NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Josh]

14 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

I've never understood the functionality of nuclear torpedoes, usually they carry more than enough conventional explosive power to sink even the largest warships, turning them into nukes seems like overkill. Intermediate range missiles are a different matter, ground or sea launched Skybolt would have been quite the terror weapon decades before Pershing II came on the scene. 

For the Russians, sinking carriers. They are large enough with enough anti torpedo measures built into them that it would take a large number of successful torpedo hits to completely sink one, though it might be incapable of air operations with less effort. For the U.S. the target set was opponent submarines, which at the time of the mk45 were a little hard to reliably target. ASTOR compensated with a large blast area/pressure wave. I think improvements to active homing systems made that system quickly obsolete.

[Josh]

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The Soviets first designed the November's as a nuclear weapon delivery vehicle. Ideal for taking out places like New York, if you don't have much of a bomber or missile force. For them it made a short term sense, and it offset their naval inferiority to a degree.

I thought the target set was always tactical. Certainly later in the Cold War, the nuclear torps were intended for ships.

 

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As for the Americans, I think it was that era where nuclear weapons were thought to be the solution to all problems. After all, the had nuclear shells, nuclear air defence missiles, nuclear air to air missiles, even a tactical nuke in a recoilless rifle. They would have made nuclear hand grenades if they could have got away with it.

The USSR was just as prolific, short of maybe the Davy Crocket. Both sides had tactical nuclear weapons for most any target set, some more practical than others.

[Martineleca]

8 hours ago, Josh said:

The USSR was just as prolific, short of maybe the Davy Crocket. Both sides had tactical nuclear weapons for most any target set, some more practical than others.

There was a lot of dark humour with the Davy Crockett launcher, soldiers who had to dig a foxhole for cover before firing took extra care in preparing it as it was likely to be their grave...

[Josh]

32 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

There was a lot of dark humour with the Davy Crockett launcher, soldiers who had to dig a foxhole for cover before firing took extra care in preparing it as it was likely to be their grave...

It was not a good usage as far as the the USA went. I suspect the USSR had its equivalent.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, Josh said:

I thought the target set was always tactical. Certainly later in the Cold War, the nuclear torps were intended for ships.

 

The USSR was just as prolific, short of maybe the Davy Crocket. Both sides had tactical nuclear weapons for most any target set, some more practical than others.

Ah, I said they originally designed it for that. If you look at the Norman Polmar book, there is a drawing showing the front of the November with a single tube and a very, very large torpedo. Almost like a ballistic missile tilted on its side. In the end they thought this was really very silly, and turned it into a proper SSN, as they eventually got. But the original idea was strategic attack with nuclear tipped torpedo's. Im not familiar with what they had subsequently, but they could fit in an ordinary tube. Im given to understand that the only atomic weapon that was recovered from operation Azorian was the remains of a nuclear tipped torpedo, so they were obviously handing them out of Golf Submarines for self defence by the late 1980's.

Absolutely, but usually they followed the US around. I remember that Khrushchev was particularly incensed when he saw the Soviet atomic guns, but for no other reason than the US had some first. IIRC, he said it was illustrative of the smallness of the military mind. Which probably means he was irritated he didnt think of it first....

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, Josh said:

For the Russians, sinking carriers. They are large enough with enough anti torpedo measures built into them that it would take a large number of successful torpedo hits to completely sink one, though it might be incapable of air operations with less effort. For the U.S. the target set was opponent submarines, which at the time of the mk45 were a little hard to reliably target. ASTOR compensated with a large blast area/pressure wave. I think improvements to active homing systems made that system quickly obsolete.

Yes, and its interesting that when the Mk48 came out, they were putting active systems in Mk45's, removing the nuclear warhead, and flogging them to NATO as conventional torpedo's. Which illustrates how pointless they had become by that point.

Certainly It was in part to overcome guidence innaccuracy. But I think thats only part of the story. The Mk37 was accurate but slow, to the point that, just like British torpedo's, you had to stalk one and shoot it right up the keester, before it could sprint away out of range. So yes, I think it probably was in large part the fear of the November, because they were so damn fast, but im not sure the timeline adds up.

TBH, I still think they would have built them anyway, but its always useful to have a justification to get the funds out of Senators.

[Martineleca]

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

After all, the had nuclear shells, nuclear air defence missiles, nuclear air to air missiles, even a tactical nuke in a recoilless rifle. They would have made nuclear hand grenades if they could have got away with it.

The XM129 Special Atomic Demolition Munition is a classic, dropped in a carry bag with paratroopers behind enemy lines it had a 1kt charge with remote detonation from a minimum distance or possible mannual override if there wasn't enough time. That latter part created quite stir a few years ago and allegations that the US military was training for suicide missions, I don't get the disbelief some people have about what peer to peer combat entails. Don't know if BAOR had any similar contingencies, but I suppose halting the advance of the Red Army would have involved quite a few instances of self-sacrifice, like that Ukrainian kid who saved his unit by blowing himself up with a bridge the Russians had started crossing. 

Edited April 6 by Martineleca

[Stuart Galbraith]

I remember having a discussion on ARRSE with a guy asking about nuclear landmines. His sergeant was having some detail to go and place some during an exercise back in the day, and he wanted to know if it was a wind up. I was able to point him to a german website that demonstrated the US had and tested nuclear landmines, and that there were demolition points in most German bridges to either have explosive charges, or theoretically, ADM's. In fact, Britain was experimenting with one itself, before it gave up. Search for Blue peacock if you want a really good laugh.

So yes, we certainly had plans to employ ADM's. Im not sure if we were planning to do it behind enemy lines, but its always possible. We certainly had stay behind parties from the Royal Artillery, whose last role before being detected and overrun was to call in 8 inch artillery on Soviet rear areas. And of course the SAS and Brixmis had stay behind roles as well. Ive never read we planned to drop guys in with an ADM, but like I say, so little has been written about this (and so little kept) its possible they intended to borrow some. Some of them I know where stored at an airfield in Scotland for the US Special Forces.

Interesting thing, there was a suspect in the DB cooper hijacking, and they traced an empty deposit box belonging to him. Other than a soldier of fortune article, with a page about a paratrooper dropping with an ADM. Was that some kind of hint? Didd he do this job in the Army? No idea. It does make you think though.

[urbanoid]

13 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The Soviets first designed the November's as a nuclear weapon delivery vehicle. Ideal for taking out places like New York, if you don't have much of a bomber or missile force. For them it made a short term sense, and it offset their naval inferiority to a degree.

As for the Americans, I think it was that era where nuclear weapons were thought to be the solution to all problems. After all, the had nuclear shells, nuclear air defence missiles, nuclear air to air missiles, even a tactical nuke in a recoilless rifle. They would have made nuclear hand grenades if they could have got away with it.

It's allegedly physically impossible (not an expert, but that's what I read), but I want to believe.

[Ssnake]

Critical mass is 10 times higher than your typical hand grenade. But the real death to the concept is that you need to keep two subcritical masses safely separate, and merge them faster than the nuclear chain reaction at the point of contact blows them apart. The smallest caliber that's considered achievable seens to be 140mm, last time I bothered to look it up.

[sunday]

9 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Critical mass is 10 times higher than your typical hand grenade. But the real death to the concept is that you need to keep two subcritical masses safely separate, and merge them faster than the nuclear chain reaction at the point of contact blows them apart. The smallest caliber that's considered achievable seens to be 140mm, last time I bothered to look it up.

Yes, even using exotics like some isotopes of Californium: see here

[Stuart Galbraith]

Bah, you guys and health and safety. You are just holding up battlefield technological advances.

Tactical nuke and the drone is a concept I REALLY dont want anyone working on. But we were building drones back in the 1970's that would carry one, so its theoretically possible.

[Ssnake]

252Cf at least has a half-life of 2.6 years, so a production to order would at least be (very) theoretically possible; 253Cf with 18 days --- well, good luck throwing that soon enough to still blow up yourself and everybody around you, rather than just irradiate everybody with a lethal dose of those tasty atomic rays.

Given the current production method of bombarding heavy elements with other heavy ions and the resulting microgram-sized isotope salad which then would need to be separated afterwards, I guess we can safely rule out the emergence of this enticing option in our lifetimes.

[Perun]

Sweden Commissions New Signals Intelligence Vessel HSwMS Artemis

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

252Cf at least has a half-life of 2.6 years, so a production to order would at least be (very) theoretically possible; 253Cf with 18 days --- well, good luck throwing that soon enough to still blow up yourself and everybody around you, rather than just irradiate everybody with a lethal dose of those tasty atomic rays.

Given the current production method of bombarding heavy elements with other heavy ions and the resulting microgram-sized isotope salad which then would need to be separated afterwards, I guess we can safely rule out the emergence of this enticing option in our lifetimes.

Its in PK Dicks Second variety! I want my atomic grenades, dammit!

 

[Ssnake]

May I recommend a session of the Paranoia RPG. Gamemaster's ruleset reveals: The nuclear hand grenade's blast radius is twice the range of the throw dice roll.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[TrustMe]

15 hours ago, Ssnake said:

May I recommend a session of the Paranoia RPG. Gamemaster's ruleset reveals: The nuclear hand grenade's blast radius is twice the range of the throw dice roll.

