Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
"Mother" of all Bunker busters
E.T
Quote-o-matic
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/dshtw.htm[/url]
Weight only 20 000 lbs.
Weight only 20 000 lbs.
Comments
and sheer size wise... they built a 44,000 pounder in 1944... basically an air dropped demolition charge, or as they put it, earthquaker...
[B]and sheer size wise... they built a 44,000 pounder in 1944... basically an air dropped demolition charge, or as they put it, earthquaker... [/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/t12.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.qsl.net/aa6rv/images/marines/aberdeen5.jpg[/url]
[url]http://members.aol.com/nukeinfo2/[/url]
But cross section of these is much bigger which decreases penetration.
FAE's create nice fireball whith "long lasting" shockwave but brisancy of them isn't enough to break hardened structures
[url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm[/url]
[B]there are plenty worse unfortunately... your average air/fuel will make a bigger mess, dependent on the target of course...
and sheer size wise... they built a 44,000 pounder in 1944... basically an air dropped demolition charge, or as they put it, earthquaker... [/B][/QUOTE]
:eek: DAMN! :eek:
That'd definitely get the job done....
[url]http://www.ordnance.org/mishaps.htm[/url] (last of them)
Of course there would be much more energetic explosives.
Good example about power of shaped charge: (third link, original page might not work so use use cached then)
[URL]http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=fi&btnG=Google-haku&as_epq=cl+20&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=[/URL]