Talk:Grand Slam bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


The original design plans are important, and these were for a bomb designed to use the earth underground as a shockwave transmission medium. This scomes form the paul brickhill book on the dambusters.


"The design was very aerodynamic with a tail which caused it to spin. This allowed it to break the sound barrier as it fell."

How? - Omegatron 03:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

No expert on aerodynamics, but I'd take a guess there are two factors. Firstly, and most importantly, the spin produces a gyroscopic effect so that the bomb is kept upright as it falls. If this did not happen then the very high turbulence experienced as the speed of sound is approached would cause the bomb to tumble off its axis and to slow. Secondly, I think the spinning will probably produce some sort of effect around the bomb that will reduce the resistance to the fall. That second point may be wrong, though.

Your second point is incorrect, I think, but you're spot on wit hthe first. To say "it allowed" it to break the sound barrier is a little misleading, though, since the spinning slowed the bomb directly (resistance with the air is used to produce rotational motion), but the consequences of that spinning (not tumbling as it falls, as well as being less vulnerable to drafts and breezes) would probably improve the top speed. Of course, it it was dropped in dead air and from a stationary position such as a tower or zeppelin, it would fall faster with regular flights. This is an unliekly situation, so I'll exclude it for now. Oceanhahn 05:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The article also quotes 2,358kg of explosive, the same number as for the Tallboy bomb. Is that right?

--203.103.42.106 03:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Different facts

As so often, regarding the Valentin submarine pens, the german article claims they only had 5 metres thick roofs and the Grand Slam bomb could not break through them (and the RAF website times out). -- Darklock 00:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicated content

"he redesigned the Tallboy accordingly. The design was very aerodynamic with a tail which caused it to spin. This allowed it to reach supersonic speeds as it fell. It had a much thicker case than the typical World War II bomb so that it would survive the impact of hitting a hardened surface. Its hardened casing was cast in a single piece in a sand mold, using a concrete core. When dropped onto compacted earth it would penetrate over 40 meters into the ground. The explosion would leave a 'cavern' which would undermine foundations of structures above causing collapse."

This is a bit misleading. It reads as if this description relates specifically to the Grand Slam, but most of it also features in the Tallboy article. TheMadBaron 09:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merge

keep separate as different weapons with different missions. GraemeLeggett 20:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definitely keep separate

They are different bombs. If we merge these, then we must merge Fat Man and Little Boy to be consistent. Does not compute./ Moriori 22:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not a good analogy: those used radically different bomb architecture (plutonium/implosion and uranium/gun), while Grand Slam was just an upsized version of Tallboy.
Try the .50 calibre round and .30-06. Virtually the same, except one is larger. Should they be merged? Moriori 19:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Was one literally an adaptation of the other, a development by the same designer? I haven't said Grand Slam and Tallboy should be merged, just that the duplication because of common origin should be snipped. Tearlach 23:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think one would have been literally an adaptation of the other, but I don't know which was chicken or egg. ):- Moriori 00:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'd say keep them separate, but cut the duplicated material in Grand Slam and refer to Tallboy for the general background principles. Tearlach 19:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep then seperate do not cut the duplicate material as it is not a lot and was true for both bombs. It is not as if it uses either a lot of disk space, bandwidth or screen space. Philip Baird Shearer 00:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Also the paragraph mentions the only type of British bomber which could carry the Grand Slam.I have also mentioned that the fist use against the enemy involved destroying the foundations by a proximity drop not a direct hit. Philip Baird Shearer 01:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "CLOUDMAKER" IRRELEVANT TO THIS PAGE

I don't think that tagging on to the bottom of this page, "the US developed an even bigger bomb"(that was never used operationally)serves any useful purpose. I'll remove it unless some one can justify it's relevance. Uncool 1 17:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last one detonated

See RAF_Scampton for a short bit on the last Grand Slam to be detonated after it was discovered that one loaded with torpex had been put on display as a gate guardian at the airbase.

[edit] Farge U-boat Pen

The Bombs did not hit that part of the Pen with the 7 m roof as the text seems du say. So the Grand Slams "only" penetrate 4,5 m of concrete (as the subtitle of the Pcture correctly sais)--WerWil 20:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Source? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I know only german sites: [1][2] --WerWil 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 30 meters or 40?

The development history section says both that the grand slam would detonate "some 30m" below the ground and "over 40m". What is the real fact here? I imagine it is a fuzzy range and dependant on the ground material but please...--Lomacar 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)