If they fell out of an Aeroplane and hit the ground and exploded please discuss them below.
2 Rules.
1)If an Aeronautical engineer makes an assertion it is to be held as closer to the truth than the word of a computer gamer (regardless of if he is world champion)
2) If there is any confusion about rule 1, read it again.
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/miscellaneous/tallboy/tallboy.html
The most effective “IRON” bombs of the war.
conventional explosive used to devestating effect, the Grand Slam destroyed structures from beneath, by pentrating the ground and detonating beneath the target the shockwaves would shake the building apart.
http://www.constable.ca/bombs.htm
I believe that they were also the precursor of the bunker busting bombs in todays air forces due to their hollow/shaped charge design for penetration of armour.
better photograph below. http://www.johnmullen.org.uk/aerospce/pics/bombs.jpg
In early summer 1945, three Boeing B-29s were modified to carry a 22,000 lb Grand Slam on external bomb racks under each wing between the inboard engine and fuselage. After experiments at Eglin AAF in Florida, an order for fifty modified aircraft was placed. If the war hadn’t ended with the dropping of the atom bombs, dual Grand Slam B-29s might have been available to see action over Japan by the first week of September. Postwar publicity photographs never show more than three of the dual bomb modified B-29s flying in a formation. That may have been all that were built. Another B-29 was modified so that the lower part of the double bomb bay section would permit the semi external carriage of one large bomb (Tallboy, Grand Slam or T-12?). 20
The grand slam despite destroying the concrete roofs onb the U boat pens, 35 feet thick, did not acutally pentrate through to the pen instead it detonated whilst less than halfway through the concrete.
The weapons pentrated to 12 feet causing a splinter (or “scab”) on the reverse face of the ceiling to break free crushing whatever was on below.
This is in contradiction to my ealier comment htey were hte precursors of bunker busters that do actually penetrate the structure. Barnes Wallis did research shaped charge / Hollow charge and they were also dropped by 617 Sqn I just had the wrong weapon name.
Spinning Bomb
Basically its a depth charge type of explosive looking thing that can spin at around 500rpm. It practically bounces on the surface of the water which enables it to “dodge” the torpedo nets. Once it it hits the dam wall, it sinks and detonates at a specific depth. The Spinning bomb takes advantage of the water, which creates a bigger force. More effective than topedoes because of the ammount of explosives. Wanted to be used for the Navy, however, complications made it unseccesfull.
Note: Should we stay with the topic of WW2? or may we trail off?
This is a picture that I don’t think any have noticed.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/black_and_white/parafrag4
It is retarded bombs. I thought this was a post war modification. It lets the bomber get closer to the ground/target ensuring accuracy. The problem before they retarded bombs was that the blast would affect the bomber. By retarding the bombs the bomber has time to get away. This tactic lets you use low-level flight so that the target has little or no warning of your approach and hopefully no AAA.
Sounds like you’re talking about two different weapons here. The first is “Upkeep”, the bouncing bombs used by 617 squadron (flying Lancasters) against the Moehne, Eder and Sorpe dams. The second is “Highball”, which was to have been used by 618 squadron (flying Mosquitos) against either the Tirpitz or latterly Japanese shipping in the far east.
The advantage against both types of target is that the weapon can dodge torpedo nets while exploding in contact with the target. Furthermore, with Highball the weapon explodes directly underneat the (moored) target, making it more effective than a torpedo.
