RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare

RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> After Action Report

Message

snowburn -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/1/2013 10:51:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amatteucci P.S. The number of systems included in the database and of situations that are, in principle, replicable with this game, blows my mind! I never thought there would be a game that would have let me intercept soviet bombers over Alaska with F-89s firing Mighty Mouse rockets! [X(] And AIR-2 Genie [8D] (nuclear unguided A2A rockets) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 12:12:06 AM)
This is my first attempt at a real/semi-realistic scenario. Specifically I wanted to simulate a hypothetical early 50's B-36 Strike on the Russian Kola Peninsula. To setup the testing scenario I loaded/added the following from the pre-built unit collections: -Kola 1950 RADAR -Kola 1950-56 AD Then for the 3 Northern most PVO airfields I added a squadron of Mig-15bis2's (12 A/C each) based on a little research. For the US I added: -Greenland radar sites -Thule Air Base 1950 At Thule I added 3 Squadrons of B-36's loaded w/4 Mark-6 Atomic bombs each - from the early 50's time period but in the end a bad choice. I also added 2 Squadrons of F-84E's and a pair of KC-97 tankers. I thought I could get the F-84E's on the strike using 1 tanker, but in the end found out they needed more than 1 refueling point to cover the distance - will try again later to see if it can be done. In my superficial (so far) reading on the period I found out that the doctrine for the bombers was NOT to fly in formation as in WW2 but instead to fly separately/at a distance from each other. This change was an outgrowth of the first encounter between B-29's and Mig-15's over a North Korean base called Namsi - here is a link to the book on the battle: http://www.amazon.com/BLACK-TUESDAY-OVER-NAMSI-Forgotten/dp/1907677216 Hopefully explaining the scenario creation in a little more detail will help others and show how approachable the simulation is for historical/hypothetical scenario creation. If not, let me know.

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 12:12:56 AM)
For this test I launched 2 Squadrons of B-36's (2x9=18) from Thule AFB. I created a support mission/area just outside of the Soviet radar detection so that I could send all the bombers in at the same time - actually ended up being 2 waves of 9. The below image shows the first wave starting to appear on the Soviet radar scopes and a pair of patrolling Migs going out to identify them. [image]local://upfiles/14934/25C2968778A248E8BDC82B40004AAB8A.jpg[/image]

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 12:13:45 AM)
The Soviet radars could not determine the identity of the contacts, so it was left to the Mig-15s via Mk1 Eyeball. The strike was going in right after sunset so that may have slowed identification also. But in the end it didn't help… In this image one of the Migs has pulled in behind a B-36 after identifying it as hostile and is about to shoot it down w/its 37mm cannons. [image]local://upfiles/14934/EDD2DBC4BA8F4A60AE0473B4A471ED61.jpg[/image]

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 12:14:21 AM)
Initially I had 4 Mig-15's on patrol when the B-36's were first detected. Two of the Migs were low on fuel and had to RTB before closing the first wave. Next at approx 10min after detection I launched 2 pairs of Migs from separate airbases. The Migs quickly started closing and shooting down B-36's while still over the water. Only a few made feet dry, and ultimately only 2 B-36's were able to drop their bombs. In the below image is one of the B-36's that survived the onslaught of Migs and is starting the attack run on its target. This is where I realized I had chosen a less than ideal bomb. The B-36 descended before actually dropping its bombs. Looking at the Mk6 in the DB, unlike later atomic bombs that could be dropped at high altitude, it had a Hi-Lo-Hi attack profile. Hence the B-36 had to descend, drop the bombs, then claw its way back up to avoid the blast. Not wise - for the next test I will use a later model weapon… [image]local://upfiles/14934/E48583132E3345BA8E91B4789686185B.jpg[/image]

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 12:14:57 AM)
In this image are a few more B-36's that made feet dry but unfortunately had a pair of Migs closing rapidly on them. I had assigned all the B-36's targets when they were still at the beginning of their run in from the staging area to simulate pre-assigned targets. Not sure in real life if they would have communicated during the Mig massacre and decided to just dump their bombs at the soonest opportunity. [image]local://upfiles/14934/88B9EB2CEDB143379D8B45B771E3A5CE.jpg[/image]

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 12:15:28 AM)
In this last image is what I call the "Lucky One." The two Migs had already been busy shooting down other B-36's and were low on ammo. Both Mig's gave it their best shot but missed and went Winchester. The "Lucky One" was then able to descend and drop its bombs on the target. [image]local://upfiles/14934/9DD3BFDF9B2E446DB275791D6E72E2A0.jpg[/image]

