Nilgiri
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 24,797
- Reaction score
- 81
- Country
- Location
@Anik101
Please. Everything is answered by NASR & MIRVs. Now do not ask how will they have enough warheads to place in both NASR and MIRVS to make an impact on the Pivot Corps which will be entering 48 hours prior to Strike Corps, let alone the Strike Corps and the Armoured Divisions.
To quote Col Narendar Singh, Ph.D.* from his work "Nuclear Option - Calling the Pakistani Bluff"
Imagery analysis of the Nasr missile suggests that its diameter is 30 centimetres (about 12 inches) across and could therefore be able to carry a very compact nuclear warhead comparable to the U.S. W-33 nuclear artillery shell that has a yield varying from less than 1 kiloton to about 10 kilotons. 43 Simulations of a 10-kiloton explosion produced a peak static overpressure of 33.35 psi at 370 meters (about 405 yards). This overpressure only displaced a tank by “about 2.5 meters with acceleration sufficient to inflict moderate damage to external fittings such as track guards, but the tank was able to be driven off and its gun fired after sand and debris had been removed from the barrel,” according to the 1994 study Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability. Incapacitating a tank requires an overpressure of about 45 psi. [Charles S. Grace, Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability (London: Brassey’s, 1994), 58.] A 1-kiloton explosion at a height of about 150 meters (about 492 feet) results in “overpressures of 45 psi at horizontal distances from ground zero as large as about 170 meters . . . then a 15 kt burst at a height of about 400 m would generate an overpressure of 3 atm up [45 psi] to a distance of about 420 meters, i.e., over an area of 0.55 km.” One 15-kiloton weapon should destroy about 55 tanks, if the tanks are spaced at 100 meters (about 328 feet) apart. (See table 1 for another estimate of the effects on tanks separated by 100 meters.)
If tanks are spaced at 300 meters (or 984 feet) apart, the number of weapons necessary to achieve 55 so-called kills rises from one to eight. By this calculation, destroying a well-dispersed force of 500 tanks would likely require 100 X15-kiloton weapons. [Charles S. Grace, Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability (London: Brassey’s, 1994), 58.] Although the depth of a tank formation would depend on the relative spacing between each tank, such as “50 meters apart in rows separated by 250 meters (the effective spacing would be 120 meters),” a tank force expecting a nuclear attack would be more dispersed, which would also reduce the immediate radiation effects on the tank crews. Another lower estimate posits that if “tanks were separated by even greater distances, it would require the use of over 80 nuclear weapons of 15 kt yield each to disable or kill the crews in a force of 1000 tanks.” [Charles S. Grace, Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Effects and Survivability (London: Brassey’s, 1994), 58.] According to a 2001 estimate by Ashley J. Tellis, Pakistan would need “37 weapons of 15 kt (or 57 weapons of 8 kt) to operationally disable an Indian armored division.” [Ashley J. Tellis, India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture: Between Recessed Deterrent and Ready Arsenal (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001), 133–34.]
Table 1: The Effects of Nuclear Weapons Against Tanks Separated by 100 Meters
Yield (kilotons) Number of tanks destroyed by blast Number of tank crews disabled by radiation
15 64 360
10 48 290
5 32 190
1 10 110
110
Source: A. H. Nayyar and Zia Mian, “Pakistan and the Nasr Missile: Searching for a Method in the Madness,” Economic and Political Weekly 50, no. 39 (September 2015), http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2015_50/39/Pakistan_and_the_Nasr_Missile.pdf.
Cross posting has done in the alignments, so, excuse me for that.
I find it quite silly that some people here still think nuclear weapons, especially tactical ones will "guarantee" a miracle cheap way of sustainably deterring massive and growing opponent's strength. There are limits for every philosophy (when you do the cold hard technical reality check), esp when you do not have any large strategic depth and all your weapons are within increasingly easier watch and reach for the adversary's sensors and conventional platforms.
At some point you simply have to bulk your own investment to counter that (and only surefire way is to grow your own economy, rather than parceling out more and more of existing small pie to your military and its foreign benefactors)...."miracle weapon" (even running with the miracle assumption) ROI concept (esp at same undefined rate as before) never holds eternally or even long term....even among more equally matched conventional foes (as we saw with the US and USSR in the 80s).
I mean how many times has the carrier killer missile thing been brought up with the same feelz on that? @jhungary @AUSTERLITZ @MilSpec @Vergennes