Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

Wrong as usual

The first M65 was named Atomic Annie. On May 25, 1953, Annie fired an MK-9 atomic shell. It flew seven miles before exploding at a height of 524 feet above the ground.

Later systems included the Corporal missile, the M110 and M115 howitzers and the Davy Crockett missile. The Davy Crockett had a disconcerting [to its users] range of only 1.25 to 2.5 miles and a yield equivalent to 10-20 tons of TNT.


W54 Nuclear Warhead for Davy Crockett
This is about the satchel bombs which are pretty large


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device
let us hope they are all safely under lock and key and properly guarded!

Not fired from tank shells though, could only be done from a special large somewhat stationary gun. As your linked article confirms, the "suitcase" sized bombs only have theoretical status, no evidence of them ever being built.
.

 

[flecc]

Yes but there hasn't been a war like WW2. The Russians and Chinese and North Koreans have not attacked Europe.

Nor will they. Russia's long term interest is and has long been to be a friend of the rest of Europe, trying to swing Europe to them and away from US anti-Russian policy and aggression.

And the Chinese and North Koreans have no interest in attacking us, we aren't in any way either useful or a threat to them.
.

 

[Danidl]

Where I live, the nearest bus stop is 2 1/2 miles away, and the nearest park and ride for the city is 7 miles. I am the only person in the neighborhood who uses either facility, and I am considered weird for doing so. There is an ever increasing amount of cars, especially in urban areas because "healthy" people are lazy and stupid. Why (like some of my surrounding neighbour's) would you struggle through gridlock, pay £6 + for a parking space, when you can park your range rover all day and get a return bus fare for £1.60 inclusive, or if you are over 60, completely free. For me, the bus is a great convenience, for others, sitting in traffic in their "bubble of selfishness" is a convenience, and travelling by bus, beneath their "class".

Even a good walker will take 30 minutes to cover 2.5 miles, average and less able up to an hour So an elderly neighbour carrying her shopping might spend a total of 2.5 hrs just travelling from your bus stop to your door round trip. Sounds like a case for a small ebike! . Those neighbours whome you deride may be more time poor than you. A problem with public transport is that it is very much a chicken and egg situation, if there were more people using them, then there would be more frequent routes and stops.

 

[Danidl]

Won't happen & can't happen. I can't see how it is possible to carry the amount of energy required to sustain electrically powered flight on the scale of commercial air transport. The energy storage would be too heavy, too dangerous and provide inadequate range.

With current storage techniques, I would agree with you, but the future and present are different. Using electrical motors it has been shown that enough thrust can be develope to carry payloads. The energy storage in cryogenic hydrogen oxygen for short term use, and even Trans-Pacific flight is considered short term, has enough capacity, and fuel cell weight to power ratio improved is the missing ingredient at present
. With these technologies, heavy commercial flight would be feasible totally electrically and high speed electrical mediated flight by using electrolytic converted hydrogen oxygen gas turbines...

 

[Woosh]

A problem with public transport is that it is very much a chicken and egg situation, if there were more people using them, then there would be more frequent routes and stops.

that's where driverless taxis are a solution of the future. There is no need to worry about paying for unused time.

 

[SHAN]

Those neighbours whome you deride may be more time poor than you.i

Yes, you are correct. It must go hand in hand with those who enjoy early retirement. Being on time for the fitness club and golf course does take precedent. I work with people with mobility problems and am well aware of the differences when it comes to getting around, and sympathetic without being patronising, first and foremost. I wouldn't expect anyone to walk 2 1/2 miles to a bus stop either. Its my choice to do so. Sometimes I walk 7 miles to work, again my choice. But nobody seems to have any choice regarding rural bus services being withdrawn or any input into safe cycle paths.

 

[flecc]

that's where driverless taxis are a solution of the future. There is no need to worry about paying for unused time.

In something like a hundred years time a degree of this may be seen, but members of this forum will never in their lifetimes see remote controlled taxis in place of driven ones, doing what they do.

As I've pointed out, remote control travel to all current destinations is impossible in current city and town infrastructures, and that is where most taxi operation is. It could only happen with new infrastructures friendly to that technology.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Flecc

The Institute of Nuclear Technology-Radiation Protection of Attiki, Greece, has noted that "the aerosol produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites or can be inhaled by civilians and military personnel".[9] The utilisation of DU in incendiary ammunition is controversial because of potential adverse health effects and its release into the environment.[78][79][80][81][82][83]
Australia is campaigning for a complete ban on DU shells. The US military has a massive reason to downplay the adverse affects, which so far is proving succesful on their part. BTW, uts not just the radiation ( even tho DU is still 60% as radioactive as Uranium) it is also extremely toxic. There are alternative ways to destroy tanks, that dont leave toxicity for next generation to worry about.
Australia is calling for a complete ban on DU shells.

