Comments on: A not very possible fact http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-not-very-possible-fact Airpower and British society, 1908-1941 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:01:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-121002 Brett Holman Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:55:49 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/#comment-121002 Thanks for your comment. No, Britain didn't have an equivalent of the elektron in WWI, though it had less effective forms of incendiary. Neil Hanson makes similar claims in <em>First Blitz</em> (London: Doubleday, 2008), that Germany was planning to use elektrons on a large scale against Paris and London in 1918 (he suggests they may actually have been used on Paris on 15 June 1918), only by Gothas and Giants. While Hanson has done a lot of primary source research, I find his book sloppy in many places. Do you have a better source? Thanks for your comment. No, Britain didn't have an equivalent of the elektron in WWI, though it had less effective forms of incendiary. Neil Hanson makes similar claims in First Blitz (London: Doubleday, 2008), that Germany was planning to use elektrons on a large scale against Paris and London in 1918 (he suggests they may actually have been used on Paris on 15 June 1918), only by Gothas and Giants. While Hanson has done a lot of primary source research, I find his book sloppy in many places. Do you have a better source?

]]> By: Kai http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-120883 Kai Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:17:36 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/#comment-120883 Hello, i just posted this elsewhere, but it fits .. all WW1 here: In Germany, the 2.2 lb "Electron bomb" was available for use in July 1918 or so i read. German bombers like those Gothas (maybe also airships?) were supposed to use them in August, especially for Paris, and already loaded up with them, but in the last minute the flights were cancelled, and this type of bomb was - as far as i know - not used for the rest of the war. For whatever reason - some state because of humanitarian reasons , others say it was only because of the fear of reprisals. It may well be that William 2nd threw in a veto, but then his influence had almost gone towards the end of the war, he became isolated from his own people after the third rejection of his peace offers, by the Entente, and chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg resigned. Germany was now almost led alone by the general staff, the politicians had been silenced. "Electron" consists of 90 percent Mg, and less than 10 percent Al. It is tightly pressed into a hollow cylinder, and usually filled with an explosive substance like thermite, and once burning it is a pretty nasty stuff. " ... the electron-thermite stick can be regarded as a weapon of terror, it is primarily suited for the mass-killing of civilians by suffocation, or burning, due to its planned operational area of densely built city cores. Any other tactical deployment is only useful in exceptions, since the weapon is not suited for the annihilation of isolated hard targets. Only the carpet bombing of large-area targets will provide an advantageous cost-benefit ratio ... " England developed its own version officially in 1936, and it was soon mass-produced by the "Imperial Chemical Industries". Nine years later the city of Dresden was at the receiving end of 650.000 of those Electron-Thermite sticks. So it seems this weapon was unknown to the british in WW1 ? Thanks and greetings, Kai Hello,
i just posted this elsewhere, but it fits .. all WW1 here:

In Germany, the 2.2 lb "Electron bomb" was available for use in July 1918 or so i read. German bombers like those Gothas (maybe also airships?) were supposed to use them in August, especially for Paris, and already loaded up with them, but in the last minute the flights were cancelled, and this type of bomb was - as far as i know - not used for the rest of the war. For whatever reason - some state because of humanitarian reasons , others say it was only because of the fear of reprisals.

It may well be that William 2nd threw in a veto, but then his influence had almost gone towards the end of the war, he became isolated from his own people after the third rejection of his peace offers, by the Entente, and chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg resigned. Germany was now almost led alone by the general staff, the politicians had been silenced.

"Electron" consists of 90 percent Mg, and less than 10 percent Al. It is tightly pressed into a hollow cylinder, and usually filled with an explosive substance like thermite, and once burning it is a pretty nasty stuff.

" ... the electron-thermite stick can be regarded as a weapon of terror, it is primarily suited for the mass-killing of civilians by suffocation, or burning, due to its planned operational area of densely built city cores. Any other tactical deployment is only useful in exceptions, since the weapon is not suited for the annihilation of isolated hard targets. Only the carpet bombing of large-area targets will provide an advantageous cost-benefit ratio ... "

England developed its own version officially in 1936, and it was soon mass-produced by the "Imperial Chemical Industries". Nine years later the city of Dresden was at the receiving end of 650.000 of those Electron-Thermite sticks.
So it seems this weapon was unknown to the british in WW1 ?

Thanks and greetings,
Kai

]]> By: Airminded · Acquisitions http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-78553 Airminded · Acquisitions Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:25:57 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/#comment-78553 [...] is all good! But I’m worried about that subtitle. Hanson argues that there was a plan to use Elektron incendiary bombs to burn out London in 1918, which seems plausible enough. A plan is one thing, but Hanson seems to [...] [...] is all good! But I’m worried about that subtitle. Hanson argues that there was a plan to use Elektron incendiary bombs to burn out London in 1918, which seems plausible enough. A plan is one thing, but Hanson seems to [...]

