10 Best Never-Used Weapon Systems

Jack Linthicum

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 1:59:07 PM4/19/08

to

Wired magazine lists these duds, imagine a WWIII or WWII+ , or, in the
case of #10 a Revolutionary War, in which they were used.

1. Ekranoplan
2. Marine Corps Space Plane--Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion
project.
3. Atomic Airplane
4. Pyschedelics
5. Nazi Sun Gun, orbiting mirror
6. Davy Crockett Nuclear bazooka
7. Excaliber--Theornuclear power for an X-ray laser
8. Bat Bomb, bats dropped on Japan with time release incindiaries
9. Crusader--super howitzer
10. Puckle Defense Gun--1700s invention with round bullets for
Christians and square ones for Muslims.

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/news/PuckleGun.htm

John D Salt

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 2:31:35 PM4/19/08

to

Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:4ab4fa8c-d5bc-
488a-86cc-1...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

A list of my favourites would include the XM-803 main battle tank, the
Cheyenne attack helicopter and those marvellous Home Guard wepons the Smith
Gun and the Bates eight-barrelled bottle thrower.

I'm surprised the list includes none of every tank fan's favourite gigantic
nonsenses, such as Maus, Tortoise and the ludicrous Lowe.

As this is a naval group, I s'pose we have to have a mention for the
Arsenal Ship, SABMIS anti-missile system, and Project Habbakuk.

All the best,

John.

Dean A. Markley

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 4:58:26 PM4/19/08

to

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> Wired magazine lists these duds, imagine a WWIII or WWII+ , or, in the
> case of #10 a Revolutionary War, in which they were used.
>
>
> 1. Ekranoplan
> 2. Marine Corps Space Plane--Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion
> project.
> 3. Atomic Airplane

Since this never existed, its not hard to see why it was never used...

> 4. Pyschedelics
> 5. Nazi Sun Gun, orbiting mirror

Ditto, see #3

> 6. Davy Crockett Nuclear bazooka

Not exactly a nuclear bazooka per se.... While many think this system
was a dud and infer it would have been suicidal, I don't think so. It
was intended for use in areas such as the Fulda Gap where it could be
fired from behind low hills and ridges. These would have provided the
firers with protection.

> 7. Excaliber--Theornuclear power for an X-ray laser

Ditto, #3

Jack Linthicum

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 5:07:50 PM4/19/08

to

#3 who sez?

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b36_14.html

CJ Adams

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 5:53:20 PM4/19/08

to

Dean A. Markley wrote:
About the Davy Crockett

>
> Not exactly a nuclear bazooka per se.... While many think this system
> was a dud and infer it would have been suicidal, I don't think so. It
> was intended for use in areas such as the Fulda Gap where it could be
> fired from behind low hills and ridges. These would have provided the
> firers with protection.
>

I understand that of the perceived drawbacks was that Davy
Crockett could put the decision to go nuclear in the hands
of a jeep-team NCO.

Cheers
CJ Adams

William Black

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 6:16:46 PM4/19/08

to

"CJ Adams" <blue...@start.ca> wrote in message
news:696qd5-...@news.start.ca...

When I mentioned this both Fred and DSH, both of whom claim huge competance
in this field for no very good reason, said it wasn't the case and that the
USA had foolproof systems in place for the control of the DAVY CROCKET
device and indeed of all nuclear weapons in the US inventory.

When I asked what they were I wasn't quite told 'If we told you we'd have to
shoot you', but almost...

Which seems odd for a weapon that has been in the dustbin of history for at
least a quarter of a century now.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ray O'Hara

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 7:33:02 PM4/19/08

to

"Dean A. Markley" <deanm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HYGdnTlRDtCcwJfV...@comcast.com...

>
> > 6. Davy Crockett Nuclear bazooka
>
> Not exactly a nuclear bazooka per se.... While many think this system
> was a dud and infer it would have been suicidal, I don't think so. It
> was intended for use in areas such as the Fulda Gap where it could be
> fired from behind low hills and ridges. These would have provided the
> firers with protection.

if you can see the cloud you're too close.

Ray O'Hara

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 7:34:13 PM4/19/08

to

"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4ab4fa8c-d5bc-488a...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> Wired magazine lists these duds, imagine a WWIII or WWII+ , or, in the
> case of #10 a Revolutionary War, in which they were used.
>
>
> 1. Ekranoplan
> 2. Marine Corps Space Plane--Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion
> project.
> 3. Atomic Airplane
> 4. Pyschedelics
> 5. Nazi Sun Gun, orbiting mirror
> 6. Davy Crockett Nuclear bazooka
> 7. Excaliber--Theornuclear power for an X-ray laser
> 8. Bat Bomb, bats dropped on Japan with time release incindiaries

B.f.Skinner's pigeon guided bomb should be there too.

Fred J. McCall

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 6:34:29 PM4/19/08

to

CJ Adams <blue...@start.ca> wrote:

:

Nope. They had PALs on them and couldn't be used until someone had
already authorized nuclear release.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Fred J. McCall

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 6:46:05 PM4/19/08

to

"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

As usual, Wee Willie gets it pretty much all wrong...

:
:"CJ Adams" <blue...@start.ca> wrote in message

:news:696qd5-...@news.start.ca...
:> Dean A. Markley wrote:
:> About the Davy Crockett
:>>
:>> Not exactly a nuclear bazooka per se.... While many think this system was
:>> a dud and infer it would have been suicidal, I don't think so. It was
:>> intended for use in areas such as the Fulda Gap where it could be fired
:>> from behind low hills and ridges. These would have provided the firers
:>> with protection.
:>>
:> I understand that of the perceived drawbacks was that Davy Crockett could
:> put the decision to go nuclear in the hands of a jeep-team NCO.
:
:When I mentioned this both Fred and DSH, both of whom claim huge competance
:in this field for no very good reason,

:

Well, no very good reason other than that I used to deal with special
weapons on a regular basis.

:
:... said it wasn't the case and that the

:USA had foolproof systems in place for the control of the DAVY CROCKET
:device and indeed of all nuclear weapons in the US inventory.

:

I said the former, not the latter. In fact, I pointed out that if you
really wanted to worry you should have been worried about NAVY
weapons, since it was Navy policy that the 'local command' had
everything it needed to fire without outside input if that should
become necessary and Navy weapons did not include PALs, while those of
other services did.

:
:When I asked what they were I wasn't quite told 'If we told you we'd have to

:shoot you', but almost...