OG
I didn't tell anyone " they were wrong again"

The concept of firing Tactical Nuclear Weapons from a tank barrel is self defeating..in both senses.

A tanks purpose is to engage and destroy other tanks. Engamement distance is around 2 miles. ( in Gulf war it was sub 500 metres because of visibility, in WW2 at Kursk tanks were engaging at zero range, often running into one another)
Tactical nuclear weapons are those with a yield between 1 kiloton and 30 .( Hiroshima was 15)
Now imagine firing at a tank from 1000yards with only a 5 kt yield projectile) It would blow the firing tank up...even if it got out the barrel.
A tank can be destroyed with as little as a 1kg shaped charge...so why fire 1000 tons at it.
TNW are delivered in missiles, not by the barrel of a gun, especially a tank gun. There really is no point launching TNW from guns, no matter what you have read.

 

[Danidl]

Common people takes on a different meaning now Tom.

The common people you refer to now drive Audis , work in telecoms and earn £50k a year. Its why your left is struggling. Move on Tom. Times have changed.

Come on zatlan, that is just not on...
I once drove an Audi, have worked in electronics , and at one stage earned 50 k.. mind you , with the reduction in sterling, my pension in Euro is close to it. And I am not common.!!!! , As my mother would have said I am superior!!..

 

[oldgroaner]

A tanks purpose is to engage and destroy other tanks. Engamement distance is around 2 miles. ( in Gulf war it was sub 500 metres because of visibility, in WW2 at Kursk tanks were engaging at zero range, often running into one

The type of use envisaged was on Troop and Armour and transportation mass concentrations, not individual tanks,for which use it would have been ideal, remember in those days Artillery was still more important than missiles.
But do keep trying.
I'm sure that the Americans were just as aware as you and I are of how small a charge could destroy an individual tank.

 

[flecc]

The Institute of Nuclear Technology-Radiation Protection of Attiki, Greece, has noted that "the aerosol produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites or can be inhaled by civilians and military personnel".[9] The utilisation of DU in incendiary ammunition is controversial because of potential adverse health effects and its release into the environment.[78][79][80][81][82][83]

Not at variation with what I posted, that is their opinion.

The word "Potential" is the clue.

It ranks with "What if" in the lexicon of those who wish to create alarm, usually without foundation.

As I've posted, depleted uranium areas and areas of far greater contamination are tourist destinations now. That's because they do no harm.
.

 

[Danidl]

This is where nuclear weapons assist in keeping the peace. Had Hittler's Germany faced the threat of nuclear attack in response to their decision to invade another country, maybe it wouldn't have happened. To be given the choice of either reversing your unprovoked aggressive action or face biblical levels of destruction, its a pretty persuasive.

The history of that time is more nuanced than your description might portray.

 

[SHAN]

that's where driverless taxis are a solution of the future. There is no need to worry about paying for unused time.

So looking at the "bigger picture" how does that work in sparsely populated rural areas?
Something I am genuinely most interested in, as I am shortly going to become a statistic as part of an ever increasing group who leave the countryside they love because of lack of services and the unsustainable cost of transport when owning your own vehicle is the only way to get around when you, or members of your family (as in my case) have no other choice, due to health problems. As stated, with public transport, its a chicken and egg situation. Perhaps chicken, egg and education would be more apt.

As a trade member, what would you prefer, happy people buying your products as a form of comuting daily to work or jumping in a taxi ?

 

[Danidl]

Flecc

The Institute of Nuclear Technology-Radiation Protection of Attiki, Greece, has noted that "the aerosol produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites or can be inhaled by civilians and military personnel".[9] The utilisation of DU in incendiary ammunition is controversial because of potential adverse health effects and its release into the environment.[78][79][80][81][82][83]
Australia is campaigning for a complete ban on DU shells. The US military has a massive reason to downplay the adverse affects, which so far is proving succesful on their part. BTW, uts not just the radiation ( even tho DU is still 60% as radioactive as Uranium) it is also extremely toxic. There are alternative ways to destroy tanks, that dont leave toxicity for next generation to worry about.
Australia is calling for a complete ban on DU shells.

OG
I didn't tell anyone " they were wrong again"

The concept of firing Tactical Nuclear Weapons from a tank barrel is self defeating..in both senses.

