Talk:Davy Crockett (nuclear device)

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)

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)

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)

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)