The country that applies these tests and has used it to the people of a country, is pointing their fingers and accusing other countries for 'possibly making' them. I said possibly making them, not TESTING them and NOT using them....but once again, ignorance wins in the long run.
@masterco93 Well, the range of most large artillery is 15-25 miles while the vaporization blast radius of the Hiroshima bomb, also about 15k ton was measured one half of a mile in diameter. Total destruction ranged at one mile in diameter. Severe blast damage carried as far as two miles in diameter. The remaining area of the blast zone was riddled with serious blazes that stretched out to the final edge at a little over three miles in diameter. I'd say they're in the clear.
it doesnt really appear on 2 o´clock at least not how i see it and i heared about this gun in a documentary before so you can be sure it isnt fake or do you have some source providing that it is fake? official ones i mean?
a nuke doesnt always have to be a 25 megaton you know.
there have been tests with nuclear mortarlike weapons with a power of around 1 or 2 kilotons. (so the blast radius is really small, search Davy Crockett)
my dads artillery (the M110A1) was capable of delivering W33 nuclear shells over a range of 35 miles. W33 was in service 'till '92 and besides from US arti, also deployed with artillery in Europe.
"The long and short of the Davy Crockett system was that it was a suicide weapon. The operators knew that if they ever had the occasion to use the system it was a sign of extreme desperation. That was one of the many reasons that JFK pulled both versions out of the field."
nope, the full size arty shell was completely harmless to the crew (appart from fall-out carried by the wind of course). it was abandoned (at least in europe that is) because of the fall of the soviet union and the following disarmament.
My granfather was the batterie operater on good ol "Atom Annie" back in the late 50s when they only used it for demonstrations firing blanks when he was stationed in Fort Sill in Lawton.OK. It had an affective range of 30 miles!
Why the hell don't we take some of these to Afghanistan and lob the shells over the border onto those dirty pakistanis? Wake-up call obama! Whoops, I meant osama... You my man are fucning right!!!!!!!!!!!
because it would break the nuclear proliferation treaty ...dumbass..
Also Taliban is stateless....they moved where they can survive.......the trouble with the US winning the war on Terrorism is that they Strike states and government....but not take out the actual individuals responsible for Terror Strikes...that's why Bin Laden is still alive...or at least his extreme ideology still runs rampant world wide.
you shouldn't have cut it at the end like that, because you miss out on seeing that cool looking Double mushroom cloud, that it creates. the Army should take one to Tora Bora.
Excuse me "Theomega777" but the Canadian Forces are reputed for having the best Army in the world. Ask the British, the Americans, the Dutch, and the French. They would know having served with us and said so themselves.
God bless the men and women of the Canadian Forces, the Dominion of Canada, and Her Majesty the Queen
Best Army in the world? I doubt it. I'm in the USMC and i admit i dont like our army but no offense the Canadian army isnt one of the best. I served with some in Afganistan coming from a 1st Force Recon Marine, Bravo Company, 1st Platoon
well...the procurement program is a joke. "hey let's get new leopards cause our old ones don't have ac for summer condtions" then guess what feature the new ones don't have.
the cf's mobility and deployability are really lacking. not enough planes and choppers that will stay stuck together.
and lav3s are pretty craptacular when stood up next to a bradley.
but we do have the distance record on confirmed kill with small arms, and it's not like there aren't canadian citizens in the usmc.
World doesn't owe us anything necessarily but your country certainly does. :) After all, without American intervention, Hitler would have certainly taken GB as well. L2RHistory.
I don't owe the US fuck all mate never have never will.
I am grateful to the US soldiers of WW1 and 2 but you ain't one of them so you can go fuck yourself!
Muslin immigrants??? WTF? We are quite capable of defending ourselves on these islands, so, no thanks we don't need your help, or your fantastic record of blue on blue kills!
Respect for what? What have YOU ever done for ME? Fuck all, keep it that way. Now go fuck yourself.
Really it is ture u owe us we owe u and with todays tech u couldnt defend yourself long 5 nukes would do it and some day it will happen to the usa, and other dipshit germany would never have taken over Britain maybe bombed them to hell but not taken over it
To be honest that statement is Very untrue! The British Government had already had Battle lines ready if Germany pushed for Britain! Tho Germany made some errors which we were lucky not to have them on are land. I am speaking of WW2 tho if thats what ya mean!
Remember it wasn't only Britain, Russia, and the U.S. Canada has a competent force, and actually was more successful clearing the beaches on D-Day. For the U.S. to fall Russia would have had to be eliminated, allowing Germany to focus solely on Canada/U.S. Had Britain fell significantly before the U.S. was prepared to enter the war, perhaps Germany would have won. The Allies were so much more powerful in WWII that taking away a power even as great as Britain doesn't fully sway what happens.
Well it hard to "post-dict" what could have happened. But if Hitler had taken 1 country at a time, france and britain, then Russia, then Canada and after that the USA, they could have won.
