NS Military Realism Consultation Thread #5

[Gallia-]

I may not be as right as i meant to be but i'm not wrong

Hell, the US military would pale in comparison to most nations on NS.

I'd think the US military would handedly beat the average NS nation.

[Kouralia]

Hell, the US military would pale in comparison to most nations on NS.

I'd think the US military would handedly beat the average NS nation.

If you took out the majority of derptastic nations, then you'd find the number it could beat to be significantly lower. I'm also assuming the US is a nation, and not... well, the US.

After all, people who make their living being generals, admirals etc. will trounce the tactics and strategy of someone who makes his living say as a part-time office junior while at school, no matter how superior in numbers and kit.

[Horizont]

I want a modern variant of the WWII-era 'Grand Slam' bomb. It'll be delivered by a my own version of the XB-70 Valkyrie and it'll weigh 50 tons. It'll be dropped from around 24 kilometers while the aircraft is flying at around Mach 3.2, and it'll have its own small rocket engine to speed it up even more during its descent.

Now, what I was hoping was an estimate for the speed at which it could be going when it hits the ground and how many meters of rock it could realistically get through.

[Imperializt Russia]

If I could be arsed to remember the equation, I'm sure I could guess its velocity at impact.

The thing is, earthquake bombs basically still exist. We use bunker-busters and deep-penetrating munitions these days. GBU-28 and MOP, for example.

WWII rocket-assisted examples have been variously cited at 440-730m/s impact velocity with interesting-sounding target effects.

[Horizont]

I know that; I just wanted to illustrate kind of what it would be.

It would obviously be used for knocking out enemy facilities too deep underground for smaller earthquake bombs to damage.

[Imperializt Russia]

I know that; I just wanted to illustrate kind of what it would be.

It would obviously be used for knocking out enemy facilities too deep underground for smaller earthquake bombs to damage.

If existing systems are underwhelming in effect, resort to nukes.
Laydown delivery (in which the bomb was physically "laid" on the ground via parachute) was conceptualised for this purpose, but I imagine that a toss-bombing delivery could allow for ground penetration.
Or equally, a ballistic missile.

[Horizont]

I know that; I just wanted to illustrate kind of what it would be.

It would obviously be used for knocking out enemy facilities too deep underground for smaller earthquake bombs to damage.

If existing systems are underwhelming in effect, resort to nukes.
Laydown delivery (in which the bomb was physically "laid" on the ground via parachute) was conceptualised for this purpose, but I imagine that a toss-bombing delivery could allow for ground penetration.
Or equally, a ballistic missile.

I need a solution while the conflict's non-nuclear.

[Yes Im Biop]

If existing systems are underwhelming in effect, resort to nukes.
Laydown delivery (in which the bomb was physically "laid" on the ground via parachute) was conceptualised for this purpose, but I imagine that a toss-bombing delivery could allow for ground penetration.
Or equally, a ballistic missile.

I need a solution while the conflict's non-nuclear.

A BFB. Big Fucking Bomb

[Horizont]

I need a solution while the conflict's non-nuclear.

A BFB. Big Fucking Bomb

Which is what this 50-ton thing I'm proposing essentially is.

[Yes Im Biop]

A BFB. Big Fucking Bomb

Which is what this 50-ton thing I'm proposing essentially is.

100,000 thousand pound bomb? The fuck man? A Single ton of Amfo will cause absolute mayham.

[Horizont]

Which is what this 50-ton thing I'm proposing essentially is.

100,000 thousand pound bomb? The fuck man? A Single ton of Amfo will cause absolute mayham.

An XB-70 should be able to just about carry it, because my own version of one of those is what will be carrying it to its target.

Now, how many meters of rock do you estimate it could penetrate?

[Questers]

Guiding that is going to be a bit of a bitch.

[Horizont]

Guiding that is going to be a bit of a bitch.

I was thinking of using small rockets to guide it.

[Rich and Corporations]

Guiding that is going to be a bit of a bitch.

Not really. Terminal guidance under a non-jamming environment is easy unless you're doing something stupid like dropping a large gravity bomb at mach 4.

Nuclear warheads from ICBMs are supposedly accurate to... I can't remember, but they are excessively accurate. The same accuracy can apply to a conventional warhead.

[Horizont]

unless you're doing something stupid like dropping a large gravity bomb at mach 4.

That's essentially what I'm doing.

Maybe with this thing's sheer size, maybe it won't need to be that accurate.

[Questers]

unless you're doing something stupid like dropping a large gravity bomb at mach 4.

It's almost like you read his post that said "bomb" but you decided that it said "ballistic missile" instead, as if you were lacking in some basic type of literacy or comprehension skill.

[Imperializt Russia]

Guiding that is going to be a bit of a bitch.

Not really. Terminal guidance under a non-jamming environment is easy unless you're doing something stupid like dropping a large gravity bomb at mach 4.

Nuclear warheads from ICBMs are supposedly accurate to... I can't remember, but they are excessively accurate. The same accuracy can apply to a conventional warhead.

They're accurate enough to strike a small strategic target, not sure we're quite there for individual bunkers yet.

[Horizont]

Not really. Terminal guidance under a non-jamming environment is easy unless you're doing something stupid like dropping a large gravity bomb at mach 4.

Nuclear warheads from ICBMs are supposedly accurate to... I can't remember, but they are excessively accurate. The same accuracy can apply to a conventional warhead.

They're accurate enough to strike a small strategic target, not sure we're quite there for individual bunkers yet.

This would be used against large underground complexes and also civilian targets- one of these in the middle of a city will not be pretty.

It should be able to fulfill this role, shouldn't it?

[Imperializt Russia]

They're accurate enough to strike a small strategic target, not sure we're quite there for individual bunkers yet.

This would be used against large underground complexes and also civilian targets- one of these in the middle of a city will not be pretty.

It should be able to fulfill this role, shouldn't it?

If you're using this in cities, this can only amount to terror bombing, but I guess that doesn't trouble you.

It takes surprisingly little to destroy underground complexes IIRC.
If you can collapse one section, that will put significant structural stress onto other sections, and put at risk cooling and ventilation systems if knock them out as well.

Many of the casualties discovered in Dresden would have survived the bombing campaign if it had been mostly high-explosives. Basically, as the buildings around their shelters burnt, it turned them into ovens.
Rubble was still being doused one month after the bombing.

[Horizont]

If you're using this in cities, this can only amount to terror bombing, but I guess that doesn't trouble you.

Using terror, or psychological warfare, is part of my doctrine.

[Questers]

Terror bombing is probably the biggest waste of resources in NS.

[Horizont]

Terror bombing, napalm strikes, poison gas, extensive use of propaganda, carpet bombing, and other weapons which induce fear and terror in the enemy forces and populations are very much my thing.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you're using this in cities, this can only amount to terror bombing, but I guess that doesn't trouble you.

Using terror, or psychological warfare, is part of my doctrine.

I say terror bombing, because it wouldn't achieve much. You might bring down a city block. But to what end?
Very little, at the cost of a bombing operation and a very large, limited-stock specialist munition.

[Questers]

They don't induce fear and terror though. There are very few historical examples where those have won wars. Strategic bombing campaigns do work but not because they make people scared but because of their economic effects.

There's one use which is when you are in a position to completely destroy a country, terror attacks can induce it to surrender quicker than it would otherwise have. There's some historical precedent there.

[Horizont]

Using terror, or psychological warfare, is part of my doctrine.

I say terror bombing, because it wouldn't achieve much. You might bring down a city block. But to what end?
Very little, at the cost of a bombing operation and a very large, limited-stock specialist munition.

Limited-stock? I plan on mass-producing these bombs and keeping them in a stockpile afterwards.