It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


can tank shhot nuke

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:09 AM
reply to post by Dolby_X

Short answer - is possible to make nuclear shells able to be fired by tank

Question is why?

No practical use for such a round

Smallest nuclear launcher was "DAVY CROCKETT" Nuclear recoiless rifle (M 28 - 120mm, M 29 - 155mm)

Used M388 warhead with yield of 10 to 20 tons (.01 - .02 kT) preset , not user selectable

The M 28 (120 mm) version had maximum range of 2000 m (1.25 mile), larger M 29 (155mm) 4000m (2.5 mile)

The M 28 was fired from a tripod and was man portable for short distances, M 29 mounted on back of vehicle

The M 388 round weighed in 76 lb total with MK 54 nuclear warhead at 51 lbs

Device was spigot mortar - propelling charge inserted done barrel, then long piston rod (Spigot) was inserted and
warhead attached to end of spigot extending out of muzzle

Was considered a kamikaze or suicide weapon for number of reasons

Minimun firing distance of 300m was inside burst radius of warhead which had lethal radiation (500 rem)
out to 350-400 m depending on warhead yield

Warhead was time fused, firing crew had to consult range chart to set burst time. Problem was head or cross
winds could slow flight time causing warhead to burst short

Firing crew was literally "HOIST ON OWN PETARD"

Was very inaccurate especially at longer ranges (not much of liability with a nuke)

Even then several thousand of these little nasties were made, Weapon was decommissioned in early 1970's

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:11 AM
reply to post by thedman

Correct link

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 06:27 AM

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Dolby_X

Personal Disclosure: So if artillary commanders hand nuke shells on hand during cold war whilst in Berling and West Germany during the cold war... AND there was lots of artillary and commanders! Why didnt ww3 break out?

The threat drives military spending.

Lose the threat, lose the need for spending large amounts on DoD.

Not everything is always and everywhere a conspiracy. Sometimes, its just that said "Artillery commanders" (as if they had a say in anything) were not fond of the assured destruction following a nuclear first strike. You know, even the NWO guys, Illuminati and Reptilians don´t like being dead.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:15 AM
reply to post by Dolby_X

if you google french tanks nuclear at National Geografics, they have a picture of french tank with pluton missile


posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:26 AM
don't know about tank but what about 2 man bazooka team. during the cold war the us developed the Davy Crockett system its main purpose was for striking at soviet tank columns when they would be going through bottle necks in the road ways to block further passage. main problem was range being so small that the operators would be caught in blast

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:09 PM
they are called tactical nuclear weapon systems

as mentioned of the various platforms on this thread and they extend to the iowa class battleships as well

everyones got a nuke pretty much for every occasion.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in