S77th-GOYA Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Imagine a pair of them. Mk-84s, that is. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra360 Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Then you have B-2s with a standard combat load of 16 2,000lb JDAMs. If they were all dropped on the same point, well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
504 Wolverine Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Well if all were dropped on the exact same point we are going to see the exact same radius of destruction, just a larger deeper crater. [/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Would push the chances of getting hit by something up quite a long way though eh? My thoughts: yes the heat would be a factor, the additional confinement of a building will up the damage & given what happens if some fragments hit you 2 football fields would be too close - not a lottery I'd want to win. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBS17 Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Heat is not the problem, Blast is if you're that close;) [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manny Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 When talking bombs I think it's the kab-1500. Cruise missiles: Kh-65/AGM 86c, as those are nuclear :p Biggest fireworks: fab bombs The FAB-5000: It is modeled in IL2 deployed from a Russian Petlyakov Pe-8 (TB-7) heavey bomber. I saw a picture of this weapon and it looks Pre-atomic. When dropped in IL2, the detonation is akin to a mushroom cloud. Man talk about fright when 5 tons of bomb goes off overhead or nearby :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I don't know but from the posts above I'd say at 100' you're probably going to survive the blast itself (overpressure), stand about an even chance of getting away without any shrapnel hitting you, - then there's the heat from the blast. Like I said - just theorising, but the extent to which crew go to protect themselves from the radiated heat from muzzle flash of deck guns suggests to me that unprotected skin could end up flash burnt, which would be just as debilitating as a flesh wound from a piece of casing. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellonet Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 As we can see from this table a bomb with equal explosive power as one thousand tons of TNT only produces a shockwave that causes 50% casualties at 140 meters, so why do some of you say that 30 meters for a ~0.8 ton bomb is wrong? Must be something wrong with the 10 kt figueres huh? i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 note - 10 Times the yield, only slightly more than double the blast radius, which would give 1 ton ~ 35m Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBS17 Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Just to give you an idea, the flash from a very small nuke will turn you into a shadow in an instant if you are close enough. From there outwards the injury becomes severe burns and blindness. Outside the zone of physical burns blindness is the effect upto 30 miles away in some cases. [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Yep - the thermal damage range is about 3 times that of the blast radius (if you put a 0 on the end of the 10k figures (except blast) they fall back into the series OK) & if you remember back to those Tube bombings there were a number of burns victims from that... Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IguanaKing Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 As we can see from this table a bomb with equal explosive power as one thousand tons of TNT only produces a shockwave that causes 50% casualties at 140 meters, so why do some of you say that 30 meters for a ~0.8 ton bomb is wrong? Because it is wrong. I won't get into it any further than that other than to say that mathematical calculations, and charts, as I said before, are based on ideal/sterile/laboratory conditions. They are to be used as a guideline, but have little to do with employment of such a weapon in real world conditions. OK, I'll put it another way...strictly speaking, fragmentation is the main kill mechanism, but, is it fragments from the bomb itself? No, it is not, it is fragments of things in the environment that are propelled by, not only the overpressure, but by the resulting shockwave from suddenly heating the air. Must be something wrong with the 10 kt figueres huh? The figures are fine, considering what they take into account, which is a completely sterile environment with no other objects, vehicles, human bodies, or structures to be turned into deadly projectiles themselves. Just as a small example of this: Today I was working on the flightline when suddenly some bonehead in a Cessna Citation decided he was going to have his mechanic troubleshoot an engine problem right there on the ramp. Now, I'm sure that some of you guys could show me all kinds of charts, data, and calculations that would "prove" the impossibility of that having any effect on me other than heat and wind. The fact of the matter, however, is that I now have a scratched cornea and several small scabs on my face, neck, and arms. Why? Because of other environmental conditions/items (like sand and other miscellaneous, small debris) that no chart or mathematical calculation ever seems to take into account. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IguanaKing Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Just to give you an idea, the flash from a very small nuke will turn you into a shadow in an instant if you are close enough. From there outwards the injury becomes severe burns and blindness. Outside the zone of physical burns blindness is the effect upto 30 miles away in some cases. Yup. A nuclear blast sends TREMENDOUS amounts of IR and all bands of UV radiation for MANY miles. Often, the effects are only known by living organisms, whereas sensors for scientific studies...well...they insist everybody would survive at a certain range...according to their numbers. :icon_roll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUBS17 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Yeah its a pity they had to use people to find that out, USA, UK, Australia, NZ, Russia have done this. [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellonet Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Because it is wrong. I won't get into it any further than that other than to say that mathematical calculations, and charts, as I said before, are based on ideal/sterile/laboratory conditions. They are to be used as a guideline, but have little to do with employment of such a weapon in real world conditions. OK, I'll put it another way...strictly speaking, fragmentation is the main kill mechanism, but, is it fragments from the bomb itself? No, it is not, it is fragments of things in the environment that are propelled by, not only the overpressure, but by the resulting shockwave from suddenly heating the air.No one is saying casualties can't occur outside this range, but the discussion was about overpressure shock wave range and that is not likely to magically become longer even in non laboratorial environments. The figures are fine, considering what they take into account, which is a completely sterile environment with no other objects, vehicles, human bodies, or structures to be turned into deadly projectiles themselves. Just as a small example of this: Today I was working on the flightline when suddenly some bonehead in a Cessna Citation decided he was going to have his mechanic troubleshoot an engine problem right there on the ramp. Now, I'm sure that some of you guys could show me all kinds of charts, data, and calculations that would "prove" the impossibility of that having any effect on me other than heat and wind. The fact of the matter, however, is that I now have a scratched cornea and several small scabs on my face, neck, and arms. Why? Because of other environmental conditions/items (like sand and other miscellaneous, small debris) that no chart or mathematical calculation ever seems to take into account. :DWell I thought that the figures of ionizing radiation and thermal radiation seems to be wrong as they are both much smaller than the numbers for the 1 kt bomb. i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 They're just both missing a 0 off the end. Put it on & they fit the series properly. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellonet Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 They're just both missing a 0 off the end. Put it on & they fit the series properly.Oops... how did I not think of that :icon_redf i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonnieRock Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Will this get attention in 1.2 or a 1.12 patch? Rack Rig: Rosewill RSV-L4000 | Koolance ERM-3K3UC | Xeon E5-1680 v2 @ 4.9ghz w/EK Monoblock | Asus Rampage IV Black Edition | 64GB 2133mhz | SLI TitanXP w/ EK Waterblocks | 2x Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB | Seasonic 1000w Titanium | Windows 10 Pro 64bit | TM Warthog HOTAS w/40cm Extension | MFG Crosswind Rudders | Obutto R3volution | HP Reverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IguanaKing Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 [sarcasm flag on] Why? 30m is apparently accurate for a 2000 pound bomb, but a 500lb HE warhead on a SAM...well...that can have a kill radius of over twice that. LOL. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellonet Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 [sarcasm flag on] Why? 30m is apparently accurate for a 2000 pound bomb,For the shockwave, but the shrapnel effect should be modeled someow too... and I thought that the explosions we have now were fps killers :( but a 500lb HE warhead on a SAM...well...that can have a kill radius of over twice that. LOL. :DSAM warheads are often filled with thousands of steel balls... is that what is modeled? Because the shockwave should not be effective at that range I think... i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 30m is too small for you to always be unharmed outside this range. There should be some probabality thing where you stand a fair chance of being OK at 50m, but might catch something & be poked Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IguanaKing Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Heh...I was just cracking a little joke about relative damage effects. Some here have seemed to say that outside a 30m radius (with a 2000lb. bomb), a person would stand a good chance of survival, quoting all kinds of paper specs. Yet, in another thread, a warhead of 1/4 that size is said to have a kill radius of more than twice that...and nobody questions that. Curious. :D BTW...SAM warheads also have been known to employ bundled steel rods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellonet Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 30m is too small for you to always be unharmed outside this range. There should be some probabality thing where you stand a fair chance of being OK at 50m, but might catch something & be pokedIn open terrain you should not be damaged (too much) by the shockwave, but you'll probably get burned to death or get hit by shrapnel. So armoured vehicles should be alright outside the shockwave but unarmored should not. i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellonet Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Heh...I was just cracking a little joke about relative damage effects. Some here have seemed to say that outside a 30m radius (with a 2000lb. bomb), a person would stand a good chance of survival, quoting all kinds of paper specs. Yet, in another thread, a warhead of 1/4 that size is said to have a kill radius of more than twice that...and nobody questions that. Curious. :D BTW...SAM warheads also have been known to employ bundled steel rods.No one said that, at least not I... you will obviously get severely burned and maybe get hit by primary or secondary shrapnel at a greater range than crushed by the shockwave. i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IguanaKing Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Or sliced to pieces by secondary frag effects...everything can become a deadly projectile well outside the 30m area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts