Quote:
Originally Posted by shipkiller1
Why would you want to introduce Nuclear Weapons, into the game?
No one in their right mind would have launched a MK-45 anyway, and they would have been VERY hesitant to launch a SubRoc. The MK-45 was MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. You both die. With a SubRoc you only had a 50% chance to die...
|
You could say the same thing about any nuclear weapon. The Mk 45 was produced in a hurry once it became apparent how disadvantaged the Mk 37 was, but I'd look at both ASTOR and SUBROC as being intended mostly as anti-boomer weapons.
Its 1966 and you're behind a Yankee which suddenly heads up to launch-depth and starts opening his missile tubes. Are you going to count on one or even a series of Mk 37s (which can just barely catch him, maybe) to do the job? I say he'd be getting nuked, even at the cost of the whole boat and crew, if that puts his 16 SLBMs at the bottom and keeps the eastern seaboard from becoming a radioactive wasteland you're still winning.
For SUBROC, it was developed for long range time critical targets. Back to said Yankee, if you've got him at say 25-30,000 yards off, how many missiles can he get off while you try to get into range for a torpedo shot? None if you drop a SUBROC on him.
As crazy as these weapons seem, the real reasoning behind them was to keep everybody honest, with their fingers well away from the red button. I'd like to see them simulated if only to take up some space in the torpedo room (most attack subs carried 2-4 for most of the Cold War as far as I know).