SC2 - Atomic Bomb Option

[Kelly's Heroes]

I think SC2 could be designed with other historical events in mind.

It is a little known fact that Hitler had every intention of attacking the United States in WW2. These plans were developed quite early in the war.

Germany had plans to use the Luftwaffe for attacking the United States. Plans for approaching the Western Hemisphere began in 1937 and as early as October 20 1940, Hitler called for the occupation of the Azores and the Cape Verde Islands in the Atlantic from Portugal for use as bases for their long-range aircraft [with which to attack American coastal cities]

Also in 1940, German diplomats negotiated extensively with Spain and Vichy France to attain bases in Casablanca, Dakar, and the Canary Islands.

In order to strike at America from these bases several planes were designed by major German companies, including Focke-Wulf with the Ta 400; Junkers with the Ju 390; and Messerschmitt with the Me 264.

The Ta 400 was never built.

But the second prototype of the Ju 390 actually flew from "Mont de Marsan on the Atlantic coast of France, near Bordeaux, [and] it once approached to within 20 km (12.4 miles) of New York before returning safely to base, thus validating the operational concept" (Ford, Germany's Secret Weapons, p.30).

The four-engine Me 264, initially designed in 1937 and 1938, and referred to inside the German government as the "Amerika-Bomber" or the "New York Bomber", had a range of nine thousand miles and was capable of carrying a five-ton load of bombs to New York, of carrying a small load to the mid-West, or of flying reconnaissance missions over the West Coast, and then returning to Germany without intermediate bases.

The Me 264 actually made its first flight in December 1942, when it flew 30 hours non-stop to New York and returned safely to Europe (Ford, Germany's Secret Weapons, p.30).

These long-range bombers were designed to bring Germany's new air force directly into the skies over America. The war, however, ended before any of these planes could be used to actually bomb American cities.

Even towards the end of World War II Germany had drawn up plans to attack American cities using a U-boat and rocket. Roger Ford, in his ensightful book Germany's Secret Weapons in World War II (Brown Books, London: 2000), states that Germany had plans to use a submerged U-boat to launch a V-2 rocket at New York city. This was to be accomplished by towing a vertical, self-contained chamber behind the submarine. This plan had "reached a fairly advanced stage by 1945, with several containers having been completed and tested at the Vulkan shipyard in Stettin. Known as Test-Stand XII, and conceived apparently by Volkswagan in late 1944, this was aimed at the bombardment of New York" (p.81).

[ March 22, 2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

[Edwin P.]

Kelly's Heroes

Interesting Idea,

Perhaps you could say that the benefit to Heavy Bomber's of Long Range Tech is 3x normal, excluding the effect for spotting.

This would mean that at Long Range Tech Level 5 - the attack range of Bombers would be increased by 15 hexes, while the attack range of Fighters would only increase by 5. The spotting range of Bombers would not be affected.

This would be justified by the bomber's ability to carry a heavy payload, ie more fuel.

It would also increase the value of bombers by giving them a wider range of targets to attack and more closely simulate the long-distance bombing raids made during WWII.

[ March 22, 2004, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

There's some issues that need cleared up in this thread, time for me to address them. I see various problems......you need to think before you type.

1) US Soldiers were war criminals against the Japs --- Are you kidding me? The Japs tied explosives to themselves, hid behind flags of truce then opened fire, tortured innocents, murdered millions of Chinese, millions of others groups in Asia, Death March of Battan, Pearl Harbor sneak attack, tortured POWs, etc. They started the war, the United States didn't even have a political, economic, religions, or any influence in the Far East during that time period. They started the war, we finished it. It's a shame to those who critize the US Military soldiers & policy during WW-2 against the Japs. Most people didn't even know Japan even existed until Dec. 7.

2) Nukes aren't that powerful or weren't that powerful to destory the world --- Another stupid comment. Are you kidding me? Add up how many each sub, bomber, cyclo, jet fighter, whatever that Russia & USA had in the 50's. It's a Nuclear Winter, game over except for the cockroaches in the ground. Don't worry thou folks, the world doesn't end that way, read the last chapter of a particular book Well, it depends what side of the Cross you stand on.

