Voting is open
Ultimate decision on SAM systems is that you could kick exactly one kind of model into production, that it had to effectively be an original design, and that it couldn't be great. So, about twenty miles of range on something that can sit on a Des Plaines and effectively accompany a mobile division.
 
Ultimate decision on SAM systems is that you could kick exactly one kind of model into production, that it had to effectively be an original design, and that it couldn't be great. So, about twenty miles of range on something that can sit on a Des Plaines and effectively accompany a mobile division.
So something akin to a pile of MIM-23's to S-125's in weight, at somewhere like 800kg each for the missiles. Assuming we are trying to make things as uncomplicated as we can, and just using solid-fueled engines.
 
So something akin to a pile of MIM-23's to S-125's in weight, at somewhere like 800kg each for the missiles. Assuming we are trying to make things as uncomplicated as we can, and just using solid-fueled engines.
Sounds pretty reasonable as a goal. These are things you've never, as a polity, needed. Lots of time for institutional memory to fade. Keeping them simple would be a big plus.
 
The MIM-23 Hawk was intentionally designed as a complement to the MIM-14 Nike-Hercules missile, which was much larger, bulkier, longer-ranged, and higher-ceiling. A competitor to the Bomarc missile I mentioned above. So the MIM-23 was range-limited (relatively speaking) in part because it was specifically intended to be the agile, portable system for shooting down tactical aircraft flying around directly over the battlefield. If you wanted a missile that could shoot down a plane flying somewhere over in the next country, you whistled up a MIM-14 battery and plunked it down to take its time setting up.
It wasn't a case of one missile being higher-tech than the other, it was a case of different roles using differently sized hardware.
Bears noting that both the Bomarc and the Nike Hercules are fixed systems.
Launching out of underground silos.
HAWK is mobile. The S200 is semi-mobile.

Why would they all stay in the town while we were leveling it, as opposed to spreading out over a larger area? They're crazy, not stupid.
This.

Order a big-ass missile with an absurdly long standoff range. Like, "we can fire from Detroit and hit a plane halfway to Buffalo."
Straightline distance from Detroit to Buffalo is 349km.
Distance from Leamington to Buffalo is 320km.
The S-200 has a range of 300km.

I actually begin to appreciate why the Vics moved so quickly to war after we got Detroit to pick our side.
From a hardheaded strategic planner's seat, given a year we could have totally denied them use of Lake Erie.
If Detroit had gone with the Vics, I'm sure some would have been tempted to do the same on our side.

Then grit my teeth and realize we can't actually make more than a handful of the things, and sigh and also order a smaller missile that some of our more, ah, boutique industrial facilities can produce, which serves as the second line and is short-ranged enough that it's meaningful to talk about an air defense "bubble" around our troops that doesn't extend all the way to Toledo by default, or for that matter all the way to Cleveland. This smaller missile may actually be small enough to fit on a Des Plaines, too, which the big heavy SAM for "halfway to Buffalo" duties is not.
Honestly, probably the other way round.

With the knowledge they were facing in excess of fifty planes, he would have first tried to pin down what we could build the most of and spammed that. So vehicle launched MANPADs and AA guns for anything inside a five mile bubble, and then a smaller number of 20-mile range radar SAMs for the outer perimeter.

I actually won't be surprised if we stuck a bunch of AIM-7 Sparrow air to air missiles on a truck and used those as SAMs.
The Greeks did it with the Skyguard platform, and the Houthis in Yemen are doing much the same thing with a bunch of old Soviet air to air missiles they "acquired".

We are in no position to order direct copies of Soviet munitions.
Point of order:
The US and NATO won the first Cold War. Actually had ex-WARPACT members like East Germany and Poland and the Baltics join NATO, bringing along with them firstline Soviet wargear. Anything that the Soviets deployed up to 1990, from S300 heavy SAMs and MiG29s to tactical ballistic missiles to ships has been painstakingly deconstructed and analysed.

With some surprising results, like finding out that Soviet IR AAMs were better than their NATO equivalents /tangent

Anyway. So yeah, we probably can build direct copies of Soviet-era munitions where appropriate. No problem.
Just like Alexander can probably build direct copies of pre-Collapse US hitech right now. Just much easier once we get that Library shit done.

■■■■■■■■■■
EDIT
If you like pretty pictures of Russian and Chinese SAM systems, here you go:

That page opens to the S-200.
Other pages on the site shows pictures of the other SAMs employed by both nations, and other weapon systems.
You're welcome.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan Needle and Hammer (No OWE)

[X] Plan Needle and Hammer

[X] Plan Uranus

[x] Plan Rockeye is uncreative about names
 
Nega-Negaverse: Landing At Leaminton
The obligation is fulfilled, @PoptartProdigy. Above expectations, I hope. Credit goes to @bdun140, for allowing me to steal his negaverse so I could write a negaverse into a negaverse negaverse. Credit also goes to all other contributors to the negaverse, as I steal your characters and relentlessly blend them, and the real responses which I used to create the negaverse's negaverse.

