|
|
Post by bluewasps on Jan 2, 2019 19:55:01 GMT -6
I do want to point something out. Missiles included glide bombs in my opinion and these glide bombs if used correctly where fairly affective. They blew the keel out of the Warspite. Sank the roma or one of the littorios and severely damaged two american heavy cruisers.
Now yes there should be jamming and stuff to basicly stuff early early missiles but air superiority shouldnt matter as much as people think it should
The bombing of the ship above mainly took place in the Mediterranean. A contested airspace throughout the war. So as long as the airspace isnt crawling with fighters there should be a chance of a glide bomb finding its mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 2, 2019 20:25:53 GMT -6
I do want to point something out. Missiles included glide bombs in my opinion and these glide bombs if used correctly where fairly affective. They blew the keel out of the Warspite. Sank the roma or one of the littorios and severely damaged two american heavy cruisers. Now yes there should be jamming and stuff to basicly stuff early early missiles but air superiority shouldnt matter as much as people think it should The bombing of the ship above mainly took place in the Mediterranean. A contested airspace throughout the war. So as long as the airspace isnt crawling with fighters there should be a chance of a glide bomb finding its mark. We should consider opportunity costs. What is the loss of potential gain from other alternatives, when one alternative is chosen. In war, this analysis sometimes falls by the wayside, and it shouldn't. This type of analysis should be in the game in a rudimentary way. |
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 2, 2019 20:50:40 GMT -6
This type of analysis should be in the game in a rudimentary way. I would say that the only analysis that can be performed is to say that the behavior is stochastic. The Fritz, Tallboy, Italian frogmen and similar weapon successes are all rare and dependent on circumstances that can't be anticipated or controlled. A stochastic event can be very easily handled by a random event, roughly every year or so, some unconventional weapon sinks an enemy ship. It doesn't really matter what the weapon actually is. |
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Jan 2, 2019 20:52:30 GMT -6
I do want to point something out. Missiles included glide bombs in my opinion and these glide bombs if used correctly where fairly affective. They blew the keel out of the Warspite. Sank the roma or one of the littorios and severely damaged two american heavy cruisers. Now yes there should be jamming and stuff to basicly stuff early early missiles but air superiority shouldnt matter as much as people think it should The bombing of the ship above mainly took place in the Mediterranean. A contested airspace throughout the war. So as long as the airspace isnt crawling with fighters there should be a chance of a glide bomb finding its mark. We should consider opportunity costs. What is the loss of potential gain from other alternatives, when one alternative is chosen. In war, this analysis sometimes falls by the wayside, and it shouldn't. This type of analysis should be in the game in a rudimentary way. In a way, isn't this already in the game? Insofar as setting one research area to high priority results in other research areas receiving less funding. Let's say I decide to set "missiles" to high priority as soon as that research area appears; I'm choosing to allocate my resources to that instead of "naval aviation, heavier-than-air" (or "naval guns" for that matter) and potentially sacrificing the chance to get better torpedo bombers. I would be betting that a Fritz X/Azon style glide bomb (followed, I would guess, by the rocket-assisted bombs Henschel developed later) would be more useful for me than other approaches to destroying enemy assets from the air (perhaps I appreciate the standoff capability?) |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 2, 2019 21:31:12 GMT -6
This type of analysis should be in the game in a rudimentary way. I would say that the only analysis that can be performed is to say that the behavior is stochastic. The Fritz, Tallboy, Italian frogmen and similar weapon successes are all rare and dependent on circumstances that can't be anticipated or controlled. A stochastic event can be very easily handled by a random event, roughly every year or so, some unconventional weapon sinks an enemy ship. It doesn't really matter what the weapon actually is. Well, that is a possibility but I think it can be done more simply. I will leave it to the team but I think there has to be a method of deciding which weapon can be the best to develop and deploy. |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 3, 2019 9:49:10 GMT -6
I think nuclear power will have to be left out of RTW 2 due to the practical reality. If a nation has developed nuclear power, it is inconceivable that they would not have also researched its offensive capabilities. Even a small nuclear weapon (fission) would render every fleet in the world obsolete and meaningless. The game would cease to have even the remotest link to real-world history.
