“Destructive power” carried by a B-52? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Why is Thailand considered an Axis power in WWII?How did Hitler behave towards all those whom he knew in his childhood and youth after he rose to power?What is the equivalent buying power of one 1945 Reichsmark in 2016 Euros?Why was Spanish Fascist dictatorship left in power after World War II?What level of public support did Adolf Hitler have in his final year of power?Why did ZANU (instead of ZAPU) come to power after the Rhodesian Bush War?Was there a “European Balance of Power Strategy” for Anglo-American interests in between 1925 and 1935?Why was the Cold War carried out over the whole world instead of between Siberia and Alaska?Where can I find data on the amount of fuel carried by WWII Warships and what their operational ranges were?
What was the last profitable war?
New Order #6: Easter Egg
Pointing to problems without suggesting solutions
How could a hydrazine and N2O4 cloud (or it's reactants) show up in weather radar?
Was the pager message from Nick Fury to Captain Marvel unnecessary?
By what mechanism was the 2017 UK General Election called?
Centre cell vertically in tabularx
When to apply negative sign when number is squared
Is Mordenkainens' Sword under powered?
Does the main washing effect of soap come from foam?
Understanding piped command in Gnu/Linux
"Destructive power" carried by a B-52?
What is the proper term for etching or digging of wall to hide conduit of cables
Is there a verb for listening stealthily?
How to achieve cat-like agility?
Found this skink in my tomato plant bucket. Is he trapped? Or could he leave if he wanted?
2018 MacBook Pro won't let me install macOS High Sierra 10.13 from USB installer
First paper to introduce the "principal-agent problem"
Weaponising the Grasp-at-a-Distance spell
Inverse square law not accurate for non-point masses?
When does a function NOT have an antiderivative?
Should man-made satellites feature an intelligent inverted "cow catcher"?
Is this Half dragon Quaggoth Balanced
How to evaluate this function?
“Destructive power” carried by a B-52?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Why is Thailand considered an Axis power in WWII?How did Hitler behave towards all those whom he knew in his childhood and youth after he rose to power?What is the equivalent buying power of one 1945 Reichsmark in 2016 Euros?Why was Spanish Fascist dictatorship left in power after World War II?What level of public support did Adolf Hitler have in his final year of power?Why did ZANU (instead of ZAPU) come to power after the Rhodesian Bush War?Was there a “European Balance of Power Strategy” for Anglo-American interests in between 1925 and 1935?Why was the Cold War carried out over the whole world instead of between Siberia and Alaska?Where can I find data on the amount of fuel carried by WWII Warships and what their operational ranges were?
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
edited 4 hours ago
LangLangC
27.1k587138
asked 4 hours ago
DaGDaG
279110
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
edited 4 hours ago
LangLangC
27.1k587138
asked 4 hours ago
DaGDaG
279110
1
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
59 mins ago
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
54 mins 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
edited 4 hours ago
LangLangC
27.1k587138
asked 4 hours ago
DaGDaG
279110
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
edited 4 hours ago
LangLangC
27.1k587138
asked 4 hours ago
DaGDaG
279110
edited 4 hours ago
LangLangC
27.1k587138
asked 4 hours ago
DaGDaG
279110
edited 4 hours ago
LangLangC
27.1k587138
edited 4 hours ago
LangLangC
27.1k587138
edited 4 hours ago
LangLangC
27.1k587138
27.1k587138
asked 4 hours ago
DaGDaG
279110
asked 4 hours ago
DaGDaG
279110
asked 4 hours ago
DaGDaG
279110
279110
1
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
59 mins ago
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
54 mins ago
add a comment |
1
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
59 mins ago
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
54 mins ago
1
1
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
59 mins ago
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
59 mins ago
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
54 mins ago
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
54 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. By 1957, these had yields measured in megatons.
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).
Therefore, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, then it's more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered 4 hours ago
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,55412030
2
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
4 hours ago
1
You beat me to it. :-)
– sempaiscuba♦
4 hours ago
Guys! You wonder? Look at the name? ;)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
2
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
2 hours ago
It’s probably worth noting somewhere that those 3.4 million tons of conventional weapons were something like 2 Mton yield total (I can’t find any exact sources on a quick search, just basing that on what appears to be an average yield=1/2 mass - could make a question in itself).
– alex_d
1 hour ago
add a comment |
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-power-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. By 1957, these had yields measured in megatons.
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).
Therefore, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, then it's more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered 4 hours ago
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,55412030
2
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
4 hours ago
1
You beat me to it. :-)
– sempaiscuba♦
4 hours ago
Guys! You wonder? Look at the name? ;)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
2
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
2 hours ago
It’s probably worth noting somewhere that those 3.4 million tons of conventional weapons were something like 2 Mton yield total (I can’t find any exact sources on a quick search, just basing that on what appears to be an average yield=1/2 mass - could make a question in itself).
– alex_d
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. By 1957, these had yields measured in megatons.
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).
Therefore, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, then it's more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered 4 hours ago
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,55412030
2
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
4 hours ago
1
You beat me to it. :-)
– sempaiscuba♦
4 hours ago
Guys! You wonder? Look at the name? ;)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
2
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
2 hours ago
It’s probably worth noting somewhere that those 3.4 million tons of conventional weapons were something like 2 Mton yield total (I can’t find any exact sources on a quick search, just basing that on what appears to be an average yield=1/2 mass - could make a question in itself).
– alex_d
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. By 1957, these had yields measured in megatons.
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).
Therefore, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, then it's more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered 4 hours ago
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,55412030
The B-52 was capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. By 1957, these had yields measured in megatons.
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).
Therefore, if you take the quoted 3.4 million tons of bombs as a starting point, then a single Mark 39 was (theoretically) more powerful than those combined. If you add a second, then it's more so.
The heavier Mark 36 nuclear bomb was also in service in this time period and one variant had a theoretical yield of up to 19 Megatons.
answered 4 hours ago
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,55412030
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,55412030
answered 4 hours ago
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,55412030
answered 4 hours ago
KillingTimeKillingTime
3,55412030
3,55412030
2
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
4 hours ago
1
You beat me to it. :-)
– sempaiscuba♦
4 hours ago
Guys! You wonder? Look at the name? ;)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
2
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
2 hours ago
It’s probably worth noting somewhere that those 3.4 million tons of conventional weapons were something like 2 Mton yield total (I can’t find any exact sources on a quick search, just basing that on what appears to be an average yield=1/2 mass - could make a question in itself).
– alex_d
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
4 hours ago
1
You beat me to it. :-)
– sempaiscuba♦
4 hours ago
Guys! You wonder? Look at the name? ;)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
2
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
2 hours ago
It’s probably worth noting somewhere that those 3.4 million tons of conventional weapons were something like 2 Mton yield total (I can’t find any exact sources on a quick search, just basing that on what appears to be an average yield=1/2 mass - could make a question in itself).
– alex_d
1 hour ago
2
2
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
4 hours ago
Nice work - you beat me to this. Here is a yield curve diagram.
– Pieter Geerkens
4 hours ago
1
1
You beat me to it. :-)
– sempaiscuba♦
4 hours ago
You beat me to it. :-)
– sempaiscuba♦
4 hours ago
Guys! You wonder? Look at the name? ;)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
Guys! You wonder? Look at the name? ;)
– LangLangC
4 hours ago
2
2
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
2 hours ago
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
2 hours ago
It’s probably worth noting somewhere that those 3.4 million tons of conventional weapons were something like 2 Mton yield total (I can’t find any exact sources on a quick search, just basing that on what appears to be an average yield=1/2 mass - could make a question in itself).
– alex_d
1 hour ago
It’s probably worth noting somewhere that those 3.4 million tons of conventional weapons were something like 2 Mton yield total (I can’t find any exact sources on a quick search, just basing that on what appears to be an average yield=1/2 mass - could make a question in itself).
– alex_d
1 hour ago
add a comment |
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-power-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
1
Because destructive force is not the same thing as tonnage.
– David Richerby
59 mins ago
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
54 mins ago