I Didn't Know That - Concrete Bomb

Richard and Jonny explode back onto your screen with their most spectacular experiment yet. They're comparing the effectiveness and collateral damage of concrete compared to conventional explosives when used in an aerial bomb & the results will blow you away.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• National
• Geographic
• Channel
• Richard
• Jonny
• science
• tv
• show
• facts
• entertainment
• funny
• explained
• experiments

[Biv1987]

fail

[3809940TAA]

@bigbananaman you're astoundingly wrong. there is a difference between missiles and bombs. bombs are free-fall devices that are sometimes equipped with guidance packages to guide them to their target via gliding. missiles are self-propelled guided munitions. and we don't drop bombs from 50 feet because the resulting explosion would likely destroy the aircraft dropping the ordnance. i played with bombs in the Marine Corps for four years- please shut your mouth about that which you know little.

[BigBananaMan]

@3809940TAA Air to ground missiles are the bombs that we drop these days, the word can be applied, do you really think we're dropping gravity bombs from drones when we bomb insurgents? We can't and shouldn't level large portions of cities any more by carpet bombing with gravity bombs from 50' off the ground. Therefore, practically any bombs dropped are guided missiles.

[rampagepie]

@NotAUserToday07 I'm sorry I missed the part where I said they were cheaper. I do not have a good understanding on pricing of said devices, but I can imagine they being the most expensive parts on the bomb. Or did you mean to say that the bombs used in Libya weren't laser guided? I can understand, the source I read might have been from a date prior to the Libyan developments.

[NotAUserToday07]

@rampagepie Concrete bombs, like the ones the French have used in Libya, have the JDAM kits added for guidance, so they're as accurate as their explosive counterparts. It's worth noting that the expensive part of smart weapons is the guidance kit, so they're not significantly cheaper.

[SkittlesShott]

@bzdenok They were comparing mostly collateral damage, not destructive prowess. Check the vid description

[rampagepie]

@bzdenok actually, these concrete bombs, if thrown from say 2000 feet, will be about 3.8 to 4 Megajoules. No plane is going to throw his bomb from 20 meters: any guy with a rocket-launcher can sweep the plane out of the air. These guys can't possibly get a plane to drop a block of concrete on this exact place, since the bombs the military use are armed with laser-guidance. This is pretty much overkill when you take into consideration that the TNT bombs damage the surrounding cars as well.

[SkyyCaptainn]

A real concrete bomb is similar to regular bomb, it only has TNT filling replaced with concrete. 500 kg piece of metal and concrete dropped from several km will turn any tank into scrap metal if direct hit is achieved.

[fabiotodi]

It is impressive how a weapon can be described as if it was a game. The boundary between irony and cruelty is weak. On the other hand Shakespeare taught a lot to Bretons about the common root of Comedy and Tragedy. Nevertheless immature, funny, mediatic criminals should be kept away from the global stage.

[bzdenok]

This is absolutely retarded. The hosts decline to define "effective." Whats the goal, and how can we deliver the energy to the target? do the bombs behave the same mid-air? If not, are the pilots trained in their usage?

1 kg TNT = 4.7 x 10^6 J

650 kg dropped from 20 meters = 0.128 x 10^6 J

So 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of TNT has about 37 times as much energy as this stupid concrete test. And they wonder why their test had less overall damage? Morons.