Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Bunker busters.


45 posted on 02/02/2017 8:24:59 PM PST by Cobra64 (Common sense isn't common any more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Cobra64

“Bunker busters.”

Most assuredly, just another “Cakewalk”.


53 posted on 02/02/2017 8:38:14 PM PST by Tours
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: Cobra64

Bunker busters may actually not be enough. Though it makes one heck of an engineering thought problem.

For example, is the target on the front, the back (under water), or square on top?

The original ‘Dam Buster’ concept, Operation Chastise, still has some relevant variables. (And a nice little .gif)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise

For example, the water side of major modern dams are often protected by heavy torpedo nets, as well as surface barriers to keep boats laden with explosives from getting too near.

During the Cold War, the US opinion was that you would almost have to use a nuclear weapon to breach a dam. The Soviets were very big on defending their dams and water supplies.

Penetrating bombs, like bunker busters, are pretty well designed for strictly vertical attacks, but it is best to hit dams from an angle when using a shaped charge penetration.


74 posted on 02/03/2017 5:16:26 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Friday, January 20, 2017. Reparations end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson