Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

[FIXED DB v445] ABM Behavior – Usage

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> [FIXED DB v445] ABM Behavior – Usage Page: [1]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
[FIXED DB v445] ABM Behavior – Usage - 6/7/2016 1:43:01 AM   


Posts: 237
Joined: 9/12/2015
Status: offline
I created a quick scenario between BLUFOR and OPFOR to test out a few of the ABM systems during the Cold War. See attached scenario.
Playing as OPFOR, the SH-04 Galosh ABM does not fire at the incoming Titan II until the RV is almost on top of one of the ABM launch sites. As a result, all nearby friendly units take serious EMP damage by the 1 MT airburst. Is the close in engagement range accurate instead of the the 200nm range?
Playing as BLUFOR, The Nike Hercules sites fail to fire at the incoming SS-9. I suspect it’s a target acquisition issue but any guidance would be helpful.



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by emsoy -- 6/12/2016 10:00:54 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: ABM Behavior – Usage - 6/7/2016 2:40:16 AM   
Kitchens Sink


Posts: 402
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline
I did some reading on this about a year ago. I don't have the links but using Google will get you some results.

In the time of your scenario (circa 1966) it sounds like your results are probably pretty accurate. One of the reasons the Soviet Union replaced the Galosh with the Gorgon/Gazelle ABM system is the fact that they figured the EMP damage from multiple Galosh intercepts would cause widespread problems. Even the Gorgon would probably cause some EMP damage, but it's intercepts were supposedly higher than the Galosh and was more accurate.

In 1966 I don't believe the US really had anything in the way of ABM. The Nike Hercules wasn't capable, but there was talk on upgrading it to the Nike-X (never done). In the end the US decided on a limited deployment of something called Project Sentinel (?) that was a combination of a Spartan Missile primary interceptor and a Sprint Missile backup interceptor (both nuclear-tipped). That system wasn't operational until the mid 1970's as I recall.

Now of course the US has AEGIS/THAAD systems

(in reply to zclark)
Post #: 2
RE: ABM Behavior – Usage - 6/9/2016 3:43:39 PM   


Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline
Added to our list. Might be a db issue but we'll double check. In general SAM nukes were phased out for reason



(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 3
RE: ABM Behavior – Usage - 6/12/2016 9:59:24 AM   


Posts: 5735
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline
This is a database error, fixed v445. Thanks


Developer "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations" project!

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 4
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> [FIXED DB v445] ABM Behavior – Usage Page: [1]
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