I disagree in that, despite of both the USA and USSR developing atomic weapons, both nations nevertheless retained naval fleets. I'm not stating that RTW2 must include nuclear propulsion, but if it does include some technologies from the post-1950 period for those wishing to extend game play beyond the 1950 end date, then nuclear propulsion should be one such technology. One way to keep it from becoming common is to make it extremely hard and costly to research and deploy, effectively making it only accessible to the United States in-game thanks to its huge resource/economic/financial advantage. (There were only a handful of nuclear-powered vessels commissioned before 1960.)
You are right that nuclear countries still kept (and keep) fleets, but these were relatively small with large numbers of escorts. Large fleet battles became no longer possible due to the ease of just nuking the enemy fleet. Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for the big gun battleships. Your point about making it hard to research could allow for nuclear tech |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 3, 2019 9:50:17 GMT -6
I think nuclear power will have to be left out of RTW 2 due to the practical reality. If a nation has developed nuclear power, it is inconceivable that they would not have also researched its offensive capabilities. Even a small nuclear weapon (fission) would render every fleet in the world obsolete and meaningless. The game would cease to have even the remotest link to real-world history.
I disagree in that, despite of both the USA and USSR developing atomic weapons, both nations nevertheless retained naval fleets. I'm not stating that RTW2 must include nuclear propulsion, but if it does include some technologies from the post-1950 period for those wishing to extend game play beyond the 1950 end date, then nuclear propulsion should be one such technology. One way to keep it from becoming common is to make it extremely hard and costly to research and deploy, effectively making it only accessible to the United States in-game thanks to its huge resource/economic/financial advantage. (There were only a handful of nuclear-powered vessels commissioned before 1960.)
You are right that nuclear countries still kept (and keep) fleets, but these were relatively small with large numbers of escorts. Large fleet battles became no longer possible due to the ease of just nuking the enemy fleet. Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for the big gun battleships. Your point about making it hard to research could allow for nuclear technology in the game, but only the US or Britain could get it. In effect, they would become impossible |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 3, 2019 9:50:43 GMT -6
I think nuclear power will have to be left out of RTW 2 due to the practical reality. If a nation has developed nuclear power, it is inconceivable that they would not have also researched its offensive capabilities. Even a small nuclear weapon (fission) would render every fleet in the world obsolete and meaningless. The game would cease to have even the remotest link to real-world history.
I disagree in that, despite of both the USA and USSR developing atomic weapons, both nations nevertheless retained naval fleets. I'm not stating that RTW2 must include nuclear propulsion, but if it does include some technologies from the post-1950 period for those wishing to extend game play beyond the 1950 end date, then nuclear propulsion should be one such technology. One way to keep it from becoming common is to make it extremely hard and costly to research and deploy, effectively making it only accessible to the United States in-game thanks to its huge resource/economic/financial advantage. (There were only a handful of nuclear-powered vessels commissioned before 1960.)
You are right that nuclear countries still kept (and keep) fleets, but these were relatively small with large numbers of escorts. Large fleet battles became no longer possible due to the ease of just nuking the enemy fleet. Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for the big gun battleships. Your point about making it hard to research could allow for nuclear technology in the game, but only the US or Britain could get it. In effect, they would become impossible to beat after the advent of nuclear weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 3, 2019 10:07:45 GMT -6
I think nuclear power will have to be left out of RTW 2 due to the practical reality. If a nation has developed nuclear power, it is inconceivable that they would not have also researched its offensive capabilities. Even a small nuclear weapon (fission) would render every fleet in the world obsolete and meaningless. The game would cease to have even the remotest link to real-world history. It's really not obvious that nuclear power would lead to nuclear weapons quickly. Nuclear weapons aren't just something they invented, they required a major industry that needed to work for years to get an initial result and additional decades to make something powerful. The initial result just wasn't that useful and cost a staggering sum. Conventional weapons would have accomplished an enormous amount more with that much labor invested. The only reason the Manhattan project was able to get such limitless resources was the very specific circumstances of being at war with a genocidal power that is lead by a madman who likes investing in superweapons, making the US fear that Germany might discover that nuclear weapons were more powerful then they expected. And all of this happened with unique resources available like emptying the silver of Fort Knox and recruiting normally anti-militaristic scientists from anywhere on the earth. Once the US had invested the enormous amount in making an atomic industry the Soviets could imitate it and knew it was worthwhile to do so. But without that imitation, operating through normal funding levels and the difficulty of getting design work done, it would be a project that would take decades. tl;dr: it shouldn't be taken for granted that anyone would have been willing to invest the enormous resources the first nuclear explosion required. and the V-2 just wasn't that accurate It also cost a much as a B-29 bomber which could carry more then twice the payload but land afterwards and be used again. High altitude B-29 bombings did on rare occasion actually hit the target. I can't remember a the quote but didn't some american army air force general observe that the resources wasted on the V-2 did as much harm to Germany as the american strategic bombing campaign or something like that? It's rare to have a weapon so ineffective that it kills more people in the factories where it is produced then in the factories at which it is fired. The research for a nuclear weapon was around from the late 20s. Rutherford proposed one and the British had most of the knowledge to build one by the late 30s. However, you are correct, the industry required was prohibitively expensive. In spite of this, the only reason the British did not build one then is because WW2 occurred before the design was finished. The plans then handed to the Americans in 1942, who could build it in relative peace. The scientists from all over the world did help but the theories were already public knowledge (the nuclear process was only classified from 1936 in Britain). Sooner or later, domestic scientists would have worked it out. At this point, the materials could be obtained for a price, especially if the purpose was classified. It was only in 1945 when congress barred the sharing of nuclear technology that the resources were removed from the global market. In the game, as soon as this occurred, however long it took, the other countries would not be able to counter them. Battle fleets would be completely obsolete. If effect, the entire raison être of RTW 2 would be obsolete. |
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 3, 2019 10:29:52 GMT -6
but these were relatively small with large numbers of escorts. The Arleigh Burke Destroyer is nearly identical in capabilities to the Ticonderoga class cruiser and nearly as large. The designs have essentially converged, a destroyer and cruiser are interchangeable and battleships are not viable (until railguns are are perfected anyway). So I dont think missile ships should really be thought of as "escorts". They are rather just general purpose warships. In a sense the navies have returned full circle to the state of affairs before the pre-dreadnoughts where armored cruisers could be armored enough, fast enough and long range enough for pretty much anything. In spite of this, the only reason the British did not build one then is because WW2 occurred before the design was finished. But who is going to fund it? Suppose that without the hurry the project could be done for only one billion dollars instead of two. You go to the British admiralty and say "For £250 million, I can give you two 25 kiloton bombs ten years later". They go into the ballroom and play some wargames with model ships and decide that each of those bombs could sink two or three capital ships and escorts worth as much as well. Well the King George V class battleships cost them about 8 million pounds each. So you are suggesting a £250 million project to sink £100-£150 million in ships. Ah, but what if you dont just make two bombs but keep making them afterwards? Let's say it's two a year. Well that's going to require a substantial staff. Oak Ridge after the war fell to about 25,000 skilled workers. That's a lot of skilled workers. In 1947 the average male British manual worker earned 6.2 pounds a week. Let's say that for your site of skilled workers you need 25,000 people averaging 10 times a week for 45 weeks a year. So now it's £11.25 million for bombs that will sink £100-£150 million in ships. Finally! Now we are in business. But this project requires 13 years to be worthwhile. What happens over those 13 years? What if ships have grown more resistant so that they can survive being a secondary target and you are only sinking one of them? Now you are building a £6.6 million bomb for a £8 million ship. What if carriers have jet fighters that make it impossible to drop bombs on ships entirely? And what could they have done with the funds in the meantime? If we take those 250 million and replace it with an annuity of 7% of the value it's £17.5 million a year. That would be sufficient money to buy an aircraft carrier and escorts every single year. Why not just take the aircraft carrier and put some bombers on it with conventional bombs? Now you can sink just as many ships but starting three years from today instead of 13 years. And the thing that last point should