Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: etnibsd!denbeste@uunet.UU.NET (Steven Den Beste)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Fuel-Air Explosives
Message-ID: <1991Jan18.003251.8296@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 18 Jan 91 00:32:51 GMT
References: <1991Jan16.013121.9797@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Eaton Semiconductor Equipment Division, Beverly, MA
Lines: 22
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: etnibsd!denbeste@uunet.UU.NET (Steven Den Beste)

This kind of explosion seems to go completely against the philosophy
which prevailed in the invention of the "blockbuster" bomb of WW-II.

The concept went like this: A conventional surface explosion is very
inefficient, since most of the power of the explosive goes into
producing a shockwave.

The blockbuster bomb was enormous, 6000 pounds or more, and had a delayed
fuse and an armored nose. When it was dropped, it would hit the ground
hard and keep going, burrowing down a hundred feet, and only then would
it explode. This gave the explosion excellent "tamping", and almost all
of the power of the explosion went directly into a shock wave in
the ground. As a result, instead of merely breaking windows it shook
all the buildings (or whatever) completely apart. Hence their nickname
"earth-quake bombs".

Does the gain from not carrying oxidizer in the bomb make up for the loss
inherent in an atmospheric detonation?