So - Was MOAB a dud?

[busterpickle]

Hard to say as there’s been no immediate pre-strike imagery that is available. So, it’s hard to say if the damage was by the MOAB or not. Here’s a link with some imagery but the before imagery pre-dates by several months:

After the dust settles

Looking at that video though, that shockwave is insane. I have no idea what the affects of a shockwave against something that is mostly a walking sack of water versus a tree would be. My arm-chair opinion leads me to believe there would be some serious internal organ damage though. These people are farmers it seems, if we see no live stock anywhere, the MOAB probably took out any animal within several hundred meters.

[Francis_Vaughan]

@bob_2

Not dud in that it didn’t go boom, but dud in that it was nowhere near as effective as they said it was.

Depends upon what one thinks they said it was. If we believe 90 odd killed, it is very effective. Furthermore, its use has rendered the entire complex of caves and tunnels useless. A return by new IS forces would simply be returning to a trap, where a second MOAB would remove another 90 odd. Indeed, they are likely much less happy about caves and tunnels anywhere.

As noted above, it isn’t a bunker buster, and no-one should expect it to be one. Given the amount of poor reporting, it isn’t exactly clear what the official claims were versus what we actually hear.

[AK84]

@Francis_Vaughan

Depends upon what one thinks they said it was. If we believe 90 odd killed, it is very effective. Furthermore, its use has rendered the entire complex of caves and tunnels useless. A return by new IS forces would simply be returning to a trap, where a second MOAB would remove another 90 odd. Indeed, they are likely much less happy about caves and tunnels anywhere.

Bullshit. We know that 90 men were killed. Whether they were 90 ISIS militants or 90 Manchester United supporters having the most ill timed get together ever is unknowable since the US standard for counting kills is to say thatevery military aged male killed is to be counted as a militant eliminated whether or not that person was known to be a militant.

[bob_2]

@AK84

Bullshit. We know that 90 men were killed.

Do we? What independent evidence do we have that 90 were killed?

[Ravenman]

Seems to me like you are looking for a debate on the effects of the bomb, rather than having a factual question about it. Noting for the mods to consider.

[samclem]

Since the ability to factually answer the OP isn’t available, this one is moved to IMHO where opinions can continue to be given.

samclem, moderator

[rbroome]

@bob_2

Not dud in that it didn’t go boom, but dud in that it was nowhere near as effective as they said it was.

Do you have a cite for that?

The purpose of the bomb was to kill or drive off all the enemy in a large area, even the ones protected in the cave system. It wasn’t designed to make a big useless crater or destroy a bunch of trees. It was designed to kill people and was effective.

The fact that friendly forces were able to enter the area immediately after the strike without any opposition proves that the bomb was completely effective.

Further, it greatly complicates the enemy’s situation. Now all those tunnels and caves they have built with great effort throughout the country are dangers, not protection. It makes the day-to-day strategy of the enemy that much harder by reducing his ability to rest and recuperate.

[Colophon]

BBC report from the site: The Mother of All Bombs: How badly did it hurt IS in Afghanistan? - BBC News

[bob_2]

@rbroome

Do you have a cite for that?

The purpose of the bomb was to kill or drive off all the enemy in a large area, even the ones protected in the cave system. It wasn’t designed to make a big useless crater or destroy a bunch of trees. It was designed to kill people and was effective.

The fact that friendly forces were able to enter the area immediately after the strike without any opposition proves that the bomb was completely effective.

Further, it greatly complicates the enemy’s situation. Now all those tunnels and caves they have built with great effort throughout the country are dangers, not protection. It makes the day-to-day strategy of the enemy that much harder by reducing his ability to rest and recuperate.

I put a cite in my original post:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...bs-blast-site/

Now the BBC have a more detailed report from a reporter on the scene linked to in the above post:

As we left the valley, the bombardment continued. It seemed clear that the bomb that was dropped on 13 April had not come close to delivering a knock-out blow to IS militants entrenched in the area, and the locals certainly expect more conflict ahead.
To me, at least, the Mother Of All Bombs failed to live up to her reputation.

It seems clear to me that the “Mother” was not a great success, but the continued bombing by American planes is succeeding in its objectives.

[Tranquilis]

@Johnny_L.A

I thought MOAB was designed to kill by sucking up all of the surrounding oxygen, which it uses for the explosion. Enemies would die of a combination of oxygen deprivation, the blast wave, and incineration, depending on their distance from the explosion. Even if the blast wave did not penetrate far into the tunnel system, the occupants would still die of asphyxiation. In such a case, I would expect tunnels and caves to remain more or less intact.

But I hadn’t paid much attention to the weapon, and stand to be corrected.

The MOAB weapon deflagrates massively, yes, it will consume a lot of oxygen, but the weapon contains its own oxidizers, so that’s not a primary function. By design, it has a low brissance (“brightness” - a description of the sharpness of the pressure-rise at the schok front), and the biggest effect is to create overpressure and heat - Killing by shock and thermal injuries.

Intact tunnels are entrely in keeping.

[up_the_junction]

@bob_2

Do we? What independent evidence do we have that 90 were killed?

No one can know. We’re back to the daily Vietnam totals that also made no sense.