|
|
|
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject:
RE:Optimal Bomb Sizes
doggtag
5/12/2004 11:28:13 PM
|
| the MOAB could prove devasting in an attack against a powerplant complex or a hydroelectric dam. That is, providing the US decides it is not going to need the powergrid at a later date. And I'm sure there would be considerable debate of destroying a dam that could flood, way downstream, hundreds of thousands of people. The "Daisy Cutter" developed in for Viet Nam was basically intended to clear a big enough patch of jungle so helicopters could deploy troops and equipment to the area. In WW2, the British had the massive Tallboy (12,000lbs) and Grand Slam (22,000lbs) bombs carried by modified Lancaster bombers (Tallboy was also used in modified Halifax's) These beasts were used to great effect on concrete-hardened nazi U-boat "pens". A Grand Slam bomb dropped on a railroad viaduct was estimated to have penetrated at least 100 feet into the ground before detonating, creating a minor "earthquake" effective enough to collapse almost 300 yards of a railroad tunnel. And 2 separate Tallboy bomb strikes were responsible for the sinking of the Tirpitz (sister ship the the mighty Bismarck) in waters off Norway. In both attacks, direct hits were achieved, and the damage was massive. The final kill ripped open the port side of the midship section from the keel through the waterline, capsizing the ship. (As taken from "the Illus. Encyc. of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare") Remember, even a battleship can't hold out against the sheer kinetic impact of several 6-ton bombs, which explode moments later. So the justification to have such a massive bomb can be found. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
