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 a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... United States military history task force Weaponry task force

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 1 Possible ways to shield against radiation/blast or avoid it 2 Selectable yield statement seems wrong 3 Mk-54 vs W-54 4 One of the smallest? 5 Contradiction on blast radius?

[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)

[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)