I think that as soon as Britain was threatened (read after France got their asses kicked) that the U.S. started mobilizing, or preparing to. Note that we sent Britain aide. I think by the time Germany actually made it across the Atlantic, assuming they go after Russia, they would have run into a powerful and fully-prepared American Force. You can't take Canada without the U.S. interfering, and vice-versa. It would only be close because it would be Germany/Japan vs U.S./Canada.
The problem would be who would get the super weapons into action first. With no Air bases in Britain to bomb German industry from. Germany would have built a massive force of industrial and technological strength. With no old British empire to fight through Japan would have had an easier start to its war as well.
equipped? hehe I wouldn't use that word too much! Hell the Army still catching up on equipping are boys! Tho saying that we are the best trained and anyone disagree are in la la land. We sure done well looking after are self on operational tours compare to some.
Say's the man who's country got invaded by Britain Before?
You where lucky that you attacked a Merchant ship for that Boston Tea Party Thingy,
You think it's amazing over tens of thousands of people beat one squad?
It would of taken months for the Britsh Navy to Ferry the British Army to America so when you think about it you got lucky and when your invaded again Mainly by That "Europe Trash"
Ill have my popcorn ready while they exucute you over the McDonlads sign
"British Air Force Is the Best In The World As Well As our armed force's and Navy!"
It's "forces" not "force's"... That alone shows me the degree of your intelligence. Also, I don't argue with delusional dimwits.
Execute me over a McDonald's sign? I think you have a better chance of choking on a meal of fish & chips.
Fyi, I like Euros in general, I don't like f'ing liberal euro trash who bash the US which seem to be the majority of you these days. Now go clean your teeth & stop wasting my time.
Note that while Britain HAS invaded the US, it has never won a war against the US. Yes it would have taken months to get the entire British army to the US. The fact was Britain didn't during the YEARS that we were at war.
Why would European nations invade the US? Lets take a continent and fight a country with it. Real good logic. The gov has admitted we have "invisible" fighters/bombers that can fly above the vertical range of any other aircraft. Like it or not the US is insanely strong.
nutcas, i don't know where you got your info, but you are wrong,i was stationed on that gun, and it would fire a hell of a lot further than 7 miles, and it only took about 20 minutes to set up and fire, i've seen times we fired 2 or 3 rounds at a time,one right after the other,
They do not use nuclear shells anymore the fallout from the shell will kill the crew as well as the enemy. Not to good if you want to win a war. Also its very expensive and takes a lot of man hours/power to train the troops in its use. I worked on them back in the 80s. Also a lot of people get mixed up with the Geneva Convention. It's only for the correct treatment of none-combatants and prisoners of war. They are laws which require soldiers to treat captured prisoners in certain ways. Mark
The dont use it by who? the USA the Russia the China etc yes but if the things go bad the will use them Standar.If i die i will take you also with me :)
15 KT is very survivable at a distance of several kilometers. I suggest actually doing research before you continue spouting off uneducated statements.
actually there was a mobile nuke that kinda looked like a recoilless riffle but it could only fire up to two miles away which wasnt far enough to stay out of fallout range....so it was pointless
Not quite. Any army would trade an infantry squad as casualties if they took out a tank division in return. Second, NBC suits would protect against fallout.
Go to US Army Ordanance Museum in Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. It is on military installation. They have one of those on display. Go on google and take a preview. They also have WW2 German rail gun, too.
Hey hemligsson.......the video of you actually getting laid is a fake as no woman known to man would let you lay down with them with the intention of procreation. So why don't you try choking on some dicks you assbag?
Why didn't they use this? I know the radiation could kill the crew but couldn't they have made the shell lighter, thus making it go farther, and not spreading so much radiation also. If the shell was too small couldn't they have put it in a capsule to make it bigger? Or couldn't they have made the Atomic Annie more powerful,thus firing the shell farther?
The project only got shelved because of improvements in tactical ballistic missiles in the late 50`s and early 60`s. Even the Soviet SS-1 scud had prototype problems. A stop gap measure(tactical nuclear artillery),but at least our forces had this capability available, if the shit hit the fan, lol.
Atomic Annie was only able to shoot 7 miles away. It took a day to setup up the gun, and could only be fired once a day. You think this is a good tactical weapon? Soviet mechanized forces can easily move around these things in a day, and probably deep inside enemy lines. Heh. An aircraft carrying nukes would be much more practical.
Without this project NATO would not have a tactical nuclear weapon system to oppose Soviet tactical nuclear weapon systems of that time. Plans uncovered after the fall of the Soviet Union found that Tactical nuclear strikes would be the first stage in the invasion of Western Europe. We could not leave our forces in the field which were already out numbered without a tactical nuclear response.
Gigantic canons never been good tactical weapons. Germans had giant canons in two World Wars, and they had very limited use such as destroying stagnant defenses such as forts. Annie was made to keep the Army in the business of war when nukes were thought to be the only thing needed for war, not out of necessity. Otherwise the Army wouldn't have bothered with this canon.
Nutcas, without "giant cannons", the Germans wouldn't have been able to destroy Belgian forts like Liege which would make their push through BVelgium impossible.
