Talk:W33 (nuclear warhead)

Idiots editing the page

Who wrote "(U238 or U239 if I recall correctly)" ??? U239 has half-life of 24 minutes, NOTHING EVER can be made of it. 88.100.47.221 (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A new editor here. You can check the page history and see who wrote what.

Please remember our policy against personal attacks and our policy on respecting other editors. You are correct on the physics - without even looking at the T2 database or another source, it's obviously evident that U-239 was some sort of mistake or misunderstanding, as anyone who's at least passingly familiar with fissile materials knows. But you can express that without insulting the other editor.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

M422A1

so i'm guessing this is what we called an M422A1? Brian in denver (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• yah, I remember this was supposed to have been replaced by the electronic version W79 no assembly required. the assembly crew had to assemble the old one on site before firing. firing this round was supposed to have ruined the gun, and we used a 50' lanyard to stand away from it. Brian in denver (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

opperation

evedently things were changed from the expemental model, to the production model. or there is diliberate misinformation. M422 was a single "gun tube" type. and it really didnt fire anything, anywhere. a fuse set off a small charge, which created enough pressure to elevate one set of material, up next to the other set of material (as opposed to a direct impact). in the raised position. the first set of material broke open the nutron generators. and caused mushrooms to grow.Brian in denver (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Original research and formatting issues

It looks like Taurus454 added a lot of original research to the article on 26 March 2010 as well as not using the proper form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.112.205 (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced content, which appeared to be the bulk of this article. DancingPenguin (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Of the large chunk of deleted material, where it intersects with my knowledge then it is correct. Just take the 4 yields, correct. What's the (wrong) source for just 2 yields - definitely fiction? Tritium also connects. The only bit that doesn't is carrying the assembled shell close to upright, I can only assume this applied to early models.Nfe (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

NEW COMMENT:

Upon looking at the design of the last fielded version of the projectile, the M422A1, one of the modifications was the inclusion of four "dash pots" that projected into the path of the component that moved. These prevented the accidental movement of the movable component until the weapon was fired. Membranes covering small holes on the outside of the dash pots ruptured, and the protruding parts retracted due to centrifugal force. The original M422 design, lacking these safety features, may very well have had a requirement to be kept as close to vertical as possible to preclude the inadvertent movement of the component that moved to create the critical mass.

It is true that there were four yield configurations for this projectile. Trees141 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Old 8 inch, or M422CA1E1 projectile (the carrier of the W33 load) did not have tritium tubes installed. Tritium was used for enhanced radiation purposes; the Old 8 inch had no option for tritium tube installation. Nathraq (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

NEW COMMENT: The highest yield configuration of this projectile did in fact have a tritium capsule in one of its components. The manuals dealing with the M422 and M422A1 projectile clearly stated this and included extensive safety precautions to be taken to prevent damage and release of the gas. Trees141 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

