F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[Derek 2.0]

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 bombs 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!

Wasn't the site by some guy named Larry the very same site you provided and used as supportive evidence that Bomber Command's "usual" loadout for bombing cities was comprised of 4000 lbs bombs? Inversely, didn't you also question globalsecurity.org's assessment of North Korean artillery? It appears that it’s actually you that cherry-picks.....

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 whatsome guy named Larry's website said!

Larry of course lists his sources as being various Commonwealth Air Force Associations and National Archives……….It appear Larry has done far more research then yourself....

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.britannic.../bomb#ref103515

Interesting indeed.......that you also cherry-pick this source........from the link:

Demolition bombs rely on the force of the blast to destroy buildings and other structures. They are usually fitted with a time-delay fuze, so that the bomb explodes only after it has smashed through several floors and is deep inside the target building.

So your light cased, high capacity bomb "smashes through buildings".........great so why were "cookie" bombs not used in bombing concrete targets or still used today in such roles? Clearly said description seems fitting of a bomb with a thick steel casing which enables it to "smash through several floors"...........You really knocked that one out of the park

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."

So if a “larger blast” has more destructive force, why aren’t 4000 lbs light cased/HC bombs used today? Why would the mainstay of Western militaries, the mark 80 series, be medium cased/general purpose bombs?

Your actual understanding of the anatomy of an explosion is wanting…….

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.

Actually no…….the initial (blast) energy released in both hands is equal, the energy in the open hand isn’t dissipated, but expanding (overpressure) and increasing atmospheric pressure. The initial (blast) energy in the closed hand is reflected back (from the closed hand) to the initial point of the blast (generating negative atmospheric pressure) and in turn generates a reflected impulse (Momentum conservation principle) 10-50 times (dependent on the elevation of the explosion) greater than the initial blast wave….The negative pressure and impulse is what will tear the hand to ribbons or demolish the concrete building…………

As such, bomb explosions that are reflected from a thicker steel casing equate to a larger destructive force………the principle is the same with the firecracker, a stick of dynamite placed into a hole drilled into a rock versus the same stick placed on the outside surface of the rock, or a medium capacity bomb versus a high capacity bomb……..and is why Larry’s industrial demolition loadout for concrete targets contained MC bombs and is the reason why the vast majority of bombs dropped by modern militaries are medium capacity bombs……….

I have to ask, did you skip high school science?

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:

And what was said quoted response of mine responding to? Shall we revisit?

You're obviously dodging my bringing up the importance of the size of munitions and concentration of bombardment. There's a reason that Lancasters and B-17's were dropping 500-4000 lb bombs instead of 80 lb ones. Pound for pound, bigger bombs do far more damage, and that's magnified when they're dropped in higher concentrations over shorter periods of time.

The above is your own statement correct? So you’re saying your 4000 lbs HC cookie would do more damage to a concrete structure (like what is found in Seoul) then a 500 lbs MC JDAM…….remember your firecrackers

Thanks for coming out though.......

[Mighty AC]

On top of a very expensive, flightless plane program our military is dealing with cutbacks that prevent it from using the equipment it already has.

A lack of funding has forced Canada’s navy to take an unusual approach to finding savings — it has sent its frigates out on international missions with instructions to crews not to use some of the ships’ sophisticated sensors.

Those restrictions have helped cut back on maintenance bills but also limit the ships’ effectiveness, according to a Department of National Defence evaluation of the navy.

The Royal Canadian Navy, like all of the military services, has been dealing with funding cuts ordered by the Conservative government.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/14/youre-going-to-need-a-bigger-budget-canadian-navy-tells-frigates-to-not-use-sophisticated-equipment-to-save-cash/

It's unfortunate that this apparently pro-military government under funds the troops on the job and then short changes vet services afterwards.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Wilber]

Cookies were primarily blast bombs. Tall Boy and Grand Slam were favoured against hardened and other large stuctures.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Wilber

[Moonbox]

Wasn't the site by some guy named Larry the very same site you provided and used as supportive evidence that Bomber Command's "usual" loadout for bombing cities was comprised of 4000 lbs bombs?

It was one among many sources I provided, all of them refuting your claim that 4000-lb bombs weren't dropped on soft targets like cities! I'm not discrediting my source. The facts that I drew from it can be confirmed anywhere else you want to look, which is why you accepted it. The BS that you're peddling, however, is synthesized from feeble semantics and grasping conclusions that you've personally fabricated - all of them running directly contrary to any other available sources!

Inversely, didn't you also question globalsecurity.org's assessment of North Korean artillery? It appears that it’s actually you that cherry-picks.....

No, Derek, I did not. I mocked you because globalsecurity.org's assessment didn't confirm what you were saying, lol. Trying to change the subject again, huh?

Interesting indeed.......that you also cherry-pick this source........from the link:

Demolition bombs rely on the force of the blast to destroy buildings and other structures. They are usually fitted with a time-delay fuze, so that the bomb explodes only after it has smashed through several floors and is deep inside the target building.

Key line here: They are usually fitted with...

They = demolition bombs (as defined in the previous sentence). Can you direct me to the line where it says the definition changes if it isn't not fitted with a delayed-fuze?

Nice try, but still failing spectacularly in basic comprehension.

So your light cased, high capacity bomb "smashes through buildings".........great so why were "cookie" bombs not used in bombing concrete targets or still used today in such roles?

Cookie bombs were used on soft targets. I think we've been over that about 100 times now.

So if a “larger blast” has more destructive force, why aren’t 4000 lbs light cased/HC bombs used today? Why would the mainstay of Western militaries, the mark 80 series, be medium cased/general purpose bombs?

because Western air forces haven't engaged in area-bombing against civilians for 40+ years.

Actually no…….the initial (blast) energy released in both hands is equal, the energy in the open hand isn’t dissipated,

Wait...blast waves don't dissipate? After reading that, I can't take the rest of your wikipedia-science paraphrasing seriously.

