“Destructive force” carried by a B-52?
In the 1957 film Bombers B-52 an instructor says of the then-new B-52 Stratofortress:
“On a single mission one of these airplanes, just one, can carry greater destructive force than that of all the bombs dropped by the Allied Air Forces during the whole of World War II”.
Is there a sense in which this statement can possibly be true? At what I find, the B-52 could carry up to 32,000 kg of weapons, while “between 1939 and 1945, Allied planes dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs on Axis powers” (source), that is, five orders of magnitude more. Of course a part (how large?) of the B-52 payload could consist of nuclear devices: would this balance the account? Was that sentence just a hyperbole?
world-war-two cold-war aircraft
asked yesterday
DaGDaG
353212
add a comment |
In the 1957 film Bombers B-52 an instructor says of the then-new B-52 Stratofortress:
“On a single mission one of these airplanes, just one, can carry greater destructive force than that of all the bombs dropped by the Allied Air Forces during the whole of World War II”.
Is there a sense in which this statement can possibly be true? At what I find, the B-52 could carry up to 32,000 kg of weapons, while “between 1939 and 1945, Allied planes dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs on Axis powers” (source), that is, five orders of magnitude more. Of course a part (how large?) of the B-52 payload could consist of nuclear devices: would this balance the account? Was that sentence just a hyperbole?
world-war-two cold-war aircraft
asked yesterday
DaGDaG
353212
6
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
yesterday
2
And "destructive power", whatever it is, is not the yield (which is simply energy in physical sense). Of course a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't cause as much damage as all of the WW2 bombings.
– kubanczyk
yesterday
@DavidRicherby: Thanks, I know that, and I mention this in my question. (Or were you answering to someone else, since you begin with “because”?)
– DaG
19 hours ago
Perhaps more importantly to me – is the statement even relevant? I mean, the way it’s phrased, pretty much any (large-ish) plane would be the same, wouldn’t it? If all that's needed is a single Mark 39 bomb (about 1 × 3 m, just under 3 tonnes), any plane that can carry such a load (surely that's most of 'em?) fulfils the criteria. The quote makes it sound like it’s a property of the B-52, but really it’s the result of the efficiency of nuclear weapons.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
9 hours ago
In the sense that Top Fuel dragsters are the most powerful, fastest and quickest cars, if you don't count any nuance like cornering.
– James
9 hours ago
add a comment |
In the 1957 film Bombers B-52 an instructor says of the then-new B-52 Stratofortress:
“On a single mission one of these airplanes, just one, can carry greater destructive force than that of all the bombs dropped by the Allied Air Forces during the whole of World War II”.
Is there a sense in which this statement can possibly be true? At what I find, the B-52 could carry up to 32,000 kg of weapons, while “between 1939 and 1945, Allied planes dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs on Axis powers” (source), that is, five orders of magnitude more. Of course a part (how large?) of the B-52 payload could consist of nuclear devices: would this balance the account? Was that sentence just a hyperbole?
world-war-two cold-war aircraft
asked yesterday
DaGDaG
353212
In the 1957 film Bombers B-52 an instructor says of the then-new B-52 Stratofortress:
“On a single mission one of these airplanes, just one, can carry greater destructive force than that of all the bombs dropped by the Allied Air Forces during the whole of World War II”.
Is there a sense in which this statement can possibly be true? At what I find, the B-52 could carry up to 32,000 kg of weapons, while “between 1939 and 1945, Allied planes dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs on Axis powers” (source), that is, five orders of magnitude more. Of course a part (how large?) of the B-52 payload could consist of nuclear devices: would this balance the account? Was that sentence just a hyperbole?
world-war-two cold-war aircraft
world-war-two cold-war aircraft
asked yesterday
DaGDaG
353212
asked yesterday
DaGDaG
353212
edited 6 hours ago
DaG
asked yesterday
DaGDaG
353212
asked yesterday
DaGDaG
353212
asked yesterday
DaGDaG
353212
353212
6
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
yesterday
2
And "destructive power", whatever it is, is not the yield (which is simply energy in physical sense). Of course a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't cause as much damage as all of the WW2 bombings.
