximum use of cover and concealment, using camoflage and diversionary operations to mislead NATO targeteers, etc.

All in all, these results seem consistent with my understanding of likely outcomes of nuclear attacks on Cold War-era forces.

(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 215
RE: High Altitude bombardment - 9/3/2006 8:36:24 PM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3110
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06
Thank you for sharing this. I assume you're playing TOAW3 (with Ralph's correction of the nuclear attack bug).

These seem like reasonable results.

You are more or less correct about the effects radii of a 200kT nuclear weapon (though there's a big difference between air- and ground-burst delivery). This calculation, however, is suspect:

12 warheads X 3.2 km = 38.4km diameter area of full blast effects.

Your calculation assumes a regular pattern of nuclear attacks across a given amount of terrain. I have doubts things would be so neat and tidy in a real nuclear attack...

A couple of things to remember:

- Hiroshima & Nagasaki were large, static targets, full of civilians with no protective equipment or training.

- Your targets were Cold War-era Soviet heavy forces, on the move. The Soviet Army of this period was extensively equipped and trained for nuclear warfighting. By 1979 most of their AFVs had NBC protection. In action during a ground invasion of West Germany, these forces would have been moving fast, making maximum use of cover and concealment, using camoflage and diversionary operations to mislead NATO targeteers, etc.

All in all, these results seem consistent with my understanding of likely outcomes of nuclear attacks on Cold War-era forces.


Thanks Golden and Ssteven. Wow if this really is realistic, then I'm amazed at how hard it would have been to destroy NBC ground forces using nuclear attacks.

BTW, yes I am playing TOAW 3.0.0.17

Indeed, you are both correct to point out that my calculation of a 38.4km diameter area of maximum damage assumes that the blast radius of all 12 warheads are properly spaced out so that overlap is minimal. However, consider the following:

Fat Man and Little Boy both produced a 1 mile RADIUS (according to wiki) of maximum damage in which very little was left. That is a two mile diameter area in which anything remotely combustible would be gone, and closer to the center even reinforced concrete and steel were damaged. But the actual area of what I would deem to be a "99% kill zone" from the fireball is considerably smaller.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects7.shtml

quote:

A primary form of energy from a nuclear explosion is thermal radiation. Initially, most of this energy goes into heating the bomb materials and the air in the vicinity of the blast. Temperatures of a nuclear explosion reach those in the interior of the sun, about 100,000,000° Celsius, and produce a brilliant fireball.


So what would you expect the casualty rate to be for troops inside top-notch NBC protected vehicles within this inner radius of destruction? 2%, 5%, 10% or higher? Even if they survive, would their vehicles be operable, and would they be battle ready? I just cannot imagine how much of ANYTHING can survive 100,000,000° Celcius temperatures, even a top-of-the-line NBC equipped AFV or tank.

I would think even being inside of entirely hermetic, NBC vehicle with a self-contained atmosphere and cooling system might not ensure survival within the fireball region of the blast? I guess I just don't understand how an armored car or a tank can be made to keep the passengers from getting cooked, deafened, and severely concussed within such a firestorm, even if it IS an NBC equipped machine.

quote:

After 10 seconds, when the fireball of a 1-megaton nuclear weapon has attained its maximum size (5,700 feet across), the shock front is some 3 miles farther ahead. At 50 seconds after the explosion, when the fireball is no longer visible, the blast wave has traveled about 12 miles. It is then traveling at about 784 miles per hour, which is slightly faster than the speed of sound at sea level.


This site gives us the values for a 25 kT bomb

http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/nuclear-low-yield-weapons-impact.htm

quote:

The fireball radius is 439 feet. Radius of fireball when the shock front breaks away 424 feet. As shock front breaks away a second thermal pulse begins. Distance to 1 psi overpressure (moderate structural damage) 7.32miles. Distance to second degree burns to exposed skin 2.07miles


Keep in mind, the fireball reaches 100,000,000° Celcius, as hot as the sun. So a one kiloton explosion gives us a 323 feet radius fireball, a 25kT explosion is 439 feet radius fireball (878 feet diameter), and a 1000 kiloton explosion gives us a 5700 feet radius fireball of 100,000,000° Celcius. So for a roughly 25 kiloton warhead, that would give a 99% kill zone of roughly 0.169 mile (878 feet in diameter) or 605,450 square feet right? A 14 kilometer hex is equal to a hex 45,931.76 feet in diameter, or a total square feet of 6,627,901,514 square feet, meaning that each warhead inflicts a 99% kill zone on only 0.009% of the total land area in a 14km hex. Hmmm, not nearly as much as I had thought. I reckon the temperature is still quite hot for some distance out from the fireball radius, but it probably drops exponentially, and NBC protection is probably much more protective outside the fireball. Even being a few hundred feet outside the fireball radius probably raises survivability well above 50% for troops in NBC vehicles I would think. Thus, that 1 mile radius in which pretty much everything was destroyed in civilian Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have resulted in a net Cold War Era Soviet NBC-equpped personnel survival rate of at least 50%, eh?