NEW COMMENT: Also they talk of pits, though pits are more in the context of globes of the material, where as it was rings. I believe it was 3 large rings and two smaller ones in thickness. The smaller and larger where of different materials, or different colors of gray at least. The rings were used in different configurations to get the different yields. Later on there was a small cylinder added as a neutron booster, or so it was called. There was what was called a gun tube, but it was not in the sence of a "gun tube device". Assembly time could take from as little as 15 minutes, but most of the rules were violated, to 30 to 45 minutes if done properly by the number by the book, which is how it was supposed to be built. Supposedly the real rings themselves would be warm to the touch. You also had to remove the PAL, which was a security device that required a combination that was sent through the NRAS system. To try and remove the PAL without the proper codes would result in destruction of the device. For some reason the word “big Mack” comes to mind as an expression for one of the configurations of the rings. Once assembled, it could be (usually was) transported to the firing location. The yield could be changed (disasemble it just enough to change the ring configuration), or completely disassembled and have it placed back into the containers for storage configuration. As far as the upright, well it would be hard to load it if you had to keep it upright now wouldn't it. And, you would have to carry it from the vehicle to the launching piece, which would also be hard to do in a semi upright position. Instead of the normal powder charges of up to 8 increments it had special powder that came in zones (1, 2, and 3). There was also a companion ballistically matched spotter round used to register the launch piece, that fired the same matched powder as what the actual device was to be fired with (I think there were 3 per actual device). The registration of the peice was usually to the rear, and then the peice re-laided to the front. The sound, concussion, and recoil from the spotter rounds being fired were much greater than the normal conventional projectile (I want to say the spotter was something like 40 pounds heavier and the powder increased to match the weight to keep the range up). Basically it stressed the engineering limits of the M110, and later the A1 and A2 to the limits. Ergo, when it was fired, every man in the battery kept their mouth open, and dust fell from places throughout the battery that a full day's worth of firing conventional shells hadn't knocked loose. As far as the cannon crew, they all left the peice and it was fired with a 50 foot lanyard. I had heard of some tests where they tied sheep into the crew positions, and supposedly it caused grave internal damage to them when fired. As far as wrecking the launching peice, since the peice had to fire up to 3 spotter rounds, which were ballistically matched, that is probably erronious. Would it put a lot of wear on the tube and the gun systems, without a dought. But, if you had to fire nuclear shells, wear on the tube was probably the least of you worries. It was sad that the M110A2 was retired. It was and still would be the most accurate artillery piece in the world with a RPE of 25 meters (anda bursting radious of 80), which made it so perfect for the nuclear (or any other) mission where you needed long range accurate fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeker999 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

NEW COMMENTS:

The reference to the rings being warm to the touch is not correct. This phenomenon occurred with the W48 warhead in the 155mm AFAP, which used plutonium. By the time I was assigned to an M110A2 203mm artillery unit, the High Explosive Spotter (HES) rounds were no longer required; computers had advanced sufficiently that a firing table addendum had been produced that allowed registration data from conventional HE M106 projectiles, which were NOT ballistically similar to the M422 series, to be used to fire the M422 series projectiles. Data for conventional HE was computed and a correction factor was applied to results to get data that were used to fire the M422. We also often practiced assembling the projectile in the field at the firing battery location rather than receiving it preassembled from the service battery. Trees141 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's some more original research for ya

Via a friend: The M 422 was the 8" nuclear projectile, it was a gun type device. The projectile and its components were kept separate, consisting of the projectile body carrier, 2 "Bird Cages", and one case that held the neutron generators. One "Bird Cage" held the projectile (enriched uranium in a cylinder type shape), the second cage held the rings. When a fire mission was ordered the yield was selected. There were four yields. The yields were determined by the number and type of rings used. Some rings were enriched uranium, and some were depleted uranium. By selecting which rings you selected the yield. There was one additional measure to change the yield. That was the use of a special projectile, this projectile held a encapsulated tritium capsule which was not removable or accessible to the assembly crew. There were two neutron generator that were installed under the rounds ogive. The total round would be built up, minus the fuze and then shipped to the firing battery. At the firing battery the propellant charge was inserted, then the mechanical time fuze, which had triple redundant timers. The projectile was fired, centrifugal cause 4 "Dash pots" to move outward which allowed the rigs to be able to move forward when the fuze fired. At a predetermined time the fuze functioned and ignited the propellant charge. This propellant charge forced the rings over the projectile and hit the neutron generators. What followed was the mushroom.

Near the end of the M 422's life there were combination locks on the "Bird cages" but there was never a destruct charge or device of any kind.

NEW COMMENT:

By 1980, when I was in a unit that employed these weapons, I did not see any combination locks on the "bird cages." They were sealed with lead wire seals each time they were re-closed after opening. The projectile body DID have a combination lock (which we referred to as a PAL, or permissive action link, but which did not really fit the technical definition of a PAL.) The lock fitted over the base of the projectile and a long rod went into the fuze well. Any action that would have defeated the PAL would have rendered the projectile inoperative. Trees141 (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The W 79 did have a PAL attached to the nose during storage and shipment, it did have a combo and if messed with would release a special material into the pit making it unusable. 174.237.36.252 (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision

I added more details, but the history document is quite redacted. If anyone has anything else I'd like to hear it.Kylesenior (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)