illustrate is, we are talking about a massive endowment for the navy operating at anything less then total war levels of funding. Your atomic bombs are going to cost enough to fund an entire navy. You are essentially asking the navy to stop being the navy and instead become the atomic energy commission. That's not an easy sell! The only way I see this being viable is if you wait long enough that nuclear energy becomes a mature science. Once nuclear reactors become common it's not so expensive to develop a nuclear weapon. But that could take an immensely long time. Here we are in 2018 and the government is heavily funding nuclear power for military purposes but investing in civilian reactors still drove Westinghouse into chapter 11 and Toshiba into chapter 7. The only consistently cost-effective uses of nuclear power are naval reactors and deep space probes. Neither of those would have happened without the Manhattan project. So it's very possible that even if it's understood nuclear power is possible and possible to weaponize it is never actually harnessed on a wide scale until the late 21st century. |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 3, 2019 15:40:21 GMT -6
but these were relatively small with large numbers of escorts. The Arleigh Burke Destroyer is nearly identical in capabilities to the Ticonderoga class cruiser and nearly as large. The designs have essentially converged, a destroyer and cruiser are interchangeable and battleships are not viable (until railguns are are perfected anyway). So I dont think missile ships should really be thought of as "escorts". They are rather just general purpose warships. In a sense the navies have returned full circle to the state of affairs before the pre-dreadnoughts where armored cruisers could be armored enough, fast enough and long range enough for pretty much anything. In spite of this, the only reason the British did not build one then is because WW2 occurred before the design was finished. But who is going to fund it? Suppose that without the hurry the project could be done for only one billion dollars instead of two. You go to the British admiralty and say "For £250 million, I can give you two 25 kiloton bombs ten years later". They go into the ballroom and play some wargames with model ships and decide that each of those bombs could sink two or three capital ships and escorts worth as much as well. Well the King George V class battleships cost them about 8 million pounds each. So you are suggesting a £250 million project to sink £100-£150 million in ships. Ah, but what if you dont just make two bombs but keep making them afterwards? Let's say it's two a year. Well that's going to require a substantial staff. Oak Ridge after the war fell to about 25,000 skilled workers. That's a lot of skilled workers. In 1947 the average male British manual worker earned 6.2 pounds a week. Let's say that for your site of skilled workers you need 25,000 people averaging 10 times a week for 45 weeks a year. So now it's £11.25 million for bombs that will sink £100-£150 million in ships. Finally! Now we are in business. But this project requires 13 years to be worthwhile. What happens over those 13 years? What if ships have grown more resistant so that they can survive being a secondary target and you are only sinking one of them? Now you are building a £6.6 million bomb for a £8 million ship. What if carriers have jet fighters that make it impossible to drop bombs on ships entirely? And what could they have done with the funds in the meantime? If we take those 250 million and replace it with an annuity of 7% of the value it's £17.5 million a year. That would be sufficient money to buy an aircraft carrier and escorts every single year. Why not just take the aircraft carrier and put some bombers on it with conventional bombs? Now you can sink just as many ships but starting three years from today instead of 13 years. And the thing that last point should illustrate is, we are talking about a massive endowment for the navy operating at anything less then total war levels of funding. Your atomic bombs are going to cost enough to fund an entire navy. You are essentially asking the navy to stop being the navy and instead become the atomic energy commission. That's not an easy sell! The only way I see this being viable is if you wait long enough that nuclear energy becomes a mature science. Once nuclear reactors become common it's not so expensive to develop a nuclear weapon. But that could take an immensely long time. Here we are in 2018 and the government is heavily funding nuclear power for military purposes but investing in civilian reactors still drove Westinghouse into chapter 11 and Toshiba into chapter 7. The only consistently cost-effective uses of nuclear power are naval reactors and deep space probes. Neither of those would have happened without the Manhattan project. So it's very possible that even if it's understood nuclear power is possible and possible to weaponize it is never actually harnessed on a wide scale until the late 21st century. Or perhaps the nuclear bomb can force a nation to surrender. Immediately. If one £11.5m bomb can do that, why sustain a naval force that takes 4-5 years to do the same. In a first war, your argument stands. The cost involved setting it up is astronomical. But then you get desperate. You allocate funds. After 3 more years