:

Well, no, not what was said at all. However, certainly no one who
knows is going to give you a lot of detail.

:
:Which seems odd for a weapon that has been in the dustbin of history for at

:least a quarter of a century now.

:

It only seems odd to you because, as usual, you can't be bothered to
actually think. What makes you think that these sorts of protections
and procedures would have been different for every single weapon? That
would just be preposterously and unnecessarily complex.

Note that nobody who knows how is going to tell you how to construct a
Davy Crockett, either, despite the fact that it "has been in the

dustbin of history for at least a quarter of a century now".

That strike you as odd, too?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

CJ Adams

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 9:18:41 PM4/19/08

to

I always liked Panjandrum.

Cheers
CJ Adams

CJ Adams

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 10:01:02 PM4/19/08

to

Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
> CJ Adams <blue...@start.ca> wrote:
>
> :Dean A. Markley wrote:
> :About the Davy Crockett
> :>
> :> Not exactly a nuclear bazooka per se.... While many think this system
> :> was a dud and infer it would have been suicidal, I don't think so. It
> :> was intended for use in areas such as the Fulda Gap where it could be
> :> fired from behind low hills and ridges. These would have provided the
> :> firers with protection.
> :>
> :
> :I understand that of the perceived drawbacks was that Davy
> :Crockett could put the decision to go nuclear in the hands
> :of a jeep-team NCO.
> :
>
> Nope. They had PALs on them and couldn't be used until someone had
> already authorized nuclear release.
>

Complex Permissive Action Links on something that was
distributed down to section(squad)level? Perhaps so, but
we're not talking about good USAF comms, a two-key console
and code books in a missile silo here. We're talking five
guys in two jeeps out in the freezing rain and mud, blacked
out and likely under radio silence. Was the Davey Crockett
PAL more sophisticated than a key lock? And who held the key?

Cheers
CJ Adams
(I don't recall the FM-dash-whatever mentioning PALs, but it
wouldn't, would it? Going to rummage in the basement - it
just might be there, next to Cavalry Training Horsed 1937
and The Defence of Duffer's Drift.)

Alan Lothian

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 11:29:29 PM4/19/08

to

In article
<4ab4fa8c-d5bc-488a...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Wired magazine lists these duds, imagine a WWIII or WWII+ , or, in the
> case of #10 a Revolutionary War, in which they were used.

Joseph Heller's 144mm Page Gluegun should be in there somewhere. That's
the one that glued whole formations of bombers together.....

Don't know what the maritime version was called.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun

If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.

Fred J. McCall

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 11:35:06 PM4/19/08

to

CJ Adams <blue...@start.ca> wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>
:> CJ Adams <blue...@start.ca> wrote:
:>
:> :Dean A. Markley wrote:
:> :About the Davy Crockett
:> :>
:> :> Not exactly a nuclear bazooka per se.... While many think this system
:> :> was a dud and infer it would have been suicidal, I don't think so. It
:> :> was intended for use in areas such as the Fulda Gap where it could be
:> :> fired from behind low hills and ridges. These would have provided the
:> :> firers with protection.
:> :>
:> :
:> :I understand that of the perceived drawbacks was that Davy
:> :Crockett could put the decision to go nuclear in the hands
:> :of a jeep-team NCO.
:> :
:>
:> Nope. They had PALs on them and couldn't be used until someone had
:> already authorized nuclear release.
:>
:
:Complex Permissive Action Links on something that was
:distributed down to section(squad)level?

:

Yes.

:
:Perhaps so, but

:we're not talking about good USAF comms, a two-key console
:and code books in a missile silo here.

:

That ain't how it works in the missile silos, either. Don't believe
ANYTHING you see in the movies.

:
:We're talking five

:guys in two jeeps out in the freezing rain and mud, blacked
:out and likely under radio silence. Was the Davey Crockett
:PAL more sophisticated than a key lock?

:

Of course it was. That wouldn't be much of a PAL, now would it?

:
:And who held the key?
:

No 'key'.

--
"Taught me how to shoot to kill.
A specialist with a deadly skill.
A skill I needed to have to be a survivor.
It's over now, or so they say.
But sometimes it don't work out that way.
And you're never the same when you've been under fire."
-- Huey Lewis and the News "Walking On A Thin Line"

CJ Adams

unread,

Apr 19, 2008, 11:56:19 PM4/19/08

to

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> :
> :Perhaps so, but
> :we're not talking about good USAF comms, a two-key console
> :and code books in a missile silo here.
> :
>
> That ain't how it works in the missile silos, either. Don't believe
> ANYTHING you see in the movies.
>

Never seen a movie about that. Been down one, though.

Cheers
CJ Adams

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 5:23:05 AM4/20/08

to

Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

> I said the former, not the latter. In fact, I pointed out that if you
> really wanted to worry you should have been worried about NAVY
> weapons, since it was Navy policy that the 'local command' had
> everything it needed to fire without outside input if that should
> become necessary and Navy weapons did not include PALs, while those of
> other services did.

But by definition a warship is one of the most inaccessible places you
have to store nukes; And SSBNs are almost inaccessible to "da evil
people" There's simply no need of safety measures aside the customary
multiple activation keys.

If I have dangerous things I want to keep away from terrorists and
similar people, my first choice will be the magazines of a warship.

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 5:28:50 AM4/20/08

to

Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

> Note that nobody who knows how is going to tell you how to construct a

> Davy Crockett, either, despite the fact that it "has been in the
> dustbin of history for at least a quarter of a century now".

apropos, one has thinked of the long-term implication of the "nth
country theory" ? this has shown that sooner or later every country can
reach advanced technology of 1940s and being capable of building nukes;
but one can infer that then one reach 1960s advanced tech level and
capable of building davy crockett-sized nukes, whose is much more
dangerous than little boy/fat man-sized nukes.....

Jack Linthicum

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 5:34:08 AM4/20/08

to

On Apr 19, 11:29 pm, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <4ab4fa8c-d5bc-488a-86cc-1ea0e35d3...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

>
> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Wired magazine lists these duds, imagine a WWIII or WWII+ , or, in the
> > case of #10 a Revolutionary War, in which they were used.
>
> Joseph Heller's 144mm Page Gluegun should be in there somewhere. That's
> the one that glued whole formations of bombers together.....
>
> Don't know what the maritime version was called.
>
> --
> "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
>
> If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
> Blueyonder is a thing of the past.

I remember a Popular Science or similar article from WWII which
described a weapon that involved maple syrup and the Luftwaffles.

