Nukes

[Veers]

Dropped a Nuke on some enemy troops, 100 TU-160 Blackjacks were involved, it said 1 mT on the dialog pop-up. I expected a little more bang for my buck...

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3826/nukedamagefv9.jpg

Is this about normal?

[Silvanski]

are there contaminated hexes as a result?

[Veers]

are there contaminated hexes as a result?
Are you saying that you think I'm incompetent enough to have failed to properly execute the nuclear attack?! :clown:
1 contaminated hex @50km/hex.

[Silvanski]

I am not insinuating that you messed up your nuclear attack :laugh:
Just curious about the fall-out:umbrella:

[ralphtrickey]

I am not insinuating that you messed up your nuclear attack :laugh:
Just curious about the fall-out:umbrella:

You better use several of those, and some hip boots.

Veers,
Do you have a save game from before you dropped it? I would like to look a bit closer. I understant that the infantry are protected since they're inside the trucks:eek: , but I would only have expected about 1/3 the armor to be able to dodge...:smoke:

Thanks,
Ralph

[Telumar]

I understant that the infantry are protected since they're inside the trucks:eek:


Lol. What he said? Duck and Cover? :clown:

[JAMiAM]

Are you saying that you think I'm incompetent enough to have failed to properly execute the nuclear attack?! :clown:
1 contaminated hex @50km/hex.
50km per hex? That's a fairly low equipment density for that size hex. Maybe you dropped the bomb on the wrong side of the hex...:devious:

[Veers]

You better use several of those, and some hip boots.

Veers,
Do you have a save game from before you dropped it? I would like to look a bit closer. I understant that the infantry are protected since they're inside the trucks:eek: , but I would only have expected about 1/3 the armor to be able to dodge...:smoke:

Thanks,
Ralph

I have the pbl from the turn that I dropped it. Will that do?

[Veers]

50km per hex? That's a fairly low equipment density for that size hex. Maybe you dropped the bomb on the wrong side of the hex...:devious:

Heh heh heh, I suppose. :laugh:

[ralphtrickey]

I have the pbl from the turn that I dropped it. Will that do?

Yes please. ralphtrickey (at) hotmail (dot) com.

Let me know what hex the usits started in and what hex you dropped in if possible, I'm lazy.:shy:

Ralph

[ralphtrickey]

Heh heh heh, I suppose. :laugh:
Well, if the tanks were 'agile', they were able to dodge:rolleyes:. It's the trucks and artillery that I don't understand.:hissyfit:

Ralph

[Mantis]

if the tanks were 'agile'

Ya, don't you just hate it when you're out for a stroll, and those suckers jump out of the trees and scare the living hell right out of you, before darting off again in a completely random direction almost before you notice where it came from...

:devious:

[JAMiAM]

Ya, don't you just hate it when you're out for a stroll, and those suckers jump out of the trees and scare the living hell right out of you, before darting off again in a completely random direction almost before you notice where it came from...

:devious:
That reminds me of an old joke...


Jokester: Why do elephants paint their toenails red?

Foil: Uh...I don't know. Why do elephants paint their toenails red?

Jokester: So that they can hide in cherry trees.

Foil: That's ridiculous! I've never seen an elephant in a cherry tree!

Jokester: You see? It works pretty well. Doesn't it?

[Veers]

They must have Guardian Angels :laugh:
Same situation, different hex.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/5458/nukedam2ev2.jpg

[ralphtrickey]

That reminds me of an old joke...


Jokester: Why do elephants paint their toenails red?

Foil: Uh...I don't know. Why do elephants paint their toenails red?

Jokester: So that they can hide in cherry trees.

Foil: That's ridiculous! I've never seen an elephant in a cherry tree!

Jokester: You see? It works pretty well. Doesn't it?

You do know that there's a 101 elephant joke book out there? I've almost got it memorized. That's the starting point in a string of related ones...

Do you know why you shouldn't walk through the jungle between 4 and 6 in the afternoon?

[JAMiAM]

Do you know why you shouldn't walk through the jungle between 4 and 6 in the afternoon?

No...Why not?

[Veers]

No...Why not?

Yeah, I meant to give him an opening, but forgot...:laugh:

[ralphtrickey]

No...Why not?
You shouldn't walk though the jungle between 4 and 6 in the afternoon because of the elephants jumping out of the trees, of course.:eek:

Now... DO you know why pygmies are so short?:clown:

[ralphtrickey]

Ya, don't you just hate it when you're out for a stroll, and those suckers jump out of the trees and scare the living hell right out of you, before darting off again in a completely random direction almost before you notice where it came from...

:devious:
Actually, it's the jeeps that are hiding in the trees. The tanks just have really thick armor, the artillery is hiding in the back.:clown:

Well, I found out what's going on. Firepower is factored down by the squareroot of the power applied. That means that a 1 mt explosive is only 31 times more powerful than a 1 kt nuke. That actually makes sense since the power does drop off as the square of the distance. Twice as far away means you get about 1/4 the effect.

It's also scaled by the square of the physical hex size, so it's divided by 2500 for the 50 km hexes. That actually makes a kind of sense since that is a lot more area. It assumes that you've got the vehicles scattered evenly through the hex, though. A linear scaling might actually make more sense here. I don't think you'd scatter the troops quite that much.

50 km are awfully big hexes.

You need bigger nukes:yummy:

We'll play with it for a future patch, the problem is that we don't have good data about the use of large nukes in actual warfare:surprise:.

One thing I tried was to change the distance to only scale by the distance instead of the square of the distance, chances are they're going to be grouped more. Making it a flank attack also makes sense. That made the infantry take about 1/2 losses, the jeeps take about 1/2 (they still dodge), and the tanks and planes take about 5-10%.

That 'feels' better to me. Why have nukes if they don' do any good. On the other hand, they aren't the total annihilation that you might think.

Ralph

[Veers]

Actually, it's the jeeps that are hiding in the trees. The tanks just have really thick armor, the artillery is hiding in the back.:clown:

Well, I found out what's going on. Firepower is factored down by the squareroot of the power applied. That means that a 1 mt explosive is only 31 times more powerful than a 1 kt nuke. That actually makes sense since the power does drop off as the square of the distance. Twice as far away means you get about 1/4 the effect.

It's also scaled by the square of the physical hex size, so it's divided by 2500 for the 50 km hexes. That actually makes a kind of sense since that is a lot more area. It assumes that you've got the vehicles scattered evenly through the hex, though. A linear scaling might actually make more sense here. I don't think you'd scatter the troops quite that much.

50 km are awfully big hexes.

You need bigger nukes:yummy:

We'll play with it for a future patch, the problem is that we don't have good data about the use of large nukes in actual warfare:surprise:.

One thing I tried was to change the distance to only scale by the distance instead of the square of the distance, chances are they're going to be grouped more. Making it a flank attack also makes sense. That made the infantry take about 1/2 losses, the jeeps take about 1/2 (they still dodge), and the tanks and planes take about 5-10%.

That 'feels' better to me. Why have nukes if they don' do any good. On the other hand, they aren't the total annihilation that you might think.

Ralph

Awesome, Ralph. Next time the power I fell using the nukes will actually translate to the battlefield. :bite:

[Veers]

Now... DO you know why pygmies are so short?:clown:

No, why?000

[ralphtrickey]

No, why?000

Pygmies are so short because they walk through the jungle between 4 and 6 in the afternoon when the elephants are jumping out of the cherry trees.:nuts:

[ralphtrickey]

Awesome, Ralph. Next time the power I fell using the nukes will actually translate to the battlefield. :bite:

There's a lot of testing that has to happen first, although it's all going to be subjective.

In the meantime, you can just crank up the speakers:clown:

[Veers]

There's a lot of testing that has to happen first, although it's all going to be subjective.

In the meantime, you can just crank up the speakers:clown:

You mean so I can blare 'The Imperial March' even louder? :laugh:

[Veers]

Pygmies are so short because they walk through the jungle between 4 and 6 in the afternoon when the elephants are jumping out of the cherry trees.:nuts:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Bob Cross]

What do you get if you cross a rabbit and an elephant?

[Veers]

What do you get if you cross a rabbit and an elephant?

EEwwwwww....:nuts:
A dead rabit? :laugh:

[ralphtrickey]

What do you get if you cross a rabbit and an elephant?

An earthquake?

