NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Spirit of Hope]

There are/were 155mm artillery shells that were nuclear, there is no real reason besides cost/waste they couldn't be made for a 135mm gun. The problem is that these "micro" nuclear weapons were very wasteful of fissionable material, they get very little bang for the material used.

I don't think it could be made such that if hit by an APS it would be forced to detonate, the APS would be moving to fast and the set up of a nuclear weapon is very fragile and needs to happen in a very precise way to work.

That's the point. It's a Gun type detonation, which would require two critical masses to slam together (cylinder and ring) to create a supercritical mass. Because of the round design, if an APS struck it, or the armor defeated the penetration, the two masses would be forced together anyway, resulting in a detonation.

I'm not looking for big blasts, people. I'm looking for small, controlled blasts. I want to kill a tank instantly, not wipe out a city.

But even a gun type system has to happen in a very precise very fast way. You can get that to happen, but I don't think you can rig it to go off when hit by APS because the APS will damage it before it has time to detonate.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

I know it is very precise, but I'm hoping for the effect that the APS will hit the front. If the APS tries destroying it, the round collapses, yes? That would force the two edges together. Granted, if some other thing happened, like the round was hit weird or whatnot, it wouldn't detonate and probably just vaporize, but that's not what I'm counting on.

[Galba Dea]

I'm not looking for big blasts, people. I'm looking for small, controlled blasts. I want to kill a tank instantly, not wipe out a city.

That's not what nukes are for. Sure, granted the right isotopes, you could deliver, say, a 10t TNT yield on target with a nuclear slug the size you're talking about, but you can do it infinitely cheaper with chemical explosives. Believe it or not, fissile material is not available in abundance. Using a nuclear weapon to take out a tank is a bit like using HEAT to take out infantry. Wrong tool for the problem.

Regarding your detonation scheme, gun-type still requires the fragments to strike one another in alignment. If they aren't aligned properly, they don't go boom, they just irradiate the hell out of everything nearby.

Edit: The fireball you want at your post of 9:26 is best achieved with chemical explosives. In fact, that's basically the whole point of HEAT.

This Article deals with the possibility of using Californium to achieve the kind of yield you want in an even smaller profile (5kg fuel). Fissile material alone, however, would cost on the order of about $50B USD, never mind development, manufacturing, and all the other components.

It's just not of logistic practicality.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

If I may, I don't think you understand my intentions.

The whole of the round is not going to be the fissionable material. I'm looking for actually what's the smallest blast I could make that would be effective, as well as what type I should use, eg gun type or some other type.

[Galba Dea]

If I may, I don't think you understand my intentions.

The whole of the round is not going to be the fissionable material. I'm looking for actually what's the smallest blast I could make that would be effective, as well as what type I should use, eg gun type or some other type.

As others have told you, low-yield detonations use your already-limited supply of fissile material inefficiently. Attempting to use nuclear weapons to replace solutions like HEAT is the combat equivilent of using a $3000 Hammer to drive a $0.12 phillips head screw - a very expensive way to solve the wrong problem.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Very well.

I understand. Good day, and thank you.

[Galba Dea]

Very well.

I understand. Good day, and thank you.

If you're interested in trying to calculate this anyway, there's some calculators available in the OP that deal with what is and isn't possible, including yield calculations.

[The Kievan People]

The discussion I recall us having were either a light Saab fighter or an S-300 battery, which is fair enough since those are hefty assets. The reference being to Syria's purchase of 144 S-300PMU-2 missiles, which Kyiv dismissed as "barely a reload" for a launcher regiment.

Shot for shot SAMs are probably cheaper. But this has nothing to do with my original argument. I was arguing about the cost needed to provide adequate coverage for a certain volume of airspace. Not the cost needed to destroy a certain number of targets. I did argue that fighters provide better coverage dollar-for-dollar than SAMs.

The context of the original argument was: If a nation is looking to defend its airspace on a limited budget, should it prioritize fighters or SAMs?

This argument is AFAICT: If a nation is facing an attack by billions and billions of Mig-21s what is the most cost effective way to shoot them down?

