back to article Bombing raids during WWII sent out shockwaves powerful enough to alter the Earth's ionosphere

The volume of bombs dropped by the Allied Forces in the Second World War were powerful enough to send shockwaves that rippled throughout the skies, weakening the Earth’s ionosphere. Earth’s ionosphere extends about 1,000 kilometers (about 621 miles) above its surface and is made up of a shell of ions and electrons that reflect …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

    So let's have an accompanying photograph of a WW2 bomber, rather than a transport.

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

      That was my first thought as well. What do old DC3s, or rather C47 Skytrains, have to do with WWII bombing raids?

      1. Vinyl-Junkie
        Headmaster

        Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

        A quick look at the markings will tell you that those are RAF C-47s (and Far East command ones at that) and they are therefore Dakotas, not Skytrains.

    2. OssianScotland

      Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

      I saw the picture and had to check the page URL to make sure I hadn't got onto the Daily Fail by mistake. At least it wasn't captioned "jets"

      1. Steve the Cynic

        Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

        At least it wasn't captioned "jets"

        That reminds me of a story in the "Metro" (a free rag distributed on weekdays in Tube and London-bound stations) in about 2007. The story was about a German pilot whose aircraft had been shot down in 1942 and had damaged a church tower or something somewhere in East Anglia, and his subsequent visit there in the days before the story was printed. They attributed this shoot-down to "British jets."

    3. graeme leggett Silver badge

      Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

      If only the Second World War had provided us with iconic photos of bombers, or even iconic bombers.....

    4. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

      Fine, fixed - we were concentrating too much on the tech rather than the illustration.

      C.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: C'mon, we're all anoraks round here

        "Fine, fixed"

        Nice to see that the RAF had perfected not only the art of flying the Lancaster in vertical formation, but also managed to synchronise the propellers not only within each plane but also across the whole formation.

        Anoraks ARISE!

  2. Pete 2 Silver badge

    The numbers

    According to Wiki, the RAF dropped nearly a million tons of bombs during WW2. The americans "contributing" a further 600kT.

    Another source puts the total WW2 amount, dropped everywhere. at well over 3 million tons.

    But it doesn't end there! If the researchers wanted to investigate more instances they could look at Vietnam. During operation Rolling Thunder the americans dropped 864,000 tons on the north.

    Amounts so huge, that I simply can't process them.

    1. Ryan 7

      Re: Amounts so huge, that I simply can't process them.

      There is a handy metric for handling such situations, called the "Megaton".

      1. onefang

        Re: Amounts so huge, that I simply can't process them.

        I was thinking "Shit-ton" myself.

        1. FozzyBear
          Mushroom

          Re: Amounts so huge, that I simply can't process them.

          Or a previous commentard quoted

          F*ton

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Amounts so huge, that I simply can't process them.

        There is a handy metric for handling such situations, called the "Megaton".

        Out of innocent curiosity, may I ask if that's a million American metric tons, or a million Imperial metric tons?

    2. lee harvey osmond

      Re: Amounts so huge, that I simply can't process them.

      3 million tons being approximately 1/17 the yield of the Soviet Tsar Bomba, as tested in 1961, at 50% of selectable yield.

      Think on that; six years of industrial warfare on a global scale, including the first three fission bombs, being a tiny fraction of the yield of a single weapon 20 years later

  3. Rich 11

    Approx

    about 1,000 kilometers (about 621 miles)

    It's OK to say "about 600 miles" rather than reach for the calculator and quote the conversion exactly.

    1. Graham Cunningham

      Re: Approx

      621 miles +/- "about"

      1. Sgt_Oddball

        Re: Approx

        108409.2875 lengths of a double decker bus +/-...

        Fixed that for you.

    2. Anonymous Coward Silver badge

      Re: Approx

      Some of us convert regularly enough that we don't need a calculator.

      1. Natalie Gritpants Jr

        Re: Approx

        And some of us know that 1000km is a lomg distance.

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: Approx

          1,000KM is about what my Nissan achieves, before I have to start looking for a fuel station to re-fill the tank (47 litres).