I hope you find this to your satisfaction.

C-gun150 THREADMARK: The Wind's General Rule said:
How Things Might Happen

Initial Landing:
6 vs 12, Victoria wins.

One month passes since the raid. Of the vaunted Commonwealth navy, there is no trace. Burns holds them back, always constantly looking to the heavens for God's judgement. There is no resistance as the Victorians rebuild their navy with mortars on fishing boats, no resistance when the Victorians push onto the Lake Erie islands and Toledo, and no resistance when the Victorians draw up their ships to land on the beaches.

There is no follow-up; how could there be, when Burns lived in constant fear of the sky overhead? There is only the waiting, and the static defense lines, dug in without possibility of manuever.

At 0800 hours, the Victorian army finally obliged the waiting armies of the Chicagoans. Slamming into the beachead with far more than the numbers advantage than Rumford recommended. Landing without the worthless baggage that Chicken Burns naturally fretted about, the lightly-burdened Victorian military slammed into the beaches, under the fire support of the quickly-assembled navy.

That was another mistake the Chicagoans had made: prioritizing the navy when the most important battles on the mainland. Fundamentally, the navy wasn't important, and even if it was, any fishing trawler with a mortar would be perfectly adequate. Even then, the deficiencies of the Chicagoans compounded: their stupid decision to prioritize the overpriced yachts dovetailed with their cowardice, allowing the trained and patriotic Victorian army to simply roll onto the beach with effective naval supremacy.

From there, it was a simple matter. Even in the three dimensions that the backward thinker in charge of their military held as gospel, one could understand that when one side was superior in land, sea, and air, then what happend in the battle was ultimately an execution rather than a defeat. Sure, the Chicagoans had some good units which managed to deal heavy damage to their divisions in the landing, but the Chicagoans couldn't have had many; no New American force truly did.

That would make the upcoming fight quite simple; the enemies were scurrying out of sight, as was typical.

And it's at about this time that the architect of the Buffalo Raid decides it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Sea Battle:
6 v 9, Chicago wins

"Honestly, I understand the concern about their air force. I respect the idea of a vehicle that can strike foes in a way where they cannot reasonably strike back just as much as the next guy. But to hear Burns talk, you'd think the sky itself was our enemy!" Admiral Remus mused, watching the battle unfold through a pair of binoculars.

Less than a mile away, gunboat converted from a fishing trawler capsized and went under with a pathetic glub, consigning it's weapon to the depths before it could even fire a single shot in anger.

"Air power this, air power that, air power air power air power. What, did his bandit days leave him with Avio-Phobia or something?"

Less than a thousand yards away, an unarmed troop transport was holed below the waterline and began rapidly flooding, the Victorian soldiers aboard helpless as the world around them started heaving to one side.

"Why weren't there any follow-up raids? So our fleet wouldn't be damaged by their airplanes. Why did we bombard the airport during the raid? To weaken and delay any airborne retaliation, dovetailing nicely with the previously established objective. Why am I out here now?"

Less than 500 yards away, the ship carrying the mortars that would have menaced Communist Convoys moving across Lake Saint Clair, as well as the ammo for said mortars, was itself struck by a mortar shell. The resultant fireball could be seen from the shore, and Admiral Remus basked in the glow.

"Because if I waited, the moment would be lost."

Right on schedule, another troop transport capsizes from howitzer fire. This one was carrying one of the Victorian T-34s, something Burns had assured him was one of their top threats. Not much threat at the bottom of Lake Erie, Remus scoffs.

He lowers his binoculars to see a speedboat approaching, it's spar torpedo lowered like a horseman's lance, aiming for the belly of a dragon.

He counts one, the machine guns open up, and the boat's crew is shredded. He counts two, the machine guns keep firing, and the boat's rapid advance slows to a crawl. He counts three, and the machine guns fall silent, the tiny boat nosing down into the depths.

Admiral Remus grinned a wicked grin. "Like clockwork. Now, about those land forces..." He said, turning in time with the guns of his fleet to face the distant shore, where the figures of advancing Victorian infantry could just barely be made out against the backdrop of the sand.

What do you do with the Navy?
eagleTrump said:
We should pull our navy back. They're at risk, and force preservation is the name of the game.
LimitedFilling said:
Those tanks must be going for our supply lines to the north, the Vickies aren't dumb enough to put their tanks somewhere we can hit them.

edit: There's almost no way we can turn Detroit into Stalingrad with the quality of our troops, so grinding them up a bit was good.
videoWarlord said:
I don't care what it costs, when this is over we're getting medals for every last one of those brave bastards.
DeusSuperarum said:
[ ] Force Preservation: Enemy air supremacy and foul weather, in shallow-drafted boats with no deck armor? Yeah, no. Pull your gunships back, and await a better opportunity. Time plays to your advantage with both of these problems. The army can endure, but every ship you lose is precious.

