AHC: Thermobaric bomb in WWII

Ming777

Monthly Donor
Is it possible for the Allied Forces to develop a Thermobaric weapon during WWII?

How might it affect the war?
 

Deleted member 1487

Supposedly the Germans were working on one and got reasonably far, so its more likely they would be the ones to get it to work first:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon#History
The 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.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=8554.30
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."

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/p...ngswaffe-grossvaters-vakuumbombe-1461621.html

Its likely the Russians were then using his work and post-war work depended on German research.
 
They did

Dear Ming777,

In Purnell's (publisher) Allied Secret Weapons, back in the '70s, remember reading about it. Demolished building quite nicely. Cancelled because of difficulty in accessing the materials due to wartime pressures.

Yours
Stafford 1069
 
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 :D ).
 

Deleted member 1487

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 :D ).
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

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) and the defenses on the Meuse, which were confided defenses with pill boxes and field works. 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.

And again I didn't say they were war winners, they would do major damage though, beyond what conventional weapons did given their pressure and heat effects. 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.

faeanim.gif
 
Against armored forces it would be effective (confined space)

Armored forces represent the worst target to direct thermobarics/FAEs against since the pressure would be dispersed against a semi-dispersed number of small pressure-resistant targets rather then one large pressure resistant target or a semi-dispersed number of small pressure vulnerable targets. Sure, the tank which receives a direct hit would undoubtedly wind-up with its crew liquefied on top of all the more standard damage to the vehicle itself, but the one a dozen meter off to its left would be no more banged up then if it were a conventional bomb. And overall the effect wouldn't be that much more different either: one dead tank while the others around it at best have their crews shaken. And that's assuming they aren't closed up.

Tl;dr: your better off as well use a cheap high explosive bombs against armored forces then much more expensive FAE/thermobarics.

and the defenses on the Meuse, which were confided defenses with pill boxes and field works.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

Would they significantly improve the effectiveness of the air attacks against Great Britain?
Given that the BoB was primarily conducted by level-bombers as dive bombers proved too vulnerable... no.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Would they significantly improve the effectiveness of the air attacks against Great Britain?

You can bet your house on the fact they'd be used against civilian targets such as Warsaw, Rotterdam, Guernica etc as a terror weapon.

As a weapon used against the UK in the "Blitz", well you do the maths.

The effects would be greater than normal carpet bombing with damage to buildings and deaths from "bomb lung".

The problem being though, is that you can bet that UK, and US secret services would get the know how for these weapons and then they would be used against the 3rd Reich, look at what happened with the Reich's "Wunder" weapons, they were on it in an instant bombing the shit out of them.

Regards filers
 
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.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
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.
 
Top