asymetric warfare

Peter Stickney wrote:
No, 5 miles is about twice the maximum range of an AT missile.

Except for Hellfire, or the Israeli Nimrod, or the various
AT-9 missiles (Ataka or Vikhr), South African Mokopa,
all of which have ranges better than 8,000 meters.

4-5 km is the common max range, but not true extreme.


-george william herbert

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:30:53 -0000, "John"
wrote:

Time of Flight of IRBM, 30 minutes. Speed of CVBG, 25 kts. Detection
of launch, instantaneous. DSP Sats, y'know. Radius of circle that
could contain the target - 12.5 Nautical Miles.

35 knots (let's be generous) and half an hour means a ship or convoy could
get 32410m away from the target point. This gives an area of
3,299,954,370m2. UK trident-II missiles can 8 475kT warheads which will
start fires at 9km, meaning they'll make the fuel onboard a carrier explode
within an area of 254,469,005m2.

That's start fires of flamable material left exposed in the open,
not inside a steel hull. You're going to need to be a lot closer than
that to ignite the fuel stored in a carrier. UK Trident missiles are
based on the W76 warhead, not the W88 warhead, and have a 100kt yield,
not 475kt.

US ships constructed after 1969 were specially designed to resist the
shockwave generated by a nuclear weapon. You could cause severe
damage to the ship out to 1.8 nm or so. To sink it you would need to
be close enough destroy the ship through overpressure by being within
..8 nm or so. If you are close enough for the thermal pulse to burn
through the hull to ignite the fuel the shockwave would rip the ship
apart.

If you wanted to guarantee a kill by being within .8 nm or so it
would take about 400 warheads to cover all the ocean a 32 knot carrier
could reach in 30 minutes. Catching it within 1.8 nm by two different
warheads and could sink the ship from flooding and only take you 160
warheads or so; but this wouldn't be 100% certain.

Sure, it's possible that you can take out a CVBG with a shotgun nuke
approach, but it would take the UK 35% of it's missiles and 80% of
it's warheads to be reasonably sure of success.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

In article ,
Johnny Bravo writes:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:30:53 -0000, "John"
wrote:

Time of Flight of IRBM, 30 minutes. Speed of CVBG, 25 kts. Detection
of launch, instantaneous. DSP Sats, y'know. Radius of circle that
could contain the target - 12.5 Nautical Miles.

35 knots (let's be generous) and half an hour means a ship or convoy could
get 32410m away from the target point. This gives an area of
3,299,954,370m2. UK trident-II missiles can 8 475kT warheads which will
start fires at 9km, meaning they'll make the fuel onboard a carrier explode
within an area of 254,469,005m2.

That's start fires of flamable material left exposed in the open,
not inside a steel hull. You're going to need to be a lot closer than
that to ignite the fuel stored in a carrier. UK Trident missiles are
based on the W76 warhead, not the W88 warhead, and have a 100kt yield,
not 475kt.


US ships constructed after 1969 were specially designed to resist the
shockwave generated by a nuclear weapon. You could cause severe
damage to the ship out to 1.8 nm or so. To sink it you would need to
be close enough destroy the ship through overpressure by being within
.8 nm or so. If you are close enough for the thermal pulse to burn
through the hull to ignite the fuel the shockwave would rip the ship
apart.

If you wanted to guarantee a kill by being within .8 nm or so it
would take about 400 warheads to cover all the ocean a 32 knot carrier
could reach in 30 minutes. Catching it within 1.8 nm by two different
warheads and could sink the ship from flooding and only take you 160
warheads or so; but this wouldn't be 100% certain.

Sure, it's possible that you can take out a CVBG with a shotgun nuke
approach, but it would take the UK 35% of it's missiles and 80% of
it's warheads to be reasonably sure of success.

It's worse than that, form the U.K. Nukes a CVBG standpoint.
The Brits have 58 Trident D5s, (Which are stored and maintained in the
U.S., but that's beside the point) and less than 200 warheads. That
means that each missile's going to have 3 warheads, and you can't get
all of your boats to sea.

Now, just going from the declassified stuff from Crossroads Able, and
applying the known scaling laws, you'd have to place a 100 KT warhead
within 8,000-9,000' of a ship in order to have a reasonable chance of
putting it out of action. Not sinking it, mind you, but giving it
ither things to worry about rather than pulverizing you. That's an
area of effect of 7 sq. NM. A 25 kt CVBG, which startes dispersing
and evading on a launch warning, (You don't have to wait for the
trajectory analysis, after all) could be anywhere in a 490 sq. NM
area. So, in order to cover that 490 sq NM with the density required,
to ensure major damage, and not outright sinking, you'd need 70
warheads. That's 23 UK Trident's worth. And we don't have 1 CVBG,
we've got what, 12? With roughly 8 at sea at any givin time.
So if a U.K./French sized power were to try something like that, what
they'd accomplish is the complete expenditure of their strategic
forces in order to completely **** off somebody with the ways & means
to pull a Carthage on them. (Not that we'd do that)


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:41:16 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

Sure, it's possible that you can take out a CVBG with a shotgun nuke
approach, but it would take the UK 35% of it's missiles and 80% of
it's warheads to be reasonably sure of success.

It's worse than that, form the U.K.

I pretty much had it covered, your numbers aren't so different from
mine.

Nukes a CVBG standpoint.
The Brits have 58 Trident D5s, (Which are stored and maintained in the
U.S., but that's beside the point) and less than 200 warheads. That
means that each missile's going to have 3 warheads, and you can't get
all of your boats to sea.

Nothing is stopping them from putting 8 warheads in each of the 16
missiles the Vanguard carries. They could launch 192 warheads from
one boat. General practice is to put 3 in each missile but nothing is
stopping them from changing it, or just surging all 4 boats.

Now, just going from the declassified stuff from Crossroads Able, and
applying the known scaling laws, you'd have to place a 100 KT warhead
within 8,000-9,000' of a ship in order to have a reasonable chance of
putting it out of action.

I was being generous and using 16,000' and taking off about 1/3 for
the structural improvements the US has added to it's ship designs
based on data from tests like Crossroads - calling it 1.8nm as a nice
round figure - 10,800'

area. So, in order to cover that 490 sq NM with the density required,
to ensure major damage, and not outright sinking, you'd need 70
warheads. That's 23 UK Trident's worth.

There is a slight overlap problem to deal with as the explosions
aren't exactly square, but that's a trivial matter for the purposes of
the example.

And we don't have 1 CVBG,
we've got what, 12? With roughly 8 at sea at any givin time.
So if a U.K./French sized power were to try something like that, what
they'd accomplish is the complete expenditure of their strategic
forces in order to completely **** off somebody with the ways & means
to pull a Carthage on them. (Not that we'd do that)

You never know, killing 7,000+ US servicemen by firing nearly 200
nukes at them is going to really **** the public off. It's not like
anyone can claim it was an accident.

One side effect of this example is why the ballistic submarine
component of the triad was so important, even if we waited for all the
nukes to land, it would be impossible for Russia to get all of our
ballistic missile subs even if they fired their entire arsenal into
the ocean.

One interesting games theory aspect of this is that it wouldn't do
to run at full speed for the entire 30 minutes. If the enemy knew you
would do that, they would just fire along a ring around the current
location of the BG at the max distance it can travel in that 30 mins,
saving themselves quite a few warheads and missiles.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

In article ,
Johnny Bravo writes:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:41:16 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

Sure, it's possible that you can take out a CVBG with a shotgun nuke
approach, but it would take the UK 35% of it's missiles and 80% of
it's warheads to be reasonably sure of success.

It's worse than that, form the U.K.

I pretty much had it covered, your numbers aren't so different from
mine.

True 'nuff. Reality is as Reality Does.

Nukes a CVBG standpoint.
The Brits have 58 Trident D5s, (Which are stored and maintained in the
U.S., but that's beside the point) and less than 200 warheads. That
means that each missile's going to have 3 warheads, and you can't get
all of your boats to sea.

Nothing is stopping them from putting 8 warheads in each of the 16
missiles the Vanguard carries. They could launch 192 warheads from
one boat. General practice is to put 3 in each missile but nothing is
stopping them from changing it, or just surging all 4 boats.

Of course, they've only got 192 or so warheads anyway. If _I_ were
going to attempt this little bit of foolishness, I wouldn't be too
happy about putting all of my warheads on one platform.


Now, just going from the declassified stuff from Crossroads Able, and
applying the known scaling laws, you'd have to place a 100 KT warhead
within 8,000-9,000' of a ship in order to have a reasonable chance of
putting it out of action.

I was being generous and using 16,000' and taking off about 1/3 for
the structural improvements the US has added to it's ship designs
based on data from tests like Crossroads - calling it 1.8nm as a nice
round figure - 10,800'

It'll work as an estimate. As with anything else regarding this stuff
- Those that Post don't Know. Those that Know don't Post. See the
Security Clearance threads for more (or less, depending on Need to
Knoe) info.

area. So, in order to cover that 490 sq NM with the density required,
to ensure major damage, and not outright sinking, you'd need 70
warheads. That's 23 UK Trident's worth.

There is a slight overlap problem to deal with as the explosions
aren't exactly square, but that's a trivial matter for the purposes of
the example.

