Derek 2.0 Posted January 15, 2015 Report Posted January 15, 2015 You've already asked this question and had it answered numerous times. It's also a clear red herring, an attempt to hide from: 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! Yet based on your loadout link, 4000 lbs demolition bombs weren't used on cities, but 4000 lbs light cased blast bombs. 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. Vaguely? It clearly states a difference between “blast” and “industrial demolition”, well illustrating the differing composition of each load, for each intended target type……Are you now saying the source you proved is incorrect? 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? Certainly any flammable portions of the building can clearly burn down, but that is not the case with portions with differing materials like your fireplace or the concrete foundation……….as such your claim that Dresden burnt down is hyperbole Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 15, 2015 Report Posted January 15, 2015 And more topical news: America is not likely to make a Western Pacific deployment until at least late 2016. At that time, it is possible that Marine Corps F-35s will deploy with the ship. The Pentagon is expected to declare the Marine version of the F-35 battle ready by the end of this year. “There’s a good opportunity that the first or second deployment of this ship would have F-35s onboard,” Baze said. An indication that the USN and USMC are embracing new technology by going all in…….A new LHA, with a primarily F-35 and MV-22 air-wing……..I suppose NAVAIR hasn’t read the media reports that claim the F-35 doesn’t work….. Another interesting inclusion of new technology from the article: At the same time, Navy officials are considering installing a 3D printer on the America to see how sailors could use the machine to make parts at sea, Baze said. “Looking forward, I think that’s an enormous capability that it would bring to us from a logistics standpoint,” Baze said. “Getting things faster to us and then in the far-flung future being able to manufacturer things on the ship when we need it saves us storage room, it saves us time of equipment being down, all of that, which would be great.” I would assume it will be a printer that can produce metal products..........Though not quite Star Trek replicators, cool none the less. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 16, 2015 Author Report Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Yet based on your loadout link, 4000 lbs demolition bombs weren't used on cities, but 4000 lbs light cased blast bombs. What are you? 9 years old? How many times can you repeat the same dumb argument? A 4000-lb light-cased bomb is a demolition bomb. You've been given a clear proof/definition of that from a website you frequently quote yourself! You can look it up anywhere else if you like and you'll get a similar result. Vaguely? It clearly states a difference between “blast” and “industrial demolition”, well illustrating the differing composition of each load, for each intended target type……Are you now saying the source you proved is incorrect? No, I'm saying the conclusion you've drawn from it is absurd. Not only does the website provide no definitions/explanations of terminology, as you're pretending it does, your argument also hinges on brainless reasoning. The fact that MC/GP bombs were preferred for industrial demolition does not, in any way, magically mean that the Cookie wasn't a demolition bomb as you're trying to claim. It just means that smaller, harder-cased bombs were better at demolishing certain targets! Keep flailing Derek! What else do you have? Certainly any flammable portions of the building can clearly burn down, but that is not the case with portions with differing materials like your fireplace or the concrete foundation……….as such your claim that Dresden burnt down is hyperbole So you're saying that a log cabin with a stone chimney can't burn down then. Got it. I keep forgetting we're dealing with Derek-logic here. Edited January 16, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Posted January 16, 2015 What are you? 9 years old? How many times can you repeat the same dumb argument? A 4000-lb light-cased bomb is a demolition bomb. You've been given a clear proof/definition of that from a website you frequently quote yourself! You can look it up anywhere else if you like and you'll get a similar result. Yet contended by your loadout link.......the very link provided by yourself. No, I'm saying the conclusion you've drawn from it is absurd. Not only does the website provide no definitions/explanations of terminology, as you're pretending it does, your argument also hinges on brainless reasoning. The fact that MC/GP bombs were preferred for industrial demolition does not, in any way, magically mean that the Cookie wasn't a demolition bomb as you're trying to claim. It just means that smaller, harder-cased bombs were better at demolishing certain targets! Keep flailing Derek! What else do you have? Yet the site specifically defines the purpose of each loadout and its intended purpose……From your link, did it not specifically state the “cookie” was used in blast/incendiary loads? Now with heavy industrial demolition loads, was not their primary loads comprised of MC/GP bombs? If so, how do you make the one in the same leap? So you're saying that a log cabin with a stone chimney can't burn down then. Got it. I keep forgetting we're dealing with Derek-logic here. Not at all, clearly a portion of said cabin, like Dresden, could burn down. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 16, 2015 Author Report Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Yet contended by your loadout link.......the very link provided by yourself. except it's not, at all. Yet the site specifically defines the purpose of each loadout and its intended purpose. Right, and as already discussed, it provides no actual definitions or explanations of any of the terminology like you're trying to pretend. From your link, did it not specifically state the “cookie” was used in blast/incendiary loads? It also specifically states it was used for Blast/Demolition/Fire loads and Carpet Bombing of Tactical targets loads. Your point? You don't have one. Now with heavy industrial demolition loads, was not their primary loads comprised of MC/GP bombs? If so, how do you make the one in the same leap? Yes, but the conclusion you draw from that is preposterous - a giant, desperate and moronic reach. The above quote says NOTHING more than that MC/GP purpose bombs were used for "industrial demolition". It in no way whatsoever proves/explains that the HC bomb wasn't a demolition bomb as it's defined to be by your friends at globalsecurity.org. Your argument, therefore, is a brutal non-sequitur, hinging entirely on flimsy semantics and the fabricated meanings you derive from them. Not at all, clearly a portion of said cabin, like Dresden, could burn down. Here you hit a new low, making it ever clearer that you're either incapable or unwilling of having an intelligent discussion. With your debating skills relying primarily on your tendency to obfuscate, fabricate and subsequently irritate your opponent into exhaustion, it's now painfully clear that you're not even trying to present a genuine, rational argument. You just want to have the last word. You can have it, along with whatever bizarre ego-boost that gives you. Edited January 16, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Posted January 16, 2015 Right, and as already discussed, it provides no actual definitions or explanations of any of the terminology like you're trying to pretend. I would think the intent of each loads is rather self-explanatory i.e. antisubmarine patrol, blast & incendiary or industrial demolition.... It also specifically states it was used for Blast/Demolition/Fire loads and Carpet Bombing of Tactical targets loads. Your point? You don't have one. Certainly and as described, said loadouts are differentiated by target types…….pointed enough I should think. Yes, but the conclusion you draw from that is preposterous - a giant, desperate and moronic reach. The above quote says NOTHING more than that MC/GP purpose bombs were used for "industrial demolition". It in no way whatsoever proves/explains that the HC bomb wasn't a demolition bomb as it's defined to be by your friends at globalsecurity.org. Your argument, therefore, is a brutal non-sequitur, hinging entirely on flimsy semantics and the fabricated meanings you derive from them. No leap at all.......it clearly proves HC bombs were not defined as demolition bombs, fore clearly they would be included within the defined demolition loaouts........ Are you now claiming your loadout link is rife with "flimsy semantics" and "fabricated meanings"? Here you hit a new low, making it ever clearer that you're either incapable or unwilling of having an intelligent discussion. With your debating skills relying primarily on your tendency to obfuscate, fabricate and subsequently irritate your opponent into exhaustion, it's now painfully clear that you're not even trying to present a genuine, rational argument. You just want to have the last word. You can have it, along with whatever bizarre ego-boost that gives you. Didn’t you yourself not speak to the dangers of hyperbole? The South Koreans could defeat the nuclear armed North Koreans, without the United States....... Quote