Even though Annie only fired once, she was the foundation of the project which invented the W48 warhead, which could be fired by much more mobile artillery. Until the later development of a accurate nuclear SRBM a nuclear artillery system would have to fill the gap, hence Atomic Annie and her family of weapon systems .
Correct. The W-48 was a linear implosion weapon designed to be fired out of 155mm howitzers and had a yield of roughly 7 decatons. However, with a cost of a little over a million per unit they weren't very cost effective.
This was meant to be a tactical weapon, long range strategic nuclear bombers would provide the range needed to carry out strategic attacks until the ICBM could take over this role. Atomic Annie was a success because it lead to the development of the W48 warhead. The W48 warhead weighed only 58 kg and could be fired by a 155 mm howitzer.
That's the problem actually. It's a tactical weapon. It's too heavy. Requires too much manpower, and takes a long time to setup into firing postition. Large canons such as these have proved nothing of their use that alternatives can. That's why such canons don't exist anywhere, and only somebody who doesn't know military like Saddam would bother with giant canons. Yes it was a failure. A canon that slows you down very bad would make concerns for Soviet mechanized army rolling around.
That's why the major armies of the world don't use anything over 155mm. Any bigger the weapon would just be too big. Chinese manufacture 8 inch howitzers for export, but the PLA itself has no interest in 8 inch howitzers. Too heavy, and the ammunition is heavy. It isn't like canons can't fire smart shells. Excalibur exists for the US Army. Too much weight is not a good thing, and the Annie was mortally obese. It's going to slow you down.
Atomic Annie was a failure as a strategic weapon. It took a day to put the weapon in position. Very slow rate of fire, plus the Soviets targeted the thing. They always knew where Atomic Annies were. Really it was just military politics that gave birth to it so the Army can save itself from extinction when there was talk about not needing armies. Just a mope up crew after a nuclear strike.
1/6th of a megaton? Out of all the atomic/thermo nuclear testings. This is the second most impressive test. next to Tsar Bomba. 1: Russia forcing us back into the Cold War. 2: Iran. 3: North Korea. Yeah.. Be afraid. very afraid.
"This is the second most impressive test. next to Tsar Bomba. 1: Russia forcing us back into the Cold War. 2: Iran. 3: North Korea. Yeah.. Be afraid. very afraid." are you crazzy? Yield 15 kiloton, this is old and compared to Tsar Bomb nothing, i think like 50 mega vs 16 kilo? u do the math, drop in a glass in comparison and ther is no new cold war, quik build a bomb shelter and live in fear, ok shure.
This gun was nicknamed "Atomic Annie" and is on display at Fort Sill in Lawton, OK. I went through Basic Training and A.I.T. there back in 1986, and made a quick visit again in October of '06.
yes you are right they died, my dad was stationed in germany told me a stroy bout a nuke howitzer shell they could shoot shell travel distance:12 miles - Radioactive fallout range:15 miles
Snake, what happened? Snake!? SNAAAAAAAKE~!
GoodFebruarian 3 months ago
ATOMIC ANNIE!!!
Kaesoism 11 months ago
ATOMIC BETTY!!!
jangofett1234 1 year ago
GIVE SOME TO THE TALIBAN SCUM BAGS,,,,
godblessthebest 1 year ago
OMG ITS METAL GEAR
shutigal 1 year ago
better start running xD
sebjep 1 year ago
i want one
alex321p 1 year ago
well Tulpan 240mm mortar had nuclear shells in his arsenal.....
nedeljko031 1 year ago
The country that applies these tests and has used it to the people of a country, is pointing their fingers and accusing other countries for 'possibly making' them. I said possibly making them, not TESTING them and NOT using them....but once again, ignorance wins in the long run.
persiaruler 1 year ago
what is the kill radius of this shell u think guys ?
masterco93 2 years ago
@masterco93 Well, the range of most large artillery is 15-25 miles while the vaporization blast radius of the Hiroshima bomb, also about 15k ton was measured one half of a mile in diameter. Total destruction ranged at one mile in diameter. Severe blast damage carried as far as two miles in diameter. The remaining area of the blast zone was riddled with serious blazes that stretched out to the final edge at a little over three miles in diameter. I'd say they're in the clear.
CitizenZ 1 year ago
nuclear shells were dumped coz there blast cannot be localised....they zap too wide an area
RifledBarrel 2 years ago
Forget trench warfare, that'll blow the whole fortification
AKR987 2 years ago
lol... thats the end of argument =3
Sw0rdsDance 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fake
adrastea99 2 years ago
it is not fake.. thats obvious
huswsimonbla 2 years ago 8
Does the shell have some maneuvering system?
