Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Nuclear Artillery Shells
slowball    9/19/2004 4:22:13 AM
I'm hoping someone can help out on a topic that does not receive a lot of coverage.... Would using nuclear artillery shells in combat pose a radiation danger to the crews firing them? Were they to be employed by firing a few shells at advancing enemy forces followed by a quick retreat, or were the batteries expected to remain in the area? Thanks in advance for your comments.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Desertmole    RE:Nuclear Artillery Shells   10/6/2004 11:17:03 PM
The only weapon that was always a danger to its own crew was the "Davy Crockett" nuclear mortar system. The problem was that the range was less than the minimum safe distance of the explosion (that is the minimum distance exposed personnel could be from the blast). Normally a battery engaging in nuclear fires would be upwind of the target so that any fallout would not drift back on the battery position.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Nuclear Artillery Shells   10/7/2004 6:26:34 PM
I really don't think it was thought about that much. The crew and the gun were expendable anyway..
 
Quote    Reply

Desertmole    RE:Nuclear Artillery Shells   10/9/2004 6:08:40 AM
Well, in the 70s and 80s nuclear capable arty units were considered invaluable assets. You did not want to waste them.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Nuclear Artillery Shells   10/31/2004 2:25:59 AM
Generally speaking the use of nuclear shells (or tactical msls such as Lance or ATACMS (if a nuc whd has been developed for it) in western use would not produce any 'fallout'. To produce 'fallout' the fireball has to touch the ground and hence suck up material that is later dropped downwind as 'fallout'. Nuclear shells have multiple fuzes to ensure that at least one functions at the right moment so that it airbursts high enough to prevent fallout. The effects are then the normal thermal, blast and radiation ones. To this you can add a bit of induced radiation immediately around ground zero. It would be highly unlikely for nuclear shells to be detonated where they could affect own troops, that's why there are messages called 'STRIKWARN' so that forward troops can take cover (holes in the ground stop radiation extemely effectively. This applies to the firing units as well, although given the generally low yields of nuclear shells its extremly difficult to envisage circumstances where the firers would be anywhere near the hazard area.
 
Quote    Reply

Desertmole    RE:Nuclear Artillery Shells   11/17/2004 1:36:58 AM
All basically true, but it depends on the kind of targeting. If the user is desperate, he may target for a lower air burst to achieve certain effects. For example, if he wanted to create a very nasty obstacle, he may resort to a burst over a forested area to achieve maximum blow-down, sort of a super abatis. He may also be looking to destroy enemy nuclear capable units in hardened shelters. It is true that friendly troops would be warned, but potentially they could be close to the target as well and suffer casualties. One of the favorite tactics planned for by both sides was called "hugging." You postion your troops so close to the enemy that he can't use nukes without killing a lot of his own people. I, for one, am very happy that tactical nukes were never used ona battlefield. I wouldn't have wanted to find out whether all these strategies worked.
 
Quote    Reply

jlb    RE:Nuclear Artillery Shells   5/12/2005 7:43:19 PM
The Japanese wouldn't have done much damage. Two strikes by roughly 200 bombers each carrying 500kg of bombs means roughly 50 tons of agent delivered on a hot, windswept island. That's about the amount of killing power the Red Army thought necessary to overwhelm a single Nato battalion in Germany under much better climatic conditions. And it's definetely not true the US Army was poorly prepared for chemical warfare. It was the only army in the world to rank the chemical troops as a service on the same footing as infantry, cavalry, etc... It had a large number of chemical battalions equipped with the 4.2" mortar that was initially designed to deliver chemical shells. Since nobody used chemical weapons during WWII, those battalions were used as regular mortar battalions instead.
 
Quote    Reply

ret13f    RE:Nuclear Artillery Shells   5/12/2005 7:56:07 PM
hmm, the average person seems to think a nuke round was just another round to put in the tube and fire. they didn't realize the security and planning that went into the delivry of one .5kt round. glad the army got out of that business.
 
Quote    Reply

jlb    RE:Nuclear Artillery Shells   5/13/2005 5:09:31 PM
I don't know about today but back in the 50's the NATO defense plan in central Europe was basically "line up the nuclear artillery and let's blast the commies to kingdom come". Before Germany joined NATO the nukes were lined up behind the Rhine , after Germany joined it was a few km behind the border. You can bet the Soviets knew about this and would have chosen a day the wind was right to attack, so forget about firing downwind. And I only saw the deployment plans, not the operational ones, but from the look of the former, I don't think the nuclear artillery regiments were expected to retreat.
 
Quote    Reply

TriggaFingaz    Yield   5/21/2005 5:12:59 PM
How much KT did a 155mm nuke shell rate?
 
Quote    Reply

Desertmole    RE:Yield   5/21/2005 11:41:35 PM
The actual yield was classified. IIRC, the unclassified training manual had a yield of .1 Kt.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy