The Cuban Missile War Timeline

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel Van

Michel Van

According a german News article
On 28 October 1962, the 498th Tactical Missile Group in Okinawa received CORRECT launch codes !
but commanding office William Bassett had is doubt, because they were on DEFCON 2 and there targets were only partial in USSR and focusing on China

According to this german News article
Had the USA extra secure the Nuke depots in West Germany during Missile crisis, against west german military !
A think paper of German military support the idea in case of crisis to rade a US nuke Depot and commit a preemptive strike against Soviet target in east Germany !

Original text
http://www.spiegel.de/einestages/ku...bschussbefehl-fuer-atomraketen-a-1060165.html

http://www.spiegel.de/einestages/ka...armee-gegen-strauss-mobilmachte-a-951020.html
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-88656050.html
 

fscott

Amerigo Vespucci said:
Thanks, I'll fix that. Probably won't include a successful ABM strike, though. Nuclear-tipped interceptors aside, it's immensely difficult to do even today. Incidentally, there's the remnants of a site down here on the north side of Boca Chica Key. It's the only one of five left.
Click to expand...

There was is no perfect but MIM-3 Nike Ajax and the older Ajax and Hercules. They would be able to use against the bombers and may get lucky and hit a warhead. They take out the target from a distance to. I am not a expert, keep the warheads out to a distance and clear the radars so maybe more hits. I would love to hit warheads . I am not familiar with the use good or bad. What really pisses me off I war born in 1956 we have spent trillions on defense yet the 4 planes were still, 3 buildings 1 crashed in a field. I want my money spent. The news mentioned the plans saying their I lived just N of Philla, and they said the first Air Force plane ready to flight that it would take 90 minute from I am guess.
I under stand the AF but that is ridiculousness.
 

RanulfC

fscott said:
There was is no perfect but MIM-3 Nike Ajax and the older Ajax and Hercules. They would be able to use against the bombers and may get lucky and hit a warhead. They take out the target from a distance to. I am not a expert, keep the warheads out to a distance and clear the radars so maybe more hits. I would love to hit warheads . I am not familiar with the use good or bad. What really pisses me off I war born in 1956 we have spent trillions on defense yet the 4 planes were still, 3 buildings 1 crashed in a field. I want my money spent. The news mentioned the plans saying their I lived just N of Philla, and they said the first Air Force plane ready to flight that it would take 90 minute from I am guess.
I under stand the AF but that is ridiculousness.
Click to expand...

Good site and links to Nike development, deployment and operation:
http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=ni...hemilitarystandard.com/missile/nike/index.php

http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=ni...hemilitarystandard.com/missile/nike/index.php

The Nike-Hercules had nuclear warheads that were designed for "enhance radiation" so that the neutron flux would (hopefully) render the incoming aircraft and bombs unable to function. (No where near later "neutron-bomb" levels but higher radiation pulse than a "normal" warhead) Unfortunately it did NOT have the necessary software and control to accurately attempt to intercept an incoming ICBM warhead which would have to wait for deployment of the Nike-Zeus which wasn't till after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
(Successful intercept of an ICBM took place later in 1962 in OTL which would not happen ITTL)

As for the 9/11, overall Air Defense of the continental US had been in decline since the mid-1960s once it became obvious that the Soviets lacked a significant long-range manned bomber force. ABM efforts were undertaken and were ready to deploy by the early 1970s but were going to be horribly expensive to emplace and operate. After the Soviet Union collapsed there was very little political will from the White House on down through all levels of government to continue to support a large, integrated air-defense system so it was radically downsized with wide bi-partisan support. This included instigating a round of Base closures and personnel reductions to "pay" for a limited ABM system which pretty much shows where the main idea of "defense" was at the time.

By 2001 there were very few dedicated "interceptor" squadrons left in the US and most of them were on low alert and more importantly were NOT focused on aircraft already IN US airspace. In all the air defense environment and ability is very different than that of the US in the early 1960s when massed Soviet manned bomber formations were expected to be the spearhead of any attack on the US.

Randy
 

MKSheppard

I'm a pretty big latecomer to to this, but I want to comment on this bit of the TL:

2:55 AM – At missile sites in Central Asia, missile erectors raise themselves to an upright position and fire. Similarly, eight concrete missile silos blow their rocket-propelled hatches clear and fire their missiles. In total, 20 of the Soviet Union’s October 1962 total of 26 ICBMs will reach their targets. Two explode either during launch or shortly after. Three break up on reentry, due to manufacturing defects or navigation malfunctions. One will suffer a gyroscope error and will impact in north-central Montana, incinerating the village of Hays, Montana (population 486 in 1962). The other twenty will proceed to their targets, unnoticed for the first ten minutes of a scheduled 33-minute flight time.

http://alternatewars.com/WW3/WW3_Documents/Missiles/Missile_Hearings_16-MAY-1961_Partial.htm

This is a transcription of a congressional meeting in 1961 on Missile Procurement for the USAF. It has lots of formerly redacted stuff, such as reliability in it.

"we are at better than 50 percent right now on the THOR's in the field."

...

"We expect TITAN I to start with about 50 percent flight reliability from launch on, and go up about 70 percent with that version of the weapon system through the first 6 squadrons. The question of whether to come back and modify the first squadron of TITAN I to be as reliable as the last squadron has not yet been decided. TITAN II will start approximately 70-75 percent with the first squadron, and go up to 90 percent."

...

"We have a total of 27 ATLAS operational and 22 are at the moment in commission ready to fire."

...

"We have 60 THOR in place in the United Kingdom, of which 51 are in commission ready to go."

...

"General GERRITY. If I might add, Mr. Weaver, the figures I gave earlier were the actual missiles ready to go on pad. For example, we said that 22 OF THE 27 ATLAS missiles on the pad were ready to go. That is an in-commission rate. 51 OF THE 64 THORS are ready to go. This gives you an approximation of what sort of in-commission rate we can maintain at this time."​

At the time, they were using a 50% reliability factor for the ICBMs, and the present test R&D program with 231~ missiles launched had a reliability rate of about 70%.

Essentially, what it means is the early ICBMs of the period would have 80 to 85% actual readiness, that is; being ready to go at the moment the key was turned, and a launched reliability rate ranging from 50% to 70% (60% average).

So your 26 Soviet ICBMs would have only 21 actually ready to launch at a moment, and of those 21 launched, only 14 to 15 would actually successfully execute a launch.

Then there's the unknown unknowns regarding nuclear weapons reliability. The Polaris Warhead had a 50% estimated reliability rate (it actually dudded in a test shot), and adding insult to injury, the Polaris A1 Missile had a terrible reliability (50%); so Polaris isn't exactly the ULTIMATE weapon (yet).
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top