 

Trust no one.

Keep you're laser handy.

Serve the computer.

😀

[Laser Shark]

Sooooo, the new Norwegian long term defence plan finally dropped the day before yesterday. My initial thoughts are that it looks like a solid step in the right direction, but it’s also worth keeping in mind that it’s made from the rock bottom, and we’re still not anywhere near where we ought to be even after/ if everything in this plan gets realized IMO.

Summary in English: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/new-norwegian-long-term-plan-on-defence-a-historic-plan/id3032878/

Full document in Norwegian: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/27e00e5acc014c5ba741aacfff235d99/no/pdfs/prp202320240087000dddpdfs.pdf

[Martineleca]

1 hour ago, Laser Shark said:

Sooooo, the new Norwegian long term defence plan finally dropped the day before yesterday.

Being the sole NATO country in Western Europe that directly bordered Soviet territory I've read of numerous provocations occuring during the Cold War, especially when the West was conducting exercises in the far north. Basically an armored battalion would assemble and rapidly charge the Norwegian lines so the defenders would reveal their positions and then halt a few meters from the border and withdrawing, then repeat some time later. Wouldn't be surprised if they start doing it again, they've gone back to pulling a lot of tricks from their old red book...

[TonyE]

2 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

Sooooo, the new Norwegian long term defence plan finally dropped the day before yesterday. My initial thoughts are that it looks like a solid step in the right direction, but it’s also worth keeping in mind that it’s made from the rock bottom, and we’re still not anywhere near where we ought to be even after/ if everything in this plan gets realized IMO.

Summary in English: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/new-norwegian-long-term-plan-on-defence-a-historic-plan/id3032878/

Full document in Norwegian: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/27e00e5acc014c5ba741aacfff235d99/no/pdfs/prp202320240087000dddpdfs.pdf

23 wasted years and then 12 more to barely get back into shape......if properly funded that is (echoes of the defence act of 1933).

[Martineleca]

11 hours ago, TonyE said:

23 wasted years and then 12 more to barely get back into shape...

For most of continental Europe it's more like 33 wasted years and not only for a general degradation in military capability, but industrial as well.  It can be argued the decision of European nations to dump so much near-new equipment on the international market ruined the ability of its arms manufacturers to maintain production capacity in the post-Cold War world, capacity that is now urgently being brought back online at much greater expense. Also the desire of some countries to enjoy the economic jolt of military investment while not participating in the expense part was weird, like when Germany attempted to either cancel or greatly reduce Eurofighter Typhoon orders, but maintain its workload ratio as originally agreed. 

Edited April 8 by Martineleca

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, Martineleca said:

Being the sole NATO country in Western Europe that directly bordered Soviet territory I've read of numerous provocations occuring during the Cold War, especially when the West was conducting exercises in the far north. Basically an armored battalion would assemble and rapidly charge the Norwegian lines so the defenders would reveal their positions and then halt a few meters from the border and withdrawing, then repeat some time later. Wouldn't be surprised if they start doing it again, they've gone back to pulling a lot of tricks from their old red book...

To be absolutely fair to the Soviets, the Yanks did it semi regularly in Berlin.

Fun and games man, fun and games.

[Stuart Galbraith]

29 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

For most of continental Europe it's more like 33 wasted years and not only for a general degradation in military capability, but industrial as well.  It can be argued the decision of European nations to dump so much near-new equipment on the international market ruined the ability of its arms manufacturers to maintain production capacity in the post-Cold War world, capacity that is now urgently being brought back online at much greater expense. Also the desire of some countries to bear the economic fruits of military investment while not participating in the expense part was weird, like when Germany attempted to either cancel or greatly reduce Eurofighter Typhoon orders, but maintain its workload ratio as originally agreed. 

I remember having several arguments on here viz challenger 2, saying that our market opportunity (Yes, and Leclercs as well) was runined by dumping several thousand barely soiled Leopard 2's on the market, which rapidly reduced Europes tank production capacity to just one factory. I hope that people can belatedly understand what I was talking about now.

On the positve side, I read Romania is turning a former ammunition plant that hasnt built anything since 2012 back on. Thats good. We are still a long way from the likes of Britain rebuilding theirs.

[seahawk]

That is a pointless discussion. After 1991 Russia was not seen as a threat and the focus was on out of area operations with nation building and counter insurgency. Nobody would buy new MBTs for this and anybody spending a large percentage of the budget on those would be ridiculed by other nations and the public.