– kubanczyk
yesterday
@DavidRicherby: Thanks, I know that, and I mention this in my question. (Or were you answering to someone else, since you begin with “because”?)
– DaG
19 hours ago
Perhaps more importantly to me – is the statement even relevant? I mean, the way it’s phrased, pretty much any (large-ish) plane would be the same, wouldn’t it? If all that's needed is a single Mark 39 bomb (about 1 × 3 m, just under 3 tonnes), any plane that can carry such a load (surely that's most of 'em?) fulfils the criteria. The quote makes it sound like it’s a property of the B-52, but really it’s the result of the efficiency of nuclear weapons.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
9 hours ago
In the sense that Top Fuel dragsters are the most powerful, fastest and quickest cars, if you don't count any nuance like cornering.
– James
9 hours ago
add a comment |
6
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
yesterday
2
And "destructive power", whatever it is, is not the yield (which is simply energy in physical sense). Of course a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't cause as much damage as all of the WW2 bombings.
– kubanczyk
yesterday
@DavidRicherby: Thanks, I know that, and I mention this in my question. (Or were you answering to someone else, since you begin with “because”?)
– DaG
19 hours ago
Perhaps more importantly to me – is the statement even relevant? I mean, the way it’s phrased, pretty much any (large-ish) plane would be the same, wouldn’t it? If all that's needed is a single Mark 39 bomb (about 1 × 3 m, just under 3 tonnes), any plane that can carry such a load (surely that's most of 'em?) fulfils the criteria. The quote makes it sound like it’s a property of the B-52, but really it’s the result of the efficiency of nuclear weapons.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
9 hours ago
In the sense that Top Fuel dragsters are the most powerful, fastest and quickest cars, if you don't count any nuance like cornering.
– James
9 hours ago
6
6
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
yesterday
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
yesterday
2
2
And "destructive power", whatever it is, is not the yield (which is simply energy in physical sense). Of course a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't cause as much damage as all of the WW2 bombings.
– kubanczyk
yesterday
And "destructive power", whatever it is, is not the yield (which is simply energy in physical sense). Of course a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't cause as much damage as all of the WW2 bombings.
– kubanczyk
yesterday
@DavidRicherby: Thanks, I know that, and I mention this in my question. (Or were you answering to someone else, since you begin with “because”?)
– DaG
19 hours ago
@DavidRicherby: Thanks, I know that, and I mention this in my question. (Or were you answering to someone else, since you begin with “because”?)
– DaG
19 hours ago
Perhaps more importantly to me – is the statement even relevant? I mean, the way it’s phrased, pretty much any (large-ish) plane would be the same, wouldn’t it? If all that's needed is a single Mark 39 bomb (about 1 × 3 m, just under 3 tonnes), any plane that can carry such a load (surely that's most of 'em?) fulfils the criteria. The quote makes it sound like it’s a property of the B-52, but really it’s the result of the efficiency of nuclear weapons.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
9 hours ago
Perhaps more importantly to me – is the statement even relevant? I mean, the way it’s phrased, pretty much any (large-ish) plane would be the same, wouldn’t it? If all that's needed is a single Mark 39 bomb (about 1 × 3 m, just under 3 tonnes), any plane that can carry such a load (surely that's most of 'em?) fulfils the criteria. The quote makes it sound like it’s a property of the B-52, but really it’s the result of the efficiency of nuclear weapons.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
9 hours ago
In the sense that Top Fuel dragsters are the most powerful, fastest and quickest cars, if you don't count any nuance like cornering.
– James
9 hours ago
In the sense that Top Fuel dragsters are the most powerful, fastest and quickest cars, if you don't count any nuance like cornering.
– James
9 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. These were the second-generation of nuclear weapons with greatly increased destructive power over the original WW2 atomic bombs. By 1957, these weapons had yields measured in megatons compared to the tens of kilotons that the first atomic bombs produced.
For example, the Mark 39 nuclear bomb had a yield of 3.8 megatons and the B-52 was able to carry multiples of these (the B-52 in the Goldsboro incident was carrying two of them).
