Com-Central.net

MarkHolloway · Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:35 pm Post subject: Atom Bomb vs Tank

Looks more like a Priest to me.

Atomic Bomb Damage -- This aerial view of a tank is shown after the atomic bomb was detonated on May 1, 1952 at the AEC Nevada Proving Ground the Marine Corps Provisional Exercise Unit consisting of 2100 Marines participated in the maneuver.

CREDIT: Photo courtesy of National Nuclear Security Administration / Nevada Site Office

bsmart · Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: Atom Bomb vs Tank

Looking at it I believe it is actually an M7 Priest. But it has both tracks still on it and there is other track and debris indicating there was at least one other vehicle. I think the other one may have been an M-3 or M-5 Stuart. The track looks thinner than the one on teh Priest and the item in the foreground appears to be the trailing idler from the Stuart series. But that is only a SWAG Wink

Jim_Coles · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 56

Does the crater at lower right surrounded by tank debris indicate the center point of the detonation? If so, it's amazing that there's that much left.

Kurt_Laughlin · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 577

The test on that date was SNAPPER-DOG, a 19kT airburst. Typically airbursts don't leave a crater.

The depression looks more like a sinkhole (no raised lip) caused by the collapse of underlying material. It may have even existed before the test, given that there is debris within the hole.

KL

lehr · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Feb 24, 2006 Posts: 7

It looks like the M7 has grousers on its tracks.

bsmart · Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:09 am Post subject: Re: Atom Bomb vs Tank

- Kurt_Laughlin

The test on that date was SNAPPER-DOG, a 19kT airburst. Typically airbursts don't leave a crater.

The depression looks more like a sinkhole (no raised lip) caused by the collapse of underlying material. It may have even existed before the test, given that there is debris within the hole.

KL

A properly executed airburst doesn't leave a crater. However if the airburst goes off too low, or the yield is larger than expected than the burst can make contact with the ground causing cratering as well as the spread of contaminated soil ( a proper airburst limits the sppread of contamination by not having distubed soil which can be carried by wind)

As far as a sinkhole I started wondering. If the conditions were right for the area to develop sinkholes (usually it means there are large voids under the surface that are marginally supported after the removal of groundwater) Would an airburst over the area cause sinkholes with the overpressure causing the ground to collapse into the void?

recon4ww2 · Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:09 am Post subject: Re: Atom Bomb vs Tank

Those aren't Stuart tracks, they are single pin type with center guide horns similar to a T18 APC or something like that. That could explain the total destruction, being that it would be a much lighter vehicle.

Mike

C_Sherman · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 590

Hi,

Not a sinkhole, I think. Look closely. That debris on the edge looks a lot like a towed artillery piece. And the slopes of the "crater" look a lot like sandbags that have been half torn/worn away. So...I'm gonna stretch and say it is a gun emplacement of some sort, and that the gun is still laying next to it.

C

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big