Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

Is it possible to model tactical or normal nukes in game?

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

No that is beyond the scope of this game.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

Sure. Don't bother playing the game, just assume that both sides lost.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

To model strategic nukes in the game. Hit the reset button at the moment of use. After rebooting, delete both the scenario, and the orbat of the side nuked. If both sides have large amounts of strategic nukes, delete the game.

troopie

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Artur.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

The issue has been discussed extensively (and quite often) on the old SPMBT mailing list.
The conclusion was always the same. The scale of SPMBT doesn't allow the modelling of a tactical nuke explosion, even if the operations advised by Troopie would be a solution.

Do that, with Carmina Burana "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi" at max volume, the effect will be very coreographic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

To model nukes explosions will not be so interesting because all the map and all the units in it at the moment of the explosion will simply vanish.



Maybe modelling the environment after some days will be interesting (lot of new terrain graphics, lot of new OOBs,etc.) but this is not the purpose of the game,so such weapons will not be modelled.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

.....I'm seriously at a loss for words here....

http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/davy6.jpg

The W54 warhead used on the Davy Crockett weighed just 51 pounds and was the smallest and lightest fission bomb (implosion type) ever deployed by the United States, with a variable explosive yield of 0.01 kilotons (equivalent to 10 tons of TNT, or two to four times as powerful as the ammonium nitrate bomb which destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995) or 0.02 kilotons-1 kiloton.

Basically during the 1950s, and early 1960s, the entire
US Military strategy for defending Europe against
Soviet Invasion was using a lot of tactical nukes, backed
up with a small army to hold the ground.

It's seriously feasible to consider small (up to 5
kiloton) nuclear weapons as workable with the SPCAMO
engine, particularly in the 1950s, early 1960s,
before McNamara took over and built a large conventional
US Army.

Link to Nuke Calculator

A 1 kt weapon would only vaporize everything utterly in a radius of 30-40 meters, and the various weapon effects
such as ionizing radiation, air blast, thermal pulse, would
extend out to 700-800 meters.

A 5 kt weapon would vaporize everything utterly in a radius of 60-80 meters, and the various weapon effects
such as ionizing radiation, air blast, thermal pulse, would
extend out to 1100-1300 meters.

Considering that you can play upon maps as big as 10 by 8 kilometers with WinMBT, tactical nukes on those maps would
be feasible as you would have manuever room to spread out
your multiple echelons to avoid them all being taken out
by a tactical nuke.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

Why the US have not used them in Korea or Vietnam?


You can push it all the way in but for what I know tactical nukes will not be modelled in the game.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

Just for amusement I'll get on it on Friday night.. However I can see one big problem straight away.

Even with warhead and HEK set to 255, infantry still survive at ground zero. it will do aloft of damage, but won't wipe out the targets.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

Korea was before the Eisenhowerian doctrine of "I love nukes,
I want them everywhere", and Vietnam was run by Strange McNamara
who wanted a large conventional army.

And also, using nukes is a significant escalation for
what were side-shows in the Cold War. The US Decision making
process at the time saw Korea as a sideshow, and some
people even viewed Korea as having been started by the
Soviets as a diversion to draw US Forces away from Europe.

This resulted in a policy that no real frontline equipment
was sent to Korea; which is why you saw refurbished WW2
era B-29s doing bomb runs over Korea, instead of post-war
built B-50s. Similarily, the Midway CVBs were never deployed
off Korea; it was war-built Essexes and CVLs that did the
brunt of the Naval Air War over Korea.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

I've done some tests before, what I found to be close to a realistic nuke blast was using a MRLS style setup with accuracy of 100%, and having multiple 255/255 "Shots" hitting
the same hex in rapid succession.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

Because it was desigbed to "make a whole area kill or incapacitate advancing troop formations and irradiate the area so that it was uninhabitable for up to 48 hours, long enough to mobilize NATO forces." Not much fun to game out to me. The Special Atomic Demolition Munition isn't much fun either.


from website that photo came from with text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Cr...lear_device%29

One of the smallest nuclear weapons ever fielded, the Davy Crockett was developed in the late 1950s for use in a tactical confrontation with Soviet troops in West Germany. Small teams of the Atomic Battle Group (charged with operating the device) would be stationed every few kilometers to guard against Soviet attack, using the power of their nuclear artillery shells to kill or incapacitate advancing troop formations and irradiate the area so that it was uninhabitable for up to 48 hours, long enough to mobilize NATO forces.

The M-388 round used a heavy version of the W54 warhead, a very small sub-kiloton fission device. The W54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a selectable yield of 10 - 250 tons (very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead). The complete round weighed 76 lb (34.5 kg). It was 31 in (78.7 cm) long with a diameter of 11 in (28 cm) at its widest point; a subcaliber piston at the back of the shell was actually inserted into the launcher's barrel for firing.