In the first wave of SSM attacks I sent 800 kilotons. There were a total of 4 SSM units (200 kilotons per unit). In the second wave there were 8 air units (200 to 400 kilotons per unit) that delivered a total of 3,600 kilotons. An SSM unit comprises in actuality 9 Pershing I launchers, each of which seems to have 1 missile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-31_Pershing#Pershing_I

Given that each of the 9 launchers ("squads") in each unit should be operating in total concert with one another, one would think that they would coordinate and fire each of their missiles at the proper coordinates so as to not overlap, no? Not to mention the fact that, one would assume some degree of cooperation and coodination for all four of the SSM units acting in concert?

In short, unless we assume that the individual SSM squads within each SSM unit do not coordinate, and furthermore that individual SSM units attacking the same hex simultaneously do not cooperate, then there should be SOME degree of maximal coverage for such an attack of 36 warheads of 22.22 kilotons each, right?

Based on 9 warheads for each of the four SSM units that would make each warhead 22.2 kilotons, roughly equivalent to Fat Man, and roughly equivalent to our figure above of a 100,000,000° Celcius, 99% kill zone of roughly 0.169 mile (878 feet) in diameter right? Or to put it in terms of the hex size, 36 x 0.009 % of the total hex = 0.3% of the total hex squared area would be vaporized. Not nearly as much as I was thinking.

Hmm, maybe 43% casualties IS reasonable for 36 warheads delivering 800 kilotons to 15,000 troops and 1,500 vehicles in a 14km diameter hex.

< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 9/3/2006 8:54:25 PM >

(in reply to sstevens06)
Post #: 216
RE: High Altitude bombardment - 9/3/2006 8:59:47 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

So what would you expect the casualty rate to be for troops inside top-notch NBC protected vehicles within this inner radius of destruction? 2%, 5%, 10% or higher? Even if they survive, would their vehicles be operable, and would they be battle ready?


This latter consideration is taken care of by the considerable drop in readiness the unit will suffer.

quote:

Hmmm, not nearly as much as I had thought. I reckon the temperature is still quite hot for some distance out from the fireball radius, but it probably drops exponentially, and NBC protection is probably much more protective outside the fireball. Even being a few hundred feet outside the fireball radius probably raises survivability well above 50% for troops in NBC vehicles I would think. Thus, that 1 mile radius in which pretty much everything was destroyed in civilian Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have resulted in a net Cold War Era Soviet NBC-equpped personnel survival rate of at least 50%, eh?


Yeah. Bear in mind also that some 'lost' equipment only goes to replacements.

quote:

In the first wave of SSM attacks I sent 800 kilotons. There were a total of 4 SSM units (200 kilotons per unit). In the second wave there were 8 air units (200 to 400 kilotons per unit) that delivered a total of 3,600 kilotons. An SSM unit comprises in actuality 9 Pershing I launchers, each of which seems to have 1 missile.


I would assume, though, that not all the launchers are firing at once. Otherwise, how can you fire in second and subsequent rounds?

quote:

Hmm, maybe 43% casualties IS reasonable for 36 warheads delivering 800 kilotons to 15,000 troops and 1,500 vehicles in a 14km diameter hex.


There we go. Always good when someone can argue themselves to a standstill without the need for outside intervention.

It really is remarkable how survivable troops can be on the nuclear battlefield. Of course, 43% casualties can really ruin your day- especially when combined with a drop in readiness and the appearance of contaminated hexes. I think TOAW does a decent job of making the nuclear battlefield survivable but very difficult to fight in.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 9/3/2006 9:02:30 PM >


_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 217
RE: High Altitude bombardment - 9/3/2006 9:08:20 PM   
Anthropoid


Posts: 3110
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious This latter consideration is taken care of by the considerable drop in readiness the unit will suffer.


Yep. Good point.

quote:

Yeah. Bear in mind also that some 'lost' equipment only goes to replacements.


Some of it actually gets destroyed right? But in the event a hex is still ni supply, some of it is "disabled" removed to the rear and goes to replacements.

This actually raises another question for me: A hex that is out of supply, not because it is surrounded by immediately adjacent enemies, but simply because supply routes have been cut off. In such an instance, losses will NOT go to replacements right?

quote:

There we go. Always good when someone can argue themselves to a standstill without the need for outside intervention.

It really is remarkable how survivable troops can be on the nuclear battlefield. Of course, 43% casualties can really ruin your day- especially when combined with a drop in readiness and the appearance of contaminated hexes. I think TOAW does a decent job of making the nuclear battlefield survivable but very difficult to fight in.


Nukes have this reputation for being doomsday devices, and when used on densely populated civilian areas by surprise, I guess maybe they are. But it is a lot different for NBC equipped I see.

