Need Atom bomb input…

No.

@Der:

Should a bomber carrying an A-bomb have to endure AA fire and interceptors or not?

I read that firebombing B-29s over Japan were too high for AA fire or interceptors. But what about German AA and fighters? Not sure what the rule should be. It seems like shooting fish in a barrel if there is no risk at all in dropping an A-bomb.

Why even assign the bomb to a bomber? If you have some kind of atom bomb tech rule, why not just assume that the bomber completes the mission? a task with such a high priority won’t be subjected to risky situations like heavy AA fire or interceptors. I once made a rule that if you had an a-bomb, you could drop it on any territory 10 spaces from your capital. IMO the most important mechanic to the house rule is the effect of the bomb rather than the delivery of it. I’m curious to know what effect would you employ for a successful a-bomb drop, my idea of effect was to zero the value of the territory for the rest of the game, put all facilities at max damage, and freeze all units on that territory for one complete game round (that’s to assume your rule is for Axis & Allies editions).

@Der:

But what about the question? Should a bomber carrying an A-bomb have to endure AA fire and interceptors or not?

Yes.

The Enola Gay did.

I’ve done a bit of research

Enola gay was escorted by two other B-29’s, stripped and designed for shooting down aircraft.

1. AA Fire

• Generally accepted as unlikely to shoot down a B-29 at 31,000 feet +  which is what enola gay was at when bomb dropped
• Perhaps only a rocket or advanced AA weapon could have shot this down (Japan was not able at the time)

2. Fighter Interceptors.- There were fighters capable of the altitude to shoot down the B-29, but thier armorments were weak

• http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww10.ocn.ne.jp%2F~kuushuu%2FB29-42-63567.html&langpair=ja|en&hl=en&ie=UTF8 is a translation of a combat report of Japanese fighter ace Sadaaki Akamatsu shooting down a B-29,  apparently he shot down 5 in his career

The problem with the history of the bomb drop in both cases historically, is that Japan was destitute, only able to focus on large clusters of bombers if at all, with fuel/supply problems, inadequate aircraft and training.

Had say, a Japanese crew been in a B-29 bomber and heading for Honolulu, the Americans would have had the adequate technology and resources in place to attempt to combat it.

This translates in axis and allies to… if the planes are there, and the aa guns, the assumption must be made that a territory can intercept/aa against an attacking nuclear bomber.

Always remember, that A&A is about the hypotheticals, and that all units are supposed to be considered equal.

After-all that’s why we play the game. :) So you’ve got to keep it interesting!

Also see these stats
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130616184626AA7GU5J

B29’s shot down over Japan

20th Bomber Command
80 total, with 22 due to fighters, 7 from AAA and 51 from “other”
breakdown by year is:
1944 70 total, with 20 due to fighters, 5 from AAA and 45 from “other”
1945 10 total, with 2 due to fighters, 2 from AAA and 6 from “other”

21st Bomber Command
334 total, with 52 due to fighters, 47 from AAA, 19 from fighter/AAA and 216 from “other”
breakdown by year is:
1944 25 total, with 4 due to fighters, 1 from AAA, and 20 from “other”
1945 309 total, with 48 due to fighters, 46 from AAA, 19 from fighter/AAA and 196from “other”

I would make it so it would work like an SBR attack except damage tokens would be permanent. You could allow infantry to be built but, the number would be severely limited.

Then if only the advanced AA rockets can shoot down the bomber, then you would want to get the advanced rockets tech for your country late in game and then have another tech for a special jet to shoot  down the bomber. I can agree with young grasshopper but I would perfer that you have a chance to shoot it down.

Gar, nice to see ya postin more again.

@Der:

It seems like shooting fish in a barrel if there is no risk at all in dropping an A-bomb.

Here’s one possible way of introducing some risk.  The B-29s which carried the Hiroshima and Nagsaki A-bombs flew as a group with (I think) a couple of other B-29s during their attack runs; I can’t recall the exact number, but there was at least one accompanying bomber carrying scientists and recording instruments to monitor the blasts.  So assume for the purposes of your house rules that the atomic bomb run is being conducted by three planes, one of those planes being the actual bomb carrier.  That gives one-in-three odds of the right plane being hit by Japanese defenders.  Multiply that figure by two to reflect Japan’s limited (but not nonexistent) ability to bring down B-29s at high altitude, and you get a house rule which might say: when conducting an A-bomb attack against Japan, roll one 6-sided die to determine the success of Japanese AAA fire and/or fighter defense against the bomber group; 1 = the bomb carrier is shot down; 2 to 6 = the bomb carrier successfully reaches its target.

The odds could be the same when attacking Germany.  Germany had better fighter defense than Japan, but because of the shorter flight distances from the UK the American planes would, as a counterbalancing factor, have been given substantial fighter escort.

Who says you need to deliver it by plane?  You should be able to exterminate all troops in a territory and inflict max damage on all facilities with your Nuclear Weapon by putting either a bomber over the territory OR a ship in the sea zone adjacent to it and then pressing the bid red button to detonate the device.  Of course, you lose your ship but that’s OK.  Millions will DIE!!!  A sub or transport could get past the kamikazes and then BOOM

But what about the question? Should a bomber carrying an A-bomb have to endure AA fire and interceptors or not?[/i
No….

I changed my answer back to no. If  the axis or  the allies are losing then it might help get them back in game with a A-bomb without the chance of shooting down. Were the 2 nuke attacks by US planes ever shot at in WW2?

@Der:

@SS:

I changed my answer back to no. If  the axis or  the allies are losing then it might help get them back in game with a A-bomb without the chance of shooting down. Were the 2 nuke attacks by US planes ever shot at in WW2?

No - but Japan was severely weakened by that time, and their tech was outdated. I’m not sure a country like the USA could be nuked without any resistance.

Not to mention that the 2 nuke planes were not part of a huge bomber formation and the US did regular fly overs into Japanese air space that Japan had given up trying to stop. so when the 2 nuke planes showed up on radar they weren’t given a 2nd thought.

It’s also important to note that it’s not “just” the B-29 bomber that could have delivered a theoretical nuke.

I’m sure if the Russians or Germans had managed to get a nuke together, they would have used whatever bomber they had that was appropriate.  Not every plausible bomber option had a cieling of 31,000 feet.

I bet a B-25 Mitchell, or a father of the night could have delivered fatboy too.

If you deny aa-fire/interceptors against the nuke bomber, you might aswell deny aa-fire against all bombers.  As in Axis and Allies the piece doesn’t change.

Nukes should also be able to move 1 space on land.  I’m sure if the Germans or Russians had one, they may have moved/used it in place, were things going wrong.

No?  How do they work then?

Plus….the bombs are much less effective when not detonated as an air burst.  Putting it on a ship would result in about 1/2 to 2/3 the effect.

Is the idea here to have multiple Abombs per game? If that’s the case than I agree that my ideas are to overpowering.