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.
In the phrase "Home Defence Executive", "home" doesn't mean "house". It means "homeland".
I am not a teacher.
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...
Wear short sleeves! Support your right to bare arms!
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.Originally Posted by Skrej
Retired magazine editor and native British English speaker - not a teacher
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"?
Last edited by Charlie Bernstein; 13-Oct-2020 at 14:04.
I'm not a teacher. I speak American English. I've tutored writing at the University of Southern Maine and have done a good deal of copy editing and writing, occasionally for publication.
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.
That has to be the understatement of the century.
I'm not a teacher. I speak American English. I've tutored writing at the University of Southern Maine and have done a good deal of copy editing and writing, occasionally for publication.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote