Realism of Soviet Atomic Bombs

[unmerged(5402)]

Also, the Soviets might have had some good scientists but to say they had the likes of Oppenheimer, Einstein, Fermi, etc seems a little far fetches. Physicists weren't a dime a dozen back then as they are now. Feinmenn pointed out in his autobiography that he couldnt find work as a physicist when he graduated because nobody knew what they were supposed to do.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Trip
Amazing that there's no mention of how prohibitively expensive building an A-Bomb is in HOI...

Unless something completely ahistorical occurs (i.e. USSR taking over Europe in a short period of time), then only America has a real chance of developing a nuke before the war is complete.

As others have pointed out, the capacity is the key. IF Nepal has 750 ICs at its disposal then it will be abel to build the bomb. IF u can get teh SU in a positn where it has teh capacity it's only normal. There's nothing inherently special about the US (apart from teh fact they're the only nation that STARTS with teh necessary capacity. Sytass reached a point where he had the resources. So have I in a German AAR.

In the game the US is an obvious one, but the SU and Germany, as non democracies that will expand, are also very able to reach a point where it is possible. The UK is a lot harder already. I wouldn't bother with anyone else.

Also to get a bomb and use it u need to continously invest money over and over in that branch and also research the tech to use and teh means to deliver it (3 different branches). U pretty much have to plan it from the start.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I know, that was my point.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Trip
I know, that was my point.

Yeah, but it's nice to have backup, innit?

 

[Jon Shafer]

At least I got a beta to repeat my point, since I'm not knowledgable enough.

 

[unmerged(11913)]

One Issue...

At the time, Russian scientists simply didn't have the resources, creativity or technology to create an Atomic bomb and they had to steal information from the US to build the bombs they made in the late '40s.

Okay I'll give you the fact that the USSR didn't have much in the line of resources or technology regarding the development of an Atomic weapon - but I have to take issue with the creativity part - the Russians are every bit as creative as any one else.

 

[Syt]

Developing nukes is costly, especially for the U.S.S.R. who have to give a lot of their ICs to consumer goods in peace time (think of 70%). I sacrificed the modernization of my army, navy, and air force for it, as well as the building of additional units, as I usually had 40-80 ICs invested in nuke techs. Had I faced a human, either the German or U.S. flag would be flying on the Kremlin. The accumulated ICs of conquered Germany, France, and England help a great deal. And I don't have the means atm to fend off the U.S. bomb raids into Siberia.

In addition, I had invested in the tech basically since 1939 or so, so it took me roughly 5 years to get a nuke ready. If that's too short, or the sacrifice I made is not large enough, then sorry.

 

[unmerged(7156)]

Originally posted by Monty
Also, the Soviets might have had some good scientists but to say they had the likes of Oppenheimer, Einstein, Fermi, etc seems a little far fetches. Physicists weren't a dime a dozen back then as they are now. Feinmenn pointed out in his autobiography that he couldnt find work as a physicist when he graduated because nobody knew what they were supposed to do.

Why are you interested in a game that gets you upset because it doesn't play out as history does?

 

[Aetius]

Originally posted by Monty
Also, the Soviets might have had some good scientists but to say they had the likes of Oppenheimer, Einstein, Fermi, etc seems a little far fetches. Physicists weren't a dime a dozen back then as they are now. Feinmenn pointed out in his autobiography that he couldnt find work as a physicist when he graduated because nobody knew what they were supposed to do.

Funny that of the three good scientists in the list one is originally German and the other is Italian

 

[unmerged(11621)]

Originally posted by Aetius
Funny that of the three good scientists in the list one is originally German and the other is Italian

Yes indeed. Most of the great scientists working on the Manhattan project were refugees from the Axis, many of them Jewish. It's one of the great ironies of history.

 

[Aetius]

Originally posted by cmcdonald
Yes indeed. Most of the great scientists working on the Manhattan project were refugees from the Axis, many of them Jewish. It's one of the great ironies of history.

A bit the same as the US rubber synthesis industry which was basically built on the knowledge acquired by Standard Oil from the Germans, who gave as a part of a tech exchange program in the 1930's.

 

[unmerged(11920)]

Hrmm.. i dont really understand why this is a issue about realism. Why should it be impossible for the russians to develop the A-bomb or a even delivery system.
Russian inventions and designs in many fields far outclassed the other nations during the war. Necessity must really be the mother of all inventions.

How about the space program, a few years later? The russians where miles a head with their domestic rocketdesigns (how is that for a delivery system ). The US spaceprogram just consisted of the ideas of one Werner von Braun, that they (like many) had snatched from germany just before the trials at the end of the war.

Now a question about rockets/ballistc or guided missiles like the german V1-3 series, are they included somehow in the game? Because used right they could have had serious impact.

