RPG Forums

RPG Forums (https://forum.juhlin.com/index.php)
-   Twilight 2000 Forum (https://forum.juhlin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Norfolk Status: Going Home Time Frame (https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=5151)

kato13 05-13-2016 10:17 AM

The character biographies from the Last Sub series also mention the Naval Chief of Staff being in the Norfolk area. Given the power the remaining Joint Chiefs have, I certainly see them migrating towards areas where they can find support and infrastructure.

RN7 05-13-2016 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kato13 (Post 70718)
The character biographies from the Last Sub series also mention the Naval Chief of Staff being in the Norfolk area. Given the power the remaining Joint Chiefs have, I certainly see them migrating towards areas where they can find support and infrastructure.

From Armies of the Night, Page 3:

"The Characters are members of the US Army 5th Division recently returned to the United States from Europe. Characters from Europe will have crossed the Atlantic by means of Task Force 34, the evacuation fleet discussed in Going Home. After a long and mal de mer-ridden voyage, they returned to America and landed in Norfolk, Virginia, on November 25, 2000. There they were organised into a holding company pending further orders, and spent some brief time on garrison duty at the Military Government enclave in eastern Virginia. Finally, early in December, new orders came through from Norfolk."

So this would imply that there are functional docks and infrastructure in the Norfolk area that were able to process thousand of returning American troops from Europe, and that there is also a functional MilGov command structure in the Norfolk area.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 70707)
Another reason why multiple warheads are more plausible than a single one. What Soviet commander would leave half of the home port for the Atlantic fleet still intact?

I would agree that an SLBM and not an ICBM was used against Norfolk, just not a MIRV strike. The SLBM would be an SS-N-6 SLBM with a single 1 Mt warhead which is what is listed in Howling Wilderness.

Why was Norfolk targeted by a SLBM and not an ICBM such as the SS-18 (R-36M)? For three reasons

1) The Thanksgiving massacre occurred in November 1997. The R-36M ICBM with 8 MIRV's was retired in 1983, that's a gap of 14 years.
2) The replacement for the R-36M (the R-36UTTh and R-36M2) were designed to attack hardened American ICBM silos not soft targets like Norfolk, and their warhead yields do not match the 0.5 Mt used on targets in the region.
3) GDW implies that the Soviets carried out an SLBM strike on targets across the Mid-Atlantic region.

From Allegheny Uprising...

Page 9: "With less than 10 minutes notice between the rising of sub-launched ballistic missiles from off the Atlantic Coast and their detonation over Washington DC"

Page 16: " Maryland was hit hard during the nuclear exchange, with SLBM strikes against Fort Meade (between Baltimore and Washington DC), Andrews Airforce Base (southeast of Washington), Fort Detrick (at Frederick), and Camp David (north of Frederick)"

Olefin 05-13-2016 03:27 PM

Completely agree with the SLBM attack as the most likely way that Norfolk got nuked

it also explains why the nuke was so large - i.e. the SLBM nukes weren't as accurate as the land based ones - so you go big against a big target knowing you may be off center but the big nuke still does the job

and we know that at least one Soviet ballistic missile sub had survived until TDM - from Boomer where it details that the sub launched several strikes and still survived to eventually be abandoned by her crew

Legbreaker 05-13-2016 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olefin (Post 70716)
Which shows that Norfolk is operational enough to base the sub there and prep her for the European mission - its a priceless asset as are the people who are manning her - they aren't going to risk them to radiation poisoning - so that pretty much shows Norfolk as being relatively radiation free, at least to where the sub is.

You don't bring that sub to an area full of radiation, expose priceless nuclear techs to that as well as the last crew you have and the strike team going with it when you could have it go somewhere else instead.

I think for once you and I are actually in general agreement! *gasp!* :D
But, as JHart said, there's other facilities in the area which could be used in the event the military base itself was toast (or make likely targets themselves). Even with say 4 warheads of 250kt each, there's still going to be something which can be used by Milgov.

Legbreaker 05-13-2016 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RN7 (Post 70721)
The R-36M ICBM with 8 MIRV's was retired in 1983, that's a gap of 14 years.

Note that I originally picked the R-36M as just an example of what was possible. There's a number of missiles which could have been used.

SLBM's
R-27U with 200kt warhead
R-29R, 3 warheads of 500kt each
R-29RK, 7 warheads, 100kt each
R-29RL, 1 warhead of 450kt
R-29RM, 4 100 kiloton warheads
R-39 Rif, 10 warheads of 100-200kt each

ICBM's
UR-100N (Mod 3), 6 warheads of 400kt
RT-2PM Topol, 1 warhead, 800kt
R-36M2 Voevoda (SS-18 Mod 5), 10 warheads of .75-1Mt

Cruise missiles
Kh-80, 200kt - 6Mt

As can be seen, there's a great variety of missiles and warheads which could be used either at the same time, or spread over a period of several days.
In fact if it was indeed an SLBM, multiple warheads becomes much more likely.

RN7 05-13-2016 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 70725)
ICBM's
UR-100N (Mod 3), 6 warheads of 400kt
RT-2PM Topol, 1 warhead, 800kt
R-36M2 Voevoda (SS-18 Mod 5), 10 warheads of .75-1Mt


I think it's unlikely that an ICBM was launched at Norfolk given that GDW states that most of the other targets in this region were hit by an SLBM. Also none of these ICBM's have a singular or combined warhead yield that equals 1.0 Mt or 0.5 Mt for the other targets in the region.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legbreaker (Post 70725)
SLBM's
R-27U with 200kt warhead
R-29R, 3 warheads of 500kt each
R-29RK, 7 warheads, 100kt each
R-29RL, 1 warhead of 450kt
R-29RM, 4 100 kiloton warheads
R-39 Rif, 10 warheads of 100-200kt each


R-27U: In sources other than Wikipedia the yield of each warhead in the 2-MRV variant of the Mod 3 (R-27U) was estimated at 0.4 to 0.8 MT, and the yield of each warhead in the 3-MRV variant of the Mod 3 (R-27U) at 0.1 to 0.4 MT. So the warheads of the R-27U (Mod 3) do not have a singular or combined yield of 1.0 Mt.
R-29R: 3 warheads with a yield of 0.2 Mt. This does not have a singular or combined yield of 1.0 Mt.
R-29RK: 7 warheads with a yield of 0.1 Mt. This does not have a singular or combined yield of 1.0 Mt.
R-29RL: 1 warhead with a yield of 0. 45 Mt. This does not have a yield of 1.0 Mt.
R-29RM: 4 warheads with a yield of 0.1 Mt. This does not have a singular or combined yield of 1.0 Mt.
R-39 Rif: 10 warheads with a yield of 0.1 Mt. One missile with ten warheads launched at Norfolk !!!!! Then Task Force 34 won't sailing to Norfolk in 2000 will it?

And you missed the R-27 (SS-N-6) single RV Mod 1 and Mod 2 with a single 1.0 Mt warhead!!

Cruise missiles: Why launch an intermediate ranged cruise missile when it's so much easier to launch a longer ranged and much faster ballistic missile?

RN7 05-13-2016 11:57 PM

Although I would not quibble about the single 0.45 Mt warhead on the R-29RL. Its close enough to 0.5 Mt listed to have been used on other targets in the region,. But I still think the SS-N-6 (R27) with a single 1 Mt warhead is a better bet for Norfolk. Its matches the mega tonnage and will allow some infrastructure to survive and allow for a MilGov enclave to be established post TGM.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.