The above is your own statement correct? So you’re saying your 4000 lbs HC cookie would do more damage to a concrete structure (like what is found in Seoul) then a 500 lbs MC JDAM…….remember your firecrackers

There you are again, trying to put words in someone's mouth. If you that's all you can put together for an argument, you should really give up.

The 4000-lb bombs were more effective at destroying WW2 German cities, which were mostly soft and wooden, and especially when combined with incendiaries. Seoul is not Dresden.

[Derek 2.0]

It was one among many sources I provided, all of them refuting your claim that 4000-lb bombs weren't dropped on soft targets like cities! I'm not discrediting my source. The facts that I drew from it can be confirmed anywhere else you want to look, which is why you accepted it. The BS that you're peddling, however, is synthesized from feeble semantics and grasping conclusions that you've personally fabricated - all of them running directly contrary to any other available sources!

I never stated 4000 lbs bombs weren't dropped on soft targets like cites.

No, Derek, I did not. I mocked you because globalsecurity.org's assessment didn't confirm what you were saying, lol. Trying to change the subject again, huh?

What didn't it confirm?

Key line here: They are usually fitted with...

They = demolition bombs (as defined in the previous sentence). Can you direct me to the line where it says the definition changes if it isn't not fitted with a delayed-fuze?

Nice try, but still failing spectacularly in basic comprehension.

So you're saying light case bombs sometimes were fitted with time delay fuzes to go through buildings?

because Western air forces haven't engaged in area-bombing against civilians for 40+ years.

I never said that they were.........and of course you're skating on the question.......larger blast= greater destructive force remember?

Wait...blast waves don't dissipate? After reading that, I can't take the rest of your wikipedia-science paraphrasing seriously.

No, not during the initial phase of an explosion........quite the opposite actually, as was already explained to you......I'm sure you could even use wikipedia and figure out the inverse effect of a vacuum

There you are again, trying to put words in someone's mouth. If you that's all you can put together for an argument, you should really give up.

The 4000-lb bombs were more effective at destroying WW2 German cities, which were mostly soft and wooden, and especially when combined with incendiaries. Seoul is not Dresden.

Would 4000 lb cookie blast bombs be effective against a city like Seoul, like they were on Dresden???...remember your firecrackers when answering

[Moonbox]

I never stated 4000 lbs bombs weren't dropped on soft targets like cites.

That's a flimsy, nonsense dodge which I specifically addressed on the previous page and which you curiously avoided responding to. Let's try again:

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!

What didn't it confirm?

Not biting on that one, sorry Derek. You can go digging weeks back into this thread if you so desire, but you'll find that I never questioned the validity of globalsecurity.org's material.

So you're saying light case bombs sometimes were fitted with time delay fuzes to go through buildings?

Where did I say Derek? You really need to be able to bring something to the table better than argument-by-question, especially when these questions are putting words in other people's mouths. See below for an example of your (typically) confused logic in use:

I never said that they were.........and of course you're skating on the question.......larger blast= greater destructive force remember?

So you're saying that smaller blasts have greater destructive force than larger blasts???

No, not during the initial phase of an explosion........quite the opposite actually, as was already explained to you......I'm sure you could even use wikipedia and figure out the inverse effect of a vacuum

/yawn. A whole lot of nattering bluster with nothing useful provided to the argument.

Would 4000 lb cookie blast bombs be effective against a city like Seoul, like they were on Dresden???...remember your firecrackers when answering

Like I said before, you have trouble keeping track of the discussion, or understanding it...I'm not sure. I never said the cookie bomb would be particularly effective against Seoul. I said it was exceedingly effective against cities like Dresden (RAF estimates @ 1.4x as effective as similar weight in conventional bombs) because they were of (mostly) soft construction. This was all in response to your goof claim that the North Koreans turn Seoul into another Dresden - clearly demonstrating you knew crap all about Allied firebombings in WW2 along with a good many other things.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

That's a flimsy, nonsense dodge which I specifically addressed on the previous page and which you curiously avoided responding to. Let's try again:

All I said is that 4000-lb bombs were dropped on cities like Dresden and your response was:

How is it a dodge? It’s a clear statement of fact.

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!

Again, I made a clear distinction, that you choose to distort and then claim I put words in your mouth……..Cleary the distinction made was between both methods of destructive force, one (the light case cookie) and the more prevalent munitions (MC/GP bombs and HE artillery shells) used to attack concrete targets.

Not biting on that one, sorry Derek. You can go digging weeks back into this thread if you so desire, but you'll find that I never questioned the validity of globalsecurity.org's material.

Really?

Also, from your goofy link:

I suppose you meant "goofy" in the positive way......

Where did I say Derek? You really need to be able to bring something to the table better than argument-by-question, especially when these questions are putting words in other people's mouths. See below for an example of your (typically) confused logic in use:

I’m sorry that you’re reliant upon cherry-picking dictionary links to support your position……..So, were “cookies” used to penetrate buildings?

So you're saying that smaller blasts have greater destructive force than larger blasts???

Not the slightest, as I maintained, destructive potential of any explosive munitions are dependent upon a whole host of variables……I’ve offered both examples of said variables and the most rudimentary scientific explanation behind such variables……..your respective counter has been to insult myself personally, dodge and/or offer your simplistic bluster and counter questioning akin to “how long is a piece of string”……

/yawn. A whole lot of nattering bluster with nothing useful provided to the argument.

What argument? You’ve avoided like the plague any discussion relating to the actual science behind the topic we’re discussing……..Which I assume is a cover for your poor understanding of grade school level science…..I had hoped delving into the actual mechanics of the topic would help your wanting understanding and allow us to continue in a positive fashion.

Like I said before, you have trouble keeping track of the discussion, or understanding it...I'm not sure. I never said the cookie bomb would be particularly effective against Seoul. I said it was exceedingly effective against cities like Dresden (RAF estimates @ 1.4x as effective as similar weight in conventional bombs) because they were of (mostly) soft construction. This was all in response to your goof claim that the North Koreans turn Seoul into another Dresden - clearly demonstrating you knew crap all about Allied firebombings in WW2 along with a good many other things.

Right, but you clearly lead us down this rabbit hole by equating the potential (lack of) destructive force of North Korean artillery, utilizing conventional HE, on a modern concrete city like Seoul, with the Allied bombing of Dresden………clearly an apples to oranges argument, fore it weren’t, you’d have answered unequivocally that HC blast bombs like the “cookie” would be effective against concrete targets….

And of course your opinion of the lack destructive force of North Korean artillery is not only counter to my opinion, but that of the South Koreans, Americans and the North Koreans themselves……..

All you’ve offered to expand upon your opinion is name calling, personal attacks, bluster, failed comparisons to firebombing of German cities and an opinion piece that stated the North couldn’t flatten Seoul because of effective retaliatory attack against North Korean forces led by the Americans………of course, this is counter to your other claim that the South Koreans could fend off the North Koreans sans the Americans……..

[Moonbox]

How is it a dodge? It’s a clear statement of fact.

Again, I made a clear distinction, that you choose to distort and then claim I put words in your mouth……..Cleary the distinction made was between both methods of destructive force, one (the light case cookie) and the more prevalent munitions (MC/GP bombs and HE artillery shells) used to attack concrete targets.

It was a brutal, hilarious dodge. Your supposed distinction was arbitrary and made no sense for what it was responding to. I said the allies dropped huge bombs on German cities, and your response was that they didn't drop massive demolition bombs on them. That's like me saying "George killed the man with a knife" and you arguing "No, he didn't kill him with a rusty knife!"

Worse, however, is that even this bizarre dissimulation was botched, since the 4000-lb bomb I was talking about actually IS a demolition bomb, as defined by pretty much anywhere you want to look - including your friends at globalsecurity.org!

I suppose you meant "goofy" in the positive way.....

No, but like I already said I was mocking you, not the website. Your link, as I mentioned, didn't provide any support for your position or do anything to refute what I was saying.

I’m sorry that you’re reliant upon cherry-picking dictionary links to support your position…….

So does that mean that globalsecurity.org has it all wrong? They confirm the definition I've provided, as do numerous other places. How many differing definitions have you been able to provide? Oh that's right...none! When you're making crap up it's kind of hard to support your position with facts!

So, were “cookies” used to penetrate buildings?

Did I say they were anywhere? Did I make any mention, anywhere, that they were used on hardened targets? No? Is your question, therefore, nothing more than another dumb false-argument!?

Not the slightest, as I maintained, destructive potential of any explosive munitions are dependent upon a whole host of variables……I’ve offered both examples of said variables and the most rudimentary scientific explanation behind such variables……..

You've nattered at length about a bunch of stuff that doesn't even support your ill-defined and fluffy argument. It's long-winded gobbledygook that dances circles around the central point but doesn't refute anything I'm saying. Sure, a bomb is generally going to do more damage to a building if it explodes inside instead of outside it - no argument there. Was the technical description of why good for anything other than your chest-puffing? Unfortunately no. The "cookie" is still a demolition bomb and it was still exceedingly effective in allied area bombing raids against soft German cities!

your respective counter has been to insult myself personally, dodge and/or offer your simplistic bluster and counter questioning akin to “how long is a piece of string”……

I hope you didn't hurt yourself coming up with that...

Right, but you clearly lead us down this rabbit hole by equating the potential (lack of) destructive force of North Korean artillery, utilizing conventional HE, on a modern concrete city like Seoul, with the Allied bombing of Dresden………clearly an apples to oranges argument, fore it weren’t, you’d have answered unequivocally that HC blast bombs like the “cookie” would be effective against concrete targets….

Hate to break it to you Derek, but you were the one who brought up examining Allied bombing campaigns on German/Japanese cities as useful references to the sort of devastation North Korean artillery could lay into Seoul. I told you they weren't, explaining why Allied area bombing was so devastating in comparison to artillery sieges in the same conflict. I even gave you examples of prolonged WW2 sieges, where the Germans/Soviets couldn't flatten smaller and less sturdy cities than Seoul despite having far more (and often bigger) guns firing from far closer range.

And of course your opinion of the lack destructive force of North Korean artillery is not only counter to my opinion, but that of the South Koreans, Americans and the North Koreans themselves…….

My opinion of the potential of artillery against cities is based on actual historical examples (ie. Leningrad/Berlin) and as you saw some fairly detailed and informed third-party analysis. Your opinion appears mostly based on pop-culture quotes!

[Derek 2.0]

It was a brutal, hilarious dodge. Your supposed distinction was arbitrary and made no sense for what it was responding to. I said the allies dropped huge bombs on German cities, and your response was that they didn't drop massive demolition bombs on them. That's like me saying "George killed the man with a knife" and you arguing "No, he didn't kill him with a rusty knife!"

So you claim I "dodged" a question by making a distinction?

Worse, however, is that even this bizarre dissimulation was botched, since the 4000-lb bomb I was talking about actually IS a demolition bomb, as defined by pretty much anywhere you want to look - including your friends at globalsecurity.org!

So why wasn't the "cookie" included in the demolition loadout from your cited source again?

No, but like I already said I was mocking you, not the website. Your link, as I mentioned, didn't provide any support for your position or do anything to refute what I was saying.

from your goofy link

Riiight.......so what's goofy about linking to globalsecurity?

So does that mean that globalsecurity.org has it all wrong? They confirm the definition I've provided, as do numerous other places. How many differing definitions have you been able to provide? Oh that's right...none! When you're making crap up it's kind of hard to support your position with facts!

You've yet to square the circle that is your loadout link........so was your loadout link wrong in not calling loadouts with "cookies" demolition loads, versus blast loads?

Is not the HC "cookie" a blast bomb?

Did I say they were anywhere? Did I make any mention, anywhere, that they were used on hardened targets? No? Is your question, therefore, nothing more than another dumb false-argument!?

It clearly stated as much in the dictionary link you provided.........but what you "forget" to include well quoting it.

Are you no saying your dictionary link is wrong?

You've nattered at length about a bunch of stuff that doesn't even support your ill-defined and fluffy argument. It's long-winded gobbledygook that dances circles around the central point but doesn't refute anything I'm saying. Sure, a bomb is generally going to do more damage to a building if it explodes inside instead of outside it - no argument there. Was the technical description of why good for anything other than your chest-puffing? Unfortunately no. The "cookie" is still a demolition bomb and it was still exceedingly effective in allied area bombing raids against soft German cities!

Have we not been discussing how various munitions destroy their intended targets?

I hope you didn't hurt yourself coming up with that...

How would I hurt myself?

Hate to break it to you Derek, but you were the one who brought up examining Allied bombing campaigns on German/Japanese cities as useful references to the sort of devastation North Korean artillery could lay into Seoul. I told you they weren't, explaining why Allied area bombing was so devastating in comparison to artillery sieges in the same conflict. I even gave you examples of prolonged WW2 sieges, where the Germans/Soviets couldn't flatten smaller and less sturdy cities than Seoul despite having far more (and often bigger) guns firing from far closer range.

Actually, no you didn't tell me........I'm still waiting to hear you explain how 4000 tons of HE bombs is more effective than 4000 tons of HE artillery rounds........

You cited examples of past sieges, but did not offer a contrast of tons of HE dropped by the Germans, versus that what is estimated can be dropped on Seoul by the North.........I still await for you to post your own gobbledygook, as opposed to dictionary links and insults........

My opinion of the potential of artillery against cities is based on actual historical examples (ie. Leningrad/Berlin) and as you saw some fairly detailed and informed third-party analysis. Your opinion appears mostly based on pop-culture quotes!

How many tons of HE were dropped on Leningrad and Berlin?

Pop culture? No, mine is based off of the claims of the South Koreans, Americans and North Koreans.......

So what did you base your opinion on of South Korea being able to fend off nuclear armed North Korea?

[bush_cheney2004]

First F-35 flyover at NFL Pro Bowl from the 61st Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona

[Bonam]

What is the relevance of the last 10 pages of discussion regarding the weight and type of bombs that were dropped by Lancasters onto German cities during WWII?

[Derek 2.0]

What is the relevance of the last 10 pages of discussion regarding the weight and type of bombs that were dropped by Lancasters onto German cities during WWII?

Member Moonbox suggested the Americans spend too much on defense (and not enough on social programs), and in turn the South Koreans didn't require American defense aid to fend off a nuclear armed North Korea. The response by myself and BC2000 was to demonstrate the actual threat posed by the North Koreans, including their ability to attack Seoul with tube and rocket artillery from behind the DMZ......with that, the North Koreans being estimated to be able to drop a similar amount of munitions on Seoul as the Allies dropped on German/Japanese cities.

The threat of course is acknowledged by both the South Koreans and the Americans, and further compounded by the fact the Americans have spent the last decade moving their forces from bases along the DMZ that are within range of North Korean artillery to a larger base further South. Member Moonbox's counter opinion is formed by his claim that 4000 tons of explosives dropped by Allied bombers is more destructive than 4000 tons of explosives dropped by North Korean artillery. Furthermore, a linked opinion piece that states the North isn't that much of a threat because the Americans have the ability to effectively counter North Korean artillery with smart bombs and artillery munitions.......now why someone would base his/hers opinion on the South's independent ability to counter the nuclear armed North with an opinion piece stating the Americans could handle the North is something you'll have to ask Moonbox..........

Clear as mud?

[Derek 2.0]

First F-35 flyover at NFL Pro Bowl from the 61st Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona

Clearly a fake!!!

[Moonbox]

So you claim I "dodged" a question by making a distinction?

You quoted exactly what I'm claiming. Refer to that.

Riiight.......so what's goofy about linking to globalsecurity?

Linking to globalsecurity isn't goofy. The conclusions you were attempting to support with the link were, since it link didn't actually back up anything you were saying.

So why wasn't the "cookie" included in the demolition loadout from your cited source again?

That exact question has been answered about 12 times now. Your standard tactics of argument by (dumb) question and by broken-record repetition isn't nearly as smart or effective as you think it is...unless of course your goal is merely to annoy and exhaust your opponent out of the thread. As we've seen already, globalsecurity.org gives us a very specific definition for 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. In some of the very large light-case bombs, the detonating charge accounts for 75 percent of the bomb's weight. These bombs, designed particularly for demolition work, accomplish their mission almost entirely through the blast effect.

With that, the absurdity of your position becomes painfully clear. Globalsecurity is a reliable source, unless it disagrees with what your saying! In such cases, your personal interpretations of blogger material is the new gospel!

Edited February 5, 2015 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

You quoted exactly what I'm claiming. Refer to that.

What? The irony of your post: “I asked you something and you replied in detail……you’re dodging my question!!!”

Linking to globalsecurity isn't goofy. The conclusions you were attempting to support with the link were, since it link didn't actually back up anything you were saying.

Your goofy link.........Actually, it did support my conclusions, do we need to revisit it?

That exact question has been answered about 12 times now. Your standard tactics of argument by (dumb) question and by broken-record repetition isn't nearly as smart or effective as you think it is...unless of course your goal is merely to annoy and exhaust your opponent out of the thread. As we've seen already, globalsecurity.org gives us a very specific definition for a demolition bomb:

Well no, you didn't answer the question, if you had of, I wouldn't keep repeating it...

With that, the absurdity of your position becomes painfully clear. Globalsecurity is a reliable source, unless it disagrees with what your saying! In such cases, your personal interpretations of blogger material is the new gospel!

So Globalsecurity is reliable when you use it, but goofy when I use it........inversely, the loadout link first supplied by you is a worthwhile source when used by yourself, but just personal interpretations of a blog when I use it.......gotcha

[Moonbox]

What? The irony of your post: “I asked you something and you replied in detail……you’re dodging my question!!!”

Hahaha...except not at all. That was good for a laugh though, thanks. My point couldn't have been any more clear in the quote. If you can't wrap your head around it, that's sad.

Your goofy link.........Actually, it did support my conclusions, do we need to revisit it?

I'm sure you thought it did, but you've demonstrated a dazzling talent for tossing links around without referencing what about them is relevant to the argument. When you combine this with your typically liberal interpretations of what they're actually saying, most of these links turn out to be entirely inadequate citations.

Well no, you didn't answer the question, if you had of, I wouldn't keep repeating it...

I did, and you can dig it up if you so desire. Quite frankly I've grown tired of you and don't find your dead-horse beating and penchant to argue in circles stimulating anymore. You'll find, as you already have hundreds of times before on this thread, that you've bored/annoyed your opponent away.

So Globalsecurity is reliable when you use it, but goofy when I use it........inversely, the loadout link first supplied by you is a worthwhile source when used by yourself, but just personal interpretations of a blog when I use it.......gotcha

No, globalsecurity was never goofy, but citing it without any comment on what part of your argument it's supposed to support is. As for the blog I posted, it was a supplementary piece with some neat illustrations that I used to underscore a conclusion drawn from numerous other sources. You, on the other hand, creatively interpreted some of the material on it to suit your shameful BS, and then held it up against all of the more reliable and conflicting sources provided.

As I've mentioned numerous times already, your argument depends entirely on your creative interpretation of a blog and it's those interpretations that I find suspect, not the blog itself. Regardless, even if we were to accept your BS and dissimulation about what the blog was saying, you still have to reconcile it with the fact that globalsecurity, among other places, specifically refute it. Clinging to the argument from that point on requires you to confirm that Larry's blog is more reliable than globalsecurity.org. Is that what you're saying??

Edited February 5, 2015 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

Hahaha...except not at all. That was good for a laugh though, thanks. My point couldn't have been any more clear in the quote. If you can't wrap your head around it, that's sad.

What point? As I said, large demolition bombs weren’t used for targeting cities, but concrete targets….

I'm sure you thought it did, but you've demonstrated a dazzling talent for tossing links around without referencing what about them is relevant to the argument. When you combine this with your typically liberal interpretations of what they're actually saying, most of these links turn out to be entirely inadequate citations.

Including the links that you provided?

I did, and you can dig it up if you so desire. Quite frankly I've grown tired of you and don't find your dead-horse beating and penchant to argue in circles stimulating anymore. You'll find, as you already have hundreds of times before on this thread, that you've bored/annoyed your opponent away.

I tried digging it up, by all means:

why wasn't the "cookie" included in the demolition loadout from your cited source again?

Furthermore:

Is not the HC "cookie" a blast bomb?

Very simple questions, by all means, have a go at them.....

No, globalsecurity was never goofy, but citing it without any comment on what part of your argument it's supposed to support is. As for the blog I posted, it was a supplementary piece with some neat illustrations that I used to underscore a conclusion drawn from numerous other sources. You, on the other hand, creatively interpreted some of the material on it to suit your shameful BS, and then held it up against all of the more reliable and conflicting sources provided.

What do you mean? The link to Globalsecurity supported my point with regards to North Korean artillery ranges and rate of fire.......I'm sorry if it confused you...........What other sources did it underscore, your other linked to blog? Its odd that you provided the links to the blogs (Which are both cited and well researched in my opinion) to "underscore your point", and now, you criticize the very same blogs used by you to "underscore your point"........

As I've mentioned numerous times already, your argument depends entirely on your creative interpretation of a blog and it's those interpretations that I find suspect, not the blog itself. Regardless, even if we were to accept your BS and dissimulation about what the blog was saying, you still have to reconcile it with the fact that globalsecurity, among other places, specifically refute it. Clinging to the argument from that point on requires you to confirm that Larry's blog is more reliable than globalsecurity.org. Is that what you're saying??

Now, for a definite definition, precluding both your provided blogs and that goofy globalsecurity site, I’ll offer first, from Arthur Harris’s own book…….notice “bomber” Harris refers to high capacity bombs as Blast (not Demolition) bombs………..Second, a definition of a demolition bomb, from the USAAF magazine circa 1943………..Low and behold, it refers to numerous classes of demolition bombs (GP, Armour piercing, semi-armour piercing, depth bombs and light case)………so it seems, we’ve both obscured the definite definition from the organizations that dropped them, as such, I will admit partial fault when I stated the Allies didn’t drop large demolition bombs on German cities, what I should have stated, the Allies didn’t drop larger General Purpose bombs on German cities……….

With that, we can move onto why large light cased, blast bombs wouldn’t be effective against concrete targets (like a modern city like Seoul), but a smaller HE general purpose artillery round would……

[Moonbox]

What point? As I said, large demolition bombs weren’t used for targeting cities, but concrete targets….

Except they were, and we'll see you finally coming around to that point shortly...

What do you mean? The link to Globalsecurity supported my point[/url] with regards to North Korean artillery ranges and rate of fire.

I had just finished explaining how many of the pieces there were capable of hitting Seoul I and even posted a picture of the Koksan gun in my post. You responded with a link showing the estimated technical specs of that weapon system. It didn't make sense why you linked it because you made no commentary on it and because I'd just provided most of that information myself.

