Talk:Davy Crockett (nuclear device)

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States / Cold War

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Pritzker Military Library Low‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Article contradicts itself.

In the "effects" paragraph the article first claims that both recoilless guns had good accuracy during testing, with the projectiles hitting within 10 foot of the targets, only to contradict itself within a few sentences by claiming the guns were "shockingly inaccurat", and basically unfit to deliver even low yield nuclear ammunitions. Which one is it? 5.104.216.36 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Accuracy subsection of Concerns backs up the "good accuracy" claim, so the "shockingly inaccurate" claim is now contradicted by two separate sources- one of them being the Army Weapons Command itself. I feel that is enough to remove the claim of inaccuracy, and will do so. PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weapon.

It's a weapon, but by far the goofiest one. It's so silly. A 0.02 kiloton nuclear bomb launched from a *short range* mortar. It would most likely kill its operators. It's by far the most American weapon ever. I love it and i'm glad it was never used. It's the weakest nuclear device and its almost twice as powerful as the MOAB Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible air to ground usage

Imagine if you will this thing with a whistler on the nose dropped from a plane like the German ww2 prototype Horton with if you can read this you are dead pained on the side having a 30 second delay 2600:1009:B12A:46A2:8484:FEBD:58C4:5211 (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? This isn't World of Tanks, you can't just make stuff up because you think it sounds cool. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]