| |
| | Post 1 |
| Banned ![]() | Post; Fuel Air Bomb in WW2?Some fuel air bombs are as destructive as small nukes. To me, their techology appears to be far simpler than that required to develop nuclear weapons. Is the reason they weren't used in WW2 that nobody had planes big enough to carry one? |
| |
| | Post 2 |
| Banned ![]() | That is an interesting question. I'm sure that depends on when the technology was actually developed. |
| |
| | Post 3 |
| Banned ![]() | Can't have been that recent. Think about it: Nukes are based on a principle that was only discovered in the 1920s. Fuel air bombs are based on the principle that...fuel...burns...in air. |
| |
| | Post 4 |
| Godfather | Are you talking about fire bombing? |
| |
| | Post 5 |
| Banned ![]() | No, no. Fuel air bombs that disperse some fuel during their fall and then ignite the whole thing. |
| |
| | Post 6 | ||
| Centurion | Quote:
Quote:
__________________ If in doubt...... Panic!!!!!!!! Last edited by redcoat; January 16th, 2006 at 22:08. | ||
| |
| | Post 7 |
| Banned ![]() | Thanks for the info. So they would have been technologically possible in WW2, but nobody had given them any thought yet, or if they had, deemed it ineffective? |
| |
| | Post 8 |
| Nuclear Duck Hunter ![]() | During the island hopping during WWII, the US forces found that a lot of Japanese were asphyxiated by flame throwers in bunkers. The conclusion was that a large flame depleted the oxygen long enough to kill anyone in a small space.
__________________ “War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.” —John Stuart Mill |
| |
| | Post 9 |
| Tribuni Angusticlavii | I think the basic reason that no one had used this weapon in WW2 was becuase they had not thought of it.
__________________ LeEnfield Rides again |
| |
| | Post 10 | |
| Centurion | Quote:
Dean. | |
| |