I'm sorry if it confused you...........What other sources did it underscore, your other linked to blog? Its odd that you provided the links to the blogs (Which are both cited and well researched in my opinion) to "underscore your point", and now, you criticize the very same blogs used by you to "underscore your point"........

For about the 10th time, I am not criticizing the blogs. I'm criticizing the conclusions you attempted to draw from them.

Now, for a definite definition, precluding both your provided blogs and that goofy globalsecurity site, I’ll offer first, from Arthur Harris’s own book. Harris refers to high capacity bombs as Blast (not Demolition) bombs……….

That's fine, but that doesn't mean it's not a demolition bomb, nor did Arthur Harris say it wasn't. As far as I can tell, he never made any mention of the term demolition bomb.

Second, a definition of a demolition bomb, from the USAAF magazine circa 1943……….Low and behold, it refers to numerous classes of demolition bombs (GP, Armour piercing, semi-armour piercing, depth bombs and light case)………

so it seems, we’ve both obscured the definite definition from the organizations that dropped them, as such, I will admit partial fault when I stated the Allies didn’t drop large demolition bombs on German cities, what I should have stated, the Allies didn’t drop larger General Purpose bombs on German cities……….

I didn't obscure any definitions Derek. My original point was that the RAF and USAF were dropping huge bombs on German cities, that they were considered more effective for wide area bombing, and that heavily concentrated aerial bombardment produced results that couldn't be matched by prolonged artillery attack.

You contested virtually all of that. You contested that these huge bombs were dropped on German cities (and confused the discussion further with terminology for them), you contested that they were more effective for wide-area bombing and you contested that the aerial bombardments delivered greater concentrations of munitions (and destruction) than artillery attacks could.

On all above accounts, we have evidence you didn't have things straight. The big bombs were dropped on soft German cities and Arthur Harris (from your own link) speaks at length about the effectiveness of the Cookie bomb and the critical importance of concentration (in time and space) for bombing attacks.

With that, we can move onto why large light cased, blast bombs wouldn’t be effective against concrete targets (like a modern city like Seoul), but a smaller HE general purpose artillery round would……

We could, but I never made any claim that they would be effective against Seoul. As I've already explained, that whole long giant tangent came about because you said Allied aerial bombardments were good examples of what the North Koreans could do to Seoul. I explained why the Allied bombing was so effective against Germany cities and how these results could not be duplicated by the North Koreans - the size and robust construction of Seoul being one of many factors.

Regardless, at least now we have some clarity and are slowly inching back to the original topic.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

I didn't obscure any definitions Derek. My original point was that the RAF and USAF were dropping huge bombs on German cities, that they were considered more effective for wide area bombing, and that heavily concentrated aerial bombardment produced results that couldn't be matched by prolonged artillery attack.

You contested virtually all of that. You contested that these huge bombs were dropped on German cities (and confused the discussion further with terminology for them), you contested that they were more effective for wide-area bombing and you contested that the aerial bombardments delivered greater concentrations of munitions (and destruction) than artillery attacks could.

You didn’t obscure the definitions? You just spent the last several weeks explaining how a light cased bomb is a demolition bomb…….when a demolition bomb, as defined by the USAAF, can be construed as a light case bomb (like you said), a general purpose bomb (like I said), but also armour piercing bombs and aerial dropped sea mines………So let’s leave the minutia aside.

I never contested large bombs were dropped on German cities, I stated large demolition bombs (Which as I stated above should have been further clarified to large general purpose demolition bombs), bombs with a similar make-up and explosive potential as that of high explosive artillery shell.

I never stated light cased blast bombs (combined with incendiaries) were ineffective against older cities largely constructed of wood/brick/mortar, but that such loadouts would be ineffective against concrete targets.

I did state, that artillery bombardments of an equal scope as aerial bombardments, will deliver the same destructive force…….4000 tons of explosives delivered by North Korean artillery would be as destructive as 4000 tons of bombs delivered by Allied bombers. Likewise artillery can deliver both more accurate (when contrasted with WW II high level area bombing), sustained and concentrated destructive potential (as outlined prior) then area bombing…….A single artillery piece can deliver repeated munitions within an area measured in square yards, versus a WW II era high level bomber delivering its load over an area measured in square miles.

We could, but I never made any claim that they would be effective against Seoul. As I've already explained, that whole long giant tangent came about because you said Allied aerial bombardments were good examples of what the North Koreans could do to Seoul. I explained why the Allied bombing was so effective against Germany cities and how these results could not be duplicated by the North Koreans - the size and robust construction of Seoul being one of many factors.

And as I said, the North Koreans have the like ability to deliver the same tonnage of high explosives on Seoul as the Allies delivered on like Axis targets……..though, as stated blast/incendiaries would be less effective against concrete targets, the Allies still relied upon area bombing to attack densely constructed, concrete industrial targets……..with smaller (GP demolition) HE bombs, as I said 4000 tons of HE dropped from a bombers is as effective as 4000 tons of HE delivered from artillery……

[Moonbox]

You didn’t obscure the definitions? You just spent the last several weeks explaining how a light cased bomb is a demolition bomb…….

It is...

when a demolition bomb, as defined by the USAAF, can be construed as a light case bomb (like you said), a general purpose bomb (like I said), but also armour piercing bombs and aerial dropped sea mines………So let’s leave the minutia aside.

From that link it doesn't appear that the term demolition bomb describes anything more than a bomb meant to demolish things. I'm glad we spent three weeks straightening that out...

I never contested large bombs were dropped on German cities, I stated large demolition bombs (Which as I stated above should have been further clarified to large general purpose demolition bombs), bombs with a similar make-up and explosive potential as that of high explosive artillery shell.

That's pretty much a 100% total overhaul of what you originally said, and it's a rather curious position to take. Seeing as though I never made any mention of large general purpose bombs of the same makeup as artillery shells, I'm not sure why you felt that was a point worth refuting. Regardless, we're moving on now.

I never stated light cased blast bombs (combined with incendiaries) were ineffective against older cities largely constructed of wood/brick/mortar, but that such loadouts would be ineffective against concrete targets.

Not nearly as effective as least. Either way, I never said that they would be. I merely explained why they were exceedingly effective against old German cities in comparison to conventional artillery bombardment.

I did state, that artillery bombardments of an equal scope as aerial bombardments, will deliver the same destructive force…….4000 tons of explosives delivered by North Korean artillery would be as destructive as 4000 tons of bombs delivered by Allied bombers.

but that's not correct. Go back and read your Arthur Harris citation. He speaks at length about why heavily concentrated aerial bombardment was so effective compared to less concentrated attacks.

Likewise artillery can deliver both more accurate (when contrasted with WW II high level area bombing), sustained and concentrated destructive potential (as outlined prior) then area bombing…….

Not if it's the North Koreans firing from 50km away, in which case the exact opposite would be true...by a large margin.

A single artillery piece can deliver repeated munitions within an area measured in square yards.

If you're talking about a modern military - something North Korea most certainly is not. The accuracy of North Korea's artillery is in serious question, especially from 50km away - with recent claims by an (apparently) high-level defector saying it's nearly useless. Of course we can't really be sure of anything until we specifically see it in use, it's doubtful that North Korea has the capabilities to deliver highly accurate long range artillery.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

It is...

From that link it doesn't appear that the term demolition bomb describes anything more than a bomb meant to demolish things. I'm glad we spent three weeks straightening that out...

Right, and goes on to define the various types of bombs, including light cased blast bombs and medium cased general purpose bombs, as being demolition bombs………

That's pretty much a 100% total overhaul of what you originally said, and it's a rather curious position to take. Seeing as though I never made any mention of large general purpose bombs of the same makeup as artillery shells, I'm not sure why you felt that was a point worth refuting. Regardless, we're moving on now.

The intent hasn’t changed one iota, but the acknowledgement that the definition of what constitutes a demolition bomb……a revised statement would be Allied bombers didn’t utilize massive general purpose bombs when area bombing concrete industrial targets, which would be akin to a modern city like Seoul.

but that's not correct. Go back and read your Arthur Harris citation. He speaks at length about why heavily concentrated aerial bombardment was so effective compared to less concentrated attacks.

Harris is speaking to the effectiveness of aerial firebombing of cities in higher concentrations versus more cyclic and continuous attack by smaller formations…………of course his conclusions don’t represent bombing of concrete industrial targets, nor artillery bombardment.

Not if it's the North Koreans firing from 50km away, in which case the exact opposite would be true...by a large margin.

By all means expand/cite that claim..........

If you're talking about a modern military - something North Korea most certainly is not. The accuracy of North Korea's artillery is in serious question, especially from 50km away - with recent claims by an (apparently) high-level defector saying it's nearly useless. Of course we can't really be sure of anything until we specifically see it in use, it's doubtful that North Korea has the capabilities to deliver highly accurate long range artillery.

That’s a very subjective claim……..ballistic trajectory from one fixed point to another fixed point is a math calculation of several variables……though I don’t disagree Western artillery would be far more accurate, comparing North Korean artillery to that of the accuracy of Harris’s Bomber Command is outlandish…….

The RAF’s litmus for accuracy was the percentage of bombs dropped within a 3 mile radius from the target and only by the waning months of the war, in good to moderate weather (and with radar), was the RAF able to drop upwards of 90% of its bombs within a 3 mile circle…….As I said, indirect artillery accuracy is measured in square yards/meters, of which the Soviets were able to achieve over 70 years ago, I’d assume the North Koreans today could equal the Soviets in the Second World War…….

[Moonbox]

Right, and goes on to define the various types of bombs, including light cased blast bombs and medium cased general purpose bombs, as being demolition bombs………

That's fine, but they're all demolition bombs, aren't they?

The intent hasn’t changed one iota, but the acknowledgement that the definition of what constitutes a demolition bomb……a revised statement would be Allied bombers didn’t utilize massive general purpose bombs when area bombing concrete industrial targets, which would be akin to a modern city like Seoul.

If your revision is actually truthful, then you were contesting something I never said. That was another false argument.

Harris is speaking to the effectiveness of aerial firebombing of cities in higher concentrations versus more cyclic and continuous attack by smaller formations

A continuous attack like an artillery bombardment...

…………of course his conclusions don’t represent bombing of concrete industrial targets, nor artillery bombardment.

No, but you were the one who told us Allied bombings were an effective gauge of North Korea's threat to Seoul. We can probably agree (I hope) that North Korea isn't capable of starting a Hamburg-style firestorm in Seoul short of nuclear detonation, right?

By all means expand/cite that claim.

You're the one claiming the North Koreans can land their shells within yards/meters. Give us the evidence that suggests they can. From what we know of North Korean technical expertise, this is beyond doubtful.

That’s a very subjective claim……

as are yours...

As I said, indirect artillery accuracy is measured in square yards/meters, of which the Soviets were able to achieve over 70 years ago, I’d assume the North Koreans today could equal the Soviets in the Second World War…….

The Soviets were never firing from 50km away, and no, the North Koreans aren't really any more capable than them. They're barely an industrial nation, unable to provide electricity to their cities or even feed their people. Suggesting that, despite this, they have sufficiently advanced precision industry is almost certainly untrue. Just look at their rocket tests. Anyways, here's a new article worth a look. It's also highly subjective, but it does make you think:

http://www.nknews.org/2015/01/n-korean-artillery-has-little-value-high-profile-defector/

Edited February 7, 2015 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

That's fine, but they're all demolition bombs, aren't they?

