Tomahawks Fired At Syria

[Tiberius]

Mother of all battles was a Saddam quote, just sayin.

 

 

Oh neat o we dropped a cool bomb. I guess Trump has learned a new way to distract the media

[ALF]

Here's the father of all bombs: Russia's answer to the MOA

The bomb, the Massive Ordinance Air Blast, nicknamed the "Mother of All Bombs" because of its acronym, is the largest nonnuclear bomb in the US's arsenal. But Russia has an even bigger one.

The so-called father of all bombs is thought to be about four times as big as the MOAB.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-father-of-all-bombs-russias-answer-to-the-moab-2017-4

[Deranged Rhino]

 

It didn't. The MOAB's a great big demolition charge, not a penetrator. It doesn't really destroy caves, as much as push a pressure wave into them and crush everything inside. It also has thermobaric properties - meaning if you detonate one at the mouth of a cave, it'll suck all the air out and suffocate everyone inside - but it's not the most ideal weapon for that purpose. (It'll work, but the USAF has bombs specifically designed for that purpose.)

[/dev/null]

 

Here's the father of all bombs: Russia's answer to the MOA

The bomb, the Massive Ordinance Air Blast, nicknamed the "Mother of All Bombs" because of its acronym, is the largest nonnuclear bomb in the US's arsenal. But Russia has an even bigger one.

The so-called father of all bombs is thought to be about four times as big as the MOAB.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-father-of-all-bombs-russias-answer-to-the-moab-2017-4

 

 

It was yuuuge. You'll love it. It's great. We're gonna win bigly

[GottaRun]

I seem to remember the Americans dropping bunker busting bombs in the mountains after 911. If my memory is right the US soldiers said the bombs weren't any good at collapsing mountain caves and tunnels + there were so many tunnels and caves that the enemy just moved to another route. I wonder why the Americans think this bomb will be more effective?

 

Similar British bomb from WWII effective against railways and viaducts. The British planned on using it for underground factories but the war ended so it wasn't tested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb)

Edited April 14, 2017 by driddles

[DC Tom]

I seem to remember the Americans dropping bunker busting bombs in the mountains after 911. If my memory is right the US soldiers said the bombs weren't any good at collapsing mountain caves and tunnels + there were so many tunnels and caves that the enemy just moved to another route. I wonder why the Americans think this bomb will be more effective?

 

Similar British bomb from WWII effective against railways and viaducts. The British planned on using it for underground factories but the war ended so it wasn't tested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb)

 

You don't know what you're talking about.

[GottaRun]

 

You don't know what you're talking about.

Probably, care to elaborate.

[DC Tom]

 

Here's the father of all bombs: Russia's answer to the MOA

The bomb, the Massive Ordinance Air Blast, nicknamed the "Mother of All Bombs" because of its acronym, is the largest nonnuclear bomb in the US's arsenal. But Russia has an even bigger one.

The so-called father of all bombs is thought to be about four times as big as the MOAB.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-father-of-all-bombs-russias-answer-to-the-moab-2017-4

 

 

Russia needs to develop larger bombs, because they're accuracy in delivery is awful.

 

FOAB was mostly a publicity stunt, though - the Russians have always gone all-in for militaria "dick measuring" contests. But then, the MOAB was a publicity stunt to some degree, as well. Weapons this size are so highly specialized they're not terribly useful.

[outsidethebox]

Shock and awe baby!!!!!

[DC Tom]

Probably, care to elaborate.

 

1) No one bombs caves to collapse them. You bomb them to empty them of air (it's why napalm was the most effective weapon against Japanese field fortifications late in World War 2 - a 16-inch HC shell with a weight of some 2800 lbs might not damage a Japanese cave, but a thousand pounds of napalm in front of it burns all the oxygen out of the cave.) The idea that bombing a cave is ineffective if the cave isn't destroyed is counter-factual, since that is rarely the point of bombing a cave.

 

2) "Similar" British bombs weren't all that similar. Both the Tallboy and Grand Slam were MC penetrators that were actually designed to take out hardened (e.g. submarine pens at Brest or Lorient) or underground targets (e.g. some rail tunnels). The MOAB's more similar to a 4000 lb HC "cookie" in being a giant air-dropped demolition charge, but the two are intended for vastly different purposes (the MOAB's a big-ass precision munition, the 4000 lb HC was an area weapon intended to facilitate incendiary raids.)

