Re: [TML] It's a BIG one!

It's a BIG one! Phil Pugliese (13 Apr 2017 18:59 UTC)

Re: [TML] It's a BIG one! Kurt Feltenberger (13 Apr 2017 19:56 UTC)

Re: [TML] It's a BIG one! Postmark (14 Apr 2017 22:38 UTC)

Re: [TML] It's a BIG one! Rupert Boleyn (14 Apr 2017 22:50 UTC)

Re: [TML] It's a BIG one! Bruce Johnson (14 Apr 2017 23:27 UTC)

Re: [TML] It's a BIG one! Charles Brogdon (14 Apr 2017 23:16 UTC)

Re: [TML] It's a BIG one! Bruce Johnson (14 Apr 2017 23:25 UTC)

Re: [TML] It's a BIG one! Rupert Boleyn (15 Apr 2017 00:01 UTC)

Re: [TML] It's a BIG one! Michael Houghton (14 Apr 2017 23:50 UTC)

(missing)

(missing)

Re: [TML] It's a BIG one! Richard Aiken (19 Apr 2017 00:29 UTC)

Re: [TML] It's a BIG one! Rupert Boleyn (19 Apr 2017 00:59 UTC)

Re: [TML] It's a BIG one! Richard Aiken (19 Apr 2017 01:13 UTC)

Re: [TML] It's a BIG one! Rupert Boleyn 14 Apr 2017 22:50 UTC

On 15Apr2017 1038, Postmark wrote:

> I'm left wondering why the USAF designed and built such pointless bomb.
>
> If the target is on top of the ground, a number of smaller bombs would
> do the job.
>
> If the target is underground, one of Barnes Wallis's 10ton Grand Slam
> "Earthquake" bombs detonating 10's of metres underground would be more
> effective.
>
> I mean, it's not as if we didn't let you play with a couple in 1946.
>
> ;-)

The name everyone insists on using says it all. They wanted the biggest
and baddest bomb around.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief