How Many nuclear weapons to destroy a Soviet Mechanised Force

The premise is this it is 1963 and WW3 is in full swing Soviet forces has successfully pushed through the Fulda gap and are now advancing on Rhein Mein AFB the scratch forces currently assembled will not be able to hold against a Soviet assault and thus you have received permission to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on an advancing Soviet tank division how many weapons do you use at what yield and why
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
A lot and with small warheads. A tank division has 300~ tanks and say the same number of armoured combat vehicles. By that point and on the attack they will be all over the place, no bunched up. The 'gap' was never a gap in the true military sense - see Karbala Gap 2003 - and was just okish terrain for an attack. Hills and valleys everywhere plus open terrain between those. It was relatively small too. There will be defending forces ahead and on the flanks, oh and those cut off in between the advancing division. Nightmare scenario for a successful nuclear attack. To fulfill the OP, I say lots because a tank is small and heavy so killing it with an airburst nuke is hard... plus its 299 buddies. Maybe you get 20 tanks with one warhead, maybe you get one or none. Therefore bomb bomb bomb and bomb again. Small warheads would be needed because with so many blasts you don't want them interfering with each other plus the terrain will channel big blasts wrong all over the place maybe to your own forces.
Long story short, the best option is to drop the Big One on Moscow here rather than to try to stop a tank division there and then with nukes.
 
The choice of weapons and yield would depend on the specific scenario. In 1963 the US had everything from nuclear artillery shells for 155mm guns, to the Davy Crockett, nuclear land mines, short ranged rockets and air dropped bombs available to the Army for the land war in Europe.

The better question to ask may be "what weapons have survived the initial attack?" Easy targets like airfields may have already been hit by enemy weapons; the weapons themselves will survive in their magazines but the aircraft needed to deliver them are very soft targets. Weapons controlled by the Army may be more survivable as they're better dispersed and their location more difficult to discern by the enemy. In 1963 there wasn't much in the way of dial-a-yield weapons; most came from the factory fixed yield.

Expect everything from little 100t W48 155mm shells to the 30kt warhead on the Honest John missiles. The exact number will depend on weapon choice, weapon accuracy and how dispersed the enemy forces are. Take note though, in the smaller weapons (say under 5kt) the primary kill mechanism against armoured vehicles in neutron radiation and not overpressure.

Long story short, the best option is to drop the Big One on Moscow here rather than to try to stop a tank division there and then with nukes.

Dropping the big one on Moscow won't stop the drive through the Fulda Gap.
 
If it's 1963 the Soviet attack will have been nuclear from the start. So some sort of 'broken-backed' warfare may well be in progress.
That Soviet division may only be a shadow if itself.
 
Top