|
|
|
|
|
#1
10-08-2009, 05:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Some rambling thoughts here,
First to address RN7's post, with the Merc: 2000 situation. Australia and the UK would be operating Milan as their ATGW and not a US system. I am fairly certain that the Javelin ATGW was not obtained by either nation until the early 2000s. As for the Abrams and Bradleys, I think it was just a lucky guess that GDW picked the Abrams as MBTs for Australia, certainly the decision wasn't really made to buy them until long after the game books were published. The thinking of the time was that we were probably going to buy the Leopard 2 or perhaps the Challenger to replace the Leopard 1. The Abrams was not a good choice for the Australian Army but it was a very good for the Australian government. Second, I support Webstral's assessment of the situation, Australia was already a target simply because we are heavily populated with peoples from NATO countries and therefore friends/allies with them. Sounds too simple but it is a simple truth, we are a former British colony so we are naturally going to be against the Soviets. Plus we have a massive reserve of natural resources that could be safely (well, reasonably so) shipped to Europe via the US via the lower part of the Pacific Ocean were the Soviet fleet would be spread too thin. Ruining Australian ports to prevent those resources reaching NATO nations would always be a consideration of Soviet high command (think of the movement of supplies from Argentina and Brazil to assist the Allied war effort in WW2). Pine Gap was most definitely worth a nuclear strike as it was and still is an important link in the US (and also NATO) satellite communications network amongst it's other roles. Traffic from NATO forces in former Yugoslavia was apparently sent through Pine Gap. Fremantle port (and by default Perth itself) was a known Soviet target simply because US fleets often called in for R&R and resupply & simple repair/maintenance let alone the facilities I mentioned earlier. As a side note, you could always tell when a USN fleet was due in because you'd start to see C-2 Greyhounds flying in to the Perth airport. The other places I mentioned before were also known to be on Soviet target lists. I also see that missile strikes on Australia would be far more efficient than sending special forces units (or any other type of attack force) simply because one Soviet submarine would possess all the warheads necessary to do the job. However one thing I would say, when Webstral mentioned that the Soviets are not nice people who play fair, I'd extend that across the board to all the nations involved. As much as we like to believe that we ourselves would be more civilized/polite/fair/gentlemanly etc. etc., differences of ideology aside, we are all as bad as each other. I think once you throw nuclear weapons into the fight, you're really saying "The gloves are off, now we start to really get nasty". 
|
|
#2
10-08-2009, 06:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Webstral
|
|
#3
10-08-2009, 06:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It'd be madness for the USSR to nuke Australia unless a US warship is in port or they hit the telemetry stations at Pine Gap or North West Cape. Everything else is far less unimportant than tasking more warheads to critical European and US targets where the initial warheads may not get through.
Canonically the USSR plays a gentleman's nuclear war with the USA, launching just a few warheads at a time before making a half-hearted strike (that somehow takes everyone by surprise!) that is launched in dribs and drabs. In this odd and unrealistic scenario they may nuke an ally 'to show that it could be done', but no one was ever in any doubt anyway. They'd make the point better by nuking Peurto Rico. It's all academic anyway. Both systems were designed that once confirmed nuke launches or strikes were observed the arsenals were immediately launched, because otherwise they would risk being destroyed in their silos. The crews knew they would be dead shortly anyway. If there's one part of the canonical backstory I would have GMs looking at addressing, it is the fundamental question of how the nuclear aspect of the war was waged. At present it is ridiculous.
|
|
#4
10-09-2009, 01:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
[QUOTE=ChalkLine;13921]It's all academic anyway. Both systems were designed that once confirmed nuke launches or strikes were observed the arsenals were immediately launched, because otherwise they would risk being destroyed in their silos. The crews knew they would be dead shortly anyway. QUOTE] Simply not true. If this were the case, we'd have been incinerated already due to the number of false alarms--some of them extremely convincing. In any event, the idea of massive automatic retaliation takes the fate of nations out of the hands of exactly the kinds of people who prefer to make important decisions themselves. The US (and presumably the other nuclear powers as well) haven't invested literally billions in communications so that a general can call up the President and tell him, "You're ******, sir. Sorry, you don't get a say. It's all automatic." It's a fact that some aspects of the system are automated. It's not a fact that the President gets no say. Webstral
|
|
#5
10-09-2009, 01:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Australia is so militarily insignificant in a USA/USSR war that any expenditure on targets there is a waste of resources. The US has the only credible NATO ABM system, so you have to multitarget the same area as many times as you can to overwhelm defences. You send not 16 MIRVs at a US target, you sent 16 ICBMs with 16 MIRVs each at one to ensure you get a penetration. Everyone goes on about the 3000 warheads the USSR has, but that's actually not as many missiles as you'd think. For target saturation you strike and strike again. Don't forget, once you launch you're going to lose your targeting capability within ten minutes. There's no time to say 'bugger, target x didn't get hit' and task a few more missiles at it.
