M65 Recoiless Nuclear Rifle., page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 12-5-2009 @ 12:42 AM by amazing

Can you imagine being the guy they asked to test fire it! LOL.

reply posted on 12-5-2009 @ 01:35 AM by punkinworks

reply to post by whatukno

This was a weapon of last resort, only to be used to stop the enemy's advance at all cost.

War isnt supposed to be nice and kind, its supposed to terrible, the more terrible the prospects the less likely youll fight one.

If the us hadnt used the bomb against the japanese, and the war was still won, then the world would have certainly experienced a nuclear war by the sixties or seventies.
It was only the fear of the horror that would be unleashed that kept them in check.
If the world hadnt experienced, first hand, those horrors, it wouldnt have feared nuclear weapons like it did and would haqve used them when the tensions got too high.

reply posted on 12-5-2009 @ 01:38 AM by contemplator

!!!don't let Obama take our M65's away!!!

reply posted on 12-5-2009 @ 05:20 AM by Ridhya

Kinda like a grenade as heavy as a bowling ball!
But right to bear arms... hah! Id get one

reply posted on 12-5-2009 @ 05:28 AM by Now_Then

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
it's worth pointing out that the potential 'target audience' (and doesn't THAT take on a new meaning in this context?) for the Crockett wouldn't have to 'reverse engineer' a nuclear warhead...the Warsaw Pact forces were well-stocked with tactical and theater nuclear weapons already.

Very good point... But it would make one hell of a war souvenir for Ivan the tank driver... Waaayy better than all the M-16's and ration packs all his mates picked up.

He could put it on e-bay when he got back home.

reply posted on 13-5-2009 @ 04:11 AM by mdiinican

Originally posted by Now_Then
Just had a thought... What if the bomb is somehow a dud? You enemy would really appreciate the delivery of weapons grade material... And a nice bomb that they can backwardly engineer.

I kind of doubt that the Russians were short on nukes, or uranium. Also: by the time you're throwing around nuclear bombs, it's a bit late to start worrying that one might get into the wrong hands.

reply posted on 13-5-2009 @ 05:13 AM by jsobecky

reply to post by punkinworks

Originally posted by punkinworks
If the us hadnt used the bomb against the japanese, and the war was still won, then the world would have certainly experienced a nuclear war by the sixties or seventies.
It was only the fear of the horror that would be unleashed that kept them in check.
If the world hadnt experienced, first hand, those horrors, it wouldnt have feared nuclear weapons like it did and would haqve used them when the tensions got too high.

Good point. Maybe it was a good thing that we dropped those bombs? One live test is so much more convincing than 100 field tests or underground blasts. We got to see firsthand the devastation that we could unleash. It was a great deterrent for future use.

reply posted on 13-5-2009 @ 06:00 AM by Now_Then

Originally posted by jsobecky
Good point. Maybe it was a good thing that we dropped those bombs? One live test is so much more convincing than 100 field tests or underground blasts. We got to see firsthand the devastation that we could unleash. It was a great deterrent for future use.

Yhea we could say that, of course we will never know what would of happened if those bombs were not dropped, but it is fairly safe to say they actually saved lives...

And in addition more civilian people actually died in the fire bombing of Dresden (if I remember correctly) than died in the 2 nuke blasts.

war is hell.... But if you win you get to write all the good books!

reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 09:56 PM by Viking04

A few points here

1) M65 was the 'Atomic Cannon', not the Davy Crockett system.

2) The DC warhead was a supercaliber round that was launched from either the M28 or M29 recoilless rifle.

3) So far as crew survivability was concerned, they were to dig in, and remotely launch from a fighting position. As this was an area denial munition, pinpoint accuracy was not required. Further, it was to have been used to stem the tide of a Soviet advance, a 'Fulda Gap' scenario.

4) The M28 was mounted on a modified M38A1 jeep, designated M38A1D. Approximately 50 were so modified. At least one has been discovered in private hands (it had been returned to original configuration after the program was cancelled) and returned to M38A1D appearance, with a reproduction M28 RR.

reply posted on 6-6-2009 @ 10:42 PM by sliceNodice

Next up... shoulder fired RPN (Rocket Propelled Nuke)

Just need to figure how not to get incinerated and poisoned from radiation hmmmm... Oh wait, the army only cares about how badass the weapon is! Forgot.

reply posted on 7-6-2009 @ 03:04 PM by Now_Then

reply to post by sliceNodice

Next up (I'm really worried to say) is the first person to intentionally kill them selves with a nuclear weapon.