I did not argue that if you lined up S-300 batteries on one side and Gripens on the other and tried to fly a kamikaze attack the S-300 would run out of missiles before you ran out of Gripens.

[Imperializt Russia]

I didn't suggest you said that.

There was a nuclear artillery, known as Atomic Annie. It was a 208 mm artillery cannon and fired a nuclear round.

But my question is not how big I can get the blast. It's how small. I want a round that is designed to VAPORIZE a tank, and defeat it's armor, or create an environment where the tank cannot do anything to counter it.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. W54 had a blast bigger than the firing range, and it was, from what I can tell, relatively low yield - in other words, they couldn't make the blast small enough. See, blast force and blast radius are largely proportional, so anything that can vaporize a tank is going to have a comparably large blast.

I'm not going to say it's not possible, I'm just going to say that nobody's ever done it, and nobody's trying to do it, which would suggest that it's probably not practical.

It had a low blast, which the firing range exceeded. The problems arose from the prompt radiation, which was dangerous at all firing ranges.

[Galba Dea]

I didn't suggest you said that.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. W54 had a blast bigger than the firing range, and it was, from what I can tell, relatively low yield - in other words, they couldn't make the blast small enough. See, blast force and blast radius are largely proportional, so anything that can vaporize a tank is going to have a comparably large blast.

I'm not going to say it's not possible, I'm just going to say that nobody's ever done it, and nobody's trying to do it, which would suggest that it's probably not practical.

It had a low blast, which the firing range exceeded. The problems arose from the prompt radiation, which was dangerous at all firing ranges.

Huh, the more you know.

And this is why you should always never forget to check your references. Thanks Russia!

[The Soodean Imperium]

Okay, time for an idea that's not as out-there as a 135mm nuclear shell but still hast the potential to be stupid.

As I mentioned earlier, my nation's main wheeled APC has a 10-man dismount compartment with a ramp at the back. As I haven't mentioned in a long time, many of my reconnaissance and fire-direction units include motorcycles, which is difficult because my most war-likely frontier is strung with small rivers and marshes. So, just a moment ago, I had an idea: to transport a motorcycle inside of a reconnaissance-variant APC, allowing it to be ferried across otherwise impassable terrain to scout independently further ahead. I could probably still fit a 2-4 man on-foot reconnaissance team in front of it, with some discomfort.

Is this a viable and worthwhile solution? Or Michael Bay levels of rule-of-cool insanity?

[Roski]

>uses decoys for multiple false invasions
>causes enemy radar towers to think is bug
>finally invades
>enemy didn't think it was coming, boy who cried wolf"

Good invasion plan or no?

[Imperializt Russia]

They're not going to just shrug it off as being a bug, they're going to respond, but they'll be spread thin dealing with other apparent intrusions, allowing you the opportunity to slip by, or defeat what few forces they can put in opposition.

[Fascist Republic Of Bermuda]

For an amphibious invasion, since Omaha-style landings aren't useful in MT conditions, and helicopters are very vulnerable to SAM fire, would the logical thing be a use of a combined helicopter assault/conventional beach landing (with most troops in closed amphibious APCs rather than in open flat-bottom landing craft) or is a standard helicopter assault the better thing to do?

[Inyourfaceistan]

There was a nuclear artillery, known as Atomic Annie. It was a 208 mm artillery cannon and fired a nuclear round.

But my question is not how big I can get the blast. It's how small. I want a round that is designed to VAPORIZE a tank, and defeat it's armor, or create an environment where the tank cannot do anything to counter it.

Here is an idea:
Stop trying to design iWin weapons and just use what is out there rationally...

There is no reason a 120mm gun is ineffective against modern armor, and in some minute and extreme cases there is no reason for anything beyond a 140mm.
Literally the only reason for which you would need a 135mm tank-vaporizing atomic shell that "ignores APS" is to just "win" every engagement you get yourself into, regardless of all other factors that should have been taken into account instead of designing such a non-sensical weapon in exchange for something a normal tank gun can do anyways...

