Effects of nuclear weapons on tanks

[Snowdog]

I have a couple quick questions due to a discussion a coworker and I had earlier today.

During the cold war, did the US (or NATO) ever consider using tactical (or any kind of) nuclear weapons against a potential blitzkrieg of Soviet tanks if the USSR attempted to overrun Europe?

Here's the other question:  If a column of Soviet tanks (of T-64 and T-72 main battle tanks, for example) were dealt with by use of nuclear weapons, outside the residual effects of radiation on the crew, how effective would this desperate measure be? 

My coworker was under the impression that any tank within 2 miles of a 20 kt blast would be rendered useless, whereas I suspect perhaps only the tanks within a couple hundred yards would be mechanically "destroyed" whereas the tank crews would be the weak link for tanks outside that range (possible injured or killed by overpressure).  If the crew were later replaced, I believe most tanks would be more or less operable with only superficial damage.

I've seen video footage of the effect of a nearby nuclear blast against unarmored vehicles such as jeeps, buses and 2.5 ton trucks and the damage was impressive. However, I've never seen such tests involving armored vehicles and tanks.

I'm currently Googling this, but I'm aware there are quite a few knowledgeable folks here that might have some answers. 

Thanks!

[MicroBalrog]

Soviet manuals definitely assume fighting in a situation where both sides use tacnukes. If there is interest, I will post quotes/drawings from these manuals.

[Regolith]

I don't know how serious the US military was about using tacnukes should the Ruskies invade western Europe, but they built a weapons system called the M65 Recoiless Nuclear Rifle (also known as the Davey Crockett) for exactly that purpose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE&feature=related

And then there was this thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNlOtLhnsEE&NR=1

[drewtam]

How much time would cold war military strategist spend on such an issue?

If one side used tactical nukes, isn't the assumption that it would escalate to full blown strategic MAD war? The only conclusion is that you don't bother with tactical escalation, if you're gonna push the "big red button" then you're going all in, at the first hand.

Now-a-days, tactical war seems more likely with regional combat with nations that don't have intercontinental ballistic capability.

[Snowdog]

I agree with you Drewtam, the use of nuclear weapons in just about any application would set off a rapid and likely irreversible "chain reaction" of escalation in itself I'm sure. I've firmly been of the belief that nuclear weapons should be manufactured and maintained as a deterrent more than anything else.

However, I'm questioning if we had plans to use nuclear weapons against armored columns (and specifically tanks) which has been answered (thanks guys!).  Now the remaining question is in regards to how successful in physically "destroying" tanks would the use of tactical nukes be?

I understand nearby residential and commercial buildings are no match for the destructive force of a 20 kt nuclear blast, but I'm really curious what a nuclear blast would do to a 40 ton chunk of war-tank some 200-1000 yards away.

[vaskidmark]

I'll wait for MicroBalog to post the technical pubs, but my money is on the effects of radiation in messing with the explosives inside the tanks being more potent than the blast wave itself.  Tanks are pretty squat things and even when beng blown up on purpose tend not to tip over too often.

Now, watching the turret come apart and the hatches fly off when the ammo and fuel go up inside is quite impressive.

stay safe.

skidmark

[RevDisk]

The Abrams has an NBC filtration system, rad detection kit, etc.  Allegedly, you can overpressure the crew area to keep out the fallout.  Uh, not sure how great those seals are.  No one is really wanting to test them in the real world.  The NBC specific vehicles are the only ones that folks maintain properly.  You'd want to be wearing your MOPP suit and mask regardless.  

Rads do not effect the munitions of an Abrams.  

If the seals work out, you should be able to withstand the overpressure in an Abrams.  That's the most dangerous part.  If the overpressure system works, the fallout (second most dangerous part) is minimal.  You'd want to keep your MOPP suit on and shag down to the nearest decon station to get the fallout washed off the tank.  Then get individually decon'd.  

Sustained fighting in an NBC environment is probably suicidal, because something will eventually fail.  If it doesn't fail immediately.  


The US Strategic nukes are the W76, W62, W78, W87, and W88.  We don't have "TacNukes" anymore.  Sorta.  We have Dial-A-Yield.  You can set the yield on the fly, and make the nuke either a Tactical or a Strategic nuke.  Those are the W80, B61, and B83.

Disclaimer:  I have no idea if the above is accurate.  We may or may not have "off the book" designs such as Atomic Demolition Munitions or whatnot.  Not my area of expertise, and it'd likely be classified anyways.

My coworker was under the impression that any tank within 2 miles of a 20 kt blast would be rendered useless, whereas I suspect perhaps only the tanks within a couple hundred yards would be mechanically "destroyed" whereas the tank crews would be the weak link for tanks outside that range (possible injured or killed by overpressure).  If the crew were later replaced, I believe most tanks would be more or less operable with only superficial damage.

No, a tank within "a couple hundred yards" of a 20 kt blast (assuming it wasn't a couple hundred yards of lead and concrete) would fry.  One, the rads would be fatal.  Two, the seals couldn't possible handle the overpressure.  Three, wouldn't matter because the entire tank would be cooked.  Certainly enough to kill the crew, detonate the rounds, set the fuel ablaze, melt anything not metal, etc

The hull would probably survive.  As a vaguely tank looking lump of radioactive metal.

2 miles from a 20 Kt ?  Probably survive just fine.  Just wash it off and decon.

[kgbsquirrel]

And then there was this thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNlOtLhnsEE&NR=1

Here's a longer video about that weapon...

280mm Nuclear Artillery

[HankB]

A while back, there was a big furor about enhanced radiation weapons, aka the "Neutron Bomb."  Essentially a thermonuclear device without the uranium outer case (making it a fission-fusion bomb, rather than a fission-fusion-fission bomb) it produced a disproportionate amount of radiation relative to its blast yield. Soviet tank crews were the intended targets. The lower blast yield was thought to reduce damage to, for example, West German infrastructure being over run by Soviet tank divisions, while the enhanced radiation effects would kill crews much further away than the blast would destroy the tank itself.

[AJ Dual]

A while back, there was a big furor about enhanced radiation weapons, aka the "Neutron Bomb."  Essentially a thermonuclear device without the uranium outer case (making it a fission-fusion bomb, rather than a fission-fusion-fission bomb) it produced a disproportionate amount of radiation relative to its blast yield. Soviet tank crews were the intended targets. The lower blast yield was thought to reduce damage to, for example, West German infrastructure being over run by Soviet tank divisions, while the enhanced radiation effects would kill crews much further away than the blast would destroy the tank itself.

Yep, I was just going to post that. The whole reason ER bombs were invented. Soviet tank columns.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

there were plenty of folks in germany who had opinions and thoughts about the use of nukes

[41magsnub]

I had a training once on the mk-54 SADM as an engineer for the purposes of dropping a bridge in the fulda gap with the russians hot on our heals.  Sobering...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i know a german civilian lady who lived near there. married a friend  she once wryly remarked that she did a tour that lasted 25 years there

[MicroBalrog]

Okay guys, I hate to break it to you:

Soviet doctrine, at least through the 60's and 70's, accepted and revolved around, the use of thermonuclear weapons to defeat Western tanks. Conversely, soviet armored warfare manuals warn officers that NATO forces will probably use nuclear weapons extensively. The relevant Soviet book for this is Biryukov/Melnikov's "Anti-Tank Warfare" (Military Press, Moscow, 1967). The good comrades react tanks, airstrikes, and ATGMs as "auxiliary" to the principle method of anti-armored warfare:

"Individual, group, and mass nuclear strikes."

This is the drawing provided in the manual:



The white lines denote the location of Western mechanized and armored units. The black circles with thick dots in the middle are individual nuclear strikes, and clusters of said circles are group nuclear strikes.

Alternatively, the thick, dotted line enveloping the entire Western division? Oh, that's a massed nuclear strike.

[PTK]

I had a training once on the mk-54 SADM as an engineer for the purposes of dropping a bridge in the fulda gap with the russians hot on our heals.  Sobering...

Ok, drop it like this, then drive really really really fast.... upwind.

[roo_ster]

A few years back, at the end of the cold war, debated a person who argued the Soviet threat was bogus.  I brought up the Soviet doctrine of using tac nukes formthe get-go, but they would not believe me.  Didn;t fit their view of reality.

[GigaBuist]

No, a tank within "a couple hundred yards" of a 20 kt blast (assuming it wasn't a couple hundred yards of lead and concrete) would fry.

OK, but what about a 1940's era refrigerator?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

A few years back, at the end of the cold war, debated a person who argued the Soviet threat was bogus.  I brought up the Soviet doctrine of using tac nukes formthe get-go, but they would not believe me.  Didn;t fit their view of reality.

my old boss at the hotel was in the german army in the gap.he said their role was Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungen

[RocketMan]

Geschwindi---what?  My German is weak.  Speed bumps?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

yup.  that was the job of the units in the fulda gap

[Scout26]

Every US artillery battery in USAREUR was trained in the use of "Special Weapons".  In fact I believe that they were stored in either Miesau or Pirmasens, I forget which.

[RevDisk]

OK, but what about a 1940's era refrigerator?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/187269/

[MicroBalrog]

Ok, drop it like this, then drive really really really fast.... upwind.

Weak American.

Soviet urban warfare doctrine of the era calls for using tacnukes to clear away fortified city areas and then ordering infantry in to capture the burning ruins. Special groups were tasked in putting out residual fires so infantrymen could rush in faster and capture the strike area.

No. I am not joking. I can provide graphs.

[kgbsquirrel]

Weak American.

Soviet urban warfare doctrine of the era calls for using tacnukes to clear away fortified city areas and then ordering infantry in to capture the burning ruins. Special groups were tasked in putting out residual fires so infantrymen could rush in faster and capture the strike area.

No. I am not joking. I can provide graphs.

Sounds like standard Stalin. What's 30 or 40 million of your own people dead as long as you win and the vodka and caviar keeps flowing,

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the chinese regard stalin as a coddler