          1. Aladdin Sane

            Re: Approx

            It's linguine or nothing.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Approx

            But what MPG is that?

            1. defiler

              Re: Approx

              But what MPG is that?

              US or Imperial?

              1. Dave 15

                Re: Approx

                The Americans got the size of the gallon wrong not us, so its miles per gallon not miles per mistake

            2. Robert Helpmann??
              Boffin

              Re: Approx

              MPG? Bah! BPF is the correct unit of measure! That's Brontosauruses per Funbag.

            3. big_D Silver badge

              Re: Approx

              50.5 miles per US Gallon, 60.1 miles real gallon

          3. lee harvey osmond

            Re: Approx

            Refill the tank?

            The Bovington people have missed a sponsorship trick with one of their exhibits.

            "Put a tiger in your Tiger tank's tank"

            And at 0.4mpg (Imperial, of God's Own Petrol) I imagine sponsorship would be welcome

          4. Dave 15

            Re: Approx

            1000 what? 1000 multiples of a lump of metal in Paris... who cares, give me proper measurements

            1. Stoneshop
              Boffin

              Nope

              1000 multiples of a lump of metal in Paris

              0.003335641 seconds at the speed of light in vacuum, or 0.16680567 seconds at VSheepVac.

              I expect that Nissan to take a little longer.

  4. Korev Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Duke Nukem

    Has anyone looked into seeing what the effect of nuclear weapons is?

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Duke Nukem

      After the wrong picture, that was my second thought on the article.

    2. LesC
      Mushroom

      Re: Duke Nukem

      EMP, ionospheric disruption, fallout, comms disruption, Van Allen detonated a nuke in what was the soon to be discovered Van Allen Belt and disrupted HF comms in the Pacific for days. Get a copy of "Nukes In Space: The Rainbow Bombs Movie" (edit) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ2B8vrqdFw on Youcat. The special effects in Damnation Alley were remarkably close istr - not the giant scorpions but the atmospheric ones!

      1. Korev Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: Duke Nukem

        Cheers LesC

        1. LesC
          Mushroom

          Re: Duke Nukem

          El Reg has touched upon this before too: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/18/atmospheric_nuclear_weapons_tests_caused_space_weather/

          A nuke detonation is at the atomic level (it's a geometric space time device with the elements fissioning, fusing or both to create mindboggling amounts of energy) whilst TNT, Torpex, C4, ANFO, what have you just creates huge amounts of gas very quickly in its bang.

          In an old Top Gear (?) Richard Hammond fried a VW Golf's electronics under that old lightning generator that the CEGB used to run.

          The name of the Van Allen exoatmospheric nuke test was Starfish Prime fortunately all the equipment at the time was still mostly valve (vacuum tube) else Hawaii would have had all of its electronics fried if Uncle Sam tried a stunt like that today. An airburst high over the North Sea would hose electronics in the UK and a big chunk of Europe.

          High energy physics is a fascinating subject especially the effort in getting more bang for your pound.... the Tsar Bomba had more explosive power than all the high explosive used in WW2.

          Damnation Alley is also available on the grumpy cat channel. Complete with gigantic scorps.

          1. Aladdin Sane

            Re: Duke Nukem

            And there we have the plot of GoldenEye.

  5. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
    Flame

    Other explosives

    I wonder whether they've done similar studies for things like shuttle & satellite launches - OK, the explosives are directed downwards but there's still a metric shit-ton of force being expelled.

    1. Peter2 Silver badge

      Re: Other explosives

      It shouldn't have the same level of effect.

      With an explosion, you set the entire lot off at once, and there is a huge bang and a shockwave. Individually, the largest weapons dropped apparently caused damage to the aircraft dropping these weapons, which would have been >25,000 feet above the point of detonation. Lest it be forgotten, that these were being dropped as part of air raids numbering in excess of a thousand bombers, so Christ only knows how many bombs were being dropped at a time.

      With rockets, first there is only a single rocket being fired at a time, and not a thousand bombers dropping their payloads. Secondly, it's being lit one end and burned relatively slowly compared to the entire lot exploding in a millisecond so you don't get a shockwave.

      1. Stoneshop

        Re: Other explosives

        Individually, the largest weapons dropped apparently caused damage to the aircraft dropping these weapons, which would have been >25,000 feet above the point of detonation.

        We were flying at 6,000 feet which was the minimum height to drop the 4,000 pounder. We dropped it in the middle of town [Koblenz], which gave the aircraft a hell of a belt, lifted it up and blew an escape hatch from out of the top.

        — Jack Murray, pilot of "G for George", reporting on G for George's mission on 17th April 1943.

        The 8klb and 12klb ones would have had a greater minimum safety height, but more like sqrt(2) (8 klb) or sqrt(3) (12 klb) times those 6000ft, if that, because of blast front area. And with a single plane dropping a large explosive load you get to add horizontal speed against time for the bomb dropping to the height where it should explode

        1. Aladdin Sane

          Re: Other explosives

          It looks really weird using SI notation with imperial units.

          On a separate note, the 22000lb grand slam was dropped from a great height in order to penetrate deep underground (up to 130ft of earth or 20ft of concreate) before exploding, creating earthquake like effects.

      2. Stoneshop
        Boffin

        Re: Other explosives

        With rockets, first there is only a single rocket being fired at a time, and not a thousand bombers dropping their payloads.

        Those (bombing raid) explosions would occur over several minutes, maybe even several tens of minutes, roughly the same time that a rocket would need to reach the upper atmosphere. Where it would then actually punch through the ionosphere, although the disturbance caused by that would be over a much smaller area than the cumulative blast front from a bombing raid once that reached the ionosphere.

        Secondly, it's being lit one end and burned relatively slowly compared to the entire lot exploding in a millisecond so you don't get a shockwave.

        Not always.

        Which also makes me wonder how large an effect Buncefield, Pepcon or Enschede would have had, compared to the average bombing raid

        1. Dave 15

          Re: Other explosives

          With the large raids it wasnt over a few minutes more like an hour or so

        2. Peter2 Silver badge

          Re: Other explosives

          Which also makes me wonder how large an effect Buncefield, Pepcon or Enschede would have had, compared to the average bombing raid

          A Lancaster could drop a total of 14,000 pounds, although in practice when bombing cities they tended to be mostly one big (4000lbs) bomb to blow the roofs off and then 10,000 pounds of incendiaries. There were quite a few thousand bomber raids, to a lazy calculation of every aircraft being a lancaster would give you 14000000 pounds, which is ~6.3 kilotons. Pepcon was about 1 kiloton.

          But this is very large numbers of smallish explosions compared to one bigish one. I suspect the propagation on the blast waves of a bigger explosion has more of an effect.

      3. Mike Ozanne

        Re: Other explosives

        Firstly :

        https://media.juiceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/11141254/144fb-britishbombs.jpg

        Typical "Area" load

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Lancaster_area_bombing_load_IWM_CH_18371.jpg

        The really big stuff Tallboy and Grand Slam were only carried by two squadrons 617 and 9 and used on particular targets not as an area raid.

        Optimal dropping height for a Tallboy was 18000 feet but 15000 was more typical and Grand Slam drops went as low as 12000

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think I may have met Ten Ton Tess.. she wasn't a bomb though..

    1. 0laf
      WTF?

      Locally she's called "The Honey Monster". The effect is much the same.

  7. Tenkaykev

    Ten Ton Tess

    IIRC " Ten Ton Tess " had a younger brother, " Two Ton Ted " I believe he came from the Teddington area and was a Baker by trade.

    1. Alister

      Re: Ten Ton Tess

      Yep, he was an evil looking man, apparently.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ten Ton Tess

        But was he ever sent to prison for murder by the use of a stale pork pie.......

        1. Wellyboot Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Ten Ton Tess

          >>>But was he ever sent to prison for murder by the use of a stale pork pie.......<<<

          Don't forget the animal cruelty!

          For our puzzled Left Pondians (& younglings) - search for Beny Hill, Ernie song

        2. Dave 15

          Re: Ten Ton Tess

          Not judging by Sues needs and the ghostly gold tops

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like