Explosions - Personal experiences?

[Voboy]

I remember reading about sieges in the US Civil War. Troops could indeed see incoming mortar bombs and got pretty good at predicting where they would land as they perceptibly drifted off to one side or the other, long or short of their own position. It was when that the ball in the air just seemed to hang in the air, not moving, just getting bigger and bigger...

You still can. I worked with both mortars and howitzers, and the shells fly slowly enough that you can definitely see them fly... if you're standing right behind the gun. Or if you're directly downrange and they're flying overhead; you can see them pass over. If you can see them then, when they're ascending, I'd imagine you'd easily be able to see them descending toward you if you knew which direction to look in.

Of course, as you point out, you probably wouldn't see them for long.

 

[gunhilltrain]

The aluminium superstructure was too light - to save weight above the waterline. It had virtually no resistance to an Exocet, which was basically a small missile. Any WW2 ship of that size would have ignored an Exocet, or even several Exocets. The General Belgrano, an ex-US WW2 cruiser, would have been unaffected by an Exocet.

And yes, the ships caught fire and the aluminium wasn't strong enough to contain the fire.

Later Royal Navy ships didn't use aluminium.

What is the modern capability of, say, China with anti-ship missiles? Aren't they bigger than Exocets by quite a bit? Wouldn't they fire a lot more of them at a time versus what the Argentinians did? Also, aren't a lot of them submarine based?

Also, aren't cruise missiles much more accurate than the earlier generations of missiles? Then there are torpedoes to consider, which have rarely been used in the last seventy-five years.

I guess I'm wondering what would happen if the U.S. Navy did tangle with the Chinese. I assume their main posture is defensive. We would have to go to them; they're not coming to our hemisphere anytime soon. I do hope that cooler heads prevail, but the U.S. does seem to be probing them, if that is the right term.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I guess I'm wondering what would happen if the U.S. Navy did tangle with the Chinese. I assume their main posture is defensive. We would have to go to them; they're not coming to our hemisphere anytime soon. I do hope that cooler heads prevail, but the U.S. does seem to be probing them, if that is the right term.

It was called "baiting the bear" during the last Cold War. It'll be "baiting the dragon" in this one. The South China Sea is the most dangerous playground right now.

 

[jaF0]

Since the thread is about 'Personal experiences' and not global affairs, has anyone been to a building implosion? I was at one of the first publicly announced ones back in the mid 80s. I was focused on getting pictures (pun intended) and do not remember much of a sound or shockwave, probably due to the nature of the targeted charges. More of a muffled rumble and some minor ground trembles at our viewing spot a half mile away.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I've been a hundred yards from building implosions (tower blocks being demolished), and they were astonishingly quiet. Hard to believe, but they just sort of buckled and fell with a mild rumble.

 

[oggbashan]

What is the modern capability of, say, China with anti-ship missiles? Aren't they bigger than Exocets by quite a bit? Wouldn't they fire a lot more of them at a time versus what the Argentinians did? Also, aren't a lot of them submarine based?

Also, aren't cruise missiles much more accurate than the earlier generations of missiles? Then there are torpedoes to consider, which have rarely been used in the last seventy-five years.

I guess I'm wondering what would happen if the U.S. Navy did tangle with the Chinese. I assume their main posture is defensive. We would have to go to them; they're not coming to our hemisphere anytime soon. I do hope that cooler heads prevail, but the U.S. does seem to be probing them, if that is the right term.

Modern missiles can be deflected by anti-missile technology or destroyed close in by Gatling guns.

Torpedoes? During the Falklands War, the General Belgrano was sunk by torpedo - A WW2 version instead of the more expensive late 20th Century version which could have been used.

Since WW2 aircraft have been more effective against ships than guns. The US has far more carriers and aircraft than the Chinese. They also have far more capable submarines. If it came to a shooting war, the Chinese Navy would be eliminated easily. The Chinese aircraft carrier is an ex-Soviet piece of junk, and their second one is a clone of that.

 

[oggbashan]

It was called "baiting the bear" during the last Cold War. It'll be "baiting the dragon" in this one. The South China Sea is the most dangerous playground right now.

The Russians are still playing this dangerous game in Europe now with obsolete aircraft and submarines. They probe European air space and coastal waters.

