Talk:Davy Crockett (nuclear device)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
what was the blast radius of the warhead? were the operators effectively commiting suicide by launching it only 1.25 miles away? this would be interesting information for interpreting cold war doctrines. Vroman 02:27 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- A quick calculation with a nuclear effects calculator I have shows that at 1.25 miles the blast damage would range from "Minimum damage to glass panels" at 10 tons to "Lower limit for debris & missle damage" at 250 tons. Negligable thermal radiation damage over entire yield range. I'll have to use another calculator to check radiation damage levels, but I recall reading someplace that at the lowest yield (10 tons) and shortest range (1000 feet) the neutron version of the weapon would kill its launch crew by radiation damage. -- RTC 20:40 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Using the circular slide rule effects calculator from "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons", I calculate that even the 250 tons yield at 1.25 miles only gives an initial dose of just under 1 REM which is totally negligable for a single dose. The same calculation for 10 tons at about 1000 feet (so far off the scale of the calculator it is hard to get an estimate though) does indicate initial dose would exceed 1000 REMs and have less than 5% survival rate with prompt medical care.
- BTW, this calculation is just based on blast yield, no neutron enhancement, and various other things I have read indicate that the Davy Crockett was a plain fission device, not enhanced in any way, unlike the current article which claims it was a neutron bomb.
- -- RTC 21:21 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
As to your original question about blast radius, I can't calculate it exactly as it is off the scale of the circular slide rule. The lowest it goes is 0.03 miles (158.4 feet) for a yield of something like 400 tons. Extrapolating the scale for 250 tons, it comes close to 0.022 miles (116 feet). The minimum range the gun could fire was 1000 feet so at that range the fireball would still be almost 900 feet away. -- RTC 21:39 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Removed incorrect description of the warhead as neutron. -- RTC 01:18 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Possible ways to shield against radiation/blast or avoid it
you can mount the rocket on top of an armoured personell vehicle let's say a VAB You can have the crew wearing the highest level of haz-mat suits and be shielded inside the VAB It might work
another thing you can do is take the warhead and burry it a foot or two under a field that is about to be overuned by enemy troops you can attach a remote detonator to it when you see the enemy through you binoculars advancing you detonate it once a good ammount of troops is close enough Dudtz 7/25/05 4:26 EST
- Well, yes, you could have them sit in lead boxes and it would probably help, but you'd suffer an opportunity cost of everybody going pretty slow about their day in the face of a threat uncertain to come. As for using nuclear weapons as landmines, I'm pretty sure the UK did design some of them. The problem with them is that it is generally considered bad form to detonate a nuclear weapon on your own soil, much less under or on the ground -- it would generate more than a little nuclear fallout which would blow over your own citizens, towns, and bases. Burying them in the soil of an enemy could work, if you could get over there, but would be a lot of hassle most likely. All together, though, one might question how useful tactical nuclear weapons could ever be, considering how quickly they would likely get to all-out strategic nuclear war. --Fastfission 01:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- I have no source handy to back this up, but I remember that along the Fulda Gap (that is, on West-German territory) several dozen key bridges, highways and such were "primed" with special, sealed cavities that were designed to hold these bombs (in a "landmine" function, not as artillery) for days on end in times of high alert. This actually happened several times in the mid-60s (I guess there were also plans to quickly get them there in case of surprise attacks, but I'm not sure about that). This was officially a NATO affair, but under US-Army control in prctice. When news of the plan and the past employment of the bombs filtered through to the German media in the 70s, the West-Germany govt. leaned on NATO to withdraw the plan. ~~üü —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.211.212.200 (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Davy Crockett crews in Germany in early 60s (1962 on) had minimal protective equipment (poncho, shelter half & gas mask) -- they were advised to use a broom to brush the pixie dust off themselves & their vehicles. Strategy after DC use was to button up for a determined period (in the armored vehicles) & then go charging into the blast zone & shoot anyone (bad guys) staggering around, all the while churning up the pixie dust. Since Elvis left Germany in March 1960 he missed all the Davy Crockett stuff (DCs were issued in 1962). MacNamara plan was for 171 DCs to US Army Germany in 1962. FTA of course stood for Fun, Travel & Adventure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.18.161 (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Selectable yield statement seems wrong
