Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: dcn@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Dave Newkirk)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Big conventional bombs
Summary: TNT vs nukes
Keywords: big bombs
Message-ID: <7071@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 2 Jun 89 02:36:06 GMT
References: <6962@cbnews.ATT.COM> <7026@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 10
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: dcn@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Dave Newkirk)

Does anyone know the explosive rating of these large bombs?  If the Grand Slam
weighed 11 tons, is it's TNT-equivalent somewhere in that range?  What about
the fuel/air (propane?) bombs used in Vietnam?  I am wondering if large
conventional bombs are close to small nuclear weapons in explosive force.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, att!ihlpm!dcn