(April 20, 2017 at 1:22 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 20, 2017 at 3:18 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Bunkers and caves are pretty different from the point of view of the ordnance, and it's not hard to conflate the two. Bunkers are reinforced in part to withstand the shockwaves exuded from an explosion. Cave entrances can be, but the nature of the reinforcement (usually wooden) is much less resistant than the rebar in a bunker. The fact that the reinforcement is not embedded in the structure makes it less resistant, too.

Air-blast explosives are generally used to flatten stuff standing above ground, but the shockwave can also be used for other jobs. Spalling can and does occur (that's where the wave passing through solid material breaks off pieces on the interior, creating shrapnel). I doubt that's why MOAB was used here; GS is most likely right that it was used to seal up a ingress -- because against unreinforced earth, some dirt's gonna move. Spalling probably only happened near the entrances.

Was it a political message? Almost certainly. But that sort of ordinance does have battlefield value as well.

I'd hate to be riding in the plane that dropped that SoB.

You seem very knowledgeable.  Let's shift gears a bit -- Why didn't the US use a MOAB in Syria?  Fear of the plane getting shot down?

Why would we?

(April 20, 2017 at 1:30 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(April 20, 2017 at 1:22 pm)Jehanne Wrote: You seem very knowledgeable.  Let's shift gears a bit -- Why didn't the US use a MOAB in Syria?  Fear of the plane getting shot down?

Why would we?

For starters, the Syrian base was partly operational within a few hours after the 59 Tomahawk missiles (nearly 3 times the blast of one MOAB) hit it (assuming that they all made it; at least one did not) and was fully operational within a day later.

(April 20, 2017 at 1:22 pm)Jehanne Wrote: You seem very knowledgeable.  Let's shift gears a bit -- Why didn't the US use a MOAB in Syria?  Fear of the plane getting shot down?

Thanks for the kind words, but my knowledge is likely nowhere near Gawdzilla's, who helps run one of the best if not the best) WWII site I've ever come across. GS also, I think, stays more current on modern weapons and doctrine than I do.

As for your question -- it's my understanding that the fighting in Syria occurs more often in urban areas. A weapon such as MOAB, designed for demolition via shockwave, would obviously incur an enormous number of civilian casualties. Fear of the plane getting shot down would factor into the decision afterwards -- but I don't think the decision would get that far along the conference table.

In the rural areas, it would of course be more feasible, and at that point, yes, the 130 delivering it would be vulnerable unless the Air Force designed a good strike package which was strong in defense-suppression planes.

(April 20, 2017 at 1:35 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 20, 2017 at 1:30 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Why would we?

For starters, the Syrian base was partly operational within a few hours after the 59 Tomahawk missiles (nearly 3 times the blast of one MOAB) hit it (assuming that they all made it; at least one did not) and was fully operational within a day later.

And your experience with target analysis and mission planning indicated that the MOAB would be the weapon of choice to ... collapse the port-a-pottys?

---

(April 20, 2017 at 1:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(April 20, 2017 at 1:22 pm)Jehanne Wrote: You seem very knowledgeable.  Let's shift gears a bit -- Why didn't the US use a MOAB in Syria?  Fear of the plane getting shot down?

Thanks for the kind words, but my knowledge is likely nowhere near Gawdzilla's, who helps run one of the best if not the best) WWII site I've ever come across. GS also, I think, stays more current on modern weapons and doctrine than I do.

Aw shucks.

(April 20, 2017 at 1:35 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 20, 2017 at 1:30 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Why would we?

For starters, the Syrian base was partly operational within a few hours after the 59 Tomahawk missiles (nearly 3 times the blast of one MOAB) hit it (assuming that they all made it; at least one did not) and was fully operational within a day later.

Attacking an air base (which is likely ringed with SAM and triple-A defenses) with a turboprop that can't quite pull 400kts IAS empty, much less lugging 11 tons, is probably not a successful mission profile. You have to use the right weapon for the job.

This forum gets more like 9/11 truth every day.

(April 20, 2017 at 2:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(April 20, 2017 at 1:35 pm)Jehanne Wrote: For starters, the Syrian base was partly operational within a few hours after the 59 Tomahawk missiles (nearly 3 times the blast of one MOAB) hit it (assuming that they all made it; at least one did not) and was fully operational within a day later.

Attacking an air base (which is likely ringed with SAM and triple-A defenses) with a turboprop that can't quite pull 400kts IAS empty, much less lugging 11 tons, is probably not a successful mission profile. You have to use the right weapon for the job.

Over a dozen years we've had those and not used them because the right target hadn't come up.

(April 20, 2017 at 11:00 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(April 20, 2017 at 10:35 am)popeyespappy Wrote: Kudos for admitting your mistake, Ace.

I'm not picking on you here just taking the opportunity to point out a textbook case of the conformation bias we all suffer from from time to time in your earlier reply that referenced my previous post in this thread. The article I quoted said the MOAB was designed as an air burst weapon for use against soft to medium surface targets. You immediately latched onto that statement in support of your position, and blew right by the very next sentence in my post that said the MOAB was optimized for use against targets in environments like caves. That's classic biased interpretation which is one of the three pillars of conformation bias. Those being biased search, biased interpretation and biased memory.

Good summary of why threads like this go south so quickly. I found several pages on Google that were just wrong about the MOAB, and that was echoed several times.

They also go south because sometimes people, not mentioning any names Gawdzilla, talk to others with contempt and have zero social skills.

(April 20, 2017 at 4:48 pm)Little lunch Wrote:

(April 20, 2017 at 11:00 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Good summary of why threads like this go south so quickly. I found several pages on Google that were just wrong about the MOAB, and that was echoed several times.

They also go south because sometimes people, not mentioning any names Gawdzilla, talk to others with contempt and have zero social skills.

Don't forget a low tolerance for people with poor reading/google skills and an arrogance in a subject they know  jack shit about.

(April 20, 2017 at 2:30 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: This forum gets more like 9/11 truth every day.

Well, you know Obama's a Muslim who was behind 9/11, don't you?