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 5:34:09 AM4/20/08

to

CJ Adams ha scritto:

>> Nope. They had PALs on them and couldn't be used until someone had
>> already authorized nuclear release.
>>
> Complex Permissive Action Links on something that was distributed down
> to section(squad)level? Perhaps so, but we're not talking about good
> USAF comms, a two-key console and code books in a missile silo here.
> We're talking five guys in two jeeps out in the freezing rain and mud,
> blacked out and likely under radio silence. Was the Davey Crockett PAL
> more sophisticated than a key lock? And who held the key?

It's easy to guess that the activation procedure is done by authorized
officers at the base immediately prior of the distribuition of the
warheads to the grunts. Not the top of the security, but one must
consider that by then WWIII is already in full swing....

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 5:36:35 AM4/20/08

to

Ray O'Hara ha scritto:

> B.f.Skinner's pigeon guided bomb should be there too.

YEA !!!! the most wacky gudance system even conceived !

I was amazed when I read for the first time about this... No wonder that
BuOrd in the end scrap the project :D

Jack Linthicum

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 5:37:18 AM4/20/08

to

On Apr 20, 5:28 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"

Or a country or well endowed nut group could simply buy a nuke from
someone who has one and needs the money for a bad mortgage. Enough
"24" style TV programs and Tom Clancy novels and the torture syndrome
becomes national policy. You have to hope that the next chief
executive had a richer life than the present ones.

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 6:54:44 AM4/20/08

to

> You have to hope that the next chief
> executive had a richer life than the present ones.

meh... It's a thing I was thinking in this days; we all know that one of
the candidates hasn't haved exactly a richer life; and this worries me;
in the specific, how will react in an POW/hostage crisis ? *THIS* is
actually worrisome....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

P.s. please keep the f/up to this post in the military/Naval decision
process field and not derail in politics....

Arved Sandstrom

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 8:38:51 AM4/20/08

to

"CJ Adams" <blue...@start.ca> wrote in message

news:jpkqd5-...@news.start.ca...

> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> CJ Adams <blue...@start.ca> wrote:
>>
>> :Dean A. Markley wrote:
>> :About the Davy Crockett
>> :> :> Not exactly a nuclear bazooka per se.... While many think this
>> system :> was a dud and infer it would have been suicidal, I don't think
>> so. It :> was intended for use in areas such as the Fulda Gap where it
>> could be :> fired from behind low hills and ridges. These would have
>> provided the :> firers with protection.
>> :> :
>> :I understand that of the perceived drawbacks was that Davy :Crockett
>> could put the decision to go nuclear in the hands :of a jeep-team NCO.
>> :
>>
>> Nope. They had PALs on them and couldn't be used until someone had
>> already authorized nuclear release.
>>
> Complex Permissive Action Links on something that was distributed down to
> section(squad)level? Perhaps so, but we're not talking about good USAF
> comms, a two-key console and code books in a missile silo here. We're
> talking five guys in two jeeps out in the freezing rain and mud, blacked
> out and likely under radio silence. Was the Davey Crockett PAL more
> sophisticated than a key lock? And who held the key?

[ SNIP ]

***************
By September 1962, five-digit mechanical lock PALs were in place on Nike
Hercules and Honest John missiles, atomic demolition munitions, the Davy
Crockett, and W33 and W48 artillery shells. Early PALs were little more than
mechanical locks which could have been defeated given enough time and a
hacksaw. Later versions were more sophisticated, employing multiple-digit
coded switches and allowing only a limited number of tries before disabling
the weapon (whereupon it to be returned to the AEC or DOE for
refurbishment).
***************
From http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/box9_2.aspx

AHS

Dean A. Markley

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 9:29:30 AM4/20/08

to

#3 I sez!! The NB-36 was NOT an atomic airplane. It was an airplane
carrying a working atomic reactor. The reactor provided no power to the
aircraft.

Dean

Dean A. Markley

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 9:32:55 AM4/20/08

to

Well, you'd certainly see the cloud. I'd hope the soldiers that just
fired it were wearing their NBC suits. Ahh, "nuclear warfare, toe to
toe with the Russkies", what an image that conjures!

Dean

Dean A. Markley

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 9:33:56 AM4/20/08

to

Wouldn't a maritime version have simply used waterproof glue?

Jack Linthicum

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 9:45:05 AM4/20/08

to

Define "atomic airplane" and the think of the word "bomber", ie an
airplane that carries bombs.

William Black

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 10:34:24 AM4/20/08

to

"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:vPGOj.706$PM5.100@edtnps92...

> By September 1962, five-digit mechanical lock PALs were in place on Nike
> Hercules and Honest John missiles, atomic demolition munitions, the Davy
> Crockett, and W33 and W48 artillery shells. Early PALs were little more
> than mechanical locks which could have been defeated given enough time and
> a hacksaw. Later versions were more sophisticated,

And when were these fitted to the DAVY CROCKETT device?

Or had everyone involved worked out the lunacy of the thing by them and they
just didn't bother...

Andrew Swallow

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 11:02:16 AM4/20/08

to

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
[snip]

>
> meh... It's a thing I was thinking in this days; we all know that one of
> the candidates hasn't haved exactly a richer life; and this worries me;
> in the specific, how will react in an POW/hostage crisis ? *THIS* is
> actually worrisome....

Have any of them been through a hostage crisis as a city mayor or
a state govenor?

Andrew Swallow

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 12:12:49 PM4/20/08

to

Andrew Swallow ha scritto:

Ok let's be more explicit:

One of the candidates to the incoming US presidential election know too
well and on his skin, as we say in Italy, the side of the hostages (in
his case, POW)

Hope this is more than clear; I don't want to be enbroiled in political
flames, but want to discuss a real issue in the field of command &
decision process.

CJ Adams

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 12:42:48 PM4/20/08

to

Arved Sandstrom wrote:

>
> ***************
> By September 1962, five-digit mechanical lock PALs were in place on Nike
> Hercules and Honest John missiles, atomic demolition munitions, the Davy
> Crockett, and W33 and W48 artillery shells. Early PALs were little more than
> mechanical locks which could have been defeated given enough time and a
> hacksaw. Later versions were more sophisticated, employing multiple-digit
> coded switches and allowing only a limited number of tries before disabling
> the weapon (whereupon it to be returned to the AEC or DOE for
> refurbishment).
> ***************
> From http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/box9_2.aspx
>

Thanks for that. I knew that missiles in silos had
mechanically-coded (number wheels) switches as a safety
measure and that after three (IIRC) wrong tries you ended up
with a cut cable and a court-martial, in that order. The
aim was to stop bored missile crews from trying numbers
until they found ones that would work. I didn'y know that
the system extended downwards as far as arty ammunition.
I'm curious about how that would function but I have
absolutely no need to know. Darn.