 

[VerityJane]

This one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Exchange_bombing woke me up rattled my windows when I was living in London 28 years ago. I was in Notting Hill; the Baltic Exchange was in the financial district six miles away. Fortunately it was a Saturday morning when there weren't many people about.

 

[Voboy]

I've been a hundred yards from building implosions (tower blocks being demolished), and they were astonishingly quiet. Hard to believe, but they just sort of buckled and fell with a mild rumble.

They don't need to use very many explosives on those. Just a few shaped charges placed well; they're not blowing up the whole building, just blowing up a few pillars, support columns, load-bearing walls, etc. Those guys are geniuses.

I learned once (and not well) how to blow up a steel bridge. I was astonished how little explosive it takes to do the job. It's all in where you put it.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Modern missiles can be deflected by anti-missile technology or destroyed close in by Gatling guns.

Torpedoes? During the Falklands War, the General Belgrano was sunk by torpedo - A WW2 version instead of the more expensive late 20th Century version which could have been used.

Since WW2 aircraft have been more effective against ships than guns. The US has far more carriers and aircraft than the Chinese. They also have far more capable submarines. If it came to a shooting war, the Chinese Navy would be eliminated easily. The Chinese aircraft carrier is an ex-Soviet piece of junk, and their second one is a clone of that.

Yes, I know about the Aegis defensive system and others. But could they catch them all if dozens of missiles were fired around the same time? It would only take a handful getting through to cause a lot of damage.

Wars are always full of surprises. I don't know what will happen in future ones. Apparently the Navy has war-gamed some scenarios, even with Iran as the enemy, and they weren't happy with the results.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The Russians are still playing this dangerous game in Europe now with obsolete aircraft and submarines. They probe European air space and coastal waters.

I suspect the pilots get to know one another.

I recall reading about a post Cold War submariners conference where a bunch of Russki and NATO boat drivers got together and started swapping stories. Several of them discovered the bloke they were talking to had been the commander of the other boat. The consensus seemed to be that they got very close indeed, including a couple of hull bumps and scrapes. Scary shit, one-hundred metres down, driving around quiet with your sonar array trailing out behind, looking for the other guy's baffle.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Yes, I know about the Aegis defensive system and others. But could they catch them all if dozens of missiles were fired around the same time? It would only take a handful getting through to cause a lot of damage.

Wars are always full of surprises. I don't know what will happen in future ones. Apparently the Navy has war-gamed some scenarios, even with Iran as the enemy, and they weren't happy with the results.

Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising (which I gather was for a while recommended reading at the US naval war college), has a couple of chapters on just this, descriptions of (then-Soviet) air attacks in NATO convoys and carrier groups. Spooky stuff for somebody (me) who gets seasick driving over small bridges.

It’s a layered defence, starting out with attacks on enemy carriers and airfields to thin out their potential, then fighter patrols to hit incoming aircraft as far out as possible, then missiles, then Gatlings and other artillery. Maybe lasers by now, who knows? All the while, spoofing systems and decoys try to get what’s incoming to go elsewhere. But, yeah, missiles are cheap and carriers are expensive.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising (which I gather was for a while recommended reading at the US naval war college), has a couple of chapters on just this, descriptions of (then-Soviet) air attacks in NATO convoys and carrier groups. Spooky stuff for somebody (me) who gets seasick driving over small bridges.

It’s a layered defence, starting out with attacks on enemy carriers and airfields to thin out their potential, then fighter patrols to hit incoming aircraft as far out as possible, then missiles, then Gatlings and other artillery. Maybe lasers by now, who knows? All the while, spoofing systems and decoys try to get what’s incoming to go elsewhere. But, yeah, missiles are cheap and carriers are expensive.

I don't have special expertise on this. Anyway, you wouldn't have to actually sink a carrier to cause quite a mess. A few cruise missiles - maybe only a couple - onto the flight deck when planes are landing or being launched might do it. I don't know if any other navy could actually do that. I suspect the Chinese and others have considered it.

I wouldn't underestimate the Chinese or any other opponent. The Chinese caught us off-guard once before - namely, in the Korean War. We had the air and sea power, but they won the war in the sense that North Korea was restored after virtually ceasing to exist by the end of 1950.