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 12:15:52 AM)
"With the appearance of the Soviet MiG-15 in combat over North Korea in 1950, USAF propeller-driven bombers were rendered obsolete as strategic offensive weapons. Although the MiG-15 had limited range and lacked radar, the swept-wing Soviet jet carried heavy-caliber weapons and could fly faster and higher than the F-80C and F-84G, the B-29’s straight-winged jet fighter escorts. During daylight, the MiG-15 could attack the propeller-driven B-29s with impunity, forcing the United States to switch the B-29 to night raids." (Wikipedia) This test run seems to confirm the above statement. For my next test I will try some different strategies: -Use a bomb that supports high altitude release (hi-hi-hi profile) -Come in from a wider spread of directions - 1 squadron over the pole (from the North) and the other from over Norway/Sweden (from the West). In Nuclear war there are no national boundaries. -Try to get some F-84E's over the target with the B-36's via a chain of KC-97s -Or simulate the FICON program and "carry" 1-2 F-84's with each squadron Next will be to move on to the B-47, B-52, and B-58. Then it's onto the first ICBMs and the USS George Washington (SSBN-598). Just too much fun. Because of the wealth of platforms in CMNAO, beyond being a great game, it also becomes a wonderful tool to explore/recreate/hypothesize history. I'll bet Gen Curtis LeMay would have loved to have had a copy…

snowburn -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 1:10:41 AM)
nice AAR! will you release your scenario when finished?

JRyan -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 1:22:10 AM)
That was cool...... B-58 - I never understood why they got rid of them so fast....

mikmykWS -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 2:14:33 AM)
Very cool AAR

Primarchx -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 2:20:38 AM)
I agree, Hustlers were sexy as hell. Trouble with them was short legs and not optimal for low-level transition after SAMs took the high ground against high-flying bombers. BTW, there's a video on Youtube on a long range low level practice bomb run with B-58s that's fun to watch. quote: ORIGINAL: JRyan That was cool...... B-58 - I never understood why they got rid of them so fast....

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 4:43:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: snowburn nice AAR! will you release your scenario when finished? I need to spend some time learning the event engine and do some more testing - but hopefully yes.

Rob322 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 5:46:13 AM)
I like this era too, right before the ICBM became dominant. There's actually a cool film called Power of decision on Archive.org that was made by the Air Force ~1959ish where they roleplay a nuclear war with the Soviets. Lots of bunker and old command shots but also lots of stock footage of B-52s, B-36s, B-47s and B-58s ... Worth looking for

amatteucci -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 8:54:15 AM)
Very nice AAR. I hope too that you will release the scenario when you feel it's done. I wonder whether it would be sensible to presume that the nuclear suppression of PVO defenses would have been a priority for the USAF/USN in the early '50s as it was in later years. If your reference year is 1950, probably only AJ Savages would be available for that role but, just in 1952, also AD Skyraiders and B-47 could enter the stage. Moreover, as you said, a Hi-Hi-Hi attack profile would increase the survival chances for your B-36s, considering also that now both the Peacemakers and the MiGs are capped at the same ceiling while the bombers should benefit of a slight advantage (although I have to admit that it's not easy to come up with undisputable figure for B-36's maximum operational altitude, especially for the featherweight ones).

.Sirius -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 1:08:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: acb3 "With the appearance of the Soviet MiG-15 in combat over North Korea in 1950, USAF propeller-driven bombers were rendered obsolete as strategic offensive weapons. Although the MiG-15 had limited range and lacked radar, the swept-wing Soviet jet carried heavy-caliber weapons and could fly faster and higher than the F-80C and F-84G, the B-29’s straight-winged jet fighter escorts. During daylight, the MiG-15 could attack the propeller-driven B-29s with impunity, forcing the United States to switch the B-29 to night raids." (Wikipedia) This test run seems to confirm the above statement. For my next test I will try some different strategies: -Use a bomb that supports high altitude release (hi-hi-hi profile) -Come in from a wider spread of directions - 1 squadron over the pole (from the North) and the other from over Norway/Sweden (from the West). In Nuclear war there are no national boundaries. -Try to get some F-84E's over the target with the B-36's via a chain of KC-97s -Or simulate the FICON program and "carry" 1-2 F-84's with each squadron Next will be to move on to the B-47, B-52, and B-58. Then it's onto the first ICBMs and the USS George Washington (SSBN-598). Just too much fun. Because of the wealth of platforms in CMNAO, beyond being a great game, it also becomes a wonderful tool to explore/recreate/hypothesize history. I'll bet Gen Curtis LeMay would have loved to have had a copy… Hi glad you like the platforms, you could try basing F-84's in Northern United Kingdom Airbases and tank in or fly from Norway[;)] will try and build parasite F-84's for the B-36's should be intereasting if I pull it off [;)]

jmscho -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 5:41:11 PM)
Maybe develop the scenario as a replacement for Harpoon's "Boom" scenario. I always liked that one.