[BlackLotusZero]

A coaster with the ears? :p

[L`zard]

Considering the nature of this thread, I'd say something large, radioactive, and fast...........SCUD?

[Veers]

A coaster with the ears? :p

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Goliath]

Greetings!

I've been stalking the TOAW forum for some time, and since I've been wondering about how TOAW handles nukes, I could no longer resist posting :)

Well, I found out what's going on. Firepower is factored down by the squareroot of the power applied. That means that a 1 mt explosive is only 31 times more powerful than a 1 kt nuke. That actually makes sense since the power does drop off as the square of the distance. Twice as far away means you get about 1/4 the effect.

In fact, the range-scaling with respect to yield goes (approximately) as the cubic-root of the yield (which means that the effective radius of a 1 Mt nuke "only" is ten times that of a 1 kt nuke :OHNO:).

A way to explain this scaling is as follows: a 1 M-tonner contains 1000 times the energy of a 1 kt nuke, hence if we "smear out" this energy in a 1000 times larger volume compared to the 1 kt case, the energy density and physical quantities (such as peak overpressure) will be comparable between the 1 Mt and 1 kt cases. In conclusion, the volume scales linearly with the yield, which means that the radius scales as the cubic root.

It's also scaled by the square of the physical hex size, so it's divided by 2500 for the 50 km hexes. That actually makes a kind of sense since that is a lot more area. It assumes that you've got the vehicles scattered evenly through the hex, though. A linear scaling might actually make more sense here. I don't think you'd scatter the troops quite that much.

On the other hand, the knowledge that the opposing side has nukes and is ready to use them would probably induce tactical adaption, such as spreading out yourself. This was definitely a consideration in Swedish military planning during the cold war.

We'll play with it for a future patch, the problem is that we don't have good data about the use of large nukes in actual warfare:surprise:.

Quite a lot of information has been published regarding the effects of nuclear weapons in general. I can probably dig up some useful material, if this would be of interest in the future development of TOAW.

That 'feels' better to me. Why have nukes if they don' do any good. On the other hand, they aren't the total annihilation that you might think.

Very true, indeed! In my opinion, there is a general tendency to over-estimate the effects of nuclear weapons, in particular when it comes to their use on the battlefield. There is quite a difference between counter-value targeting of population centres, and operational use against well-equipped and entrenched military forces.

Best wishes,
Martin

[Goliath]

While I'm at it, I take the opportunity to ask another question related to TOAW and nukes: does TOAW differ between air bursts and surface bursts when it comes to nukes? If not, I think the ability to select between these two cases should be available when making a nuclear strike.

An air burst will result in negligible (as compared to other effects) fall-out, and would probably be the standard operational usage of nukes, except when attempting to take out missile silos and other hardened buried targets.

In fact, the optimal burst height when it comes to the air blast is well above the height under which fall-out is a major consideration. (There is still the possibility of local radioactive rain-out, such as the "black rain" - induced by soot particles in combination with high humidity - that ocurred at Hiroshima.)

[Bob Cross]

EEwwwwww....:nuts:
A dead rabit? :laugh:

Yes. With an a**hole this:

<--------------------------------------------------------->

Big.

Now what's grey and comes in pints?

[Veers]

Yes. With an a**hole this:

<--------------------------------------------------------->

Big.

Now what's grey and comes in pints?

I don't know if I want to know... :laugh:

[Don Maddox]

One thing I don't think is being adequately addressed in this discussion: The non-destructive effects of nuclear weapons on the battlefield.

While it is true that people probably tend to vastly overestimate the overall level of outright physical destruction a nuclear weapon creates, leading some to think of nukes as some type of "doomsday" bomb that annihilates everything within 100 miles. However, the detonation of a nuclear weapon in the midst of even a supremely well-equipped and disciplined formation is likely to cause mass chaos, at best.

During the early part of WWII (and WWI for that matter), many armies had great difficulty getting troops to stand and fight once armor appeared on the field. Although these early tanks were slow, noisy, and not terribly destructive, they had an effect out of all proportion to their actual capabilities. Infantry dreaded the appearance of enemy armor and it’s difficult to overstate just how challenging it was to finally get formations to the point where they would stop, think, and rely on their training to counter these weapons. Modern helicopter gunships and some missile systems can have the same effect in some circumstances (i.e., they don’t destroy that much of the enemy’s force, but they temporarily overload his training and ability to resist)

I believe nuclear weapons -- even small ones -- would have a much greater impact for similar reasons. Despite years of training and MOPP preparation, it is foolish to believe even well-disciplined and superbly equipped Western armies would be immune from this phenomenon. On the contrary, the spectacular nature of a nuclear air burst over the battlefield might very well create such a sense of immediate panic that it would be a catastrophic, if temporary, blow to morale. The natural human reaction would be to flee a nuclear explosion if at all possible.

That, combined with the destructive effects of EMP on contemporary military equipment and weapons systems, would probably make communications in the vicinity of the detonation all but impossible, adding to the confusion and chaos as units would be temporarily without orders. Even well-disciplined formations would have great difficulty functioning effectively in the aftermath of a nearby nuclear attack. The psychological impact alone would put many units out of the battle, or automatically send them into a temporary state of near total combat ineffectiveness while they beat a hasty retreat from ground zero. Also, the sense of dread created by dealing with the horrors of nuclear wounded and the terrible psychological stress of waiting out the “latent period” would be, well, horrendous. This was seen in the days after the Chernobyl accident. People went into a kind of numb daze as they slowly realized they had been contaminated and would likely develop cancer and die after some years. Even people that received a relatively small radiation dose suffered significant physiological disruption.

I'm not saying that nuclear weapons are a doomsday weapon that would completely alter the course of a major campaign, however, I do think some tend to underestimate the overall impact the use of such weapons on the battlefield would have. And let's not even talk about how less well-equipped and disciplined forces might react in the face of nuclear attack. The use of these weapons could very well cause many armies to literally fall apart due to mass desertion and a general breakdown of discipline, none of which is adequately addressed in most wargames.

Overall, I think TOAW vastly overestimates the ability of military formations to deal with the total threat posed by nuclear weapons. Perhaps these effects could be introduced with the application of severe morale and communications penalties that would likely accompany such an attack. The total number of troops and weapons destroyed might stay more or less like it is, but the recipient of a nuclear attack would suffer a fairly significant series of morale and proficiency penalties. And I do mean significant.

Imagine if the US has employed a single medium yield nuclear weapon against the Republican Guard during the Gulf War. Is there anyone who believes the effects would have been limited to the physical destruction of the recipient formation? That strains all credulity. The morale and communications effects would have been catastrophic to the Iraqi command’s ability to deal with the situation. I submit this wouldn’t be the exception but the rule in most conflicts.

My 2 cents.

[Veers]

One thing I don't think is being adequately addressed in this discussion: The non-destructive effects of nuclear weapons on the battlefield.

While it is true that people probably tend to vastly overestimate the overall level of outright physical destruction a nuclear weapon creates, leading some to think of nukes as some type of "doomsday" bomb that annihilates everything within 100 miles. However, the detonation of a nuclear weapon in the midst of even a supremely well-equipped and disciplined formation is likely to cause mass chaos, at best.

During the early part of WWII (and WWI for that matter), many armies had great difficulty getting troops to stand and fight once armor appeared on the field. Although these early tanks were slow, noisy, and not terribly destructive, they had an effect out of all proportion to their actual capabilities. Infantry dreaded the appearance of enemy armor and it’s difficult to overstate just how challenging it was to finally get formations to the point where they would stop, think, and rely on their training to counter these weapons. Modern helicopter gunships and some missile systems can have the same effect in some circumstances (i.e., they don’t destroy that much of the enemy’s force, but they temporarily overload his training and ability to resist)

I believe nuclear weapons -- even small ones -- would have a much greater impact for similar reasons. Despite years of training and MOPP preparation, it is foolish to believe even well-disciplined and superbly equipped Western armies would be immune from this phenomenon. On the contrary, the spectacular nature of a nuclear air burst over the battlefield might very well create such a sense of immediate panic that it would be a catastrophic, if temporary, blow to morale. The natural human reaction would be to flee a nuclear explosion if at all possible.

That, combined with the destructive effects of EMP on contemporary military equipment and weapons systems, would probably make communications in the vicinity of the detonation all but impossible, adding to the confusion and chaos as units would be temporarily without orders. Even well-disciplined formations would have great difficulty functioning effectively in the aftermath of a nearby nuclear attack. The psychological impact alone would put many units out of the battle, or automatically send them into a temporary state of near total combat ineffectiveness while they beat a hasty retreat from ground zero. Also, the sense of dread created by dealing with the horrors of nuclear wounded and the terrible psychological stress of waiting out the “latent period” would be, well, horrendous. This was seen in the days after the Chernobyl accident. People went into a kind of numb daze as they slowly realized they had been contaminated and would likely develop cancer and die after some years. Even people that received a relatively small radiation dose suffered significant physiological disruption.

I'm not saying that nuclear weapons are a doomsday weapon that would completely alter the course of a major campaign, however, I do think some tend to underestimate the overall impact the use of such weapons on the battlefield would have. And let's not even talk about how less well-equipped and disciplined forces might react in the face of nuclear attack. The use of these weapons could very well cause many armies to literally fall apart due to mass desertion and a general breakdown of discipline, none of which is adequately addressed in most wargames.

Overall, I think TOAW vastly overestimates the ability of military formations to deal with the total threat posed by nuclear weapons. Perhaps these effects could be introduced with the application of severe morale and communications penalties that would likely accompany such an attack. The total number of troops and weapons destroyed might stay more or less like it is, but the recipient of a nuclear attack would suffer a fairly significant series of morale and proficiency penalties. And I do mean significant.

Imagine if the US has employed a single medium yield nuclear weapon against the Republican Guard during the Gulf War. Is there anyone who believes the effects would have been limited to the physical destruction of the recipient formation? That strains all credulity. The morale and communications effects would have been catastrophic to the Iraqi command’s ability to deal with the situation. I submit this wouldn’t be the exception but the rule in most conflicts.

My 2 cents.

Good points. It may be then that formations in the radius of a blast should afall into reorg or routed status for a while/

[Foggy]

Does TOAW model "neutron weapons"? As far as nuclear effects - I believe most NATO target specialists were more worried about fallout for the civilians - most weapons were aimed at bridges, supply points etc. Trying to
hit a mobile Soviet formation ie tank battalion breaking thru would be almost impossible given the release permissions involved:rolleyes:
The comm issue would be the most important - even Volkstrum (sp). had a field day w/Russian tanks w/handheld weapons - is modern equipment even more vulnerable to EMP?
As far as damage modeling goes - should'nt terrain/weather be considered as well - ie nuke effects are much better in summer than winter?
Does anyone know if there's a tutorial for nuclear weapon sizes and uses?

[Bob Cross]

Now what's grey and comes in pints?

I don't know if I want to know... :laugh:

An elephant!

[ralphtrickey]

Greetings!

I've been stalking the TOAW forum for some time, and since I've been wondering about how TOAW handles nukes, I could no longer resist posting :)



In fact, the range-scaling with respect to yield goes (approximately) as the cubic-root of the yield (which means that the effective radius of a 1 Mt nuke "only" is ten times that of a 1 kt nuke :OHNO:).

A way to explain this scaling is as follows: a 1 M-tonner contains 1000 times the energy of a 1 kt nuke, hence if we "smear out" this energy in a 1000 times larger volume compared to the 1 kt case, the energy density and physical quantities (such as peak overpressure) will be comparable between the 1 Mt and 1 kt cases. In conclusion, the volume scales linearly with the yield, which means that the radius scales as the cubic root.


Actually, from what I saw, after a certain size, some of the effects like the shock wave, EMP and to a lesser extent the thermal affects are bounded by the ground below, and the stratosphere above. That means they're more of a circle, and would be closer to a square root.


On the other hand, the knowledge that the opposing side has nukes and is ready to use them would probably induce tactical adaption, such as spreading out yourself. This was definitely a consideration in Swedish military planning during the cold war.

Quite a lot of information has been published regarding the effects of nuclear weapons in general. I can probably dig up some useful material, if this would be of interest in the future development of TOAW.


I'm always looking for material.

Someone provided me with some references and I did some research on the range of a nuclear blast, so I'm fairly comfortable with the way that TOAW models that portion. It's based upon the thermal affects which go the furthest.

I haven't looked closely at the damage affects. Those are going to be tougher to figure out what it should be since the targets aren't going to be lined up nicely the way the ships are in that one video I've seen over and over.

It's difficult to estimate what the affects are going to be given the doctrines that would be employed if the other force had them.


Very true, indeed! In my opinion, there is a general tendency to over-estimate the effects of nuclear weapons, in particular when it comes to their use on the battlefield. There is quite a difference between counter-value targeting of population centres, and operational use against well-equipped and entrenched military forces.


Agreed. I don't think that the other effects can be modeled accurately in TOAW.

[ralphtrickey]

While I'm at it, I take the opportunity to ask another question related to TOAW and nukes: does TOAW differ between air bursts and surface bursts when it comes to nukes? If not, I think the ability to select between these two cases should be available when making a nuclear strike.

An air burst will result in negligible (as compared to other effects) fall-out, and would probably be the standard operational usage of nukes, except when attempting to take out missile silos and other hardened buried targets.

In fact, the optimal burst height when it comes to the air blast is well above the height under which fall-out is a major consideration. (There is still the possibility of local radioactive rain-out, such as the "black rain" - induced by soot particles in combination with high humidity - that ocurred at Hiroshima.)
The radius calculations for nuclear weapons assumes an air-burst,and uses the thermal component,since it had the largest range.

[ralphtrickey]

An elephant!
I always heard that as what's red and white on the outside and gray on the inside.
...
Campbell's Cream of Elephant soup.

[Veers]

An elephant!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Foggy]

The radius calculations for nuclear weapons assumes an air-burst,and uses the thermal component,since it had the largest range.

Why? That does'nt make sense - sometimes I would think a surface burst with
maximum fallout would be the choice:bite:
As Don said - disruption is an issue - thermal effects are not going to be effective as Veers proved against armor
:)

[Goliath]

One thing I don't think is being adequately addressed in this discussion: The non-destructive effects of nuclear weapons on the battlefield.

[...]

Overall, I think TOAW vastly overestimates the ability of military formations to deal with the total threat posed by nuclear weapons. Perhaps these effects could be introduced with the application of severe morale and communications penalties that would likely accompany such an attack. The total number of troops and weapons destroyed might stay more or less like it is, but the recipient of a nuclear attack would suffer a fairly significant series of morale and proficiency penalties. And I do mean significant.


Good point! While the physical damage to troops and equipment might be less than what one might have expected, the psychological impact should be addressed; in the vicinity of a nuclear explosion I would probably not feel very reassured if told that fall-out was negligible, even if that indeed was the case! Then there are collateral effects, such as the extensive destruction if used in urban areas, making movement very difficult, etc.

[Goliath]

Does TOAW model "neutron weapons"? As far as nuclear effects - I believe most NATO target specialists were more worried about fallout for the civilians - most weapons were aimed at bridges, supply points etc. Trying to
hit a mobile Soviet formation ie tank battalion breaking thru would be almost impossible given the release permissions involved:rolleyes:

I think the NATO, since they relied on nuclear weapons to stop WP-armour, devised pre-defined "preclusion packages" covering whole areas (perhaps 10-by-10 km or less in size), except inhabitations, with low-yield nukes. These packages would be released when certain "trip-wire" conditions were fulfilled. If I understand this correctly, this would mean firing into areas not neccessarily containing spotted enemy units, in the hope of taking out masses of advancing armour (I suppose the conditions must be rather firm, or else the package might be triggered prematurely :( )

This is where enhanced radiation weapons, e.g. the "neutron bomb" fits in: in order to be politically digestable a scheme like this would need to make plausible that the West German territory would not be rendered uninhabitable. Hence the use of several low-yield air bursts, where the primary effect would be the initial nuclear radiation (in particular neutrons) suitable to penetrate armour. By tuning up the yield fraction due to neutrons, collateral damage would be further reduced.

Does anyone know if there's a tutorial for nuclear weapon sizes and uses?

This is probably more like a curiosity, but I remember seeing a US Army manual from the fifties or early sixties titled "Nuclear Weapons Employment". It seemed to be aimed as a help in operational planning, listing yields (0.1 kt was an "Alfa", 0.2 a "Beta", 0.5 a "Charlie", and so on) and corresponding available US weapons systems at that time.

[Goliath]

Actually, from what I saw, after a certain size, some of the effects like the shock wave, EMP and to a lesser extent the thermal affects are bounded by the ground below, and the stratosphere above. That means they're more of a circle, and would be closer to a square root.

Yes, my argument is limited to the air blast, which I still think should be best modelled by a qubic-root law for ranges where it is of importance. For the thermal radiation I think I have seen a scaling law with a yield-dependent exponent in-between the qubic root and the square root. That would agree with your reasoning above.

Someone provided me with some references and I did some research on the range of a nuclear blast, so I'm fairly comfortable with the way that TOAW models that portion. It's based upon the thermal affects which go the furthest.

That is probably good enough for unprotected troops and not-too-low yields. However, armour and the like have much shorter damage radii as regards thermal radiation and air blast. There, the relevant weapon effect would usually be the initial nuclear radiation, in particular the neutron emission.

[Goliath]

Why? That does'nt make sense - sometimes I would think a surface burst with
maximum fallout would be the choice:bite:

I'm not so sure. Given the unpredictability and wide coverage of nuclear fall-out, I thought that it was more a nuisance than a usable weapon effect, at least in the operational use of nuclear weapons? Usually, I suppose you would want to move in yourself :(

[ralphtrickey]

I'm not so sure. Given the unpredictability and wide coverage of nuclear fall-out, I thought that it was more a nuisance than a usable weapon effect, at least in the operational use of nuclear weapons? Usually, I suppose you would want to move in yourself :(
More importantly, the effects from fallout often don't show up for years. One major effect is contamination, and the requirement to wear all kinds of protective gear, I believe that's why contaminated sites slow movement soo much, the terrain isn't more difficult to cross, but you've got to put on all the gear, test for radiation, etc.
.

[ralphtrickey]

Yes, my argument is limited to the air blast, which I still think should be best modelled by a qubic-root law for ranges where it is of importance. For the thermal radiation I think I have seen a scaling law with a yield-dependent exponent in-between the qubic root and the square root. That would agree with your reasoning above.


Something like this ;)
normalstrength=# of 2.5 kt increments.
normalstrength ^ 0.40 * 0.87

That determines the radius of the blast

That does overstate the radius slightly for determining fallout since thermal radiation doesn't have any fallout.


That is probably good enough for unprotected troops and not-too-low yields. However, armour and the like have much shorter damage radii as regards thermal radiation and air blast. There, the relevant weapon effect would usually be the initial nuclear radiation, in particular the neutron emission.

The damage effects fall off at only the square of the radius, which probably overstates the effects.

Armored units are actually protected by their ArmoreBombardment rating, which makes them fairly close to invulnerable. I'd expect that most modern tanks use hardened electronics anyway, so that EMP effects wouldn't be that extreme.

I would say that I'd expect the troops to become disorganized while they recover, test and fix equipment, etc.

[Foggy]

I'm not so sure. Given the unpredictability and wide coverage of nuclear fall-out, I thought that it was more a nuisance than a usable weapon effect, at least in the operational use of nuclear weapons? Usually, I suppose you would want to move in yourself :(

NATO- I would think have no interest in bridge sites in Poland:clown:
The fact that the thermal pulse is most important in TOAW is quite disturbing-
it encourages the use of Large weapons - which are not realistic at all:eek:
I think you may have to model a new nuclear class of weapons - I would love to be a NATO player w/a accurate delivery system of neutron weapons:bite:
Tactical nuclear weapons are NEVER pretargted - the Germans - the largest component of NATO - would
be quite angry to say the least :)

[Goliath]

Something like this ;)
normalstrength=# of 2.5 kt increments.
normalstrength ^ 0.40 * 0.87


Yes, that looks familiar :D

Armored units are actually protected by their ArmoreBombardment rating, which makes them fairly close to invulnerable. I'd expect that most modern tanks use hardened electronics anyway, so that EMP effects wouldn't be that extreme.

I agree regarding EMP, but I would still like to see the neutrons enter into it :devious: The tanks will be intact, but the crews will not...

I would say that I'd expect the troops to become disorganized while they recover, test and fix equipment, etc.

Maybe that's the way to handle the psychological effects discussed by Don Maddox in TOAW (I think Veers made a remark to that end earlier)? Anyway, I'm too much a TOAW-noob to have a good idea about this :)

[Veers]

Maybe that's the way to handle the psychological effects discussed by Don Maddox in TOAW (I think Veers made a remark to that end earlier)? Anyway, I'm too much a TOAW-noob to have a good idea about this :)

I sure did, but I stopped participating in the discussion as this has all gone WAY over my head now, and I'm going to go crawl back under the rock I call WWII. :laugh:

[Goliath]

[...] I'm going to go crawl back under the rock I call WWII. :laugh:

Why is that, still disappointed of the poor outcome in the nuclear strike that started this thread :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ?

By the way, I'm still learning the TOAW essentials, fiddling with the tutorials (those supplied with TOAW III; Tannenberg at the moment). Are there any not-too-big scenarios where I could see nuclear weapons in action - I feel a bit stupid commenting on them here without ever having played them in TOAW :crosseye:

[Veers]

Why is that, still disappointed of the poor outcome in the nuclear strike that started this thread :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ?
Naw, just WWII weapons I feel I know something about, nukes are not my department.


By the way, I'm still learning the TOAW essentials, fiddling with the tutorials (those supplied with TOAW III; Tannenberg at the moment). Are there any not-too-big scenarios where I could see nuclear weapons in action - I feel a bit stupid commenting on them here without ever having played them in TOAW :crosseye:
I don't know, this was the first scenario I ever played where I used nukes. I'm not sure which other scenarii involve nukes.

[L`zard]

Naw, just WWII weapons I feel I know something about, nukes are not my department.
I don't know, this was the first scenario I ever played where I used nukes. I'm not sure which other scenarii involve nukes.

IIRC, berlin crisus 61 (acow) used lots of them, and was the first time I saw lots o' contaminated hexes, LOL!

'Course this was during a 'hot seat' that I went after just to see how much damage 'could' be caused by nukes, eh? Beaucoup 'damage' markers after a couple o' turns of flinging srbms (lance, etc) and using all nuke approved A/C for point attacks in an effort to cause as much 'armegeddon' as possible, lol

Like others have mentioned, memory recalls that this didn't seem so hidious to me, either, being mostly movement penalties. I'd have thought that wearing a 'mopp' suit for any time would really hurt, eh?

[L`zard]

See pix of contaminate zones, LOL!

[L`zard]

OOPS, add this screen instead, eh?

Was throwing everything + the kitchen sink, LOL!

designer notes:

"The side effects of using nuclear weapons are severe. Among them:

Decreases in Theater recon levels immediately after initiation of nuclear strikes (due to EMP effects as well as massive release of dust and smoke). These will slowly increase again as effects dissipate and forces adapt.

Negative shock effects (simulating overload and paralysis of C3 systems). Again, shock levels will gradually recover.
Decreases in supply levels, replacement rates, and transport levels (modeling major disruption of LOCs and destruction/diversion of critical resources). Over time, these levels/rates will return to near normal, though
more slowly than either Theater recon or shock.

Progressive increase in pestilence levels (simulating cumulative losses due to radiation sickness as well as from exposure to biological warfare agents). Pestilence levels will plateau and then decrease until they stabilize at a level slightly greater than zero (note that pestilence levels are zero at the beginning of the scenario). " SSstevens

Here, gentlemen, you have a 'take' on the acow parameter for nukes, eh? It's all more than I can understand, but thought you might add this to the 'thread mix' if for no more reason than the pot gets stirred, LOL!

[Veers]

OOPS, add this screen instead, eh?

Was throwing everything + the kitchen sink, LOL!

designer notes:

"The side effects of using nuclear weapons are severe. Among them:

Decreases in Theater recon levels immediately after initiation of nuclear strikes (due to EMP effects as well as massive release of dust and smoke). These will slowly increase again as effects dissipate and forces adapt.

Negative shock effects (simulating overload and paralysis of C3 systems). Again, shock levels will gradually recover.
Decreases in supply levels, replacement rates, and transport levels (modeling major disruption of LOCs and destruction/diversion of critical resources). Over time, these levels/rates will return to near normal, though
more slowly than either Theater recon or shock.

