robdab wrote:If we assume that Neosho and Ramapo are b...
You hit it on the head OP. If we assume that pigs had wings... :roll: :roll:OpanaPointer wrote:How about we start with the Japanese having an atomic bomb, eh?
All being points just recently discussed here save for your 4th, which was originally suggested here by Chris, ... do you suggest that one bomb could both start AND blow out a fire at the same time ? Does sucking and blowing really exist ?gurn wrote:Different materials used? Perhaps a different ratio of ingredients? Also parked planes would likely have av gas in them, with a much different flash point than oil. Final thought- could the larger explosion actually blow out fires ?
Boxing day musings.
robdab wrote:.All being points just recently discussed here save for your 4th, which was originally suggested here by Chris, ... do you suggest that one bomb could both start AND blow out a fire at the same time ? Does sucking and blowing really exist ?gurn wrote:Different materials used? Perhaps a different ratio of ingredients? Also parked planes would likely have av gas in them, with a much different flash point than oil. Final thought- could the larger explosion actually blow out fires ?
Boxing day musings.
My scenario has always been that a single KB "Val" divebomber would attack each large fuel storage tank separately, releasing 1 x 250kg tankbuster AND 2 x 33 kg incendiary bombs on each tank, to ensure ignition of the fuel within. There would be no intentional 2nd 250kg detonation on any already ignited storage tank.
I am aware of oil well fireflighters who have used very precisely crane placed explosive charges immediately beside a flaming wellhead pipe to momentarily starve an oil fire of all oxygen but in a dropped bomb situation over a large pool of flaming oil, I would doubt that all of the oxygen could be blown away from all of the flames ... perhaps you provide a source which describes when and where that such a bomb has historically accomplished what you suggest ?
As much as I hate to use wiki as a source for anything, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_well_fire provides a basic introduction to explosive based oil fire fighting techniques ...
.
Total destruction would have not impacted immediate defensive operations, convoys, and raids – these could have been accomplished from California, and since the IJN didn’t return to the eastern Pac in strength until June 1942, it hardly mattered.And it's all irrelevant anyway, the total destruction of the fuel onhand would not have hampered USN operations.
That would be an efficient temporary solution, but I wonder if available barge resources would have been more than a fraction of the original tank storage capacity.The barges and pontoons acted as floating warehouses, were cheap, plentiful, and easy to manufacture.
Sorry, but look again. The second chart is also for "December 1941 to..." it is not for "all of 1941". That is an accident-to-total loss rate of 29/175 = 16.57% for that month, which is more congruent with most air forces experience during the war. For example, the USAAF lost 13,873 aircraft to accidents alone during World War II (45 months). Total losses to all causes was 65,164. So 21.29% of the total were due to accidents.glenn239 wrote:The second graph gives total losses for these types in 1941 as - is it 175? I can't make it out. It's interesting because this second figure is all of 1941, hence includes the peacetime attrition rate. If it says 175, then that's about 30 aircraft lost on an operational strength of around 605 aircraft over 8 months of 1941 peacetime flying, or an annual attrition rate (peacetime accidents and wear-out) of about 6.5% of strength.
