Air defence versus Home defence

[twolivesbehindschedule]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aircraft_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense
versus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Defence_Executive

It is fair to say that homes are very difficult to kill, they are resilient to all kinds of attacks. Especially butting a raging home made out of concrete it's outright suicide.

I love the English language.

[GoesStation]

In the phrase "Home Defence Executive", "home" doesn't mean "house". It means "homeland".

[Skrej]

Homes aren't particularly resilient. They can easily be destroyed just by blast shock-waves - just watch some videos of the explosion and aftermath of the Beirut fertilizer explosion back in August.

As for more solid concrete structure - old WW II bunker busters could penetrate up to 14 feet of reinforced concrete with perfect drop (although that was under optimal drop conditions. Modern ones will penetrate 2 meters of reinforced concrete easily without requiring such pristine drop conditions.

There there's this bad boy in the works - able to penetrate up to 200 feet underground. So you're not even safe in a cave...

[PeterCW]

Homes aren't particularly resilient. They can easily be destroyed just by blast shock-waves - just watch some videos of the explosion and aftermath of the Beirut fertilizer explosion back in August.

As for more solid concrete structure - old WW II bunker busters could penetrate up to 14 feet of reinforced concrete with perfect drop (although that was under optimal drop conditions. Modern ones will penetrate 2 meters of reinforced concrete easily without requiring such pristine drop conditions.

There there's this bad boy in the works - able to penetrate up to 200 feet underground. So you're not even safe in a cave...

The WW2 bombs weren't meant to penetrate concrete at all, they were supposed to penetrate the ground beside the bunker and destroy it from underneath. I recommend Paul Brickhill's book The Dam Busters, now out of print but available on Kindle.

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . It is fair to say that houses are very difficult to kill. They are resilient to all kinds of attacks, epecially bombing a house made out of concrete. It's outright suicide. . . .

A house is not a home.

And as you see in post #2, the writer wasn't talking about houses, anyway.

What did you mean by "raging home"?

[Tdol]

Arthur "Bomber" Harris, the head of Bomber Command in World War II, said that the destruction of homes and the creation of waves of refugees was not a side-effect of the bombing of factories- it was baked into the DNA of the carpet bombing of cities. Coventry was subjected to a fierce bombing. Harris saw that the bombers had failed because they did not burn the city to the ground. He saw why - it was a technical issue to do with the size of bomber aircraft - and set about burning German cities to the ground. The destruction rained down on Hamburg and Tokyo goes against your theory. They generated a firestorm in Hamburg that raged half a kilometre into the sky, with technology from the 1940s. They can probably do worse today.

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . They generated a firestorm in Hamburg that raged half a kilometre into the sky, with technology from the 1940s. They can probably do worse today.

That has to be the understatement of the century.