Maybe the Neutron Bomb wasn't all it was cracked up to be

[exclaimedleech8]

The narrative I heard about the neutron bomb was that it would've been an excellent anti-tank weapon in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, avoiding the collateral damage created by conventional nuclear weapons but that it was derailed by politics and public ridicule. But the always excellent Curious Droid makes some notable points:

1. Shielding tank crews from the radiation could be done fairly easily
2. It would've been easy to space out tanks such that one bomb could only destroy one tank at a time, meaning that the number of bombs needed to repel a full invasion would've created a lot of fallout, defeating the supposed benefit
3. By the second half of the 1980s, advances in anti-tank missiles had largely made neutron bombs obsolete.

 

[Scott Kenny]

1. Shielding tank crews from the radiation could be done fairly easily

~4.5cm of Borated HDPE is a single tenth-value for fast neutrons. But that's 4" less space inside the tank as it is! Granted, there's a non-trivial amount of space behind the various control bits in a tank that you can take advantage of, but anywhere there isn't any gear you lose 4" of total space in the hull.

2. It would've been easy to space out tanks such that one bomb could only destroy one tank at a time, meaning that the number of bombs needed to repel a full invasion would've created a lot of fallout, defeating the supposed benefit

Disagree here, the Davy Crockett W54 nuke had about a 160m prompt neutron range, and that was with a 20ton warhead. Not a typo, I do mean 20 tons of TNT equivalent boom.

The (proposed) W82 155mm neutron bomb was planned to have about a 2kt boom, 100x more. Blasts that size would have a lethal prompt neutron range out to about 1600m.

A tenth-value shielding vs W54 would mean a lethal neutron dose at about 16m.
A tenth-value shielding vs W82 would mean a lethal neutron dose at about 160m.
And a tenth-value shielding vs 10kt would mean a lethal neutron dose at about 350m, if I'm doing my math right.

Above 10kt, blast effects dominate even for a nominally neutron-biased weapon.

3. By the second half of the 1980s, advances in anti-tank missiles had largely made neutron bombs obsolete.

Now this I think I would agree with.

Neutron warheads still make sense to use in the nuclear-ABM area.