Nuclear capable catapults?

[code_grey]

@wevets

When I first read this, I thought perhaps it was an air-dropped or rocket-launched torpedo, but a quick glance at wikipedia notes that the Mk 45 nuclear-armed torpedo was intended to be submarine-launched:

Mark 45 torpedo - Wikipedia

What were they thinking?

perhaps they counted on finding a way to scale down blast radius later on by using a better miniaturized bomb?

[JustinC]

@billfish678

On TV I’ve seen “trebs” that chunk small cars a decent distance. Take “decent distance” and multiply by weight of small car divided by 50 lbs and there is your ballpark answer right there.

If you go to about 3:00 minutes on this clip you’ll see a very unusual Top Gear review.

[billfish678]

@Alka_Seltzer

While we’re on the subject of silly nuclear weapons, the British considered deploying a nuclear mine with a chicken inside it.

Damn thats funny.

It may replace the bat bomb for my favorite crazy idea that would probably work. Here’s a bat bomb link (safe for work)

Bat bomb

[Otara]

@wevets

When I first read this, I thought perhaps it was an air-dropped or rocket-launched torpedo, but a quick glance at wikipedia notes that the Mk 45 nuclear-armed torpedo was intended to be submarine-launched:

Mark 45 torpedo - Wikipedia

What were they thinking?

From the link:

“There was absolutely no danger that the small nuclear warhead would damage the launching sub, even at less than half the normal range.”

Maybe it was updated, but it doesnt seem to support the claim made.

Otara

[wevets]

@Otara

From the link:

“There was absolutely no danger that the small nuclear warhead would damage the launching sub, even at less than half the normal range.”

Maybe it was updated, but it doesnt seem to support the claim made.

Otara

Yup - checking the edit history, the phrase you quote was added on the evening of October 26th, several hours after I posted.

Unfortunately, it’s not sourced. I went ahead and added “citation needed” tags.

[wevets]

And looking at the citation history, the “kill probability of 2 (Him and Me)” is sourced to Preston, Anthony Submarine Warfare: An Illustrated History, page 86.

I’m not going to look up the Submarine Warfare book, but it’s possible that the uncited reference to it being a joke might be wrong.

[wevets]

Hoping to finally get an answer on the nuclear torpedo issue, I posted on Wikipedia asking for clarification on the assertion that it would damage the launching submarine.

According to this source, the Mark 45 nuclear torpedo had a range of about 15,000 yards and carried a warhead of 20 kilotons.

From the Baker tests of atomic bombs at Bikini, a 21 or 23 kiloton bomb was detonated underwater, depending on which source to believe. Submarines within about 1,000 yards of the detonation sank, but those outside the 1,000 yard circle seem to have escaped major damage, and fared better than surface ships outside the 1,000 yard circle, of which some sank, and the others were deluged with radioactive water and debris, making decontamination impossible for many. Cite

So it seems the “kill probability of 2” thing is indeed only a joke and not a real consequence of the Mark 45 torpedo.

[Boyo_Jim]

I have a plan that seems (on the surface) to be less than optimal, which is why you probably shouldn’t think about it too much.

You can get away with a smaller trebuchet for you nuke if you have some other trebuchets for… your crew. You have your crew trebuchets facing the opposite direction as the weapon one. You fire the weapon, and then you fire the crew away to… uh… safety!