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-69979 Brett Holman Fri, 08 Feb 2008 08:04:52 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/#comment-69979 Sorry, I don't understand what your point is, or how it relates to the thread? Do you have a reference for the German use of gas in Warsaw (and do you mean 1943 or 1944?) In what way was Churchill 'ignoring this reality'? Sorry, I don't understand what your point is, or how it relates to the thread? Do you have a reference for the German use of gas in Warsaw (and do you mean 1943 or 1944?) In what way was Churchill 'ignoring this reality'?

]]> By: enigma_foundry http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-69969 enigma_foundry Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:14:39 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/#comment-69969 Well, yes the Germans did not use poison gas against the British, but they had no qualms about using gas against the partisans who led the Warsaw uprising. Churchill largely ignored this reality--I guess the Poles, having broken the enigma code and participating in the Air War during the Battle of Britian--didn't count. Well, yes the Germans did not use poison gas against the British, but they had no qualms about using gas against the partisans who led the Warsaw uprising.

Churchill largely ignored this reality--I guess the Poles, having broken the enigma code and participating in the Air War during the Battle of Britian--didn't count.

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-63397 Brett Holman Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:21:36 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/#comment-63397 It dates to 1902, when Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy worked out the law of radioactive decay. (<a href="http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/ruthsod.html" rel="nofollow">This</a> appears to be an excerpt of the paper.) The half-life is effectively a term in that formula. Wells dedicated <em>The World Set Free</em> to Soddy's <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/interpretationof00soddrich" rel="nofollow"><em>Interpretation of Radium</em></a> (1909), so that may be where Wells picked up the idea. It dates to 1902, when Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy worked out the law of radioactive decay. (This appears to be an excerpt of the paper.) The half-life is effectively a term in that formula. Wells dedicated The World Set Free to Soddy's Interpretation of Radium (1909), so that may be where Wells picked up the idea.

]]> By: The Doctor http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-63271 The Doctor Sun, 04 Nov 2007 08:20:13 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/#comment-63271 Roger, the quote from ‘The World Set Free’ is interesting. You wouldn't happen to know when the half-life concept first arose & where. Mind you, anything with that short a half-life would be too dangerous and unstable to actually use in something with more lethality than watch dial! Roger, the quote from ‘The World Set Free’ is interesting. You wouldn't happen to know when the half-life concept first arose & where.
Mind you, anything with that short a half-life would be too dangerous and unstable to actually use in something with more lethality than watch dial!

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-62884 Brett Holman Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:47:01 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/#comment-62884 Well, that's good enough for me. Let's get this war off the ground! Well, that's good enough for me. Let's get this war off the ground!

]]> By: CK http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-62787 CK Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:39:32 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/#comment-62787 Elektron bombs? I think Iran has those. Elektron bombs? I think Iran has those.

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/comment-page-1/#comment-62765 Brett Holman Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:15:28 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/10/23/a-not-very-possible-fact/#comment-62765 Yes, Wells came closest to the reality, but as you note his weapons are still strange compared with actual atomic bombs. Continuous explosives, which diminish in power by one half every 17 days (the half-life of "Carolinum") -- they're more like runaway reactors than super-bombs. (They even start sinking into the Earth, China syndrome-style.) On the one hand he does say that because of the mathematical nature of half-lives, the bombs would always be active, which does anticipate the idea of radioactive wastelands. On the other, as far as I can recall he doesn't have any notion of radiation damage to living tissue -- it's the fire and molten rock and steam which seems to do the killing -- so there are no long term physical consequences of the remaining bombs, they are merely 'inconvenient'. None of which is any criticism of Wells at all, of course, but is just offered as part of an explanation why pre-Hiroshima atomic bombs couldn't compete with the horrors of gas warfare. (Aside from the fact that one existed and the other didn't, yet ...) Yes, Wells came closest to the reality, but as you note his weapons are still strange compared with actual atomic bombs. Continuous explosives, which diminish in power by one half every 17 days (the half-life of "Carolinum") -- they're more like runaway reactors than super-bombs. (They even start sinking into the Earth, China syndrome-style.) On the one hand he does say that because of the mathematical nature of half-lives, the bombs would always be active, which does anticipate the idea of radioactive wastelands. On the other, as far as I can recall he doesn't have any notion of radiation damage to living tissue -- it's the fire and molten rock and steam which seems to do the killing -- so there are no long term physical consequences of the remaining bombs, they are merely 'inconvenient'.

None of which is any criticism of Wells at all, of course, but is just offered as part of an explanation why pre-Hiroshima atomic bombs couldn't compete with the horrors of gas warfare. (Aside from the fact that one existed and the other didn't, yet ...)

]]>