Moonbox Posted January 16, 2015 Author Report Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) No leap at all.......it clearly proves HC bombs were not defined as demolition bombs, fore clearly they would be included within the defined demolition loaouts. It's an idiotic, desperate grasp, proving nothing that you're pretending it does. Not only was it actually included in one of the demolition load-outs (COOKIE/PLUMDUFF), even if it wasn't that doesn't prove it wasn't a demolition bomb - which is what your friends at globalsecurity.org and numerous other places define it to be! I really don't think you understand what a non-sequitur is... Are you now claiming your loadout link is rife with "flimsy semantics" and "fabricated meanings"? I made it pretty clear that they were all of your own ridiculous creation. What the website says isn't the problem, rather it's your deranged interpretation of what it says! Edited January 16, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Posted January 16, 2015 It's an idiotic, desperate grasp, proving nothing that you're pretending it does. Not only was it actually included in one of the demolition load-outs (COOKIE/PLUMDUFF), even if it wasn't that doesn't prove it wasn't a demolition bomb - which is what your friends at globalsecurity.org and numerous other places define it to be! I really don't think you understand what a non-sequitur is... Aaah, so reverting back to the link, looking at said "PLUMDUFF" loadout, one can see said load's intended purpose was, and I quote, "Blast, Demolition and Fire", comprised of said "cookie" (blast) and 500 lbs medium cased general purpose bombs (demolition) and incendiary bombs (fire).........a clear combination of the other stated blast and demolition loadouts And the primary targets for such loadouts? Heavily industrialised cities or better put, concrete targets within cities.... Thanks for yet again proving my point. I made it pretty clear that they were all of your own ridiculous creation. What the website says isn't the problem, rather it's your deranged interpretation of what it says! Again with the personal attacks.....you're clearly becoming unhinged......take a break and reread the link you provided. Then ask yourself, why it differentiates between the differing loadouts, their composition and intended targets…….there is clearly no need for interpretation of something ever so clear in its intent. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 17, 2015 Author Report Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) 500 lbs medium cased general purpose bombs (demolition) wait...medium cased general purpose bombs are classified as demolition bombs now? Where was that confirmed, other than in your own imagination for your own purposes? Since they're part of the Carpet-Bombing-of-Tactical-Targets loadout, doesn't that prove that they're actually carpet-bombing-tactical bombs? But wait! They're also part of the Medium-Low-Level attack loadout, on "General" targets, so would that mean that they're actually Medium-Low-Level bombs!? Things sure get confusing when operating on Derek-logic! One question though: How is it that GP/MC bombs cause the demolition of targets? I'll give you a hint, from your friends at globalsecurity: General Purpose [GP] bombs are free fall ordnance or sometimes referred to as dumb bombs...The primary weapons effects are due to blast and fragmentation. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gp.htm Edited January 17, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 wait...medium cased general purpose bombs are classified as demolition bombs now? Where was that confirmed, other than in your own imagination for your own purposes? In the loadout denoting industrial demolition clearly... Since they're part of the Carpet-Bombing-of-Tactical-Targets loadout, doesn't that prove that they're actually carpet-bombing-tactical bombs? But wait! They're also part of the Medium-Low-Level attack loadout, on "General" targets, so would that mean that they're actually Medium-Low-Level bombs!? Things sure get confusing when operating on Derek-logic! Perhaps confusing for yourself, but for most, the moniker "General Purpose" would be sufficient to expound upon their intended purpose. One question though: How is it that GP/MC bombs cause the demolition of targets? I'll give you a hint, from your friends at globalsecurity:General Purpose [GP] bombs are free fall ordnance or sometimes referred to as dumb bombs...The primary weapons effects are due to blast and fragmentation. http://www.globalsec...unitions/gp.htm Brilliant, one could also surmise that if one where to reduce the casing to explosive ratio of such a bomb, the blast would be magnified, inversely if one were to increase the casing to explosive ratio the fragmentation effects would also be magnified……...doing so would clearly having differing effects on differing targets, allowing the operator to use more optimal loadouts when attacking said targets. I’m glad you’re learning, my time spent teaching you these nuances hasn’t been wasted. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 17, 2015 Author Report Posted January 17, 2015 Perhaps confusing for yourself, but for most, the moniker "General Purpose" would be sufficient to expound upon their intended purpose. but you've already told us that they're "demolition" bombs, remember!?! The loadout link, according to Derek-logic, defines the type of bomb they are! Brilliant, one could also surmise that if one where to reduce the casing to explosive ratio of such a bomb, the blast would be magnified, inversely if one were to increase the casing to explosive ratio the fragmentation effects would also be magnified……...doing so would clearly having differing effects on differing targets, allowing the operator to use more optimal loadouts when attacking said targets. Right, so you nattered for a whole paragraph, saying nothing of use, while making sure to dodge the question. I'll ask again: What part of the bomb's effects do the demolition work? Is it blast, or fragmentation? I’m glad you’re learning, my time spent teaching you these nuances hasn’t been wasted. You mean all of the time you've spent obfuscating, dodging and flailing lamely with a non-existent argument? Right... Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 but you've already told us that they're "demolition" bombs, remember!?! The loadout link, according to Derek-logic, defines the type of bomb they are! No, the loadout link defines the intended usage of the bombs, complied of varying types to result in the most effective outcome.... i.e. blast, demolition, incendiary etc Right, so you nattered for a whole paragraph, saying nothing of use, while making sure to dodge the question. I'll ask again: What part of the bomb's effects do the demolition work? Is it blast, or fragmentation? That would be predicated on the composition of the bomb itself. With the medium case/general purpose bomb, based on its composition of a ~50/50 explosive to casing ratio, both the blast and fragmentation. You mean all of the time you've spent obfuscating, dodging and flailing lamely with a non-existent argument? Right... Certainly, case in point your evolving positions…..I stand to be corrected, but I don’t feel you’re still of the opinion the South Koreans alone could defeat the North Koreans. If so, in the span of several weeks, your prior opinion has been changed by gainful knowledge shared with you by myself……… Or do you still think the South Koreans on their own could defeat the nuclear armed North? Quote
Moonbox Posted January 17, 2015 Author Report Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) No, the loadout link defines the intended usage of the bombs, complied of varying types to result in the most effective outcome.... i.e. blast, demolition, incendiary etc Ah, so you mean it doesn't actually provide any definitions for the different types of bombs, or for the terminology used. Thanks for confirming my point...albeit kicking and screaming. That would be predicated on the composition of the bomb itself. With the medium case/general purpose bomb, based on its composition of a ~50/50 explosive to casing ratio, both the blast and fragmentation. Right, so now that you've blathered on about varying compositions of GP bombs (another dodge - nobody asked), which part of a 50/50 blast/fragmentation mix is doing the demolition work? Certainly, case in point your evolving positions…..I stand to be corrected, but I don’t feel you’re still of the opinion the South Koreans alone could defeat the North Koreans. It hasn't changed, nor evolved, but that's not what we're talking about at the moment. This is just another example of you attempting to change the direction/topic of the conversation, since you obviously don't like where it's going (ie. more obfuscating). I'm not biting, sorry! Edited January 17, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Ah, so you mean it doesn't actually provide any definitions for the different types of bombs, or for the terminology used. Thanks for confirming my point...albeit kicking and screaming. Sure it does........One wouldn’t expect an incendiary loadout to be comprised of armour-piercing bombs for instance. Right, so now that you've blathered on about varying compositions of GP bombs (another dodge - nobody asked), which part of a 50/50 blast/fragmentation mix is doing the demolition work? I answered your question in my reply in which you quoted. It hasn't changed, nor evolved. This is just another example of you attempting to change the direction of the conversation, since you obviously don't like where it's going! So you feel the South Koreans could still defeat a nuclear armed North Korea without the aide of the United States? Quote
Moonbox Posted January 17, 2015 Author Report Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Sure it does........One wouldn’t expect an incendiary loadout to be comprised of armour-piercing bombs for instance. Is that what qualifies as a definition in your bizarre mind? I answered your question in my reply in which you quoted. So let me be clear: You're saying that the fragmentation of the bomb casing in a standard GP bomb is effective at demolishing concrete walls, railway tracks, dockyards etc!?!? So you feel the South Koreans could still defeat a nuclear armed North Korea without the aide of the United States? Your wimpy debating tactics are getting predictable. Obviously you don't like where the conversation is going, so you're trying desperately to lead us on another of your long-winded tangents! Edited January 17, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 17, 2015 Report Posted January 17, 2015 Is that what qualifies as a definition in your bizarre mind? Certainly, I think the defined terms from said loadout link are rather self-explanatory. So let me be clear: You're saying that the fragmentation of the bomb casing in a standard GP bomb is effective at demolishing concrete walls, railway tracks, dockyards etc!?!? I’m sorry but your questions are both unclear and juvenile, and resemble one asking if a piece of string is long enough to cover a thing……….As said already though, your question has been answered in the most simplistic terms that you should be able to comprehend. Now this latest question is rife with differing and undefined examples……Clearly a modern military can and will attack both a concrete structure, a railway or a dock with a modern medium cased/general purpose bomb, but then with said differing targets another host of variables is at play (i.e. blast location, fuses etc.) in the attacks effectiveness…. Your wimpy debating tactics are getting predictable. Obviously you don't like where the conversation is going, so you're trying desperately to lead us on another of your long-winded tangents! A tangent? You asked a question several posts ago, I simply answered...... Quote
Moonbox Posted January 18, 2015 Author Report Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Certainly, I think the defined terms from said loadout link are rather self-explanatory. but you just said there were no defined terms, just intended uses. It seems with all of your flopping and flailing, you can't even keep track of your own argument! I’m sorry but your questions are both unclear and juvenile, and resemble one asking if a piece of string is long enough to cover a thing………. I've taken a page out of Derek's Book on Debating. Since you clearly think that argument-by-question is an effective way to prove your point, I've chosen to throw it back in your face. That this somehow irritates you is pretty funny, showing a remarkable lack of perspective. One key difference, however, is that mine isn't misdirection, nor does it put words in your mouth. As said already though, your question has been answered in the most simplistic terms that you should be able to comprehend. No, you answered it disingenuously and vaguely, so I'm attempting to clarify your position. Follow me for a second (if you can): According to you, the GP bomb is to be considered a demolition bomb simply because it was used for industrial demolition on targets like factories, railways and dockyards. Since (once again according to you) the demolition of said targets was accomplished by both blast and fragmentation, your logic would therefore dictate that fragmentation is effective at demolishing these types of targets. So here we are, with you placing yourself in a logical conundrum, with three available options: 1) You can concede that fragmentation has little/no effect against hard targets - by default correctly acknowledging that the demolition is actually caused by blast effects and thus rendering your made-up distinction between blast/demolition bombs dead. 2) You can absurdly persist in claiming that fragmentation is effective at destroying concrete buildings, railways etc...thus begging for a likely bizarre explanation! 3) You can dodge, in typical Derek-fashion, and attempt some sort of misdirection/subject change. Your choice! Whatever option you pick, I'm sure I'll get a laugh! Edited January 18, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 but you just said there were no defined terms, just intended uses. It seems with all of your flopping and flailing, you can't even keep track of your own argument. Where did I say that? I've taken a page out of Derek's Book on Debating. Since you clearly think that argument-by-question is an effective way to prove your point, I've chosen to throw it back in your face. That this somehow irritates you is pretty funny, showing a remarkable lack of perspective. One key difference, however, is that mine isn't misdirection, nor does it put words in your mouth. I’m not irritated the slightest, as I’m quite aware of your ignorance on the subject. No, you answered it disingenuously and vaguely, so I'm attempting to clarify your position. Follow me for a second:According to you, the GP bomb is to be considered a demolition bomb simply because it was used on industrial targets like factories, railways and dockyards. Since (once again according to you) the demolition of said targets was accomplished by both blast and fragmentation, your logic would therefore dictate that fragmentation is effective at demolishing these types of targets. Again, both blast/fragmentation effects are dependent upon a whole host of other variables.... So here we are, with you placing yourself in a logical conundrum, with three available options:1) You can concede that fragmentation has little/no effect against hard targets - by default correctly acknowledging that the demolition is actually caused by blast effects and thus rendering your made-up distinction between blast/demolition bombs dead. Why would I do that? Correctly acknowledging? Ask yourself this, why were “cookie” bombs not used against reinforced concrete targets like hydro-dams or U-Boat pens if explosive blast was/is the most effective force against such targets? 2) You can absurdly persist in claiming that fragmentation is effective at destroying concrete buildings, railways etc...thus begging for a likely bizarre explanation! As pointed out above, make sure in future you don't get caught in your own logic-trap 3) You can dodge, in typical Derek-fashion, and attempt some sort of misdirection/subject change.Your choice! Whatever option you pick, I'm sure I'll get a laugh! Now this evening’s homework for you is to answer this: What would cause more damage: Placing a lit firecracker in your opened right hand or a placing a lit firecracker within your clenched left hand? Now give it a good think, gleam as much knowledge from wiki as you see fit and get back to me……then once you’ve answered correctly we’ll delve into fuzes, blast elevation, proximity of the target and fragmentation………if you’re really ambitious, revisit our conversation from several years ago in which I taught you the physics behind the transfer of energy. I look forward to your answer in the morning!! Quote
Moonbox Posted January 18, 2015 Author Report Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Where did I say that? Umm: Yet, the definition/composition from your prior linked loadout site differs.........You accuse me of cherry-picking? Like I said, you can't even keep track of what you're saying! Again, both blast/fragmentation effects are dependent upon a whole host of other variables.... Nice deflection - more Derek waffling. Why don't you tell us what "variables" would make fragmentation effective against hardened concrete or railways? Why would I do that? Correctly acknowledging? Ask yourself this, why were “cookie” bombs not used against reinforced concrete targets like hydro-dams or U-Boat pens if explosive blast was/is the most effective force against such targets? I suspect it's because they were designed to resist external explosive/demolition blasts. In these cases a different method of delivery was required. The method of demolition, however, remained the same (blast), especially in the case of the dam-busting bouncing bombs which weren't even intended to hit their targets! To turn your undeveloped logic around on you, why didn't the RAF drop inert penetrators on these targets? What would cause more damage: Placing a lit firecracker in your opened right hand or a placing a lit firecracker within your clenched left hand? Obviously the one in the left hand, since the blast would be magnified/concentrated in the enclosed space. Unfortunately for you, this doesn't mean that this firecracker is now considered a "demolition firecracker" . They're still both just firecrackers! Derek-logic is always good for a laugh! Edited January 18, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Michael Hardner Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 This is a debate between two well-informed people. Saying "your logic" makes me laugh is a comment on content, but saying "Derek-logic" seems more like a comment on the person. As I said, the discussion seems pretty good from what I can see so just pointing this out... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Derek 2.0 Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 Umm: Like I said, you can't even keep track of what you're saying! I hate to interrupt your ta-da, but you stated I said there were no defined terms in said loadout link……and your proof is quoting me speaking to defined terms….impressive. Nice deflection - more Derek waffling. Why don't you tell us what "variables" would make fragmentation effective against hardened concrete or railways? I already did several posts prior. I suspect it's because they were designed to resist external explosive/demolition blasts. In these cases a different method of delivery was required. The method of demolition, however, remained the same (blast), especially in the case of the dam-busting bouncing bombs which weren't even intended to hit their targets!To turn your undeveloped logic around on you, why didn't the RAF drop inert penetrators on these targets? So a bomb designed to amplify blast was unable to destroy hardened concrete............how could that be? Ain't science a bitch Obviously the one in the left hand, because the effect of the blast would be magnified in an enclosed space. Unfortunately for you, this doesn't mean that this firecracker is considered a "demolition firecracker". Derek-logic is always good for a laugh! Magnified?!?!?!?! A human hand can magnify the explosive potential (and it turn the blast) of a firecracker???? Astounding!!!! Take a mulligan and get back to me once you've wikied a better understanding, then we'll explore why your light case/high capacity bombs were less effective against concrete then medium cased bombs........or HE artillery shells. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 18, 2015 Author Report Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) I hate to interrupt your ta-da, but you stated I said there were no defined terms in said loadout link……and your proof is quoting me speaking to defined terms….impressive. My bad, I goofed my quoting. Here's what I meant: The loadout link, according to Derek-logic, defines the type of bomb they are! to which you responded: No, the loadout link defines the intended usage of the bombs So as we can see, your position on this flops around depending on how it affects your argument, much like the reliability of globalsecurity.org. When you're quoting it, it's undeniable fact. When someone else quotes it specifically refuting your point, it's not so reliable after all, and you wriggle around inventing reasons why. I already did several posts prior. No, you evaded with a "that depends on..." followed by a bunch of nattered vagueries. When asked to clarify you waffled and dodged. The answer, of course, is that fragmentation has negligible effect on hardened targets, thus the only part of a mixed fragmentation/blast bomb that's actually demolishing anything is the blast effect, rendering your made-up distinction between blast and demolition bombs meaningless. So a bomb designed to amplify blast was unable to destroy hardened concrete............how could that be? Ain't science a bitch because it was designed to destroy soft targets, which is what you said it wasn't used for! Ain't logic a bitch!? Magnified?!?!?!?! A human hand can magnify the explosive potential (and it turn the blast) of a firecracker???? Astounding!!!! There you are again, inventing false arguments and putting words in someone's mouth. I specifically said "the effect of the blast is magnified", so here you're deliberately misrepresenting my statement and at the same time demonstrating some tragically incompetent reasoning. Edited January 18, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted January 18, 2015 Report Posted January 18, 2015 My bad, I goofed my quoting. Here's what I meant: to which you responded: So as we can see, your position on this flops around depending on how it affects your argument, much like the reliability of globalsecurity.org. When you're quoting it, it's undeniable fact. When someone else quotes it specifically refuting your point, it's not so reliable after all, and you wriggle around inventing reasons why. And this refutes what? Are you suggesting said loadout link doesn't define both the intended target types and the types of munitions used to target them? No, you evaded with a "that depends on..." followed by a bunch of nattered vagueries. When asked to clarify you waffled and dodged. The answer, of course, is that fragmentation has negligible effect on hardened targets, thus the only part of a mixed fragmentation/blast bomb that's actually demolishing anything is the blast effect, rendering your made-up distinction between blast and demolition bombs meaningless. Did I suggest different? I'll ask again, and you'll dodge again, why were light cased/high capacity bombs not used on hardened concrete, if the initial blast was key to the destruction of said buildings? There is no "made-up" distinction between your HC blast bomb and MC/GP bombs (used to target concrete)......the distinction between the two starts with the name and expands like the initial blast wave from there because it was designed to destroy soft targets, which is what you said it wasn't used for! Ain't logic a bitch!? But I thought the blast was used to destroy hard targets???........so why doesn't a larger blast equate to further destructive force against hard targets? There you are again, inventing false arguments and putting words in someone's mouth. I specifically said the effect of the blast is magnified, so here you're deliberately misrepresenting my statement and at the same time demonstrating tragically incompetent reasoning. By all means expand on how the left hand(MC/GP) magnifies the explosive force contrasted with the same firecracker in the right hand(HC).........I wouldn't want to misrepresent you. Once you can, then you'll be able to answer why your HC bombs were less effective against concrete when compared to a mc/gp bomb..........and in turn understand the difference between the loadouts for blast and industrial demolition. Then we can continue........I'll be waiting. Quote
