Nuclear weaponry.

Someone drop some knowledge on me

File: DavyCrockettBomb.jpg (268KB, 800x640px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 800x640px

>bad range
>nuclear shells developed for their normal artillery
>a little bit large
>missiles were better anyway

don't know why pic related wasn't used though

Russians dropped last week that they are developing nuclear tank shells on TASS or Topwar or whichever. They don't have a nuclear firebrake requiring a certain level of escalation to use.

>>33801662
>>33801611
>thinking nuclear artillery is even remotely a good idea
First of all it's a great way to escalate a conflict to nuclear one
Second its a great way to dose your ground troops and in the case of the davie crocket blow your own dudes up

We have the Fatman.

>>33801611
When you want nuclear weapons, you aren't going to be messing around with this pussy shit.

>>33801662
the davy crockett was made almost expressly for the purpose of a battle in the fulda gap

>>33802362
Fatman was dropped on Nagasaki in 45 you fucking retard.

>anymore
it was never actually "used" retard. missiles are infinitely better

>>33801662
The german military was very found of it.
The german politicians were far less.

Same went with all politicians : once the Korean War happened, they didn't want nuclear weapons to be anything but a strategic weapon, not a tactical or operational one.

But I agree :
The davy crockett would have been a wonderful deterent against soviet forces until the 70s.

>>33801699
>They don't have a nuclear firebrake requiring a certain level of escalation to use.
Meanwhile, in real life:
>"Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened."

>>33801611
>Why don't we use equipment like the m65 atomic cannon anymore?
Not really a mission for it.

>Was it just not viable as an artillery piece?
It was fine for the delivery of nuclear shells.

>Or might we have some more like it but under wraps?
Unlikely.

>>33801738
>Second its a great way to dose your ground troops and in the case of the davie crocket blow your own dudes up
The range of the weapon placed the crew well out of danger.

>>33802446
>once the Korean War happened, they didn't want nuclear weapons to be anything but a strategic weapon, not a tactical or operational one.

NATO was deploying tactical nuclear weapons well into the 1980s.

>>33803326
>NATO was deploying tactical nuclear weapons well into the 1980s.
And yet we never used any of them in combat, despite a lot of opportunities.

>>33803450
>And yet we never used any of them in combat, despite a lot of opportunities.
What are you talking about?
Where did the US face a situation where a tactical nuclear weapon would have been the best option?

>>33803466
Vietnam ?

Tactically, it would have made sense to just bomb the North with low-yield nuclear bombs :
You only need a single F104 to do as much damage as a whole wing dropping normal bombs.
This would allow most of planes on a mission to be fitted with air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles to actively respond to threats rather than being sitting ducks.

Operationnaly, if only because it would have been less costly and more expedient, it would have been the right call :
We wouldn't have lost 1000 planes, had to make hundred of thousands of sorties and set up a heavy logistic chain.
We could have used those small-scale air raids to lure Vietnamese airforce into ambushes, forcing them to commit all their assets because that ONE plane on their radar with little to no escort could spell the doom of a whole city if it had a nuclear bomb.
The plane would have been the bait to catch several enemy planes in the open, quickly depleting NV's air force.

But strategically, it was too risky :
If we used atomic bombs against minor powers and expected no response from the USSR, we allowed the Russians to do the same.

>>33804178
You have no clue what you are talking about.

Do you know that you are ignorant about this subject, or do you really think you have legitimate insight?

>>33802435
Ok so being absolutely retarded does not help, by my sentence I was saying as in we HAVE used it and shot it before, I never said on enemy forces, you complete dumbass, take that shit elsewhere.

File: 1460466563661.jpg (28KB, 550x410px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 550x410px

>>33801611
What the fuck are you babbling about? It was literally only used in testing, so what the hell do you mean by "anymore"? Are you really asking why we don't use nuclear weapons?

>>33803326
>The range of the weapon placed the crew well out of danger.

Im thinking he is not referring to the crew serving the canon but rather the people that have to occupy or pass through the zone later.

Crossing an irradiated area here and there, after some time after the explosion, might mean that someone will get cancer in 10 years but we will never know if he was going to get it anyway, but if that man has to do it several times in a year, even for tactical nukes, then he is going to get cancer in months and that actually affects combat effectiveness.

>>33801611

Hard to hold a position when your weapons irradiate it.

File: 1409017182849.jpg (86KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x450px

>>33802868
>and other types of weapons of mass destruction

>and other types of weapons of mass destruction

They can construe that to mean anything from a Mk-82 to a MOAB.

read your own shit anon

>>33801611

i remember climbing out to the end of the barrel of "Atomic Annie" as a kid growing up at fort sill years ago.
try doin' that shit now.

>>33805229
>if that man has to do it several times in a year, even for tactical nukes, then he is going to get cancer in months and that actually affects combat effectiveness.

LIVING in a world where using "tactical nukes" are a reality, is not really living.
whatcha got to lose?