M1A1 nuclear?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Nanheyangrouchuan RE:M1A1 nuclear? 12/24/2005 7:54:58 PM

"The smallest, recorded, US nuclear weapon was just over 50 lbs. That was developed over 50 years ago. Nuclear rnds can be made small enough to to fire from the 120mm cannon. But, why Bob" Clear out a "human wave" charge?

Quote Reply

Jungle-Man RE:M1A1 nuclear? 12/24/2005 8:11:26 PM

What about the Davie Crockett recoilless rifle? Its round would have been lighter than 50 pounds, so probably you can make nuclear shells, but again the question is why bother.

Quote Reply

bobfall RE:M1A1 nuclear? 12/25/2005 11:06:48 AM

"What about the Davie Crockett recoilless rifle? Its round would have been lighter than 50 pounds," That was the rnd I was talking about, and no it warhead was 51 lbs. That is ,offically, the smallest US nuclear warhead. As to human wave attacks, the M1a1, could kick it out a bit. But, again I do not see them deploying a nuclear weapon, on a tank. You would be pretty close,when it went off. And they are up-tight about who gets nukes. Things, in the world, would need to change a lot. Not saying never, but I can say, unlikely. Bob

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:M1A1 nuclear? 12/25/2005 9:47:28 PM

A nuke round would head off any silly debates about armor penetration. : )

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:M1A1 nuclear? 12/26/2005 11:55:24 PM

>>Clear out a "human wave" charge? << Sounds like tactics straight out of the 1950s "Atomic Hand Grenade Users Manual" and such. Political, tactical, etc., nonsense that Korea aptly demonstrated was a complete non-starter. Besides, 1000 10mm tungsten ball bearings will address the human wave issue more effectively than an a-bomb from an individual tank's perspective.

Quote Reply

TrustButVerify RE:M1A1 nuclear? (human waves) 1/10/2006 9:20:48 PM

Hear, hear. Given the nasty side effects of a ground burst- fallout, both radioactive and political- plus the stand-off range required for such a thing to be used safely I cannot imagine an application for a nuclear round in our post-Fulda Gap world. Even the Davy Crockett (W54?) was a "launch and get the hell out of there" weapon- because who the heck wants to stick around for the thermal pulse and potentially blinding flash? Looking at this another way, let's assume the round has a yield of .01kt; that's roughly equal to 20,000 pounds of TNT, or about ten Mk84s, or one GBU-43B. (That's the infamous MOAB.) Why not just use conventional explosives and skip the radiation sickness and political leperousy? Secondly... Some young'un who didn't know any better voiced a similar "I heard about..." rumor of the Russians testing a nuclear-powered MBT. I can't imagine such a thing ever finding any use, needless to say. It sounds too dodgy even for the Soviets to try. Sometimes the best response to these things is a good horselaugh.

Quote Reply

PARATROOP RE:M1A1 nuclear? 3/16/2006 12:28:46 AM

PROBLEM WITH SHOTTING NUKES WITH ARMOR OR ARTILLERY IS...ITS A ONE TIME DEAL( THE...AND THE CREW WILL DIE. NO KIDDING.

Quote Reply

zcsh 10/24/2006 12:12:09 AM

Nukes are best used as a strategic weapon and not a tatical weapon. Current their is no tatical reason to use a nuke, they cause more problems then they are worth. Should there every be wide spread portable tatical nuclear devices in any army it would be almost impossible to stop prolifiration. Currently their are many safe guards that protect the "launch" or use of delivery sys. If all of this were to go away and state/miltary would simply have to OK use of the weapon in a theater it would be big problems. Young kids would have control a weapon that can change an areas for years. (even du based weapons are bad. areas in south iraq from first gulf war are having high percentage of babies born with birth defects due to du posioning and there is gulf war syndrome. iraq freedom syndrome coming soon..)

Nukes are good strategic deterants that prevent war and to make other states do what you want them to do because they are afraid. Like we/you have, we/you get blow up(mad) or we have ( and we can blow you up). if nk can get delivery sys (get their missle testing working) that can reach the u.s then they could enter the mad club. Even if they dont have the quantity one does cause a lot of damage. Thats why the u.s is working on their abm stuff. Nukes have lost their deterent effect because countries do not thing they are going to be used (we can blow you up). If they were to be used again in a war, countries will start to be afraid again but then they would also start their own delivery sys and nuke reasearch.

Currently the administration is trying to say that there are underground bunkers that are dug so deep that only a nuke can hit them justifying the tactical use of nuclear warheads.

Quote Reply

reefdiver 10/24/2006 12:34:13 AM

So does anyone know or believe 155mm tactical nuke shells exist in the US arsenal for the M109 etc? With the 155mm you have reasonable distance for a low-yield nuke.

Quote Reply

dogberry 10/24/2006 3:39:22 PM

Davy's a ten ton bomb. An M1A1 should given it 2 to 3 mile range. What kind of blast zone does this have? The yield is less than the bomb the USAF pushes out of a C-130.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 NEXT