Progressive increase in pestilence levels (simulating cumulative losses due to radiation sickness as well as from exposure to biological warfare agents). Pestilence levels will plateau and then decrease until they stabilize at a level slightly greater than zero (note that pestilence levels are zero at the beginning of the scenario). " SSstevens

Is this one of Bob Cross's scenarios?

The one I was playing was one of Trey Marshall's. So far, I have found hsi scenarios to be somewhat lacking. WF was buggy and terribly balanced, and his Third World War 1.2 was buggy and had questionable balance; it also lacked the extreme coolness of those affects (it did reduce supplies when Nukes were used, but nothing else).


EDIT: *looks at the screen-shots* Sweeeeeeeeeeet, that's kinda what I was looking for in Trey's scenario. :D Unfortunately, only being able to deliver one nuke a turn on 50km hexes, it isn't as cool.

[Bob Cross]

One thing I don't think is being adequately addressed in this discussion: The non-destructive effects of nuclear weapons on the battlefield...

...Overall, I think TOAW vastly overestimates the ability of military formations to deal with the total threat posed by nuclear weapons. Perhaps these effects could be introduced with the application of severe morale and communications penalties that would likely accompany such an attack. The total number of troops and weapons destroyed might stay more or less like it is, but the recipient of a nuclear attack would suffer a fairly significant series of morale and proficiency penalties. And I do mean significant.


Perhaps, but then if all we had to go on was a thought experiment, I would have made the same assumptions about chemical weapons. But in the case of chemical weapons, we have years of actual experience during World War I. And it turned out it really wasn't that big a deal.

[Veers]

Perhaps, but then if all we had to go on was a thought experiment, I would have made the same assumptions about chemical weapons. But in the case of chemical weapons, we have years of actual experience during World War I. And it turned out it really wasn't that big a deal.

We do have years of experience. And WWI showed mass panic during the first chemical attacks. As they became more common place you didn't see troops running for the hills as often.
Almost any Nuke dropped in TOAW would be among those first, terrifying nukes dropped on the battlefield.

[L`zard]

Negatory on that, eh?

SSTEVENS, Berlin Crisis '61; made for ACOW, but loads fine, eh?

@all: the 'designer's notes' are heavy in detail and worth the read just to see what the common state of theory (game wise) was at the time!

I'll try to upload the full notes........don't wait up, lol!

[Veers]

Negatory on that, eh?

SSTEVENS, Berlin Crisis '61; made for ACOW, but loads fine, eh?

@all: the 'designer's notes' are heavy in detail and worth the read just to see what the common state of theory (game wise) was at the time!

I'll try to upload the full notes........don't wait up, lol!

Oh, yeah, Trey's breifing for TWW was also severely lacking.
I do enjoy it when designers put as much effort into their briefings as they do into the scenarios.

[L`zard]

Perhaps, but then if all we had to go on was a thought experiment, I would have made the same assumptions about chemical weapons. But in the case of chemical weapons, we have years of actual experience during World War I. And it turned out it really wasn't that big a deal.

errmmm, I hate to contest with a 'master grade' but chemicals in WW1 were Very Much subject to delivery methods, not to mention that 'chemical warfare' et al has advanced by leaps and bounds since then, eh?

The 'experience of WW1' gave us a 'view' of what might happen, which caused (at least the British) to spend the pt's of 'war effort' to issue gas masks to the civilian population at the beginning of WW2, neh?

That it wasn't such a 'big deal' had much to do with politics, and somewhat to do with the experience of using same, eh? If your 'opponent' has equal capability, well, one might say that a use of (insert your horrible weapon here) is pretty much a 'wash', eh?

Can you say 'MAD'..........?


On the other road, I'm thinking that all the 'kurds' that got gassed from a 'chopper' had no idea this sort of thing was possible either, eh? One doesn't 'need to know' the details befor just dying due to a new weapon system. Ask those 'bystanders' that got zapped with sarin in the tokyo subways, eh?

[L`zard]

"Got Nukes?"

from this site, well, everything ya need to know, tho some do already, eh?

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/index.html

[Foggy]

errmmm, I hate to contest with a 'master grade' but chemicals in WW1 were Very Much subject to delivery methods, not to mention that 'chemical warfare' et al has advanced by leaps and bounds since then, eh?

The 'experience of WW1' gave us a 'view' of what might happen, which caused (at least the British) to spend the pt's of 'war effort' to issue gas masks to the civilian population at the beginning of WW2, neh?

That it wasn't such a 'big deal' had much to do with politics, and somewhat to do with the experience of using same, eh? If your 'opponent' has equal capability, well, one might say that a use of (insert your horrible weapon here) is pretty much a 'wash', eh?

Can you say 'MAD'..........?


On the other road, I'm thinking that all the 'kurds' that got gassed from a 'chopper' had no idea this sort of thing was possible either, eh? One doesn't 'need to know' the details befor just dying due to a new weapon system. Ask those 'bystanders' that got zapped with sarin in the tokyo subways, eh?

Modern chemical weapons are not nice - some agents are specifically designed to resist cleanup;) Most NATO weapons I think are binary or trinary
configurations - safe until deployed - the platform still has to "cleaned" upon return:smoke:
As far as TOAW goes - I now won't play a scenario w/nuclear options - neutron weapons can be quite scary - imagine a Soviet general w/this type of weapon available - NATO units would be toast:paperbag:
Quick search on google revealed average designed weapon size was less than 5kt - not a good time to be a Soviet tankman :)

[L`zard]

Modern chemical weapons are not nice - some agents are specifically designed to resist cleanup;) Most NATO weapons I think are binary or trinary
configurations - safe until deployed - the platform still has to "cleaned" upon return:smoke:
As far as TOAW goes - I now won't play a scenario w/nuclear options - neutron weapons can be quite scary - imagine a Soviet general w/this type of weapon available - NATO units would be toast:paperbag:
Quick search on google revealed average designed weapon size was less than 5kt - not a good time to be a Soviet tankman :)

WTF, Foggo?

Not play a scenario that could teach even more a reason NOT to use weaps of this sort?

Sounds sorta 'head in the sand' to me, eh?

If you think 'our' nuke scens are 'rude', go over to 'DefCon' forums........

There you will find peeps quite willing to cause 'End of The World, as we know it" !! at a '15 minute' rate, LOL! Rinse, wash, repeat, rate as well, eh?

Personally, methinx that the more 'horrido' the scen re this subject the better!?! eh? \

Any game that points out the stupidity of NukWar should be taught in grade school, as far as I can tell, eh?

[L`zard]

Ralph,

See here and 'in site' for more details re nukes......

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/index.html
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq12.html


While it's true that 'no one' knows the 'actual' effects of usage of nukes, the above site has so many links to info re: same that one could prolly figure it out, eh?

I'll look further for the 'general' thinking of the 'present' planners, assuming that this subject doesn't make me gak (unlikely, lol) as I've gone deep into the idea befor, lol!

Personally, 'Total Nuclear Warfar' has been a constant concept since I was born, (1950) eh? I guess the 'tattoo' I'd have on my re this thread would be "Born to Breed Fissiles" , LOL!

In total, it's never leftf my mind that it might be the 'WAY' we check out, eh?

[L`zard]

Long as we're wondering, lol, how bout some tunes to go along with dinner, eh?

From Randy Newman, lol:

We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Lets drop the big one and see what happens........

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, theyre spiteful and theyre hateful
They dont respect us-so lets surprise them
Well drop the big one and pulverize them.........

Asias crowded and europes too old
Africa is far too hot
And canadas too cold,
And south america stole our name
Lets drop the big one
Therell be no one left to blame us.............

We'll save australia
Dont wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an all american amusement park there
They got surfin, too...........

Boom goes london and boom paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another american town........

Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
Youll wear a japanese kimono
And therell be italian shoes for me..........

They all hate us anyhow
So lets drop the big one now
Lets drop the big one now!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Don Maddox]

I find it interesting that some have no problem killing 500,000 imaginary PC game soldiers in ground combat at Stalingrad, yet they balk at killing 10,000 imaginary PC game soldiers with an imaginary nuke. I'm not saying it's bad, I simply find the concept interesting.

[Veers]

I find it interesting that some have no problem killing 500,000 imaginary PC game soldiers in ground combat at Stalingrad, yet they balk at killing 10,000 imaginary PC game soldiers with an imaginary nuke. I'm not saying it's bad, I simply find the concept interesting.

Don't remind me...I have a problem doing both...:cry:

[Foggy]

I find it interesting that some have no problem killing 500,000 imaginary PC game soldiers in ground combat at Stalingrad, yet they balk at killing 10,000 imaginary PC game soldiers with an imaginary nuke. I'm not saying it's bad, I simply find the concept interesting.

That's why I play TOAW:halo: I would prefer that the actual event has some basis of reality - maybe EMP instead of thermal pulse should be modeled? I have never balked at killing large numbers of soldiers either way - many generals on a historical basis were quite good at this;)
Playing in the current tourney is quite interesting - modern warfare - airmobile etc. - you have to decide
what your units are worth - do you trade a unit of the 101st to deny a bridge/supply point? I don't know who to quote on this - but someone has said " only the killing has become faster " - objectives are still the same - maybe Hackworth?
BTW - any Eastern front scenario in WWII caused losses that were unbelievable - at least in TOAW :) Do you think the American public could stand today for losing at least a regiment/brigade per day? I know Don is ex Army - would they put themselves in this type of position?

[Bob Cross]

errmmm, I hate to contest with a 'master grade' but chemicals in WW1 were Very Much subject to delivery methods, not to mention that 'chemical warfare' et al has advanced by leaps and bounds since then, eh?

The 'experience of WW1' gave us a 'view' of what might happen, which caused (at least the British) to spend the pt's of 'war effort' to issue gas masks to the civilian population at the beginning of WW2, neh?

That it wasn't such a 'big deal' had much to do with politics, and somewhat to do with the experience of using same, eh? If your 'opponent' has equal capability, well, one might say that a use of (insert your horrible weapon here) is pretty much a 'wash', eh?

Can you say 'MAD'..........?


On the other road, I'm thinking that all the 'kurds' that got gassed from a 'chopper' had no idea this sort of thing was possible either, eh? One doesn't 'need to know' the details befor just dying due to a new weapon system. Ask those 'bystanders' that got zapped with sarin in the tokyo subways, eh?

I'm not disagreeing. But it is a fact that it was no big deal in WWI. Why it was not a big deal is theory. Perhaps your theory is right. But then perhaps the real reason was that soldiers are more resilient than we might think. Considering that you can get them to sit in a slit trench at Stalingrad until they freeze solid, land on Omaha Beach directly in front of a machinegun-filled pillbox, and even strap on an obsolete plane full of bombs and fly it into an aircraft carrier, I'm inclined to favor the latter.

[Foggy]

WTF, Foggo?

Not play a scenario that could teach even more a reason NOT to use weaps of this sort?

Sounds sorta 'head in the sand' to me, eh?

If you think 'our' nuke scens are 'rude', go over to 'DefCon' forums........

There you will find peeps quite willing to cause 'End of The World, as we know it" !! at a '15 minute' rate, LOL! Rinse, wash, repeat, rate as well, eh?

Personally, methinx that the more 'horrido' the scen re this subject the better!?! eh? \

Any game that points out the stupidity of NukWar should be taught in grade school, as far as I can tell, eh?

No - in sort of agreement - I think you're right:laugh: We used to stand at the end of the runway after our A-10's left - no use running to a ditch or shelter when you work in a ammo storage/assembly facility:rolleyes:
Last edit for Don: How would the 2nd cavalry have dealt w/this - you're going to be sacrificed - for the long term good?

[Don Maddox]

No - in sort of agreement - I think you're right We used to stand at the end of the runway after our A-10's left - no use running to a ditch or shelter when you work in a ammo storage/assembly facility:rolleyes:
Last edit for Don: How would the 2nd cavalry have dealt w/this - you're going to be sacrificed - for the long term good?

That's a difficult question to answer, Foggy. I guess I will fall back on an old favorite -- it depends.

You can't make these types of comparisons by painting with too broad a brush. Did the Germans show amazing resilience at Stalingrad? Sure, but where were they going to go? It was a thousand miles to nowhere and 40 below zero. Also, surrendering to Stalin's troops wasn't much better than sitting in a hole and waiting to die. And while it is worth mentioning the Soviets displayed incredible stamina in that same battle, it's also worth pointing out that they executed some 13,000 of their own men in that battle to achieve such discipline. These men also knew what Beria's special police would do to their families if they were accused of treason. Bravery at Stalingrad? Sure, but a good deal of that bravery was extracted by two of the most brutal and bloodthirsty military machines in world history. I don't know that this can be used as much of an example of anything but unique behavior.

Don't get me wrong. Soldiers of all nationalities can and do show remarkable bravery under extreme circumstances, and it isn't too difficult to find examples of this throughout history. But nuclear weapons are somewhat unique in that they attack the target in a host of different ways.

First, nuclear weapons generally can be expected to sever communications in 99% of all situations. Only the most advanced formation equipped with EMP hardened systems can be expected to escape this. Second, radiation poisoning is an insidious attack that can cause widespread damage in a area much larger than the actual footprint of the blast. It might not be strong enough to kill soldiers in the target area, but it can surely cause very widespread sickness due to the latent period. Next, blindness is a common side effect to humans in the vicinity of a nuclear blast. Dust and debris in the target area can also cause a variety of significant problems, adding to the general difficulties of dealing with radiation poisoning. Lastly, units anywhere near the blast will almost certainly go to MOPP 4 (or the equivalent) if they have NBC gear. Operating in MOPP 4 can be expected to significantly reduce a formation's ability to conduct operations, despite whatever you might have read. I know this from first-hand experience and I can tell you it is difficult to overstate just how much of a problem this can be. I can't even imagine how much more serious it would have been had we been on the receiving end of a nuclear attack.

It is also worth pointing out that equipment can be contaminated with radiation fallout in a very large area around ground zero (see Chernobyl). All but the most inhuman military commands would make it a priority to separate the soldiers from this equipment as quickly as possible (even their food would be inedible). A limited amount of it might be eligible for battlefield decontamination, but irradiated tanks, planes and other weapons are as much a danger to the soldiers that use them as they are to an enemy. I submit that an army that refused to take those formations out of the line, thoroughly decontaminate them and give them the proper medical care, would likely face a catastrophic morale situation in short order. It goes without saying this would be a political impossibility for any modern, Western army. Ordering soldiers to sit in a contaminated vehicle and "stand their ground" is simply not going to be an option except in the most desperate situation or the result of a truly inhuman regime. That said, I do agree with Bob Cross that it is a possibility.

Notice I didn't even mention the morale effects I discussed earlier, which I submit would be potentially more dangerous than the physical damage of the blast.

To a degree, I am speculating here based on my own experiences with NBC operations, both in training and for real during the Iraq invasion. During the early part of that war we would get hit with a live NBC alert 3-5 times per day (a variety of incoming missiles, and HQ had to assume the worst). Since there is no historical precedent for the release of nuclear weapons in the midst of a major ground campaign, some abstraction is necessary here. I personally am of the opinion that most designers fail to appreciate just how far-ranging the effects of such an attack would be, but that's me. Until it actually happens on a widespread scale, all we can do is make semi-educated guesses and "design for effect."

[Foggy]

That's a difficult question to answer, Foggy. I guess I will fall back on an old favorite -- it depends.

You can't make these types of comparisons by painting with too broad a brush. Did the Germans show amazing resilience at Stalingrad? Sure, but where were they going to go? It was a thousand miles to nowhere and 40 below zero. Also, surrendering to Stalin's troops wasn't much better than sitting in a hole and waiting to die. And while it is worth mentioning the Soviets displayed incredible stamina in that same battle, it's also worth pointing out that they executed some 13,000 of their own men in that battle to achieve such discipline. These men also knew what Beria's special police would do to their families if they were accused of treason. Bravery at Stalingrad? Sure, but a good deal of that bravery was extracted by two of the most brutal and bloodthirsty military machines in world history. I don't know that this can be used as much of an example of anything but unique behavior.

Don't get me wrong. Soldiers of all nationalities can and do show remarkable bravery under extreme circumstances, and it isn't too difficult to find examples of this throughout history. But nuclear weapons are somewhat unique in that they attack the target in a host of different ways.