PIK Posted January 19, 2015 Report Posted January 19, 2015 Nobody comes close to derek on this subject. And I am impressed with how he controls himself with the BS thrown at him. Same questions over and over just worded differently, sounds like the CBC is here. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Moonbox Posted January 21, 2015 Author Report Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) And this refutes what? Are you suggesting said loadout link doesn't define both the intended target types and the types of munitions used to target them? I've made it pretty clear what I'm suggesting - that no definitions were provided and that nowhere on the website were the terms "blast bombs" or "demolition bombs" even used. Your argument, easily summarized, is that since some guy named Larry's website says that MC/GP bombs were used for industrial demolition (demolition being synonymous with destruction), we somehow have irrefutable proof that the 4000-lb HC bomb wasn't a demolition bomb. Globalsecurity.org, however, specifically defines the HC bomb as a demolition bomb (so does everywhere else). Your argument therefore not only sucks on basic principle, it also requires you to take the ridiculous position that some guy named Larry is a more credible source than the folks at globalsecurity.org who you so often like to quote! Did I suggest different? I'll ask again, and you'll dodge again, why were light cased/high capacity bombs not used on hardened concrete, if the initial blast was key to the destruction of said buildings? I didn't dodge, lol. I answered directly: because it was designed to destroy soft targets, which is what you said it wasn't used for! Ain't logic a bitch!? Oops! There is no "made-up" distinction between your HC blast bomb and MC/GP bombs (used to target concrete) but you did make up your own distinction between blast and demolition bombs, along with your own fabricated definitions for the terminology to suit your argument - definitions you've been incapable of supporting with any of your own sources, that are fully contradictory to existing sources, and that rely 100% on your broad and self-serving interpretation of what some guy named Larry's website said! Here's another tidbit for you: "Bombs can be classified according to their use and the explosive material they contain. Among the most common types are blast (demolition), fragmentation, general purpose, antiarmour (armour-piercing), and incendiary (fire) bombs.... Demolition bombs rely on the force of the blast to destroy buildings and other structures. " http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/72491/bomb#ref103515 But I thought the blast was used to destroy hard targets???........so why doesn't a larger blast equate to further destructive force against hard targets? The blast does destroy the target. A larger blast does have more destructive force. Are you saying it doesn't? If you want to be deflective and ambiguous, I can play along. Just for fun, why don't you consider why the Allies weren't using inert/concrete bombs for "industrial demolition." By all means expand on how the left hand(MC/GP) magnifies the explosive force contrasted with the same firecracker in the right hand(HC).........I wouldn't want to misrepresent you. I didn't say that either. That's twice now that you've deliberately misquoted me. I said the effect of the blast is magnified. If it's a firecracker in your closed hand (as opposed to an open one), it's because the energy has nowhere to dissipate except into and through your hand. Once you can, then you'll be able to answer why your HC bombs were less effective against concrete when compared to a mc/gp bomb..........and in turn understand the difference between the loadouts for blast and industrial demolition. and hilariously, we finally come full circle back to the original point: I never said the 4000-lb HC bomb was used against hardened concrete, or even for industrial demolition. All I said is that 4000-lb bombs were dropped on cities like Dresden and your response was: B17s, B-24s, Lancasters and the Halifax didn't drop massive demolition bombs on soft targets like cities. I'd never even mentioned the term demolition bomb yet, so when you quoted me and responded with this the only thing you were denying was that they dropped 4000-lb bombs on soft targets like cities. After having that thrown back in your face for the stupidity that it was, you fabricated a long-winded false-argument suggesting that you were actually talking about demolition bombs (despite me never mentioning the term). Hilariously, however, you got even that brutally wrong! You couldn't even put together a competent distraction from your ignorance! Edited January 21, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is 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.