Shock and awe baby!!!!!

 

Pretty much.

[GottaRun]

 

1) No one bombs caves to collapse them. You bomb them to empty them of air (it's why napalm was the most effective weapon against Japanese field fortifications late in World War 2 - a 16-inch HC shell with a weight of some 2800 lbs might not damage a Japanese cave, but a thousand pounds of napalm in front of it burns all the oxygen out of the cave.) The idea that bombing a cave is ineffective if the cave isn't destroyed is counter-factual, since that is rarely the point of bombing a cave.

 

2) "Similar" British bombs weren't all that similar. Both the Tallboy and Grand Slam were MC penetrators that were actually designed to take out hardened (e.g. submarine pens at Brest or Lorient) or underground targets (e.g. some rail tunnels). The MOAB's more similar to a 4000 lb HC "cookie" in being a giant air-dropped demolition charge, but the two are intended for vastly different purposes (the MOAB's a big-ass precision munition, the 4000 lb HC was an area weapon intended to facilitate incendiary raids.)

 

Pretty much.

 

So any news report I read about this being to destroy the caves/tunnels is not entirely true? Is it meant to suffocate the people inside?

 

The British bombs are the closest I can find that were actually detonated to what the Americans dropped today. Was the "cookie" actually dropped in anger?

 

I'm generally not into combat/war, I'm going off of my memory from news footage on CNN and stories from my dad and father in law during WWII*

 

* neither were in WWII but my father in law was a 14 year old living in London during the blitz and my Dad was a 6 year old living in Brighton. Dad talks of American soldiers constantly giving him chocolate. Father in law talks of bombs and planes crashing all around him and has the scariest sketch book I've ever seen.

Edited April 14, 2017 by driddles

[/dev/null]

 

Dad talks of American soldiers constantly giving him chocolate.

So he enjoyed strange men offering him candy?

With allies like this, who needs enemies? http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-us-military-misdirected-strike-syria-20170413-story.html

[DC Tom]

 

So any news report I read about this being to destroy the caves/tunnels is not entirely true? Is it meant to suffocate the people inside?

 

The British bombs are the closest I can find that were actually detonated to what the Americans dropped today. Was the "cookie" actually dropped in anger?

 

I'm generally not into combat/war, I'm going off of my memory from news footage on CNN and stories from my dad and father in law during WWII*

 

* neither were in WWII but my father in law was a 14 year old living in London during the blitz and my Dad was a 6 year old living in Brighton. Dad talks of American soldiers constantly giving him chocolate. Father in law talks of bombs and planes crashing all around him and has the scariest sketch book I've ever seen.

 

No, they're not entirely true. You have to remember that news reports are condensed and usually senationalized sound bytes for mass consumption. And to the masses, "destroy" just as well covers "suffocate everyone out of the cave" as it does "collapse the entire cavern and bury everyone in it." It's never a particularly good idea to assume details in the broad brush-strokes of news stories, particularly in this sensationalist age when they misuse or abuse words so frequently.

 

The closest would actually be the Daisy Cutters the USAF dropped in Vietnam (to create helicopter landing zones in the jungle by knocking down trees in a couple-hundred-yard radius). The MOAB is actually the Daisy Cutter's replacement. The biggest difference between the largest British bombs and the Daisy Cutter/MOAB is that the latter are "high capacity," while the former were penetrators (practically armor-piercing). Which means that the MOAB is something like 80% explosives by weight, whereas a Grand Slam was only about 40%, which makes for significant differences in usage and target effect.

 

The cookie was actually widely used. It was part of the standard load of the Lancaster bomber during World War 2 - one 4000 lb HC and a boatload (2-5 tons) of 4-lb incendiaries. The cookie would break windows and knock tiles off roofs of buildings to facilitate the fires the incendiaries started. It's actually similar to the "aerial mines" the Germans dropped on London (literally, an air-delivered naval mine modified to detonate as a bomb) your father-in-law would have seen. The larger Tallboy and Grand Slam weren't widely used - again, very specialized weapons.

[Tiberius]

Shock and awe baby!!!!!

Unpopular presidents that lose popular vote and can't really speak too well turning to foreign aggression to look like leaders of some sort. Ya

[DC Tom]

So he enjoyed strange men offering him candy?

With allies like this, who needs enemies? http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-us-military-misdirected-strike-syria-20170413-story.html

 

U.S. Central Command said Thursday that coalition aircraft were given the wrong coordinates by the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces for a strike intended to target militants south of their stronghold in Tabqa.

 

 

It happens. And it's not the Air Force's fault that whoever's playing forward air controller can't read their designator.

 

As long as you fight wars, you will kill the wrong people. Always. Friendly fire casualties are a feature of combat, and have been ever since the first Neanderthal to pick up a rock accidentally brained the Neanderthal next to him. You can minimize them, but you will never eliminate them.

 

Most people would be shocked to find out how uncommon it is now, and how good a job the US military does avoiding it compared to previous wars. The 30th Infantry Division and US Air Force practically fought their own little war through France in '44 - 30th was bombed at least half-a-dozen times that I know of, starting at St. Lo, and by the time of the Battle of the Bulge was shooting back at "America's Luftwaffe."

[GottaRun]

 

No, they're not entirely true. You have to remember that news reports are condensed and usually senationalized sound bytes for mass consumption. And to the masses, "destroy" just as well covers "suffocate everyone out of the cave" as it does "collapse the entire cavern and bury everyone in it." It's never a particularly good idea to assume details in the broad brush-strokes of news stories, particularly in this sensationalist age when they misuse or abuse words so frequently.

 

The closest would actually be the Daisy Cutters the USAF dropped in Vietnam (to create helicopter landing zones in the jungle by knocking down trees in a couple-hundred-yard radius). The MOAB is actually the Daisy Cutter's replacement. The biggest difference between the largest British bombs and the Daisy Cutter/MOAB is that the latter are "high capacity," while the former were penetrators (practically armor-piercing). Which means that the MOAB is something like 80% explosives by weight, whereas a Grand Slam was only about 40%, which makes for significant differences in usage and target effect.

 

The cookie was actually widely used. It was part of the standard load of the Lancaster bomber during World War 2 - one 4000 lb HC and a boatload (2-5 tons) of 4-lb incendiaries. The cookie would break windows and knock tiles off roofs of buildings to facilitate the fires the incendiaries started. It's actually similar to the "aerial mines" the Germans dropped on London (literally, an air-delivered naval mine modified to detonate as a bomb) your father-in-law would have seen. The larger Tallboy and Grand Slam weren't widely used - again, very specialized weapons.

Interesting. I think I heard that the aerial mines were meant to explode on a delay. Basically land mines from the sky that could sit in waiting. So you would re-enter your home thinking you were safe, then find out you weren't.

 

My father in law saw a lot. He was in the first group of kids shipped out of London when the British thought the blitz was coming. After being in Oxford for several weeks his family figured it was safe to bring him home. He arrived back in London the day the blitz started. Tells me about spending the first night in a shelter and after seeing the damage the next day, realizing that the shelter wasn't going to do anything for him. He spent the rest of the blitz in the street watching the bombs fall and the fighter planes buzzing around. He told me that once you got over the fear of dying it was the most fascinating thing a 14 year old kid could see. He was a good artist and filled a sketch book with various planes that crashed near him.

 

Thanks for the info.

[DC Tom]

Hey, here's a fun little factoid: the Russians consider thermobaric weapons to be "chemical weapons." And most of the world considers the MOAB to be thermobaric (incorrectly, I may add. It's just a big-ass conventional bomb).

 

So if we dropped a MOAB, I expect the Russians will very shortly accuse us of using chemical weapons in Afghanistan. And everyone will assume that their definition of "chemical weapon" is identical to our definition, and then wig out over it.

[GottaRun]

Hey, here's a fun little factoid: the Russians consider thermobaric weapons to be "chemical weapons." And most of the world considers the MOAB to be thermobaric (incorrectly, I may add. It's just a big-ass conventional bomb).

 

So if we dropped a MOAB, I expect the Russians will very shortly accuse us of using chemical weapons in Afghanistan. And everyone will assume that their definition of "chemical weapon" is identical to our definition, and then wig out over it.

I'll wig out now if it helps.

[DC Tom]

I'll wig out now if it helps.

 

No need. Wasn't directed at you, either. Just wanted to let everyone know that, when the Russians start screaming about US CW use, it's really not what it sounds like.

[Foxx]

aren't all bombs essentially chemical?