It says: "selectable yield of 10 or 20 tons". This conflicts with the W54 article that says "selectable yield of between 10 and 250 tons" Joema 06:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- User:Georgewilliamherbert just changed that recently, so you might want to ask him. -User:Lommer | talk 06:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- The Mk-54 used in the Davey Crockett was slightly different than the W54. They're both the same basic design, but the yields on the Mk-54 were 10 or 20 tons. The Mk-54 in the SADM had variable yield from 10 t to 1 kt. The W-54 warhead in the AIM-26A Falcon missile was fixed at 250 t yield. The Wiki entries for these models are all slightly off and I haven't finished fixing them, but eventually will get them right. The basic W-54 design was test fired at yields from 10 tons all the way up to 6 kt (development testing only); the hard part was getting the yield consistent at the low end, and ensuring single point safety. See for example List of all US Nuclear Weapons from the Nuclear Weapons FAQ, or Chuck Hansen's materials. Georgewilliamherbert 08:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the response and for being so thorough. Your attention to detail is appreciated. Joema 13:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Mk-54 vs W-54
Just reverted a minor edit by [User:144.136.188.172] which changed Mk-54 back to W-54.
According to all my sources, while the general family of weapons is the W-54 (sometimes W54, usually with the dash) as the general design, per normal US nuclear weapons naming system, the two Army variants used in the SADM and Davy Crockett were both Mk-54 names.
The two Mk-54s were W-54 family weapons, yes. But they were distinct; the W-54 in the Falcon missile had a fixed 250 T yield; the Mk-54 in the Davey Crockett was either variable 10 or 20 T yield, or two minor variants of 10 and 20 T yield (sources are slightly contradictory); and the Mk-54 in the SADM was variable 10 T to 1 kT.
Calling the Davy Crockett warhead a W-54 is accurate but not precise. The Mk-54 versions (either two or three) were variants or members of the W-54 family. But they were distinct different models.
Georgewilliamherbert 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] One of the smallest?
Is the Davy Crockett one of the smallest neuclear weapons or THE smallest neuclear weapon?
- Please sign your contributions/questions with four ~~~~ characters.
- The W54 warhead is the lightest US developed fission warhead ever produced in quantity, in terms of mass. There was one slightly smaller (roughly 10 inch instead of W54's 10.75 inch) test warhead fired, but it was not made into a production model, and it's not known if it was lighter or not.
- It's possible to build physically smaller weapons, using linear implosion techniques. The various 155mm linear implosion atomic artillery shell models (such as the W-48) were produced in quantity and were 6 inches diameter and about 33 inches long, but that includes the nose fairing and base; the actual warhead is probably no larger than about 6x15 inches. Those artillery warheads are much heavier than the W-54; about 120 pounds instead of about 50.
- There is a discussion in the Nuclear Weapon FAQ [1] about minimum diameter versus minimum weight versus minimum fissile material. The W54 is close to an optimal minimum weight design, we think.
- Georgewilliamherbert 07:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction on blast radius?
Something's still not right with the blast radius. The article states that it would deliver a "probably fatal" dose of 600 rem at 400 m, yet at 1 km there would likely be "no ill effects". It might not be fatal, but I have a hard time believing the radiation would decrease so quickly as to have no effect (not counting long term things like cancer); unless of course it's not really that bad at 400 m. If it really does dissipate that rapidly, it should be stated as such because it sounds wrong. KarlM 23:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- See Nuclear Weapons FAQ: Effects of Nuclear Weapons Specifically sect 5.6.3.3 Prompt Radiation Emission From Nuclear Explosions.
- For a 1 kiloton bomb (the W-54 for Davy Crockett is much less), the tenth-range of the prompt radiation exposure is 330 meters. 660 meters past the 600 REM point (i.e., total range of around 1,060 meters) the exposure would be expected to be around 6 REM, which is certainly not fatal. At 730 meters, you'd be down to 60 REM, which is injurious but not likely to kill you (other than via increased cancer risk).