3) Germans were planning to invade the USA --- That's a laugher, the Luftwaffen got whipped by the British in the Air. Germans were able to kill farmers in Poland, LC, a few minors, & France with planes......but they had years to build their military & couldn't beat the Brits. Praise the Brits!

I'm glad I could straighten things out.

Next ..... What's with all the Euros nowadays? Suddenly, you guys are all a bunch of John Lennon's when it comes to war? If you're waiting for peace on Earth, well, it ain't going to happen, at least until "You Know Who" makes a 2nd Coming. The worst is yet to come & that's the plan. I have no respect for any nation that can't protect its borders. A country without borders, is not a country by definition. Here's a tip, be moderate about issues. A generation ago it was the 3rd Reich, now it's Woodstock in Europe. Some wars are necessary or self defense. Oh, if you're going to "diss" the Americans for our wars, well, my family fought for the North. We were right then, right today, & we'll be right tomorrow.

SC2 needs to add Nukes, it's a fact. Major reason for many covert operations by the British/Americans to race to the Bomb. Nothing new today, we gotta chase them in the mountains now.

[ March 22, 2004, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Edwin P.]

Back to the basics;

Idea 1 - Atomic Bomb Tech - But make it very hard to achieve it - no benefit unless you reach Atomic Bomb Tech Level 5 and Bomber Tech Level 3 and Industrial Tech Level 3.

Idea 2 - Long Range Tech gives Bombers 3x the range bonus, Fighters 1x the range bonus

Idea 3 - Subs with Rockets - but make it require Tech Level 5 Subs and Tech Level 3 Rockets, thus it is possible but highly improbable.

[ March 22, 2004, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Nukes were part of World War 2, it ended things in the Pacific. If Hubert wants to bring them into the European front, so be it. I'd love to drop a few fatties on Germany or a concentration of troops.

Different subject:

How about bridges to cross the major rivers?

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Kelly's Heroes

Interesting Idea,

Perhaps you could say that the benefit to Heavy Bomber's of Long Range Tech is 3x normal, excluding the effect for spotting.

This would mean that at Long Range Tech Level 5 - the attack range of Bombers would be increased by 15 hexes, while the attack range of Fighters would only increase by 5. The spotting range of Bombers would not be affected.

This would be justified by the bomber's ability to carry a heavy payload, ie more fuel.

It would also increase the value of bombers by giving them a wider range of targets to attack and more closely simulate the long-distance bombing raids made during WWII.

Exactly. I agree.

[Kelly's Heroes]

If we were to make a WWII game that included only what the participants actually did, then why even bother playing as the Axis?

They will lose, right?

Most people realize Hitler made a lot of mistakes.

He didn't build U-boats early enough; he failed to follow up on high tech weapons (the Germans actually had the world's first jet plane in 1937 -but Hitler couldn't see a use for it!).

The Germans had developed long range bombers that could reach America in 1942.

Hitler's blunder of attacking the USSR meant shelving all those plans.

Does this mean the player is condemned to such actions too?

And the Brits were close to losing the Battle of Britain, but Goering switched targets (from airfields to cities).

I think a few more options (within reason) should be built into the game.

The Germans came very close to winning the European war by 1941. Only Hiter's stupid interference lost any chance of that happening.

Any reading of history will clearly show many options that are open to a clever Axis player.

I think other reaserch options should be available, but these alternatives (such as jet planes, A-Bombs, long range bomers, etc) should be very expensive to acquire.

Cheers!

[ March 23, 2004, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

[JerseyJohn]

Ah, nostalgia -- I was just reading the first page of this thing, from my Grumpy Era where I managed to be antagonistic with the two guys I've had the most enjoyable exchanges with, one of whom has vanished from sight. Forgive me, for I knew not what I did.

Getting back to the original A-Bomb topic, it wasn't easy to accumulate the proper material during the mid-forties. The United States had enough for roughly two and a half. The first was used for the desert test, the second was dropped on Hiroshima and the third is believed ot have been composed in part of captured material the Germans were attempting to send, via-U-boat, to Japan. The Captain, hearing of Germany's surrender, chose instead to surrender his sub and cargo to the United States.

