“Destructive force” carried by a B-52?What rank is S. SGT in the Army Air Force during WW2?German submarine force ceasefire on May 4 1945How strong a land force did Germany need for a conquest of the British Isles in the summer of 1940?Was the Waffen-SS an elite force?Did Britain bill Poland for maintaining Polish Air Force that fought over Britain?What was the US Navy's “fleet marine force” in 1944-45?Why was the Cold War carried out over the whole world instead of between Siberia and Alaska?What would be a textbook example of Germans attacking a small defending force in the rubble of a village?Was PepsiCo really sixth largest military force?Where can I find data on the amount of fuel carried by WWII Warships and what their operational ranges were?
What is the most expensive material in the world that could be used to create Pun-Pun's lute?
Combinatorics problem, right solution?
I preordered a game on my Xbox while on the home screen of my friend's account. Which of us owns the game?
What does "function" actually mean in music?
How can I wire a 9-position switch so that each position turns on one more LED than the one before?
Injection into a proper class and choice without regularity
How do I produce this Greek letter koppa: Ϟ in pdfLaTeX?
SFDX - Create Objects with Custom Properties
Nails holding drywall
What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?
Is there a word for the censored part of a video?
How can I get rid of an unhelpful parallel branch when unpivoting a single row?
Find the identical rows in a matrix
A Paper Record is What I Hamper
How do I check if a string is entirely made of the same substring?
What is this word supposed to be?
Why do games have consumables?
Can I criticise the more senior developers around me for not writing clean code?
How do I reattach a shelf to the wall when it ripped out of the wall?
Multiple options vs single option UI
Why did Rep. Omar conclude her criticism of US troops with the phrase "NotTodaySatan"?
Can a Bard use the Spell Glyph option of the Glyph of Warding spell and cast a known spell into the glyph?
What is purpose of DB Browser(dbbrowser.aspx) under admin tool?
Can a level 2 Warlock take one level in rogue, then continue advancing as a warlock?
“Destructive force” carried by a B-52?
What rank is S. SGT in the Army Air Force during WW2?German submarine force ceasefire on May 4 1945How strong a land force did Germany need for a conquest of the British Isles in the summer of 1940?Was the Waffen-SS an elite force?Did Britain bill Poland for maintaining Polish Air Force that fought over Britain?What was the US Navy's “fleet marine force” in 1944-45?Why was the Cold War carried out over the whole world instead of between Siberia and Alaska?What would be a textbook example of Germans attacking a small defending force in the rubble of a village?Was PepsiCo really sixth largest military force?Where can I find data on the amount of fuel carried by WWII Warships and what their operational ranges were?
In the 1957 film Bombers B-52 an instructor says of the then-new B-52 Stratofortress:
“On a single mission one of these airplanes, just one, can carry greater destructive force than that of all the bombs dropped by the Allied Air Forces during the whole of World War II”.
Is there a sense in which this statement can possibly be true? At what I find, the B-52 could carry up to 32,000 kg of weapons, while “between 1939 and 1945, Allied planes dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs on Axis powers” (source), that is, five orders of magnitude more. Of course a part (how large?) of the B-52 payload could consist of nuclear devices: would this balance the account? Was that sentence just a hyperbole?
world-war-two cold-war aircraft
asked Apr 21 at 18:30
DaGDaG
373212
add a comment |
In the 1957 film Bombers B-52 an instructor says of the then-new B-52 Stratofortress:
“On a single mission one of these airplanes, just one, can carry greater destructive force than that of all the bombs dropped by the Allied Air Forces during the whole of World War II”.
Is there a sense in which this statement can possibly be true? At what I find, the B-52 could carry up to 32,000 kg of weapons, while “between 1939 and 1945, Allied planes dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs on Axis powers” (source), that is, five orders of magnitude more. Of course a part (how large?) of the B-52 payload could consist of nuclear devices: would this balance the account? Was that sentence just a hyperbole?
world-war-two cold-war aircraft
asked Apr 21 at 18:30
DaGDaG
373212
9
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
Apr 21 at 22:13
4
And "destructive power", whatever it is, is not the yield (which is simply energy in physical sense). Of course a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't cause as much damage as all of the WW2 bombings.