Taking the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, this is the total weight of all types of bombs dropped by the Allies. So this includes the weight of the casing in addition to the weight of the explosive/incendiary payload. There were various explosive compounds used, some of which were weaker than TNT (e.g. Amatol) and some that were greater in power (e.g. RDX). So calculating the equivalent destructive power in terms of TNT isn't that easy.
As a simple comparison, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a direct TNT equivalent, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, third, fourth bomb... then it's even more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant of the weapon had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered yesterday
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,79912230
3
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
5
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
yesterday
Comparing the weight of the Mark 39 to the capacity of the bomber it looks like it could carry 10 of them. Whether it could actually employ them I have no idea. That gives 38MT of boom, something like 50x the WWII total (remember, most conventional bombs are mostly casing, not boom.)
– Loren Pechtel
22 hours ago
4
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
1
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
12 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52241%2fdestructive-force-carried-by-a-b-52%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. These were the second-generation of nuclear weapons with greatly increased destructive power over the original WW2 atomic bombs. By 1957, these weapons had yields measured in megatons compared to the tens of kilotons that the first atomic bombs produced.
For example, the Mark 39 nuclear bomb had a yield of 3.8 megatons and the B-52 was able to carry multiples of these (the B-52 in the Goldsboro incident was carrying two of them).
Taking the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, this is the total weight of all types of bombs dropped by the Allies. So this includes the weight of the casing in addition to the weight of the explosive/incendiary payload. There were various explosive compounds used, some of which were weaker than TNT (e.g. Amatol) and some that were greater in power (e.g. RDX). So calculating the equivalent destructive power in terms of TNT isn't that easy.
As a simple comparison, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a direct TNT equivalent, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, third, fourth bomb... then it's even more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant of the weapon had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered yesterday
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,79912230
3
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
5
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
yesterday
Comparing the weight of the Mark 39 to the capacity of the bomber it looks like it could carry 10 of them. Whether it could actually employ them I have no idea. That gives 38MT of boom, something like 50x the WWII total (remember, most conventional bombs are mostly casing, not boom.)
– Loren Pechtel
22 hours ago
4
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
1
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
12 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. These were the second-generation of nuclear weapons with greatly increased destructive power over the original WW2 atomic bombs. By 1957, these weapons had yields measured in megatons compared to the tens of kilotons that the first atomic bombs produced.
For example, the Mark 39 nuclear bomb had a yield of 3.8 megatons and the B-52 was able to carry multiples of these (the B-52 in the Goldsboro incident was carrying two of them).
Taking the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, this is the total weight of all types of bombs dropped by the Allies. So this includes the weight of the casing in addition to the weight of the explosive/incendiary payload. There were various explosive compounds used, some of which were weaker than TNT (e.g. Amatol) and some that were greater in power (e.g. RDX). So calculating the equivalent destructive power in terms of TNT isn't that easy.
As a simple comparison, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a direct TNT equivalent, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, third, fourth bomb... then it's even more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant of the weapon had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered yesterday
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,79912230
3
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
5
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
yesterday
Comparing the weight of the Mark 39 to the capacity of the bomber it looks like it could carry 10 of them. Whether it could actually employ them I have no idea. That gives 38MT of boom, something like 50x the WWII total (remember, most conventional bombs are mostly casing, not boom.)
– Loren Pechtel
22 hours ago
4
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
1
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
12 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. These were the second-generation of nuclear weapons with greatly increased destructive power over the original WW2 atomic bombs. By 1957, these weapons had yields measured in megatons compared to the tens of kilotons that the first atomic bombs produced.
For example, the Mark 39 nuclear bomb had a yield of 3.8 megatons and the B-52 was able to carry multiples of these (the B-52 in the Goldsboro incident was carrying two of them).
Taking the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, this is the total weight of all types of bombs dropped by the Allies. So this includes the weight of the casing in addition to the weight of the explosive/incendiary payload. There were various explosive compounds used, some of which were weaker than TNT (e.g. Amatol) and some that were greater in power (e.g. RDX). So calculating the equivalent destructive power in terms of TNT isn't that easy.
