Project Reality Forums

Hi all,

tl;dr - I provide inspiration, information and propose to start work on a map around an strategic military objective after a strategic or tactical nuclear strike.

while writing up my comment regarding map references on a German Airport and surrounding infrastructure, the thought occured to me that it might actually not be realistic at all to fight over an interact airport in the age of ICBM and tactical nuclear strike assets.

In fact, there is a high chance that in the case of a NATO Article 5 event and adequate nuclear escalation a lot of infrastructure in Europe will be in shatters e.g. Luxembourg airport (highest airport, internet communication hub nearby), Frankfurt Airport/City (highest tier connection hub in Europe e.g. trains, cars, airplanes, internet), or any other major hub you might actually living in.

There are a lot of (declassified or public) papers regarding the simulation or report of nuclear explosions. Even more, there are some nice online tools that allow the (very rough) modelling of blast radious and destruction zones. Even if you are not into mapping, looking into your home town might be a very educational exercise, IMHO.

Have a look at this:

• Frankfurt Aiport 20 Mtons Ground Impact (Strategic / ICBM) - Crater inside radius: 0.52 km (0.86 km²), Crater depth: 251 m, Crater lip radius: 1.05 km (3.45 km²)
• Frankfurt Airport 100 Ktons Ground Impact (Tactical Warhead) - Crater inside radius: 179 m (0.1 km²), Crater depth: 85.7 m, Crater lip radius: 358 m (0.4 km²)

While it is open to discussion what sane person would send military conscripts into a radioactive zone, and what strategic and tactical relevance a destroyed airport would have, I'd argue at this point that Frankfurt would still remain a communication hub.

The question is rather: Would such a scenario create unique opportunities for gameplay or great adventures in map making? While it might be challenging to model the surrounding area (blast radius zone effect on buildings and nature) and overall visual theme, there is also a bright side to this: You probably do not have to model the airport buildings and street infrastructure like bridges anymore. Also, the impact of the crater itself with its huge radius on the tactical gameplay of the map needs to be discussed.

I am not a mapper myself but but a scientist and fairly adept with technology, so I can provide consulting, discussion, literature research and perhaps calculations if anyone would like to work at this. Please not that I am not keen to get into game development or 3D asset modelling.

Cheers!


PS Please note that I just realized that this post might be placed in the wrong forum. If this is the case, I'd kindly ask the moderators to move the post.

Moved to suggestions.

I once conceived a map of a nuclear disaster, but considering that it would require a large number of ruins and buildings, I temporarily gave up

puffkiller wrote:I once conceived a map of a nuclear disaster, but considering that it would require a large number of ruins and buildings, I temporarily gave up

grozny but with a nuclear crater somewhere

puffkiller wrote:I once conceived a map of a nuclear disaster, but considering that it would require a large number of ruins and buildings, I temporarily gave up

That is cool. How far did you get?

ismaelassassin wrote:grozny but with a nuclear crater somewhere

Fortunately, there will be no buildings next to the impact crater of a 20 Megaton strategic warhead My guess would be that you can scratch the airport buildings

I named the imagined map Judgment Day, which is a modern city that has been hit by a nuclear attack.

There are many wreckage and ruins, withered trees.

Transforming the combat area into a radiation area to reduce infantry health requires rapid passage.

At the same time, we also need the Gas mask material of bf2 special forces dlc.

But I haven't created those static objects yet, unless I have time in the future

Can't see someone wasting a nuke on Frankfurt. More important targets in the world and a small tactical nuclear weapon under 100kton would be sufficient to put it out of action if they really wanted to. Even then current doctrine seems to be just irradiate it rather than destroy it because it would actually put it out of commission for longer.

Rabbit wrote:Can't see someone wasting a nuke on Frankfurt. More important targets in the world and a small tactical nuclear weapon under 100kton would be sufficient to put it out of action if they really wanted to. Even then current doctrine seems to be just irradiate it rather than destroy it because it would actually put it out of commission for longer.

Out of curiousity - have you looked the data and doctrine up? If yes, then where? Or is it a guesstimate of yours? I would love to understand what targets will be hit in case of nuclear escalation.

I have seen the "red" overview plans* regarding a Soviet attack in the 1980s through the Fulda gap. I only remember the estimated tactical nuclear weapon casualities due to BLUFOR ("Zebra Package") and REDFOR activity in the area of Heidelberg vaguely, and they exceeded 150K fatalities. FYI: The city of Heidelberg w/o Hinterland has 160K inhabitants.

* Source: I think it was NVA museum on the Island of Ruegen

Edit: Made some research - it is indeed hard to say whether a full scale apocalyptic scenario is realistic, and what targets are on the list. However, Frankfurt is named among the targets like Buchel Airbase and Berlin.

Catmouse wrote:Out of curiousity - have you looked the data and doctrine up? If yes, then where? Or is it a guesstimate of yours? I would love to understand what targets will be hit in case of nuclear escalation.

I have and while at sea capabilities have changed not much else has.

Catmouse wrote: I have seen the "red" overview plans* regarding a Soviet attack in the 1980s through the Fulda gap. I only remember the estimated tactical nuclear weapon casualities due to BLUFOR ("Zebra Package") and REDFOR activity in the area of Heidelberg vaguely, and they exceeded 150K fatalities. FYI: The city of Heidelberg w/o Hinterland has 160K inhabitants.

Overall casualties are a mute point unless you are targeting a tier objective like troops. Area denial is and will be very important. Nuking a target is nothing more than a large scale bomb. All that is required is clearing a rebuilding. RDD is something different. That requires dismantling, cleaning, clearing and rebuilding. That is something that is much more difficult and has a considerable amount of time added to reinstatement for that base.

Catmouse wrote: Edit: Made some research - it is indeed hard to say whether a full scale apocalyptic scenario is realistic, and what targets are on the list. However, Frankfurt is named among the targets like Buchel Airbase and Berlin.

Which and when? As for as is publicly available Russia still only has about 1,000 warheads under 100kt. And lets go by my terminology as an infantry man. "If its worth fragging once, its worth fragging again.". So lets say they hold true to that methodology (which they should) and they fire two or three warheads per target to ensure its destruction through either size, mishap or countermeasures that leaves them with just over 300 targets assuming they want none in reserve for later. If you look at ALL Of nato,anbd its fixed bases or areas you might want to hit for staging areas, it isn't shit.

Hello Rabbit,

thank you for your insightful comments!

Rabbit wrote:I have and while at sea capabilities have changed not much else has.

I see. Cheers!

Rabbit wrote: Overall casualties are a mute point unless you are targeting a tier objective like troops. Area denial is and will be very important. Nuking a target is nothing more than a large scale bomb. All that is required is clearing a rebuilding. RDD is something different. That requires dismantling, cleaning, clearing and rebuilding. That is something that is much more difficult and has a considerable amount of time added to reinstatement for that base.

A civilian has to work on his perpective in order to understand that kind of military thinking. Makes sense to me. Thank you.

Rabbit wrote: Which and when? As for as is publicly available Russia still only has about 1,000 warheads under 100kt. And lets go by my terminology as an infantry man. "If its worth fragging once, its worth fragging again.". So lets say they hold true to that methodology (which they should) and they fire two or three warheads per target to ensure its destruction through either size, mishap or countermeasures that leaves them with just over 300 targets assuming they want none in reserve for later. If you look at ALL Of nato,anbd its fixed bases or areas you might want to hit for staging areas, it isn't shit.

Actually, it was not insider information or even military sector specific publications, but some internet only media outfits. A Greenpeace study, dw.com, Spiegel, and some others. Again, not very sector specific sources, so I withdraw my claim in shame