Is that weapon Overkill? Yes.

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

The lack of success with this weapon is painfully obvious.

It has no precision sight attached.

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...

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

wow amazing i didn't know they had a weapon like this.

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.

...They make a civilian model?

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

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

Oh my god what a beautiful piece of weaponry.... well except for the nuclear fallout. BUT DAMN

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]

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.

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?

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]