It's a Round, Round, World. But the lack of coverage by a single
warhead vs. the area that the target could be hiding in means that
Nuclear Buckshot needs some rethinking. Hmm - I wonder what the
implications would be if the impact area includid one of thise
massive, concentrated, Russian or Japanese fishing fleets. At that
point, you've missed the Carrier, most likely, but pasted a Third
Party's civilians, commerce, and food. Not the best way to Win
Friends and Influence People.

And we don't have 1 CVBG,
we've got what, 12? With roughly 8 at sea at any givin time.
So if a U.K./French sized power were to try something like that, what
they'd accomplish is the complete expenditure of their strategic
forces in order to completely **** off somebody with the ways & means
to pull a Carthage on them. (Not that we'd do that)

You never know, killing 7,000+ US servicemen by firing nearly 200
nukes at them is going to really **** the public off. It's not like
anyone can claim it was an accident.

One side effect of this example is why the ballistic submarine
component of the triad was so important, even if we waited for all the
nukes to land, it would be impossible for Russia to get all of our
ballistic missile subs even if they fired their entire arsenal into
the ocean.

Well, it's why the triad itself was so important. Anybody
contemplating a nuclear strike against the U.S. wouldn't have to deal
with just one type of platform, but 3. And what worked against 1 type
wouldn't work against another.

One interesting games theory aspect of this is that it wouldn't do
to run at full speed for the entire 30 minutes. If the enemy knew you
would do that, they would just fire along a ring around the current
location of the BG at the max distance it can travel in that 30 mins,
saving themselves quite a few warheads and missiles.
Of course. That's why its a Target Area, as opposed to a Target Ring.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John" writes:
"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote

John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.

Everything after the SUV/otto-76 was a bit tongue in cheek though.

Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.

In the case of the SUVs Peter didn't.. To dodge a tank round all you
need do
is side-step half the width of your vehicle. Claiming that the tanks
will
close to ploint blank range is stupid when they are facing concentrated
AT
fire. I'm also not sure he understood the potential of the Otto-76 to
shoot
down smart munitions.

Actually, John, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of how
tanks work, or what the typical engangement ranges are.
Five miles is right out.
The longest range kill achieved by a tank to date is a 3,000m (roughlt
1.5 Statute Mile shot by a British Challenger II vs. an Iraqi T72 in
the 1990-91 Gulf War.

This doesn't match previous descriptions of the Record breaking shot i've
seen, All previous accounts describe the Target as a T-55, the range I've
seen variously quoted as 5000m, 5000yds and 5 miles, 3000m is the lowest
range figure by far

It certainly was NOT a Challenger II, The II didn't exist in 1991, all the
British Tanks deployed in Desert Storm were Chalenger I's

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:50:27 -0000, Andrew McCruden wrote:

This doesn't match previous descriptions of the Record breaking shot i've
seen, All previous accounts describe the Target as a T-55, the range I've
seen variously quoted as 5000m, 5000yds and 5 miles, 3000m is the lowest
range figure by far

It certainly was NOT a Challenger II, The II didn't exist in 1991, all the
British Tanks deployed in Desert Storm were Chalenger I's

I've got a vague memory of that and I believe it was a French shot.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

"Andrew McCruden" wrote in
:

[snip]

This doesn't match previous descriptions of the Record breaking shot
i've seen, All previous accounts describe the Target as a T-55, the
range I've seen variously quoted as 5000m, 5000yds and 5 miles, 3000m
is the lowest range figure by far

French? Nope....
As I remember, it was the CO's tank of a British regiment
( 7th Hussars? ) and was at a range just over 5km.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

In message , Peter Stickney
writes
Actually, John, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of how
tanks work, or what the typical engangement ranges are.
Five miles is right out.
The longest range kill achieved by a tank to date is a 3,000m (roughlt
1.5 Statute Mile shot by a British Challenger II vs. an Iraqi T72 in
the 1990-91 Gulf War.

5,150 metres by a Challenger 1. (Allegedly a first-shot hit)

Even in open country like Iraq, the usual
longest range for a Main Gun shot on an opposing tank was 2000m. In a
European rural environment, the most likely engagement range would be
1000m. In more closed country, like, say, the Northeastern U.S., or
Maritime Canada, engagement ranges as close as 50-100m are not
unlikely.

Open-fire ranges tend to be considerably longer, 2-2.5 kilometres being
frequent when visibility permits: however, the enemy rarely agrees to
cooperatively sit at that range.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:14:50 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Peter Stickney
writes
Actually, John, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of how
tanks work, or what the typical engangement ranges are.
Five miles is right out.
The longest range kill achieved by a tank to date is a 3,000m (roughlt
1.5 Statute Mile shot by a British Challenger II vs. an Iraqi T72 in
the 1990-91 Gulf War.

5,150 metres by a Challenger 1. (Allegedly a first-shot hit)

I've seen a figure of 7 km for a Panther during WW2. I'm not sure I
believe it.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).