First, nuclear weapons generally can be expected to sever communications in 99% of all situations. Only the most advanced formation equipped with EMP hardened systems can be expected to escape this. Second, radiation poisoning is an insidious attack that can cause widespread damage in a area much larger than the actual footprint of the blast. It might not be strong enough to kill soldiers in the target area, but it can surely cause very widespread sickness due to the latent period. Next, blindness is a common side effect to humans in the vicinity of a nuclear blast. Dust and debris in the target area can also cause a variety of significant problems, adding to the general difficulties of dealing with radiation poisoning. Lastly, units anywhere near the blast will almost certainly go to MOPP 4 (or the equivalent) if they have NBC gear. Operating in MOPP 4 can be expected to significantly reduce a formation's ability to conduct operations, despite whatever you might have read. I know this from first-hand experience and I can tell you it is difficult to overstate just how much of a problem this can be. I can't even imagine how much more serious it would have been had we been on the receiving end of a nuclear attack.

It is also worth pointing out that equipment can be contaminated with radiation fallout in a very large area around ground zero (see Chernobyl). All but the most inhuman military commands would make it a priority to separate the soldiers from this equipment as quickly as possible (even their food would be inedible). A limited amount of it might be eligible for battlefield decontamination, but irradiated tanks, planes and other weapons are as much a danger to the soldiers that use them as they are to an enemy. I submit that an army that refused to take those formations out of the line, thoroughly decontaminate them and give them the proper medical care, would likely face a catastrophic morale situation in short order. It goes without saying this would be a political impossibility for any modern, Western army. Ordering soldiers to sit in a contaminated vehicle and "stand their ground" is simply not going to be an option except in the most desperate situation or the result of a truly inhuman regime. That said, I do agree with Bob Cross that it is a possibility.

Notice I didn't even mention the morale effects I discussed earlier, which I submit would be potentially more dangerous than the physical damage of the blast.

To a degree, I am speculating here based on my own experiences with NBC operations, both in training and for real during the Iraq invasion. During the early part of that war we would get hit with a live NBC alert 3-5 times per day (a variety of incoming missiles, and HQ had to assume the worst). Since there is no historical precedent for the release of nuclear weapons in the midst of a major ground campaign, some abstraction is necessary here. I personally am of the opinion that most designers fail to appreciate just how far-ranging the effects of such an attack would be, but that's me. Until it actually happens on a widespread scale, all we can do is make semi-educated guesses and "design for effect."
Don - I never went thru an "actual" MOPP4 alert - but USAFE used to train that way constantly. I know first hand the how the suits work - try loading
weapons in August on a LIVE flightline:surprise: You brought up Iraq -were
you more worried about a persistant chemical weapon? In retrospect -the Iraq
miltary had no nukes - everything I have read to date said the ground forces were well dispersed - I would think missiles would have been the least of your
worries?
Blast effects are well documented - given prompt notice of incoming - only
infantry shound be vulnerable? Bob Cross has a valid point - if you were attacked by a weapon - does the effect of literally soon to be dead soldiers
bother you? I've always wondered what the "neutroned" Soviet soldiers would do?
Most of our equipment was shielded - lift trucks, loading racks etc. - is the Army more vulnerable? I'm probably guilty of the large brush - but both the Germans and the Russians would'nt hesitate to sacrifice large numbers of
soldiers to gain an advantage -are you saying a modern Western army would'nt do the same?

[Don Maddox]

Most of our equipment was shielded - lift trucks, loading racks etc. - is the Army more vulnerable?

With the exception of extremely new equipment, you won't find many weapons systems that are fully EMP hardened to the point where they would be resistent to nuclear attack. Again, don't believe everything you read.

..but both the Germans and the Russians would'nt hesitate to sacrifice large numbers of soldiers to gain an advantage -are you saying a modern Western army would'nt do the same?

Are you kidding? We've lost 3,500 soliders in four years of fighting in Iraq (vs. 28,000 in two weeks at Iwo Jima or 54,000 in three days at Gettysburg). What in the world makes you think most modern Western governments would endure 10,000-50,000+ casualties to nuclear attack AND still be willing to fight to "gain advantage." I don't see it. WWII is ancient history and the evidence is overwhelming that modern societies are simply not willing to accept mass casualties. I think this would be doubly true in the face of a direct assault with nuclear weapons.

[ralphtrickey]

Don't remind me...I have a problem doing both...:cry:
That's actually why I like TOAW, a lot more people are sent to the back to fight again later, instead of being killed as in other wargames.:paperbag:

[Veers]

That's actually why I like TOAW, a lot more people are sent to the back to fight again later, instead of being killed as in other wargames.:paperbag:

:laugh: Good one.

[Goliath]

[...]

First, nuclear weapons generally can be expected to sever communications in 99% of all situations. Only the most advanced formation equipped with EMP hardened systems can be expected to escape this. Second, radiation poisoning is an insidious attack that can cause widespread damage in a area much larger than the actual footprint of the blast. It might not be strong enough to kill soldiers in the target area, but it can surely cause very widespread sickness due to the latent period. Next, blindness is a common side effect to humans in the vicinity of a nuclear blast. Dust and debris in the target area can also cause a variety of significant problems, adding to the general difficulties of dealing with radiation poisoning. Lastly, units anywhere near the blast will almost certainly go to MOPP 4 (or the equivalent) if they have NBC gear. Operating in MOPP 4 can be expected to significantly reduce a formation's ability to conduct operations, despite whatever you might have read. I know this from first-hand experience and I can tell you it is difficult to overstate just how much of a problem this can be. I can't even imagine how much more serious it would have been had we been on the receiving end of a nuclear attack.

[...]

Notice I didn't even mention the morale effects I discussed earlier, which I submit would be potentially more dangerous than the physical damage of the blast.

[...]


I do not wish to down-play the seriousness of nuclear weapons usage or try to make people "stop worrying, and learn to love the Bomb". As already discussed, psychological effects should not be under-estimated, but I still want to play the Devil's advocate :devil: as regards the physical effects.

Firstly, local fall-out (often visualized as a leeward plume streching out from ground zero) is in general an issue only when soil or other ground material is sucked into the fireball, gets contaminated and fall out (local fall-out may still occurr through "rain-out", depending on weather conditions) . Otherwise, the weapon debris condenses to much smaller particles that are carried high up in the atmosphere and eventually contribute globally. A rule of thumb for the occurrence of considerable local fall-out is whether the fireball touches the ground or not.

In order to exemplify various weapons effects, I digged up some numbers (I'm on vacation, so I can't give solid references at the moment. However I think it is all in Glasstone & Dolan: "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" (1977)):

Yield [kt]: 1, 10, 100, 1000
Max radius of fireball [m]: 60, 140, 350, 900

Effective radii [m] and corresponding optimal height of burst:

Air blast on unprotected human: 450 (@ h=200), 900 (@ h=500), 2000 (@ h=1000), 4000 (@ h=2500)

Initial nuclear radiation on tank crew: 650, 1000, 1600, 2300 (@ h~100 for all yields)

3rd degree burns on exposed skin: 570 (@ h=100), 1750 (@ h=250), 5000 (@ h=1000), 15000 (@ h=6000)

Apologizing for the poor typography :nuts:, there are a few things worth pointing out:

Both the blast wave and thermal radiation are optimized for burst heights well above the height where fall-out is a major consideration
For low-yield weapons, the initial nuclear radiation dominates. For 1 kt, the optimum burst height with respect to radiation is actually well above the height below which fall-out is likely
The gain in effective radius for the initial nuclear radiation when going to higher yields is modest: a dozen "clean" 1 kt bursts cover the same area as a definitely dirty 1 Mt burst

In conclusion, if you are not targeting hardened structures, or are explicitly seeking fall-out, air bursts would do the job :)

As regards EMP, effects are most pronounced for surface bursts (ground-induced EMP; GEMP) and high-altitude bursts (HEMP). While HEMP hits on a continental scale, the GEMP is much more limited in range (although still of the order kilometers). For air bursts, which I believe would be the common usage of nuclear weapons (see above), EMP is much weaker.

[Bob Cross]

Are you kidding? We've lost 3,500 soliders in four years of fighting in Iraq (vs. 28,000 in two weeks at Iwo Jima or 54,000 in three days at Gettysburg). What in the world makes you think most modern Western governments would endure 10,000-50,000+ casualties to nuclear attack AND still be willing to fight to "gain advantage." I don't see it. WWII is ancient history and the evidence is overwhelming that modern societies are simply not willing to accept mass casualties. I think this would be doubly true in the face of a direct assault with nuclear weapons.

Check the 19th and 20th Centuries and I think you'll find that Western Civilization wasn't willing to expend much more over Iraq or Afganistan then, either. Europe or America was a different matter. And note that the potential for nuclear combat dates to the 1940s. It isn't just a 21st Century issue to TOAW.

[Foggy]

With the exception of extremely new equipment, you won't find many weapons systems that are fully EMP hardened to the point where they would be resistent to nuclear attack. Again, don't believe everything you read.



Are you kidding? We've lost 3,500 soliders in four years of fighting in Iraq (vs. 28,000 in two weeks at Iwo Jima or 54,000 in three days at Gettysburg). What in the world makes you think most modern Western governments would endure 10,000-50,000+ casualties to nuclear attack AND still be willing to fight to "gain advantage." I don't see it. WWII is ancient history and the evidence is overwhelming that modern societies are simply not willing to accept mass casualties. I think this would be doubly true in the face of a direct assault with nuclear weapons.
Don - everything I mentioned was support equipment :smoke: Designed only to let us load for the final target - 90% losses on the first day of combat was
considered acceptable:surprise:
1st wave Soviet strike:
Bitburg - ground burst
Zweibrucken - ground burst
Ramstein - air burst - has to be rather large:bite:
Large amounts of fallout - NATO AS has now disappeared - do you sortie
the remaining F-15's thru the fallout? Your 2nd cavalry has no air support -
but the German corps commander to the south of the Fulda Gap has what I would call large targets - can they be sacrificed to deny/destroy Soviet
tank armies?
Most Soviet nuclear attacks against our air bases would be SS20's - 2/3
missiles (MIRV's) per target - 8/9 minutes of warning time - where does democracy enter into this conversation?
Nuclear weapons use has nothing to do w/common sense - but at the time of the early 80's - the Russian old guard needs time against glasnost;)

[sstevens06]

Negatory on that, eh?

SSTEVENS, Berlin Crisis '61; made for ACOW, but loads fine, eh?

@all: the 'designer's notes' are heavy in detail and worth the read just to see what the common state of theory (game wise) was at the time!

I'll try to upload the full notes........don't wait up, lol!


Thank you for the attribution and the kind words L'zard!

I have not had the time to begin porting my Berlin Crisis 1961 scenario to TOAW III yet, but plan to do so at some point (if I live long enough). Unfortunately this scenario involves a great deal of customized equipment, mainly unique nuclear weapons delivery platforms in operation with both sides in the early 1960s, and will require much time with the BioEditor.

There is a history behind how the current iteration of TOAW handles nuclear weapons effects: Ralph corrected a MAJOR flaw in the way previous versions handled this. There used to be a thread on TDG in which all the gory details were discussed, but it seems to have disappeared...

[sstevens06]

...
Are you kidding? We've lost 3,500 soliders in four years of fighting in Iraq (vs. 28,000 in two weeks at Iwo Jima or 54,000 in three days at Gettysburg). What in the world makes you think most modern Western governments would endure 10,000-50,000+ casualties to nuclear attack AND still be willing to fight to "gain advantage." I don't see it. WWII is ancient history and the evidence is overwhelming that modern societies are simply not willing to accept mass casualties. I think this would be doubly true in the face of a direct assault with nuclear weapons.


A great deal depends upon the conditions in which nuclear weapons are introduced into a conflict. If the Iranians succeed in detonating a 20kT nuclear device in downtown Tel Aviv I could easily see the Israelis retaliating with mass nuclear strikes to "gain advantage."

How do you think the United States would have reacted if the September 11 attacks had been conducted with nuclear weapons?

[Veers]

A great deal depends upon the conditions in which nuclear weapons are introduced into a conflict. If the Iranians succeed in detonating a 20kT nuclear device in downtown Tel Aviv I could easily see the Israelis retaliating with mass nuclear strikes to "gain advantage."

How do you think the United States would have reacted if the September 11 attacks had been conducted with nuclear weapons?
Heh. The Middle East would be a big chunk of glass.

[ralphtrickey]

Thank you for the attribution and the kind words L'zard!

I have not had the time to begin porting my Berlin Crisis 1961 scenario to TOAW III yet, but plan to do so at some point (if I live long enough). Unfortunately this scenario involves a great deal of customized equipment, mainly unique nuclear weapons delivery platforms in operation with both sides in the early 1960s, and will require much time with the BioEditor.

There is a history behind how the current iteration of TOAW handles nuclear weapons effects: Ralph corrected a MAJOR flaw in the way previous versions handled this. There used to be a thread on TDG in which all the gory details were discussed, but it seems to have disappeared...

If it's a COW scenario, I think you should be able to open it with BioED and export the equipment file and use that directly with TOAW III.

[L`zard]

If it's a COW scenario, I think you should be able to open it with BioED and export the equipment file and use that directly with TOAW III.

Might be 'some' difference obtaining to 'unit' eqp. eh? Got more chance to work with 'details' than in acow, LOL!

Ivy Mike: whoopsy, if that's over YOUR city, eh?

note: this is my current 'desktop', lol!

[rasmus]

My take on nukes... ;)
http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/strip.aspx?id=14609479-bcf1-42f4-a372-f5162d641b85

[sstevens06]

If it's a COW scenario, I think you should be able to open it with BioED and export the equipment file and use that directly with TOAW III.


I'll have to try that...it would save an enormous amount of time. Mind you, the nuclear attack stengths of all the modified nuclear-capable equipment will still need to be changed to reflect the corrections you made in TOAW III.

Thanks for the tip Ralph!

[El Cid]

Are you kidding? We've lost 3,500 soliders in four years of fighting in Iraq (vs. 28,000 in two weeks at Iwo Jima or 54,000 in three days at Gettysburg). What in the world makes you think most modern Western governments would endure 10,000-50,000+ casualties to nuclear attack AND still be willing to fight to "gain advantage." I don't see it. WWII is ancient history and the evidence is overwhelming that modern societies are simply not willing to accept mass casualties. I think this would be doubly true in the face of a direct assault with nuclear weapons.

IMO it all depends what is at stake and how people percieve it. When the front lines are at your backyard you are willing to take more losses. The US did not enter the WW2 until it was attacked. Until then it was not willing to accept losses, after that it would take losses until the enemy was out.

I don´t have such faith in humanity, that after 10,000 years of wars and mass killings, in the last 50 years, a part of humanity is not willing to accept it anymore.

In COW I have the scenario of Nordic Light, which has the option of using nuclear weapons and which I readily used. It was the only way to stop the enemy.

The losses to the enemy were not huge, but it disrupted its movement and supply drastically. I used it where the enemy had large concentrations of enemy troops, these units could only move one hex per turn. Meanwhile I could move my units freely and through the areas that were not contaminated. For out manuvering the enemy they were priceless. I do not know if this simulates well reality or not.

Keep in mind that in TOAW turns could be as long as half-weeks, weeks or more. How long does it take a unit to recover from a nuclear blast nearby?

[a white rabbit]

My take on nukes... ;)
http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/strip.aspx?id=14609479-bcf1-42f4-a372-f5162d641b85


..my take on nukes..

..any one got change for 25 million ?

..

.. http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/nucwar.htm ...

[Goliath]

..my take on nukes..

.. http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/nucwar.htm ...

I have heard about this classic card game, but I didn't know it was still for sale! Couldn't resist placing an order :D

I guess many of you have already seen this Gamesquad feature: http://www.gamesquad.com/index.php?option=com_sections&id=6&sid=948

(BTW, this link appears to be stale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_(card_game) )

[a white rabbit]

I have heard about this classic card game, but I didn't know it was still for sale! Couldn't resist placing an order :D

I guess many of you have already seen this Gamesquad feature: http://www.gamesquad.com/index.php?option=com_sections&id=6&sid=948

(BTW, this link appears to be stale: )

..you got me on this one, from google it works perfectly..

[Goliath]

..you got me on this one, from google it works perfectly..
OK, the solution was trivial: the closing parenthesis wasn't included in the link:D. I thought wikipedia would automatically catch such typos, so i didn't even try a search myself :nuts:

Anyway, to add to the collection of nuclearia, I throw in this rather bizarre, but very amusing, music box: http://www.atomicplatters.com/. Just an example: Who can resist a song with the title: "I Dreamt I Saw Khrushchev In A Pink Cadillac"? :clown:

[L`zard]

Beauty pix:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Wallpaper.html

and links to what ails ya, lol!

[Silvanski]

kaboom :broccoli: