MEDELMA@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU (Michael Edelman) (01/23/91)
From: Michael Edelman <MEDELMA@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Latest intel from Iraq in the newspapers says that Saddam had constructed
a number of modular underground concrete/steel shelters that can take
a direct 2000-pounder hit with minimal damage. Obviously if this is where
he's hiding this is a major target.
I recall the "earthquake" and "Grand Slam" bombs of WWII- already mentioned
on this list- that were developed by the same fellow who invented the
skip bombs used on the Ruhr dams, and delivered by the same bomb group.
Do we have anything in our arsenal today that performs the same function?
The 12,500 pound "Daisy Cutter" mentioned in a posting sounds attractive
for this purpose, but it apparantly has no cratering ability. Perhaps
a penetrating version could be built.
Are there other techniques that might work? Drawings in the local Gannet paper
show a single airshaft with blast doors top and bottom and air shafts.
Perhaps an F117 could lob a 2,000 pounder down one? Films of the F-117
dropping a bomb down an air shaft (if that's what it really was) make it
sound possible....
--mike edelman medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu medelma@waynest1raob@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (richard oxbrow) (01/24/91)
From: raob@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (richard oxbrow) In article <1991Jan23.033507.1302@cbnews.att.com> MEDELMA@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU (Michael Edelman) writes: > > >From: Michael Edelman <MEDELMA@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU> > >I recall the "earthquake" and "Grand Slam" bombs of WWII- already mentioned >on this list- that were developed by the same fellow who invented the >skip bombs used on the Ruhr dams, and delivered by the same bomb group. >Do we have anything in our arsenal today that performs the same function? > I believe the US still has such a weapon which it developed specifically for digging out similar soviet bunkers, however i believe they are all destined for the scrap heap. The Pershing 2 was designed with a special warhead penerating warhead but it probably only comes with an atomic payload. richard oxbrow |internet raob@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU dept. ee eng, uni of melbourne |uunet ..!uunet!munnari!mullian!raob parkville victoria 3052 |fax +[613] 344 6678 australia |phone +[613] 344 6782
ps3h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Montgomery Sherwood) (01/25/91)
From: Philip Montgomery Sherwood <ps3h+@andrew.cmu.edu> My roommate and I were discussing the Iraqi bunkers, and were trying to think of ways to destroy the bunkers. One idea we had was to reprogram the patriot (don't know if possible - could use another missile) to fly up over the bunker, turn over and do a powered dive into the bunker area at Mach 3. Wouldn't this have a quite an impact energy and do a good bit of damage? Granted, finding the bunker could be difficult. There were other questions we didn't know the answers to like: could the missile go Mach 3 at the low altitudes without succumbing to air resistance? philip sherwood (ps3h+@andrew.cmu.edu) I've got the road in my blood, I drive a custom van, I play the tunes I'm the neighborhood Ice Cream Man... (Steve Taylor)
consp04@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd) (01/27/91)
From: consp04@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Dan Boyd) |> From: Philip Montgomery Sherwood <ps3h+@andrew.cmu.edu> |> One idea we had was to reprogram the patriot to fly up over the |> bunker, turn over and do a powered dive into the bunker area at |> Mach 3. Wouldn't this have a quite an impact energy and do a good |> bit of damage? By the time you get a Patriot there, it's already out of fuel. It's simpler to drop something heavy from a high altitude -- like a bomb from an airplane, huh? |> Could the missile go Mach 3 at the low altitudes without succumbing |> to air resistance? Not without using up a lot of fuel, and at the expense of being able to carry a significant warhead. Daniel F. Boyd | Patty, who was born today? Student Consultant, SUNY-Binghamton | ... Uh, nobody, Hugh. consp04@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu | I mean in history, Patty, | before they changed the water.
thos@softway.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) (02/04/91)
From: thos@softway.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) In article <1991Jan23.033507.1302@cbnews.att.com> MEDELMA@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU (Michael Edelman) writes: > > >From: Michael Edelman <MEDELMA@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU> >The 12,500 pound "Daisy Cutter" mentioned in a posting sounds attractive >for this purpose, but it apparantly has no cratering ability. Perhaps >a penetrating version could be built. That would require a major redesign on the casing. Probably wouldn't take long, and besides, the original worked so well that you could just dust down the designs (for a short term solution, at least. The designers name was Barnes Wallis, his portfolio included geodetic framework as applied to aircraft, culminating in the Wellington, design of the R101 (or was it the R100?), various work on SST-type aircraft, etc. >show a single airshaft with blast doors top and bottom and air shafts. >Perhaps an F117 could lob a 2,000 pounder down one? Films of the F-117 >dropping a bomb down an air shaft (if that's what it really was) make it >sound possible.... Star Wars: "That's impossible!" "No it's not! I used to hit Wamp Rats back home with my T16 and they're not much bigger than 2 metres!" -- thos cohen |Softway Pty Ltd "Stopping to pick up passengers would disrupt |ACSnet: thos@softway.oz the timetable" - Alderman Cholerton, on why|UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!thos the council's buses didn't stop for passengers|Internet: thos@softway.oz.au
fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (02/05/91)
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <1991Feb4.063830.20490@cbnews.att.com>, thos@softway.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) writes: > That would require a major redesign on the casing. Probably wouldn't take > long, and besides, the original worked so well that you could just dust > down the designs (for a short term solution, at least. The designers > name was Barnes Wallis, his portfolio included geodetic framework as applied > to aircraft, culminating in the Wellington, design of the R101 (or was > it the R100?), various work on SST-type aircraft, etc. Wallis worked on the R100 (the "Capitalist Ship"), while the Air Ministry did the R-101 (the "Socialist Ship"). The latter crshed on its maiden voyage, for various horrifying reasons, losing 48 of 54 crew. The R-100 was shortly after dismantled. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
wilson@uunet.UU.NET (Jon Wilson) (02/12/91)
From: ingr!b11!b11!wilson@uunet.UU.NET (Jon Wilson) Someone mentioned using concrete to seal bunkers, but the traditional (or tried-and-true) method is simply to pour gasoline down all ventilation shafts followed by a grenade (Willy Peter if you're really nasty.) Of course, this presumes that you have pinned down the bunker exits or (Seabee-style) bulldozed sand over them. ______________________________________ | | | Jonathan Wilson | | DEC Systems Support | | Intergraph Corporation | | | | email: uunet!ingr!b11!wilson | | phone: (205) 730-6397 | |______________________________________|