Talk:Davy Crockett (nuclear device)

Davy Crockett state of the art
Because some people are apparently fools, here is the exact quote praising the weapon's technical design:

"I think I can answer. Davy Crockett was brought into the inventory and was actually used the last time, I guess, in the Berlin crisis of 1961. The problems with Davy Crockett were twofold: (1) Since it was essentially а platoon weapon, command and control was а problem, and there apparently was great fear that some sergeant would start а nuclear war; (2) the resources that the Army had to provide to actually keep Davy Crockett in the field were а higher price than the net worth of the weapon at that particular time. In fairness to this weapon, it did represent а significant advance in the technical state of the art, both from the design and the production viewpoint, and I think the laboratory responsible for the design and production deserves а great deal of credit. It is unfortunate that we were not able to fit it into our command and control and manpower system more effectively. I think it was а little bit ahead of its time."

Emphasis mine. Kylesenior (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * As a former gun crew member with 3rd Armored Division, I would point out that the warhead had a "fail-safe" mechanism. - a 7 digit combination lock, middle digit "0" over the arming mechanism. We were split into 2 teams, and each team having access to only half the combination. The combination would only be available once the president released the weapons and we would receive a message to decode for the combination. We only had one warhead and it was stored in separate ammo dump from non-nuclear munitions. Additionally, attempting to remove the combination lock by force would have seriously damaged the fiberglass outer shell of the warhead. We were told that the reason the weapon was being phased out was because of disarmament talks. As for accuracy, we were always able to get direct hits on the target during annual test firings. Besides, as we used to say, "almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs." 2600:1702:4A40:870:97:7CB:F347:D05E (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

"Davy Crockett (nuclear device" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device&redirect=no Davy Crockett (nuclear device] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

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)