So, if a country does develop an atomic bomb in 1945-46-or 47, how many should they be able to make?

I'd say the U. S. might manage three and England and Germany one each -- this was one of the reasons Hitler made plans for the Belgian Congo and it's Uranium.

[Slapaho]

jon_j_rambo

Your opinions are not the same thing as facts or knowledge. You obviously didn't read my post (or comprehend it?) so please don't belittle something beyond your own limits by such crass statements as 'another stupid comment'. I dont mind you disagreeing with something, but at least have the decency, or even the ability, to be able to qualify your statements beyond what is your own actual opinion.

Take your own advice "......you need to think before you type"

[pzgndr]

Having worked both in the usage end initially (in the army)

Slapaho, a fellow FA52 perhaps?

As for some sort of atomic bomb tech, considering the game can stretch into late 1945 and beyond then we probably need some way to add this to SC2. Make it expensive, make it challenging yet achievable, and perhaps simply a decent strategic attack bonus at the L4/L5 levels for Strategic Bombers only. At this scale, we don't need things too complicated.

[Blashy]

IMHO, the weapon would need more than ONE hex destruction.

1 hex and its surrounding 8 hexes would be more adequate.

A 1 time use seems reasonalbe as well.

Why not get into the bio weapons? They had them, they did not use them because "If we don't, they won't" and that is how it worked out. But what if the player decided to use it? consequences?

Make those options avaible to be turned on or off before the game starts. I'm big on making everything players choice

[Edwin P.]

The blast radius of the first A-Bomb was well under 1 mile. Most of the damage was from the ensuing firestorm. As each land hex in SC is about 50 across the area of effect should be limited to 1 hex and the destruction that it causes should be the total and permanent destruction of any city or resource within that hex, perhaps along with a chance that the targeted nation surrenders or withdraws from the war.

For example - if used upon London it might cause the UK to withdraw from the war (leaving only the US and the USSR to continue the fight) or to surrender, with a return to neutrality being a more likely and a better game balancing choice (as the victor would not receive the benefit of plunder or additional production). Of course, a nation that withdraws from the war would continue to accumulate MPPs as insurance against a future attack.

[ March 23, 2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Skanvak]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

1) US Soldiers were war criminals against the Japs --- Are you kidding me? The Japs tied explosives to themselves, hid behind flags of truce then opened fire, tortured innocents, murdered millions of Chinese, millions of others groups in Asia, Death March of Battan, Pearl Harbor sneak attack, tortured POWs, etc. They started the war, the United States didn't even have a political, economic, religions, or any influence in the Far East during that time period. They started the war, we finished it. It's a shame to those who critize the US Military soldiers & policy during WW-2 against the Japs. Most people didn't even know Japan even existed until Dec. 7.

This point is mostly wrong.

1st the war crime (and no crime against humanity) of japan are on a very small scales (less than half a million if you includes nankings at chinese recknonings).

2nd the US started the war technically as they bring. In the 20's the US which opposed the expeansion of the japanese colonial empire after their victory in WWi, compel them to de-colonized. During the economics crisis of the 30's they closed there economic ties with japan compelling the small country to attack china to survive. In the eve of WWII the US begin to implement gradually an economic embargo (especially on Oil) that will bring Japan on a situation of strategic defeat agianst China unless they attack the US.

So the US were very active oppossing Japan and bringing enough tension to bring Japan to actually attack an ennemy they knew they would not defeat. (According to the Japanese strategists, the fleet ratio was not enough).

((This are not opinion but factsz from my studies on Japan - I made a published paper on Japan defence policies))

On the A-Bomb

- the 1 hex effect is effectly the only option historical.

- the A-bomb should be unit build at a cost each time.

- Edwin and Kelly's idea for Heavy bomber range is very good.

- And by the way, in 1939 the nation most advanced in nuclear research was France, they had the only stock of heavy water (which pass to the US I beleive but still have to check that fact).