Because the explosion occurs to the gun barrels 2 o'clock
adrastea99 2 years ago
it doesnt really appear on 2 o´clock at least not how i see it and i heared about this gun in a documentary before so you can be sure it isnt fake or do you have some source providing that it is fake? official ones i mean?
huswsimonbla 2 years ago
The video is almost definitively fake
Are you seriously denying this?
adrastea99 2 years ago
yes haha cause it is not at all.. nice weekend du hans!
huswsimonbla 2 years ago
wut?
adrastea99 2 years ago
give me one reason why they should fake this
vanbeukenmans 2 years ago
because of the immediate effects of a nuclear weapon
ie death
the nuclear artillery did not have enough range to put the users out of harms way
adrastea99 2 years ago
that is absolute bullshit.
a nuke doesnt always have to be a 25 megaton you know.
there have been tests with nuclear mortarlike weapons with a power of around 1 or 2 kilotons. (so the blast radius is really small, search Davy Crockett)
my dads artillery (the M110A1) was capable of delivering W33 nuclear shells over a range of 35 miles. W33 was in service 'till '92 and besides from US arti, also deployed with artillery in Europe.
vanbeukenmans 2 years ago
"search Davy Crockett"
ok lol:
"The long and short of the Davy Crockett system was that it was a suicide weapon. The operators knew that if they ever had the occasion to use the system it was a sign of extreme desperation. That was one of the many reasons that JFK pulled both versions out of the field."
:O
adrastea99 2 years ago
woops you are right XD
ok scrap that one, the nuclear shell point, (wich i think is most important in this vid) still stands.
vanbeukenmans 2 years ago
Look, I'm not saying this weapon does not exist
It is a known fact that even today there is nuclear artillery in use
This gun has a 20kt yield, why waste all that power on a test?
This video is probably doctored
adrastea99 2 years ago
but they still can get radiation sickness thats why they left it right?
araullo 2 years ago
nope, the full size arty shell was completely harmless to the crew (appart from fall-out carried by the wind of course). it was abandoned (at least in europe that is) because of the fall of the soviet union and the following disarmament.
vanbeukenmans 2 years ago
@vanbeukenmans it's funny how much video games can make people think all these ridiculous and unrealistic things.
YaJvkYa 2 years ago
it isn't fake you idiot, nor does the shell appear to explode at the barrel's 2 o clock
grenerd84 2 years ago
all of you lack basic perspective
adrastea99 2 years ago
are you serious? i'm an artist, and more importantly a PHOTOGRAPHER, so are you sure you want to question my perspective?
grenerd84 2 years ago
not a good artist though, amirite!
adrastea99 2 years ago
you don't keep studying art unless you are decent at it, your professors would let you know, and i have been shooting for 10 years fucknuts
grenerd84 2 years ago
money lol
adrastea99 2 years ago
sorry meant 13 miles affective range
jmkrusen1 2 years ago
My granfather was the batterie operater on good ol "Atom Annie" back in the late 50s when they only used it for demonstrations firing blanks when he was stationed in Fort Sill in Lawton.OK. It had an affective range of 30 miles!
jmkrusen1 2 years ago
Comment removed
jmkrusen1 2 years ago
Nice time to cut the video
mechwarrior83 2 years ago
uh wouldnt you be in the fallout range
axcfds 2 years ago
however cool that looked i do think its a pretty stupid weapon to use
thegiantpigeon 2 years ago 2
I only have one place in mind when I see this vid.
North Korea pointing a load to these pieces at S Korea and saying if we can't have it, no one can.
BOOOMMMMM.
truebot 3 years ago
In the game 'Mercenaries', that's exactly what happens! But then the crazy swedish guy blows the supergun up with another supergun.
HelmutVillam 2 years ago
Is this thing really neccesary? Overkill.
Hamdaman101 3 years ago
they have atomic annie displayed at apg
GUNNY89 3 years ago
Now that's what I call "fire for effect"
RacerXGTO 3 years ago 2
lol
2SSJaeger 3 years ago
Well there could be people who look like him every where he could be here in amreica.
airforcemanf16 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why the hell don't we take some of these to Afghanistan and lob the shells over the border onto those dirty pakistanis? Wake-up call obama! Whoops, I meant osama... You my man are fucning right!!!!!!!!!!!
airforcemanf16 3 years ago
airforcemanf16 :
because it would break the nuclear proliferation treaty ...dumbass..
Also Taliban is stateless....they moved where they can survive.......the trouble with the US winning the war on Terrorism is that they Strike states and government....but not take out the actual individuals responsible for Terror Strikes...that's why Bin Laden is still alive...or at least his extreme ideology still runs rampant world wide.
MajNorberg 3 years ago
Can't kill Osama, he works for the US.
Be afraid of terrorists, the terrorists who've infiltrated our government.
generatrix999 3 years ago 2
You mean the republicans?
SkyboxMonster 3 years ago
I SHALL FRY YOUR EGGS IN BUTTAR!!!
SkyboxMonster 3 years ago
thats the funniest thing i've heard all day lol
DarknapalmBeta 3 years ago
you shouldn't have cut it at the end like that, because you miss out on seeing that cool looking Double mushroom cloud, that it creates. the Army should take one to Tora Bora.
bradlez996 3 years ago 4
Excuse me "Theomega777" but the Canadian Forces are reputed for having the best Army in the world. Ask the British, the Americans, the Dutch, and the French. They would know having served with us and said so themselves.
