Happy Georgia Guide Stone destruction day! 🎉Today, July 6th, is the one year anniversary of their being blown up. 💥
(media.patriots.win)
- N C S W I C -
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (95)
sorted by:
Exactly what you would expect from a contact explosive charge. The blast was soaked up by the stone, shielding the other stones. You have a very imaginary conception of blast effects. Have you ever seen video of an anti-tank missile hitting its target? Blast in virtually all directions.
There are some videos of shaped charges on concrete walls ---- at best they blow small holes --- you don't get the moving of large chunks of mass.
Whatever knocked this wall down was heavy and fast ----- and had a running start.
And who says it was a shaped charge? That is what they are intended to do. A big satchel of TNT would apply a huge push and break the stone into chunks.
I'm sorry, but you continue to demonstrate knowledge that is not even applicable to the situation. Which means you don't actually have knowledge.
You don't see an explosion --- you see an impact and debris scattering in one direction.
Tell that to a nuclear detonation. If the chemical explosive is like Torpex or Amatol, it will have powdered metal as part of the composition and the metal combustion will be brightly luminous. Ever noticed the exhaust of large solid-propellant rocket motors?
You don't know much about warheads. If it was an anti-tank warhead, it would penetrate. Otherwise, it is an area burst with a spherical distribution (in order to make up for targeting error). Some anti-aircraft warheads produce expanding perimeters or clouds of fragments. Artillery shells make craters, debris in all directions. I've worked with warheads...I don't know why I am arguing this with you.
DeathRay...I enjoy your input all the way up until you start doing this. No need for those last two sentences. You did the same thing to me in a previous conversation. You have good input, but then nullify it with personal jabs.
In which case, I apologize. I've grown a hard hide from the assails of the unlettered. Deadens the touch, perhaps.
I was using Newtons 3rd law
F=ma? It's a truism, but it doesn't dictate in quite the way you think. Think of an explosion as the creation, instantaneously, of a bubble of hot gas about the size and shape of the container of explosive. The gas will expand, with pressure on any resisting surface. If it is inside something, it can tear it apart. If it is outside of something, it can slam it really hard. Hard enough to break it into pieces. Things farther away will be afflicted with a shock wave and a tremendous wind.
Which reminds me, if the detonation is standing off from the confining surface, the shock wave may reflect off that surface and cause an exponential increase in the static pressure.
Do they "move" the tank? --- or just blast holes in it?
It depends on which effect one is counting. The warhead is intended to penetrate the armor and then detonate within the tank. Sympathetic detonation of the ammunition inside the hull generally creates an overpressure that throws the turret up and out and sets the hull on fire. What happens to the humans is better left unremarked. Tank remains are generally quite pitiable to contemplate. The tank as a whole is not typically moved any distance (although I can't guarantee that a blown turret wouldn't be accompanied by a moved hull). In the end, there is considerable uncertainty as to what will happen.