On Sep 9, 7:35=A0am, SolomonW wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:19:26 +0200, Michele wrote:
> > "Carey" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> >> This means that each individual bomb creates a significant zone of let=
hal
> >> gas coverage, and it does so regardless of where it lands. If one drop=
s
> >> 2000 tons of these bombs (a large bombing raid) then 4000 hectares are
> >> covered with these clouds (some 15 square miles).
>
> > I think the other poster's point is that there will be overlapping clou=
ds.
> > And it's a fair point.
>
> >> Very rough bombing accuracy suffices for this sort of attack.
>
> > And that balances the overlapping.
>
> One characteristic of WW2 firebombing like in Tokyo was that the fires
> created enormous winds. I am not sure what it would do to these gas cloud=
s.
The number one opportunity for using gas in the Pacific would have
been against tactical targets - Betio, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Kyushu,
etc. ; going after civilian populations would have been a whole
'nother kettle of fish.
But the convection effects of a fire bombing would disrupt the gas
clouds and disperse them fairly quickly. If the objective is to gas
the population you would probably not fire bomb at the same time. If
gas is being used as an adjunct to a fire raid, to suppress fire
fighting efforts, then it wouldn't matter.
|