God bless the men and women of the Canadian Forces, the Dominion of Canada, and Her Majesty the Queen
swverschuren 3 years ago
Best Army in the world? I doubt it. I'm in the USMC and i admit i dont like our army but no offense the Canadian army isnt one of the best. I served with some in Afganistan coming from a 1st Force Recon Marine, Bravo Company, 1st Platoon
LPFAN313 3 years ago 2
well...the procurement program is a joke. "hey let's get new leopards cause our old ones don't have ac for summer condtions" then guess what feature the new ones don't have.
the cf's mobility and deployability are really lacking. not enough planes and choppers that will stay stuck together.
and lav3s are pretty craptacular when stood up next to a bradley.
but we do have the distance record on confirmed kill with small arms, and it's not like there aren't canadian citizens in the usmc.
wightwidow420 3 years ago
my dad was a radioman on a very similar or perhaps the same nuclear cannon.
CovieCommander 3 years ago
I've been on Atomic Annie! Now that's a GUN! She's worse than a football down a hallway, but she always gets off! Ha ha ha.
INDYANDY4C 3 years ago
Shit! Missed!
dratsab1980 3 years ago
You only need to be close. By the way, footage is Camp desert Rock, Nevada.
Tumbleweed1954 3 years ago
Yeah, nuclear bazooka and a 9mm nuke....
magma84 3 years ago
Is that Atomic Annie? I just went by her everyday for the last 6 weeks! nice to see her in action! :)
finewine58 3 years ago
You know we also were developing a nuclear bazooka as well......
mosprime 3 years ago
LOL! Bet that would have a kick to it!
schiltrom1314 3 years ago
I wouldn't have thought that posible
johnkollor 3 years ago
this is not fake, retard, its real
flyboyme262 3 years ago
Propaganda.. Its a fake like the landing on the Moon.. Ore that the Al-qiuda destroy the WT.
BadTwin25 3 years ago
U REALLY ARE THAT DUMB badtwin25
NorVVay 3 years ago
just like the Propaganda that told you that bullshit?
jonnyknows 3 years ago
why dont u idiots just not fight.....what the fuck is the point of dumb ridiculous weapons if everyone was just cool and peaceful
windex33333 3 years ago 2
Fucking crazy american!!! please go to hell~~
mondaytoom 3 years ago
You stupid fuck. Who the hell do you think helps poor assed countries like yours?
Theomega777 3 years ago
Oh here we go! Auntie America coming to wipe the worlds chin.....AGAIN!
We did this, we did that, the world owes us a big fat fucking living! Fuckoff!
schiltrom1314 3 years ago
World doesn't owe us anything necessarily but your country certainly does. :) After all, without American intervention, Hitler would have certainly taken GB as well. L2RHistory.
Theomega777 3 years ago
No mate, we finished paying our debt two years ago! What a healthy profit you made out of that deal! (allies my arse).
We owe EVERYONE who fought in that war our gratitude. Not jumped up little pricks like you, who didn't do anything but expect our eternal thanks.
BTW the European theatre had already turned the corner by the time the US bothered their asses.
Try reading a history book other than the ones from American publishers and you might learn something about humility in victory!
schiltrom1314 3 years ago
Oh yea? (I never even mentioned finances.) So you're saying you don't owe the US any gratitude & the US did nothing for that particular war? GTFO!
Brits like you make your country look bad. I guess the Muslim immigrants will have to convert you before you learn some respect, asshat.
Theomega777 3 years ago
"Oh yea?" LOL!!!
No, dipshit, I mentioned finances!
I don't owe the US fuck all mate never have never will.
I am grateful to the US soldiers of WW1 and 2 but you ain't one of them so you can go fuck yourself!
Muslin immigrants??? WTF? We are quite capable of defending ourselves on these islands, so, no thanks we don't need your help, or your fantastic record of blue on blue kills!
Respect for what? What have YOU ever done for ME? Fuck all, keep it that way. Now go fuck yourself.
thistlewarrior 3 years ago
Good, and I'm glad I don't owe your country shit either post WW2.
"We are quite capable of defending ourselves on these islands"
LMAO! Another piece of EUROTRASH imagining a fantasy. I can't wait to see the day when you do try to defend yourselves... I'll have my popcorn ready.
No, you go fuck yourself "mate". Oh on that note, watch out for all of those gay Brits over there... They might get ya one of these days. HAHAHA!
Theomega777 3 years ago
You're a true genius if you think "fucking" yourself is gay!
Better make that popcorn a family size portion because we have been defending ourselves since before your country even existed.
What possible threat is there to Britain that we suddenly need your "help"?
Typical fat bastard of a yank who is too full of his own self importance to imagine a world where america does not act like the bully-boy policeman!
BTW I'm not British, I'm a Scot. Never liked the idea of a united Britain much!
thistlewarrior 3 years ago
Really it is ture u owe us we owe u and with todays tech u couldnt defend yourself long 5 nukes would do it and some day it will happen to the usa, and other dipshit germany would never have taken over Britain maybe bombed them to hell but not taken over it
NorVVay 3 years ago
Why do you think it will happen to the USA?
schiltrom1314 3 years ago
only problem is we can stop 5 nukes...
tanx20 3 years ago
To be honest that statement is Very untrue! The British Government had already had Battle lines ready if Germany pushed for Britain! Tho Germany made some errors which we were lucky not to have them on are land. I am speaking of WW2 tho if thats what ya mean!
northwesten 3 years ago
Theomega777, The brits ARE cabable of defending themselves,
they have one of the most well trained and equipped armies on the planet as well as being a nuclear power.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
By the way, the allies needed each other to fight Hitler, if britain would have fallen, russia and america would have fallen too.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
Remember it wasn't only Britain, Russia, and the U.S. Canada has a competent force, and actually was more successful clearing the beaches on D-Day. For the U.S. to fall Russia would have had to be eliminated, allowing Germany to focus solely on Canada/U.S. Had Britain fell significantly before the U.S. was prepared to enter the war, perhaps Germany would have won. The Allies were so much more powerful in WWII that taking away a power even as great as Britain doesn't fully sway what happens.
SquallLionhart409 3 years ago
Well it hard to "post-dict" what could have happened. But if Hitler had taken 1 country at a time, france and britain, then Russia, then Canada and after that the USA, they could have won.
Stefnir94 3 years ago
I think that as soon as Britain was threatened (read after France got their asses kicked) that the U.S. started mobilizing, or preparing to. Note that we sent Britain aide. I think by the time Germany actually made it across the Atlantic, assuming they go after Russia, they would have run into a powerful and fully-prepared American Force. You can't take Canada without the U.S. interfering, and vice-versa. It would only be close because it would be Germany/Japan vs U.S./Canada.
SquallLionhart409 3 years ago
The problem would be who would get the super weapons into action first. With no Air bases in Britain to bomb German industry from. Germany would have built a massive force of industrial and technological strength. With no old British empire to fight through Japan would have had an easier start to its war as well.
truebot 3 years ago
equipped? hehe I wouldn't use that word too much! Hell the Army still catching up on equipping are boys! Tho saying that we are the best trained and anyone disagree are in la la land. We sure done well looking after are self on operational tours compare to some.
northwesten 3 years ago
Say's the man who's country got invaded by Britain Before?
You where lucky that you attacked a Merchant ship for that Boston Tea Party Thingy,
You think it's amazing over tens of thousands of people beat one squad?
It would of taken months for the Britsh Navy to Ferry the British Army to America so when you think about it you got lucky and when your invaded again Mainly by That "Europe Trash"
Ill have my popcorn ready while they exucute you over the McDonlads sign
bebill2 3 years ago
"British Air Force Is the Best In The World As Well As our armed force's and Navy!"
It's "forces" not "force's"... That alone shows me the degree of your intelligence. Also, I don't argue with delusional dimwits.
Execute me over a McDonald's sign? I think you have a better chance of choking on a meal of fish & chips.
Fyi, I like Euros in general, I don't like f'ing liberal euro trash who bash the US which seem to be the majority of you these days. Now go clean your teeth & stop wasting my time.
Theomega777 3 years ago
Note that while Britain HAS invaded the US, it has never won a war against the US. Yes it would have taken months to get the entire British army to the US. The fact was Britain didn't during the YEARS that we were at war.
Why would European nations invade the US? Lets take a continent and fight a country with it. Real good logic. The gov has admitted we have "invisible" fighters/bombers that can fly above the vertical range of any other aircraft. Like it or not the US is insanely strong.
SquallLionhart409 3 years ago
To be honest I'd rather not have your help
bebill2 3 years ago
the soviets had these from 1948 and usa just from 1968
21StCenturyWarfare 3 years ago
Well look what happened to the Soviets :)
runningrebel91 3 years ago
hahahah nice one
JediMaster6788 3 years ago
christ...imagine a friggin barrage...
Froobner 3 years ago
Does nothing a Pershing II can't do better.
Bullzeye95 3 years ago
nutcas, i don't know where you got your info, but you are wrong,i was stationed on that gun, and it would fire a hell of a lot further than 7 miles, and it only took about 20 minutes to set up and fire, i've seen times we fired 2 or 3 rounds at a time,one right after the other,
00032774 3 years ago
Nuclear Artillery.......hell sounds like a good idea to me...
baronofhawkland 3 years ago
They do not use nuclear shells anymore the fallout from the shell will kill the crew as well as the enemy. Not to good if you want to win a war. Also its very expensive and takes a lot of man hours/power to train the troops in its use. I worked on them back in the 80s. Also a lot of people get mixed up with the Geneva Convention. It's only for the correct treatment of none-combatants and prisoners of war. They are laws which require soldiers to treat captured prisoners in certain ways. Mark
markbensonhyde 3 years ago
thank god that canons today dont have nuclear shels coz the world would definetly have ended
shkodrani16 3 years ago
in a war they stander use it
knighttemplar6 3 years ago
what?
they dont use nealcear shelz
shkodrani16 3 years ago
The dont use it by who? the USA the Russia the China etc yes but if the things go bad the will use them Standar.If i die i will take you also with me :)
knighttemplar6 3 years ago
dude thats stupid they dont use nuclear shells...the geneva convention said so
TyCarp07 3 years ago
Yeah man ..But if the invade in California ...and demolish Hoylwood with shel :)
knighttemplar6 3 years ago
just to put this out there because i actually agree with you, but America is still using weapons outlawed by the rest of the world
burtgummer100 3 years ago
The rest of the world does not define American policy.
vernii 3 years ago 4
What's that old saying again, rules are to be broken?
berserk12345678 3 years ago
No it doesn't. Geneva is about POW treatment.
vernii 3 years ago
Fake like hell!! if that was fired , the men would dead by now!! its impossible
tucker1012 3 years ago
look up "atomic annie"
dhemi1 3 years ago
15 KT is very survivable at a distance of several kilometers. I suggest actually doing research before you continue spouting off uneducated statements.
vernii 3 years ago 5
idiot
freed0m4life 3 years ago
actually there was a mobile nuke that kinda looked like a recoilless riffle but it could only fire up to two miles away which wasnt far enough to stay out of fallout range....so it was pointless
p8ntballa4life69 3 years ago
Not quite. Any army would trade an infantry squad as casualties if they took out a tank division in return. Second, NBC suits would protect against fallout.
vernii 3 years ago
NBC will not always protect you fully and when the weapon im talking about was made NBC suits wasnt made yet
p8ntballa4life69 3 years ago
LOL, hate to be on da recieving end, too big though
beerrox711 4 years ago
thats unpossible :P
madmanshan 4 years ago
adamın amına kor bu:D
cixoonur1 4 years ago
Go to US Army Ordanance Museum in Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. It is on military installation. They have one of those on display. Go on google and take a preview. They also have WW2 German rail gun, too.
Marksman74 4 years ago
yeah i have pictures of both of those on my cell phone, the ordnance museum has some cool shit.
ceverest2 4 years ago
brighter than the sun... =)
spearman71 4 years ago
its as bright as sun both sun and this bomb uses the same energy - nuclear energy
bobilas 4 years ago
Except that this bomb would have been a fission bomb (big elements broken up) while the sun uses fusion (little elements smashed together)
thrawn400 3 years ago
which armies used it?
sternberg1 4 years ago
None. Never used in a military conflict...or better said...It was never used, only testes
Helge129 4 years ago
It was thew U.S only
EAFSQ9 4 years ago
of course it was... who else would be that stupid :D
wsewse 4 years ago
well it was the army's way of trying to justify itself in an age determined by nukes not soldiers.
KJL101st 4 years ago
Its nice, but i've seen bigger.
rusak24 4 years ago
nice lol can u see the ground shake from the huge reckyle : D
jalomursu 4 years ago
I would like to see this as a coastal defence gun
EAFSQ9 4 years ago
lay off the crack zuduznow you're speaking like an alien of some sort. You're probably just a mislead cultist.
zetaro128 4 years ago
Rampage
fr3ds4t 4 years ago
Hey hemligsson.......the video of you actually getting laid is a fake as no woman known to man would let you lay down with them with the intention of procreation. So why don't you try choking on some dicks you assbag?
montekristo76 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this video is a well known fake...
hemligsson 4 years ago
Actually, it is real. You can visit the Atomic Museum and see a decommissioned atomic tank.
DrkOne633 4 years ago
No, you retarded.
Search for "nuclear artillery" on google.
aureliosjc 4 years ago
This is shot Upshot-knothole Grable, IIRC.
Location: Area 5, Nevada Test Site
Weapon type: Mk9 gun-type HEU
Caliber: 280mm AFAP ( Artillery Fired Atomic Porjectile)
Yield : 15 Kt
Date: 5/25/1953
Dragonx0562 4 years ago
Lol "you retarded".
dobins123 4 years ago
Why didn't they use this? I know the radiation could kill the crew but couldn't they have made the shell lighter, thus making it go farther, and not spreading so much radiation also. If the shell was too small couldn't they have put it in a capsule to make it bigger? Or couldn't they have made the Atomic Annie more powerful,thus firing the shell farther?
raptor9603 4 years ago
The project only got shelved because of improvements in tactical ballistic missiles in the late 50`s and early 60`s. Even the Soviet SS-1 scud had prototype problems. A stop gap measure(tactical nuclear artillery),but at least our forces had this capability available, if the shit hit the fan, lol.
VonManstein112 4 years ago
Atomic Annie was only able to shoot 7 miles away. It took a day to setup up the gun, and could only be fired once a day. You think this is a good tactical weapon? Soviet mechanized forces can easily move around these things in a day, and probably deep inside enemy lines. Heh. An aircraft carrying nukes would be much more practical.
nutcas 4 years ago
Agreed, Plus arial stealth technology is still on the rise and thus transport of nuclear weapons by air is much more effecient without detection.
firereaper12 4 years ago
Without this project NATO would not have a tactical nuclear weapon system to oppose Soviet tactical nuclear weapon systems of that time. Plans uncovered after the fall of the Soviet Union found that Tactical nuclear strikes would be the first stage in the invasion of Western Europe. We could not leave our forces in the field which were already out numbered without a tactical nuclear response.
VonManstein112 4 years ago
Gigantic canons never been good tactical weapons. Germans had giant canons in two World Wars, and they had very limited use such as destroying stagnant defenses such as forts. Annie was made to keep the Army in the business of war when nukes were thought to be the only thing needed for war, not out of necessity. Otherwise the Army wouldn't have bothered with this canon.
nutcas 4 years ago
Nutcas, without "giant cannons", the Germans wouldn't have been able to destroy Belgian forts like Liege which would make their push through BVelgium impossible.
RudolfMaister 3 years ago
Even though Annie only fired once, she was the foundation of the project which invented the W48 warhead, which could be fired by much more mobile artillery. Until the later development of a accurate nuclear SRBM a nuclear artillery system would have to fill the gap, hence Atomic Annie and her family of weapon systems .
VonManstein112 4 years ago
Correct. The W-48 was a linear implosion weapon designed to be fired out of 155mm howitzers and had a yield of roughly 7 decatons. However, with a cost of a little over a million per unit they weren't very cost effective.
TaintedMojo 4 years ago
This was meant to be a tactical weapon, long range strategic nuclear bombers would provide the range needed to carry out strategic attacks until the ICBM could take over this role. Atomic Annie was a success because it lead to the development of the W48 warhead. The W48 warhead weighed only 58 kg and could be fired by a 155 mm howitzer.
VonManstein112 4 years ago
That's the problem actually. It's a tactical weapon. It's too heavy. Requires too much manpower, and takes a long time to setup into firing postition. Large canons such as these have proved nothing of their use that alternatives can. That's why such canons don't exist anywhere, and only somebody who doesn't know military like Saddam would bother with giant canons. Yes it was a failure. A canon that slows you down very bad would make concerns for Soviet mechanized army rolling around.
nutcas 4 years ago
That's why the major armies of the world don't use anything over 155mm. Any bigger the weapon would just be too big. Chinese manufacture 8 inch howitzers for export, but the PLA itself has no interest in 8 inch howitzers. Too heavy, and the ammunition is heavy. It isn't like canons can't fire smart shells. Excalibur exists for the US Army. Too much weight is not a good thing, and the Annie was mortally obese. It's going to slow you down.
nutcas 4 years ago
famous german technology
xXsum41rulesXx 4 years ago
It is in fact American. You must be mixing it up with Schwere Gustav.
longbowgold67 4 years ago
Atomic Annie was a failure as a strategic weapon. It took a day to put the weapon in position. Very slow rate of fire, plus the Soviets targeted the thing. They always knew where Atomic Annies were. Really it was just military politics that gave birth to it so the Army can save itself from extinction when there was talk about not needing armies. Just a mope up crew after a nuclear strike.
nutcas 4 years ago
Yeah you basically got it right. A nuclear artillery shell. Come on, how much more stupid could they be a the time.
Shows how dumb the military thinking of the 1950s was.
longbowgold67 4 years ago
That's the 280mm Atomic Annie. Nukes can fit in 152.4mm (6 inch) artillery shells now. Atomic Annie been retired for a long time.
nutcas 4 years ago
1/6th of a megaton? Out of all the atomic/thermo nuclear testings. This is the second most impressive test. next to Tsar Bomba. 1: Russia forcing us back into the Cold War. 2: Iran. 3: North Korea. Yeah.. Be afraid. very afraid.
goldy07 4 years ago
"This is the second most impressive test. next to Tsar Bomba. 1: Russia forcing us back into the Cold War. 2: Iran. 3: North Korea. Yeah.. Be afraid. very afraid." are you crazzy? Yield 15 kiloton, this is old and compared to Tsar Bomb nothing, i think like 50 mega vs 16 kilo? u do the math, drop in a glass in comparison and ther is no new cold war, quik build a bomb shelter and live in fear, ok shure.
Teflonmonkeyjumps 4 years ago
lol
AmishGamer 4 years ago
thats so worthless way to powerful for close range
brreed93 4 years ago
won't find dat in ur local gunshop
killboy94 4 years ago
The nuclear artillary shell is small and compact, yet very powerful, and would make great long range weapons system.
Derrian6 4 years ago
state the ovbious!
pooman85 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is bunny. Copy and paste this everywhere to help bunny gain world domination.
cyborggrievous 4 years ago
pointless experiment!
mjufpn 4 years ago
No, experiment in the name of science is pointless.
Lilacsspriter 4 years ago
what would you do with it?
Deathowl1990 4 years ago
lol what wouldn't he do with it?!
darkling9109 4 years ago
Deer hunting from the porch! :] Sorry, I'm just partially redneck like that.
zachswim001 4 years ago
This gun was nicknamed "Atomic Annie" and is on display at Fort Sill in Lawton, OK. I went through Basic Training and A.I.T. there back in 1986, and made a quick visit again in October of '06.
stevehargrave 4 years ago
USSR was using it from 1965 and USA from 1975....
splcst659 4 years ago
imagine have this in your garden!
Dragon22873 4 years ago
yes you are right they died, my dad was stationed in germany told me a stroy bout a nuke howitzer shell they could shoot shell travel distance:12 miles - Radioactive fallout range:15 miles
BlowUpTheEarth 4 years ago