The Davy Crockett could be launched from either of two launchers: the 4-inch (102 mm) M28, with a range of about 1.25 mi (2 km), or the 6-in (155 mm) M29, with a range of 2.5 mi (4 km). Both weapons used the same projectile, and could be mounted on a tripod launcher or carried by truck or armored personnel carrier. They were operated by a three-man crew.

Both recoilless rifles proved to have poor accuracy in testing, so the shell's greatest effect would have been its extreme radiation hazard. Even at a low yield setting, the M388 would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 meters). With no shielding or protection from either blast or radiation, a Davy Crockett crew would have been unlikely to survive an engagement without long-term health risks.

The warhead was tested on July 7, 1962 in the LITTLE FELLER II weapons effects test shot, and again in an actual firing of the Davy Crockett from distance of 1.7 miles (2.72 km) in the "SMALL BOY" test shot (LITTLE FELLER I) on July 17. This was the last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada Test Site.

Production of the Davy Crockett began in 1956. 2,100 were produced. The weapon was deployed with U.S. Army forces from 1961 to 1971.

Versions of the W54 warhead were also used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition project and the AIM-26A Falcon.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

here is some sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/.../Allbombs.html
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node...lear%20weapons
http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Dav...lear_device%29

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

The Soviets responded to that by introducing special
anti-radiation internal liners for their tanks, plus
rubberized anti-radiation coatings for the outer
surfaces (T-55A is one such example).

I apologize if I come across as perhaps a bit evangelical,
but I've always wanted to play a wargame on my computer
below the grand strategic/operational (TOAW) scale, that
allowed the useage of tactical nuclear weapons or chemicals,
as they would have been used widely if the balloon had
ever gone up in Europe.

more Davy Crockett info
 

from 1 of the sites

The Davy Crockett could be launched from either of two launchers: the 4-inch (102 mm) M28, with a range of about 1.25 mi (2 km), or the 6-in (155 mm) M29, with a range of 2.5 mi (4 km). Both weapons used the same projectile, and could be mounted on a tripod launcher or carried by truck or armored personnel carrier. They were operated by a three-man crew.



Both recoilless rifles proved to have poor accuracy in testing, so the shell's greatest effect would have been its extreme radiation hazard. Even at a low yield setting, the M388 would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 meters). With no shielding or protection from either blast or radiation, a Davy Crockett crew would have been unlikely to survive an engagement without long-term health risks.

with a link to that gun/truck site
http://www.guntruck.com/DavyCrockett.html

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

despite the idea that the USSR had about the use of nukes... no one wins with nukes.. everyone just dies

Re: more Davy Crockett info
 

Actually, that's false. You can protect yourself from
blast, radiation and thermal pulse by simply putting
yourself behind an earthen berm; in short, by firing the
Davy Crockett from behind a hill. It IS an indirect fire weapon, after all

I also seem to recall that SOP for firing positions with
the Crockett when you had the time to prepare one was to
dig a firing trench for the crew to huddle in and fire the
weapon from.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

You took the point here. In less than 30 mins you have to do what troopie wrote in a previous message.


That's also why I think it will be much more interesting to model battles days after nukes attack have occured (again a lot of new graphics and new OOB....) and not the nuke strike itself (tactical or normal).

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

Actually; nukes won't kill everyone.

An exellent essay on the aftermath of a Nuclear War
Another excellent essay on Nuclear Winter by the same author

Both pieces are written by an actual honest to God nuclear weapons targeteer; this guy
during the Cold War, actually placed pie-cutters over cities, calculated the effects,
and analysed what would be the immediate aftermath of a nuclear exchange.

It basically comes down to this:

1.) A lot of people will die in the exchange, but a lot more will survive.

2.) Worldwide civilization will be thrown back to the early 19th century; because
with our industrial infrastructure destroyed or severely damaged; we will not be
able to manufacture advanced steels, etc.

Also, a global nuclear exchange wouldn't be the end of combat operations, although casualties
would be severe among the deployed military forces. Norman Friedman's The Fifty Year's War
states that the ammunition stockpiles for the East German National Peoples Army (NVA) of
160,000 men were far larger than it's West German counterpart's stockpiles, which is
interesting, considering the FRG's army was of 500,000 men, or 3.78 times larger than
the NVA.

In other words, the kinds of stockpiles you build up so that if a nuclear war takes out
your production facilities, your forces will be able to fight as before for just a bit
longer, which is all it will take to overrun the enemy, whose stocks will have been
decimated.

