MOAB

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3095
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: MOAB

#31

Post by Flightmare »

Image
Deplorable lunatic since 2016
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 18502
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: MOAB

#32

Post by Keith B »

mojo84 wrote:
Whether it is technically a MOAB or MOP, they both can be used for similar purpose which is bunker busting. Regardless, my point is the sensationalism of calling it the "mother of all bombs" is thick. Especially since the MOP is bigger. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive ... Penetrator
G26ster, that's what.
The MOP is only heavier by weight due to the thick steel needed to penetrate concrete. The blast is what makes the MOAB the Mother Of All (non-nuclear) Bombs. The MOP's blast is less than 20% by weight of the bomb, compared to almost 90% of the MOAB. Much bigger boom per pound than a MOP.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 9043
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: MOAB

#33

Post by mojo84 »

Keith B wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Whether it is technically a MOAB or MOP, they both can be used for similar purpose which is bunker busting. Regardless, my point is the sensationalism of calling it the "mother of all bombs" is thick. Especially since the MOP is bigger. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive ... Penetrator
G26ster, that's what.
The MOP is only heavier by weight due to the thick steel needed to penetrate concrete. The blast is what makes the MOAB the Mother Of All (non-nuclear) Bombs. The MOP's blast is less than 20% by weight of the bomb, compared to almost 90% of the MOAB. Much bigger boom per pound than a MOP.
I understand that. I've read the Wikipedia articles also.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 18502
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: MOAB

#34

Post by Keith B »

mojo84 wrote:
Keith B wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Whether it is technically a MOAB or MOP, they both can be used for similar purpose which is bunker busting. Regardless, my point is the sensationalism of calling it the "mother of all bombs" is thick. Especially since the MOP is bigger. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive ... Penetrator
G26ster, that's what.
The MOP is only heavier by weight due to the thick steel needed to penetrate concrete. The blast is what makes the MOAB the Mother Of All (non-nuclear) Bombs. The MOP's blast is less than 20% by weight of the bomb, compared to almost 90% of the MOAB. Much bigger boom per pound than a MOP.
I understand that. I've read the Wikipedia articles also.
Then you would have to agree it is the Mother Of All Bombs dropped since WWII. :thumbs2:
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 9043
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: MOAB

#35

Post by mojo84 »

Keith B wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Keith B wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Whether it is technically a MOAB or MOP, they both can be used for similar purpose which is bunker busting. Regardless, my point is the sensationalism of calling it the "mother of all bombs" is thick. Especially since the MOP is bigger. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive ... Penetrator
G26ster, that's what.
The MOP is only heavier by weight due to the thick steel needed to penetrate concrete. The blast is what makes the MOAB the Mother Of All (non-nuclear) Bombs. The MOP's blast is less than 20% by weight of the bomb, compared to almost 90% of the MOAB. Much bigger boom per pound than a MOP.
I understand that. I've read the Wikipedia articles also.
Then you would have to agree it is the Mother Of All Bombs dropped since WWII. :thumbs2:
I believe calling it that is sensationalism. Am I not allowed to have that opinion?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
User avatar

thatguyoverthere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:51 pm
Location: Fannin County

Re: MOAB

#36

Post by thatguyoverthere »

Speaking of...

I'm proud to say I had a very, very small part in working on the initial "bunker buster" used in Iraq. I worked on the Paveway laser guided bomb project, which was the guidance unit used for this initial bunker buster. Three weeks (3 weeks!) from initial idea to bombs away! Amazing stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 18502
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: MOAB

#37

Post by Keith B »

mojo84 wrote:
Keith B wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Keith B wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Whether it is technically a MOAB or MOP, they both can be used for similar purpose which is bunker busting. Regardless, my point is the sensationalism of calling it the "mother of all bombs" is thick. Especially since the MOP is bigger. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive ... Penetrator
G26ster, that's what.
The MOP is only heavier by weight due to the thick steel needed to penetrate concrete. The blast is what makes the MOAB the Mother Of All (non-nuclear) Bombs. The MOP's blast is less than 20% by weight of the bomb, compared to almost 90% of the MOAB. Much bigger boom per pound than a MOP.
I understand that. I've read the Wikipedia articles also.
Then you would have to agree it is the Mother Of All Bombs dropped since WWII. :thumbs2:
I believe calling it that is sensationalism. Am I not allowed to have that opinion?
Sure you are, but so is everyone else to theirs.

I assume you would have to agree that is the largest ordnance device we currently have ever deployed since WWII. And the nickname was not given to it by the media, it was tagged to it by the people who work with it. Even the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were given nicknames.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 9043
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: MOAB

#38

Post by mojo84 »

Keith B wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Keith B wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Keith B wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Whether it is technically a MOAB or MOP, they both can be used for similar purpose which is bunker busting. Regardless, my point is the sensationalism of calling it the "mother of all bombs" is thick. Especially since the MOP is bigger. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive ... Penetrator
G26ster, that's what.
The MOP is only heavier by weight due to the thick steel needed to penetrate concrete. The blast is what makes the MOAB the Mother Of All (non-nuclear) Bombs. The MOP's blast is less than 20% by weight of the bomb, compared to almost 90% of the MOAB. Much bigger boom per pound than a MOP.
I understand that. I've read the Wikipedia articles also.
Then you would have to agree it is the Mother Of All Bombs dropped since WWII. :thumbs2:
I believe calling it that is sensationalism. Am I not allowed to have that opinion?
Sure you are, but so is everyone else to theirs.

I assume you would have to agree that is the largest ordnance device we currently have ever deployed since WWII. And the nickname was not given to it by the media, it was tagged to it by the people who work with it. Even the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were given nicknames.
I'm not the one that corrected anyone's opinion based on Wikipedia articles. Many are saying it's the "largest" non-nuclear bomb. I pointed out it is not the largest. It may be the most powerful non-nuclear bomb and I have not dusputed that. Regardless who dubbed it the " Mother of all bombs:, I believe that is sensationalism. That's my point.

In my opinion, a nuclear bomb would more accurately be considered the mother of all bombs. That is my opinion. It's also my opinion some enjoy correcting others whether or not it is warranted or necessary.

Bockscar and Ebola Gay dropping Fat Man and Little Boy doesn't sound near as sensational as "mother of all bombs".
http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/h ... anes-crews

Enjoy your evening and have a good Easter.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 18502
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: MOAB

#39

Post by Keith B »

mojo84 wrote:
I'm not the one that corrected anyone's opinion based on Wikipedia articles. Many are saying it's the "largest" non-nuclear bomb. I pointed out it is not the largest. It may be the most powerful non-nuclear bomb and I have not dusputed that. Regardless who dubbed it the " Mother of all bombs:, I believe that is sensationalism. That's my point.

In my opinion, a nuclear bomb would more accurately be considered the mother of all bombs. That is my opinion. It's also my opinion some enjoy correcting others whether or not it is warranted or necessary.

Bockscar and Ebola Gay dropping Fat Man and Little Boy doesn't sound near as sensational as "mother of all bombs".
http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/h ... anes-crews

Enjoy your evening and have a good Easter.
Wasn't trying to 'correct an opinion', just clarified that it was not what was being called the 'bunker buster' in previous use by previous administrations. New, bigger boom, and different type of bomb that's never been used in combat before.

And, while it may be sensationalism, it is just what it is called, and many believe the term fits, even if you don't. Easily remembered alternate names for acronyms are frequently given to all types of things, some accurate and some not so accurate. In this case, it's the biggest one used, so that's what they call it. And it sends a message to the Fat Man in NK that the current administration is not afraid to use force, up to dropping a new 'Fat Man' if it is needed to stop aggression and threats to our country, its people and our allies.

My last response. Hope you have a good Easter as well. He is risen!!
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4

MeMelYup
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: MOAB

#40

Post by MeMelYup »

Isn't it because nuclear is in another cat Igor You?
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5072
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: MOAB

#41

Post by ScottDLS »

philip964 wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/worl ... .html?_r=0

Former President Hamid Karzai objects to weapons testing on his countrymen.

How did this guy end up with our support? Do I blame Obama?
I object to aircraft being tested against tall buildings at the direction Bin Laden while being harbored by Karzai's countrymen....after even the Yemenis kicked him out... :mad5
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
User avatar

AdioSS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:02 am
Location: 75707

Re: MOAB

#42

Post by AdioSS »

And today I saw reports that the initial report of 36 was very low. The MOAB collapsed lots of tunnels & supposedly destroyed a munitions depo. The body count has risen to close to 100 and is expected to keep going up.

crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2453
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: MOAB

#43

Post by crazy2medic »

Just a FYI, this thing generates 142 psi of overpressure, that is 1,308,672 psi in a 4'×8' area!
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention
Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here- John Parker

mrvmax
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2023
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:16 pm
Location: Friendswood

Re: MOAB

#44

Post by mrvmax »

mojo84 wrote:
Keith B wrote:
mojo84 wrote:During previous administrations it was referred to as a "bunker buster". Now it is being referred to as the "mother of all bombs" (MOAB). Seems like the sensationalism is being ratcheted up some.
Not the same bomb, but same family of bombs. This one is a Massive Ordinance Air Blast (MOAB) and detonates above the ground. The force caves in tunnels and caves below ground.

Bunker Busters, or MOP's (Massive Ordinance Penetrator's) actually penetrate the ground and go deep below the surface before detonating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_O ... Penetrator
Whether it is technically a MOAB or MOP, they both can be used for similar purpose which is bunker busting. Regardless, my point is the sensationalism of calling it the "mother of all bombs" is thick. Especially since the MOP is bigger. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive ... Penetrator
G26ster, that's what.
Most people would classify size, when referring to bombs, as the amount of explosive they contain, not the total weight. Having a 50000 pound bomb with 1000 pounds of explosive would be irrelevant and nobody would consider it the largest. The explosive content is why it has the nickname and using that i do it is the largest non nuclear.
Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”