Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
frez13

Ballistic missiles and missile defense systems

Recommended Posts

In a war between nuclear powers, it wouldn't be unrealistic to assume nuclear warheads would be in use, if not as a first resort then as a last resort by the loser. If not in the main game, I would like to see a module focused on the scenario, along with hazmat gear and NBC vehicles to deal with the radiation. One such example is the M1135 Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Reconnaissance Vehicle.

 

 

The M1135 Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBCRV) provides nuclear, biological and chemical detection and surveillance for battlefield hazard visualization.

The NBCRV provides situational awareness to increase the combat power of the SBCT.[3] The core of the NBCRV is its on-board integrated NBC sensor suite and integrated meteorological system. An NBC positive overpressure system (where interior air pressure is higher than ambient air pressure outside, rather than vice versa) minimizes cross-contamination of samples and detection instruments, provides crew protection, and allows extended operations at MOPP 0. It replaces the M93 Fox vehicle.

The NBCRV detects and collects chemical and biological contamination in its local environment on the move through point detection (Chemical Biological Mass Spectrometer (CBMS) and Joint Biological Point Detection System (JBPDS)), and at a distance through the use of a stand off detector (JSLSCAD) [clarification needed]. It automatically integrates contamination information from detectors with input from on-board navigation and meteorological systems and automatically transmits digital NBC warning messages through the Mission Command System.

As of 2010, the U.S. Army does not plan to field Stryker Double V-Hull (DVH) versions of the NBCRV in Afghanistan.[4]

Chemical Biological Mass Spectrometer (CBMS), built by Hamilton Sundstrand, is a detection system for chemical warfare agents and biological warfare agents. CBMS was originally developed by a team lead by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

On 25 July 2013, Iraq requested the sale of 50 M1135 NBC Reconnaissance Vehicles for $900 million.[5]

In October 2013, the U.S. Army decided to reduce the overall number of M1135 Strykers it will procure from 417 to 307 vehicles.[6]

 

 

M1135_NBC_Reconnaissance_Vehicle.jpg

Edited by frez13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean a post-nuclear war campaign? Yeah, that could work (but i am telling you: it wont happen.). However using nuclear weapons in CM is just way beyond CM s scope, especially when we are talking about those high yield warheads that are mounted on ICBMs. A 500 kt warhead dropped in the middle and of a 2x2km CM map would always result in a draw - both sides forces would litterally be vapourized, and if it was a ground detonation the resulting crater would probably take most of what is remaining of the map. But even a warhead in the lower kiloton range would probably be so decisive that the battle would be over after its detonation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the nuclear balloon goes up, a tactical game becomes moot.  This is one of the reasons Steve has said they aren't interested in a Cold War game.  I don't think you will ever see any interest from BF on doing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not knowledgeable on the specifics of how a nuclear detonation works, all I know is that it makes a gigantic explosion. I assume there to be missile defense systems fielded by both sides in the real world to stop missile threats to keep them from releasing their payload.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think that a nuclear-themed addon would be cool I don't think it would be feasible.

 

First, the idea of hazmat gear and NBC vehicles is great. The gear would drastically impact combat effectiveness on the field. I also like the idea of vehicles which are unique and new. The impact of radiation, etc. could be set by something similar to the electronic warfare setting.

 

However, much like winter (actually, just like winter) adding those for every single unit, weapon and vehicle would require a ton of work. Regardless of the fact that nukes are highly unlikely in the scenario which will be depicted by the game, adding something as complex as radiation seems out of scope to me.

 

If BF had unlimited ressources I would love to have a post-nuclear campaign. Sadly they don't, and there are things I'd rather have them do. Maybe we'll get a WW3 CM in a decade or two. Until then this won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CMBS backstory basically has both sides blundering into a regional conflict neither of them wanted. They both believed that with a sufficient show of resolve the other side would back down. But neither side does. Russia would no doubt have preferred that NATO was intimidated by its show of force, NATO would have preferred to have Russia hesitate before firing on NATO forces.  I do not think *fictional Russian leader* in 2017 would willingly doom his country to assured nuclear annihilation over the fate of Kiev. So win, lose or draw the CMBS Ukraine conflict stays conventional and contained. No bombers over Moscow, no submarine launched cruise missiles fired into Norfolk naval base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the nuclear balloon goes up, a tactical game becomes moot.  This is one of the reasons Steve has said they aren't interested in a Cold War game.  I don't think you will ever see any interest from BF on doing this.

