RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 03-30-2015, 06:48 PM
Matt Wiser Matt Wiser is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Auberry, CA
Posts: 953
Default

The Soviets tried a SLBM (the SS-NX-13) with a 1-MT warhead and a range of 400 miles, and terminal radar guidance, but they weren't able to get the thing to work. Not to mention that skippers of their Yankee-class SSBNs were not happy about getting that close to a carrier group anyway.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC Adage
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-31-2015, 03:03 AM
Silent Hunter UK Silent Hunter UK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stormlion1 View Post
Honestly, I always figured the Russians kept track of the various Carrier Battlegroups and tasked a few of there more accurate ICBM's to deal with them.
ICBMs lack the accuracy to deal with a target that may move 10+ nm between launch and impact.

As for keeping track of the carrier groups, the USSR did have RORSATs that could do that, but it's a question of how quickly the Americans would use ASAT and take them out.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-31-2015, 11:07 AM
stormlion1's Avatar
stormlion1 stormlion1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Vineland, NJ
Posts: 581
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK View Post
ICBMs lack the accuracy to deal with a target that may move 10+ nm between launch and impact.

As for keeping track of the carrier groups, the USSR did have RORSATs that could do that, but it's a question of how quickly the Americans would use ASAT and take them out.

ASAT has always been a issue, up until a few years ago it was relatively basic and had a lot of stop and go development. Including a gap in US development between 1989 and 2006 I think. And in the 80's only one real successful intercept. Not really a issue I am thinking.

Not sure on Russian or Chinese development.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-31-2015, 11:29 AM
RN7 RN7 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stormlion1 View Post
ASAT has always been a issue, up until a few years ago it was relatively basic and had a lot of stop and go development. Including a gap in US development between 1989 and 2006 I think. And in the 80's only one real successful intercept. Not really a issue I am thinking.

Not sure on Russian or Chinese development.
http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4207
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-31-2015, 02:25 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,660
Default

Keep in mind too how much warning the Navy would get on any nuke attack - they would be balls to the wall as soon as they knew of any nuclear missile on approach, changing course to present the minimal aspect possible so any sea surge would not hit the hull broadside but instead be in the same direction the ship was traveling, etc...

not the same with a nuclear torpedo of course - you dont find out there that its a nuke till its way too late to do much of anything about it

I dont see any single warhead, no matter how large, bagging a carrier with any real certainty enough for the Soviets to say they got her for sure - now multiple nukes saturating the area spaced out to hit a wide area - that would do the trick
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-31-2015, 02:47 PM
stormlion1's Avatar
stormlion1 stormlion1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Vineland, NJ
Posts: 581
Default

Kind of figured that any naval fleets would get hit with a couple of MIRV's that would saturate an area. Not just a single ICBM with a single warhead.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-01-2015, 07:44 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,660
Default

I would think that ASAT and anti-ballistic missile weaponry would be much more advanced especially in the V1 timeline - with the Cold War never ending or maybe only taking a short break at most you would see development continuing uninpeded on those weapons right up to the war

that could explain for the survival of some of the carriers if those weapons were deployed in time

or fire everything you have, using the Aegis system to focus every SAM you have on the approaching warhead's track and hope you get lucky before it detonates
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-01-2015, 11:22 AM
Silent Hunter UK Silent Hunter UK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
Keep in mind too how much warning the Navy would get on any nuke attack - they would be balls to the wall as soon as they knew of any nuclear missile on approach, changing course to present the minimal aspect possible so any sea surge would not hit the hull broadside but instead be in the same direction the ship was traveling, etc...
You have the difficulty of course of telling what's nuclear and what isn't...
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-01-2015, 12:30 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,660
Default

All depends on what they are using

a torpedo or cruise missile could be conventional or nuclear while a ballistic missile would be assumed to be nuclear

cruise missiles are much easier to engage versus a ballistic missile but it does have the advantage of the fleet reacting to it as a conventional attack

remember a USN officer who once quipped that if someone fired an Exocet at a battleship they wouldnt be concerned as the armored sides could take that kind of hit easily

could see a very overconfident officer saying that as his last words as he finds out the hard way its a nuke
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-02-2015, 05:11 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 1,090
Default

One must consider that the ships in a task force may become even more vulnerable to conventional attack after a warning about possible nuclear attacks. The primary defense for a task force against a nuclear air burst is to disperse the task force to allow the targeting of ONLY ONE SHIP with the weapon's CPE (Circular Probablility of Error). This could "open up" the formation considerably, and allow subs to take a shot at the carriers.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.