Laying that aside, someone still has to obtain and hold the
code to enter into the PAL. For tactical weapons like Davey
Crockett, a perfectly secure distribution system capable of
quick reaction would be difficult to arrange. Like the
balance of armour, guns and speed for a warship (this is
sci.miitary.naval, after all) a PAL system for Davey
Crockett would have to juggle speed, flexibility and safety.
A gain in one area would be a loss in another.

I wonder if we could ever find out how the codes were
distributed and how they were secured in the field. The
system could even be as simple as a sealed envelope in a
Sergeant's pocket.

You see, the mere presence of a PAL is not enough. A strong
lock is only as good as its most insecure key cabinet.

Cheers
CJ Adams

Dean A. Markley

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 1:19:38 PM4/20/08

to

Yer nitpickin'!!!! LOL

Dean

Jack Linthicum

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 1:35:26 PM4/20/08

to

But then here's one from 2004

ATOMIC PLANES IN THE WORKS?

atomic_plane.JPGThe first line sure is juicy: "After more than six
decades of research, the first atom-powered airplane is cleared for
takeoff."

And even if the substance doesn't quite back up the tantalizing intro
in the current Popular Mechanics -- which it doesn't -- this is still
an interesting concept.

The attraction of a nuclear plane is that it doesn't run out of fuel.
Convert a drone to atomic power, and it could stay aloft just about
forever, the thinking goes.

The nuclear drone wouldn't have a traditional fission reactor, running
on uranium or plutonium. Instead, it would be powered by hafnium-178.

"In the late 1990s, researchers at the University of Texas in Dallas
made a remarkable and unexpected discovery about [halfnium]," the
magazine says. "When they bombarded the metal with 'soft' X-rays like
those your dentist uses to examine your teeth, the metal released a
burst of gamma rays 60 times more powerful than the X-rays."

This reaction could be safer than conventional ones, the magazine
argues.

"The gamma ray output drops precipitously the moment power to the X-
ray machine is turned off... Since it produces only gamma radiation,
less shielding is required. And should an accident occur, there is
less of an environmental concern than with fission. Hafnium-178 has a
half-life of only 31 years compared to thousands of years for other
reactor fuels. In addition, unlike uranium or plutonium, hafnium-178
cannot support a chain reaction, which means it cannot be used to make
rogue nuclear weapons."

But, despite the potentially attractive features, an atomic drone is
nowhere near takeoff.

"Project managers for Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Air Force Research
Laboratory tell Popular Mechanics they have begun discussions that
could lead to the conversion of a Global Hawk [drone] to a nuclear-
powered aircraft… They have not yet signed a contract to convert a
Global Hawk to nuclear power, they are aware of discussions taking
place within the Air Force." (emphasis mine)

THERE'S MORE: Some scientists are pouring cold water all over the
halfnium idea, reader MS points out. "May not make physical sense,"
was the opinion of 5 of 12 Pentagon researchers appointed to look into
halfnium bombs.

AND MORE: Defense Tech "deserves better than Popular Mechanics doing a
fair imitation of the National Inquirer," says Los Alamos consultant
and nuclear proliferation expert Russell Seitz.

With so-called "isomers" like halfnium-178, he writes, "energy has
both to be put in and gotten out. The mere fact that more and better
physicists using fiercer x-ray sources and more sensitive gamma
detectors can't get any signal out of the same isotopes -- even upon
many experimental iterations and variations -- satisfies me that
[this] is just another example of the economics of desire."

AND MORE: The Defense Department was looking at atomic planes back in
the 1940's, reader JM notes, with a project called "Nuclear Energy for
the Propulsion of Aircraft," or NEPA. And for a year or so, the
Pentagon considered irradiating human test subjects, to see how much
nuclear exposure pilots could take. After Manhattan Project scientist
Dr. Joseph Hamilton pointed out that such experiments would have "a
little of the Buchenwald touch," the idea was finally, and thankfully,
dropped.

and
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Elevon/baugher_other/x-6.html
and
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/05/24/details-on-the-nx2-%E2%80%94-our-atomic-plane/

Message has been deleted

William Black

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 2:13:11 PM4/20/08

to

"CJ Adams" <blue...@start.ca> wrote in message

news:te8sd5-...@news.start.ca...

> I wonder if we could ever find out how the codes were distributed and how
> they were secured in the field. The system could even be as simple as a
> sealed envelope in a Sergeant's pocket.

The logical way to do it would be not to issue the weapon until very nearly
the time to use it.

This produces problems with tactical deployment, but only for the first
one...

After that you just dish them out as necessary.

John D Salt

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 2:53:29 PM4/20/08

to

Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in
news:Xns9A86CA809111...@nieveler.org:

[Snips]
> Speaking of tanks - what was the name of that giant british
> trench-digging abomination? The tank that dug its own trench so that
> only the turret would project over the earth?

Not the De Mole trenching machine?

All the best,

John.

John Dallman

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 2:57:00 PM4/20/08

to

In article
<694347bd-6fac-4b11...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
jackli...@earthlink.net (Jack Linthicum) wrote:

> The nuclear drone wouldn't have a traditional fission reactor, running
> on uranium or plutonium. Instead, it would be powered by hafnium-178.
>
> "In the late 1990s, researchers at the University of Texas in Dallas
> made a remarkable and unexpected discovery about [halfnium]," the
> magazine says. "When they bombarded the metal with 'soft' X-rays like
> those your dentist uses to examine your teeth, the metal released a
> burst of gamma rays 60 times more powerful than the X-rays."

So they claimed. Other trials, with much bigger X-ray sources, have been
unable to reproduce the effect. I found the original of this article,
and its main link for hafnium is to slashdot, which isn't exactly an
authorative site on nuclear physics.

> "The gamma ray output drops precipitously the moment power to the X-
> ray machine is turned off... Since it produces only gamma radiation,
> less shielding is required.

Less? Hard gamma radiation (2.45Mev in this case) is the stuff that's
hard to shield from.

It's also a good deal less than clear how you use this gamma radiation
to power an aircraft. Because it's so penetrating, you need a lot of
heavy material to persuade a decent fraction of it to give up its
energy; the power-to-weight ratio stinks, even for a steam-powered
aeroplane.

