Raging Dragon PBEM

[Case]

Not really. I'm sorta tempted to give up Russia for it though.

[Darius871]

Ohwell posted this on another thread:

I cant continue being General, due to something coming up in my life unexpectedly. My apologies, and I designate FIGU the General as well as Commander of the Southern front.

No worries. I'll be back occasionally, eventually I will be back more often.

Do you guys know anyone that would be interested in India?

[The ANZAC]

bump?

[Case]

India to move
(the order of play is on the 1st page of this thread)

[Darius871]

BUMP

[The ANZAC]

We would kindly like to remind China that the units near Chongjin and Pyongyang [coordinates (165,23) and (169,13)] must be moved as they are within APEC city limits.

[Darius871]

We congratulate the new Arab government for its devotion to peace. Surely the NATO will not continue their war alone.

[Choke]

Under the new consolidated administration of Saddam Hussein, the Arab League would like to assure our allies of continued support. However the President would like to express his concern at the violence along the border with Russia and would like to see the war come to an end acceptable to all parties involved. Therefore this month a cease-fire was signed with field officers of the Russian armed forces, President Hussein hopes President Putin will ratify a permanent peace treaty, of course terms of said treaty are negotiable.

This month Arab positions along the border with Russia were heavily fortified in case President Putin makes poor choices.

[Case]

Good to see you Choke. All the game files are now uploaded at: http://apolyton.net/upload/files/Case/Dragon.zip

[Choke]

Ok...I need to read the thread a bit and then I'll play my turn, my ISP cut me off, that's why I was MIA but I'm back and better than ever

[Case]

PM sent to Choke...

...however, he hasn't posted since mid September, so I'm close to declaring him another victim of the zombies/Syrians/Euro (chose the factor you consider to be your current national enemy )

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Darius871 Nonononono, you totally misunderstood my post. I wasn't talking about putting a nuke on a sea-skimming cruise missile. I meant that if they are able to design guidance systems SO precise that a missile can independently keep itself 20 meters above the surface, pull down to 6 meters before impact, and slam itself into the side of a ship, then designing a conventional ballistic missile that can detonate within a few miles of a carrier should be a breeze, comparatively.

AFAIK, there's never been a balistic missile capable of being effectively retargeted after launch. The whole 'balistic' nature of the weapons tends to act against altering their targets I think that the US and USSR both had plans for re-targetable warheads in the late 80s, but I don't think that anything came of them. This is why nuclear bombers were kept on for so long - whatever their ability to realistically penetrate the other guys defences, at least they could be recalled after launch, something which just wasn't possible with ICBMs and, to a lesser extent, submarines.

Also, that's assuming they want to destroy the carrier; if you wish to disable it with EMP you don't have to be even remotely accurate.

I take it that you're working on the assumption that the USN doesn't harden its warships electronics? All the carriers were designed to fight World War Three, and AFAIK, they'd be hardened, as are the aircraft. I vaugely recall reading something about the costs of hardening the USS George H. Bush being greater then expected, so I guess that this is still ongoing.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Case
Any cruise missile would have to first be fired within range of the carrier (easier said then done), pass through the fighters which would be desperatly trying to hit them, pass through the missile envelopes of at least two AEGIS equipped ships before facing the Carriers (weak) point defence guns and missiles. It's a lot easier said then done - Soviet doctrine for attacking carriers seems to have called for massed attacks with around 100 missiles!

Nonononono, you totally misunderstood my post. I wasn't talking about putting a nuke on a sea-skimming cruise missile. I meant that if they are able to design guidance systems SO precise that a missile can independently keep itself 20 meters above the surface, pull down to 6 meters before impact, and slam itself into the side of a ship, then designing a conventional ballistic missile that can detonate within a few miles of a carrier should be a breeze, comparatively.

Also, that's assuming they want to destroy the carrier; if you wish to disable it with EMP you don't have to be even remotely accurate. When we tested a bomb in the atmosphere over Johnson Atoll IIRC, streetlights and televisions some 1400 miles away burned out in Hawaii, which prompted the atmospheric test ban treaty. Some scientists theorize that a 20 megaton warhead detonated 200 miles above Kansas would cause blackouts across the entire United States. Long story short, a nuclear attack on a carrier group wouldn't have to be accurate at all.

Originally posted by Case
1 or 2? Most subs have at least 6 torpedo tubes, and modern torpedos generally hit.

Meh, I just scaled it down because I wouldn't know what an Oberon's armament is. They could launch waterballoons full of rotten coleslaw for all I know.

[Case]

Originally posted by Darius871
Out of curiousity, how wide is the standard battle group?

The unclassified figure is up to 100 km. As for the real figure: who knows? The USN is rather tight with that kind of information. For instance, the maximum speed the Nimitz class carriers can sail at is strictly classified (the smart money is on about 40 knots without cargo aircraft and ordenance and less then 35 knots with a full load of equipment).

It doesn't depend on the generation of missile? I'd imagine if we could design targeting systems that could put a Harpoon right into the side of a ship despite the ships maneuvers, we (and therefore an enemy as well) could design a missile which would detonate a nuclear warhead within a few bloody miles.

Any cruise missile would have to first be fired within range of the carrier (easier said then done), pass through the fighters which would be desperatly trying to hit them, pass through the missile envelopes of at least two AEGIS equipped ships before facing the Carriers (weak) point defence guns and missiles. It's a lot easier said then done - Soviet doctrine for attacking carriers seems to have called for massed attacks with around 100 missiles!

So modern navy exercises assume that 1 or 2 torpedoes will always sink a supercarrier?

1 or 2? Most subs have at least 6 torpedo tubes, and modern torpedos generally hit. While they may not sink the carrier, they'll definetly make it too slow to be able to carry out flight operations and will put it in the yards for at least a year.

[Darius871]

It's Choke's, and I haven't seen him in ages.

[0hwell]

Is it my turn?