- On chemical : the british used chemical weapons in Birmany against the Japanese. The Japanese never refrained from using chemical weapons. It is the weather setting that make most chemical weapons useless in Birmany (chemicals are very hard to used effectively, with a high randomness in their effect).

[JerseyJohn]

Fine, but how many times can you use it?

No country could have made more than a few of them even if they knew how!

[Skanvak]

That's why the cost of each A-bomb used should be high (250 any better offer). Now if we consider that any ressources based economy we could have uranium ressources and heavy water factory (the allied bombed some heavy water convoies)...

But as the game stand, Germany can build a 100 armies which will probably accounted for more people that the german population of the time, so I don't see any need to limit building of A-bomb except with cost, unless SC2 as force pool limits liks CoS:future or Wif.

[kurt88]

Why make SC2 a race to manufacture a bomb? I would rather not have it included.

But if it is, let's give each major power only 1.

[Edwin P.]

I don't think it will be a race to manufacture an A-bomb.

Why?

First, you have to research it, this will probably require A-Bomb Tech Level 5 and Heavy bomber Tech Level 3. That's a lot of resources to be diverted from fielding conventional armies and air fleets.

Second, you need a source of Heavy Water. The US has it and the only country in Europe with a source of Heavy water is Norway, so make control of the Norwegian Resource hex and a port at Oslo or Bergan a requirement for Germany or the UK or Russia building an A-Bomb.

Third, the actual construction of the bomb will probably cost at least 600MPP for an A-Bomb Capable Bomber Unit. That's one turn without building new units or reinforcing any damaged units. One turn in which you can loose the war, especially if the detonation of the A-bomb does not cause the enemy to surrender or withdraw from the fighting. (Of course the chances for a major power surrendering/withdrawing from war should dramatically increase with a second A-bomb being dropped on the same nation).

[ March 23, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Skanky said ---

This point is mostly wrong.

1st the war crime (and no crime against humanity) of japan are on a very small scales (less than half a million if you includes nankings at chinese recknonings).

2nd the US started the war technically as they bring. In the 20's the US which opposed the expeansion of the japanese colonial empire after their victory in WWi, compel them to de-colonized. During the economics crisis of the 30's they closed there economic ties with japan compelling the small country to attack china to survive. In the eve of WWII the US begin to implement gradually an economic embargo (especially on Oil) that will bring Japan on a situation of strategic defeat agianst China unless they attack the US.

So the US were very active oppossing Japan and bringing enough tension to bring Japan to actually attack an ennemy they knew they would not defeat. (According to the Japanese strategists, the fleet ratio was not enough).

((This are not opinion but factsz from

Skanky ---

1) Oh gee, I'm sorry, the Japs only murdered 1/2 million Chineses (quoting you) instead of my "guess" of a million. You're right, I'm wrong, killing a 1/2 million is no big deal, thanks for your powerful enlightment to the killing fields. They're justified now, eh? I'm going to call the History Channel demanding a recount.

2) US compelled them to attack Pearl Harbor because of oil embargos? Huh? What did I miss here? Another killing justification? "So what, I trade a little smarter" --- Sgt. J.J. Sefton in the movie Stalog 17. People hate the United States & Israel because we have "things", material things...we work hard & trade smart, so it's our fault. Everything is our fault, so bomb us. Dude, Skanky, check your history books, we had a little thing called the "Great Depression" in the late 1920's & on. The United States was only 160 years old, we weren't calling the shots then, especially when it came to oil. North Korea tries the same crap today, give us oil & food or we will nuke the planet. Try growing some potatos like us dudes in Idaho. You can't eat oil, but for $1.99, you can buy a 20 pound bag of Idaho's finest.

"Now that dog just ain't goin' hunt" --- The Col. in the mini-series Badn of Brothers.

Remember guys:

1) Think before you type.

2) Typing something doesn't make it true no matter how many times you re-read it.

3) Don't twist history to be cool, state the truth.

4) Just because the other guys are giving you "internet love" by not responding to your posts, that doesn't make it true either.