Anyway, going back and thinking over it, Nuclear weapons would most likely only be
employed in the first battle of a campaign, and then only used very sporadically after
that, due to them being used up in the opening exchange...which makes it be too much
effort programmer wise, for something that will only be used infrequently, as opposed
to "reversable tanks", which I use a LOT.

But it does put forth a rather cool idea for a "post-nuclear" campaign for WinMBT as others
have stated in this thread, where your decimated units fight against equally decimated Warsaw
Pact units in the post-apocalyptic battles following a nuclear exchange after a Warsaw
Pact/NATO war in Europe.....so I guess the typing we've all been expending in this debate
haven't been for waste, LOL!

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

Here are another two interesting sites showing the effects, not as detailed as the one previously posted though.

http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?...;contentId=409

Fallout calculator, concerning the latest "bunker buster" type bombs.

The other http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?...;contentId=367

Details outcome in selected US cities.

On another note, years ago, I read a book called Nuclear war:effects and outcomes (or something like that) it totally terrified me! Didn`t understand alot of the science, But i got the general impression of the effects.

It offered several scenarios of a "limited" strike in Europe and its effects.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

I don't want to so down and preach about nuke weapons but my father spent his time in the US Army riding these weapons around the US. He was a MP at Sandia Base (now Sandia Labs) and he told me about what went on. I then took up a study of nuclear weapons and their effects. He was also at a couple of troop tests and guarded the test areas also.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

<rant>
I read the essay by Stuart Slade and agree about the Strategic outcome of a nuke exchange.

However in a tactical framework the use of a Davy Crockett type weapon at the lowest setting will indeed have a small footprint but really only kill a plt or so. You will get a lethal dose (800 rem) at 350 meters (not knell over now dead) and will that will take some time) and outside that area you will be sick and suffer temporary immune system suppression. So it is really a point attack weapon instead of an area effect weapon. You need to use a larger setting to get the desired yield to get the effect needed to make an area unusable to an enemy. The Russians did also have those liners in their tanks and APC’s; those are only good for cutting down the exposure when crossing over the area. If the area was radiated at 800 rem or more they will still get a lethal dose. The Russians would try to go around areas of high radiation to protect their troops. Their best use would have been at bridges and crossroads to impend the movement of enemy mechanized forces.

The fact that the US Army wanted 115,000 nuclear weapons for it use in the defense of Europe will tell you something about how little anyone knew about the affect of nuclear war. Of course that was using those weapons on someone else’s country and not here. We deployed about 2000 203mm nuclear shells as well as Pershing missile, Lance tactical missiles, and SADM’s just for the Army. That doesn’t include the USAF or US Navy nuclear weapons. Add the British, French and Soviet weapons into the total it could have be a very bad and lethal battlefield.

I for one am glad all sides were not as crazy as we accused the other of being.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

The use of nuclear weapons would have been in the first strike and I would recommend the Soviet Air land Battle Tactics by William P. Baxter as a good read about Soviet Tactics. There are other books to read but that’s a good overview of how the Soviet army works

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

To play an after nuke strike battle would have a map with no bridges, roads torn up and town ruined. Lower you vision since that equipment would have been damaged and lower troop morale a lot.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

Mark Sheppard said actually; nukes won't kill everyone. And I didn’t mean right now. I mean the after effects and the breakdown of our society and its way of life. Really how many city dwellers could survive by growing their own food and making their own shelter?

I know how to grow food and build but when my AC went out the other day I suffered and knew what to do but can’t comprehend what the clueless would do. That is given also I believe that the essay by Stuart Slade that was mentioned earlier is correct.

The destruction of the means of treatment of the injured, feeding the hungry and housing the homeless would mean an end to what we know.

Also the Soviets would have thrown their spare nukes at other counties also to protect their survivors from any undamaged nations who might want to grow at their expense.

</rant>

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

Just a thought, but most if not all modern armies have two levels of tactical seperation between elements, nuke and non-nuke. Knowing that a situation might go nuke would encourage commanders to utilize the wider seperations. Just as a realism factor. Especially on the larger maps.

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

I remember an old board game that had the best "nuke" rule I'd seen. Basically it was ....

"take a can of lighter fluid, and apply to all maps and counters. Step back. Apply flame. Best if "nucular" scenarios are played outside."

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

What I would treasure seeing in a strategy game, particularly in a Cold War context, is a (protected) "Doomsday Switch" which you could activate to shift from conventional to all-out WMD engagement, of course without hope of going back...
With a huge point penaty for the first player who would open-mindedly "go nuclear" to save his face... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Nah, just dreaming, I wouldn't even consider modelling the precise efects of a tactical nuke in a tactical game...

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

lol

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

I think that was a SPI game.. I think it was WWIII

Re: Tactical or normal nuke modelling
 

The Davy Crockett launcher has a cameo in Metal Gear Solid 3.