> And should an accident occur, there is less of an environmental
> concern than with fission. Hafnium-178 has a half-life of only
> 31 years compared to thousands of years for other reactor fuels.

Indeed. Makes it great dirty-bomb material, really. Hard to shield
against, comes in drones which always crash eventually, half-life that
means the radiation takes centuries to die away completely ... yup, if
this worked - which it probably will not - it would be a really great
way of putting dirty-bomb materials into the hands of the Taliban.

> In addition, unlike uranium or plutonium, hafnium-178 cannot support
> a chain reaction, which means it cannot be used to make
> rogue nuclear weapons."

Perfectly true, but uranium and plutonium also have a much larger
releasable energy content. This comparison makes hafnium look falsely
credible.

> THERE'S MORE: Some scientists are pouring cold water all over the
> halfnium idea, reader MS points out. "May not make physical sense,"
> was the opinion of 5 of 12 Pentagon researchers appointed to look into
> halfnium bombs.

Looks like they're probably right.

> AND MORE: Defense Tech "deserves better than Popular Mechanics doing a
> fair imitation of the National Inquirer," says Los Alamos consultant
> and nuclear proliferation expert Russell Seitz.

He's got a point, it would appear.

> With so-called "isomers" like halfnium-178, he writes, "energy has
> both to be put in and gotten out. The mere fact that more and better
> physicists using fiercer x-ray sources and more sensitive gamma
> detectors can't get any signal out of the same isotopes -- even upon
> many experimental iterations and variations -- satisfies me that
> [this] is just another example of the economics of desire."

The energy gets put in when you expose the hafnium - not halfnium - in a
reactor. It's a neutron absorber, used for control rods. And like the
man says, this is another cold fusion job: some kind of experimental
error, then seeing what you want,

> AND MORE: The Defense Department was looking at atomic planes back in
> the 1940's, reader JM notes, with a project called "Nuclear Energy for
> the Propulsion of Aircraft," or NEPA. And for a year or so, the
> Pentagon considered irradiating human test subjects, to see how much
> nuclear exposure pilots could take. After Manhattan Project scientist
> Dr. Joseph Hamilton pointed out that such experiments would have "a
> little of the Buchenwald touch," the idea was finally, and thankfully,
> dropped.

Yup: the problem with the NB-36 and so on was not that they couldn't be
built, but that planes couldn't carry enough shielding. A normal level
of practice flying would exceed a permissible lifetime's radiation dose
far too quickly. Servicing the engines was a bit challenging, too.

--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

CJ Adams

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 2:47:44 PM4/20/08

to

William Black wrote:
> "CJ Adams" <blue...@start.ca> wrote in message
> news:te8sd5-...@news.start.ca...
>
>> I wonder if we could ever find out how the codes were distributed and how
>> they were secured in the field. The system could even be as simple as a
>> sealed envelope in a Sergeant's pocket.
>
> The logical way to do it would be not to issue the weapon until very nearly
> the time to use it.
>
> This produces problems with tactical deployment, but only for the first
> one...
>
> After that you just dish them out as necessary.
>

Davy Crockett was extremely short-ranged. The question then
becomes: dish them out from where? How many depots do you
want to have? How close to the FEBA? The Red Army Chorus
(plus supporting troops)was likely to be fast-moving. And
does the fella in charge of the depot have a clipboard full
of PAL codes to give out with each device? Not much
security in that....

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 6:02:26 PM4/20/08

to

"Peter Stickney" <p-sti...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e3jsd5-...@comcast.net...

The mechanical locks were in place by 1962.

Felix Reuthner

unread,

Apr 21, 2008, 5:58:57 PM4/21/08

to

Juergen Nieveler schrieb:

> So it was more secure than the british system, then? The one with the
> bicyle-keys? ;-)

How about a really easy code?
http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm

-----------
The Strategic Air Command (SAC) in Omaha quietly decided to set the
"locks" to all zeros in order to circumvent this safeguard. During the
early to mid-1970s, during my stint as a Minuteman launch officer, they
still had not been changed. Our launch checklist in fact instructed us,
the firing crew, to double-check the locking panel in our underground
launch bunker to ensure that no digits other than zero had been
inadvertently dialed into the panel. SAC remained far less concerned
about unauthorized launches than about the potential of these safeguards
to interfere with the implementation of wartime launch orders. And so
the "secret unlock code" during the height of the nuclear crises of the
Cold War remained constant at OOOOOOOO.
------------

Keith Willshaw

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 6:03:52 PM4/20/08

to

"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:Xns9A86E97DF8F4...@nieveler.org...

> John D Salt <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Speaking of tanks - what was the name of that giant british
>>> trench-digging abomination? The tank that dug its own trench so that
>>> only the turret would project over the earth?
>>
>> Not the De Mole trenching machine?
>

> Can't find any decent reference online, but ISTR that Winston Churchill
> tried to push after WW1 for the UK to buy a tank construction that dug
> a trench while moving forward inside said trench - basically, a "land
> submarine".
>

During early 1940 actually, code named NLE , usually referred to as Nellie

The machine was to be 77' long, 6' 6" wide, 8' high and made in two
sections.
The main section, driven on caterpillar tracks, looked like a greatly
elongated
tank and weighed 100 tons. The front section, weighing another 30 tons,
was capable of digging a trench 5' deep and 7' 6" wide. It comprised a
plough
which cut the top 2' 6" of the trench, and 'pick and shovel' cutting
cylinders
which excavated the bottom 2' 6". The spoil was carried away by conveyors
to the top of each side of the trench to create 3' parapets.

Nellie could move at just over half a mile an hour, removing some 8,000
tons of spoil in the process. When she reached the enemy's front line
she would stop and act as a ramp for following tracked vehicles
to climb up out of the trench onto open ground.

Keith

William Black

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 6:05:32 PM4/20/08

to

"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message

news:Xns9A86E9F1BB44...@nieveler.org...

> Peter Stickney <p-sti...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The same situation pertained to ADMs (Atomic Demolition Munitions),
>> Nuke Artillery Shells, and, basically, all those Honest John and
>> Little John rockets. Nothing special about the Davey Crockett.
>

> Not to mention that nuke warheads for the Honest Johns were supposed to
> be dished out to the Allies, too - my father served in RakArtLehrBttl
> 1, and their training scenarios only made sense if the rockets had
> nukes on them, which back in the 1960s officially was denied.

The British tactical nuclear rockets had US warheads as well.

These were supposed to be issued by the US when requested.

I did once enquire of a very senior UK politician as to how this was
supposed to work and how the political control system worked.

The gentleman said he didn't know but he was sure someone would tell him at
the appropriate time...

Keith Willshaw

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 6:10:03 PM4/20/08

to

"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:694347bd-6fac-4b11...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

> "In the late 1990s, researchers at the University of Texas in Dallas
> made a remarkable and unexpected discovery about [halfnium]," the
> magazine says. "When they bombarded the metal with 'soft' X-rays like
> those your dentist uses to examine your teeth, the metal released a
> burst of gamma rays 60 times more powerful than the X-rays."

Alas a follow up by the Argonne national Lab showed this was
a false proposition. When they tried to repeat the system under
controlled conditions no release beyond the expected radioactive
decay was observed. Other labs have ratified these conclusions

Keith

Zomby...@cox.net

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 6:36:37 PM4/20/08

to

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:32:55 -0400, "Dean A. Markley"
<deanm...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> "Dean A. Markley" <deanm...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:HYGdnTlRDtCcwJfV...@comcast.com...

>>
>>>> 6. Davy Crockett Nuclear bazooka

>>> Not exactly a nuclear bazooka per se.... While many think this system
>>> was a dud and infer it would have been suicidal, I don't think so. It
>>> was intended for use in areas such as the Fulda Gap where it could be
>>> fired from behind low hills and ridges. These would have provided the
>>> firers with protection.
>>

>> if you can see the cloud you're too close.
>>
>>
>Well, you'd certainly see the cloud. I'd hope the soldiers that just
>fired it were wearing their NBC suits. Ahh, "nuclear warfare, toe to
>toe with the Russkies", what an image that conjures!
>
Nice thing about it is each soldier only got one shot.
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli

Zomby...@cox.net

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 6:36:49 PM4/20/08

to

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:45:05 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Apr 20, 9:29 am, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>> > On Apr 19, 4:58 pm, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>> >>> Wired magazine lists these duds, imagine a WWIII or WWII+ , or, in the

>> >>> case of #10 a Revolutionary War, in which they were used.
>> >>> 1. Ekranoplan

>> >>> 2. Marine Corps Space Plane--Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion
>> >>> project.
>> >>> 3. Atomic Airplane

>> >> Since this never existed, its not hard to see why it was never used...
>>

>> >>> 4. Pyschedelics
>> >>> 5. Nazi Sun Gun, orbiting mirror
>> >> Ditto, see #3
>>

>> >>> 6. Davy Crockett Nuclear bazooka
>> >> Not exactly a nuclear bazooka per se.... While many think this system
>> >> was a dud and infer it would have been suicidal, I don't think so. It
>> >> was intended for use in areas such as the Fulda Gap where it could be
>> >> fired from behind low hills and ridges. These would have provided the
>> >> firers with protection.
>>

>> >>> 7. Excaliber--Theornuclear power for an X-ray laser
>> >> Ditto, #3
>>
>> >>> 8. Bat Bomb, bats dropped on Japan with time release incindiaries
>> >>> 9. Crusader--super howitzer
>> >>> 10. Puckle Defense Gun--1700s invention with round bullets for
>> >>> Christians and square ones for Muslims.
>> >>>http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/news/PuckleGun.htm
>>
>> > #3 who sez?
>>
>> >http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b36_14.html
>>
>> #3 I sez!! The NB-36 was NOT an atomic airplane. It was an airplane
>> carrying a working atomic reactor. The reactor provided no power to the
>> aircraft.
>>
>> Dean
>
>Define "atomic airplane" and the think of the word "bomber", ie an
>airplane that carries bombs.
>

Try an Airplane with a Nuclear Reactor in its bomb bay.

Zomby...@cox.net

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 6:36:56 PM4/20/08

to

Me too;
Between 1946 and 1961, the Air Force and the Atomic Energy Commission
spent more than $7 billion trying to develop a nuclear-powered
aircraft. Although no airplane ever flew under nuclear power, the Air
Force converted a B-36 bomber, known as the Nuclear Test Aircraft, to
carry an operating three-megawatt air-cooled reactor to assess
operational problems (it made 47 flights over Texas and New Mexico
between July 1955 and March 1957). The NB-36H carried the reactor in
its aft bomb bay and incorporated a new nose section, which housed a
12 ton lead and rubber shielded crew compartment with 10-12 inch
(25-30 centimeters) thick leaded-glass windows. Water pockets in the
fuselage and behind the crew compartment also absorbed radiation (due
to weight constraints, nothing was done to shield the considerable
emissions from the top, bottom or sides of the reactor).

Read the book Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear
Weapons Since 1940.

CJ Adams

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 6:41:45 PM4/20/08

to

Keith Willshaw wrote:

>
> During early 1940 actually, code named NLE , usually referred to as Nellie
>
> The machine was to be 77' long, 6' 6" wide, 8' high and made in two
> sections.
> The main section, driven on caterpillar tracks, looked like a greatly
> elongated
> tank and weighed 100 tons. The front section, weighing another 30 tons,
> was capable of digging a trench 5' deep and 7' 6" wide. It comprised a
> plough
> which cut the top 2' 6" of the trench, and 'pick and shovel' cutting
> cylinders
> which excavated the bottom 2' 6". The spoil was carried away by conveyors
> to the top of each side of the trench to create 3' parapets.
>
> Nellie could move at just over half a mile an hour, removing some 8,000
> tons of spoil in the process. When she reached the enemy's front line
> she would stop and act as a ramp for following tracked vehicles
> to climb up out of the trench onto open ground.
>
>

I wonder if anyone considered that while all this was going
on at half a mile an hour
some wide-eyed field-grey FOO would be calling "Uncle
target. Uncle Target. Uncle Target...." -- or however you
said that in German.

Cheers
CJ Adams

Andrew Swallow

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 8:15:05 PM4/20/08

to

Did it generate electricity?
NASA would like a nuclear power plant for the Moon and Mars. Solar
power does not work every well at night.

Andrew Swallow

Dan

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 9:11:20 PM4/20/08

to

FYI: this list was generated for a Wired magazine article...

Dan

tankfixer

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 9:29:27 PM4/20/08

to

In article <1bf49fec-7439-473e-9b0b-a68fe3020a91
@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
> On Apr 19, 11:29 pm, Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <4ab4fa8c-d5bc-488a-86cc-1ea0e35d3...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

> >
> > Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Wired magazine lists these duds, imagine a WWIII or WWII+ , or, in the
> > > case of #10 a Revolutionary War, in which they were used.
> >

> > Joseph Heller's 144mm Page Gluegun should be in there somewhere. That's
> > the one that glued whole formations of bombers together.....
> >
> > Don't know what the maritime version was called.
> >
> > --
> > "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
> >
> > If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
> > Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
>
> I remember a Popular Science or similar article from WWII which
> described a weapon that involved maple syrup and the Luftwaffles.

A sticky wicket what ?

--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

scott s.

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 9:48:37 PM4/20/08

to

CJ Adams <blue...@start.ca> wrote in

news:5pfsd5-...@news.start.ca:

>
>
> Davy Crockett was extremely short-ranged. The question then
> becomes: dish them out from where? How many depots do you
> want to have? How close to the FEBA? The Red Army Chorus
> (plus supporting troops)was likely to be fast-moving. And
> does the fella in charge of the depot have a clipboard full
> of PAL codes to give out with each device? Not much
> security in that....

You have to remember that devices such as PAL are just part
of the end-to-end security planning, involving both technical'and
administrative protections. Having had my share of dealings with
the boys from McAlester, I can tell you it isn't fun.

we're having an issue with Davy Crockett out here, as they have
found some (variously described as either spotting rounds or
training rounds) expended DC rounds which contained DU, apparently
to simulate the mass on the range facilities. The ranges are
being upgraded to support Stryker Infantry training.

scott s.
.

Richard Casady

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 10:20:48 PM4/20/08

to

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:58:26 -0400, "Dean A. Markley"
<deanm...@comcast.net> wrote:

>6. Davy Crockett Nuclear bazooka
>
>Not exactly a nuclear bazooka per se.... While many think this system
>was a dud and infer it would have been suicidal, I don't think so. It
>was intended for use in areas such as the Fulda Gap where it could be
>fired from behind low hills and ridges. These would have provided the
>firers with protection.

Note that the yield was only ten tons.

Casady

scott s.

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 10:21:54 PM4/20/08

to

CJ Adams <blue...@start.ca> wrote in

news:sftsd5-...@news.start.ca:

sounds like the Sappers' CEV or Grizzly?

scott s.
.

David E. Powell

unread,

Apr 20, 2008, 11:06:30 PM4/20/08

to

On Apr 20, 6:03 pm, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote in message

Well, there was the fellow who mentioned artillery observers in field
gray... I suppose this has to make the list, Maus, if I recall
correctly, was deployed? One of the giant German tanks with a rocket
launcher short barrel gun was, I recall.

There's always project Pluto, the nuclear powered cruise missile that
would come in low, drop H-Bombs, and then continue flying around, for
how long?

Pegasus antisatellite rocket for F-15, also.

The M-class RN subs were never used in battle, imagine that 12 incher
for shore raids/commando attacks in WW2?

Andrew Robert Breen

unread,

Apr 21, 2008, 2:57:34 AM4/21/08

to

In article <197a682d-d514-4d00...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

David E. Powell <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>The M-class RN subs were never used in battle, imagine that 12 incher
>for shore raids/commando attacks in WW2?

Max Horton commanded M1 for a while, and seems to have worked out ways of
using her: modus operandi was to come to periscope depth off the quarter of
the target at 200-odd yards range with the muzzle of the 12" above surface,
discharge one round and then either follow in with torpedoes or surface to
reload and finsih off the victim. I suspect it was lack of targets which meant she
sisn't see action, rather than anything else.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Message has been deleted

Eugene Griessel

unread,

Apr 21, 2008, 5:34:21 AM4/21/08

to

Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:

>Sex on television can't hurt you unless you fall off

Or you forget to remove the bunny ears from on top of the set.

Eugene L Griessel

Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

William Black

unread,

Apr 21, 2008, 5:56:25 AM4/21/08

to

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:197a682d-d514-4d00...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

, Maus, if I recall
correctly, was deployed? One of the giant German tanks with a rocket
launcher short barrel gun was, I recall.

---------------------------

They only ever built two and I don't think they left the proving ground.

It's possible one was engaged when the Soviets over-ran the plce, but I
believe that this remains speculation.

-----------------------------

The M-class RN subs were never used in battle, imagine that 12 incher
for shore raids/commando attacks in WW2?

------------------------------

I think that only M1 kept the gun.

M2 had a seaplane hangar fitted, and one day they dived while the hangar
door was open...

M3 was a minelayer and M4 was scrapped before completion.

Of course their forerunners were the K class, of which the least said the
better...

Richard Casady

unread,

Apr 21, 2008, 9:40:33 AM4/21/08

to

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:56:25 +0100, "William Black"
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Of course their forerunners were the K class, of which the least said the
>better...

Were those the steam submarines, which were even more useless than the
M class.

Casady

Andrew Robert Breen

unread,

Apr 21, 2008, 10:14:20 AM4/21/08

to

In article <48199918....@news.east.earthlink.net>,

The bug-fixed version - K26 - seems to have been not unuseful, lasting
in service until 1930 (when she was scrapped as taking up too much of
the tonnage permitted for submarines). For really awful steam-driven
submarines, I'd refer you to some of the French abominations of
early WW1, though it was detail design which really let them down
(sometimes literally).

--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)

Dan

unread,

Apr 21, 2008, 1:28:32 PM4/21/08

to

Maus was a huge tank with 150mm main gun and 75mm coaxial weapon.

> One of the giant German tanks with a rocket
> launcher short barrel gun was, I recall.

That would be a variant on the Brumbar Assault Gun. A lot of different
main guns were used, mostly 150mm or thereabouts. Used in city assaults.

Dan

Jack Linthicum

unread,

Apr 21, 2008, 1:38:41 PM4/21/08

to

Later replaced by candy and nylons

Ray O'Hara

unread,

Apr 21, 2008, 3:51:42 PM4/21/08

to

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:480c5f6c...@news.uunet.co.za...

unread,

Apr 21, 2008, 5:53:10 PM4/21/08

to

"Dean A. Markley" <deanm...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:oqWdnRBHwchif5HV...@comcast.com:

> What is the issue? Bulk DU is not dangerous.
>

The claim is that DU from these rounds is escaping
into the environment, and hurting the children.
Mainly made by types inclined to complain about
the military being here at all.

Naturally the state is considered to be part of
the conspiracy, so they want their pet
"scientists" (using the term loosely) to take
measurements of radiation in the air, and soil samples.

scott s.
.