Doing my job,

Rambo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OUT

[ March 23, 2004, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Kelly's Heroes]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

I don't think it will be a race to manufacture an A-bomb.

Why?

First, you have to research it, this will probably require A-Bomb Tech Level 5 and Heavy bomber Tech Level 3. That's a lot of resources to be diverted from fielding conventional armies and air fleets.

Second, you need a source of Heavy Water. The US has it and the only country in Europe with a source of Heavy water is Norway, so make control of the Norwegian Resource hex and a port at Oslo or Bergan a requirement for Germany or the UK or Russia building an A-Bomb.

Third, the actual construction of the bomb will probably cost at least 600MPP for an A-Bomb Capable Bomber Unit. That's one turn without building new units or reinforcing any damaged units. One turn in which you can loose the war, especially if the detonation of the A-bomb does not cause the enemy to surrender or withdraw from the fighting. (Of course the chances for a major power surrendering/withdrawing from war should dramatically increase with a second A-bomb being dropped on the same nation).

I tend to agree along these lines.

Research into atomic research should be allowed, but it should cost the researching country a lot of resources as per your post.

The blast should be restricted to one hex, obliterating everything in the hex.

There should also be chemical/biological agents too, such as mustard gas. Churchill had planned to use it on the Germans if they had invaded England.

However, there should be a very HIGH cost politically at home and internationally, if they are used.

The penalties could range from the targeted country getting two FREE shots with that agent (if it has any) against the offending party, and international condemnation and withdrawl of some allies from that alliance, to domestic disruption and/or fall in supply levels, to the offending party losing a turn do to a shocked population, etc.. .

[jon_j_rambo]

Back to the subject:

1) Why do you need a "Bomber" to deliver "The Bomb"?

2) Thus, no bomber technology is needed, instead, you need "nuke" technology. (unless you defined it that way of course).

Take a cargo plane & push the thing out the side If you're off a few miles, no big deal.

[JerseyJohn]

"...Japs only murdered 1/2 million Chineses (quoting you) instead of my "guess" of a million. You're right, I'm wrong, killing a 1/2 million is no big deal, thanks for your powerful enlightment to the killing fields. They're justified now, eh? I'm going to call the History Channel demanding a recount."

-- Rambo

Actually you're both way, way off. Nobody knows exactly how many but it's estimated to be between ten and fifteen million Chinese.

As for the delivery system, till the late forties there was only one way to deliver a nuclear bomb and that was with a B-29. The Soviets had a few that made emergency landings and the Soviets reverse engineered them, producing a Soviet B-29; even this was a major achievement. There was no other bomber on earth capable of delivering a nulear weapon till much later and no way to mount one in a rocket -- that technology didn't exist till the fifties.

This thread seems determined to wander around without giving much thought to the reality of the times.

250 MPPs for an A-bomb. More like 2500 if you want to be realistic.

[jon_j_rambo]

Sir Professor Jersey --- Thanks, I knew somebody would bring the facts.

Next question: In 1945, how would one have to deliver "The Big One"? Shoving the thing out a cargo plane doesn't work? Hmmm......how about FedExpress? If there's a timer or some special work, that could be installed into any plane. If that assumption is true, it comes down to having an intelligent crew. I don't understand needing a special plane.

[ March 23, 2004, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[JerseyJohn]

Thank You General Rambo.

They needed to arm the bomb in flight which is what caused most of the problems.

Personally my reasoning is the same as yours, that it wouldn't be any big deal to carry a single bomb -- I'd have thought a B-17 would do fine, but it might be that the B-29 was the only aircraft stable enough -- a fine question, one that I don't know the exact answer to.

I'll try to find something on this and will either paste or link it.

[Blashy]

Kurt, it's a good idea.

Just have it as an option to turn on or off before starting a game. Makes everyone happy.

And I agree 1 hex makes sense, I see the point.

Oh and as for Hitler making mistakes, I completly and totally disagree, Hitler made NO mistakes.

HE WAS A Mistake, HAHAHA! And his Generals were (luckily for us) dumb enough to follow him.

