They aren't. MOAB stands for Massive Ordinance Air Blast. While MOP is Massive Ordinance Penetrator. The MOAB is a fuel/air explosive (or thermobaric) bomb. Which makes a huge bang, and can level your house fairly effeciently, but isn't much good for underground or otherwise hardened targets. That's where MOP comes in. MOP weighs about 8,000 pounds more than MOAB. But unlike it's more famous cousin who's weight is almost entirely explosive filler (18,700 pounds of the total 21,600 is explosive), MOP's weight is almost entirely hardened steel with a realitively small bursting charge (5,300 pounds of the total 30,000 pounds is explosive).
The MOAB is designed to be deployed from several variants of the C-130. While the MOP was designed to be dropped from the B-2 bomber. So the MOP could be used against a ship. As long as that ship doesn't have any functioning AA left. Because it's still just a free fall bomb that has to be dropped by a level bomber within visual range of the target.
{Joke and not intended to insult anyone or anything.) B2 talks to self, so is an obviously insane aeroplane. "Mister SAM is not my friend; Mister TORPEDO is; therefore I love Miz. SUBMARINE."
Because fuck that grid square
I see that GPS front end point and vane steer back end is not assumed for bombardment missiles, and ye old look down satellite constellation to aid guidance is a bit too early for 1950s
Dishonest John equivalents to MLGRS rockets. How about an inertial navigation package instead? I mean
Charles Stark Draper should not just be wasted on submarines. And there is Mister
Robert Goddard.
As for the atomic battleship, it makes no sense given by 1950, as that the PoD that assume delayed aircraft development conditions no longer apply. BTW, the point of diminishing returns on a battleship is a function of the square versus cube metal density ratio. Once you slap 40,000 tonnes of steel armor on a float bubble you overstress the viable load limits on a steel hull frame. This is just a shad larger than a Yamato. (About 90,000 tonnes of whole ship.).
And if we are discussing rocket artillery in place of guns, here, we must posit jet propelled aircraft that goes with the baby, bathwater included right?
Now if you want an "atomic strategic weapon platform" for the 1980s, then how about a Kirov-sized hull with a honking big reactor and a honking big MASER? I could see the Russians building one or two if they ever figured how to refrigerate the MASER (Never has been figured out what to do with all that excess heat.) to serve as an anti-ballistic missile system. They might want to make it into an icebreaker and claim it was one and use it up near the Arctic to... ya' know, break ice?
And I can see Danial Oliver telling his submarine guys, "Navy cross for the first one to sink the
Nikolai Basov by "accidentally shoving it into an iceberg sideways" with a manmade navigation hazard!"