Stalins Organ Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Today's wiki front page features a "did you know" about a WW2 V-2 launching bunker in Nth France. In the "Subsequent investigations and utilisation" section there is a link to something called a "Disney Bomb" - which turns out to be a rocket propelled bomb designed by the RN, inspired by a Disney film (hence the name) and only ever dropped by the USAAF. the RN's interest in such a weapon (none of its a/c could carry it) was in attacking U-boat pens. One was dropped on the afore-mentioned bunker as a test in 1945, and retrieved some time recently 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 There's something new to learn every day. Thanks for the link. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I worked in one of the buildings supposedly hit by them and this is the first I have heard of them. The Grand Slams are well known, as they left a bit of an impression but I will have to look in to these. A bit puzzled it fell to the US to drop these as the Brits clearly had the ability and will to drop exotic ordnance from their aircraft. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I thought it was an elaborate hoax but no it is true! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jurpo Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Today's wiki front page features a "did you know" about a WW2 V-2 launching bunker in Nth France. This is pretty jawdropping too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Coupole 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted June 19, 2011 Author Share Posted June 19, 2011 Yeah - some of the German constructions in France were quite impressive I suspect the US go the job of dropping them because it required precision daylight bombing which was supposed to be their forte. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 I suspect the US go the job of dropping them because it required precision daylight bombing which was supposed to be their forte. Except that the Tallboys (and later the Grand Slams) were dropped in daylight with at least as great precision. I'm sure there was a reason, but I don't think we've hit on it yet. I know that General Spaatz was not happy about having his bombers diverted to hitting missile launch facilities—mainly V-1 ramps—and in the case of the latter were much better dealt with using dive bombers. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I'm sure there was a reason, but I don't think we've hit on it yet. Political is my guess (and alluded to in one of the articles). Harris could be quite stubborn when he set his mind against something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 Yeah I though of 617 sqn daylight bombing oave r the weekend too.... this note from the wiki article may explain it tho' - "this" is why it became a joint venture between hhte RN & USAAF: The reason for this is unclear. Several source (Freeman, pg. 228. McArthur, pg. 280) cite unspecified technical reasons that prevented the use of British aircraft. The British Avro Lancaster had a bomb bay large enough to accommodate two Disneys side–by–side, and sufficient lifting power. It is possible the RAF thought their Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs were adequate and did not want to divert resources into deploying yet another bomb that would simply accomplish the same task. American interest in Disney may be explained by the previous failure of their attempt to produce an anti-bunker weapon, the Aphrodite Drone, that had left them without the capability of attacking heavily fortified targets. Basically the RAF thought the heavy bombs sufficient, and the USAAF needed something in a hurry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Basically the RAF thought the heavy bombs sufficient, and the USAAF needed something in a hurry. And Grandslams and Tallboys couldn't be produced in a hurry. They took a couple of months for each one to be machined and packed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Plenty of proof that raids on rocket launch sites were not as effective when done by high level bombers. The reason the Americans needed something was PR as for the Limeys to have something so superior and the Americans nothing was not a slight to go unpassed. AND to have a rocket device was much more hi-tech. There was no urgent battle need for such a weapon. As for the production rate of the big bombs I am sure if there had been sufficient targets to make the effort worth it then more effort could have been made to produce them more quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Producing them more quickly was beyond UK industry at that point - new plant would have had to be set up in the US and the bombs shipped. As it was they had enough to assign to relatively few crews on strategic targets. Wasn't Tirpitz was sunk by a Tallboy? Smashed out its bottom and sank upright in the fjord or something, fooling the recon planes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironbar Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 A few pictures scanned out of Roger Freeman's 'The Mighty Eighth.' According to the captions these are Disney bombs being dropped on E boat pens at Ijmuiden on 14 Mar 1945. Each Disney bomb grossed 4500 lbs and were released at 20,000 feet. They dropped conventionally to 5000 ft, at which time the roket motors ignited, accelerating them to 2400 ft per second, (according to Freeman). They were designed to penetrate 20 foot of concrete before detonating. It is well worth remembering that reinforced concrete wasn't really overcome by weaponery until 1940 with hollow shaped charges at Eban Emael. On the Allied side, the Brits tried more and more explosive weight (they of course were concerned with attacking U boat pens long before the V1/2 sites reared their ugly heads). So attacking anything made of reinforced concrete was still trial and error until the end of the war. Nice video here; Diesel; still sore about being underpaid, undersexed and under Eisenhower? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironbar Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Oh on a last note, the Disney bombs were designed and funded by the RN.- Apologies to Stalin's Organist, he made (very astutely) this very point early on in the thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Producing them more quickly was beyond UK industry at that point - new plant would have had to be set up in the US and the bombs shipped. As it was they had enough to assign to relatively few crews on strategic targets. Wasn't Tirpitz was sunk by a Tallboy? Smashed out its bottom and sank upright in the fjord or something, fooling the recon planes. Yes, except she turned turtle, rather than settling upright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Catechism 30 Tallboys! I guess they finally got sick of piddling about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 And Grandslams and Tallboys couldn't be produced in a hurry. They took a couple of months for each one to be machined and packed. not sure that's altogether relevant tho - B-17's & B-24's couldn't carry the big RAF bombs could they? So ramping up production for the USAAF would have been pointless. I know B-29's could - apparently they could carry _2_ extrnally 1 under each wing root - for experimetnal purposes at least!! :eek: I recall reading somewhere they poured the explosves into the big bombs and it took a week or 10 days to cool the Tallboys down - can anyone confirm that?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I recall reading somewhere they poured the explosves into the big bombs and it took a week or 10 days to cool the Tallboys down - can anyone confirm that?? Wiki actually says a month for the Torpex to set. And that was just one step. The bomb casing also took a long time to machine because it was done to very fine tolerances to get the right spin stability. Hence my comments about the production lag. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I recall reading somewhere they poured the explosves into the big bombs and it took a week or 10 days to cool the Tallboys down - can anyone confirm that?? Artillery shells were (are?) also filled with molten explosive that was then left to cool and solidify ... but presumably for less than a month. But the process was known, although Tallboy and Grandslam dialled it up to 11. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Oh on a last note, the Disney bombs were designed and funded by the RN.- Apologies to Stalin's Organist, he made (very astutely) this very point early on in the thread. Ironbar Some of us comprehend what is written on first reading : ). The US developing yet another British idea certainly is a tribute to the UK genuis. That tactically there was no urgent call for it and it was more a PR exercise to show that the US was technically advanced even if it could not develop and deliver the biggest bombs I still believe - but everyone can believe whar they want. As for Eisenhower I think he was a very good choice. And you must know I have no problems with the US soldiery - the political system maybe, the late arrival to major wars and early arrival for non-wars I blame on politicians. And my view on the governance of the USA is one of deep sadness. : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 btw, those images are definitely of IJmuiden. It's hard to tell but those are some sizeable craters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.