5 ms·
Really? I think calculating the achieved overpressure to whatever structure underground after 6x 30k pound bomb impacts is far into the “genius” category. I’d w
by buildbot 1y ago
Really? I think calculating the achieved overpressure to whatever structure underground after 6x 30k pound bomb impacts is far into the “genius” category. I’d wager you’d need a team of pretty smart people to even begin to get a wrong model of that.
- potato3732842 1y agoThis is not a "genius" problem. This is mundane number crunching that every military has been doing for hundreds of years with ever increasing accuracy. You need a few bombs and some places of varying geology to set them off. You take those data points, cross reference with all your historical knowledge and should be able to say whether a bunker of given construction a given depth under a given geology can be breached. I hate how allergic to just testing and prototyping things modern engineering culture is. Yeah, the bomb is expensive, but you gotta test it too so if you do it all right you get two birds with one stone.
- CoastalCoder 1y agoI agree, but I don't think it's entirely unique to this era. The US Navy's torpedo station in Newport, RI produced torpedos that were really prone to failure during the first few years of WW2. IIRC, the problem persisted so long because an admiral in charge refused to provide enough torpedos for adequate testing. (Sorry if there are any errors here, I can't easily fact check at the moment.)
- ethbr1 1y agoThat's accurate. They sped the torpedoes up, but failed to redesign the trigger, with the end result of ideal (and taught) geometry shots having a low chance of detonating. (Among other problems) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo#Problems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo#Problems
- PaulHoule 1y agoThey tested those bombs plenty. It's clear that they punched three holes in that mountain, but it's a whole frickin' mountain. Never mind the fact that bomb damage assessment is one of the most difficult problems in photograph interpretation -- it's hard enough when the target is above ground, worse when it isn't.
- cjbgkagh 1y agoNo genius needed, but all those involved are motivated to lie about it. The bombs have a depth range and 200ft (60m) is the optimistic depth for ideal conditions. These were far from ideal conditions as the location was specifically chosen to resist this. That and ultra high performance concrete is now a thing. This is why the entrance and exists were bombed and those are easy enough to dig back out again. The attack was telegraphed so advanced preparations were made. It is rumored that the entrances and exits were packed with dirt in advance to minimize the damage.
- influx 1y agoI wonder why the US wouldn't lie about the effective depth range. Seems kinda dumb to telegraph to your enemies how far to dig.
- cjbgkagh 1y agoThe math isn’t that hard and the ideal case is a linear extrapolation so people can sit down with a calculator and figure it out.
- kcplate 1y agoYou are still relying on parameters that they are disclosing to you.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- cjbgkagh 1y agoThere are physical limits to weight, hardness, max explosive energy and max kinetic energy and these are all known. The only way to exceed them would be to drop it from a higher altitude, like space, or give it a nuclear warhead. The US isn’t the only country that has tested bunker busters and the physics involved isn’t that hard. It’s just expensive.