France Dropping Concrete Bombs In Libya

Forget the United States’ low-collateral damage Small Diameter Bomb, France has begun using concrete filled training bombs to literally crush Gadhafi’s tanks without causing massive explosions that can harm nearby civilians.

Apparently, the 660-pound “training bombs” have not been pressed into combat due to a lack of explosive munitions, as was reported earlier this month.

From AFP:

Military spokesman Thierry Burkhard denied rumors the use of the 300-kilogram (660-pound) training devices was prompted by a shortage of real bombs. He said the first such strike crushed an armored vehicle April 26.

“The aim of this munition … is to use the effect of the impact while limiting the risk of collateral damage,” Burkhard said. “It is a very precise strike. There is no, or very little, shrapnel thrown out.”

Concrete bombs have been around for decades (the ones pictured above are from World War II) and are usually used for training. However, a 600-pound piece of concrete dropped from thousands of feet in the air can be pretty darn effective when it hits a relatively small, soft target.

Keep in mind that the bombs, while concrete, are still guided by modern technology like GPS or lasers onto their targets since a near miss with a concrete bomb won’t get you much.

This wouldn’t be the first time such weapons have been used in modern air warfare. The U.S. used laser-guided concrete bombs against Iraqi targets in the late 1990s for the same reason France says it’s using them.

 

  • Matrix_3692

    pure momentum = raw destructive force
    and that’s my favorite thing!
    (plus it’s economical and effective, another two points added)

  • anon

    so really this is an operational use of a kinetic energy bomb? seems like an excellent idea

  • Bill

    Even in the future, rocks will still hurt when they’re thrown at you.

    • Rock shooter

      …and a gun essentially throws very tiny rocks very quickly.

    • Better than what the USA is using, ie depleted Uranium audinence. That has a half life of 25’000 years. So much for it being about humanitarian issues.

      • Joe Schmoe

        You know, if you could spell “ordinance” properly we might take you more seriously.

        P.S. – You have no clue what DU rounds are, read up.

  • Matrix_3692

    i suppose that concrete is much more cheaper than solid steel, and remember, those dummy bombs are used in training before being deploy in Libya, and steel bombs for training just isn’t going to be cost effective.

  • ew-3

    There’s something very bizarre about putting a GPS / laser guidance system on what amounts to a big rock.

    Sort of 1st century meets 21st century.

  • David

    Do you want a penetration effect? Isn’t the whole point to get a brute force crushing effect?

  • ftjfjjjfdjj

    Could just put steel on the tip if you were concerned about cost but wanted some peneration

    • James

      thats what she said

  • SJE

    Next up: the tank mounted catapult

    • viskarenvisla

      lolol for long-range we’ll use a trebuchet in the back of a pickup truck.

    • Anon

      Because, FUCK YOU!

  • Eve

    Libyans need to tank for kinetic damage, imo

  • Lame

    Obviously they are not worried about penetration, no point for steel when concrete is crushing a tank. Did anyone read that part?

  • Force=mass*accelration

    Newton FTW

    • ew-3

      A more technically accurate expression would be E = (m*v^2)/2

      This way you can compare the energy of the impact with the energy of an explosive.

    • Keanu Meshach Stryker

      mΔv=FΔt

  • %_4

    Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space.

  • Sarcasmo

    “since well, a near miss with a concrete bomb won’t get you much.”

    That’s some fine righting there, Lou.

    • EFG

      That’s some fine WRITING there, Lou….

  • Wefinish

    They need to improve the guidance system to separate just before impact and fly home for reuse.

  • hvhuvh

    Paper beats Rock? I think not.

  • Jaf

    @hvhuvh, sorry fake tank will beat rock bomb

    • PiRat

      Fake to beat a fake?

  • Josh

    America would never do that we have a defense budget to maintain.

  • Capt. Nosebleed

    Lookup Rail Guns. The US has been continually developing non-explosive warheads for decades. There is a new rail gun that can shoot a solid steel projectile through 2 inches of steel and it will continue on it’s path for miles after passing through the steel.

  • anon

    They'” probably built to be a similar size and shape to the “real” bombs – a slimmer shape wouldn’t be as realistic for training.

  • TheDude

    The Sovjets used concrete shells in the 152mm guns of their ISU-152 SPH/tank destoyers against german tanks with big success. Blows away a Panther/Tiger turret or dents the hull into *****-status.

  • The RAF began dropping 1000 pounders in Iraq, back in 2003. So ours is bigger than yours, Frenchie.

    They were not only used for taking out tanks and guns in sensitive areas, but they were also pretty good at taking out individual houses whilst containing most of the resultant mess and death within that structure.

  • The RAF began dropping 1000 pounders in Iraq, back in 2003. So ours is bigger than yours, Frenchie.

    They were not only used for taking out tanks and guns in sensitive areas, but they were also pretty good at taking out individual houses whilst containing most of the resultant mess and death within that structure.

  • emen

    ever heard about “sand blasting ” this one is concrete blasting , grind then tanks am loving dat!!!

  • Alvaro

    Look up APDS and APFSDS munitions

  • jcsr

    They’d better be accurate. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

  • TEK_GADG

    Amazing. Sometimes low-tech is the best way to go.

    • Matt

      I dont know if I’d call anything with GPS or laser guidence “low tech,” no matter whats actually in the bomn

      • Matt

        *bomb

        • TEK_GADG

          You’re right. I was thinking more about the contents of the bomb, though.

  • JonJon

    Is it just me, or is almost hard to believe that a country is actually watching out for civilians when dropping bombs?! Funny stuff… I mean I get it, it’s a civil war so they have specific targets to hit, but still, concrete bombs!? I nearly lol’d when I first read the header on reddit and considered the ridiculousness of it being the literal translation, just that… a concrete bomb. Shit blows my mind.

  • m amazed by concrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeettteeee bomb,

  • Vstress

    I am a Aeronautical engineer… with a degree in the subject… who does aircraft structures engineering… and it always surprises me how little people understand about this sort of thing.

    This is all about energy concentration over a small area. To be honest though, I would like to see the results of this sort of weapon at some point. I can only imagine it would take some perfect strike to take out all the functions of the tank. Without explosives surely this just leaves a big hole… but no explosion unless its a super lucky hit and the ammo storage is struck.

    I guess with the old soviet tanks with the ammo in a circular manner about the turret this might work… but I do not know. Pictures would be good if someone had some.

  • Nathan

    Hmmm, kinda like a arti strike but from the air… how is anyone too know if they are being shelled or air striked when they are dropping rocks on the enemy. You could blame anyone when you are dropping weapons that everyone has.

  • WIlliam C.

    Beware of falling debris.

    • Pleuris

      LOL!!!!

  • blah

    I believe this is the same thing that modern tanks due any ways with the kinetic sabot rounds they use now it’s a thin metal dart I believe made out of depleted uranium, no explosive besides to launch it out the barrel.

  • GrumpyFrench

    Kineti-Kill, I love you.

  • bigbill

    My brother was bombed by Japanese concret bombs in the S. Pacific during WW2. He said when the rock hit the coral rock he was trying to dig into, it shattered into much schrapnal. The small islands he was on were all coral. He never did mention how effective the bombs might have been.

  • Stephen Hale

    Using that tank mounted catapult to throw rocks into the air for anti-aircraft purposes might be economical too…just have multiple projectiles much like the effect of a shotgun for ducks or other birds.

  • Chris

    I’d love to see slow motion action of one of these puppies doing its job against an armoured foe.

  • Cheese

    “since well, a near miss with a concrete bomb won’t get you much.”

    if you nearly missed… that means you didn’t miss… you hit… so a near miss would be better than a real miss.

    • Sigma

      Except that in military parlance a ‘near miss’ is when you just barely miss the target; with high explosive you get splash effects. An HE near miss in water can also cause damage from hydrostatic shock, because water is incompressible. With a rock, you don’t get any effect at all from a near miss. . . except the other guy wiping his forehead and going “phew!”

  • Phantom Driver

    they only work with a direct hit
    and you all have no idea how hard it is to get a DIRECT hit
    even with smart munitions

  • “gunner”

    cheap and effective, whats not to like?

  • Inagodda Da Vida

    The US dropped little steel bomblets over german factories during WW2 and ball bearings over N. Vietnam. Had to stop with the ball bearings it was declared inhumane. I guess there wasn’t enough money to be made on ball bearings.

  • JOnathan

    I think there was a picture of one of these concrete bombs in the ruins of the house that NATO forces hit. It was the one that killed Saif Ghadaffi and Ghadaffi’s grandchildren. That might point the blame at France for the nation responsible for the strike. The bomb pictured was very long and looked to be bigger then a 500 pounder, probably a 1000 pound version. Looked to be about 10 feet long and very narrow/aerodynamic. Made like that to penetrate and allow it to be carried under the wing or airframe no doubt. Still could be US or France or even Italy or the UK since the tech could be used by anybody with an airplane and bomb guidance technology. Its ironic that this article was published here days before the strike happened.

    • blue1

      There’s no logical reason a rock should be designed to penetrate. It’s the massive energy dump which destroys targets, in this case a building. Designing the bomb to penetrate the roof with minimal energy transfer means the bomb dumps it’s energy into the floor which is pointless.

      A side note my bet is US

  • Curt

    However, the whole point of a concrete bomb is to have the same size, shape, and flight characteristics as your regular bombs, without the boom, so they offer realistic training.

  • This would be good for precision targets, if they want to target a small house or something. And the goodpart is that it wil lessen colateral damage.

  • N. Glenn

    So, now we have Newton (as in Sir Isaac) bombs, vice neutron bombs?

  • meticoeus

    Force =mass * acceleration isn’t directly relevant here.
    momentum = mass * velocity, and 300 kilos of falling concrete at terminal velocity has a lot of it.

    • oomoh

      Its still force. Its the bomb negatively accelerating from 250mph(or whatever speed) to 0. so Fa = 1/2M * a^2: 453.6kg / 2 * 9.80665 m/s2 = 226.8 * 96.04 = 21,781 newtons

  • Anthony Geldhof

    “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.” JC

  • Lazy Parrot

    Kinetic energy is da bomb

  • Arrow

    mmm I liked the BLU-109 better (killed Gaddafi’s son)

  • whodini

    next they’ll be dropping water ballons

  • starfish prime

    Kitchen sinks tumbling from the sky would demonstrate we’re not foolin’ around any longer

  • Robert Fritts

    I can hear the execs at Raytheon or LockMart coming up with a Multi billiion dollar sales strategey, to sell the molds for these bombs. When 2 cooks, a coms guy and a services kid from the gym, all on 30 days restriction and extra duty are mixing up 20 bombs a night for free.