|
|
#6
10-09-2009, 03:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Australia definitely not hit by nukes!!
Sorry to say that but Web you are wrong despite having the wisest thinking. Australia can't be hit by nukes during the Twilight War (New Zealand even less).
- Following how the war is set up, the Soviets have lost their pacific fleet (not the case for US, however). I doubt that the US navy/Japanese navy (respectively 1st and 3rd navy in the world) would forget a single Soviet sub. Moreover, these Soviet subs would target US as a priority (as you said Australia can't hit you back). - Australia is simply out of range (someone mentioned that loosely already but we overlooked that, me included  ).At most, the Soviet can make the Australian desert glow in the dark. Aborigines and Kangaroos might be wiped out and the Soviets will have solve Australia's problems with wild horses and ferral camels  .Here is a small review of Soviet ICBM range to compare with Australia/New Zealand cities distances to the Soviet Union southern border (There are no ICBM bases directly on that border by the way: add 500/1.000km to the cities distances). That puts two cities within extreme range: Darwin (Crocodile Dundee is gone along with 50.000 Aussies) and eventually Perth (Sorry Targan but you are glowing in the dark  ). The most the Soviets will get out of this is a full commitment of an intact Australia to the war (about 3 million troops if you include male/female motivated by anger alone).RT-23UTTKh Molodets (SS-24) : 10.450km MR-UR-100 (SS-17) : 11.000km R-36M/M2 Voyevoda (SS-18) : 11.000km/16.000km (only with 20Mt warhead solely targeted at US ICBM bases…) RT-2P (SS-13) : 9.500km RT-2PM Topol (SS-25) : 10.500km UR-100N (SS-19) : 10.000km Distance to Soviet Southern Border Adelaide 10.500km Brisbane 10.500km Canberra 11.000km Darwin 8.000km Melbourne 11.500km Perth 9.500km Sydney 11.000km Auckland 12.500km Wellington 13.000km You might be back to the Spetnaz raid advocated by Leg but that's doubtful as well: they would have to swim a F... Long Way. One conclusion, T2K team was right, Soviets always considered Australia to be insignificant . More seriously, Australia without Europe and US is simply no threat except may be to penguins occupying Antartica. Of course, Soviets have plenty of missiles and warheads but they can't deliver them that far.I might have the end word on that one (no false modesty but take a map and measure distances  )
Last edited by Mohoender; 10-09-2009 at 03:28 AM.
|
|
#7
10-09-2009, 06:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If you're strictly observing canon, isn't Australia co operating with France? It's been a while since I looked at my copy of Twiilight Encounters but I seem to remember there was a scenario entitled "What's the Polish for G'day?" that had a squad of Australian SAS troopers in Poland who had got there on a French submarine? I know the whole scenario was meant to be a little out of the ordinary and quite vague on detail but wasn't there a reference in that about France and Australia forming a "League of non irradiated nations"?
Also, someone at one point in time posted a write up on a website about a group of troops from Australia, NZ, and the Pacific Islands who had been in Europe and North Africa on various UN missions at the outbreak of War and were now serving as a Brigade unit in Germany. Sorry, but I can't for the life of me find the link. It was non canon obviously. Good discussion btw...I'm enjoying reading it. Cheers
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#8
10-09-2009, 08:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
10-09-2009, 08:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
 "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
#10
10-09-2009, 06:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Or, rather than Spetznaz, who probably are in greater need elsewhere (plus it does sound a bit like a suicide mission for spetznaz), a lone KGB agent operating under deep cover could do the same job and then blend back in to the population afterwards?