– kubanczyk
Apr 21 at 22:18
@DavidRicherby: Thanks, I know that, and I mention this in my question. (Or were you answering to someone else, since you begin with “because”?)
– DaG
Apr 22 at 7:36
2
Perhaps more importantly to me – is the statement even relevant? I mean, the way it’s phrased, pretty much any (large-ish) plane would be the same, wouldn’t it? If all that's needed is a single Mark 39 bomb (about 1 × 3 m, just under 3 tonnes), any plane that can carry such a load (surely that's most of 'em?) fulfils the criteria. The quote makes it sound like it’s a property of the B-52, but really it’s the result of the efficiency of nuclear weapons.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Apr 22 at 16:51
In the sense that Top Fuel dragsters are the most powerful, fastest and quickest cars, if you don't count any nuance like cornering.
– James
Apr 22 at 17:39
add a comment |
In the 1957 film Bombers B-52 an instructor says of the then-new B-52 Stratofortress:
“On a single mission one of these airplanes, just one, can carry greater destructive force than that of all the bombs dropped by the Allied Air Forces during the whole of World War II”.
Is there a sense in which this statement can possibly be true? At what I find, the B-52 could carry up to 32,000 kg of weapons, while “between 1939 and 1945, Allied planes dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs on Axis powers” (source), that is, five orders of magnitude more. Of course a part (how large?) of the B-52 payload could consist of nuclear devices: would this balance the account? Was that sentence just a hyperbole?
world-war-two cold-war aircraft
asked Apr 21 at 18:30
DaGDaG
373212
In the 1957 film Bombers B-52 an instructor says of the then-new B-52 Stratofortress:
“On a single mission one of these airplanes, just one, can carry greater destructive force than that of all the bombs dropped by the Allied Air Forces during the whole of World War II”.
Is there a sense in which this statement can possibly be true? At what I find, the B-52 could carry up to 32,000 kg of weapons, while “between 1939 and 1945, Allied planes dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs on Axis powers” (source), that is, five orders of magnitude more. Of course a part (how large?) of the B-52 payload could consist of nuclear devices: would this balance the account? Was that sentence just a hyperbole?
world-war-two cold-war aircraft
world-war-two cold-war aircraft
asked Apr 21 at 18:30
DaGDaG
373212
asked Apr 21 at 18:30
DaGDaG
373212
edited Apr 22 at 20:17
DaG
asked Apr 21 at 18:30
DaGDaG
373212
asked Apr 21 at 18:30
DaGDaG
373212
asked Apr 21 at 18:30
DaGDaG
373212
373212
9
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
Apr 21 at 22:13
4
And "destructive power", whatever it is, is not the yield (which is simply energy in physical sense). Of course a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't cause as much damage as all of the WW2 bombings.
– kubanczyk
Apr 21 at 22:18
@DavidRicherby: Thanks, I know that, and I mention this in my question. (Or were you answering to someone else, since you begin with “because”?)
– DaG
Apr 22 at 7:36
2
Perhaps more importantly to me – is the statement even relevant? I mean, the way it’s phrased, pretty much any (large-ish) plane would be the same, wouldn’t it? If all that's needed is a single Mark 39 bomb (about 1 × 3 m, just under 3 tonnes), any plane that can carry such a load (surely that's most of 'em?) fulfils the criteria. The quote makes it sound like it’s a property of the B-52, but really it’s the result of the efficiency of nuclear weapons.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Apr 22 at 16:51
In the sense that Top Fuel dragsters are the most powerful, fastest and quickest cars, if you don't count any nuance like cornering.
– James
Apr 22 at 17:39
add a comment |
9
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
Apr 21 at 22:13
4
And "destructive power", whatever it is, is not the yield (which is simply energy in physical sense). Of course a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't cause as much damage as all of the WW2 bombings.
– kubanczyk
Apr 21 at 22:18
@DavidRicherby: Thanks, I know that, and I mention this in my question. (Or were you answering to someone else, since you begin with “because”?)
– DaG
Apr 22 at 7:36
2
Perhaps more importantly to me – is the statement even relevant? I mean, the way it’s phrased, pretty much any (large-ish) plane would be the same, wouldn’t it? If all that's needed is a single Mark 39 bomb (about 1 × 3 m, just under 3 tonnes), any plane that can carry such a load (surely that's most of 'em?) fulfils the criteria. The quote makes it sound like it’s a property of the B-52, but really it’s the result of the efficiency of nuclear weapons.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Apr 22 at 16:51
In the sense that Top Fuel dragsters are the most powerful, fastest and quickest cars, if you don't count any nuance like cornering.
– James
Apr 22 at 17:39
9
9
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
Apr 21 at 22:13
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
Apr 21 at 22:13
4
4
And "destructive power", whatever it is, is not the yield (which is simply energy in physical sense). Of course a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't cause as much damage as all of the WW2 bombings.
– kubanczyk
Apr 21 at 22:18
And "destructive power", whatever it is, is not the yield (which is simply energy in physical sense). Of course a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't cause as much damage as all of the WW2 bombings.
– kubanczyk
Apr 21 at 22:18
@DavidRicherby: Thanks, I know that, and I mention this in my question. (Or were you answering to someone else, since you begin with “because”?)
– DaG
Apr 22 at 7:36
@DavidRicherby: Thanks, I know that, and I mention this in my question. (Or were you answering to someone else, since you begin with “because”?)
– DaG
Apr 22 at 7:36
2
2
Perhaps more importantly to me – is the statement even relevant? I mean, the way it’s phrased, pretty much any (large-ish) plane would be the same, wouldn’t it? If all that's needed is a single Mark 39 bomb (about 1 × 3 m, just under 3 tonnes), any plane that can carry such a load (surely that's most of 'em?) fulfils the criteria. The quote makes it sound like it’s a property of the B-52, but really it’s the result of the efficiency of nuclear weapons.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Apr 22 at 16:51
Perhaps more importantly to me – is the statement even relevant? I mean, the way it’s phrased, pretty much any (large-ish) plane would be the same, wouldn’t it? If all that's needed is a single Mark 39 bomb (about 1 × 3 m, just under 3 tonnes), any plane that can carry such a load (surely that's most of 'em?) fulfils the criteria. The quote makes it sound like it’s a property of the B-52, but really it’s the result of the efficiency of nuclear weapons.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Apr 22 at 16:51
In the sense that Top Fuel dragsters are the most powerful, fastest and quickest cars, if you don't count any nuance like cornering.
– James
Apr 22 at 17:39
In the sense that Top Fuel dragsters are the most powerful, fastest and quickest cars, if you don't count any nuance like cornering.
– James
Apr 22 at 17:39
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. These were the second-generation of nuclear weapons with greatly increased destructive power over the original WW2 atomic bombs. By 1957, these weapons had yields measured in megatons compared to the tens of kilotons that the first atomic bombs produced.
For example, the Mark 39 nuclear bomb had a yield of 3.8 megatons and the B-52 was able to carry multiples of these (the B-52 in the Goldsboro incident was carrying two of them).
Taking the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, this is the total weight of all types of bombs dropped by the Allies. So this includes the weight of the casing in addition to the weight of the explosive/incendiary payload. There were various explosive compounds used, some of which were weaker than TNT (e.g. Amatol) and some that were greater in power (e.g. RDX). So calculating the equivalent destructive power in terms of TNT isn't that easy.
As a simple comparison, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a direct TNT equivalent, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, third, fourth bomb... then it's even more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant of the weapon had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered Apr 21 at 18:44
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,86912330
3
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 21 at 18:47
6
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
Apr 21 at 20:47
6
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 22 at 9:09
2
@LorenPechtel: True only if range is dramatically reduced. These bombers were designed to deliver conventional payloads over short ranges, and nuclear payloads over long ranges. Multiple bomb drops in a small area is pointless with nuclear warheads, doubly so with thermonuclear ones.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 22 at 9:53
3
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
Apr 22 at 13:46
|
show 3 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52241%2fdestructive-force-carried-by-a-b-52%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. These were the second-generation of nuclear weapons with greatly increased destructive power over the original WW2 atomic bombs. By 1957, these weapons had yields measured in megatons compared to the tens of kilotons that the first atomic bombs produced.
For example, the Mark 39 nuclear bomb had a yield of 3.8 megatons and the B-52 was able to carry multiples of these (the B-52 in the Goldsboro incident was carrying two of them).
Taking the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, this is the total weight of all types of bombs dropped by the Allies. So this includes the weight of the casing in addition to the weight of the explosive/incendiary payload. There were various explosive compounds used, some of which were weaker than TNT (e.g. Amatol) and some that were greater in power (e.g. RDX). So calculating the equivalent destructive power in terms of TNT isn't that easy.
As a simple comparison, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a direct TNT equivalent, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, third, fourth bomb... then it's even more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant of the weapon had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered Apr 21 at 18:44
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,86912330
3
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 21 at 18:47
6
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
Apr 21 at 20:47
6
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 22 at 9:09
2
@LorenPechtel: True only if range is dramatically reduced. These bombers were designed to deliver conventional payloads over short ranges, and nuclear payloads over long ranges. Multiple bomb drops in a small area is pointless with nuclear warheads, doubly so with thermonuclear ones.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 22 at 9:53
3
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
Apr 22 at 13:46
|
show 3 more comments
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. These were the second-generation of nuclear weapons with greatly increased destructive power over the original WW2 atomic bombs. By 1957, these weapons had yields measured in megatons compared to the tens of kilotons that the first atomic bombs produced.
For example, the Mark 39 nuclear bomb had a yield of 3.8 megatons and the B-52 was able to carry multiples of these (the B-52 in the Goldsboro incident was carrying two of them).
Taking the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, this is the total weight of all types of bombs dropped by the Allies. So this includes the weight of the casing in addition to the weight of the explosive/incendiary payload. There were various explosive compounds used, some of which were weaker than TNT (e.g. Amatol) and some that were greater in power (e.g. RDX). So calculating the equivalent destructive power in terms of TNT isn't that easy.
As a simple comparison, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a direct TNT equivalent, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, third, fourth bomb... then it's even more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant of the weapon had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered Apr 21 at 18:44
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,86912330
3
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 21 at 18:47
6
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
Apr 21 at 20:47
6
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 22 at 9:09
2
@LorenPechtel: True only if range is dramatically reduced. These bombers were designed to deliver conventional payloads over short ranges, and nuclear payloads over long ranges. Multiple bomb drops in a small area is pointless with nuclear warheads, doubly so with thermonuclear ones.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 22 at 9:53
3
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
Apr 22 at 13:46
|
show 3 more comments
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. These were the second-generation of nuclear weapons with greatly increased destructive power over the original WW2 atomic bombs. By 1957, these weapons had yields measured in megatons compared to the tens of kilotons that the first atomic bombs produced.
For example, the Mark 39 nuclear bomb had a yield of 3.8 megatons and the B-52 was able to carry multiples of these (the B-52 in the Goldsboro incident was carrying two of them).
Taking the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, this is the total weight of all types of bombs dropped by the Allies. So this includes the weight of the casing in addition to the weight of the explosive/incendiary payload. There were various explosive compounds used, some of which were weaker than TNT (e.g. Amatol) and some that were greater in power (e.g. RDX). So calculating the equivalent destructive power in terms of TNT isn't that easy.
As a simple comparison, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a direct TNT equivalent, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, third, fourth bomb... then it's even more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant of the weapon had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered Apr 21 at 18:44
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,86912330
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. These were the second-generation of nuclear weapons with greatly increased destructive power over the original WW2 atomic bombs. By 1957, these weapons had yields measured in megatons compared to the tens of kilotons that the first atomic bombs produced.
For example, the Mark 39 nuclear bomb had a yield of 3.8 megatons and the B-52 was able to carry multiples of these (the B-52 in the Goldsboro incident was carrying two of them).
Taking the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, this is the total weight of all types of bombs dropped by the Allies. So this includes the weight of the casing in addition to the weight of the explosive/incendiary payload. There were various explosive compounds used, some of which were weaker than TNT (e.g. Amatol) and some that were greater in power (e.g. RDX). So calculating the equivalent destructive power in terms of TNT isn't that easy.
As a simple comparison, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a direct TNT equivalent, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, third, fourth bomb... then it's even more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant of the weapon had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered Apr 21 at 18:44
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,86912330
edited Apr 22 at 9:50
answered Apr 21 at 18:44
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,86912330
answered Apr 21 at 18:44
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,86912330
answered Apr 21 at 18:44
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,86912330
3,86912330
3
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 21 at 18:47
6
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
Apr 21 at 20:47
6
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 22 at 9:09
2
@LorenPechtel: True only if range is dramatically reduced. These bombers were designed to deliver conventional payloads over short ranges, and nuclear payloads over long ranges. Multiple bomb drops in a small area is pointless with nuclear warheads, doubly so with thermonuclear ones.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 22 at 9:53
3
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
Apr 22 at 13:46
|
show 3 more comments
3
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 21 at 18:47
6
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
Apr 21 at 20:47
6
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 22 at 9:09
2
@LorenPechtel: True only if range is dramatically reduced. These bombers were designed to deliver conventional payloads over short ranges, and nuclear payloads over long ranges. Multiple bomb drops in a small area is pointless with nuclear warheads, doubly so with thermonuclear ones.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 22 at 9:53
3
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
Apr 22 at 13:46
3
3
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 21 at 18:47
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 21 at 18:47
6
6
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
Apr 21 at 20:47
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
Apr 21 at 20:47
6
6
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 22 at 9:09
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
Apr 22 at 9:09
2
2
@LorenPechtel: True only if range is dramatically reduced. These bombers were designed to deliver conventional payloads over short ranges, and nuclear payloads over long ranges. Multiple bomb drops in a small area is pointless with nuclear warheads, doubly so with thermonuclear ones.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 22 at 9:53
@LorenPechtel: True only if range is dramatically reduced. These bombers were designed to deliver conventional payloads over short ranges, and nuclear payloads over long ranges. Multiple bomb drops in a small area is pointless with nuclear warheads, doubly so with thermonuclear ones.
– Pieter Geerkens
Apr 22 at 9:53
3
3
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
Apr 22 at 13:46
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
Apr 22 at 13:46
|
show 3 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52241%2fdestructive-force-carried-by-a-b-52%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
9
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
Apr 21 at 22:13
4
And "destructive power", whatever it is, is not the yield (which is simply energy in physical sense). Of course a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't cause as much damage as all of the WW2 bombings.
– kubanczyk
Apr 21 at 22:18
@DavidRicherby: Thanks, I know that, and I mention this in my question. (Or were you answering to someone else, since you begin with “because”?)
– DaG
Apr 22 at 7:36
2
Perhaps more importantly to me – is the statement even relevant? I mean, the way it’s phrased, pretty much any (large-ish) plane would be the same, wouldn’t it? If all that's needed is a single Mark 39 bomb (about 1 × 3 m, just under 3 tonnes), any plane that can carry such a load (surely that's most of 'em?) fulfils the criteria. The quote makes it sound like it’s a property of the B-52, but really it’s the result of the efficiency of nuclear weapons.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Apr 22 at 16:51
In the sense that Top Fuel dragsters are the most powerful, fastest and quickest cars, if you don't count any nuance like cornering.
– James
Apr 22 at 17:39