|
|
Post by mrfatso on May 11, 2014 16:35:22 GMT
Plastic explosives have been in use since WW2, and these are the basis for modern breaching charges. So in theory yes, period (60's) technology would have been up to just blowing the doors off. IIRC didn't the Germans use breaching charges against fortifications on the Maginot line? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 11, 2014 18:47:11 GMT
Plastic explosives have been in use since WW2, and these are the basis for modern breaching charges. So in theory yes, period (60's) technology would have been up to just blowing the doors off. IIRC didn't the Germans use breaching charges against fortifications on the Maginot line? As far as I know they dealt with the Maginot line by simply going around it, or at least the few sections that were fortified. (Most of the line existed only on maps, or appears to have been a small wooden post with 'please don't attack us from this direction' written on it.) Not to say that the German's didn't have or use breaching charges, just that I'm not aware of them using them. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 11, 2014 22:32:19 GMT
The overall German strategy in WWII rendered the Maginot Line a moot point.
The French military leadership was convinced that it would be impossible for Hitler to move his heavy armor through the thick forests of the Alsace-Lorraine region, and with the Maginot Line protecting the south they figured that any German assault would likely come from the north, through the comparatively flat terrain of Belgium and the Netherlands. To this end, the bulk of the French forces were positioned up along the border.
A low-ranking French officer saw the folly of this distribution, as it left untrained reserve units and under-equipped second-line units to garrison the central part of the nation. He begged for additional men and material, but the French high command wouldn't hear of it. They were so convinced that Hitler was going to come from the north - even after their scouts on the ground said that something was going on in the forests - that the man's words were ignored.
Unfortunately for France, Hitler knew full well that the French high command was expecting him to come from the north, and so his generals hatched a plan to come through the forest. German units would be sent north to skirmish the French lines, thereby making the French high command think that they were correct. While this was going on, a specially-selected and trained German unit would blitz through the lightly defended center. By the time the French high command realized what had happened, it was far too late: the speed with which the Germans traveled and the confusion among the poorly-trained reservists resulted in the German forces capturing a key road bridge. Within 24 hours of the first shots being fired, the German military now had a corridor right into the heart of France itself.
Once the German forces began to pour through the breach, it was simply a matter of cutting the French forces in the north off from the French forces in the south - including those in the Maginot Line - and picking them off at their leisure.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on May 11, 2014 22:38:22 GMT
The Germans did make some diversionary assaults against the Maginot line to tie down defenders, but I think the battle I am actually thinking of was in Belgium at Fort Eben-Emael, where German Glider troops assaulted the position and took it in about 15-30 minutes depending on which account you believe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Eben-Emael |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 12, 2014 0:03:01 GMT
The Maginot Line was more fiction than reality, as money to build it simply ran out - along it seems with any will to finish it.
The sections we see in pictures (and today) were the very small parts of the line that were completed, which were advertised widely as propaganda but turned out to be the only sections that were actually finished.
In late 1939/early 1940 a British Hurricane pilot stationed in France noticed a large group of French soldiers going past the airfield with shovels and wheel barrows. He stopped one of the French officers, asking what the troops were doing only to be told 'Oh, we're off to build the Maginot Line...'
So the 'Mighty Maginot Line' in that part of France was basically a couple of rolls of barbed wire and a ditch. You know, the exact same type of defences tanks had been designed to counter.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on May 12, 2014 0:45:48 GMT
True but there where some stronger points that where constructed in the line, and given French tactical and strategic thinking it probably made some sense to focus their attention there.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on May 12, 2014 17:22:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 13, 2014 5:33:45 GMT
Plastic explosives have been in use since WW2, and these are the basis for modern breaching charges. So in theory yes, period (60's) technology would have been up to just blowing the doors off. Plastic, yes, but plastic shaped charges?.. such as the copper V shaped charge that will "Cut"?... I dont think they had the knowledge of precision demolition back as far as then. We may have had the stuff, but did we know what we know now in how to use it?... That is the question....?.... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 13, 2014 5:40:21 GMT
for the Avgas question, it depends on the Avgas. Avgas for a piston engine airplane is gasoline with an octane rating around 105. an standard automobile engine will run just fine on it. a highly tuned automobile engine will be able to be tuned a little bit higher without experiencing engine knock. as far as the exploding dragster engine, I will give you an anecdote I came up with as a kid: "with my windup cars, I noticed that the tighter I wound them, the faster they went. but I also noticed if I wound them too tight, they broke." the advanced faster burning fuels just allow them to spin the engine faster to get more horsepower out of the same size box of holes. superchargers just allow them to stuff more fire into the holes. the balancing act is getting enough fire into the box to make the car go fast without blowing the lid off the box. testing the fuel limits of an automobile engine would certainly be entertaining and educational. So, stick it in the tank, and do an enthusiastic "Burnout" start, all taps fully open.... Will it just rev faster to the engine limiter, or will it "Blow"...... To be honest, I dont think an Un-Tinkered Un-Fettled average family car will do anything. Its the same as "Super" style petrol that is sometimes sold... I have been told by Toyota that my engine will not benefit much from those high octane rating, as my engine will get the best out of normal rating, and its just not highly tuned enough as it is to use higher octane. I can "Tune it up", but then, my petrol per mile gets more expensive, even though I may get there faster... but we have speed camera's... ....... so all I will have a more expensive photogenic car.... Would that class as a "Fail"...?... So back to back-yard boy racers. Will they explode their engines?... Preferably, yes, as it will keep them from racing up the road..... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 13, 2014 5:47:24 GMT
Linear shaped charges, that is what I was trying to remember when I wrote above posts referring to shaped demolition charges... They send a "Knife" of hot (magma) copper through the steel they are strapped to. It may start off "V" shaped, but is flattened by the charge and sent out at a controllable rate of knots that is very precise in its cutting action. It can also be bent slightly to take care of cylindrical structures.... But is this knowledge available to the rough-necks that were doing that Italian job in the film?... Strikes me that the character playing the demo "Expert" is more drip under pressure that ex-military?... Not exactly the sharpest pencil in the box?.... |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on May 13, 2014 15:02:45 GMT
Linear shaped charges, that is what I was trying to remember when I wrote above posts referring to shaped demolition charges... They send a "Knife" of hot (magma) copper through the steel they are strapped to. It may start off "V" shaped, but is flattened by the charge and sent out at a controllable rate of knots that is very precise in its cutting action. It can also be bent slightly to take care of cylindrical structures.... But is this knowledge available to the rough-necks that were doing that Italian job in the film?... Strikes me that the character playing the demo "Expert" is more drip under pressure that ex-military?... Not exactly the sharpest pencil in the box?.... Cutting charges/breaching charges have been in use , long before the invention of state of the art, V channels and such. You don't need a V channel to cut steel with plastic explosives. The V channel just makes it more efficient and uses less explosive. In demo training, I cut a section of 1 inch thick, steel I beam, with nothing more than 1 1/2 pounds of C4, rolled into a rope, a detonating cap, det cord, time fuse and a fuse igniter. It cut the steel like a torch, only much faster. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 13, 2014 15:23:59 GMT
The Panzerfaust used a shaped charge (although this wasn't in service until 1943), so the principles were well known by WW2 - and if you read the link former provided you'll realise that the principle was well known for over 50 years before then.
Such principles *should* have been well known to an explosives expert by the 60's, and in fact should probably have been well known to anyone who used explosives frequently by that date. (Even civilian's who used explosives should have known about it, since it is much more efficient and hence often cheaper as you use less explosives).
SilverDragon might be right that the guy in the film is meant to be less familiar with explosives than he let on. Or it is possible that his training/experience was with a different type of explosive. It is possible, for example, that he was used to working with Semtex (which dates from 1964, the film is set in 1969), but was using (say) Composition B explosives (which might have been a lot easier to get hold of.) If that were the case he may have simply badly underestimated the power of the older explosive - especially if it was old and presumed to be of questionable quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 13, 2014 15:39:27 GMT
for the Avgas question, it depends on the Avgas. Avgas for a piston engine airplane is gasoline with an octane rating around 105. an standard automobile engine will run just fine on it. a highly tuned automobile engine will be able to be tuned a little bit higher without experiencing engine knock. as far as the exploding dragster engine, I will give you an anecdote I came up with as a kid: "with my windup cars, I noticed that the tighter I wound them, the faster they went. but I also noticed if I wound them too tight, they broke." the advanced faster burning fuels just allow them to spin the engine faster to get more horsepower out of the same size box of holes. superchargers just allow them to stuff more fire into the holes. the balancing act is getting enough fire into the box to make the car go fast without blowing the lid off the box. testing the fuel limits of an automobile engine would certainly be entertaining and educational. So, stick it in the tank, and do an enthusiastic "Burnout" start, all taps fully open.... Will it just rev faster to the engine limiter, or will it "Blow"...... To be honest, I dont think an Un-Tinkered Un-Fettled average family car will do anything. Its the same as "Super" style petrol that is sometimes sold... I have been told by Toyota that my engine will not benefit much from those high octane rating, as my engine will get the best out of normal rating, and its just not highly tuned enough as it is to use higher octane. I can "Tune it up", but then, my petrol per mile gets more expensive, even though I may get there faster... but we have speed camera's... ....... so all I will have a more expensive photogenic car.... Would that class as a "Fail"...?... So back to back-yard boy racers. Will they explode their engines?... Preferably, yes, as it will keep them from racing up the road..... that is the official answer given me by someone who allegedly understood the principles of the infernal combustion engine. higher octane gasoline contains no more energy per gallon than low octane gasoline. the only difference is it is less likely to go bang under high compression firing. - which means that, yes, you are actually more likely to damage an engine with low octane gas than high octane. in the case of my Jeep - it must have high octane gas, or it will hurt itself. I could detune it for low octane gas, but then I would be decreasing the performance - and I didn't buy it for fuel economy. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on May 14, 2014 10:22:25 GMT
The Panzerfaust used a shaped charge (although this wasn't in service until 1943), so the principles were well known by WW2 - and if you read the link former provided you'll realise that the principle was well known for over 50 years before then. Such principles *should* have been well known to an explosives expert by the 60's, and in fact should probably have been well known to anyone who used explosives frequently by that date. (Even civilian's who used explosives should have known about it, since it is much more efficient and hence often cheaper as you use less explosives). SilverDragon might be right that the guy in the film is meant to be less familiar with explosives than he let on. Or it is possible that his training/experience was with a different type of explosive. It is possible, for example, that he was used to working with Semtex (which dates from 1964, the film is set in 1969), but was using (say) Composition B explosives (which might have been a lot easier to get hold of.) If that were the case he may have simply badly underestimated the power of the older explosive - especially if it was old and presumed to be of questionable quality. Given the age of the Film and the Character involved , the most likely situation is that he was someone who undertook demolitions training in some form during his period of National Service, every man aged 17-21 had to do 18 months in the armed forces until it ended in 1963, so someone aged about thirty in 1969 would have been in this cohort, and used this knowledge in criminal enterprises afterward. His training would therefore not be up to date. |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on May 21, 2014 18:32:15 GMT
Playing catch-up here.
Silverdragon said:
Perchloroethylene is non-flammable, though I'm surprised your boss let you clean up the spill without respirators. Petroleum-based solvents are as flammable as you'd expect, cleaning machines designed to use petroleum have added bits to keep static electricity from setting off any residual fumes in the drum. But the guys have already done "make petroleum fumes go boom".
Cyber brought up whether one could sabotage a weapon by replacing the gunpowder in the cartridges with explosives, and TLW replied:
When my local police have a gun "buy-back" day, last I heard any guns that could be proven to have been stolen went back to the original owner and everything else was destroyed. This probably isn't the usual method of destroying a gun, but since the MBs would be working under police supervision for this one why not ask if they have guns that need to be destroyed?
Cyber also posted the short film "More Dangerous Than Dynamite". [tangent] Which the RiffTrax crew took on during a short film festival, with special guest riffer Adam Savage. I'll see if I can get a link. [/tangent] Warnings about not putting gasoline or gas-soaked items are still being put on washing machines. This one has some real promise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 21, 2014 21:22:34 GMT
Not sure if I got around to posting it, but I did some research on the exploding bullet and it turns out it was true. So technically its not a myth, although I'd suspect that few people would realise this, or think of C4 when you say 'high explosive' - they used something very different.
I think the traditional way to destroy guns is to dump them in a furnace. The local police might be willing to let them use guns listed for destruction, although I wonder if that might not require permission from a judge (and they would get thrown in the furnace anyway).
I'd suspect that it would be faster to ask local law enforcement if they can buy weapons that have been seized in raids and would have been sold at auction rather than destroyed.
Not that it matters, MB have their ways and means of getting their hands on the firearms they need for testing and as 'Finger in a barrel' showed they can clearly get weapons they can afford to destroy.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulsee on May 24, 2014 15:43:13 GMT
heard a couple that might be interesting :
1. You do no hear the artillery round that hits you. (Heard it in a movie about the Winter war in Finland vs Russia. A veteran Finnish NCO loudly proclaimed to the new recruits not to worry about the artillery sounds because you would not hear the one that kills you (or something to that effect). The MB team can visit an army base and use microphones as targets to see if it is really true. (Unsure if this is really practical)
2. While there, they can also test that you distinguish incoming vs outgoing artillery rounds or do you hear nothing at all?
3. Does explosives, (disregarding the shrapnel), do less damage in a vacuum vs normal atmosphere. The MB team can use a firecracker in a vacuum and test it against shock sensors? Might not be practical because of the size of the vacuum chamber, unless NASA will allow the MB team to test it in their vacuum chamber.
4. In old movies, we see heroes disable ball bomb fuses by placing their hands in their mouths and using the saliva to quench the fuse. I know this would probably work, but should be fun to see.
5. Not exactly an explosive myth, but more like heat and fire. In movies we see the heroes hide behind walls to survive fire coming their way. (e.g. The Hobbit where the dragon spews fire at the heroes, and each one of them hides behind a wall.) I wonder if this is true or just movie magic? The MB team can try this using a flamethrower and some dummies behind some walls.
Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 24, 2014 16:03:22 GMT
heard a couple that might be interesting : 1. You do no hear the artillery round that hits you. (Heard it in a movie about the Winter war in Finland vs Russia. A veteran Finnish NCO loudly proclaimed to the new recruits not to worry about the artillery sounds because you would not hear the one that kills you (or something to that effect). The MB team can visit an army base and use microphones as targets to see if it is really true. (Unsure if this is really practical) 2. While there, they can also test that you distinguish incoming vs outgoing artillery rounds or do you hear nothing at all? 3. Does explosives, (disregarding the shrapnel), do less damage in a vacuum vs normal atmosphere. The MB team can use a firecracker in a vacuum and test it against shock sensors? Might not be practical because of the size of the vacuum chamber, unless NASA will allow the MB team to test it in their vacuum chamber. 4. In old movies, we see heroes disable ball bomb fuses by placing their hands in their mouths and using the saliva to quench the fuse. I know this would probably work, but should be fun to see. 5. Not exactly an explosive myth, but more like heat and fire. In movies we see the heroes hide behind walls to survive fire coming their way. (e.g. The Hobbit where the dragon spews fire at the heroes, and each one of them hides behind a wall.) I wonder if this is true or just movie magic? The MB team can try this using a flamethrower and some dummies behind some walls. Hope this helps 1; I've heard this one before as well, and I think there is some substance to this if the shell is travelling at supersonic speeds. A more interesting take/addition is that there is a story of a dog that stayed with an infantry unit in WW1. The story goes that the dog started off my mimicking his human friends by diving for cover when they heard a shell coming in, but then started ducking down for no apparent reason. It didn't take long for the troops to realise that the dog could hear incoming shells long before they could, so when the dog dived for cover so did they. 5; Also seen in Skyfall and Independence day, to name but two. This is something of a classic movie trope (or has become one) where the good guys survive a fireball by ducking into a side passage to avoid the blast. One element of this that might be difficult to test is if the good guy should have been suffocated as the passing fire uses up all the oxygen. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 25, 2014 0:26:27 GMT
we'd discussed explosion in a vacuum before and there were concerns about damaging the vacuum chamber. I do like the artillery ones. it would probably require some collusion with the military. And if it gives results it might require some creative editing. addendum: by which I mean if they get a distinctive prealert sound, they may not want to be too specific about what it is.
I also like the hiding from fire trope - usually the biggest problem with being too close to fire is not lack of oxygen - it is presence of other stuff - including the heat involved. and those are testable.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on May 25, 2014 4:23:37 GMT
heard a couple that might be interesting : 1. You do no hear the artillery round that hits you. (Heard it in a movie about the Winter war in Finland vs Russia. A veteran Finnish NCO loudly proclaimed to the new recruits not to worry about the artillery sounds because you would not hear the one that kills you (or something to that effect). The MB team can visit an army base and use microphones as targets to see if it is really true. (Unsure if this is really practical) 2. While there, they can also test that you distinguish incoming vs outgoing artillery rounds or do you hear nothing at all? 3. Does explosives, (disregarding the shrapnel), do less damage in a vacuum vs normal atmosphere. The MB team can use a firecracker in a vacuum and test it against shock sensors? Might not be practical because of the size of the vacuum chamber, unless NASA will allow the MB team to test it in their vacuum chamber. 4. In old movies, we see heroes disable ball bomb fuses by placing their hands in their mouths and using the saliva to quench the fuse. I know this would probably work, but should be fun to see. 5. Not exactly an explosive myth, but more like heat and fire. In movies we see the heroes hide behind walls to survive fire coming their way. (e.g. The Hobbit where the dragon spews fire at the heroes, and each one of them hides behind a wall.) I wonder if this is true or just movie magic? The MB team can try this using a flamethrower and some dummies behind some walls. Hope this helps 1. Depends on the velocity of the round as it is coming in. While most heavy artillery, like 105mm, 8 inch or 155mm, will be fired with a muzzle velocity that is typically greater than the speed of sound, they will often be slowed to less than the speed of sound, before they reach the vicinity of the target. Incoming rounds make a hissing/sputtering sound as the move through the air, towards you're vicinity. Mortars which are subsonic munitions from muzzle to impact will make a hissing/sputtering sound coming in . Heavy artillery rounds going over your position, make a loud whooshing/whining sound. Mortars going over make a less loud whooshing/whining, with a fluttery sound added if the munitions are tail fin stabilized. 2. Distinguishing incoming from outgoing is not a problem as long as you know where friendly arty/mortars are located. You can tell by the direction the rounds are coming from if it is yours or theirs. Also, in many cases, you can actually hear the guns fire, even if miles away, so you'll know if it is yours or theirs that. Especially with mortars, as their range is much shorter. |
|