 

I don't understand why that would be a reason to not make a Cold War CM, just write the story like any other Cold war war-game that doesn't involve nuclear weapons. If that is truly the reason it is a very weak one, CM Fulda Gap (for example) would be a great way to include thousands upon thousands of different tactical scenarios involving a large variety of nations, units and locations.

Edited by Raptorx7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a war between nuclear powers, it wouldn't be unrealistic to assume nuclear warheads would be in use, if not as a first resort then as a last resort by the loser.

 

What I think would happen is that if a nuclear-armed belligerent were in danger of losing a conventional war, it would issue an ultimatum, in effect, "Back off or we go to the big ones." Unless everyone had thoroughly lost their minds to war fever, that would result in a quick armistice and negotiations for an end to hostilities. But it would be a touchy situation and mistakes could be made. Which is why nuclear powers have tried to avoid any direct armed conflicts at all. There are other options for pursuing national policy. Working through non-nuclear surrogates is one. There are others.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why that would be a reason to not make a Cold War CM, just write the story like any other Cold war war-game that doesn't involve nuclear weapons. If that is truly the reason it is a very weak one, CM Fulda Gap (for example) would be a great way to include thousands upon thousands of different tactical scenarios involving a large variety of nations, units and locations.

I didn't say I agreed with them, I'd love to see CM do a family on the cold war sometime in the late 70s/early 80s.  I'd also love to see them do a 1945 confrontation between the USSR and the Western Allies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many aspects and pieces of equipment of warfare that aren't simulated on the CM battlefield yet, including medevac equipment, logistics vehicles, engineering vehicles, bridge laying, aerial warfare, NBC, etc.  Not that these things could never be added, but development resources are limited.  That said, if you really wanted to simulate a post-nuclear battlefield you could place lots of leveled buildings, stripped trees and units with fitness set to -1 or -2 to simulate cumbersome NBC equipment and hostile environmental conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many aspects and pieces of equipment of warfare that aren't simulated on the CM battlefield yet, including medevac equipment, logistics vehicles, engineering vehicles, bridge laying, aerial warfare, NBC, etc.  Not that these things could never be added, but development resources are limited.  That said, if you really wanted to simulate a post-nuclear battlefield you could place lots of leveled buildings, stripped trees and units with fitness set to -1 or -2 to simulate cumbersome NBC equipment and hostile environmental conditions.

yeah but you'd still need BF to create the proper TAC AI and ToE for the zombies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

frez,

 

Let me help you with your nuke knowledge shortfall. This should help. 23 pages which tell you how they work, what they do, what their damage mechanisms are, etc. Am reasonably certain you'll find this tutorial both enlightening and disgusting.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but you'd still need BF to create the proper TAC AI and ToE for the zombies.

 

Hah!

 

Still, it'd be interesting nonetheless (tactically) to have to operate conventional forces in a post-nuclear/chemical environment (I practiced enough MOPP ops in the 80's to still be curious how the hell this would play out in battle .....)

 

Maybe BFC can push this 10+yrs out, once they've refined the engine enough to warrant such time and effort....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone interested in the actual Russian nuclear doctrine for the period must read the Danilevich interview. He led the team which wrote the muliti-volume TOP SECRET nuclear doctrine manuals.  And if you really what to get into the much larger question of what we thought the Russians were doing vs what they were actually doing, see the BDM macro study of which that interview is a tiny piece.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

frez,

 

Let me help you with your nuke knowledge shortfall. This should help. 23 pages which tell you how they work, what they do, what their damage mechanisms are, etc. Am reasonably certain you'll find this tutorial both enlightening and disgusting.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Thanks I'm taking a look.

 

And yeah maybe nukes won't be feasible in gameplay, but dealing post-fallout with pockets of radiation and NBC gear may be nice for a module. Even not nuclear, but biological and chemical weapons.

 

As well as a casualty meter on the environment (how much you messed up the wildlife, pollution, etc) after the battle.

Edited by frez13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like your suggestions to making an NBC effected battlefield and I'll add turn the scenario's temperature right up and forbid vehicles unbuttoning...

 

Watch the U.S. Army’s Mock Battle Inside a Nuclear Reactor

 

 

“It’s a mess. A hot mess,” Bryson says.

 

There are many aspects and pieces of equipment of warfare that aren't simulated on the CM battlefield yet, including medevac equipment, logistics vehicles, engineering vehicles, bridge laying, aerial warfare, NBC, etc.  Not that these things could never be added, but development resources are limited.  That said, if you really wanted to simulate a post-nuclear battlefield you could place lots of leveled buildings, stripped trees and units with fitness set to -1 or -2 to simulate cumbersome NBC equipment and hostile environmental conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't belive this would fit CM games series, considering their scope. Besides, there are so many potential scenarios that would fit the game scope to fill 50 years of game development at least.

 

Some special mods/campaign could be intended that way, such as the US war campaign for CMSF, but other than that I belive this is just out of scope of any CM game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what SBurke said. BFC could avoid the nuclear balloon by a 45/46 West vs East confrontation.  You get scrabbled together Wehrmacht vets, Western Powers, and Russkies, with Russkie Allies, (or puppets depending on your political view)

Still, later cold war would be awesome too - 70s/80s.  50s and 60s  I think theres really no scenario that doesnt go nuclear almost immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall there was an old documentary (early 80s?) on OPFOR tactical training out west. I recall one bit where a young commander sitting before his (very crude looking) computer sim orders a tactical nuclear strike in an effort to keep his men from being over-run by the enemy. Imagine his surprise then he saw the resulting fireball (expanding circle on his monitor) engulf his own troops. I believe it may have engulfed his own position as well. Oops!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what SBurke said. BFC could avoid the nuclear balloon by a 45/46 West vs East confrontation.  You get scrabbled together Wehrmacht vets, Western Powers, and Russkies, with Russkie Allies, (or puppets depending on your political view)

Still, later cold war would be awesome too - 70s/80s.  50s and 60s  I think theres really no scenario that doesnt go nuclear almost immediately.

Well in that 45/46 scenario it would be one sided because the Allies have nukes while the Soviets haven't developed it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the longest time, Russia was the top dog when it came to operating in an NBC environment: antiradiation liners and positive overpressure systems for BMPs and tanks, "slime" suits and masks for the troops, highly advanced vehicular and airborne contamination survey and marking systems, diluted live agent training for CW and much more. Took decades for the US to catch up. And let's not forget the mother of all decontam rigs--the TMS-65.  We had absolutely nothing like it. 

 

 

meanwhile, this is how the US handled (or didn't) vehicular decontam.

 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I think theres really no scenario that doesnt go nuclear almost immediately.

 

I think there are loads of scenarios that don't go nuclear. Use your imagination, man! ;)

 

Also, plenty of games have thought up plausible non-nuclear cold war scenarios.

Edited by BlackAlpha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can simulate an NBC environment right now pretty well.

 

To simulate having to wear full protection gear:

- Crank the environment temperature settings up.

- Reduce soldier Fitness levels.

- Reduce soldier experience drastically across the board (EVERYTHING is much harder to perform in MOPP 4)

- Ease the above restrictions for vehicles that are NBC sealed.

 

If you want to simulate a battlefield hit hard by EMP that has shut down or greatly reduced communications (not to mention tac nukes hitting comms hubs), increase the Electronic Warfare settings. Heck, if you set both sides to Strong, then there will be zero functional radio, GPS, satellite, etc, for anyone. Welcome to the dark ages.

 

Granted, you won't have the visuals of soldiers running around in protective gear.

 

Regarding specialized NBC vehicles: what exactly would these vehicles DO on a battlefield of Combat Mission's scale? Decontamination? Detection? Both of these aren't any help on a Combat Mission battlefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, irradiated battlefield + chemical stuff too - sounds like we'd get Rogue Trooper in the next game :lol:  ( not sure how many Americans will get that reference though ).

 

It's a step towards Space Lobsters though :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ChrisND,

 

Since I've never played CMSF (rig couldn't handle it), I have no idea whether this is even handled explicitly in CMBS, but what about Fatigue, starting with the sheer effort of breathing through a mask, let alone while under various forms of stress and physically exerting oneself? While I concur, based on everything I've read and heard (had brother in Scouts, who shared much with me) that MOPP4 is no fun (are you speaking from former/current military perspective, on-site visits to Army units or more classical research?), I'm not sure reducing experience is the right way to go. The experience is still there, but we're talking degrades to the ability to do the various combat tasks. I read an account of 3rd RTR in the Western Desert in which it got so hot the ubiquitous flies in the tanks died. No idea how those men functioned. Those AC equipped Saudi Abrams tanks are looking better by the minute!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...