@@jarrensmith1060 That's great - unfortunately, it doesn't work in war-torn countries - like Irak or Afghanistan. After years and years of people dying due to violence every day - it becomes normal. People get used to it. Even a bomb the size of Manhattan wouldn't change that.
It could probably that the blast is a pressure wave as opposed to shrapnel, monolithic kinetic penetrator, soft metal jet, or thermite. I'm really kinda just truly knowledgeable about rockets and there is internal differences in systems anyway. But I know that electronics can be in the fins many times they are for rockets of course have a warhead in the front so electronics can't go there while the bomb is dang near all warhead. One thing I also know for sure but might not be transferable but I feel it is. It is really desirable to have things that detonate subterranean ideally it is in a cavity when the HE do what it do. even if it detonates on the surface the energy will be diffuse so mid flight even more so which I grant you with the typical shrapnel and antipersonell more diffuse more better and is a for more common situation. This situation is not quite the same. Big funding applications of a smart detonator supports the benefits of not blowing the load too early if the bunker or tunnel isn't destroyed the only efficacy is spalling that is why even the dumb version wants to be subterranean as there is very little partial credit a bunker is almost all or nothing in its function bunkers getting more advanced have a less fortified cavity above the heavily fortified part protecting the occupants the cavity broadcasts the yield over large enough an area spalling doesn't occur the smart fuse is designed to remedy this. Now if the smart fuse is worthwhile to pursue it is completely necessary to concentrate the force as much as possible with the dumb fuse. The goal is to collapse the tunnel network via this cavitation effect. They want it to be 100% unsalvageable because that is really the only success criteria. Now why won't we need this like the video says we don't it was a flex but in symmetric nonnuclear war those bunkers are going to be the modern day Maginot line except without a way to circumnavigate it. Like the first cannons making castles obsolete they don't want to wonder if it is still there and they definitely don't want to ignore it because the occupants will give chase. This morbidly obese anus breacher is Ronco just set it and forget it
@@hyy3657 I'm not so sure. Just about any point defense system can take it out. Not to mention the explosion may be the wrong type. It isn't a shape charge and it bursts in the air. So no penetration. But blowing up below the water could produce a pretty massive shockwave and could break the keel.
Excalibur GSP guided artillery used in Ukraine dropped from 70% accuracy to 7% because of Electronic Warfare. JDAMs, MOAB and MOP have the same problem. Excalibur shell is also 70 to 100k a piece.
Well, not "useless," but very niche. The Daisy Cutter was used in Iraq primarily as a psychological weapon; what I've heard is that it was meant to terrorize the front-line troops and to incentivize them to listen to Allied radio programs, on which was announced the times and locations of the detonations. The use of the MOAB in Afghanistan was presumably also primarily psychological.
@@ariochiv from a quick google search: "During Operation Desert Storm, a total of 11 Daisy Cutters were dropped on Kuwaiti soil in an effort to demoralize the Iraqi Army." interesting, I did not know this.
The BLU-82B “Daisy Cutter” had a very clear military application - clearing landing zones for helicopters. That’s what it was designed for - removing trees (and anyone under the trees).
First, I suspect that Mother of All Bombs was the original moniker with Massive Ordinance Air Burst being a more politically correct choice. Second, the cost is quite inexpensive when compared to other ordinance. Many man portable surface to air or surface to surface missiles cost as much or more.
Biggest problem is absence of suitable targets after the Vietnam war. I mean you can nuke some rogue CIA agent in the cave, and it will be even cheaper then usin equivalent amount of conventional ordinance, but it will be definitely an inadequate target for the weapon choice.
After the US bombin of Japan in 1945, nuclear weapons have become a means for nuclear armed nations to show their strength to one another, and to the rest of the world. It is a way of keeping the community in check, if you like. Nobody is going to use one of them intentionally. I said nobody. Not even the "rouge regime" of North Korea. If it ever comes to that, it will be either by accident (like in a escalation after some misunderstanding), or illegaly by some member, or a small group, of the army with revolutionary thoughts. However the latter is extremely unlikely, for as far as we know, all nuclear armed nations have a robust system to operate nuclear weapons. So it will take several high rank officers to authorize and several lower rank to deploy a nuclear weapon.
The destruction of the German-built High Command of the Iraqi military was not mentioned. It was a penetrator missile-bomb that ended the war in one strike. It was cobbled together here in Plano Texas in about a week from pre-existing ordinance. Yes, big bombs can be very effective.
Just a correction: The "Earthquake" bomb wasn't used against fortifications, but against the Tirpitz in the norwegian fjords. Marshal Cotesworth told the pilots to not drop the bomb unless they could guarantee a hit because it was time consuming and extremely expensive to make new ones. Ironically, one bomber thought it saw the Tirpitz and dropped the bomb, but nobody could confirm it made a hit. It landed close enough to completely wreck the superstructure, gun turrets and hull, rendering it useless for the rest of the war. If I got something wrong, please correct me in the comments. I'm always happy to learn more.