Dean A. Markley

unread,

Apr 21, 2008, 8:08:10 PM4/21/08

to

Ahhh, the the people who won't understand reason. BTW, careful with
the "pet" scientist stuff. I am a scientist (chemist) myself.

Dean

Andrew Robert Breen

unread,

Apr 22, 2008, 3:36:00 AM4/22/08

to

In article <sqednU3nzJ_...@pipex.net>,

Damme me, you're right. Oops.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth

"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,

Apr 22, 2008, 5:32:10 AM4/22/08

to

In article <oqWdnRBHwchif5HV...@comcast.com>,

deanm...@comcast.net (Dean A. Markley) wrote:

> What is the issue? Bulk DU is not dangerous.

The dust is. Uranium is a poison like most heavy metals and even
depleted uranium is still an alpha emitter. If I had children I would
not like them playing somewhere they could ingest uranium.

Ken Young

Eugene Griessel

unread,

Apr 22, 2008, 5:35:41 AM4/22/08

to

ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

Better keep them away from the granite rocks then......

Eugene L Griessel

When you are bored with yourself,
Marry - and be bored with someone else.

Keith Willshaw

unread,

Apr 22, 2008, 1:41:18 PM4/22/08

to

"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message

news:480db159...@news.uunet.co.za...

> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
>>In article <oqWdnRBHwchif5HV...@comcast.com>,
>>deanm...@comcast.net (Dean A. Markley) wrote:
>>
>>> What is the issue? Bulk DU is not dangerous.
>>
>> The dust is. Uranium is a poison like most heavy metals and even
>>depleted uranium is still an alpha emitter. If I had children I would
>>not like them playing somewhere they could ingest uranium.
>
> Better keep them away from the granite rocks then......
>

There's damn little DU in granite rocks

I have machined DU and you'd better believe I used a good
filter mask when doing so. Getting fine particles of DU in your
lungs is not as adangerous as inhaling asbestos fibres. It wont
kill you right away and may never harm you but it does
increase your risk of lung cancer and leukemia.

Keith

Eugene Griessel

unread,

Apr 22, 2008, 1:55:03 PM4/22/08

to

"Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
>news:480db159...@news.uunet.co.za...
>> ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>In article <oqWdnRBHwchif5HV...@comcast.com>,
>>>deanm...@comcast.net (Dean A. Markley) wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the issue? Bulk DU is not dangerous.
>>>
>>> The dust is. Uranium is a poison like most heavy metals and even
>>>depleted uranium is still an alpha emitter. If I had children I would
>>>not like them playing somewhere they could ingest uranium.
>>
>> Better keep them away from the granite rocks then......
>>
>
>There's damn little DU in granite rocks

No - but they do tend to be alpha emitters.

Eugene L Griessel

The only substitute for good manners is fast reflexes.

Richard Casady

unread,

Apr 22, 2008, 8:03:44 PM4/22/08

to

Its just barely radioactive, but it is a heavy metal, and is about as
dangerous as lead.

Casady

ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,

Apr 22, 2008, 8:32:20 PM4/22/08

to

In article <480e2648...@news.uunet.co.za>, eugene@dynagen..co..za
(Eugene Griessel) wrote:

> No - but they do tend to be alpha emitters.

I have not seen them producing much dust though. The Radon produced by
decay is more dangerous, though this is usually only a problem with
houses built on and of granite.

Ken Young

unread,

Apr 23, 2008, 3:42:55 PM4/23/08

to

In message
<197a682d-d514-4d00...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
David E. Powell <David_Po...@msn.com> writes

>Well, there was the fellow who mentioned artillery observers in field
>gray... I suppose this has to make the list, Maus, if I recall
>correctly, was deployed?

Don't think they got as far as arming the prototype.

>One of the giant German tanks with a rocket
>launcher short barrel gun was, I recall.

That was the Sturmmorser (there should be an umlaut on the 'o') which
was a Tiger chassis with a 380mm rocket launcher in a fixed
superstructure. (And all of a dozen reloads, which needed a small crane
to be rigged to hoist them from the racks to the breech). A total of
eighteen converted: mostly a "gee whiz, how do we avoid being sent to
the Eastern Front?" exercise for the technicians and a way to use up a
weird anti-submarine mortar that had no ships to be mounted on, than a
serious act of war.

>The M-class RN subs were never used in battle, imagine that 12 incher
>for shore raids/commando attacks in WW2?

They were long gone by then. The concept was to broach at point-blank
range (1200 yards) and let the target have it with a 12" shell, then
either reload and fire again (about three minutes surfaced) or else use
torpedoes to finish the target off. (The 18" torpedoes became a
limitation as the standard moved to 21")

M1 was lost in a collision in 1925, M2 had her gun housing converted to
a sealed hangar and carried a small seaplane, but flooded and sank
during a 1933 exercise. M3 was converted to a minelayer to prove the
gear for the Porpoise class, and was then scrapped in 1932.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides

paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

Andrew Swallow

unread,

Apr 23, 2008, 4:45:25 PM4/23/08

to

Zomby...@cox.net wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:15:05 +0100, Andrew Swallow
> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>

[snip]

>> Did it generate electricity?
>> NASA would like a nuclear power plant for the Moon and Mars. Solar
>> power does not work every well at night.
>>
> GE's solution for the X-6 was to design a single, large, air-cooled
> reactor that had a core of 143 pounds of uranium dioxide fuel elements
> riddled with air passages and sandwiched between rings of stainless
> steel. Four J-53 turbojet engines were manifolded to the front and
> rear ends of the reactor; air from the compressor sections of the jets
> passed directly through the core and then out the exhaust nozzles. The
> all-up weight of the power plant came to about 128,000 pounds, 60,000
> pounds of which was shielding.
>
> The GE design employed the so-called direct or open system. Air was
> ducted straight through the reactor, emerging super hot to replace the
> heat formerly generated by the burning of fossil fuel (such as
> kerosene) in the jet's combustion chamber. The reactor-jet power plant
> was to be mounted inside the X-6 in its aft bomb bay with the four
> J-53s underneath the aft fuselage in an exposed group. The total
> amount of shielding was divided. A large tank of water surrounded the
> reactor itself (water acting not only as a shield but also as a
> reaction moderator in the core). A circular, lead-and-steel Gamma-ray
> shield, 80 inches in diameter and 4 inches thick, was immediately
> behind the forward Crew compartment.

Thank you.

Andrew Swallow