It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

M65 Recoiless Nuclear Rifle.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Is that weapon Overkill? Yes.

But is it Useless? I don't think so.




posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


that is funny. wouldnt it be easier to call in air support?



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
The lack of success with this weapon is painfully obvious.

It has no precision sight attached.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Dooper:

It was intended for members of the 'Ray Charles Gun Club'.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
The lack of success with this weapon is painfully obvious.

It has no precision sight attached.


How precise would you have to be?? The bomb gets launched from this end there fore everything that side of the weapon goes away... Everything on the other side, well dies slowly...



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


'Everything' is an overstatement by several orders of magnitude. The DC was a very low-yield weapon, adjustable yield, with the max yield sub-kiloton. It was meant to destroy an approaching column/deny terrain (at least in the short term).



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Stupid, stupid idea, here's why:

British Army planning staffs studied several alternative warheads available to them before concluding that a copy of the US W-54 warhead, built in the UK was the best option, although an unresolved concern was the HE composition used in the American warhead that was too shock-sensitive to meet with the approval of the UK Ordnance Board. (2)(2)

Hand grenade or mortar round goes off in or around the trench/foxhole... a whole lot of dead and vapourized Americans



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 

You gotta lighten up.

It was a joke.

One of those wry observations that is counter to logic.

Look at the video again, and then read my response again.

Repeat until you 'get it.'



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
wow amazing i didn't know they had a weapon like this.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by spartan002
wow amazing i didn't know they had a weapon like this.


The key is 'had'. DC was a 1950's-1960's weapon. The warheads were converted to alternative applications.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
...They make a civilian model?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by geckofooddude
...They make a civilian model?


Yeah, but they had to take the bayonet lug off of it.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by spartan002
 


Oh yeah, they've had weapons like this for a while.

Got mine on Ebay.

Downside: it's just a single shot.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


So I assume that your waiting for Atomic Annie?




The first atomic artillery, nicknamed "Atomic Annie" is a 280mm cannon capable of firing artillery shells with tactical nuclear warheads. Twenty of the atomic cannons were produced at a cost of $800,000 each. The weapon weighed over 83 tons, with cannon and carriage, or 50 tons in firing position, and was more than 80 feet in length, the largest mobile artillery ever built.

Gun crews could set the cannon up and be ready to fire in less than 15 minutes using hydraulic jacks and winches. The atomic cannon could be be returned from firing position to traveling position also in 15 minutes, record time for any artillery of similar size. The huge gun is balanced on its nine foot circular base plate with jacks, enabling its crew (5 to 7 men) to move it through its full 360° traverse capability. The projectile and powder charge are loaded with the assistance of a power hydraulic ram.


Source:www.olive-drab.com...



The fireball ascending at Frenchman's Flat, NV from the Atomic Cannon Test, history's first atomic artillery shell fired from the M65 280mm artillery gun, 23 May 1953.



Or perhaps you want to pack a nuke into a M32 Grenade Launcher?



We have the technology...
To produce weapons...
No sane person would ever deploy in battle...
We can make them stronger, faster, more brutal...
little take on the 6 million dollar man


[edit on 7/8/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Oh my god what a beautiful piece of weaponry.... well except for the nuclear fallout. BUT DAMN



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
Stupid, stupid idea, here's why:

British Army planning staffs studied several alternative warheads available to them before concluding that a copy of the US W-54 warhead, built in the UK was the best option, although an unresolved concern was the HE composition used in the American warhead that was too shock-sensitive to meet with the approval of the UK Ordnance Board. (2)(2)

Hand grenade or mortar round goes off in or around the trench/foxhole... a whole lot of dead and vapourized Americans

Typically warheads need to be armed before a nuclear reaction can take place. What would be expected would be an essentially, a fissle, HE going off only, no nuclear reaction, dirty bomb, and some very irradiated troops, but not vapourised.

I'd rather nuke an advancing column and take my chances with fallout rather than be ran over by some tanks and my country falling.

[edit on 8/7/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
The "Davie Crockett" was used in the video game MGS3 from a helicopter shortly after the game begins. Now, do you think that firing this weapon from the air in an aircraft would drastically increase the range and allow the troops using it to escape? But I guess that really depends on the speed of the aircraft and the height fired from, and is it even posible to fire it from a helicopter? Sorry for the nerdyness.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Hi,

Can anyone explain to me why they think that this weapon is 'useless'? Would you rather take your chances with fallout ( defeated by having a well dug shelter with top cover) or be run over by the tank battalion that is busy shooting up your position? Sure i can agree that i wouldn't hand these things out to every tenth guy but this sort of thing give new meaning to 'direct fire support'. Why bother with CAS or artillery support when every battalion level command has a few of these!

Either way it would kinda ruin the war for both sides if nuclear rifle wielding commando 'scouts' could scout in this kind of force.


Stellar

Edit: for spelling

[edit on 11-5-2009 by StellarX]


Well, although that would look really cool to snipe Bin Laden with a Big Nuke, you have to think, if we were to blast the Bejesus out of key targets in a war, or big forces in a battle, well, you have to consider the half-life effects on that terrain.. farming or any civil use of that area would be non-existant, and any wild life would be messed up... i'd prefer a .50 cal shot or air strike any day to a mininuke.... but hey, to each his own eh?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by moatdal
and is it even posible to fire it from a helicopter?


I would say that you could actually fire it, but in 99% of circumstances it would be more suicidal than launching it from the ground - when your up in the air in a chopper the blast wave would be impossible to continue flying through... And then any EMP could fry any electronics. And up there everyone on the chopper could be blinded, you can't fly very well blind!

On the ground the blast would be bad, but easier to shield your self from, electronics can be fried too... That wont kill you.

Something faster than a chopper could be different, say fired backwards from a fast jet? Or from very high up?

edit: what's up with the BBcode?

It's defiantly a last ditch weapon, I wouldn't make any long term plans if I was firing it... You could survive, but it's like 50/50 at the best I think.

[edit on 14/7/2009 by Now_Then] That should get it

[edit on 14/7/2009 by Now_Then]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then

Something faster than a chopper could be different, say fired backwards from a fast jet? Or from very high up?


[edit on 14/7/2009 by Now_Then]

Thats what the F105 thunder chief was designed for, a low level supersonic nuclear strike

All it takes is a several second delay to allow the aircraft to eacape.

Also the DC was a fire cracker in the world of nuclear weapons,
from the wiki

By comparison, the smallest yield version of the W54 (10 tons) is two to four times as powerful as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, making the 250 ton version 50 to 100 times as powerful.

It would have been a scary assignment but as a soldier it is your duty to kill the enemy or die trying.
But with the range 1 to 2 1/2 miles you would survive the blast, blast radius of only 200 or so yards, and could skeedaddle before the fallout started to come back down. And they would have been positioned to take advantage of the prevailing winds, by blowing most of the fallout back onto an enemy column.
It would have been used to close routes of advance into west germany, such as the Fulda Gap and the danube river valley.

The navy seal version of the W54 warhead was intended to be parachuted into an enemy harbor with 2 seals, who would place the warhead and manually arm and detonate it. talk about a suicide mission.

Actually being a "Dragon gunner" later on in the cold war was also a real suicide mission.
A high school freind of mine was a dragon gunner station in germany in the eighties, and they were told that they would have a 90% casualty rating in the opening minutes of any large scale invasion.
Being a dragon gunner was a voluntary assignment.

M-74 dragon

The missle is wire guided with a range of 1/2 mile.
Once launched, which produced a LARGE smoke cloud, the gunner had to remain stationary and guide the missle to its target for the 10 seconds it would take to reach the target. Plenty of time for counter fire to be directed at the launch sites.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join