We need to have a navy to contest the lakes when the Victorians churn out yet another navy, and we cannot replace our purpose-built gunboats as easily. We need to be watchful of the F-16s from the air, and if they come our navy needs to be safe in the docks.

Horrible as it is, we're more capable of rebuilding the army elements under threat here. We'll just have to hope that being out of supply actually matters for this quest, instead of the penalties from it being totally offset by various fanaticism-related bonuses.
Baz said:
I really hope the foul weather takes out their airforce next turn.

Heck, bad weather favors us as defenders too.
DeusSuperarum said:
Baz said:
I really hope the foul weather takes out their airforce next turn.

Heck, bad weather favors us as defenders too.
Bad weather can be ruled as a penalty to falling back too.
pol/verlord [NOT ACTUALLY A 4channer] said:
Ahh, yes, the fear of pinkos as they tremble in fear of our airforce. @C-gun150, I could not have asked for a better present. @H-951Z1, hah! The Commonwealth is terrified of my beautiful roundel!
Rrwin_eommel said:
Couldn't've asked for a better update. @Strudel Savant, are you absolutely sure you need to write an update?
Theophilus said:
Honestly, why is that Lysenkoist even writing the update anyway? Everyone knows that he's just going to canonize whatever @Lindtopia writes anyway, the pushover.
Strudel Savant THREADMARK: THE MORNING WIND ENDURES said:
Theophilus said:
Well now my coal-black heart has just shrunken three sizes. I now have absolutely zero, no, negative worries about this upcoming update. Also, @C-gun150, that's going to be a noncanon. No omake bonuses, as per new policy.

Chapter 53: A Wind That Rises in the Daytime Lasts Long
Leamington Landing
7
vs 5, Victoria wins.

The Victorian forces slam into the beaches at the cusp of dawn. Hundreds of troops pour onto the beaches, directly into the line of Commonwealth machinegunners firing at an beach empty of cover. Each second counts a dozen Victorian bodies collapsing to the sands, cut to ribbons without armored protection. Mortar shells from the Victorian navy attempt to provide some cover, but the Commonwealth artillery sounds out its reply in plumes of sand and dead Victorian bodies.

And yet, Victorian conviction that they are the chosen of God and Victoria's finest carries them over the mounds of their fallen brethren. Victorian light aircraft buzz overhead with impunity, scouting out weak points in the line, and directing Victorian troops to push in. Commonwealth "weakpoints" fire and fire and fire, until something inevitably goes wrong; ammunition is not supplied at the right time, a moment of silence at just the wrong time, and then the Victorian light infantry are breaking into Commonwealth lines. Every single step of the Victorian advance is paved with a Victorian corpse. That means less than five hundred men must die to reach Commonwealth lines.

The Victorians have over fifty thousand in this theater alone.

Then things stop going according to plan.

The first sign is the smokestacks on the horizon. The Commonwealth Navy, intentionally held back as Victorian forces make the initial landing, sweep in at this juncture to destroy the Victorian navy, supplies, and tanks.

The Victorian Air Force, not just the light aircraft but the F-16Vs proper, are scrambled with the anti-ship munitions they have fought tooth and nail to obtain, to try and finish what they could not one month prior.

Then the Victorian Air Force checks their radars and immediately wished they could be back on the ground, equipping air-to-air munitions.

Fifty hostile blips approach at a meandering speed, just barely covering the Commonwealth Navy.

Air to Air Battle
4
vs 4. Victoria "wins".

One hundred Victorian F-16Vs, carrying anti-ship munitions incapable of hitting the broadside of a ship unless the F-16V was willing to risk crashing, were engaged by a motley crew of fifty Commonwealth fighters carrying crude air-to-air missiles. The Victorians must resort to their guns; the Commonwealth fighters have already resorted to using propellor aircraft with the missiles attached. Their high-end forces include such prestigious fighters as F-4 Phantoms, and the supposed sighting of one squadron of F-16s.

They dogfight in and out and around the Commonwealth Navy, dancing low to the sea. Each kill you score is balanced by another pilot falling victim to point-blank AAA fire, or Commonwealth missiles. To demoralize the Commonwealth fliers, parachuting pilots are shredded; this does not seem to inspire anything except a vengeful fury.

In the end, both sides must disengage. Both sides have taken about fifty losses in aircraft.

The Victorians still have more than fifty planes remaining.

The Commonwealth goes home with four.

But the Commonwealth Navy is untouched.

And the Commonwealth Navy has just tasted blood.

Sea Battle
1 vs 9 Commonwealth wins.

The Commonwealth's guns sing. Howitzers and machine guns tear across the waters and savage the Victorian navy, pressganged sailors that they are. Return rocket and mortar fire splashes uselessly in the water as the Commonwealth navy manuevers their ships as though they were half the size, raking fire onto the beaches whenever the Victorian army appears to be thinking of challenging the Commonwealth Navy.