A tanks purpose is to engage and destroy other tanks. Engamement distance is around 2 miles. ( in Gulf war it was sub 500 metres because of visibility, in WW2 at Kursk tanks were engaging at zero range, often running into one another)
Tactical nuclear weapons are those with a yield between 1 kiloton and 30 .( Hiroshima was 15)
Now imagine firing at a tank from 1000yards with only a 5 kt yield projectile) It would blow the firing tank up...even if it got out the barrel.
A tank can be destroyed with as little as a 1kg shaped charge...so why fire 1000 tons at it.
TNW are delivered in missiles, not by the barrel of a gun, especially a tank gun. There really is no point launching TNW from guns, no matter what you have read.

The word tank has a number of meanings , including the main battle tanks to which you refer. The name is also used to cover mobile artillery, and tank killers etc and it is battlefield mobile artillery where these small nuclear weapons were intended.. a 10 15 mile range Against massed armour. Where the USSR had a numerical advantage
My understanding is that it was intended to use these in West Germany say near Hamburg, in order to buy time for the USA bring in forces to say Cherbourg or Southampton. . The flatlands around Luneburg heath are ideal tank country. Remember that when these weapons were first envisaged, cruise missiles were not available. Also a cruise missile is both expensive and slow and can be shot down, a shell is harder to intercept.

 

[Danidl]

Not fired from tank shells though, could only be done from a special large somewhat stationary gun. As your linked article confirms, the "suitcase" sized bombs only have theoretical status, no evidence of them ever being built.
.

Not so , there is much credible evidence in the wilkipedia about the small tactical devices..,

 

[flecc]

The word tank has a number of meanings , including the main battle tanks to which you refer. The name is also used to cover mobile artillery, and tank killers etc

Not in my military experience. The word tank is confined to those that have a rotating gun turret and a gun that can be fired from any of the 360 degrees.

Those with firing limitations such as only in line with the vehicle or a limited range of forward or aft angles are referred to as SPs, short for Self Propelled guns.

And mobile artillery on tyres are armoured cars, not tanks, despite them being in some tank museums and wrongly referred to as tanks by some.
.

 

[flecc]

Not so , there is much credible evidence in the wilkipedia about the small tactical devices..,

Which is where it's reported that they are only theoretical to date!

Neither have proof.
.

 

[Danidl]

Very difficult to know if this is true due to misreporting. For four decades now some shells have been tipped with depleted uranium extracted from nuclear wastes. The density and hardness of this material is ideal for penetrating armour on tanks and the like and we used them in the Balkans conflict. They've often been misreported as being nuclear shells since there were fears (unfounded) that they would irradiate the area where used.

Ultimately it's use against tank armour had been somewhat fruitless, since the front armour plating on tanks is often now depleted uranium, giving the necessary resistance to those shells.
.

I must disagree regarding health the depleted uranium , is still radioactive as well as being toxic , as many of the heavy metals are. Thr human body has no mechanism for excreting heavy metals and they normally cause kidney damage. During the battle phase the uranium will form gaseous and chemically active compounds , and will linger on the site indefinitely. The world "potentially" is being used in the sense that a bullet in the body is potentially fatal, not in the sense that it is possible but unlikely.

 

[Zlatan]

Not so , there is much credible evidence in the wilkipedia about the small tactical devices..,

Not really. The "shells" deemed TNW are not shells in common use of word. Essentially they are missiles and rocket propelled but launched from a tube/ barrel..
The only working version of nearest thing to a shell was the W82 TNW...launched from a barrel but essentially not a shell. It was rocket propelled.
Launching TNW in a conventional shell manner ( ie exposion behind projectile) produces far in excess of acceleration a bomb as complex as a nuclear bomb could survive. Hence the rocket propulsion.

There is an American gun that fires small rocket propelled projectiles. Yes, from a barrel but the things you put in it are not bullets or shells. They are small rockets. ( Google Gyropistol)

Yes, its becoming pedantic but in strict use of word there are no TNW shells. There are small missiles that fire from tubes. ( As far as I know ???) ( Yes, I know Americans call them shells but they call a boot a trunk)

 

[flecc]

The world "potentially" is being used in the sense that a bullet in the body is potentially fatal, not in the sense that it is possible but unlikely.

Absolutely not so, this was the reference I commented on:

The utilisation of DU in incendiary ammunition is controversial because of potential adverse health effects and its release into the environment.

It's an opinion, hence the use of the word "controversial" meaning others disagree, weakened still further by the use of "potential".

Like all the other "might happens" of the scaremongers.
.