Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
As I'm sure I mentioned elsewhere the crew had to entrench before firing as they were within the blast radius. Oops. Nuke field guns on the other hand lobbed the munition to a far greater distance. I always wonder if a large cal. tank firing battlefield yield ord. was ever posited seriously. If anyone has any information I would be most grateful. :)
Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.
It seems like the militaries of the USA and the USSR were obsessed with nuclear weapons back then.
If it could explode, then it seems they'd try to stick a nuke on it to make it explode even more. Hence we have:
Nuclear Air-To-Air Missiles, such as the US 'Genie'.
Nuclear Torpedoes
Nuclear Tank shells
Nuclear Artillery, including long-range mortars
Nuclear depth charges
Nuclear Anti-Air defence missiles
Nuclear Surface-To-Air Missiles
It's a wonder they didn't try to make nuclear hand grenades.
Comment