Simulating after drop of tac. EMP bombs?

[Steiner14]

What would be the effects on blue and red forces, if an electromagnetic pulse bomb would be dropped?

[dan/california]

I have a feeling the real answer to that question is so classified that classification level is classified.

It depends heavily on the extent to which the electronics have been intentionally and expensively hardened with this eventuality in mind. Which brings me back to answer #1.

You also have to specify the amount of electromagnetic energy the bomb can produce at various wavelengths. Again, see answer #1.

[MikeyD]

Red forces would no doubt suffer less because they'd go from almost no electronics to no electronics. I'd expect that the U.S. would've had Prowler jammer aircraft circling since the first day anyway. Blue force is already complaining about its Stryker MGS computers locking up all the time. They'd just have more to complain about afterward! Theoretically U.S. equipment is largely 'hardened' against EMP burst but I wonder how long its been since anyone in the Pentagon really took the prospect of a theatre nuclear conflict seriously (the most likely source of EMP bursts).

[Sergei]

In general all AFV's designed during or after cold war are protected against nuclear weapons. Whether infantry equipment such as radio sets are, dunno.

[dima]

Theoretically U.S. equipment is largely 'hardened' against EMP burst...

Well, the same can be said about Russian vehicles. After all for WW3, it was assumed that russians would be the ones thrusting through Europe to La Manche with NATO tactical nukes exploding left and right and center. So russian equipment also should be immune to EMP (as our instructor in school said). The key word here is - should.

[Holman]

Leaving the nuclear blast issue aside, the only forces that would have to worry about pure EMP effects would also be the only forces with the capability to employ an EMP device. So they probably wouldn't use it except as an extreme last resort.

[costard]

I'd expect a backup comms system to be in place at some level - brigade? You could design the units with redundant circuits to be cut in when the originals get fried (and hope no-one decides to let off a second EMP) but this would be expensive.

As far as the tablets (in the Strykers) are concerned, I've been issued one to use in my job, but it's too unreliable. Having two weeks work disappear is no fun at all - I use pen and paper in the field and transcribe to a desk-top.

[dan/california]

There have been repeated discussions about the Russians selling lower grade stuff to their client states. EMP hardened electronics might be one of the very first things to drop off of the spec sheet.

[MikeyD]

Let's also remember the 'marvels' of U.S. defense contractor equipment. Stryker MGS got certified 'ineffective in combat' by the DoD a year ago, Canada cancelled their big order for the vehicle outright; the new Marine amphib assault vehicle appears to be a turkey of heroic proportions; Abrams tank tracks turned out to have a life expectancy a fraction of the spec requirement. And on and on. The point is just because it says in the glossy sales brochure that its been thoroughly hardened against EMP doesn't mean it has. I can imagine seven out of eight devices in your vehicle surviving an EMP wave but that eighth devise (like the ignition) ruins your whole day.

[cmfan]

The survivability of electronics against an EMP pulse also depends on how much energy it puts out and whether or not you were prepared for it. If you know its coming, you turn off all your electronics and maybe even sandbag really key components to protect them. However if you're out in the middle of an operation or really close to the air burst, well you better hope the built in hardening is enough.