how many points would a daisy cutter be in CM?

[CMplayer]

Seriously, I can't understand all this talk in the media about 'daisy cutters'. What kind of effect could it have on a typical CM battlefield? Could it be modelled using the game's 'blast value'? How many points would a one-shot daisy cutter spotter be worth?

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]</p>

[Soddball]

You do realise that the Taleban have hired Finnish infantry - the only ones proven to resist Daisy Cutter attacks. They use the blast to cook their rancid salted fish.

Incidentally, wasn't the 22,000lb "Earthquake Bomb" used by the British in the war one of the largest? I know it doesn't come close to the Daisy Cutter in terms of explosiveness, but it's still a whopper. Used to knock down a viaduct, I think.

[109 Gustav]

Give me a minute and I'll run a comparison to 14" shells.

[newlife]

First, that blast will have a radius of 866 meters. That means the whole battlefield on most of your smaller QBs. Your spotter better be at least a km away from the target. If you ever saw the movie "Breakout" this bomb would be similar. I would put an estimate of 2000pts or more for one. I'm sure someone here knows more than I do.

[109 Gustav]

10,212 points.

A veteran 14" spotter costs 916 points, or 92 points per round. I chose vets because I'm assuming green and regular troops aren't allowed to play with this much boom.

I tested the size of the blast, and found that one round has a blast radius of roughly 75m. Therefore the area of the blast is 17671 square meters.

(For Dorosh and other morons, I found that by multiplying pi*radius squared.)

The daisy cutter has a blast of radius of 790m (I converted from feet), and a blast area of 1,960,668 square meters. Therefore, the daisy cutter is 111 times as powerful as a 14" shell. (1960668/17671=111) 111*92 points= 10212 points.

Note that these calculations are not perfect; I rounded on each step like you're never ever supposed to do.

Of course, there's other factors in finding point values other than blast area. Since it's from an airplane there's a chance that the plane won't show up, or it'll bomb your own troops. :eek: Besides, I was using calculations based on June '44, which don't reflect the added points from having tungsten daisy cutters which were only avalible after September '44.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: 109 Gustav ]</p>

[Chad Harrison]

thats soo gamey though! they never used that on the western front more than twice. no wonder you always win!

one FO for a c130 daisy cutter against 3 german battalions with support. talk about one shot one kill

[Soddball]

Gustav, truly you belong in the grog thread. I for one welcome the fact that you are ensconced in there rather than disturbing reality out here. Although you are out here - so Avaunt! back to where you belong.

[Ellros]

I think we'll get another taste of large blast weapons (besides naval artillery) in CMBB with the SturmTiger and its rocket shell.

[gredeker]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Soddball:

Incidentally, wasn't the 22,000lb "Earthquake Bomb" used by the British in the war one of the largest? I know it doesn't come close to the Daisy Cutter in terms of explosiveness, but it's still a whopper. Used to knock down a viaduct, I think.<hr></blockquote>

IIRC, this bomb, also known as the Grand Slam, was the largest brainchild of British scientist Barnes Wallis, who also invented the 12,000 lb Tall Boy bomb and the skipping Dam Buster bomb. I do remember that it was the Tall Boys that finished off the Tirpitz, scoring direct hits that pierced through all the armor layers and hull of the ship, then exploding underneath her and cracking her back. Also IIRC, the 22,000 Grand Slam was primarily an AP bomb, designed to penetrate some huge distance into the ground (I want to say 60 or 80 feet) then cause a small earthquake that actually takes out the target. I think it was actually designed to take out the previously impregnable U-boat pens on the French coast. Sorry, no references handy, I'm at work...

P.S. Is the Daisy Cutter a FAE munition?

[Merkin Muffley]

Soddball - Barnes Wallis designed the Grand Slam bomb and at 22,000lb it was the largest WWII bomb which I suspect means it was the largest bomb used in action ever.

It would reach supersonic speed on its descent and penetrate 30+ ft of reinforced concrete or 100+ ft of earth before exploding - obviously with an "earthquake" effect, but also creating a huge subterranean cavern that might cause structures above to collapse.

Beats a 2" mortar then.

[Soddball]

Just dug out one of my books - which confirms 12,000lb AP bomb was used to sink the Tirpitz. The 22,000lb was used to destroy the viaduct at Bielefield in March 1945.

[Yarb]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redeker:

P.S. Is the Daisy Cutter a FAE munition?

<hr></blockquote>

The Daisy Cutter is not a FAE munition. A FAE or Fuel-Air Explosive is one that releases the explosive fuel into the air over an area, basically a large cloud or fine rain of it, then ignites it.

[argie]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redeker:

P.S. Is the Daisy Cutter a FAE munition?<hr></blockquote>

Nope. Some of the principles of both kinds of bombs are common (both exapands his action radius by atomizing some chemical and then igniting it, both consumes all the oxigen in the affected area). But FAEs burns fuel, and daisies do it with a chemical mix I don't remember right now.

FAE tends to be more effective size wise, being used even in man portable rockets (by the Russians).

[argie]

I feel a bit stupid now :cool:

[M Hofbauer]

first, I see that reuters has deteriorated in niveau so much that they can't even spell right anymore ("milles").

second, the term "daisy cutter" is unspecific and has been around for considerable time. Up until now it usually referred to the fuze extension in combination with the Mk 80 series bombs (preferrably the Mk82)(used gratuitously in the Vietnam war). Specifically, it was the M904 fuze extender that earned a bomb fitted with it the name "daisy cutter". Incidentally, it is said M904 fuze extender which is fitted to the BLU-82 and probably lead to giving it the "daisy cutter" nickname. Of course, such a catchy term easily sticks with the media.

However, the M904 (working on the simple physical principle of extending the fuze in front of the the bomb's body) shown in the Reuters sketch is rarely in use anymore and had been replaced by a more modern proximity fuze, the FMU-113 proximity fuze (which looks more like a fat knob on the bomb's front), as far back as the Gulf War 1991.

third, no, it's not a FAE weapon, and although it also relies on blast effect, FAEs are even nastier.

btw, eleven BLU-82s had been dropped in the Gulf War.

the current use of these weapons shows one thing for sure: since they are dropped by MC-130E's, you can only employ these when you have a totally suppressed, inactive and defenseless enemy. I guess I don'T have to elaborate opn what even a medium-threat AA environment would do to a Hercules.

[offtaskagain]

I've heard FAEs are six times more powerful than a conventional munition of the same weight. Incidentally, 16" HE rounds only had a 154 lb bursting charge, whereas this beastie has 12,600 lbs inside.

[Gyrene]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> By 109 Gustav: 10,212 points. <hr></blockquote>

That's one for the FAQ!

Gyrene

[MikeyD]

I had imagined the Daisy cutter was equivalent to the Brit "Blockbuster" dropped by Lancasters, but I was way off. Blockbuster was only 4000 lbs. A Daisy Cutter is the equivalent of four blockbusters tied together! For those too young to remember, the Daisy cutter was designed to clear helecopter landing fields in the middle of dense jungle in Vietnam. It may have been used offensively only a couple times (including, I recall, dropping one on an NVA headquarters during their finall push to Saigon). :eek:

[Enoch]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Merkin Muffley:

Soddball - Barnes Wallis designed the Grand Slam bomb and at 22,000lb it was the largest WWII bomb which I suspect means it was the largest bomb used in action ever.

It would reach supersonic speed on its descent

<hr></blockquote>

I'm no physics geek but would the terminal velocity of a 22,000 pound bomb be less than the speed of sound or not? Obviously heavier objects have a higher terminal velocity but could something that big really reach supersonic speed?

[CMplayer]

Thanks for the answers everyone

[argie]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Enoch:

Obviously heavier objects have a higher terminal velocity ...<hr></blockquote>

UH?

The gravity acceleration works the same for any object of any weight... Only aerodinamics could affect terminal velocity of a dropped object inside an atmosphere.

[Enoch]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by argie:

UH?

The gravity acceleration works the same for any object of any weight... Only aerodinamics could affect terminal velocity of a dropped object inside an atmosphere.<hr></blockquote>

The acceleration of an object is the same regardless of its weight. But, the maximum speed it will reach is a function of its weight. An object will reach its terminal velocity when air resistence equals its weight.

[gredeker]

Got this from a web site about Wallis' bombs:

Tallboy's sleek shape enabled it to gain as much speed as possible during its fall, giving maximum penetration into the ground which was essential to maximise the earthquake effect. This speed also gave rise to a couple of problems with the design. Firstly, the ground impact at high speed meant that the casing had to be very strong to prevent it bursting open, and special metals were developed for this purpose; the weight of the case was thus a high proportion of the weight of the bomb so, despite its size, it was classed as a "medium capacity" weapon! Secondly, during trials, it was found to be inaccurate, and this was attributed to the bomb "toppling" off course as it passed through the sound barrier. Wallis solved this problem rather neatly by offsetting the bomb's tailfins; this made the bomb spin as it fell, and the gyroscopic effect prevented the toppling and thus maintained the accuracy.

So it looks like at least the TallBoy was supersonic. Since they used the same overall ratios, the Grand Slam was probably supersonic as well. I also seem to recall (no references handy again, darnit) that they were pushing new ground metallurgically with the Grand Slams, something on the order of tensile strength of 22 tons/inch.

The quote is from http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/irmurray/bigbounc.asp#grandslam

Edited because inserting a link is easier than I thought.

If you scroll to the top left of the page, it shows the bombs, and you can understand why their aerodynamics would allow a supersonic speed.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: redeker ]</p>

[jshandorf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Enoch:

I'm no physics geek but would the terminal velocity of a 22,000 pound bomb be less than the speed of sound or not? Obviously heavier objects have a higher terminal velocity but could something that big really reach supersonic speed?<hr></blockquote>

Moot point.

The Daisy Cutter descent is controled by a parachute.

I wonder if you were standing under it when it was droppepd and you saw it falling slooooowly to the ground. Could you run 600 meters plus before it reaches the ground? We should ask the Taliban after the war. They might know.

Jeff

[gredeker]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Moot point.

The Daisy Cutter descent is controled by a parachute.

<hr></blockquote>

Ummm, we had kind of wandered off topic and were talking about Barnes Wallis' 22,000 lb Grand Slam bomb, which has a supersonic rate of descent. I think everyone agrees that a Daisy Cutter gives you enough time to bend over and kiss your @ss goodbye...