Of course I'm talking about the chance of one of the few nukes that several countries have 'misplaced'

being packed into a small van and parked at a potential ground zero.

Scary scary scary.

reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 10:58 PM by blackpheonix

reply to post by whatukno

Yeah but this was back when the Cold war was in full effect and the whole point was in the even of a nuclear proliferation we where going kill as many of them as we could b4 we died out. This is just like the tactical nuclear howitzer round ( spell check) that got decomissioned.

reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 11:13 PM by SLAYER69

Originally posted by mdiinican
3 miles isn't well within the blast radius. It's within the area that would be affected by the fallout, but it's not like the crew would be blown away in the explosion.

Exactly.

Actually it was in the cold war days when the Soviets and Warsaw pact forces had a huge tank advantage over NATO. It was originally designed to blast the massive Warsaw pact armored echelon forces as they closed with NATO forces. The Soviets actually trained their crews to bunker down in their tanks to try to ride it out and survive battlefield nukes.

Those were crazy years.

reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 11:51 PM by punkinworks09

reply to post by SLAYER69

Yes, the soviet armored vehicle design reflected this philosophy.
Many of the vehicles were equipped with built in plows to dig defensive emplacements.
But I dont think it would have worked, nato wouldnt give them the time to dig themselves in.
The nuclear option would have only been considered if soviets penetrated in an offensive operation, and threatend to overrun western europe.

And honestly the damage done by a very small nuclear weapon on the surrounding countryside, would not have been much different than the damage done by soviet offensive artillery barrages.
In those days the soviets would have massed gun and rocket artillery fire on nato postions, literally hundreds of guns and rockets pounding each map sector inturn across the line of advance.

reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 11:54 PM by SLAYER69

reply to post by punkinworks09

Yup!
But they had to build and test it you know.

It was just one of those things. The A-10 and later the Apache kind of evened things out a bit.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply posted on 10-6-2009 @ 11:59 PM by punkinworks09

reply to post by SLAYER69

The Soviets actually trained their crews to bunker down in their tanks to try to ride it out and survive battlefield nukes.

yah and thats why we developed the neutron bomb, couldnt ride that out.

reply posted on 17-6-2009 @ 12:23 AM by Jon1117

Originally posted by earthman4
I knew the US had suicide bombers. Anyone with this bomb would die using it.

Yeah, luckily this one was made in the forties-fifties, and wasn't ever used in combat. On a side note, I want to know if anyone has a prob with using nukes, should they lack any fall out radiation?

reply posted on 29-6-2009 @ 02:19 AM by Unrealised

reply to post by Estharik

It IS a good thing that they make these games so REAL these days, too. It really wouldn't surprise me if the game physics, INCLUDING those way-cool mini-nuke explosions, are 100%. . . . maybe these are just Military-Funded Projects turned into some money-maker as a by-product.. .

EXPLOSIONS!!

reply posted on 29-6-2009 @ 08:56 AM by whatukno

reply to post by Jon1117

If nuclear weapons lacked fallout radiation I would love them. The problem lies in being downwind of a nuclear blast.

The m65 is basically a nuclear rpg. If it didnt have the unfortunate side effect of the fallout it would be an awesome weapon and I would want a few.

reply posted on 29-6-2009 @ 01:48 PM by Dash the Ultimate Warrior

Umm....lol?

Gotta agree that this weapon is pointless and dangerous, but (and forgive me if this delves into the realm of science fiction) I think that the concept of a "nuclear rifle" might actually work, albeit on a highly different principle.

How I'd see it is the nuclear explosion is generated inside the gun, the resulting radiation and electromagnetic bursts accelerated down the barrel by some sort of particle accelerator-like device. Of course the result is a highly concentrated gamma ray laser, very dangerous (probably to the crew as much as the enemy) and utterly incapable of being made man-portable

Just my two cents, you're free to differ