Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 Reverting back to my own link, as you say, we can see that the Avro's most common loadout was one 4000 lb mixed with 8000+ lbs of small 4-30 lb incendiary bombs - bombs that are only useful against soft targets like cities and which by itself proves how full of crap you are! You mean like I said already? But it is your fault that you struggle with the meaning of everyday English words and can't seem keep track of your own incoherent rambling. First, you suggested that if the RAF dropped 90,000 4000 lb bombs on Germany, they wouldn't have had the capacity to much drop much else. This turned out to be a brutal miscalculation on your part, since that have only amounted to 15% of the total that they dropped!Having been embarrassed on that note, now you're incompetently attempting to argue the semantics of words you obviously don't even understand. Synonyms for the words usual/common are: Widespread, occurring frequently, prevalent. None of the above conflicts whatsoever. I did not say anywhere that the 4000-lb bomb made up the majority of the overall RAF tonnage dropped, or anything even resembling that!!! Is this not your post? Ask the RAF. They dropped over two billion pounds worth of bombs on Germany, with the Lancaster accounting for ~2/3 of that and with its most common bomb load including a 4000 lb bomb (the RAF code word for the loadout being "USUAL"). Are you still ACTUALLY insisting the RAF didn't drop these things on German cities en masse? Talk about entrenching yourself in a losing argument! ------- No, you attempted a REALLY flimsy conjecture that isn't supported by any data. No data? You provided a link, several posts down, confirming my post........first you retorted by calling it "gobbledygook" and "technical blabber" , then your following post, provide a link confirming said "gobbledygook"........Like I said before, thanks for trying to teach me what I already know.....Well down!!! My link shows a little trivia bit that explains the Americans were impressed by the 4000 lb bomb and developed their own.It doesn't say anything else to support your conjectures. Simple knowledge of the actual bombing campaigns would also crush your argument, since large-scale strategic bombing against Japan didn't start until mid-1944 and over 30,000 of these bombs had already been dropped by then!! Crush my argument? It confirms it!!! As a B-24, unlike a Lancaster, could carry two 4000 Lbs bombs, then a B-29 would carry four 4000 lbs bombs (in addition to incendiary bombs). Knowing that, your vapid point suggests that the British stopped dropping Cookie/Blockbusters after 1943, that none of the 1944 figures are pre-June (when the large-scale Japanese strategic bombing campaign began) and that British National Archive numbers from 1944-1945 are purely for American statistics for area bombing against the Japanese! Holy mental gymnastics! Ahh....no.....I never suggested such thing......But I will say this, how did the British continue a similar rate of bombs dropped in 1943 and 1944, as they did in 1945? Odd that....... Yes, but the Cookie/Blockbuster WAS a demolition bomb and it WAS dropped in large numbers on soft targets like cities! http://www.globalsec...lition-bomb.htm : a type of general-purpose bomb having a thin, light metal casing and designed to accomplish damage by blast primarily. In some of the very large light-case bombs, the detonating charge accounts for 75 percent of the bomb's weight. Just give up already! Don't embarrass yourself any further... Yet per your loadout link, high capacity bombs were not apart of the demolition loadout, intended to bomb concrete targets........and you use a post-war definition of large American bombs, used in the demolition of minefields, forests etc via their blast effect......you now, like described in your previous loadout link as blast/fire loads........ You sure showed me!!!! I have to ask, do you actually read the links you post? Let's put it in a perspective even you can understand. If you had a choice, would you prefer having a single 50-lb rock dropped square on your head from 10 feet, or 50 1-lb rocks emptied out of a bucket over top of you? (this should be good!) Clearly neither.......have you had 50 lbs of rock(s) dropped on your head? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 ...the F-35A's gun (and the gun pod for the B and C) will be integrated with the Block 3F software in Spring-Summer of 2017........unlike current types that use for air-to-air mode the aircraft's radar and avionics to process several dozen calculations based on both the aircraft/targets range, speed, deflection etc, then a ballistic computer for air-to-ground, the F-35 will incorporate both modes into its avionics aided by the aircraft's DAS.........making the F-35's guns, both mounted and podded, far more accurate then current types....... To get somewhat back on subject.........From the F-35 program office: The Daily Beast reported on Dec. 31 that the gun would not be able to be used until 2019, but in a statement F-35 Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova described that story as a "misreporting" of the facts. The gun in question is a 25mm system known as the GAU-22, developed by General Dynamics. It is internal on the F-35A model and carried in an external pod of the F-35B and F-35C designs. GAU-22 testing for all three models is scheduled to start this year. Since 2005, DellaVedova said, the GAU-22 was planned to go operational with the block 3F software. That software is scheduled to go online in 2017, with low-rate initial production lot 9. Like I was saying.......... And somewhat related to the derailment on the US divesting itself of overseas basing: Two operational squadrons of U.S. Air Force F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter jets will be permanently stationed at the Royal Air Force Lakenheath facility in the United Kingdom starting in 2020, Defense Department officials announced today. Makes sense and is a nod to the continuing of US NATO commitments.......inversely: The EIC calls for the return of 15 sites to their host nations in Europe. Divestiture of RAF Mildenhall represents the largest reduction in U.S. personnel among the sites, but it will also pave the way for the F-35 units at RAF Lakenheath, Pentagon officials said. DoD officials expect a net decrease of roughly 2,000 U.S. service members and civilians in the United Kingdom over the next several years. From my understanding, the closures will include the Azores and several smaller garrisons/training areas/POMCUS sites in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium......an indication that US lawmakers (rightfully so in my opinion) will close (small) bases in nations that have cut their own defense budgets within the last decade+, and keep open US bases in lieu of subsidizing European defense..... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Like I was saying.......... And somewhat related to the derailment on the US divesting itself of overseas basing: Agreed...and not unexpected given budget constraints. Many of these bases are no longer needed: http://www.g2mil.com/OBCL.htm Politically, the US Congress prefers to close foreign bases before facing the wrath of constituents for base closures "state side". Yankees Go Home....Yankees Save Money ! Edited January 9, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 Agreed...and not unexpected given budget constraints. Many of these bases are no longer needed: http://www.g2mil.com/OBCL.htm Politically, the US Congress prefers to close foreign bases before facing the wrath of constituents for base closures "state side". Yankees Go Home....Yankees Save Money ! From that website's list of bases, and from what I've heard, the website owner we be able to add: -Spangdahlem air base, with those units not being stood down, moved to Italy -USAG Schinnen in the Netherlands......from my understanding, the base is just administration and personal support.....IOW an HR office The munition maintenance groups at Volkel (the Netherlands), Buchel (Germany) and Kleine Brogel (Belgium).....as the website author suggests, why does the USAF need to keep and maintain tactical nukes for the Europeans? They can get their own nukes and of course the forces in the Azores........Not sure of the others, including the British bases though, but don't doubt there are more.... Makes sense to me Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 The munition maintenance groups at Volkel (the Netherlands), Buchel (Germany) and Kleine Brogel (Belgium).....as the website author suggests, why does the USAF need to keep and maintain tactical nukes for the Europeans? They can get their own nukes As you know, the U.S. "loans" nuclear weapons to NATO allies as a practical way to skirt NPT requirements. There are about 200 U.S. nuclear warheads in theatre, mostly good ol' B61 gravity bombs that will get service life extensions. Getting their "own nukes" would present a slight political problem for the host nations, to say the least. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 As you know, the U.S. "loans" nuclear weapons to NATO allies as a practical way to skirt NPT requirements. There are about 200 U.S. nuclear warheads in theatre, mostly good ol' B61 gravity bombs that will get service life extensions. Getting their "own nukes" would present a slight political problem for the host nations, to say the least. Yes, I was being sarcastic with the comment on them getting their own.........I would assume, the tactical nukes would be moved to the United Kingdom, and the planned F-35A force.. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Yes, that makes the most sense. The U.S. and U.K already have a highly integrated nuclear weapons protocol. I think Greece lost theirs under Obama, maybe some others on this dated map. The F-35 will get the B61-12 "dial-a-nuke" with guided tail kit and parachute. Edited January 9, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 So apparently the engine that blew up on the runway in Florida that grounded the fleet causing it to miss Farnborough, was caused by an earlier flight were the pilot actually pulled a few G's in a turn. So let's see, so far you can't you can't put warm fuel in it, you can't fire the guns, you can't see out of it, but others can see you, and what fun is a fighter you can't turn sharply? http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/we-finally-know-why-an-f-35-burned-on-the-runway-1630541564 Quote
Smallc Posted January 9, 2015 Report Posted January 9, 2015 Does it make you feel better to keep repeating falsehoods? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 10, 2015 Report Posted January 10, 2015 Does it make you feel better to keep repeating falsehoods? You think the engine didn't blow up? Quote
Moonbox Posted January 10, 2015 Author Report Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) You mean like I said already? That was two paragraphs of pointless technical natter, a failed attempt to deflect from your revealed ignorance. I said: There's a reason that Lancasters and B-17's were dropping 500-4000 lb bombs instead of 80 lb ones. to which you directly responded: B17s, B-24s, Lancasters and the Halifax didn't drop massive demolition bombs on soft targets like cities. Which is funny because we KNOW that they did EXACTLY that. The 4000 lb Cookie is a huge demolition bomb and it was dropped on German cities frequently! All of your dissimulating beyond was neither here nor there, since none of it addressed your above gaffe. The additional smoke-and-mirrors you attempted regarding reinforced concrete targets was useless, since I never brought them up nor did I at any point deny that other loadouts/munitions were used. No data? You provided a link, several posts down, confirming my post........first you retorted by calling it "gobbledygook" and "technical blabber" then your following provide a link confirming said "gobbledygook". That's right, you provided no data at all. Your gobbledygook was just another red herring, with me at no point making any claim towards the efficacy of HC+Incendiary bombs against reinforced concrete! Crush my argument? It confirms it!!! As a B-24, unlike a Lancaster, could carry two 4000 Lbs bombs, then a B-29 would carry four 4000 lbs bombs (in addition to incendiary bombs). Except it doesn't, at all, in any way whatsoever confirm anything you're putting forth. Your conclusion, as I mentioned, is 100% conjecture, a wishful fabrication with no actual data supporting it. Yet per your loadout link, high capacity bombs were not apart of the demolition loadout, intended to bomb concrete targets....and you use a post-war definition of large American bombs, used in the demolition of minefields, forests etc via their blast effect......you now, like described in your previous loadout link as blast/fire loads........ Who cares? I never said they were! Nice red-herring! As for post-war definitions, show us anywhere (if you can) that indicates how these specific ones would differ, otherwise we can safely conclude this is more of your oblique mewling. Clearly neither.......have you had 50 lbs of rock(s) dropped on your head? Another dodge! That's fine, I'll tell you. The bigger rock smashes your skull in and most likely kills you. The smaller rocks, although unpleasant and potentially injuring, bounce and deflect off! Edited January 10, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 10, 2015 Report Posted January 10, 2015 That was two paragraphs of pointless technical natter, a failed attempt to deflect from your revealed ignorance. I said: Yet were latter confirmed by your own link.... Which is funny because we KNOW that they did EXACTLY that. The 4000 lb Cookie is a huge demolition bomb and it was dropped on German cities frequently! All of your dissimulating beyond was neither here nor there, since none of it addressed your above gaffe. The additional smoke-and-mirrors you attempted regarding reinforced concrete targets was useless, since I never brought them up nor did I at any point deny that other loadouts/munitions were used. Then why, per your loadout link, do demolition loadouts utilize different bombs and loadouts with the 4k cookie referred to as blast? Remember, these are your links. That's right, you provided no data at all. Your gobbledygook was just another red herring, with me at no point making any claim towards the efficacy of HC+Incendiary bombs against reinforced concrete! Red herring? I simply stated the uses of differing bombs.....then you ever so nicely provided a link of loadouts to confirm......was your provision of said link also a red herring? Except it doesn't, at all, in any way whatsoever confirm anything you're putting forth. Your conclusion, as I mentioned, is 100% conjecture, a wishful fabrication with no actual data supporting it. Do you deny the link, provided by you, that stated very clearly that the Americans started producing their own "cookie"? Likewise, do you deny that the Americans conducted similar firebombing raids as the British, throughout Europe and Japan, using both the B-24 and the B-29? What exactly are you claiming is fabricated? Who cares? I never said they were! Nice red-herring!As for post-war definitions, show us anywhere (if you can) that indicates how these specific ones would differ, otherwise we can safely conclude this is more of your oblique mewling. That's very simple........how many high capacity bombs are in the inventory of the United States (or any other NATO member) versus medium capacity/general purpose bombs? Conversely, what type of bomb (HC or MC/GP) has been used by US/NATO for the post-war demolition of a wide array of targets? Another dodge! That's fine, I'll tell you. The bigger rock smashes your skull in and most likely kills you. The smaller rocks, although unpleasant and potentially injuring, bounce and deflect off! Not a dodge at all......Its just that your Aristotelian approach to physics is quite funny.......A more astute example for you to have used would have been a balloon with 50 lbs of water in it, versus 50 lbs of golf balls...With that, to rhetorically answer your question, do modern militaries attach balloons or golf balls to paveway/JDAM kits? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 50 lbs of golf balls HAS to weigh more. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 11, 2015 Author Report Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Then why, per your loadout link, do demolition loadouts utilize different bombs and loadouts with the 4k cookie referred to as blast? Remember, these are your links. Who cares!? Your oft-linked globalsecurity.org gives the definition of a 'demolition bomb' as "one designed to accomplish damage by blast primarily." All you're doing is trying to muddy up the debate with evasive semantics because you've already been proven wrong and you're too internet-proud to admit it! Red herring? I simply stated the uses of differing bombs.....then you ever so nicely provided a link of loadouts to confirm......was your provision of said link also a red herring? Yes, red herring! I never denied the uses of different bombs, but you DID deny the use of the 4000 lb bomb on German cities. Since we've been shown that they were used in their thousands for exactly that purpose, you now have a hole dig yourself out of. Any normal person, having had that denial firmly rebuffed like you have, would have admitted they were wrong and moved on. Your persistence in supporting such a demonstrably ignorant/boneheaded claim with so many transparent misdirections and evasions, is pathetic. That's very simple........how many high capacity bombs are in the inventory of the United States (or any other NATO member) versus medium capacity/general purpose bombs? How about I take a page from the book of Derek and answer your question with a question!? When was the last time the US indiscriminately carpet-bombed a city??? Not a dodge at all......Its just that your Aristotelian approach to physics is quite funny.......A more astute example for you to have used would have been a balloon with 50 lbs of water in it, versus 50 lbs of golf balls... Except your astute example is about as incompetent and nonsensical as possible - more inept misdirection and evasion avoiding the essential concept: the comparative effects of focused vs dispersed energy. Edited January 11, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 Who cares!? Your oft-linked globalsecurity.org gives the definition of a 'demolition bomb' as "one designed to accomplish damage by blast primarily." All you're doing is trying to muddy up the debate with evasive semantics because you've already been proven wrong and you're too internet-proud to admit it! Proven wrong? How? That the site defines high capacity blast bombs as demolition bombs? In your link on RAF loadouts, did primary blast/fire and demolition loads differ in composition? Also, were said blast/fire loads typically used on missions when the primary target was made of reinforced concrete? Yes, red herring! I never denied the uses of different bombs, but you DID deny the use of the 4000 lb bomb on German cities. Since we've been shown that they were used in their thousands for exactly that purpose, you now have a hole dig yourself out of. Any normal person, having had that denial firmly rebuffed like you have, would have admitted they were wrong and moved on. Your persistence in supporting such a demonstrably ignorant/boneheaded claim with so many transparent misdirections and evasions, is pathetic. I very clearly both explained the definitions and usage of such bombs, later confirmed by your RAF loadout link......You've yet to "rebuff" any of such points, on the inverse, you via said links clearly confirmed my points. Well done as I said!!! How about I take a page from the book of Derek and answer your question with a question!? When was the last time the US indiscriminately carpet-bombed a city??? Winter of '72.....And not using high capacity blast bombs. Except your astute example is about as incompetent and nonsensical as possible - more inept misdirection and evasion avoiding the essential concept: the comparative effects of focused vs dispersed energy. Thermodynamics cool........since, in your view I'm inept, you should have no trouble explaining the transfer and dispersion (and dissipation) of the chemical energy found within a 4000 lbs blast bomb (like your cookie) versus a larger artillery shell......and in turn the end results on reinforced concrete that is common in a modern city like Seoul.... Thanks in advance. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 12, 2015 Author Report Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Proven wrong? How? That the site defines high capacity blast bombs as demolition bombs? In your link on RAF loadouts, did primary blast/fire and demolition loads differ in composition? Also, were said blast/fire loads typically used on missions when the primary target was made of reinforced concrete? Because all of the above has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the point of contention, which is your claim that: B17s, B-24s, Lancasters and the Halifax didn't drop massive demolition bombs on soft targets like cities. Why the hell would you natter on about different load-outs for hard/reinforced concrete targets when it's the above (categorically false) claim that I've repeatedly and specifically asked you to address!?!? Your dogged attempts at misdirection are so wretched and pathetic I'm starting to feel sorry for you... I very clearly both explained the definitions and usage of such bombs, later confirmed by your RAF loadout link......You've yet to "rebuff" any of such points, on the inverse, you via said links clearly confirmed my points. I don't need to rebuff any of them. I never denied the RAF had different loadouts for different missions! You're asking me to support a position I never took (see above)!!! That's the definition of a straw-man which, combined with your incessant red-herrings, tell us all we need to know about your "reasoning skills!" Winter of '72.....And not using high capacity blast bombs. and the fact that it's been over 32 years since the last area-bombing campaign, and that the USAF has specifically avoided any such campaign since, answers your question. you should have no trouble explaining the transfer and dispersion (and dissipation) of the chemical energy found within a 4000 lbs blast bomb (like your cookie) versus a larger artillery shell......and in turn the end results on reinforced concrete that is common in a modern city like Seoul....[ and here we finally get back to the original point - the one where you ineptly compared what North Korea could do to Seoul with what the RAF did to Dresden. Dresden was built of timber and brick - a perfect target for a combination of large blast bombs and incendiaries that flattened or tore flimsy buildings apart and threw incendiaries all over/in/around them. Dresden burned down in a fire that got so hot it created its own wind system. Seoul, as you aptly described, is a an enormous modern city build largely of concrete, so even if North Korea could deliver an attack like the RAF's (which they can't), it wouldn't be as effective anyways! Edited January 12, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 Because all of the above has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the point of contention, which is your claim that: Why the hell would you natter on about different load-outs for hard/reinforced concrete targets when it's the above (categorically false) claim that I've repeatedly and specifically asked you to address!?!? Your dogged attempts at misdirection are so wretched and pathetic I'm starting to feel sorry for you... Because the Allies didn't drop massive demolition bombs on cities, with concrete targets like factories, rail yards, bridges being targeted with MC/GP bombs in the 100, 250, 500lbs etc range. I don't need to rebuff any of them. I never denied the RAF had different loadouts for different missions! You're asking me to support a position I never took (see above)!!! That's the definition of a straw-man which, combined with your incessant red-herrings, tell us all we need to know about your "reasoning skills!" So to clarify, you agree that concrete structures were targeted by the Allies with MC/GP bombs that shared a like composition as a HE artillery shell? If not, then we can continue with said "straw-man"..... and the fact that it's been over 32 years since the last area-bombing campaign, and that the USAF has specifically avoided any such campaign since, answers your question. It was your question on definitions, in which you tried to define a light cased, high capacity bomb as a demolition bomb, despite, per your load out link, such bombs were not used in the demolition of concrete targets.... and here we finally get back to the original point - the one where you ineptly compared what North Korea could do to Seoul with what the RAF did to Dresden. Dresden was built of timber and brick - a perfect target for a combination of large blast bombs and incendiaries that flattened or tore flimsy buildings apart and threw incendiaries all over/in/around them.Dresden burned down in a fire that got so hot it created its own wind system. Seoul, as you aptly described, is a an enormous modern city build largely of concrete, so even if North Korea could deliver an attack like the RAF's (which they can't), it wouldn't be as effective anyways! Are you now suggesting the Allies were unable to destroy steel-bar concrete buildings during the war? Clearly if they were able to level a city like Dresden with a ~4000 ton mix of blast bombs, incendiaries and high explosives MC/GP bombs, the North Koreans that do have the ability to deliver ~4000 tons of explosives from tube and rocket artillery, combined with S/IRBMs, on Seoul, clearly have the ability to transform the likeness of Seoul into that of the Moon..........As expected/feared by the South Koreans and Americans, promised by the North Koreans and only contended by yourself........ I'm sorry, but your contention that the North Koreans are unable to seriously threaten Seoul with conventional weapons is wrong.......here is your chance to admit that you were wrong and allow the topic to continue. Quote
Smallc Posted January 12, 2015 Report Posted January 12, 2015 You guys must be a lot of fun at parties. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 13, 2015 Author Report Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Because the Allies didn't drop massive demolition bombs on cities, but they did, in their tens of thousands! It was your question on definitions, in which you tried to define a light cased, high capacity bomb as a demolition bomb, despite, per your load out link, such bombs were not used in the demolition of concrete targets. They were used for wide-area demolition of soft targets. Also, we've already proven a high-capacity bomb is a demolition bomb: A light-case bomb, also known as a demolition bomb, is a type of general-purpose bomb having a thin, light metal casing and designed to accomplish damage by blast primarily. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/demolition-bomb.htm . We don't really need any more indication of how ridiculous you or your position are. Having been given the definition specifically showing how full of BS you are (from a website you frequently yourself!), you lamely poo-pooed it. I guess it's only a good source if it supports your position, right? That's Derek logic, to be sure! Clearly if they were able to level a city like Dresden with a ~4000 ton mix of blast bombs, incendiaries and high explosives... because Dresden was made of wood and burned down... MC/GP bombs, the North Koreans...clearly have the ability to transform the likeness of Seoul into that of the Moon..........As expected/feared by the South Koreans and Americans, promised by the North Koreans and only contended by yourself ...except they don't, and any knowledge of previous artillery sieges should show you that. If the Red Army couldn't destroy Berlin with 20-40,000 pieces of artillery firing point-blank into the city for three weeks straight, how is it that you suppose North Korea can destroy Seoul (itself a MUCH larger and sturdier city) from 35 miles away with only a small fraction of the firepower? ...and I'm not the only person contending the claim: http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul I'm sorry, but your contention that the North Koreans are unable to seriously threaten Seoul with conventional weapons is wrong. Another Derek-Special - the Straw-Man! I never said anywhere that the North Koreans can't seriously threaten Seoul. I take issue with your childish, exaggerated hyperbole (see bolded above)! Edited January 13, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 You guys must be a lot of fun at parties. Still, if you were at a party and people were discussing a topic to such depth wouldn't you listen for awhile at least ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Smallc Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 It would depend on the topic, I suppose. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 but they did, in their tens of thousands! Ahh no, Allied MC/GP bombs were 100 lbs, 250 lbs, 500lbs and 1000 lbs. They were used for wide-area demolition of soft targets. Also, we've already proven a high-capacity bomb is a demolition bomb:A light-case bomb, also known as a demolition bomb, is a type of general-purpose bomb having a thin, light metal casing and designed to accomplish damage by blast primarily. http://www.globalsec...lition-bomb.htm . We don't really need any more indication of how ridiculous you or your position are. Having been given the definition specifically showing how full of BS you are (from a website you frequently yourself!), you lamely poo-pooed it. I guess it's only a good source if it supports your position, right? That's Derek logic, to be sure! Yet, the definition/composition from your prior linked loadout site differs.........You accuse me of cherry-picking? I know your arguments are "ever evolving"........ because Dresden was made of wood and burned down... There were no concrete buildings or structures like bridges in Dresden? If there were, are you suggesting they also burnt down? ...except they don't, and any knowledge of previous artillery sieges should show you that. If the Red Army couldn't destroy Berlin with 20-40,000 pieces of artillery firing point-blank into the city for three weeks straight, how is it that you suppose North Korea can destroy Seoul (itself a MUCH larger and sturdier city) from 35 miles away with only a small fraction of the firepower? ...and I'm not the only person contending the claim: Ahh so you've found two people that share your opinion.............odd that they both contend it possible with months of barrage (and assuming the North Koreans don't use nukes), but dismiss the threat because of US led counter attack.....with neither indicating that the South Koreans could fend off a North Korean attack on their own... None the less, the Americans are both moving and centralizing their forces (and their families) further South outside of their current bases in the Seoul region and of course outside the range of North Korean artillery.... Another Derek-Special - the Straw-Man! I never said anywhere that the North Koreans can't seriously threaten Seoul. I take issue with your childish, exaggerated hyperbole (see bolded above)! Ahhh so your contention is not that the North Koreans can't "seriously threaten Seoul", but they can't turn Seoul into the likeness of the Moon.........gotcha Now for the sake of argument, I'll concede that absent the North's usage of nuclear weapons and despite the fears of both the South Koreans and United States, the North Koreans can't turn Seoul into the Moon, but only "seriously threaten" it..........on the one caveat that you can define what "seriously threaten" entails. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 14, 2015 Author Report Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Ahh no, Allied MC/GP bombs were 100 lbs, 250 lbs, 500lbs and 1000 lbs. More irrelevant natter, with the existence of smaller MC/GP bombs in no way precluding the heavy usage of 4000-lb high capacity bombs. Yet, the definition/composition from your prior linked loadout site differs.........You accuse me of cherry-picking? That link doesn't provide any definitions, so we can add fabrication to the list along with your cherry picking. There were no concrete buildings or structures like bridges in Dresden? If there were, are you suggesting they also burnt down? Where did I say anything like that? You really need to expand your debating repertoire, because argument-by-question is not nearly as effective as you think it is, especially when the questions are doltish. Ahh so you've found two people that share your opinion.............odd that they both contend it possible with months of barrage (and assuming the North Koreans don't use nukes), but dismiss the threat because of US led counter attack. Two people who know quite a bit more than you and whose analysis you curiously chose not to question! As for the US-led counter-attack, that's the reality of the situation. The US is there and is clearly capable of quickly ending the greatly exaggerated threat! with neither indicating that the South Koreans could fend off a North Korean attack on their own... which was never the original argument, but rather an exhausting segway. Ahhh so your contention is not that the North Koreans can't "seriously threaten Seoul", but they can't turn Seoul into the likeness of the Moon.........gotcha or that it can flatten/destroy/erase/eradicate/engulf-in-a-sea-of-flames or any other similar North Korean hyperbole, short of a nuclear attack. Edited January 14, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 14, 2015 Report Posted January 14, 2015 More irrelevant natter, with the existence of smaller MC/GP bombs in no way precluding the heavy usage of 4000-lb high capacity bombs. Were high capacity blast bombs used to target primarily reinforced concrete targets? That link doesn't provide any definitions, so we can add fabrication to the list along with your cherry picking. Fabrication? The link you provided clearly defines the intended usage of each load out i.e. blast/incendiary, ASW, industrial demolition... Where did I say anything like that? You really need to expand your debating repertoire, because argument-by-question is not nearly as effective as you think it is, especially when the questions are doltish. You clearly stated Dresden burnt down........is that inclusive of concrete structures? Two people who know quite a bit more than you and whose analysis you curiously chose not to question! As for the US-led counter-attack, that's the reality of the situation. The US is there and is clearly capable of quickly ending the greatly exaggerated threat! Ahh but their opinions are not predicated on your scenario of the South Koreans going it alone….Clearly sans the United States, the ability to decisively counter attack North Korean artillery, be it through smart artillery munitions like Excalibur or smart bombs delivered from aircraft that would be able to effectively operate in contested airspace, would be severely curtailed. or that it can flatten/destroy/erase/eradicate/engulf-in-a-sea-of-flames or any other similar North Korean hyperbole, short of a nuclear attack. Of course, you prefer evolving yet undefined hyperbole.. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 15, 2015 Author Report Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Were high capacity blast bombs used to target primarily reinforced concrete targets? You've already asked this question and had it answered numerous times. It's also a clear red herring, an attempt to hide from: B17s, B-24s, Lancasters and the Halifax didn't drop massive demolition bombs on soft targets like cities. To summarize your clownish reasoning, you claimed the allies didn't drop massive 4000 lb demolition bombs on soft targets like cities. Upon being shown that they did exactly that, your refutation is to deny that they weren't used on hardened targets. Talk about mental gymnastics! LOL! Fabrication? The link you provided clearly defines the intended usage of each load out i.e. blast/incendiary, ASW, industrial demolition... It vaguely defines the intended usage of different load outs. It doesn't define the terminology. There's a big difference, but it's amusing you don't understand that. You clearly stated Dresden burnt down........is that inclusive of concrete structures? More argument-by-question, and a stupid question at that. Let me reply with a similarly stupid question: Can a log cabin burn down, even if it has a stone fireplace/chimney? Edited January 15, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.