Say, has there ever been a simulation done on how much RHA one of these long bodied bunker busters could penetrate? I know no one builds bunkers out of twenty foot thick steel plates, but I mean as a purely scientific theoretical thing.
Because they penetrate concrete and earth very well, but the ideal penetrator for those materials is *very* different than the ideal penetrator for steel. Kind of like how arrows can punch through sandbags that stop bullets, but fail against a sheet of steel thin enough to be perforated by those same bullets.
>Say, has there ever been a simulation done on how much RHA one of these long bodied bunker busters could penetrate? I know no one builds bunkers out of twenty foot thick steel plates, but I mean as a purely scientific theoretical thing.
That shouldn't be too difficult to figure out. You'd really just have to find the conversion formula they use for RHA to Reinforced Concrete that was used for old AP and APHE(add additional letters here) tank rounds or better yet 16" battleship rounds. With that you should be able to get something in the same ballpark as reality
MOAB isn't a bunker buster in a sense that it won't penetrate anything before exploding but for an actual bunker buster penetration it should be around or more than 5 inches of RHA, if the Mark 8 nuclear bunker buster is a useful example. Anything like a tank would be rocked and disabled just by sheer mass and velocity of those bombs if not outright destroyed regardless but theoretically some fortifications could be built to be armored using thicker steel plates. I am not aware of such fortifications, though, as even nuclear silos use reinforced concrete lids on top.
Warheads like the BROACH warhead or the one on SDB, JASSM and Tomahawk Block 5a would perform differently and there's no data on how exactly that would be.
I noticed that they've been getting a lot more accurate and better with terminology, history, and descriptions in recent years. It's no longer 2012 Sandy Hook where they were reporting airshit capacities. Turns out they can read the english language written on the same gun blogs too.
>It's a missile, Frank. A missile that shoots swords.
We should make it just because we can. Maybe string some wire between the (katana) blades. I'm sure DARPA has some bored nerds sitting around.
Yes, when you are quoting your own works you need to cite them in the same way as offer sources. Writing "source: own research" is more of an informal way that's used more on slides when you cobbled together a graph from three sources and had a thought about how to add the numbers together for example.
It reminds me of when British people try to talk about guns
upvote
Say, has there ever been a simulation done on how much RHA one of these long bodied bunker busters could penetrate? I know no one builds bunkers out of twenty foot thick steel plates, but I mean as a purely scientific theoretical thing.
Because they penetrate concrete and earth very well, but the ideal penetrator for those materials is *very* different than the ideal penetrator for steel. Kind of like how arrows can punch through sandbags that stop bullets, but fail against a sheet of steel thin enough to be perforated by those same bullets.
>Say, has there ever been a simulation done on how much RHA one of these long bodied bunker busters could penetrate? I know no one builds bunkers out of twenty foot thick steel plates, but I mean as a purely scientific theoretical thing.
That shouldn't be too difficult to figure out. You'd really just have to find the conversion formula they use for RHA to Reinforced Concrete that was used for old AP and APHE(add additional letters here) tank rounds or better yet 16" battleship rounds. With that you should be able to get something in the same ballpark as reality
>(add additional letters here)
apiheshcrcbcfsds-t
Armor-Piercing Incendiary High-Explosive Squash-Head Composite-Rigid Capped Ballistic-Capped Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot Tracer?
MOAB isn't a bunker buster in a sense that it won't penetrate anything before exploding but for an actual bunker buster penetration it should be around or more than 5 inches of RHA, if the Mark 8 nuclear bunker buster is a useful example. Anything like a tank would be rocked and disabled just by sheer mass and velocity of those bombs if not outright destroyed regardless but theoretically some fortifications could be built to be armored using thicker steel plates. I am not aware of such fortifications, though, as even nuclear silos use reinforced concrete lids on top.
Warheads like the BROACH warhead or the one on SDB, JASSM and Tomahawk Block 5a would perform differently and there's no data on how exactly that would be.
Good thing they're banned in California. Imagine the damage that thing could do.
What if it was an electric chainsaw?
Still banned, but you get a tax break if you get caught.
>not having a rail mounted pitbull
NGMI
The AR-15 is the weapon of the non pitbullpeople.
Who's the father?
>solar panels on a bomb
The green movement has gone too far this time.
I would like to drop a GBU-43 on my step dad
Heavier than 10 boxes you might move
I noticed that they've been getting a lot more accurate and better with terminology, history, and descriptions in recent years. It's no longer 2012 Sandy Hook where they were reporting airshit capacities. Turns out they can read the english language written on the same gun blogs too.
Just in time for Bruen to push their shit in.
He won't do shit
>he
Good morning sir, Bloomberg not giving you enough info for your shill scripts?
>human
>6 feet
what of us ameri-goblins?
In America 5'9 is "basically 6 foot."
I thought 5'9 was like half of 6'?
Obviously he's a coping 5'11 manlet.
>6 feet
>10 feet
>30 feet
That's a lot of foot fetishism.
Feet are nice
What's the explosive yield of a 6 ft human?
Depends on how much zinc you take
ALL the zinc.
Did not know the bomb was called Hiroshima
Where do you think the city got it's name from?
R9X posting on twitter
https://x.com/missfalasteenia/status/1723027880295223714?s=20
If they did that is good, fuck those terrorist Palestinians, not one is innocent.
>missile is like meat grinder
>flings blades everywhere!
>never heard of shrapnel, that a type of curry?
what a bunch of silly billys
>The blades fly out a hundred metres!
Jesus fucking Christ.
>It's a missile, Frank. A missile that shoots swords.
We should make it just because we can. Maybe string some wire between the (katana) blades. I'm sure DARPA has some bored nerds sitting around.
Diversity hire moment
Dumb-fucks at USA Today got the yield wrong. It's 15 KILOtons of TNT.
>fact-checkers doin' it for free.
Where may I purchase one of these special guns?
Making an explosion to propel a projectile at something? What's next, you'll tell me we actually rotate AROUND the Sun?
>Source: USA Today research
You can source yourself?
Yes, when you are quoting your own works you need to cite them in the same way as offer sources. Writing "source: own research" is more of an informal way that's used more on slides when you cobbled together a graph from three sources and had a thought about how to add the numbers together for example.
Yeah.. He forgot to move the decimal. Or to put a kt behind that 15..
>15 TONS
mhm
where is this from Al Jazeera?
>USA TODAY research