What wars would YOU have fought in?

[Loren Pechtel]

Way back, during the cold war, I was at a museum in England where they had an exhibit about the cold war. Part of the exhibit was a graphic depiction of the world's nuclear arsenals; The Soviet and US arsenals were huge, with tens of thousands of warheads each; Britain had about 300. A chap came up, took a look at the graphic showing the UK with less than 1% of the Soviet arsenal, and started into a rant about how the Russians wouldn't take such a tiny ability as ours seriously as a deterrent.

I asked him to name the 301st largest town or city in the USSR, and imagine what the country would be like if all the bigger places had been destroyed, and he shut up.

One sub may not be able to destroy half the word, but if it can wipe out the hundred largest cities in an enemy nation, and still have a reserve in case you don't stay down, it is more than enough to make them think twice about provoking you to use it.

Britain's nuclear deterrent (and France's) presented the Soviet Union with a problem. Soviet planners might argue that the USA would be unwilling to risk a full nuclear exchange with the inevitable destruction of every major US city and millions of casualties just to save western Europe.

The fact that Britain and France had their own, independent, systems meant that even if the USA backed down there was still a strong probability that the USSR would be wrecked.

This. One of the prime aspects of a deterrence system is that your enemy knows about it and believes it will be used.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is true, but it flatters the bomber crews and their command to suggest that targeting a factory was really possible; they had to hit the worker's housing, because it was a large enough target to have a chance of actually hitting, while the factory itself was not. I suspect very strongly that 'dehousing' was bomber command making a virtue of necessity.

Nobody in WWII was able to hit what they aimed at with strategic bombing. Dive bombers could hit specific factories; but strategic bombers aimed at cities, towns, and major logistics targets such as rail yards, and just plastered the whole area in the hope of a handful of bombs on target.

A thousand bomber raid to take out one factory is an admission of failure, rather than a show of force. The technology to hit such small targets didn't exist, despite the propagandists on both sides claiming that it did.

Agreed. You don't hit specific targets from high altitude unless you have guided bombs. Guided bombs were only used on a few high-value targets in WWII.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is that it's not an area per se. Distributing the warheads along a line, even a curved line, is far easier than distributing them on an X.

Really? So many fascinating things i'm learning in this thread...

The limiting factor is the sum of the displacements between the bombs rather than the area into which they fall. Think of it as connect the dots--and your ink supply is severely limited.

 

[Hickdive]

Agreed. You don't hit specific targets from high altitude unless you have guided bombs. Guided bombs were only used on a few high-value targets in WWII.

Neither Grand Slam nor Tallboy weapons were guided and were successfully used against a number of specific targets from around 12,000 feet.

 

[bilby]

Really? So many fascinating things i'm learning in this thread...

The limiting factor is the sum of the displacements between the bombs rather than the area into which they fall. Think of it as connect the dots--and your ink supply is severely limited.

I hope you are taking notes, Keith&Co.

This authoritative information could be ever so useful to you if you are ever called upon to learn about SLBM guidance and control.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The limiting factor is the sum of the displacements between the bombs rather than the area into which they fall. Think of it as connect the dots--and your ink supply is severely limited.

I hope you are taking notes, Keith&Co.

This authoritative information could be ever so useful to you if you are ever called upon to learn about SLBM guidance and control.

Yes. I haven't learned about any of that in so very long... I can't wait to ask engineering about our pattern footprints.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I hope you are taking notes, Keith&Co.

This authoritative information could be ever so useful to you if you are ever called upon to learn about SLBM guidance and control.

Yes. I haven't learned about any of that in so very long... I can't wait to ask engineering about our pattern footprints.

Damn the Torpedos, Full Moon Fever, Southern Accents!

 

[Bronzeage]

Britain's nuclear deterrent (and France's) presented the Soviet Union with a problem. Soviet planners might argue that the USA would be unwilling to risk a full nuclear exchange with the inevitable destruction of every major US city and millions of casualties just to save western Europe.

The fact that Britain and France had their own, independent, systems meant that even if the USA backed down there was still a strong probability that the USSR would be wrecked.

This. One of the prime aspects of a deterrence system is that your enemy knows about it and believes it will be used.

Which is also the weakness inherent in depending on a nuclear deterrence system. Your enemy can assume only a nuclear strike would provoke a nuclear response, so they are free to engage in any military action just short of nuclear. If your military capacity is tied up in unused missiles, they can act as they please, with no fear of retribution.

 

[ZiprHead]

Back on topic. I had the chance to opt to fight in that Viet Nam War. I chose a middle ground and joined a medical unit. I took x-rays. Prior wars? I would be a medic in a hospital. Any and all.

Both my older brothers joined the navy during the VNW to avoid the draft to the Army and ending up in the shit. One, however, became a medical corpsman in a Marine unit and ended up in the shit anyway.