As a simple comparison, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a direct TNT equivalent, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, third, fourth bomb... then it's even more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant of the weapon had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered yesterday
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,79912230
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. These were the second-generation of nuclear weapons with greatly increased destructive power over the original WW2 atomic bombs. By 1957, these weapons had yields measured in megatons compared to the tens of kilotons that the first atomic bombs produced.
For example, the Mark 39 nuclear bomb had a yield of 3.8 megatons and the B-52 was able to carry multiples of these (the B-52 in the Goldsboro incident was carrying two of them).
Taking the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, this is the total weight of all types of bombs dropped by the Allies. So this includes the weight of the casing in addition to the weight of the explosive/incendiary payload. There were various explosive compounds used, some of which were weaker than TNT (e.g. Amatol) and some that were greater in power (e.g. RDX). So calculating the equivalent destructive power in terms of TNT isn't that easy.
As a simple comparison, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a direct TNT equivalent, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, third, fourth bomb... then it's even more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant of the weapon had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered yesterday
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,79912230
edited 16 hours ago
answered yesterday
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,79912230
answered yesterday
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,79912230
answered yesterday
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,79912230
3,79912230
3
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
5
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
yesterday
Comparing the weight of the Mark 39 to the capacity of the bomber it looks like it could carry 10 of them. Whether it could actually employ them I have no idea. That gives 38MT of boom, something like 50x the WWII total (remember, most conventional bombs are mostly casing, not boom.)
– Loren Pechtel
22 hours ago
4
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
1
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
12 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
3
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
5
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
yesterday
Comparing the weight of the Mark 39 to the capacity of the bomber it looks like it could carry 10 of them. Whether it could actually employ them I have no idea. That gives 38MT of boom, something like 50x the WWII total (remember, most conventional bombs are mostly casing, not boom.)
– Loren Pechtel
22 hours ago
4
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
1
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
12 hours ago
3
3
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
5
5
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
yesterday
The ROU (Rapid Offensive Unit) Killing Time is a spaceship mentioned in Iain M. Banks' Excession novel, part of The Culture series. The GSV Lasting Damage is mentioned in another novel. The Killing Time's name is based on a military pun. 90% of the time in war, you are just killing time. The other 10% of the time is the killing time.
– CSM
yesterday
Comparing the weight of the Mark 39 to the capacity of the bomber it looks like it could carry 10 of them. Whether it could actually employ them I have no idea. That gives 38MT of boom, something like 50x the WWII total (remember, most conventional bombs are mostly casing, not boom.)
– Loren Pechtel
22 hours ago
Comparing the weight of the Mark 39 to the capacity of the bomber it looks like it could carry 10 of them. Whether it could actually employ them I have no idea. That gives 38MT of boom, something like 50x the WWII total (remember, most conventional bombs are mostly casing, not boom.)
– Loren Pechtel
22 hours ago
4
4
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
This answer would be slightly improved if it mentioned that the nukes dropped during WW2 were about 15kT and 20kT of TNT equivalent.
– Denis de Bernardy
17 hours ago
1
1
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
12 hours ago
@CSM: 2.4 hours of killing per day? I would bump another two nines into that equation.
– dotancohen
12 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52241%2fdestructive-force-carried-by-a-b-52%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
yesterday
2
And "destructive power", whatever it is, is not the yield (which is simply energy in physical sense). Of course a few thermonuclear devices wouldn't cause as much damage as all of the WW2 bombings.
– kubanczyk
yesterday
@DavidRicherby: Thanks, I know that, and I mention this in my question. (Or were you answering to someone else, since you begin with “because”?)
– DaG
19 hours ago
Perhaps more importantly to me – is the statement even relevant? I mean, the way it’s phrased, pretty much any (large-ish) plane would be the same, wouldn’t it? If all that's needed is a single Mark 39 bomb (about 1 × 3 m, just under 3 tonnes), any plane that can carry such a load (surely that's most of 'em?) fulfils the criteria. The quote makes it sound like it’s a property of the B-52, but really it’s the result of the efficiency of nuclear weapons.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
9 hours ago
In the sense that Top Fuel dragsters are the most powerful, fastest and quickest cars, if you don't count any nuance like cornering.
– James
9 hours ago