of war, 2 25 kiloton bombs are completed and dropped. The opponent surrenders. Fast forward 5 years. A stockpile of 10 bombs have been completed for £115m. The next war begins and a nuke is dropped on the capital. They surrender. Their fleet is still in port. This becomes even worse when another potentially hostile country joins the nuclear club. Neither can start a war for fear of annihilation. Neither can conventionally win either. As the net closes in on one, they nuke the other. MAD. As there is no chance of winning, conventionally powerful assets (battleships and even aircraft carriers) become surplus to requirements. No fleet battles ever occur again. This line of events could not be denied plausibly in such a historical game as RTW. Therefore the game would effectively end as soon as the first nuclear bomb was perfected. The argument for nuclear research is strong as it occurred in real history. However, the inclusion of nuclear technology would mean that one could not explore the other technological advances of the 50s within the framework of the game. It is a contrived limitation but one necessary given the goal of the developers and historical hindsight. |
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 3, 2019 16:49:10 GMT -6
Or perhaps the nuclear bomb can force a nation to surrender. Not with 25 kiloton bombs. When the Japanese were bombed they were blockaded, headed for starvation, their cities in ruin, lacking the industry to contest the enemy navies and fleets and having just watched the Soviet army cut through their Manchurian army like a knife through warm butter. Even then the Americans bluffed their assess off, announcing the intention to drop as many bombs as it would take despite not having any more ready. The nuclear weapons just gave the peace faction of the Japanese high command just enough of an opportunity to surrender while (barely) avoiding a coup. If the bombs had been dropped on Japan or Germany in 1941 it would have hurt them but it certainly wouldn't have made them surrender. What you are thinking of are the hydrogen bombs which require even more weapons grade uranium, i.e. additional investment and then an entire new industry in order to create the heavy water in sufficient quantities and the bombs weigh so much that an entirely new type of super powerful bomber is required in order to deploy them. Or maybe you want to invent ICBMs which themselves cost more to develop then nuclear weapons. You are proposing a combination that hasn't even solidified in science fiction yet in 1940. There are concepts of MAD but they are just as likely to invoke nuclear scramjets showering neutrons or nuclear rockets doing hammer of the gods kinetic attacks. And the cost we are talking about is immense. France was the first country to have a thermonuclear and ICBM capable industry independent from the US and USSR and they didn't reach that point until 1968. In order to afford an independent nuclear industry they needed to make their entire economy run off nuclear generated electricity. Even then they benefited enormously from the trial and error in both nuclear weapons and rocketry performed in other countries. And 1966 is just when they pulled off a hydrogen bomb test. In terms of France actually having produced miniaturized hydrogen bomb weapons and put them on rockets, it's into the 70s. So if we are going to assume no WWII in order to give nuclear weapons a massive kick in the pants and get over the massive investment for not just nuclear weapons but rocketry as well, I think 1970 is a decent estimate and even then it's assuming that you have a situation like France where the government is very strongly committed to long term investment in both projects. And 1970 is well past the point where battleships had stopped construction. Even without nuclear power and rocketry there are attack submarines, long range radar and electronic counter-measures. Note: I dont know off hand but I think France might actually be the only country to develop thermonuclear equipped ICBMs independently of the US and USSR. The Soviet Union exported technology to both China and India, Britain collaborated extensively with the US in both nuclear technology and rocketry, Israel obtained technology from the US and I dont believe Pakistan has hydrogen bombs, North Korea doesn't even have full refining capability and is only capable of reprocessing a supply of fissile material that they obtained during the Cold War. |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 3, 2019 18:00:19 GMT -6
Or perhaps the nuclear bomb can force a nation to surrender. Not with 25 kiloton bombs. When the Japanese were bombed they were blockaded, headed for starvation, their cities in ruin, lacking the industry to contest the enemy navies and fleets and having just watched the Soviet army cut through their Manchurian army like a knife through warm butter. Even then the Americans bluffed their assess off, announcing the intention to drop as many bombs as it would take despite not having any more ready. The nuclear weapons just gave the peace faction of the Japanese high command just enough of an opportunity to surrender while (barely) avoiding a coup. If the bombs had been dropped on Japan or Germany in 1941 it would have hurt them but it certainly wouldn't have made them surrender. What you are thinking of are the hydrogen bombs which require even more weapons grade uranium, i.e. additional investment and then an entire new industry in order to create the heavy water in sufficient quantities and the bombs weigh so much that an entirely new type of super powerful bomber is required in order to deploy them. Or maybe you want to invent ICBMs which themselves cost more to develop then nuclear weapons. You are proposing a combination that hasn't even solidified in science fiction yet in 1940. There are concepts of MAD but they are just as likely to invoke nuclear scramjets showering neutrons or nuclear rockets doing hammer of the gods kinetic attacks. And the cost we are talking about is immense. France was the first country to have a thermonuclear and ICBM capable industry independent from the US and USSR and they didn't reach that point until 1968. In order to afford an independent nuclear industry they needed to make their entire economy run off nuclear generated electricity. Even then they benefited enormously from the trial and error in both nuclear weapons and rocketry performed in other countries. And 1966 is just when they pulled off a hydrogen bomb test. In terms of France actually having produced miniaturized hydrogen bomb weapons and put them on rockets, it's into the 70s. So if we are going to assume no WWII in order to give nuclear weapons a massive kick in the pants and get over the massive investment for not just nuclear weapons but rocketry as well, I think 1970 is a decent estimate and even then it's assuming that you have a situation like France where the government is very strongly committed to long term investment in both projects. And 1970 is well past the point where battleships had stopped construction. Even without nuclear power and rocketry there are attack submarines, long range radar and electronic counter-measures. Note: I dont know off hand but I think France might actually be the only country to develop thermonuclear equipped ICBMs independently of the US and USSR. The Soviet Union exported technology to both China and India, Britain collaborated extensively with the US in both nuclear technology and rocketry, Israel obtained technology from the US and I dont believe Pakistan has hydrogen bombs, North Korea doesn't even have full refining capability and is only capable of reprocessing a supply of fissile material that they obtained during the Cold War. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think that the sheer devastation of even a small nuclear bomb or two could likely force an unprepared country to surrender or at least to disable enough critical infrastructure to shorten a war massively. I also conceed that nuclear submarines would be great but not at the expense of the plausibility of the game. PS: France was an extraordinarily plucky example. After the devastation of WW2, they were left to be a 2nd rate ex-superpower. They received no help whatsoever but proved that it could be done from first principles. Incidentally, this precedent is why the West are so wary of unstable weaker countries like North Korea. It is remotely feasible that they could do it on their own. The British were also left for dead nuclear-wise by the US after WW2. However, because we hadn't been invaded, we weren't quite as devastated by WW2. Also many of the Manhattan scientists were British. We had an independent fission bomb by 1952 and a H-bomb by '57. At this point, the British and the Americans began to collaborate. The Americans had the working rockets but the British had superior computing technology and miniturisation techniques. After that, it gets hazy for obvious reasons. |
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 4, 2019 7:08:59 GMT -6
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think that the sheer devastation of even a small nuclear bomb or two could likely force an unprepared country to surrender or at least to disable enough critical infrastructure to shorten a war massively. I mean, you can just take a look, the Nagasaki bomb is an option on this site: nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/Drop a Fat Boy on Manhattan in 1940 and you can kill most of the people in the financial district but the warehouses of lower Manhattan are fine and the other boroughs have broken glass. The naval yard across the river could be up an running in 24 hours doing triple shifts with people itching for revenge. Drop it on the Reichstag and they could stage a defiant rally at the Olympic stadium that afternoon and the workers at the Siemans complex wont even have their papers rustled while people at the Opel plant aren't even going to hear the blast. There were plenty of air raids in WWII that did far more damage. Think about the 1000 bomber raids that were launched in 1944 and 1945. That's megatons of explosives. Enough damage that you wish you had FlexTape but it's not like a couple of those by themselves were enough to knock Germany out of the war. If they didn't a couple fission bombs aren't going to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jan 4, 2019 9:35:51 GMT -6
Actually a 1000 bomber raid, with say each B-29 carrying 20,000 lbs of bombs, is only 1000 x 10 tons = 10kt equivalent, about the same or less than even the smaller of the two bombs dropped.
Just a technical point here, not anything to do with the merits of the war-ending power of nuclear weapons... |
|