Exactly.

If your revision is actually truthful, then you were contesting something I never said. That was another false argument.

Well yeah, you did......we can revisit your claim that bigger bombs translates into greater destruction.

A continuous attack like an artillery bombardment...

No, he's speaking to fire bombing and the ability of ones own fire fighters to respond......as clearly the chained damage caused by an incendiary attack versus that of the use of high explosives (like a GP bomb or HE artillery round) is quite different.

No, but you were the one who told us Allied bombings were an effective gauge of North Korea's threat to Seoul. We can probably agree (I hope) that North Korea isn't capable of starting a Hamburg-style firestorm in Seoul short of nuclear detonation, right?

Certainly, if we so look at the effects of area bombing on concrete industrial targets…..

You're the one claiming the North Koreans can land their shells within yards/meters. Give us the evidence that suggests they can. From what we know of North Korean technical expertise, this is beyond doubtful.

Ahhh no, it doesn't work like that, you're the one that stated WW II Allied high level bombing was more accurate then North Korean artillery....so, prove it.

as are yours...

Ahhh no, mine are based in science..........

The Soviets were never firing from 50km away, and no, the North Koreans aren't really any more capable than them. They're barely an industrial nation, unable to provide electricity to their cities or even feed their people. Suggesting that, despite this, they have sufficiently advanced precision industry is almost certainly untrue. Just look at their rocket tests. Anyways, here's a new article worth a look. It's also highly subjective, but it does make you think:

So what you are saying is that the North Koreans would be unable to effectively bombard Seoul (a fixed location) from their own prepared (fixed) positions because they lack a modern & advanced precision industrial base?

How ever did Victoria era navies ever expect to hit moving targets, miles away, from their own moving platforms? Your claim is both baseless and laughable ..........

And you cite, from a blogger using unnamed sources to counter the own assessments of both the South Koreans and the Americans is doubly laughable, and even if one is to assume its true, doesn’t support your point, nor even come close to proving your claim that North Korean artillery is less accurate than World War II high level area bombing………

Edited February 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Moonbox]

Exactly.

Right, so you were categorically wrong - and the +3 week argument we had over that was just because you erred in your wording...

Well yeah, you did......we can revisit your claim that bigger bombs translates into greater destruction.

So smaller bombs are better then?

Ahhh no, it doesn't work like that, you're the one that stated WW II Allied high level bombing was more accurate then North Korean artillery....so, prove it.

Sorry Derek. It does work like that. We saw the effects of the WW2 Allied bombing. We have not seen the effects or capabilities of North Korean artillery (quite the opposite). You're asking me to prove a negative (totally illogical), but that's how you roll. We've seen nothing to indicate that North Korean artillery would be accurate and we have virtually no reason to believe that it would be from 50km away.

Ahhh no, mine are based in science..........

I really got a laugh out of that!

So what you are saying is that the North Koreans would be unable to effectively bombard Seoul (a fixed location) from their own prepared (fixed) positions because they lack a modern & advanced precision industrial base?

From 50km away, with a mostly pre-industrial economy, with primitive capability to analyze and adjust for weather etc, among a great many other things? I'm saying it wouldn't even be close to accurate. Fortunately for them Seoul is huge, so at least they should be able to hit things within the general area. The fact that 25% of their shells turned out to be duds in the Yeongpeong skirmish also raises doubts as to their capabilities, don't you think?

How ever did Victoria era navies ever expect to hit moving targets, miles away, from their own moving platforms? Your claim is both baseless and laughable ..........

The only thing that's laughable is your juvenile logic and your inability to compare apples to apples. Victorian-era naval battles were fought within (assisted) line-of-sight visual range and firing solutions were determined by watching the splashes of the (many) missed shots. The fact that targets were moving didn't matter much either, as speed could easily be accounted for once the proper range was determined.

And you cite, from a blogger using unnamed sources to counter the own assessments of both the South Koreans and the Americans is doubly laughable

Are those the assessments that you never provided or cited? Great...Either way, I gave you several other sources earlier. You provided squat (as usual). If you have something showing how accurate North Korean artillery is, by all means provide it. I can't find it!

Edited February 16, 2015 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

So smaller bombs are better then?

That’s dependant on a whole host of circumstances…….how long is that piece of string?

Sorry Derek. It does work like that. We saw the effects of the WW2 Allied bombing. We have not seen the effects or capabilities of North Korean artillery (quite the opposite). You're asking me to prove a negative (totally illogical), but that's how you roll. We've seen nothing to indicate that North Korean artillery would be accurate and we have virtually no reason to believe that it would be from 50km away.

So you made a baseless assertion that you can not prove…….I’m shocked!!!

From 50km away, with a mostly pre-industrial economy, with primitive capability to analyze and adjust for weather etc, among a great many other things? I'm saying it wouldn't even be close to accurate. Fortunately for them Seoul is huge, so at least they should be able to hit things within the general area. The fact that 25% of their shells turned out to be duds in the Yeongpeong skirmish also raises doubts as to their capabilities, don't you think?

That ~25% of their shells were duds raises doubts that they could hit a large stationary city? Apples, meet oranges……….

The only thing that's laughable is your juvenile logic and your inability to compare apples to apples. Victorian-era naval battles were fought within (assisted) line-of-sight visual range and firing solutions were determined by watching the splashes of the (many) missed shots. The fact that targets were moving didn't matter much either, as speed could easily be accounted for once the proper range was determined.

Nice dodge……..does naval artillery require more or less calculated variables than artillery bombarding a fixed point from a fixed location?

Are those the assessments that you never provided or cited? Great...Either way, I gave you several other sources earlier. You provided squat (as usual). If you have something showing how accurate North Korean artillery is, by all means provide it. I can't find it!

Like something from the DoD?

Edited February 16, 2015 by Derek 2.0