[Yukonastan]

There are/were 155mm artillery shells that were nuclear, there is no real reason besides cost/waste they couldn't be made for a 135mm gun. The problem is that these "micro" nuclear weapons were very wasteful of fissionable material, they get very little bang for the material used.

I don't think it could be made such that if hit by an APS it would be forced to detonate, the APS would be moving to fast and the set up of a nuclear weapon is very fragile and needs to happen in a very precise way to work.

That's the point. It's a Gun type detonation, which would require two critical masses to slam together (cylinder and ring) to create a supercritical mass. Because of the round design, if an APS struck it, or the armor defeated the penetration, the two masses would be forced together anyway, resulting in a detonation.

I'm not looking for big blasts, people. I'm looking for small, controlled blasts. I want to kill a tank instantly, not wipe out a city.

Even a gun-type weapon requires the two halves of the core to be slammed together at high speed and pressure, to avoid a prompt criticality fizzle. And that's the problem with relying on the impact to assemble a supercritical core, since you won't get enough velocity to overcome the initial prompt criticality.

Sidenote: I issue 15mm HMG micronuke ammunition. Think a highly enriched bullshitium egg core in a raufoss round's nose. Impact sets off the 15 grams of RDX, compressing the bullshitium into a sphere, which allows me to have the effect of a 105mm infantry HEDP rocket combined with the size and weight of an HMG cartridge.

[Inyourfaceistan]

For an amphibious invasion, since Omaha-style landings aren't useful in MT conditions, and helicopters are very vulnerable to SAM fire, would the logical thing be a use of a combined helicopter assault/conventional beach landing (with most troops in closed amphibious APCs rather than in open flat-bottom landing craft) or is a standard helicopter assault the better thing to do?

This is what I do for the first-ish wave, with the helicopters flying in behind the APC's/IFV's and a few amphibious light tanks.
Obviously, the first thing to do is find the least defended stretch of beach and land there, and then suppress what enemy forces are there with air and naval power.

It's not actually road-mobile SAM's and radar-directed AAA that would be the threat to helicopters so much as MANPADS, because a few rounds of SEAD can keep the former in the dark, but MANPADS are much harder to suppress.

[Imperializt Russia]

For an amphibious invasion, since Omaha-style landings aren't useful in MT conditions, and helicopters are very vulnerable to SAM fire, would the logical thing be a use of a combined helicopter assault/conventional beach landing (with most troops in closed amphibious APCs rather than in open flat-bottom landing craft) or is a standard helicopter assault the better thing to do?

Don't assault a defended beach.

[Mitheldalond]

Would it be technologically and economically possible to develop 135 mm anti tank round with a nuclear gun type fission detonation? The idea is that the tank round has a small enough detonation that it is limited in effect to about 50 feet maybe, with enough force to wipe the tank off the map. It's also supposed to be designed to be collapse detonated. Ie if it's hit in midair by an APS, forcing it to collapse on itself, it detonates anyway? Normally it'd detonate either after initial hit, or after the HEAT tip detonates.

IIRC from a previous discussion, 105mm nuclear shells are possible. So yes, you could build a 135mm nuke.

A 20t nuke (AKA Davy Crocket) would get you a 50ft fireball radius. If you want all of the effects to be limited to a 50ft radius, you're looking at a weapon with well under a 1 ton yield, according to the Nukemap site. I doubt it's possible to build a weapon that small.

Tanks are exceptionally good at surviving nukes. You will not "vaporize" a tank with any nuke, and especially not a dinky one like you want. A warhead of the size you're looking at may not even kill a tank at all.

No, an APS wouldn't cause a nuke to go off. Nukes are very good at not exploding accidentally. They've even accidentally dropped one out of a bomber in flight, and it didn't explode.

And for the record, if you were to start using nukes against my tanks, I'd respond in kind. Except my 140mm nuclear tank rounds have a 1-2 kt yield, and are designed to kill whole enemy formations within about a 2km radius with a single shot.

[Inyourfaceistan]

A few questions about nuclear bunker-busters:

1) How big and protected of an underground target is the B-61 Mod 11 capable of destroying? A shallow reinforced bunker? A deep sub-terrainian command post? A whole mountain fortress?