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 7:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: .Sirius Hi glad you like the platforms, you could try basing F-84's in Northern United Kingdom Airbases and tank in or fly from Norway[;)] will try and build parasite F-84's for the B-36's should be interesting if I pull it off [;)] Already started looking at the northern Norway bases. While Norway never used the F-84 (looks like they started with the de Havilland Vampire), it would make sense that the F-84's could be forward based there in the event of war. If you do build the parasite F-84 don't forget the XF-85 Goblin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin I was going to simulate the F-84/FICON by creating an event dropping an F-84 with the B-36 at a certain point in time. Having the actual weapon system in the simulation would be cool. Parking a carrier(s) off the Kola Peninsula for suppression is also a valid thought - although I haven't read anything saying that was even planned during the 50's. We know in the 80's this was part of the strategy. This is the first game/simulation where I have really started getting the scenario design bug. Half the fun is the research and I have a feeling its going to make the game/simulation even more expensive... http://www.amazon.com/dp/1902109252/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=H1XSFD6Z93RJ&coliid=I3L6XHYHMWKZKR http://www.amazon.com/dp/1902109082/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=H1XSFD6Z93RJ&coliid=IGNW7T70Y768Z http://www.amazon.com/Jet-Age-Man-Operations-Early/dp/1907677461/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380823737&sr=1-1&keywords=jet+age+man

Primarchx -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 8:16:14 PM)
Someone posted a very good Rand study on reinforcing Norway in wartime here sometime in the recent past (here it is). The Norwegians were always very cautious of provoking the Soviets and had (have?) a very strict 'No Foreign Basing' and 'No Nuclear Weapons' policy. These were probably flexible in the case of war but by then would likely be too late to implement in northern Norway.

amatteucci -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/3/2013 11:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: acb3 Parking a carrier(s) off the Kola Peninsula for suppression is also a valid thought - although I haven't read anything saying that was even planned during the 50's. We know in the 80's this was part of the strategy. In the late '50s AD Skyraiders were earmarked for such a role, see http://www.warbirdforum.com/toss.htm I presume AJ Savages could fulfill a similar role. quote: This is the first game/simulation where I have really started getting the scenario design bug. Half the fun is the research and I have a feeling its going to make the game/simulation even more expensive... http://www.amazon.com/dp/1902109252/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=H1XSFD6Z93RJ&coliid=I3L6XHYHMWKZKR http://www.amazon.com/dp/1902109082/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=H1XSFD6Z93RJ&coliid=IGNW7T70Y768Z http://www.amazon.com/Jet-Age-Man-Operations-Early/dp/1907677461/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380823737&sr=1-1&keywords=jet+age+man It's like WitP-AE, in retrospect the game price was a bargain, the heavy spending started when I had to purchase several volumes to read and make sense of all that chaos! [:D]

smudge56 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/4/2013 12:41:00 PM)
Bloody excellent thread very interesting. Please show more.

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/5/2013 5:43:20 AM)
A little comic relief - wanted to test the Soviet automated air defense response I setup, so I flew an F-84G low along the border. Looks like the automated response works (all Mig-15's). Full test soon. "Hey Joe, did we take a wrong turn somewhere? Think the Russkies will notice?" [image]local://upfiles/14934/0BD50F4372294EA291D820AFA9ABEF15.jpg[/image]

acbennett3 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (10/5/2013 5:52:52 AM)
"I guess so..." [image]local://upfiles/14934/BAF6F61F58AB453BA1CDA587F80B0F19.jpg[/image]

ReconPathFinder -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (11/16/2019 10:36:26 PM)
I was just about to ask if this simulator could simulate nuclear exchanges. Question answered in spades. Coolness factor x1000

Schr75 -> RE: Strategic Nuclear Warfare (11/18/2019 4:57:09 PM)
Hi ReconPathFinder If you want to play with nukes, I can highly recommend Randomizers excellent "Nuclear Armagedon" series of scenarios. Deter, Detect, Defend. Wargasm 1962. Peeling the Onion. The V-bombers. The Hustlers. And I´m sure I have forgotten some. There you get to play with all the horrors of a full scale nuclear exchange. They are all in the community scenario pack. Søren

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.34375