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#11
10-09-2009, 07:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I am, however, in full agreement with Webstral. I don't for a second believe that the quite significant US communications abilities found in at least two places in Australia (Pine Gap and Harold E. Holt AKA North-West Cape), would be ignored by the Soviets simply because they are out of range of Soviet land-based missiles. After some discussion with friends who were more into Twilight: 2000 than I ever was (my primary interest is in the Cold War) I believe that the 'Australia invaded by Indonesia' scenario was an alternate history by a fellow Australian called Damian. None of us recall his full name but we are reasonably sure he had a website with the information and that he lived in Queensland. Anyway, to throw out some more information, particularly for Mohoender... http://www.geocities.com/lucktam/awacs/p3aew.htm A short page about the P-3 AEW plane
|
|
#12
10-09-2009, 07:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Not only that but, thinking about it a little more, we know that it isn't true because there were Soviet surface ships running around the Pacific in 1999, well after the nuclear exchange (Satellite Down). There is a possibility subs could have been lurking within range of Australia in 1997. Last edited by Fusilier; 10-09-2009 at 07:50 AM.
|
|
#13
10-09-2009, 08:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just a passing thought...
I've read somewhere that during the Falklands War the Royal Navy warship that was stationed in the Caribbean was replaced by a Royal New Zealand Navy ship so that the Royal Navy ship could join the South Atlantic Task Force. Would have thought that if Australia / NZ remained non combatant during the Twilight War (or at least the opening phases) it's possible that such a thing might be repeated and Australian and New Zealand warships might relieve NATO vessels in areas away from the active theatres (such as the Faklands) to allow the NATO vessels to redeploy to those active theatres? Potentially this might mean that by the year 2000 Australian and New Zealand warships might be found many thousands of miles from home? Imagine the look on the faces of pirates in the caribbean finding themselves under attack by the Royal Australian or New Zealand Navies....
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#14
10-09-2009, 09:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
For SSBN, the Soviets IRL at the time of T2K had at most 20 SSBN in the Pacific. 1/2 Delta and 1/2 Yankee carrying SS-N-8 (7000 km range) and SS-N-6 (2400km range) respectively. Having one sailing in Range of Australia is not that obvious, especially as these subs are much needed for retaliation on the US. Moreover, giving the naval odd in the Pacific, having one closing unoticed within range of Australia is almost impossible (unless you consider, that US, China, Japan, Taiwan, Australia... are simply leaving the Soviet navy wander freely in the Pacific. What you say on soviet didn't escape the West and that may well be the reason explaining these comm centers down there). Sorry but if the Soviet forces in the Atlantic are more or less matching NATO, the Soviet Naval forces in the Pacific are fighting 1 out of 10. A Soviet SSBN might get lucky but doing this on purpose, I doubt it. This sub would have to sail from 7000-10000 km in a fully hostile ocean. No support ships, no air cover, constantly chased down by hostile subs, destroyers, carriers, aircrafts and even petty boats. US was operating from Okinawa, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, California... Why would you waste such a valuable asset when you need to hit your only true threat. However, rumors states that the Soviets were pretty much advanced with EMP tech. If I were them I would try that instead. It would not destroy Australia, but it would disrupt the comm capablity when needed. I agree with all of you that Australians target will be in the mind of Soviets but they are out of reach, simply and physically out of reach. By the way, how big was Pine Gap at the time (it seems that it wasn't fully grown until 1999)? Of course, if you want so much nuking Australia, you can make a scenario for it. A lost Yankee, firing at it because it had no other target. Here are some sources but I'm not sure they are that convincing. The second document seems interesting but doesn't adress the problem of range. The last element is off-topic but I put for fun. http://www.aussurvivalist.com/nuclear/index.htm http://www.reasoninrevolt.net.au/pdf/a000700.pdf http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_12...5/00054746.pdf
|
|
#15
10-09-2009, 09:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sorry, Mo, but you are wrong despite some very good and very reasonable number crunching for land-based ICBM. You blithely assume that American attack boats sink every Soviet boomer that might come within range of Australia before November 1997. Even I, an unapologetic booster for the USN, would not go this far. Since the land-based missiles are adequate for the task of hitting CONUS, a single boomer operating in the Indian Ocean or South Pacific could supply all of the nukes needed to ensure that Australia gets put in the same category as the US or the other Western allies. Australia may not have the largest industrial base in the Western world, but she's hardly a Third World country. Australia may not have the largest oil reserves in the world, but she has mineral wealth. Australia may not be the world's bread basket, but as of 1997 she is a net exporter of grains. These are strategic assets. It doesn't take very many nukes to disrupt the fabric of modern society, whereas leaving Australia's resource and production base fully functional is needlessly risky. Who knows how Australian aid might speed American recovery? One or two MIRV-capable missiles ought to do the job, leaving plenty for the launching boomer to continue other missions. Again, I hope my Australian cousins don't take offense that I am pushing for an acceptance of nuclear incineration for hundreds of thousands of Australians and major disruption of the nation. Webstral
|
|
#16
10-09-2009, 09:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#17
10-09-2009, 09:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You're right that in an all-out exchange each side ought to target multiple missiles and/or reentry vehicles on each target to ensure destruction. Twilight: 2000 isn't about an all-out exchange. At the very heart of the game is the idea that everyone is terrified of exactly the situation you are describing; therefore, each nuclear use is intended to give the using side a little advantage. No one wants to destroy all human life, but neither the US nor the USSR can walk away from using just a couple more nukes to "redress" the situation until both nations (and global civilization) have been crippled. There are other games oriented around MAD gone wrong, but Twilight: 2000 has always been about a world knocked on its fourth point of contact without being hacked into hamburger. Webstral
|
|
#18
10-09-2009, 09:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The land of Oz and nukes:
As Web said, yep you would get it! You are a regional power. And thus a threat. Ivan has tons of nukes and the reality is, many targets have multiple warheads for redundancy sakes. A mirv, well, each rocket has X mumber of warheads and each one is programable for a different target. 1 missile in your direction landing half a dozen warheads would be enough. You are a line of communication and a floating aircraft carrier, port and shipping facilities those factors alone would make you a nice juicy target. And your folks in New Zealand would also be on the list as well for the same reason. A base of operation for any other allied nation to operate out of or even for their damaged vessels to head to after attacks by submarines, aircraft and comerce raiders per the Marines heading to Korea. As for a Speitznaz unit verses a nuclear attack. That would make for a cool campaign. But, selecting, training, equiping for operations and we are talking long term operations over wilderness and urban operations in a remote area, getting them into the region then deploying them to the target country and then inserting them into the target. That is going to take alot of logistics. And maintaining communications with the team to report mission success and assign new targets based on the equipment and personel left, the skills of the personel and the intel delivered. And of course the whole escape and or evasion the team would have to manage after their first couple of raids when it was determined that there is a comando force operating in the area. And your areas are often open deserts, <As scenes from Bravo 2.0. and "The One That Got Away." flash into my head, that is what a team would be up against. The logistics, the chances of success, the resources needed and the cost would be something that would make it a lower priority than punching a code into a nuclear weapon and pushing "launch" or just adding it to the target list. I mean, what base would the team deploy from? The Soviet Pacific Bases is the nearest. And the most likely method would be by submarine. Which would be risky with the sensor and active anti submarine operations. And then having them surfaced long enough to get the team and their equipment enough to conduct combat operations and to survive with, ashore. And enough diverse equipment to plan and accomplish any number of unknown missions so they are going to have to bring ALOT of gear, I would guess over two tons of equipment for a squad. Figure about 4 large packs per man when you are talking food,some water, radios, spare radios, batteries, demotlitions equipment, camoflauge equipment, medical kits, personal weapons, special weapons, ammunition, special mission essential items, spare equipment and items all to last for an unknown but extended period of time. And none of your missions are planned, so you must have all manner of gear to cover all methods of attack. You would need a good ammount of redundancy as well, setting up caches incase your main camp was compromised as well as for convience. Its easier to move with just a combat harness and personal weapon move to a cache where your food, water and demo is then assault the target than to trek 30km with all your goods. It can be done. But there is alot of risk, alot more uncertanty. Heck, a P3 Orion nail the submarine leaving port and the mission is over before they even touch land. A better use of a small team like that is to have assets already in place studying the target, knowing the specific target what it is and predetermining how your are going to attack it. Then you land, spend less than a week on station studying, moving and attacking and then immediate extraction. That sort of mission you can get away with one pack per man in addition to specialty equipment for the mission. Nope, nuking Oz is the best way.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
|
|
#19
10-09-2009, 10:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
 . I respect your decision to tell it how it is despite the bitter flavour left in my mouth having read it .
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
#20
10-09-2009, 10:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#21
10-09-2009, 10:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Would somebody with some more time on their hands than me at the moment like to verify the range of the Soviet SS-11 & SS-18 ICBM, and check the distances from Soviet silos in the Soviet Far East, Siberia and Central Asia to Australian cities and locations to confirm this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...e_Soviet_Union http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...a/icbm_fac.htm http://www.mapcrow.info/cgi-bin/citi...sydney&cntry2=
|
|
#23
10-09-2009, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
English Teacher mediation here:
Mo does an excellent job in English, about a thousand times better than I could do in French. What he said was: I like it when we argue but keep it civil. Meaning: I like it when we can discuss issues in a civil manner. Rather than: I like it when we argue, but keep it civil. Which would suggest that he felt RAN was straying from the bounds of civil discussion. As Mo has indicated, he was complimenting Ran on his ability to keep the arguement civil, not the opposite. Please excuse me this intrusion, I'm not trying to be a grammar Nazi or put down anybody's use of the language, I'm just hoping to clarify that Mo was applauding the quality of debate, not denigrating it. Here endeth the lesson, homework will be issued in the next post... Last edited by simonmark6; 10-09-2009 at 03:29 PM.
|
|
#24
10-09-2009, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Targan, sorry if it left a bad taste, but it is kinda true if one wants to be realistic. Which I tend to be often.
Now, as for your idea of a Russian Speitzie force landing to carry out sabotage and commando operations, that is what they do. And they did have alot of stashes or caches placed in Europe and even a few spots in N. America. So, they probably had a few in Oz. As I said it would be a cool campaign still! Actualy that was what I was trying to do with my Arctic Raiders game. Except the raiding comando force was going to be Americans and Canadians operating in Siberia. Now back to the Spetzies. To make it more plausible. The Ruskies shoot their load and they have fewer nukes to toss around. But up-oh! They forgot to target the land of Oz. OOPSIE! Someone is going on a winter vacation for that one. But, they have a bunch of Spetzies laying around being lazy and irritating the comand with their wild ways. After all all play and no work makes a Speitzi a dull boy. Ivan has a couple old time diesel subs laying around one of the bases in their Far East Ports. So some commander comes up with this hairbrained idea. <A Russian version of Cockellshell Heroes.> They repair an old diesel electric submarine, making it seaworthy with the purpose of inserting comando forces and raiding partys. The submarine has a full platoon consisting of 3 or 4 12 man teams. They are going to land them on the N. Coast of Oz, each having a zone of operation where they will be tasked with disrupting industry, transit and communication assets. Each has half a dozen small cashes <enough to reequip a full team with basic equipment, weapons, ammo, food, batteries, radios, demolitions the works. And a couple big caches with again enough to reequip the entire team plus alot more equipment for specialty and mission specific items as well as consumables in great quantity. They may even have a vehicle or two with additional fuel. > The teams land, they make it to specific broadcast point and radio their message back to HQ. To their horror! <OH NO!> the submarine was lost! And only 1 other team was landed successfully, the others went down with the sub. <Life now sucks for the Speitzis who landed> Their mission has expanded, as has their operational area! <No good deed ever goes unpunished! Or were they just victims of their own success?> And to make things worse! <GASP!> those other teams were specialized for the missions they would be required to preform. The team that landed, well they have the basic skills, but they aren't the experts that the other teams were by a long shot! So now you have to accomplish the new mission the hard way, by going old school! I don't know, but to me it sounds like a campaign I would love to conduct. And the purpose of the operation? Oz and NZ are floating aircraft cariers, have port and shipping facilities. And dry docks to repair the vessels that are supporting the Chinese who are tying half the Russian Army, and Korea which they never thought would be such a thorn in their side! They need to deal with Oz but they just don't have anymore nukes to spare. So in goes a platoon or two of Spetzis. I mean, imagine what a team of SEAL type or SBS comandoes could do to a port filled with ships laden with arms, ammunition and fuel? As well as the transport networds that feed these shipping centers. And of course the comm centers a nice relay station, and a base for Orion flights to detect comerce raiders and submarines. And of course the other aircraft that fly and detect enemy communication. So, when hightech hardward is no longer available old methods would be brought back. So, a Spetzi attack would be possible in a T2K world.
__________________
"God bless America, the land of the free, but only so long as it remains the home of the brave."
|
|
#25
10-09-2009, 06:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Replace the SS-11 by about 500 Topol (SS-25) that are mostly road mobile (MAZ-547) and regularly moving in Russia. These eventually located at fix bases are to be about 200. That makes them harder to hit and despite a slightly smaller range and single warhead they are much more threatening. SS-25 were designed to counter ABM systems. The ability to penetrate ABM systems should be true also of the R-36M2 (SS-18). About the SS-18, they are to be R-36M2 (99) and R-36MU (209) as R-36M were retired by 1981. R-36M2 are the only one with enough range to hit any city in Australia (outside Alice Spring, Darwin, Norse West Cape and Perth) if they carry a single warhead of 20Mt. Out of the 99 (more or less) R-36M2 a question remain: how many are equipped with that 20Mt warhead? Don't expect to find this answer until 2020 as the missile will remain in service until at least 2014. Nevertheless they represent such a threat that the Start II treaty which didn't come into effect was specifically designed for them. One last thing about the R-36M2, IRL their number has possibly been reduced to about 2 dozens. Here is a good site about missiles and the most reliable source on nukes today: http://missile.index.ne.jp/en/ http://www.nti.org/b_aboutnti/b_index.html Your research have been good but you should not rely on Globalsecurity (except as a starting point). As everyone I used them a lot until I got to the conlusion that they are among the worse source on the Web on military subjects. Last edited by Mohoender; 10-09-2009 at 06:33 PM.
|
|
#26
10-09-2009, 08:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mo, you’re probably right about the limited missiles on a boomer tasked to hit Australia. It's impossible to say which boomer gets tasked with the launch, but since we can't say for certain an older boat isn't the launch boat it's safest to assume the boomer in question expends his ammunition.
Another potential launch site for Soviet ballistic missiles is Vietnam. According to the Soviet Vehicle Guide, the USSR has several formations in Vietnam during the Twilight War. I don’t know if the presence of Soviet troops automatically means the presence of Soviet nuclear missiles, but there’s at least a chance that there are Soviet missiles in Vietnam in 1997. Vietnam is less than 3000 miles from Darwin. Webstral
|
|
#27
10-09-2009, 11:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Web you can expect the formations in Vietnam to have a few nuclear device at hand but these would be carried by SCUDs or SS-21 with a maximum range of 300-400km.
Vietnam allows for another option, however: a Tu-95 Bear-H carrying 4 AS-15 Kent nuclear long range cruise missile (3000km range for the Bear and 3000km range for the AS-15). Actually, the AS-15 could as well be used from a SSN (Victor III, Akula or Sierra). 6 to 8 were carried by each subs and IMO a SSN stands a much better chance to get within range unoticed as the priority would be to destroy the SSBN. The AS-15 carries only a single 200kt warhead but that's enough to do the job. Anyway during the Twilight War the minimum number of nuclear warheads of the Soviets would be 35.000 (1990). The peak was at 45.000 in 1986. Depending on the timeline and the corresponding tensions this number as a good chance to be around 45.000 again and may be more if i was to follow v1.0. That also makes the Exchange in T2K very limited indeed.
|
|
#28
10-09-2009, 10:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#29
10-09-2009, 10:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
One last point about this.
If I was to change my mind (and probably will), giving the wise points developped here, I would effectively target three locations in Australia (North Cape West, Pine Gap and Nurrungar). Each one of them hit by a single warhead SS-18 Satan as part of the US strategic targets (MIRV versions don't reach that far). Not many targets but 20-25Mt each: put your sunglasses on. 
|
|
#30
11-18-2009, 10:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
My two cents is there is nothing saying that a ANZAC Division could organized and trained and sent somewhere ethier the middle east or Europe in the later stages???
I also think that eveybody needs to take a look at target list for nukes and remember that, they are just lists, many factors have taken into account for actually nukes fired off durring TW2000 The Targets Are US Forces in Europe and Misslie Launch feilds in the CONUS Then Staging/Training areas for troops for US Forces in CONUS (cause that were the bulk of it Military is) War Industrials CONUS Now comes tragets outside the CONUS but still covering the same areas But we must remmber the following how much was used before the counter attack ? how missile fail to go off ? how many were used againist new targets?
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
|
 |
| Tags |
| australia |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
