Tactical or normal nuke modelling

[Shadowcougar]

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.

[Shadowcougar]

<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.

[Shadowcougar]

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

[Shadowcougar]

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.

[Shadowcougar]

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>