I think you might mistake it with the similair Tallboy bomb! Which was also used during operation Hydra against the Penemünde V-2 bases but was not powerful enough. Grand slam was actually used a number of times, including against the Biefield viaduct, the railway viaduct at Arnsberg on multiple occasions, the one at Arbergen, the railway bridges at Nienburg and Bremen, the fortified submarine pens at Farge and Hamburg and over the naval bases of Heligoland, including in the crazy post-war effort to simply erase them from existence (operation Big Bang)
The 2 bombs designed by Barnes Wallis were both 'earthquake' bombs. First was the 12000 pound Tallboy followed by the 22000 pound Grandslam. Many were dropped on hardened targets including U boat pens, V2 bunker, V1 launch sites, dams, railway tunnels and viaducts. A near miss was better than a direct hit, destroying foundations and causing collapse. Tirpitz received at least 2 direct hits with Tallboys. She capsized.Full history of these bombs on wikapedia.Only two Squadrons used these weapons. 617 followed by 9 Sqdn used Tallboy. Only 617 dropped Grandslam. Bombs used in conjunction with Mk 14 bombsight ( 9Sqdn) 617 using SABS ( Slabilized Automatic Bomb Sight) used basic computing. Accurate to 50 yds from 18000 ft. Only modified Avro Lancaster capable of carrying weapons. Both weapons designed for a release height of 40000 ft. Lanc not capable of this. Around 18000 ft for Tallboy and 12000 ft for Grandslam. Both bombs were supersonic by impact. They had angled fins to stabilize and increase velocity during decent. Both used RDX which is 1 and a half more times powerful than TNT. Was poured into bomb casing as a liquid and took weeks to set. Very expensive and crews were asked to return them if unused. Safe drop height for the bombs was 5000 ft in an emergency.
Well 9 and 617 Sqn Lancasters dropped 78 Tallboys in three raids between Sept - Nov 1944 on the Tirpitz and scored three hits. Churchill wanted it on the bottom of the sea because of the threat to convoys
Just an FYI.. MOAB never touched the ground or pierced into rock. Everybody in the cave systems turned into pink mist due to the fuel air pressured wave via a thermobaric process.
I was thinking the same thermobaric they are amazing to watch as long as you not too close lol but you can see it go into the ground of you watch the video (edited to make my self clear I was talking about thermo in general )
No they didn't. The MOAB is not a FAE and the effect on underground structures or humans in such is minimal. Any air blast, even a nuclear bomb does not effectively transmit the blast to things under ground.
@@skunkjobbcorrect me if I’m wrong but thermobaric bombs are actually very effective at clearing structures as long as there is openings for the fuel to penetrate. And even if it doesnt burn the occupants it sucks all oxygen out of their lungs and kills them either that way or through pressure wave.
Why is he saying the MOAB is useless? You could take out an entire 10 story building with this thing. I can think of lots of usefulness for this magnificent weapon.
Typically it is frowned upon to take out a 10 story building because they are located in cities where civilian casualties are going to be extremely high. You can't drop it on enemy bases and utilise the blast capabilities because the C130 would get shot down before it got anywhere near dropping the bomb. Therefore it is useless outside of some very niche applications where you have large enemy fortifications but no anti air threat.
Excellent video. The physics must be very interesting although the basics must be quite simple. But a 60 metre depth is amazing. That depth must depend a great deal on soil composition. It would be interesting if it has an application in water. It should make for a good depth charge.
not good for use in water, bc. you dont want to create a high-speed impact on the surface ... rather be really slow to have a soft impact and then sink or steer to the chosen depht (for example: torpedos are dropped with a parachute or at very low altitudes & speeds).
@@TheKnaeckebrot Agreed. High speed impact would not be effective. But I wonder about smaller projectiles ahead of the MOAB to create a more effective impact. It's hard to model this though.
The problem with that idea is the MOAB is a COMPLETELY unguided gravity bomb, whereas Rapid Dragon deploys Cruise Missiles and other guided munitions. All you'd end up doing is dropping multiple MOABs on one target, which would be fine IF your goal is complete obliteration of all surface structures and lifeforms within the target zone.
I remember when the US tested MOAB at Elgin AFB in the Florida Panhandle, near Ft Walton/Destin. TV news reported people were calling 911/Emergency thinking there was an earthquake!!
I remember it too and I live 45 miles west of Eglin AFB where they tested it. It certainly rattled my windows and sounded like a low-frequency rumble. People in Pensacola were calling 911 too.
When was the testing performed? I was stationed at Hurlburt Field AFB IN Ft. Walton Beach during the 80s. I use to get a kick out of watching our gunships tear up the target fields.
These are just the bombs we know about. If you think the us and russia don't have nukes that are beyond our comprehension you don't know how government works.
The MOAB attack in 2017 had negligible effect on the caves just as expected from any air blast bomb. Tunnel openings right next to ground zero were undamaged as can be seen in films from after the explosion. The only things damaged were houses (and other things/people) over ground. The elongated form of the explosive makes the pressure wave go largely horizontally, further decreasing the impact on underground structures. They studied this in nuclear tests in the 60s. A small nuclear blast of 1 kt (like 100 MOAB:s at a single point) at ground level had the following effect on shallow tunnels, horizontal distance from ground zero: 15 m - total destruction 21 m - partial damage but a man could still pass through the tunnel. 28 m - no damage You need a ground penetrating bomb (which MOAB is not) to get any effectiveness against underground structures.
It was not designed to collapse caves but pulse a pressure wave into the cave and kill with overpressure injuries, that is collapsed lungs, and other internal injuries.
Two highlights for me: around 6:00 when the C130 takes of basically sideways, and around 9:30 when the narrator says it "ONLY" about 2.5 tons of explosives.
The bomb is thermobaric thus on explosion immediately 20% of the atmosphere is consumed. Humans need oxygen and atmospheric pressure to survive. The environment in the said caves becomes instantly hostile to human life. The explosive power is just a portion of the destructive power.
Well since nobody knows what will happen tomorrow it seems good to have the MOAB on hand. You never know what opportunity's or problems will be put before us tomorrow or next week.
if they are letting the public see it then the tech is likely 30 or more years old... god only knows what "conventional" bombs we have currently in development.
I wonder what the overpressure is at ground level. Maybe it could be used to clear mine fields. The Russians seem to lay mines on the surface expecting them to be hidden by grass. A wide area pressure pulse that sets everything off could be useful.
@@tylermallory2504 only issue is many are banned, primarily because un exploded cluster bomblets can create their own minefields mind you there are ways around it, but none the less, you get the point
The reason for this weapon is, you wanna take out a huge target but don’t want to irradiate the area for the next 100 years that’s the reason for M.O.A.B.
If not mistaken, which most likely is, the MOAB concept came for solving a solution for dealing with overseas conflicts while preserving capability when employing non nuclear munitions. Believe this emphasized the interest say of a lesser active military role as such when needing to be deployed but such employment also added to its interests overseas.
These were cheap to produce and they didn't make very many of them. Explosives last forever, the Iowas were firing WWII shells in the Gulf War. Someday there might be some big complex that we will want to take out, could be 50 years from now. When that happens thryll pull one of these out of the warehouse, dust it off and drop it.
No. This is where the story begins. Having watched the Ukraine war closely, I would argue that it is better to have several Daisy Cutters over a greater distance than only one MOAB
The Russians have a FAB 9000 (19,800lbs) in their arsenal, but I think they retired the bomber that could carry it. The blast radius would be about 1km on entrenched troops. It could punch big holes in the Ukrainian lines if used.
@@2fathomsdeeper Bombers capable of carrying it would be easy targets against long range anti air targets and would not be able to reach the lines. Russians use strategic bombers in the war but mostly as a cruise missile platform
daisy cutters were crude amalgamations of explosives most of the time. a conventional bomb with a bunch of other explosive material attached to it that would detonate sympathetically.
61 meters penetration depth of the MOP are definitely not 61 meters of granite - or any other natural hard solid rock formation. The same goes for massively reinforced bunker concrete. Therefore, any "bunker buster" has, naturally, it's limitations.
It most likely can penetrate 60 feet of 5,000 psi reinforced concrete, 40 feet of moderately hard stones, and 8 feet in 10,000 psi reinforced concrete.
It’s also designed to be used to target afghan caves with few entry points as it snuffs the oxygen from a wide area, Russian underground munitions depots and command centers, North Korean underground artillery and command centers and Iranian underground command centers, ect… those are just the unclassified shit they tell you.
MOAB a weapon that answers a very specific kind of question, that isn't asked often, but when asked, needs an answer. MOP on the other hand, is an answer to many more kinds of questions. Drop one of those on a bridge support column, and they'll have to replace the entire foundation too, a much more expensive and time consuming process than repairing/replacing the deck of a bridge.
@@skunkjobb Its a wonder they never came up with a bomb that would send shock waves through the ground setting off everything but not necessarily leave a big hole.
@@simppa2actually if the fuze can detonate at an optimal altitude above ground the shockwave will trigger the mine without creating a massive crater in earth crust 😂😂😂
The BLU-82B was known as the Daisy Cutter I believe, and was also called an Instant LZ because of its ability to clear landing zones... well, instantly!
Daisy Cutters were actually used against Iraq during the Persian Gulf War that was not used in the Vietnam War. We actually have MOAB but yet the Russians actually have a greater destructive bomb is called FOAB or Father Of All Bomb.
The MOAB torched the whole valley they dropped it in, nothing on the surface survived, and not much under ground. But hey mess with the Bull you get the Horns. 🇺🇸
it can't be delivered in that air defense environment. the only US aircraft that deploys the MOAB is the MC-130. A plane would get shot down by SAMs before it could drop the bomb.@@jamesgoodzeit214
8:30 in the video the narrator claims the bomb was dropped for some childish reason, which is highly offensive. In all reality this bomb was dropped for Mark DeAlencar from 7th group. We miss you brother.
The Moab isn't big enough. We need one with a payload capacity of 35,000 lbs. I have specific targets in mind. Our enemies will understand were not playing anymore.
It was mainly build for the succeed of a specific mission, even a vietnamese woman from the viet war helped developing it. It was made to take a specific VIP target out. To terrify enemys i read here??? Well you could do that with much less of effort....
Wrong comparison. Both have completely different effects for different missions. MOAB is a surface munition, utilizing overpressure to destroy/kill. MOP is (currently) the penultimate bunker buster, penetrating up to 150 prior to detonation. It's just not valid to say EITHER is #1 or #2. They have different roles. It's like comparing a Reaper drone, the A-10, and the AC-130. They may accomplish the same ultimate goal, but use different methods to do it.
These two bombs should’ve been used more often. The big drawback on these bombs we must have air superiority already. If not way too dangerous for your craft to be an area.
@@Happyfacehotwheels yep, and also tend to think a stiff resistance is the talban or alkida... we got to look at near pear now, so if they can give this thing some glide capacity then it would be great for an actual war...
Just read wikipedia page on the Russian FOAB. Its disputed since the Russians have only made claims of a weapons test and released a disjointed video of an alleged test. But the Russians are not using their FOAB either, so these bombs seem to be of questionable utility.
If I'm not wrong the MOAB is a conventional explosive. The russian FOAB is a thermobaric weapon so it would be more useful dealing with fortifications. The FOAB is lighter at 7,100 kg (15,650 lb) but yield 44 tons TNT. Compare to the MOAB at 9,800 kg (21,600 lb), yield 11 tons TNT. The FOAB is only in testing phase while MOAB is in service. So I would not called the FOAB useless but yeah both are overkill if you only use it on militants.
The M.O.A.B. is more of a psychological type of bomb. While it can do a great deal of damage it is not very practical. But when used it will strike a large amount of fear in those it is being used against, which is the purpose of the bomb.
He has an absolutely incorrect assessment of this weapon. There have been multiple times in United States military history were bombs like this were badly needed but we’re not available.
......the grand slam did not accelerate to supersonic speed lol. that's 1235km/h, it falls at terminal velocity, which for an object of it's size with really rough calculations is about 531 km/h
The weapon actually has a Military Utility just as the Daisy Cutter did in Vietnam which was used to clear landing pads in short order even flattening hill tops and clearing the growth allowing Helicopters to Land, But best of all it was a Terror Weapon to scare the shit out of Iraq soldiers and show them look what you have and what we have.
It would never be a good cruise missile as it's way too heavy. They would have to make it 3 or maybe 4 times the size for it to fly, let alone fly any distance.
Imagine putting a couple of MLRS rockets at the end of this bomb and firing it at the Ruzzians, it would be quite bad for morale down-range 😅 It would only need to make it a minimum of 1-2km.
@@robertlee6338 take the Beirut explosion and reduce it by 1000 and then you have the MOAB in an urban environment. I don't think using the MOAB in Ukraine would escalate anything, the Ruzzians have used thermobaric weapons since day-1, the most we would get was some whinging to the media and the potential use of their own super-conventional bomb the FOAB. That bomb is over 40 times stronger than the MOAB, but I suspect that it was a one-of-a-kind weapon, since they have only tested it once.
Crazy to think that the grande slam weighed 10 tons and exploded with 6.5 tons of TNT equivalent and was devastating and then you have Fat Man that weighed 4.5 tons yet exploded with 20,000 tons of TNT equivalent, yet that is still considered small in terms of nuclear weapons.
Watch the video about the Bunker Busters and the GBU MOP: ua-cam.com/video/4WrNmDGqHMA/v-deo.html
There is a concept called 'irrational weapons.' These are weapons that are made not for military utility as much as to frighten potential opponents.
Sounds rational to me.
Good for cleaning up leftovers
Like any nuke.
Shock and awe.
@@jarrensmith1060 That's great - unfortunately, it doesn't work in war-torn countries - like Irak or Afghanistan.
After years and years of people dying due to violence every day - it becomes normal. People get used to it.
Even a bomb the size of Manhattan wouldn't change that.
It doesn't hit the ground before exploding. It is in the name Massive Ordanance AIR burst.
It has multiple modes, don't forget.
I thought it was designed to penetrate the ground & then explode, bunker-buster
It could probably that the blast is a pressure wave as opposed to shrapnel, monolithic kinetic penetrator, soft metal jet, or thermite. I'm really kinda just truly knowledgeable about rockets and there is internal differences in systems anyway. But I know that electronics can be in the fins many times they are for rockets of course have a warhead in the front so electronics can't go there while the bomb is dang near all warhead. One thing I also know for sure but might not be transferable but I feel it is. It is really desirable to have things that detonate subterranean ideally it is in a cavity when the HE do what it do. even if it detonates on the surface the energy will be diffuse so mid flight even more so which I grant you with the typical shrapnel and antipersonell more diffuse more better and is a for more common situation. This situation is not quite the same. Big funding applications of a smart detonator supports the benefits of not blowing the load too early if the bunker or tunnel isn't destroyed the only efficacy is spalling that is why even the dumb version wants to be subterranean as there is very little partial credit a bunker is almost all or nothing in its function bunkers getting more advanced have a less fortified cavity above the heavily fortified part protecting the occupants the cavity broadcasts the yield over large enough an area spalling doesn't occur the smart fuse is designed to remedy this. Now if the smart fuse is worthwhile to pursue it is completely necessary to concentrate the force as much as possible with the dumb fuse. The goal is to collapse the tunnel network via this cavitation effect. They want it to be 100% unsalvageable because that is really the only success criteria. Now why won't we need this like the video says we don't it was a flex but in symmetric nonnuclear war those bunkers are going to be the modern day Maginot line except without a way to circumnavigate it. Like the first cannons making castles obsolete they don't want to wonder if it is still there and they definitely don't want to ignore it because the occupants will give chase. This morbidly obese anus breacher is Ronco just set it and forget it
@@daveselbow9128you’re thinking of the 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator
Blast, not burst. 4:11
$250k is actually pretty cheap. And for all that it has a 100% success rate.
naval use of this thing will make more sense
@@hyy3657 I'm not so sure. Just about any point defense system can take it out. Not to mention the explosion may be the wrong type. It isn't a shape charge and it bursts in the air. So no penetration. But blowing up below the water could produce a pretty massive shockwave and could break the keel.
Excalibur GSP guided artillery used in Ukraine dropped from 70% accuracy to 7% because of Electronic Warfare. JDAMs, MOAB and MOP have the same problem. Excalibur shell is also 70 to 100k a piece.
Very cheap indead, a Stinger missile cost $120K
Well, not "useless," but very niche. The Daisy Cutter was used in Iraq primarily as a psychological weapon; what I've heard is that it was meant to terrorize the front-line troops and to incentivize them to listen to Allied radio programs, on which was announced the times and locations of the detonations. The use of the MOAB in Afghanistan was presumably also primarily psychological.
when was the Daisy Cutter used in Iraq?
@@SoloRenegade I meant Desert Storm. Not sure whether the attack sites were in Iraq proper.
@@ariochiv from a quick google search: "During Operation Desert Storm, a total of 11 Daisy Cutters were dropped on Kuwaiti soil in an effort to demoralize the Iraqi Army."
interesting, I did not know this.
They were used to collapse some caves in Afghanistan also.
The BLU-82B “Daisy Cutter” had a very clear military application - clearing landing zones for helicopters. That’s what it was designed for - removing trees (and anyone under the trees).
First, I suspect that Mother of All Bombs was the original moniker with Massive Ordinance Air Burst being a more politically correct choice. Second, the cost is quite inexpensive when compared to other ordinance. Many man portable surface to air or surface to surface missiles cost as much or more.
Biggest problem is absence of suitable targets after the Vietnam war. I mean you can nuke some rogue CIA agent in the cave, and it will be even cheaper then usin equivalent amount of conventional ordinance, but it will be definitely an inadequate target for the weapon choice.
After the US bombin of Japan in 1945, nuclear weapons have become a means for nuclear armed nations to show their strength to one another, and to the rest of the world. It is a way of keeping the community in check, if you like.
Nobody is going to use one of them intentionally. I said nobody. Not even the "rouge regime" of North Korea. If it ever comes to that, it will be either by accident (like in a escalation after some misunderstanding), or illegaly by some member, or a small group, of the army with revolutionary thoughts. However the latter is extremely unlikely, for as far as we know, all nuclear armed nations have a robust system to operate nuclear weapons. So it will take several high rank officers to authorize and several lower rank to deploy a nuclear weapon.
4:15
Really?
No it's named after Moab in Utah
Yeah....gotta be that "PC" culture....in the Air Force. Jeez. Why didn't you go with woke? Isn't that the new cover Boogeyman?
I'm sure the Ukrainians would love a few of those to clear a path through the Russian defensive lines in ZP
Not gonna happen. Ukraine is fuckin losing, and the American taxpayer is tired of funding Obama's fuckup!
And how would you drop it ? The plane would be shot down miles before
@@BSlandRussia is sending them with wing attachments
Wasn't it called the mother of all bombs in the command and conquer generals games long before the public knew its name?
The destruction of the German-built High Command of the Iraqi military was not mentioned. It was a penetrator missile-bomb that ended the war in one strike. It was cobbled together here in Plano Texas in about a week from pre-existing ordinance. Yes, big bombs can be very effective.
They used an artillery tube for the bomb casing!
Could you provide some information links Sir. I like looking at old web sites (are they even called that anymore?)
Shock and awe. Big booms have big psychological effects. From a more practical point of view it knocks over foliage so helicopters can land.
They had the daisy cutter for that one.
Just a correction: The "Earthquake" bomb wasn't used against fortifications, but against the Tirpitz in the norwegian fjords. Marshal Cotesworth told the pilots to not drop the bomb unless they could guarantee a hit because it was time consuming and extremely expensive to make new ones. Ironically, one bomber thought it saw the Tirpitz and dropped the bomb, but nobody could confirm it made a hit. It landed close enough to completely wreck the superstructure, gun turrets and hull, rendering it useless for the rest of the war.
If I got something wrong, please correct me in the comments. I'm always happy to learn more.
I think you might mistake it with the similair Tallboy bomb! Which was also used during operation Hydra against the Penemünde V-2 bases but was not powerful enough. Grand slam was actually used a number of times, including against the Biefield viaduct, the railway viaduct at Arnsberg on multiple occasions, the one at Arbergen, the railway bridges at Nienburg and Bremen, the fortified submarine pens at Farge and Hamburg and over the naval bases of Heligoland, including in the crazy post-war effort to simply erase them from existence (operation Big Bang)
The 2 bombs designed by Barnes Wallis were both 'earthquake' bombs. First was the 12000 pound Tallboy followed by the 22000 pound Grandslam. Many were dropped on hardened targets including U boat pens, V2 bunker, V1 launch sites, dams, railway tunnels and viaducts. A near miss was better than a direct hit, destroying foundations and causing collapse. Tirpitz received at least 2 direct hits with Tallboys. She capsized.Full history of these bombs on wikapedia.Only two Squadrons used these weapons. 617 followed by 9 Sqdn used Tallboy. Only 617 dropped Grandslam. Bombs used in conjunction with Mk 14 bombsight ( 9Sqdn) 617 using SABS ( Slabilized Automatic Bomb Sight) used basic computing. Accurate to 50 yds from 18000 ft. Only modified Avro Lancaster capable of carrying weapons. Both weapons designed for a release height of 40000 ft. Lanc not capable of this. Around 18000 ft for Tallboy and 12000 ft for Grandslam. Both bombs were supersonic by impact. They had angled fins to stabilize and increase velocity during decent. Both used RDX which is 1 and a half more times powerful than TNT. Was poured into bomb casing as a liquid and took weeks to set. Very expensive and crews were asked to return them if unused. Safe drop height for the bombs was 5000 ft in an emergency.
Well 9 and 617 Sqn Lancasters dropped 78 Tallboys in three raids between Sept - Nov 1944 on the Tirpitz and scored three hits. Churchill wanted it on the bottom of the sea because of the threat to convoys
BS the planes were unable to land with the bomb
Can they even land with such a heavy load?
When you think the initial contact is the explosion….then it detonates for real. Merica! 🇺🇸
Just an FYI.. MOAB never touched the ground or pierced into rock. Everybody in the cave systems turned into pink mist due to the fuel air pressured wave via a thermobaric process.
I was thinking the same thermobaric they are amazing to watch as long as you not too close lol but you can see it go into the ground of you watch the video (edited to make my self clear I was talking about thermo in general )
Oh forgot to say can't beat a bit of pink mist
No they didn't. The MOAB is not a FAE and the effect on underground structures or humans in such is minimal. Any air blast, even a nuclear bomb does not effectively transmit the blast to things under ground.
@@skunkjobbcorrect me if I’m wrong but thermobaric bombs are actually very effective at clearing structures as long as there is openings for the fuel to penetrate. And even if it doesnt burn the occupants it sucks all oxygen out of their lungs and kills them either that way or through pressure wave.
@skunkjobb well unfortunately for you the air blast collapsed a whole complex cave system. And the MOAB is a thermobaric weapon.
Why is he saying the MOAB is useless? You could take out an entire 10 story building with this thing. I can think of lots of usefulness for this magnificent weapon.
Typically it is frowned upon to take out a 10 story building because they are located in cities where civilian casualties are going to be extremely high. You can't drop it on enemy bases and utilise the blast capabilities because the C130 would get shot down before it got anywhere near dropping the bomb. Therefore it is useless outside of some very niche applications where you have large enemy fortifications but no anti air threat.
Plus it's nice to unalive your emery in a 1 mile radius!
MOAB may be useful against bridges like the Crimea bridges.
they don't have the carrier....il-76 escorted by f-16 maybe?
@@hyy3657jets don't even dare get 10kms inside the front line over there, goodluck
Excellent video. The physics must be very interesting although the basics must be quite simple. But a 60 metre depth is amazing. That depth must depend a great deal on soil composition. It would be interesting if it has an application in water. It should make for a good depth charge.
not good for use in water, bc. you dont want to create a high-speed impact on the surface ... rather be really slow to have a soft impact and then sink or steer to the chosen depht (for example: torpedos are dropped with a parachute or at very low altitudes & speeds).
@@TheKnaeckebrot Agreed. High speed impact would not be effective. But I wonder about smaller projectiles ahead of the MOAB to create a more effective impact. It's hard to model this though.
I hear that depth charges tend to make for pretty good depth charges.
Imagine a rapid dragon of moabs....woa
They would probably have to deploy it from something like a C-5 galaxy.
@@ultrajdEven better >:)
The problem with that idea is the MOAB is a COMPLETELY unguided gravity bomb, whereas Rapid Dragon deploys Cruise Missiles and other guided munitions.
All you'd end up doing is dropping multiple MOABs on one target, which would be fine IF your goal is complete obliteration of all surface structures and lifeforms within the target zone.
They could use a glide vehicle to deploy it if they could make one to required specs and carry a MOAB@@Rotorhead1651
@@Rotorhead1651 Uh…no. The MOAB has GPS guidance.
It’s a weapon of psychological effect
It sure as heck would scare me!
I remember when the US tested MOAB at Elgin AFB in the Florida Panhandle, near Ft Walton/Destin. TV news reported people were calling 911/Emergency thinking there was an earthquake!!
I remember it too and I live 45 miles west of Eglin AFB where they tested it. It certainly rattled my windows and sounded like a low-frequency rumble. People in Pensacola were calling 911 too.
When was the testing performed? I was stationed at Hurlburt Field AFB IN Ft. Walton Beach during the 80s. I use to get a kick out of watching our gunships tear up the target fields.
Tested March 11, 2003
I lived in Destin at the time and remember it as well. Everyone was talking about it for a while after it was tested.
The MOAB and daisy cutter are two different weapons. The daisy cutter was used in Vietnam to clear landing zones. For choppers
Very good. You watched the video! Did you need to repeat the information?
And russia has the even more crazy FOAB i heard.
not heard, citations first. maybe its tsar?@@bekeneel
These are just the bombs we know about. If you think the us and russia don't have nukes that are beyond our comprehension you don't know how government works.
@@madlyawww Right!!
The MOAB attack in 2017 had negligible effect on the caves just as expected from any air blast bomb. Tunnel openings right next to ground zero were undamaged as can be seen in films from after the explosion. The only things damaged were houses (and other things/people) over ground. The elongated form of the explosive makes the pressure wave go largely horizontally, further decreasing the impact on underground structures.
They studied this in nuclear tests in the 60s. A small nuclear blast of 1 kt (like 100 MOAB:s at a single point) at ground level had the following effect on shallow tunnels, horizontal distance from ground zero:
15 m - total destruction
21 m - partial damage but a man could still pass through the tunnel.
28 m - no damage
You need a ground penetrating bomb (which MOAB is not) to get any effectiveness against underground structures.
Ig that's is why they now have MOPs
Drop it on the city, noobies
It was not designed to collapse caves but pulse a pressure wave into the cave and kill with overpressure injuries, that is collapsed lungs, and other internal injuries.
Do you have a link to show the undamaged tunnels?
So all the bodies found the next day deep in the tunnel were just a coincidence?
It’s also good for taking away the oxygen within immediate area, which carries several time sensitive military advantages *cough*
It may not have a lot of uses but it’s nice to have a few around for when you really need to send some hate !!
Because the over pressure created covers a large area and is awesome against foes in tunnels and bunkers.
Two highlights for me: around 6:00 when the C130 takes of basically sideways, and around 9:30 when the narrator says it "ONLY" about 2.5 tons of explosives.
05:41 So I guess after being treated with 8,5 tons of Composition H ; Preparation H wouldn't be enough to heal the unfortunate patient.
The bomb is thermobaric thus on explosion immediately 20% of the atmosphere is consumed. Humans need oxygen and atmospheric pressure to survive. The environment in the said caves becomes instantly hostile to human life. The explosive power is just a portion of the destructive power.
Would any of these be useful for collapsing underground tunnels? I heard there may be a need for this, somewhere in the middle east
Well since nobody knows what will happen tomorrow it seems good to have the MOAB on hand. You never know what opportunity's or problems will be put before us tomorrow or next week.
if they are letting the public see it then the tech is likely 30 or more years old... god only knows what "conventional" bombs we have currently in development.
Just a question please here. Did trump use a MOAB against Syria while he was in office?I am just asking a question please!
@@melchurmoreau5677 I think Trump allowed them to use the MOAB in Afganistan against the Talaban. All those guys hiding in caves and stuff.
@@simplyamazing880 thank you very much point taken!
I was hoping you would cover the M-121 which the BLU-82 replaced.
I wonder what the overpressure is at ground level. Maybe it could be used to clear mine fields. The Russians seem to lay mines on the surface expecting them to be hidden by grass. A wide area pressure pulse that sets everything off could be useful.
not a bad idea, but would a cluster munition do the same thing via sympathetic detonation at a fraction of the cost?
Send some goats to eat the grass
@@TauvicRitter Get a bunch of kids and toss a bunch of candy!
@@tylermallory2504 only issue is many are banned, primarily because un exploded cluster bomblets can create their own minefields
mind you there are ways around it, but none the less, you get the point
“It’s not about the money. It’s about sending a message”
The reason for this weapon is, you wanna take out a huge target but don’t want to irradiate the area for the next 100 years that’s the reason for M.O.A.B.
It’s not useless, the MOAB was instrumental in the development of the Distant Cousin of all bombs.
If not mistaken, which most likely is, the MOAB concept came for solving a solution for dealing with overseas conflicts while preserving capability when employing non nuclear munitions. Believe this emphasized the interest say of a lesser active military role as such when needing to be deployed but such employment also added to its interests overseas.
Because it terrifies the terrorists…
And it’s pretty awesome.
Is it just me, or does that green and yellow paint job give it a Thunderbird 2 vibe?
Maybe it could visit a certain unwanted bridge between Russia and Crimea.
These were cheap to produce and they didn't make very many of them. Explosives last forever, the Iowas were firing WWII shells in the Gulf War. Someday there might be some big complex that we will want to take out, could be 50 years from now. When that happens thryll pull one of these out of the warehouse, dust it off and drop it.
No. This is where the story begins. Having watched the Ukraine war closely, I would argue that it is better to have several Daisy Cutters over a greater distance than only one MOAB
Depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
completely situation specific, just like their are times were a knife is a better option than a nuke. so to speak...
The Russians have a FAB 9000 (19,800lbs) in their arsenal, but I think they retired the bomber that could carry it. The blast radius would be about 1km on entrenched troops. It could punch big holes in the Ukrainian lines if used.
@@2fathomsdeeper Bombers capable of carrying it would be easy targets against long range anti air targets and would not be able to reach the lines. Russians use strategic bombers in the war but mostly as a cruise missile platform
@@BosonCollider What long range air defense? They're out of missiles!
“Why is it needed”
Uh, because war isn’t a one size fits all type of deal
The daisy cutter was known as a fuel air bomb.
daisy cutters were crude amalgamations of explosives most of the time. a conventional bomb with a bunch of other explosive material attached to it that would detonate sympathetically.
dude should get his facts straight about moab and how it was used. obviously he hasn't got a clue. just click bait, nothing else.
"is the same as fighting garden rodents with artillery"
Wait, have I been doing it wrong this whole time?
Bill Murray preferred Semtex for gophers
So you're saying we should just skip straight to nukes.
*Your terms are acceptable.*
61 meters penetration depth of the MOP are definitely not 61 meters of granite - or any other natural hard solid rock formation.
The same goes for massively reinforced bunker concrete.
Therefore, any "bunker buster" has, naturally, it's limitations.
I heard it is like 60 meter of dirts/low density soil, or 5 to 10 meters of reinforced concrete.
It most likely can penetrate 60 feet of 5,000 psi reinforced concrete, 40 feet of moderately hard stones, and 8 feet in 10,000 psi reinforced concrete.
It’s also designed to be used to target afghan caves with few entry points as it snuffs the oxygen from a wide area, Russian underground munitions depots and command centers, North Korean underground artillery and command centers and Iranian underground command centers, ect… those are just the unclassified shit they tell you.
MOAB a weapon that answers a very specific kind of question, that isn't asked often, but when asked, needs an answer.
MOP on the other hand, is an answer to many more kinds of questions. Drop one of those on a bridge support column, and they'll have to replace the entire foundation too, a much more expensive and time consuming process than repairing/replacing the deck of a bridge.
Superb, very informative. More like this, please!
Daisy Cutter- "Good at creating panic, even among allies." That's a big explosion.
This would be a Crowd pleaser at a Block Party!!!!!🥳🥳🥳🤗🤗🤗
Gender reveal
@@markwilliams2620 "Congratulations! It's a bo-" *vaporized*
Ukrainian forces needs this to disable and destroy the mines in the rural area
So make a big hole in the middle of the rural minefield to go through it and drive or walk to the remaining mines around the bomb hole?
I don't think it's very effective in mine clearing.
@@skunkjobb Its a wonder they never came up with a bomb that would send shock waves through the ground setting off everything but not necessarily leave a big hole.
@@crazedvolethere a system with some det cord sending shockwave and clearing path in minefield.
@@simppa2actually if the fuze can detonate at an optimal altitude above ground the shockwave will trigger the mine without creating a massive crater in earth crust 😂😂😂
It is needed because there are RATS hidden in caves
While not particularly useful in the war on terror, just imagine what it could do to a Russian rear base or dry dock... 😁
Well since those targets typically have anti-air defense and nearby qrf wings...not a whole lot
The BLU-82B was known as the Daisy Cutter I believe, and was also called an Instant LZ because of its ability to clear landing zones... well, instantly!
Daisy Cutters were actually used against Iraq during the Persian Gulf War that was not used in the Vietnam War. We actually have MOAB but yet the Russians actually have a greater destructive bomb is called FOAB or Father Of All Bomb.
The MOAB torched the whole valley they dropped it in, nothing on the surface survived, and not much under ground.
But hey mess with the Bull you get the Horns.
🇺🇸
The Moab and Daisy cutter were also desigened to clear Mines. They would cause explosives to detonate befor the helicopters arrived.
Could it be used to clear the minefields in Ukraine?
it can't be delivered in that air defense environment. the only US aircraft that deploys the MOAB is the MC-130.
A plane would get shot down by SAMs before it could drop the bomb.@@jamesgoodzeit214
@@jamesgoodzeit214 Cluster munitions are better than unitary warheads at clearing minefields
Yes, that would work
@@BosonCollider or making them🤣
8:30 in the video the narrator claims the bomb was dropped for some childish reason, which is highly offensive. In all reality this bomb was dropped for Mark DeAlencar from 7th group. We miss you brother.
It's a good day when Horizon posts a video!
It's a Great day when Horizon posts a video 😀
The Moab isn't big enough. We need one with a payload capacity of 35,000 lbs.
I have specific targets in mind. Our enemies will understand were not playing anymore.
Kudos for using the phrase "Useless McGuffins". Great video as always!
It was mainly build for the succeed of a specific mission, even a vietnamese woman from the viet war helped developing it.
It was made to take a specific VIP target out.
To terrify enemys i read here??? Well you could do that with much less of effort....
So……. it is not needed?
Wait what was the amount he said for the cost? He lost me with that one. 1 hundred and 1 hundred and seventy thousand? What number is that??
The MOP is not #2, because MOAB is #2.
Wrong comparison. Both have completely different effects for different missions.
MOAB is a surface munition, utilizing overpressure to destroy/kill.
MOP is (currently) the penultimate bunker buster, penetrating up to 150 prior to detonation.
It's just not valid to say EITHER is #1 or #2. They have different roles. It's like comparing a Reaper drone, the A-10, and the AC-130. They may accomplish the same ultimate goal, but use different methods to do it.
These two bombs should’ve been used more often. The big drawback on these bombs we must have air superiority already. If not way too dangerous for your craft to be an area.
They need to ship 100 of the MOAB's to Israel.
Sometimes you need the strongest thing you got that doesn't turn the entire area around it useless with radiation.
Great as always!
TO GOD ALONE ALL THE GLORY AND HIGHEST PRAISES!HALLELUJAH!
PRAISE GOD!HALLELUJAH!
LONG LIVE AMERICA IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME WE PRAY!AMEN AND AMEN!!❤🙏
I figure these will become very useful in wars against conventional powers.
We tend to use precision weapons now a days.
@@Happyfacehotwheels yep, and also tend to think a stiff resistance is the talban or alkida...
we got to look at near pear now, so if they can give this thing some glide capacity then it would be great for an actual war...
It exists because an American put his cheeseburger down long enough to listen to Soviet propaganda broadcasts and he became frightened.
Didn't Russia make an even larger one?
Just read wikipedia page on the Russian FOAB. Its disputed since the Russians have only made claims of a weapons test and released a disjointed video of an alleged test.
But the Russians are not using their FOAB either, so these bombs seem to be of questionable utility.
If I'm not wrong the MOAB is a conventional explosive. The russian FOAB is a thermobaric weapon so it would be more useful dealing with fortifications.
The FOAB is lighter at 7,100 kg (15,650 lb) but yield 44 tons TNT. Compare to the MOAB at 9,800 kg (21,600 lb), yield 11 tons TNT.
The FOAB is only in testing phase while MOAB is in service.
So I would not called the FOAB useless but yeah both are overkill if you only use it on militants.
@@SaltyMartian That and goodluck🤞totin that heavy a💲💲 thing around with a bunch of rust buckets. Gotta admire their spirit though🇺🇲🗽⚖️
It is like having a rubber in your wallet, Better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.
I mean, if they are notthat useful, maybe could be donated to Ukraine. Under the condition that they film the effect in 4k, obviously.
The M.O.A.B. is more of a psychological type of bomb. While it can do a great deal of damage it is not very practical. But when used it will strike a large amount of fear in those it is being used against, which is the purpose of the bomb.
They used a 5000 lb bomb in vietnam to clear a HU-1 landig zone near hill N.881 droped by a c-141.
I wonder how it would do on the Kerch Bridge?
My question precisely. How I'd love to see them sent to Ukraine.
would destroy it once and for all but cant fly a c-130 above it tho.
Another thing is that the MOAB ages like milk so it was probably hitting its expiration date.
I always wanted to see what would happen if a 100 gallon tank of LOX was integrated to the blu82.
He has an absolutely incorrect assessment of this weapon. There have been multiple times in United States military history were bombs like this were badly needed but we’re not available.
1:30 Bomb so BIG AND heavy only peace maker plan can carry it .
PEACE make ? WTF
It is a guided wespon that will take out a building. That is useful
The most irrational person actually called for it's use lol
The right tool for the right purpose. You don’t use a 22”chainsaw to prune a rose bush.
I'm really excited to see the Mother-In-Law Of All Bombs!
MiLOAB
Why does the mother of all bombs exist?
Simple
Because father of all bombs exist
......the grand slam did not accelerate to supersonic speed lol. that's 1235km/h, it falls at terminal velocity, which for an object of it's size with really rough calculations is about 531 km/h
How about Father of All Bombs?
Your opening paragraph answered your question.
Well done.
The weapon actually has a Military Utility just as the Daisy Cutter did in Vietnam which was used to clear landing pads in short order even flattening hill tops and clearing the growth allowing Helicopters to Land, But best of all it was a Terror Weapon to scare the shit out of Iraq soldiers and show them look what you have and what we have.
This could work on Red Square...
I thought the Russians built a bigger bomb called the father of all bombs
I could see it being useful if made into a cruise missile
It would never be a good cruise missile as it's way too heavy. They would have to make it 3 or maybe 4 times the size for it to fly, let alone fly any distance.
@@Happyfacehotwheels just bigger wings and a motor
@@Happyfacehotwheels ya can make just about anything fly
@@lukeamato2348 and fuel, lots and lots of fuel.
@@Happyfacehotwheels yes fuel
Imagine putting a couple of MLRS rockets at the end of this bomb and firing it at the Ruzzians, it would be quite bad for morale down-range 😅
It would only need to make it a minimum of 1-2km.
@@robertlee6338 take the Beirut explosion and reduce it by 1000 and then you have the MOAB in an urban environment.
I don't think using the MOAB in Ukraine would escalate anything, the Ruzzians have used thermobaric weapons since day-1, the most we would get was some whinging to the media and the potential use of their own super-conventional bomb the FOAB.
That bomb is over 40 times stronger than the MOAB, but I suspect that it was a one-of-a-kind weapon, since they have only tested it once.
Crazy to think that the grande slam weighed 10 tons and exploded with 6.5 tons of TNT equivalent and was devastating and then you have Fat Man that weighed 4.5 tons yet exploded with 20,000 tons of TNT equivalent, yet that is still considered small in terms of nuclear weapons.
Uh, Trump made good use of one,,
TRUMP 2024!!!
You should make one called sister Bubba 60 ton three times bigger than the Moab then use 2 parachutes.
Americans: Putler is using thermoberics!!11!!11
Also Americans: