http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=8554.30The first experiments with thermobaric weapon were conducted in Germany during World War II and were led by Mario Zippermayr. The German bombs used coal dust as fuel and were extensively tested in 1943 and 1944, but did not reach mass production before the war ended.
October 1942 he had made the proposal to the german airforce, to develop such a bomb.After month of preparing the first tests were made in summer 1943. He used 60 kg of bohemian brown coal dust, which was the best for this purpose. The amount of oxygen was 15% of the weight of the coal dust.He had to use liquid oxygen because of the war the nitrates and chlorates were rare.The ingredients of the bomb were put in a tube made of steel. At the bottom he put a driving high explosive powder, 0,5% of the weight of the coal dust. Above that he put an 8 l can with liqid oxygen, around and above it wood shavings. The last layer was the coaldust itself. One end of the Tube is closed by a hemisphere the other is open. The tube was closed up with a small layer of soil. The first experiments were done in the military airport, Zwölfaxing, 6 km away from Schwechat. The test with the 60 kg bombs caused broken windows in a distance of 1500 m. The exploding cloud arised in an altitude of 45 m with a diameter of 35 m.People in Schwechat supposed a blasting of heavy bombs in Zwölfaxing. Dustbombs produce a much lower pressure wave than conventional bombs, but the duration of pressure is much longer. The test proved that coal dust explosions are possible in free area. January 1945 german airforces instruct my father to make 1000 kg tests. The end of the war canceled all projects.
Phillip also wrote: The largest bomb my father was allowed to blow up was a 150 kg version (it contained 150 kg of coal dust) Also, there were planned tests with bigger bombs- 250 kg and 1000 kg, but they were cancelled due the end of war.
That means that the 150 kg version had minimally twice more powerful effects than a bomb tested at Zwölfaxing and the 250 kg version could be theoretically even four times stronger. I think that such results are really impressive.
Also, I've probably revealed the "secret" of a superbomb. In a document called "BIOS Report 142- Information obtained in Sonthofen area" is described a extremly strong "Liquid Air Bomb" that contained coal dust, liquid oxygen and "waxy substance". 150 kg version of this explosive destroyed everything within 4,5 km radius and it was still felt on a radius 12,8 km. These information were obtained from a german scientist Josef Ernst. In the document is also written that "Ernst is not reliable and though may be in some cases a factual for some of his claims, they are as a whole inaccurate and of doubtful value."
There would be no impact on most of the Maginot Line because it was too well protected. Why wouldn't the Germans go through the undefended areas to the North of the Maginot Line, which was FAR better Panzer country than the hilly border even if they could neutralize the forts? Besides FAE would work better against troops in the open anyway; nice fat juicy massed units of infantry and armor in the open or even field works would be ideal targets. A thermobaric carpet bombing against the defenses at Sedan and on the Meuse would make the German's job MUCH easier. Hell use it on Dunkirk and you've got a slaughterhouse on the beaches.Let's say that somehow the Germans develop the thermobaric bomb in the mid to late 30's. Would they be effective against the Maginot Line? Perhaps effective enough to make a strike against Belgium and Netherlands unnecesary? Diplomatic effects and less bad blood against Germany would be significant, especially if a more sane leadership is present (I know, I know, they wouldn't be Nazis, no war, blah blah blah).
Besides FAE would work better against troops in the open anyway; nice fat juicy massed units of infantry and armor in the open or even field works would be ideal targets.
You... don't understand the effects of FAE and thermobaric (minor tangent here: they are not precisely the same thing, even if they work on near-identical principles) weaponry, do you? Suffice to say, there is a reason such weapons are generally employed against the same targets that, prior to their advent, flamethrowers were used against and not against a formation in an open field. In confined spaces the pressure created by such weapons is amplified a hell of a lot more then in open ones. Only towards the very large scale of FAE's and thermobarics, like the MOAB or vacuum bomb, do you get something which is truly more effective against area targets then fortified ones.
Wiking's oddly disturbing overestimation about the capabilities of FAE not withstanding, such a weapon would have some tactical impact and little-to-no operational or strategic impact. Thermobaric weapons, at least those practical enough for WW2 technology to create and use, represent only a modest increase of lethality over high explosives and even then mainly in specific situations. These are hardly war winners.
Against armored forces it would be effective (confined space)
It isn't as if those defenses really held up the Germans that considerably IOTL. The biggest delay in the German breakout was really getting the panzers over the river, not in establishing the bridgehead.and the defenses on the Meuse, which were confided defenses with pill boxes and field works.
The only reason I won't disagree with you is because of the issue of WW2 penetration (or more accurately, lack there-of). The reason modern thermobaric weapons are so lethal against such heavily fortified structures is because the bomb is designed to deliver the explosive device inside the target before it detonates. In the context of WW2, this is only really possible against lighter fortifications like pillboxes and earthworks. Even then though, the means to deliver such weapons with reliable enough accuracy is exclusively available to dive bombers or other high performance-low payload aircraft, something that precludes carpet bombing.Yes clearly the blast effect wouldn't be perfect, but it would be far more effective than against fortifications deep underground as most of the Maginot line was with remote controlled turrets.
There remains a reason modern militaries still prefer a cluster of high explosive for such targets over a single thermobaric/FAE. It's not just more cost effective, but also more effective on the whole. Their also less weather dependent.Still, even against forces in the open its not like there isn't an impact that is beyond conventional bombs, its just not AS effective as it is versus forces in confined spaces, either fortifications or buildings.
Given that the BoB was primarily conducted by level-bombers as dive bombers proved too vulnerable... no.Would they significantly improve the effectiveness of the air attacks against Great Britain?
Would they significantly improve the effectiveness of the air attacks against Great Britain?
A proximity fuse for a bomb in WW2 was a lot more expensive and complicated than a regular bomb fuse; IIRC both the Germans and Japanese had one IOTL, but they were cost prohibitive to use for regular bombs.If they have the tech to do a Thermobaric Bomb, that means they have working proximity fuzing.
That is a huge change in itself.
Regular bombs that explode before burying themselves in the earth is huge change in effectiveness.