Missile launch systems

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Missile launch systems

      During the Cold War, America and the Soviet were able to launch long-range missiles with incredible power from thousands of miles away by two ways: 1. They used missile silos capable of launching over 5 ICBMs at once, and 2. They used submarines. In CON, their should be a building that you could build in provinces that is a missile silo, and their should also be ICBM-launching submarines, because the submarine-launched missiles in the Cold War had some serious range, and no ballistic missile in CON has that kind of range. Today, both launch systems have gotten more powerful, and I think that both should be added to CON maps.
    • We deliberately decides against it - the only reason America went down the route of missile bunkers / silos (really a bad idea actually) was the fact that their repeated attempts at creating mobile launchers failed miserably. In this regards our game is better than reality - technically speaking.

      The Russian launchers were better and manouverable - hence harder to predict and hit in a preemptive strike.

      There you go. We kept missile bunkers out of the game for a reason.

      In regards to ICBM launched from subs: please do your research. There were attempts of floating ICBMs but what you are referring to are BMs or CMs. Makes total sense as well: they launched close to shore with very short warning time - hence the idea was exactly opposite of ICBMs : short flight and quick strikes.

      No Boomer in the cold war was equipped with ICBMs that I would have ever heard of.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Germanico ().

    • New

      Hi folks...

      Here's my grain of salt

      Late-Cold War SSBNs were able to launch their warheads from very, very long range: even from continental waters, close to one's shore.

      R-29M and Trident had ranges well over 8500 kms...

      Modern day R-29RMU2 or Trident 2 have ranges over 11-12.000 kms.

      So, the actual term is SLBM, but they clearly classify as "intercontinental" IMHO.

      Now, I've never got as far as to researth them on this game :P
    • New

      Germanico wrote:

      The justification for ballistic missile subs has always been stealthiness and short reaction times of potential enemies. Hence SLBMs.
      Sub launched ballistic missiles.

      More here:
      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine
      Sure, no doubts about it.

      They have now become retaliation weapons, however. Assuring the enemie's demise in case of a nuclear attack: stealth platforms whose SLBM won't be dettected untill they are already on way to their targets.

      Thus, the capability to use them from both USA or RUssia's own national waters, far from where "patrol zones" where back in the 60s or 70s.

      Nowadays, nor Ohios, nor Boreys/Deltas patrol near Russian/US coastlines: It's just not necessary anymore to risk them in such a way.


      Even more so, Russian doctrine postulated "Bastions" where submarines would not only not-leave national waters, but will remain inside for as long as possible, taken care of by their own submarine and ASW assets, assuring their safery against US SSNs.

      I understand this would be too complex to model in CON and -besides- the main problem remains:

      Players would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if available. So the importance of welding them againts a nuclear armed foe diminish: Players just wont care enough about horrific ( simulated) civilian casualties and crippled economies if they can just win.