It is no battle. It is a feeding frenzy. Commonwealth fire sinks the entire Victorian navy in the space of an afternoon, transports and all. Transports that had been carrying the entire eastern attack forces' supplies and heavy armor.

Then it is over. The only Victorian presence on Lake Erie, in that moment, are the drowning Victorian sailors, and driftwood.

Land Battle
8 vs 9 Commonwealth win?

On the shore, the Commonwealth army continues to collapse gradually, always teetering on the edge of a rout but never quite taking the plunge. The Commonwealth navy's guns sing as well, artillery fire falling with frightful accuracy right where it hurts the Victorian advance.

Still, the Victorians advance by leaps and bounds up and down the beach.

Then the Commonwealth forces appear to just...melt away. They retreat from the battlespace, taking considerable losses but without losing cohesion or truly allowing your forces room to manuever, as artillery from the land and sea continues to fall.

Your tanks on the Eastern Front are gone. Your supplies on the Eastern Front are gone. Your Air Force is reduced to half its number. Your navy is driftwood again.

Your plan needs changing. How?

Vote by plan.
LXR said:
Whomever said:
What the fuck are the modifiers on these, @Strudel Savant? Aren't our forces "better-trained" than any on the American continent? Shouldn't that count for anything? Isn't our navy experienced? What the fuck, @Strudel Savant?
Whitestar said:
Actually, this isn't too bad isn't it? Our offensive elan's intact, and so long as we push quick enough the supply penalty thing Strudel was starting won't matter.
Rrwin_eommel said:
Well, the loss of tank forces shouldn't hurt us too much, we just can't feint for their supply lines any more. Shouldn't be a problem.
Theophilus said:
Of course the fucking Lysenkoist patsy writes this. Of course. I'm not surprised.

Fuck you, @Strudel Savant. Fuck you.
Strudel Savant said:
Theophilus said:
Of course the fucking Lysenkoist patsy writes this. Of course. I'm not surprised.

Fuck you, @Strudel Savant. Fuck you.
Now, see, I am Lawful Evil. When I fuck you over, normally, it's nothing personal. Fun isn't something you consider when you balance a quest for interactivity and realism and consequences.

But this reaction right here? In this moment? This does put a smile on my face.
 
Bears noting that both the Bomarc and the Nike Hercules are fixed systems.
Launching out of underground silos.
HAWK is mobile. The S200 is semi-mobile.
They wouldn't have to be silo-launched if you weren't worried about an enemy with nuclear weapons- silos are there to protect the missile from a near miss from a nuclear warhead, generally, so that you can still fight under World War Three conditions if the enemy's gotten some shots off. But the launchers for something the size of the Bomarc would still be too big to be anything like "conveniently portable;" you'd have to set them up over an extended period of time (Weeks? Depends how fast your engineers work), and leave them there, yes.

Straightline distance from Detroit to Buffalo is 349km.
Distance from Leamington to Buffalo is 320km.
The S-200 has a range of 300km.

I actually begin to appreciate why the Vics moved so quickly to war after we got Detroit to pick our side.
From a hardheaded strategic planner's seat, given a year we could have totally denied them use of Lake Erie.
If Detroit had gone with the Vics, I'm sure some would have been tempted to do the same on our side.
Having SAM coverage over the lake would only go so far, though it's a start- it does not, for example, confer the ability to sink ships.

With that said, though, if the Victorians had a remotely realistic picture of what surface to air missiles are capable of, they wouldn't do bullshit like fly in tight formations to spoof missiles into hitting the centroid of the formation and "missing" all the jets. I don't think they have that kind of long range SAMs themselves because they don't respect or understand at an institutional level what air power can do to them, and I don't think they prepare for what long range SAMs can do to them, either.

I think the Victorians moved to war so quickly out of plain and simple pique and rage. How dare someone actually deny them anything? [rolls eyes]

Honestly, probably the other way round.

With the knowledge they were facing in excess of fifty planes, he would have first tried to pin down what we could build the most of and spammed that. So vehicle launched MANPADs and AA guns for anything inside a five mile bubble, and then a smaller number of 20-mile range radar SAMs for the outer perimeter.
Well, the way I presented it was sort of meant as a joke. First he says "Well we want a massive fuckoff long-range missile." Then someone points out a few things about industrial base, and he sighs and goes "yeah, I figured, we'll settle for bunches of missiles more like this, instead."

Point of order:
The US and NATO won the first Cold War. Actually had ex-WARPACT members like East Germany and Poland and the Baltics join NATO, bringing along with them firstline Soviet wargear. Anything that the Soviets deployed up to 1990, from S300 heavy SAMs and MiG29s to tactical ballistic missiles to ships has been painstakingly deconstructed and analysed.