2) How likely hypothetically would the US be to sell such a weapon to a stable ally (understanding it is made to fit all NATO aircraft).

3) How plausible would it be to create a capable low-yield earth penetrating weapon to fit inside an aircraft roughly the size of an F-15 to cause extreme damage to a network of deep underground tunnels and bunkers?

[Gallia-]

1) The biggest.

2) Not a chance.

3) Not at all, since F-15 carries its stores externally and not even F-22 carries B-61 internally.

[Erusuia]

Nuclear weapons came up on my regions RMB and I was wondering if my own nuclear stockpile was realistic.

My situation
Erusuia is bordered by a number of countries that it views as potential threats, all of which are militarily much more powerful then Eurusia. The bulk of the Eurusian military is outdated and would not be able to effectively fight against the military's of the countries Eurusia boarders. Eurusuia is very large but only has a population of 110,000,000 as appose to the extremely large (in the billions) populations of a number of countries it boarders and views as threats so it is unable to raise a huge military to compensate for equipment obsolescence. Due to the size of Eurusia and the location of allies it would likely have to fight any war on its own. Eurusuia views nuclear weapons as its main defense against military aggression.

The Stockpile

• 64,300 Warheads
  42,000 of which are tactical
  22,300 of which are strategic
• 35,000 Nuclear weapons
  14,000 of which are strategic
  28,500 of which are tactical

Delivery methods

• Submarine launched
  900 sub launched strategic weapons (although far less are actually deployed)
• Land based
  11,000 strategic (road mobile and silo based)
• Air launched
  2100 strategic

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

To be fair, since I'm a part of this discussion, I want to say no because of the sheer money forced upon this. Not all at once, I realize, but because...

64,000 is a lot to maintain. Billions, maybe. You'd be wasting a lot of money in that.

[The Kievan People]

Nuclear weapons came up on my regions RMB and I was wondering if my own nuclear stockpile was realistic.

My situation
Erusuia is bordered by a number of countries that it views as potential threats, all of which are militarily much more powerful then Eurusia. The bulk of the Eurusian military is outdated and would not be able to effectively fight against the military's of the countries Eurusia boarders. Eurusuia is very large but only has a population of 110,000,000 as appose to the extremely large (in the billions) populations of a number of countries it boarders and views as threats so it is unable to raise a huge military to compensate for equipment obsolescence. Due to the size of Eurusia and the location of allies it would likely have to fight any war on its own. Eurusuia views nuclear weapons as its main defense against military aggression.

The Stockpile

• 64,300 Warheads
  42,000 of which are tactical
  22,300 of which are strategic
• 35,000 Nuclear weapons
  14,000 of which are strategic
  28,500 of which are tactical

Delivery methods

• Submarine launched
  900 sub launched strategic weapons (although far less are actually deployed)
• Land based
  11,000 strategic (road mobile and silo based)
• Air launched
  2100 strategic

The 1950s called. They want their nukes back.

I assume this is not pop cap?

[Crookfur]

Okay, time for an idea that's not as out-there as a 135mm nuclear shell but still hast the potential to be stupid.

As I mentioned earlier, my nation's main wheeled APC has a 10-man dismount compartment with a ramp at the back. As I haven't mentioned in a long time, many of my reconnaissance and fire-direction units include motorcycles, which is difficult because my most war-likely frontier is strung with small rivers and marshes. So, just a moment ago, I had an idea: to transport a motorcycle inside of a reconnaissance-variant APC, allowing it to be ferried across otherwise impassable terrain to scout independently further ahead. I could probably still fit a 2-4 man on-foot reconnaissance team in front of it, with some discomfort.

Is this a viable and worthwhile solution? Or Michael Bay levels of rule-of-cool insanity?

its doable and IIRC soemthing similar has been done before (note to self: please please don't be misremebering and gettign confused with something from Sparky)

Although i might be easier to just strap the bikes on a rack outside above the waterline of the vehcile if thats not too high.