 

[hjarg]

Re: One Issue...

Originally posted by NB_Guy
Okay I'll give you the fact that the USSR didn't have much in the line of resources or technology regarding the development of an Atomic weapon - but I have to take issue with the creativity part - the Russians are every bit as creative as any one else.

Yes, the same thought crossed my mind as well. For some reason i felt the same "inferior race" propaganda as Hitler did.

Let's remember the facts a bit- Russia ended the war in Berlin. Russia made such a beautiful and practical tank like T-34. Russia was already producing heavy tanks (KV and KV-2) when Germans were daydreaming about them. Etc etc.

Not to mention Russia actually had a bomber that would be just perfect for long-range operations- TB-7.

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/pe-8.html

That "odd fifth engine" was acutally a brilliant design, feeding other 4 engines (and itself) with additional cooling air in high altitudes, allowing TB-7 to fly in heights were it would be actually safe.

 

[mgreen48]

Sytass, a question.....

I sacrificed the modernization of my army, navy, and air force for it, as well as the building of additional units, as I usually had 40-80 ICs invested in nuke techs.

Without doing this how did you win so much and beat the Germans, British and countless others?

As a percent of your total research budget how much went toward nukes? 100%, 80%, 50%?

 

[Syt]

Re: Sytass, a question.....

Originally posted by mgreen48
Without doing this how did you win so much and beat the Germans, British and countless others?

As a percent of your total research budget how much went toward nukes? 100%, 80%, 50%?

During the German campaign I had a lower CG percentage (10 %?) and so could buld a large army which then marched on into France, etc. It was sheer numbers that overwhelmed the Germans. About 30-50% of research went into nukes.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Xtrm
How about the space program, a few years later? The russians where miles a head with their domestic rocketdesigns (how is that for a delivery system ). The US spaceprogram just consisted of the ideas of one Werner von Braun, that they (like many) had snatched from germany just before the trials at the end of the war.

Now a question about rockets/ballistc or guided missiles like the german V1-3 series, are they included somehow in the game? Because used right they could have had serious impact.

Although it was Russian who is "father" of Rocketry. Ciolkowski, to be precise.

Rockets are in game, in various forms. (from anti-tank to ICBMs)

 

[unmerged(11345)]

Originally posted by Xtrm
The US spaceprogram just consisted of the ideas of one Werner von Braun, that they (like many) had snatched from germany just before the trials at the end of the war.

Actually from what I've read about the paperclip scientist. The german rocket scientist where all astounded because so much of what they where teaching the US came directly from Robert Goddard. Who was a US scientist that did rocket research before the war.

Side note: Goddard stopped publishing information when the "New York Times" newspaper ran an article that called him (a baffoon, or idiot, something like that) for thinking rockets would work in space with nothing to push against. I beleive the New York Times ran an apology and a retraction, july 20th 1969.

 

[unmerged(10880)]

Originally posted by Xtrm


Now a question about rockets/ballistc or guided missiles like the german V1-3 series, are they included somehow in the game? Because used right they could have had serious impact.

The V-1 could have potentially had more of a difference had it been deployed earlier and in larger numbers. Except for the autopilot it wasn't any sort of technilogical leap.

The V-2 on the other hand was a complete waste of German resources. Yes it was cool, innovative and a great technological achievment it was ahead of its time. Guidence systems were not yet accurate enough (and wouldn't be for 10 years after the war) for a conventional payload to be useful. It wasn't big enough to carry a nuclear payload and Chemical dispersal and aresol technologies wern't advanced enough to make it an effecitve chemical weapons platform. The V-2 actually consumed more german resources to build than the allied resources it destroyed when used.

The V-3 was pretty much a waste as well. Such massive fixed artillery peices just cry out to have a big bulls eye painted on them saying "bomb me". Even though the facilities were massively fortified it would have only been a matter of time till they were destroyed had they been completed, and even if they had been completed they likely would have done little against England (except maybe during a Sealion type invasion, but they were built far too late for that)

 

[unmerged(10880)]

Originally posted by Stobor
Actually from what I've read about the paperclip scientist. The german rocket scientist where all astounded because so much of what they where teaching the US came directly from Robert Goddard. Who was a US scientist that did rocket research before the war.

It would be more accurate to say that it was inspired directly from Goddard. Goddard acomplished a lot of technical firsts, but he was not what you would call a team player. He was notoriously bad in keeping detailed records of his work, and refused to share much of his work with anyone else. Most of his designs and innovations stayed strictly in his own head. His accomplishments did inspire groups in Germany and the Soviet Union, demonstrating what could be done and some important information did filter back, but much of this work was done independantly. What surprised the Paperclip scientists so much was that while Goddard had demonstrated his knowledge, he hadn't really shared that much.