- There are two reasons for the rapid fall-off. The first is inverse square law... you get twice as far away, the radiation is spread out over four times the surface area. Secondly, in normal air, the air itself absorbs a lot of the gamma and neutron radiation and forms an effective shielding.
- Distance and shielding are everything when it comes to prompt radiation exposure. A couple of feet can be the diference between life and death. See diagram at Louis Slotin. Give Peace A Chance 05:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Injury to operators
Not only does the source listed(3) for the 'A Common Myth' paragraph not say anything about it being a myth that harm would come to the operators, 2 out of the 3 sources listed contradict that statement and in fact suggest that the crew would be exposed to lethal amounts of radiation. I've been told by george that it exist and is widely sourceable when it doesn't exist - atleast 4 times - george, how about checking to see if it actrully exist, or after I fact tagged it like you asked me to, actrully check it.
I searched all over the 3rd cited source of which you said that myth is explained and it says absolutely nothing, so... what's the deal? Maybe you could paste it here and while your at it explain this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE
History channel doesn't know what they are talking about then either?
There rest I've taken from the second source, please read it this time.
^ Guntruck.com Davy Crockett page, accessed Oct 20, 2006 http://www.guntruck.com/DavyCrockett.html
Okay - so what does all that mean? With very small battlefield atomic weapons like Davy Crockett the flash effects upon detonation shrink to insignificance - with prompt radiation effects dominating the characteristics of the blast - Davy Crockett isn't a weapon deployed for a spectacularly big bang - which tended to negate its original purpose.
In a Davy Crockett fission explosion, the range for lethal exposure actually extends some distance beyond the blast injury range - which placed the operators in peril. At one setting above its minimum, a 20 ton TNT explosive blast yield for Davy Crockett results in the following types of damage:
The maximum range that exposed troops would experience 3rd degree flash burns from the Blast Center is 90 meters (297 feet) Examples of Significant Radiation Effects:
200 REM causes sterility, and increased cancer risk, temporary immune system suppression. In our example this dosage occurs at a little under 500 meters (1,650 feet) from ground zero.
600 REM is considered a fatal dose - 50% fatality rate. This dosage occurs just inside 400 meters (1,320 feet) from blast center. At the 20 ton TNT yield setting, this would become the minimum distance the operators would want to select for setting the Davy Crockett projectile to detonate.
1000 REM is 100% lethal - perhaps a soldier might make it back to a rear area or Stateside before death. 1000 REM will kill those solders such exposed within two weeks. Why did I say Stateside? This dosage occurs outside 300 meters from blast center - which is also the minimum detonation range (also meaning the shortest detonator timer setting option) of the Davy Crockett. However, the selection of the minimum detonation range when firing the Davy Crockett in this example would spell certain death for the weapon operators - even at this low setting. This is the edge of Davy Crockett's lethal zone. The weapon's operators could be evacuated and transported back Stateside for treatment, but ultimately would perish.
To protect the operators of the Davy Crockett Atomic Battle Group System, the explosive yield would have to be dialed down to shorten the lethal prompt ionizing radiation range enough for their safety. Naturally, doing that decreases the destructive potential of the weapon - defeating the purpose of deploying it in the first place.
- Wasn't there a bit that used to be about "Injury to operators"? It should be re-added I think, I specifically came back to this article to research this Ryan4314 21:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dose
The dose the device produces is stated in REM, whereas this might be the most appropriate unit for ionising radiation at the time of manufacture, nowadays it's Sievert. I'm inclined to change this to Sievert, anyone disagree? Barryferguson6 08:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Use
Was this ever fired in battle?
- No, there has never been a nuclear strike after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. --Kizor 09:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"The (fictional) firing of a Davy Crockett appears in the 1965 film The War Game by Peter Watkins, where it is used against Soviet forces in and around West Berlin."
Having just watched the scene in question it is the larger Honest John missile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.185.192 (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Numbers
As reported in Trinity and Beyond, there were 200 of these produced. Is this correct ? And next question, where did they all go ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.170.179 (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