[JerseyJohn]

General Rambo, it appears the main factor was the weight of the A-Bombs and also the size. Aside from which the B-29 had a much greater range than other bombers of the era, but it still doesn't come out and say other heavy bombers couldn't carry one, though I'm 99% they were incapable of doing so.

Excerpt below taken from this link:

< B-29 Super Fortress >

"...In early 1944 the Army Air Forces started its program to develop an atomic bomb delivery capability using the B-29 aircraft. The B-29 was the logical choice in view of its long range, superior high-altitude performance, and ability to carry an atomic bomb that was expected to weigh 9000 to 10,000 pounds. In March and again in June dummy atomic bombs were dropped by B-29s at Muroc Army Air Force Base in California to test the release mechanism. In August seventeen B-29s entered a modification program at the Glenn L. Martin plant in Omaha, Nebraska, to apply the lessons learned at Muroc. The "Silver Plate" project was the code name of the pilot and crew training program for the coming World War II atomic missions.

On 6 August 1945 the crew of the "Enola Gay" dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. The thirteen-hour mission to Hiroshima began at 0245 Tinian time. By the time they rendezvoused with their accompanying B-29s at 0607 over Iwo Jima, the group was three hours from the target area. The "Enola Gay" flew toward the AiOi T-Bridge in Hiroshima at a speed of 285 mph. After six-and-a-half hours of tough overwater navigation, the B-29 was over target within seventeen seconds of the scheduled drop time of 0915. When the 9,000-pound bomb "Little Boy" fell from the "Enola Gay," pilot Paul Tibbets put the aircraft into a 60-degree diving right turn and headed home. Seconds later, Hiroshima lie in ruins.

Despite widespread destruction, the Japanese still did not surrender. Three days later, Maj. Charles W. Sweeney, commander of the 393rd BMS and piloting "Bockscar" flew over Nagasaki. A few minutes after 9 a.m., bombardier Capt. Kermit K. Beahan toggled the bomb switch. Less than a minute later, Nagasaki became the second city attacked with the devastating weapon. The Japanese surrendered in the following days thereby ending World War II.

Immediately post-World War II, SAC’s bomber inventory housed the B-29 Superfortress, the plane that had dropped atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1946, the Soviets began design of their long-range bomber, the Tu-4, modeled directly on B-29s captured during 1944. The B-29 was SAC’s first Cold War aircraft, and even as late as the close of 1948 the Air Force had modified only 60 of the planes to carry the atomic bomb. Its infrastructure, hangars, and ancillaries were reused from World War II facilities. While the B-29 was the long-range aircraft that revolutionized air war, the aircraft could only fly the U.S.-Soviet corridor one way, and could not achieve that distance heavily loaded.

With the advent of the conflict in Korea in June 1950, the B-29 was once again thrust into battle. For the next several years it was effectively used for attacking targets in North Korea. The Warner Robins Air Materiel Area (WRAMA) literally unwrapped and refurbished hundreds of "Cocooned" Boeing B-29 Superfortresses. Understaffed and working around the clock, they made sure that United Nations forces in the Far East had the necessary tools to fight the North Korean invaders. This was particularly true with the key role B-29s played in bombing Communist supply lines and staving off the enemy's assault on Allied forces pinned down inside the Pusan Perimeter. B-29s detached from Twentieth Air Force continued flying combat missions until the end of the war in 1953. By 1955, with the situation in Korea stabilized and intercontinental-range bombers entering service, the need no longer existed for a B-29 numbered air force in the Pacific.

The B-29 MR [MR standing for Modified Receiver] could refuel in mid-air. The KB-29M was the tanker, using what was called the British 'looped hose' method, a 400 foot length of hose that tethered the two airplanes together. In order to extend the range of the new generation of jet aircraft, a B-29 was also fitted with a flying boom for experiments in air-to-air refueling.

A stop-gap measure to fill the long-range bomber requirement in the Cold War, the Boeing B-29D Washington began entering service with UK Bomber Command Squadrons during August 1950. The type began to be retired in 1953 with the advent of the V-bombers, but the last did not leave the RAF until 1958."

[ March 23, 2004, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]