With some surprising results, like finding out that Soviet IR AAMs were better than their NATO equivalents /tangent

Anyway. So yeah, we probably can build direct copies of Soviet-era munitions where appropriate. No problem.
@uju32 , do you think Chicago, as we we are now, actually has the results of that painstaking deconstruction and analysis at our fingertips and has the industrial base to duplicate everything the Soviets were doing?

Because if not, then this just comes across as a pointless flexing of your trivia muscles.

When I say "we are in no position to do X," please do not make the unsupported assumption that I am a fool who thinks that the weapon systems in question are lost technology somehow that could never be duplicated under any circumstances.
 
Last edited:
They wouldn't have to be silo-launched if you weren't worried about an enemy with nuclear weapons- silos are there to protect the missile from a near miss from a nuclear warhead, generally, so that you can still fight under World War Three conditions if the enemy's gotten some shots off. But the launchers for something the size of the Bomarc would still be too big to be anything like "conveniently portable;" you'd have to set them up over an extended period of time (Weeks? Depends how fast your engineers work), and leave them there, yes.
Not really sure that was the point, as opposed to weather and refuelling issues with liquid fuelled rockets.
Because that generation of SAM systems were reliant on command guidance from their home base, which were in turn reliant on unshielded radar transmitters.

Near miss nuclear weapons would frag their ability to be launched, silo or not.
Having SAM coverage over the lake would only go so far, though it's a start- it does not, for example, confer the ability to sink ships.
True.
But like you said, it's a start. If we could seriously contest the airspace over Lake Erie, we would have been using the navy in a much more aggressive fashion during the time the Victorians were rebuilding their defence force.

Well, the way I presented it was sort of meant as a joke. First he says "Well we want a massive fuckoff long-range missile." Then someone points out a few things about industrial base, and he sighs and goes "yeah, I figured, we'll settle for bunches of missiles more like this, instead."
Ah.
I do miss these things sometimes.

@uju32 , do you think Chicago, as we we are now, actually has the results of that painstaking deconstruction and analysis at our fingertips and has the industrial base to duplicate everything the Soviets were doing?
Because if not, then this just comes across as a pointless flexing of your trivia muscles.
I actually do enjoy flexing my trivia muscles:p

More seriously, no, not everything the Soviets could do. But in this specific case, I do think we have the industry for it. And the information, given the same urgency that led to friendly NCR intelligence agents tracking down last known locations for museum jets in the local area, and the technical information needed to reactivate them.

The S200 is pretty well documented to have been designed with the production capabilities of 1950s tech, and well within the capabilities of a cottage industry using vacuum tube and transistor electronics. We just didn't have the lead time necessary; the Detroit diplomatic agreement and subsequent Vic declaration of war took us by surprise.

You go to war with what you have. Thankfully it's been enough.
 
The obligation is fulfilled, @PoptartProdigy. Above expectations, I hope. Credit goes to @bdun140, for allowing me to steal his negaverse so I could write a negaverse into a negaverse negaverse. Credit also goes to all other contributors to the negaverse, as I steal your characters and relentlessly blend them, and the real responses which I used to create the negaverse's negaverse.

I hope you find this to your satisfaction.

Double-negaverses. Mmmmm. :lol

Now we just need to go two levels deeper and we'll be doing fine. :D Two bonuses, one for each nega.
 
Not really sure that was the point, as opposed to weather and refuelling issues with liquid fuelled rockets.
Because that generation of SAM systems were reliant on command guidance from their home base, which were in turn reliant on unshielded radar transmitters.
Fair point, though if you're not worried about blast hardening, coffin launchers tend to be cheaper.

I actually do enjoy flexing my trivia muscles:p
OK, but don't make the assumption that other people are stupid while flexing your muscles; that's a very good way to anti-convince people.

In this case, "the blueprints to the Soviet weapons are lost to history and no one knows how to make them anymore, anywhere" is the dumbest possible reason for anyone to think that Chicago circa 2074 can't duplicate the Soviet weapon. Much, MUCH better explanations include:

1) The Soviet weapon blueprints were once available, but longer exist. Even though they were obtained at the time, due to the general destruction that accompanied the Collapse and probable destruction and looting of military facilities and key defense industry sites.

2) The blueprints still exist, but Chicago does not have them. Those specific pieces of information simply were not brought to Chicago; there's no guarantee our libraries contain everything.

3) The blueprints exist, and Chicago has them, but cannot find them, because our 'libraries' are a huge pile of poorly archived and indexed texts.

4) The Soviet weapon blueprints exist, and Chicago has them, and can find them, but cannot duplicate them for industrial reasons such as "we aren't up to handling the horrifying witches' brew of absurdly dangerous acidic poisons that go into the rocket fuel for that shit." That is only one of several things that might be an issue.

More seriously, no, not everything the Soviets could do. But in this specific case, I do think we have the industry for it. And the information, given the same urgency that led to friendly NCR intelligence agents tracking down last known locations for museum jets in the local area, and the technical information needed to reactivate them.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the NCR explicitly did NOT give us the blueprints for improved weaponry. We had options to ask for things like that in one of the early updates, and as far as I can recall, we didn't take them.
 
Fair point, though if you're not worried about blast hardening, coffin launchers tend to be cheaper.
I'll take your word for it; my military knowledge doesn't extend that far.

OK, but don't make the assumption that other people are stupid while flexing your muscles; that's a very good way to anti-convince people.
I didn't.

In this case, "the blueprints to the Soviet weapons are lost to history and no one knows how to make them anymore, anywhere" is the dumbest possible reason for anyone to think that Chicago circa 2074 can't duplicate the Soviet weapon. Much, MUCH better explanations include:

1) The Soviet weapon blueprints were once available, but longer exist. Even though they were obtained at the time, due to the general destruction that accompanied the Collapse and probable destruction and looting of military facilities and key defense industry sites.

2) The blueprints still exist, but Chicago does not have them. Those specific pieces of information simply were not brought to Chicago; there's no guarantee our libraries contain everything.

3) The blueprints exist, and Chicago has them, but cannot find them, because our 'libraries' are a huge pile of poorly archived and indexed texts.

4) The Soviet weapon blueprints exist, and Chicago has them, and can find them, but cannot duplicate them for industrial reasons such as "we aren't up to handling the horrifying witches' brew of absurdly dangerous acidic poisons that go into the rocket fuel for that shit." That is only one of several things that might be an issue.
1)Unlikely. Much of the US fell. Cali did not. Much of the rest of the world did not. And those studies were not US-exclusive anyway.
2)Credible. But see above.
3)Possible. But this would be one of the priorities to look for, even beyond properly indexing the files.
4)Also possible.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the NCR explicitly did NOT give us the blueprints for improved weaponry. We had options to ask for things like that in one of the early updates, and as far as I can recall, we didn't take them.
An S200 isn't improved industry though.

If Sis Cali was giving us schematics I would expect something like the plans for an S-300/SA-10 Grumble system from the early 1970s(designed in the 60s, entered serial production 1975), customized for our current industrial capabilities and known Victorian aircraft characteristics. Or at worst the Iranian version of the S200, which is fully mobile, TEL-launched and with updated electronics.

The sort of thing that suggests a seriousface nationstate's intelligence effort is on the ball.

A bogstandard S200 right now IC is about 120 years old.
It's the sort of thing I would expect out of anyone with access to a big institutional library system.
Nothing to draw attention or require that much effort tbh.

It's a little like laying your hands on the plans for the V-1 today.

As an aside, did I mention that I love NATO reporting names?
SA10 Grumble/SA12 Giant or Gladiator/SA20 Gargoyle.
All names for different versions of the S300.
 
It's the sort of thing I would expect out of anyone with access to a big institutional library system.
Which, uh, explicitly excludes the Chicago Commonwealth. At least until the Organize Libraries action succeeds. The idea that we could get X out of our libraries without organizing it, where X is anything that might be in the library, is entirely RNG as to whether X is on top of the stack. Otherwise, the act of digging for X is part of organizing and indexing the stack.
 
Which, uh, explicitly excludes the Chicago Commonwealth. At least until the Organize Libraries action succeeds. The idea that we could get X out of our libraries without organizing it, where X is anything that might be in the library, is entirely RNG as to whether X is on top of the stack. Otherwise, the act of digging for X is part of organizing and indexing the stack.
It's not just that our libraries are disorganized. It's that voluminous as they are, they're not a form of omniscience. Stuff that would have been classified by the military (such as blueprints of complex weapons that as of 2020 were still plausibly capable of posing a threat should some foreign country learn how to build them from openly available US sources) , or in the special archives of some private corporation, isn't necessarily going to be there.

Our libraries are big piles of physical books that either were located in and around Chicago before the Collapse, or were brought here by others specifically. They're not the Archive from the Harry Dresden series, a literally magical and self-aware compendium of all that has ever been written down by anyone anywhere ever.

I'll take your word for it; my military knowledge doesn't extend that far.
A coffin launcher is basically a TEL (Transporter-Erector-Launcher) without the "T." It's a big box you put the missile in, then jack it vertical for launch. This kind of thing is generally easier to work with, if only for maintenance accessibility, than a silo- but it's also much more vulnerable to enemy attack.

I didn't.

1)Unlikely. Much of the US fell. Cali did not. Much of the rest of the world did not. And those studies were not US-exclusive anyway.
2)Credible. But see above.
3)Possible. But this would be one of the priorities to look for, even beyond properly indexing the files.
4)Also possible.
OK, but ANY of those four explanations would be more plausible than "the design of Soviet military hardware is a lost secret," which is the thing you were actually going to be able to invalidate by saying "at the end of the Cold War, NATO laboriously reverse-engineered the designs of a lot Soviet military hardware."

The point is, you countered the least likely counter-argument, the least sensible reason I could have given to claim "Chicago is in no position to duplicate an S-200 missile." If this were being done on purpose I'd call it strawmanning, but I know you're not doing it on purpose- just jumping to conclusions about what I do and do not think.

I would like to request that in future, you take a little more time to apply the principle of charity to my arguments. When there is a plausible, sensible reason why I might say something, I ask that you assume for the sake of argument that that was my reason, until given good cause to think otherwise. I will try to do the same. That way, we can concentrate our energy on discussing things that are actually in dispute, or where one or the other of us might learn something useful.

An S200 isn't improved industry though.
It's a seven-ton, 35-foot rocket that uses red fuming nitric acid as an oxidizer.

We most likely have the expertise to make the fuel (since we have a chemical and pharmaceutical industry), but not necessarily the widespread safety equipment and training it takes to work with it safely in the field.

We most likely have the expertise to build its guidance and fuzing electronics, but that doesn't mean we have the expertise to design them, or to diagnose bugs in our construction process.

Unless you make a LOT of completely unwarranted and unsupported assumptions about what industrial and technical facilities Chicago has, it is NOT a given that Chicago has the capability to build and operate large numbers of S-200 missiles.

A purely solid-fuel rocket like the Nike-Hercules might be more feasible- but also less impressive in its performance envelope. Issues with guidance and fuzing would remain.

A bogstandard S200 right now IC is about 120 years old.
It's the sort of thing I would expect out of anyone with access to a big institutional library system.
Nothing to draw attention or require that much effort tbh.

It's a little like laying your hands on the plans for the V-1 today.
Just out of curiosity, could you lay your hands on blueprints for a V-1 buzz bomb readily? Or a P-51 Mustang, for that matter? Or the engine blueprints? I mean, that's not guaranteed to be present at just any university library. I'm sure you could find lots of books about an old weapon system. If you went to a few special archives somewhere in the world, I'm sure you could find lots of technical documentation discussing the weapon system.

But the actual blueprints? Those aren't going to be just anywhere. Not even because they're 'dangerous,' but because they are not of interest to anyone except people who build missiles. The same goes for the S-200. Blueprints for weapons, as in engineering drawings, the things you need to have in order to precisely duplicate a piece of machinery, are extremely specialized documents that are generally not encouraged to proliferate in the public domain.

Now, I'm not saying that this is impossible. But it's worth pointing out that this kind of information isn't just automatically everywhere in the world, simply waiting to be rediscovered by anyone who looks for it. In general, if you want information on something like "how to design a missile" in the modern world, you go to one of a few specific countries and corporations that build their own missiles. Those entities maintain archives of their own, often including confidential materials. Designs and blueprints of things they don't make, or that nobody makes, are going to be particularly rare and hard to find; I imagine that the reverse-engineering blueprints the US has for the S-200 missile in particular, for instance, would be in some archival facility associated with the Department of Defense, probably classified at least Confidential if not Secret.

Chicago might have copies of those, given its bookworm habits. But if you keep treating it as a given that we have just anything that was known pre-Collapse, in detail, to the point where we "should" be able to start production of anything that existed in real life prior to 19XX...

Well, you're going to keep making a lot of mistakes, and/or talking the QM into awkward positions if Poptart is struck with inexplicable generosity. I don't consider either outcome very desirable.
 
Last edited:
Which, uh, explicitly excludes the Chicago Commonwealth. At least until the Organize Libraries action succeeds. The idea that we could get X out of our libraries without organizing it, where X is anything that might be in the library, is entirely RNG as to whether X is on top of the stack. Otherwise, the act of digging for X is part of organizing and indexing the stack.
Im not sure that follows but I can't explain why. Hopefully I'll get back to this later.
I'll get around to talking to Simon later. Need to get some work done.

@PoptartProdigy
QUESTION
Can we build or modify WW2 V-1 flying bombs?


Sheet metal and plywood construction, weighing roughly 2 tons, with a 850kg warhead.
Gasoline-fueled, air or land launched, 640km/hr speed, circa 250km or so range.
Mass produced to the tune of roughly 30,000 in two years for roughly 5,000 reichsmark/20,000 dollars each.

Took about 350 hours(manhours?) to produce one.
 
It's not just that our libraries are disorganized. It's that voluminous as they are, they're not a form of omniscience. Stuff that would have been classified by the military (such as blueprints of complex weapons that as of 2020 were still plausibly capable of posing a threat should some foreign country learn how to build them from openly available US sources) , or in the special archives of some private corporation, isn't necessarily going to be there.
Whether or not this is true is a matter of trivia regarding what Chicago would have had available when they started hoarding records. You may have the time/inclination to get into trivia arguments with uju over stuff like this but I definitely don't, so I'm not going to make this sort of point regardless of whether I believe it.
 
Im not sure that follows but I can't explain why. Hopefully I'll get back to this later.
To be fair to you, searching a giant pile of books for books on one thing is a much less labor-intensive task than indexing the entire pile. If we're looking for, for example, the blueprints to a guided missile and books on missile and radar design, then we can casually glance at a lot of books that are on, say, gardening, or art history, or astronomy, and put them aside.

The problem that we'd face is that we may not even have a centralized catalog of where all our collections are (the guided missile books may have been stashed somewhere we don't even know about until we've organized the library system itself)... And that the task of doing such searches for individual topics over and over would soon grow exhaustive and make it virtually impossible to get the full nationwide benefit out of the library system.

You're right to point out that "dig through disorganized book-pile for books on missiles" and "index book-pile" are fundamentally different tasks, but @me.me.here 's basic point is sound.

@PoptartProdigy
QUESTION
Can we build or modify WW2 V-1 flying bombs?


Sheet metal and plywood construction, weighing roughly 2 tons, with a 850kg warhead.
Gasoline-fueled, air or land launched, 640km/hr speed, circa 250km or so range.
Mass produced to the tune of roughly 30,000 in two years for roughly 5,000 reichsmark/20,000 dollars each.

Took about 350 hours(manhours?) to produce one.
@PoptartProdigy , it is my considered opinion that we could build a V1 buzz-bomb (extremely primitive and inaccurate cruise missile), and even build bunches of them in quantity, because the engines are really easy to make and even the gyroscopes and other fiddly bits are pretty simple.

It's just that it would be useless to build them, because their total lack of meaningful onboard guidance means that they struggle to hit target smaller than "London." Even that can be too much to ask sometimes.

If I were in your shoes I'd say "yes, but why would you bother?" Building a reasonably effective guided missile is a considerably greater challenge; you need a good deal more in the way of precision work- and experience.
 
Im not sure that follows but I can't explain why. Hopefully I'll get back to this later.
I'll get around to talking to Simon later. Need to get some work done.

@PoptartProdigy
QUESTION
Can we build or modify WW2 V-1 flying bombs?


Sheet metal and plywood construction, weighing roughly 2 tons, with a 850kg warhead.
Gasoline-fueled, air or land launched, 640km/hr speed, circa 250km or so range.
Mass produced to the tune of roughly 30,000 in two years for roughly 5,000 reichsmark/20,000 dollars each.

Took about 350 hours(manhours?) to produce one.
You could.
 
Okay, I admit I've only skimmed the last few pages of wall-o-text debates, but....

Why, exactly, are we asking about building things that were only ever good as indiscriminate terror weapons used against civilian population centers?
 
Im not sure that follows but I can't explain why. Hopefully I'll get back to this later.
I'll get around to talking to Simon later. Need to get some work done.

@PoptartProdigy
QUESTION
Can we build or modify WW2 V-1 flying bombs?


Sheet metal and plywood construction, weighing roughly 2 tons, with a 850kg warhead.
Gasoline-fueled, air or land launched, 640km/hr speed, circa 250km or so range.
Mass produced to the tune of roughly 30,000 in two years for roughly 5,000 reichsmark/20,000 dollars each.

Took about 350 hours(manhours?) to produce one.

those things where kinda useless. a missiles that will "probably hit a city" is really only good for terror bombing. Which I doubt would be an effective strategy.
 
Okay, I admit I've only skimmed the last few pages of wall-o-text debates, but....

Why, exactly, are we asking about building things that were only ever good as indiscriminate terror weapons used against civilian population centers?
Out of charity to @uju32 , I suspect that the reason is to figure out if we can make large-ish missiles of any kind. I doubt Uju would expect us to get much benefit out of something as crude, slow, and inaccurate as a buzz bomb. Their main utility in a modern airforce is literally as target practice dummies.
 
I don't have a moral objection to strategic bombing against an enemy like Victoria or Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, but a lot of very valid criticisms have been raised since 1945 regarding the effectiveness of such strategies. It's not clear that they actually harm the enemy's ability to wage war significantly enough to be worth it, and weapons like the V-1 aren't really going to be effective strategic weapons anyway. All they did OTL was make Britain mad.
 
Again, I don't think anyone actually involved in the discussion was seriously proposing to launch a V-1 attack on the Victorians as such, though I could be misreading @uju32 's intentions.
 
I don't have a moral objection to strategic bombing against an enemy like Victoria or Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, but a lot of very valid criticisms have been raised since 1945 regarding the effectiveness of such strategies. It's not clear that they actually harm the enemy's ability to wage war significantly enough to be worth it, and weapons like the V-1 aren't really going to be effective strategic weapons anyway. All they did OTL was make Britain mad.
I have both moral and practical objections, but that's probably getting pedantic.
 
Voting is open
Back
Top