New bomb type!

{YBBS}Sage · Post by **{YBBS}Sage** » 2006-02-13 00:53

Tacamo wrote:There's always the option for thermobaric weaponry too. It comes in large or small packages. 300mm Smerch rockets, 2000lb bombs, Hellfire missles or even 40mm grenades.

I was under the impression that thermobaric was another way of saying fuel-air explosive.

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2006-02-13 01:18

FAE vs. thermobaric is kind of a gray area. The BLU-82 is kind of like a weird hybrid that uses a slurry of fuel, aluminum and other things to explode. The effects can be somewhat similar between the two weapon types (mainly sucking out the oxygen of enclosed spaces. The thermobaric though has more energy displaced by the explosion. Hence the increased chances of shattering internal organs of individuals located in bunkers and/or caves not killed by the initial blast and/or lack of oxygen.

I'll also add that I believe FAE's sometimes have a problem with the warhead igniting the fuel. Once read of a story about the Chechens accusing the Russians of a chemical attack due to an aircraft dropping a bomb that dispersed a liquid. Allegedly this liquid was a noxious mixture typical of those found in FAE's.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2006-02-13 01:22

The BLU-82 (I think it's the same one I'm thinking of) can kill people within hundreds of meters of the explosion by the shattering of organs.

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2006-02-13 01:29

This video is pretty impressive for a single shot 93mm rocket. Not the strongest looking building, but it still proves a point.

I believe there's a thermobaric SMAW round known as NE (novel explosive).

Malum · Post by **Malum** » 2006-02-13 01:36

Cool, there are no civilians in this game!

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2006-02-13 01:56

Hmmm now that I think about it I think you're right Sage, there's just a few ways of mixing, creating and igniting the explosives but they're in the same family.

Post by **Happy** » 2006-02-13 02:24

'[R-PUB wrote:BrokenArrow']The BLU-82 (I think it's the same one I'm thinking of) can kill people within hundreds of meters of the explosion by the shattering of organs.

How do you shatter squishy things?

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2006-02-13 02:27

Pretty much ruptures the internal organs and causes massive hemorrhaging via shockwave.

Post by **Happy** » 2006-02-13 03:00

Sounds nasty.

Post by **Wraith** » 2006-02-13 03:25

But looks cool....

{YBBS}Sage · Post by **{YBBS}Sage** » 2006-02-13 05:51

'[R-PUB wrote:=BONG=Happy']How do you shatter squishy things?

You make em squishier...?

I've heard FAE/thermobarics cause wicked trauma to the lungs in particular. I'd advise growing gills and staying near some water.

Xeno426 · Post by **Xeno426** » 2006-02-13 07:07

With the sudden and rapid compression of air those things cause, I'd imagine it's comparable to the damage caused by extremely heavy pressurization.

Rifleman · Post by **Rifleman** » 2006-02-13 16:57

"unnecessary suffering".

Now please tell me how this nasty thingy can't produce "unnecessary suffering"... when i look on the effects of this thingy... headshot looks more mercyfull in comparison...
EDIT : gramma

Xeno426 · Post by **Xeno426** » 2006-02-13 19:24

"Unnecessary suffering" is pretty subjective. War, by its very nature, causes undue suffering. Even conventional GP bombs can cause some pretty horrific wounds.

{YBBS}Sage · Post by **{YBBS}Sage** » 2006-02-13 19:52

Pff, one of the big reasons that we use .223 is because it's less likely to kill, more likely to seriously wound. Kill a soldier, that's one off the battlefield. Give one a real nasty wound, that's probably 3.

Rifleman · Post by **Rifleman** » 2006-02-13 20:24

"Unnecessary suffering" is pretty subjective. War, by its very nature, causes undue suffering. Even conventional GP bombs can cause some pretty horrific wounds.

Of course, i know that. But look on 1st post how these nasty things works and tell me that wounds done that by them are not "horrific"

Martini · Post by **Martini** » 2006-02-13 20:36

You would think they only use something like an air/fuel bomb for its mental effect on the enemy.

Getting into the enemy's head has always been a big part of warefare.

Xeno426 · Post by **Xeno426** » 2006-02-14 00:11

It has been said that it is easier to break an enemy's moral than it is to break his body.

@{YBBS}Sage: Yea, I remember reading about that. The same goes for the Soviet's 5.45x39mm round, which, while being slightly less accurate than the .223, has a greater chance for fragmentation upon impact. The Vietcong used those kinds of tactics on us to great effect. Most of their booby traps, like the infamous punji sticks, were designed primarily to wound or maim, not to kill. Punji sticks would rarely kill you, but you'd get some nasty wounds from stepping into them. To make it worse, they would often rub their fecal matter on the tips so that you'd get an infection.

soldier_girl · Post by **soldier_girl** » 2006-02-22 13:00

we should be developing new types of bombs that could cause more damage

m0ldym1lk · Post by **m0ldym1lk** » 2006-02-22 21:57

While we're add it, lets had 21,000lbs of MOAB madness.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s/moab.htm