At first I thought the impact seemed to be incongruously low. But having worked through it, it seems quite reasonable.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 218
RE: High Altitude bombardment - 9/3/2006 10:19:34 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Some of it actually gets destroyed right? But in the event a hex is still ni supply, some of it is "disabled" removed to the rear and goes to replacements.


Yeah. About half and half.

quote:

This actually raises another question for me: A hex that is out of supply, not because it is surrounded by immediately adjacent enemies, but simply because supply routes have been cut off. In such an instance, losses will NOT go to replacements right?


If a unit is unsupplied for any reason, nothing goes to replacements. The calculation is only made at the start of the turn, not at the time the losses are taken.

quote:

Nukes have this reputation for being doomsday devices, and when used on densely populated civilian areas by surprise, I guess maybe they are.


Well, cities are much more densely packed than your average battlefield. Take the 14km/hex in our example- that's 196 square kilometres. On average, that amount of area in Greater London contains almost one million people. So 43% losses would amount to around 400,000 people. Of course the loss rate will be much higher, as people are killed by falling rubble etc. Then there's radiation, which in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more than the blast itself.

Typically, nuclear-war type scenarios have pestilence effects to represent the ongoing losses from radiation poisoning, which will generally be theatre-wide.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Anthropoid)
Post #: 219
RE: High Altitude bombardment - 9/3/2006 11:05:00 PM   
sstevens06


Posts: 239
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: USA
Status: offline
Excellent discussion! Convinces me further that the nuclear effects model in TOAW3 is indeed fixed.

As Anthropoid's analysis demonstrates you need really BIG nuclear weapons to guarantee results on the Central European battlefield. Back in the early days of the Cold War the US fielded the M-8 Redstone (predecessor of the Pershing and the booster which launched Alan Shepard into space) - with a range of only 325km, it was armed with a W-39 thermonuclear warhead with a yield of either 1.9 or 3.8MT. Any Soviet unit hit by a couple of those would probably have a very bad day.

(Unfortunately the stock TOAW3 database has nothing to adequately simulate such a potentially decisive weapon system, hence my need for an equipment editor before migrating Berlin Crisis 1961.)

Now to get even more realistic, selectable air- or ground-bursts for nuclear attacks would be a very nice enhancement. As would simulation of nuclear PGMs (precision guided munitions), the 1st of which was the now-retired Pershing II. The Soviets had several models of these as well (OTR-23 Spider IIRC), not to mention current endeavors in this area. One could conceive of these as having higher attack strengths than would be called for by their yield, with less radiation and fallout.

Finally, what would a late Cold War simulation be without Enhanced Radiation (aka Neutron) weapons? Specifically designed to kill with "prompt" radiation (X-rays IIRC) while minimizing all other nuclear weapons effects (heat, blast, and fallout), ER weapons generally had very low yields such as 1kT. But they had the potential of being really effective battlefield weapons, their extremely high initial burst of radiation capable of defeating most known Soviet and NATO NBC protective suites.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 220
RE: High Altitude bombardment - 9/3/2006 11:34:08 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4756
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

Now to get even more realistic, selectable air- or ground-bursts for nuclear attacks would be a very nice enhancement.


Mm. I'd say the first thing I'd want to do would be to go into more detail on the nuclear stockpile system. As it stands, you have a fixed number of nuclear attacks allowable per turn. What I'd like to see would be something akin to the way replacements work currently, with one item for each size of warhead. Weapons systems could be specified as either having a fixed warhead size or a variable size, in which case they could fire a smaller warhead if none of their own type was available.

quote:

Finally, what would a late Cold War simulation be without Enhanced Radiation (aka Neutron) weapons? Specifically designed to kill with "prompt" radiation (X-rays IIRC) while minimizing all other nuclear weapons effects (heat, blast, and fallout), ER weapons generally had very low yields such as 1kT. But they had the potential of being really effective battlefield weapons, their extremely high initial burst of radiation capable of defeating most known Soviet and NATO NBC protective suites.


That should be pretty easy to simulate. Just combine a limited impact on terrain with a larger impact on units in the hex.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to sstevens06)
Post #: 221
RE: High Altitude bombardment - 9/10/2006 1:35:09 PM   
a white rabbit


Posts: 2366
Joined: 4/27/2002
From: ..under deconstruction..6N124E..
Status: offline
..just in case it's not been said..comparison of modern battlefield nukes with the ones dropped on Japan is guidance at best, the japanese house construction methods of the period gives higher destruction of buildings, and so people than the same bomb dropped on a western city in the same period. The fire bombing of other Japanese cities caused far higher casualties than the new toys, altho at a far higher cost in aviation fuel..

_____________________________

..toodA, irmAb moAs'lyB 'exper'mentin'..,..beàn'tus all..?,

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 222
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: High Altitude bombardment Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.152