AHC: make nuclear artillery a relevant and central part of the battlefield.

10wow.jpg

Alien invasion?
 
Truman (or Henry Wallace) decides to use the Bomb in Korea. Atomic weapons become normalized, no different than an incendiary bomb on a larger scale. By the late 50s, with weapons-grade fissiles plentiful, the US military equips with large quantities of small-scale atomics, and they become a standard part of battlefield tactics.

The idea that the atomic bomb is special - that, to quote Truman, it's "not a military weapon" - arose very early. But it was not inevitable.
 
The FROG-7s in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis could normalize usage as well, but it's hard to see them being used without it escalating to a general exchange.
 
Urban Legend holds there were nuclear demolition charges available for emplacement at several crucial crossing points. These were back-packable tac-nukes, with a short-run timer. Just enough time to 'run, duck & cover', but you suspect some of the SpecFor teams would weigh the odds and go out with a bang...
 
Urban Legend holds there were nuclear demolition charges available for emplacement at several crucial crossing points. These were back-packable tac-nukes, with a short-run timer. Just enough time to 'run, duck & cover', but you suspect some of the SpecFor teams would weigh the odds and go out with a bang...

Not an Urban legend by any stretch of the imagination.

 
Urban Legend holds there were nuclear demolition charges available for emplacement at several crucial crossing points. These were back-packable tac-nukes, with a short-run timer. Just enough time to 'run, duck & cover', but you suspect some of the SpecFor teams would weigh the odds and go out with a bang...

Not Legend.

A number of West German Bridges and such had places for the SADM charges.
That why the Army used to have the 12 Echo MOS.
 
Truman (or Henry Wallace) decides to use the Bomb in Korea. Atomic weapons become normalized, no different than an incendiary bomb on a larger scale. By the late 50s, with weapons-grade fissiles plentiful, the US military equips with large quantities of small-scale atomics, and they become a standard part of battlefield tactics.

The idea that the atomic bomb is special - that, to quote Truman, it's "not a military weapon" - arose very early. But it was not inevitable.
I like the phrase "tactical problem solver" myself.
 

Ak-84

Banned
One which one suspects they are reviving what with the Bear being very angry again.
I agree Korea 1950-51 would be the POD. If they are employed against enemy concentrations, logistic and communication sites, then we might see them as basically special area weapons rather than the fires of hell itself.

On the other hand once ballistic launchers on hair-trigger alert take over the deterrence game from manned bombers as in the OTL mid-1960's, then how do you maintain using nukes without risking a general war.
 
One which one suspects they are reviving what with the Bear being very angry again.
I agree Korea 1950-51 would be the POD. If they are employed against enemy concentrations, logistic and communication sites, then we might see them as basically special area weapons rather than the fires of hell itself.

On the other hand once ballistic launchers on hair-trigger alert take over the deterrence game from manned bombers as in the OTL mid-1960's, then how do you maintain using nukes without risking a general war.

By Korea, could B-46s credibly carry nuclear payloads to targets?
 
Atomic Annie, the first nuclear artillery piece was first deployed in 1953 to Europe and South Korea. I get the impression that it was too late for Korea, but I can't find specific dates.

If the UN/US refuses to accept the DMZ and demands to reconquer North Korea (as punishment for its aggression), I suspect that it might well be used on the battlefield. At least if Abombs are used at all, which seems likely to me with this hypothetical aggressive policy.

Once you have nuke artillery used in battle, it will 'normalize' the use of Abombs in the way that dropping city busters won't.
 
WI artillery only had small neutron bombs or Electro-Magnetic Pulse bombs.
Neutron bombs were limited to less than 10k tons. They primarily emitted radiation strong enough to kill tankers inside their vehicles, but did comparatively little collateral damage.

Similarly, EMP bombs primarily damage electrical and electronic devices that are operating. If you kill their electronics, modern armies grind to a halt.
EMP bombs do not even need to be nuclear.
 
Aren't EMP's overrated against a modern army? Like, people treat them as this infallible wonder weapon and ignore that countermeasures exist.
 
Aren't EMP's overrated against a modern army? Like, people treat them as this infallible wonder weapon and ignore that countermeasures exist.

Most EMP effects for small tacnukes sizes rarely get past the thermal pulse radius, a much more immediate danger, plus the gamma and neutron radiation pulse

You need big H-Bombs 400 miles up for theater sized effects
 
WI artillery only had small neutron bombs or Electro-Magnetic Pulse bombs.
Neutron bombs were limited to less than 10k tons. They primarily emitted radiation strong enough to kill tankers inside their vehicles, but did comparatively little collateral damage.
???
You do realize that Neutron Bombs weren't developed as a concept until 1958, and not tested until '63? And, by definition, is an Hbomb.

Since any usage 'normalizing' nuclear artillery probably has to happen about the time of the Korean war (or even the '48 Berlin Blockade), you're not going to have 'Neutron Bombs' involved, especially for artillery.
 
Top