dogsbody
Airman 1st Class
Chris
Allied/Axis Bomb-Shapes
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Chris
wuzak
Captain
That graphic doesn't give a type of some of the American bombs.
2 and 5 are General Purpose bombs.
3 is a light case bomb.
For the British bombs, 10 is the short tail version of the 1,000lb MC bomb, 9 is an early version of the 4,000lb HC bomb (MK I). 13 is a GP bomb, which had a much lower charge to weight ratio than the US GP bombs or the British MC bomb.
2 and 5 are General Purpose bombs.
3 is a light case bomb.
For the British bombs, 10 is the short tail version of the 1,000lb MC bomb, 9 is an early version of the 4,000lb HC bomb (MK I). 13 is a GP bomb, which had a much lower charge to weight ratio than the US GP bombs or the British MC bomb.
- Thread starter
- #23
Except for the Tall-Boys and the armor piecing bombs, none of those bombs are designed with much thought to aerodynamics. Probably very few ever saw their shape evaluated in a wind tunnel.
As long as when they were released from the aircraft they fell away was all they cared about.
They weren't looking for a individual bomb to be accurate, when you drop bombs in masses, it all averages out.
Can you imagine the accuracy potential of that #9 bomb, all it had to guide it was gravity.
As for box or round tail fins, box fins were just cheaper to mass produce.
As long as when they were released from the aircraft they fell away was all they cared about.
They weren't looking for a individual bomb to be accurate, when you drop bombs in masses, it all averages out.
Can you imagine the accuracy potential of that #9 bomb, all it had to guide it was gravity.
As for box or round tail fins, box fins were just cheaper to mass produce.
- Thread starter
- #25
Okay, that makes sense... did they have to be supercalibur for it to work?
Define supercalibur .
fubar57
General
Must be the shortened version of this.......Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
A better Excalibur
- Thread starter
- #29
Diamter of the fins are bigger than the bomb fins
What ?
Or do you mean the fins are bigger than the diameter of the bomb ?
There may be some bombs like that, but I haven't noticed any.
Having the fins bigger than the bomb diameter will cause stowage problems.
Of coarse, the bombs would be much more stable with giant fins out back, but it would take up room in the bomb bay. plus increase the chance of bombs becoming entangled early in the drop.
Or do you mean the fins are bigger than the diameter of the bomb ?
There may be some bombs like that, but I haven't noticed any.
Having the fins bigger than the bomb diameter will cause stowage problems.
Of coarse, the bombs would be much more stable with giant fins out back, but it would take up room in the bomb bay. plus increase the chance of bombs becoming entangled early in the drop.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #31
That's correct
Most of the bombs we built in the US fit that profile, I'm curious if we could have made them smaller...
I'm curious why the box fins are so much easier to manufacture, didn't they have a slip-roll back then?
fubar57
General
Somewhere in here might have something on the "Bomb Board" Records of the office of the Chief of Ordnance
"In 1921 the War Department convened a Bomb Board to conduct an extensive program for testing bombs against various kinds of structures and surfaces. The tests, running over a period of two years, provided data that guided the Ordnance Department and the Air Corps through the 1930s, Ordnance engineers strengthened demolition bomb cases by forging them as nearly as possible in one piece, with a minimum of welding, and substituted for the long fins of World War I short box fins that gave greater stability in flight"
"In 1921 the War Department convened a Bomb Board to conduct an extensive program for testing bombs against various kinds of structures and surfaces. The tests, running over a period of two years, provided data that guided the Ordnance Department and the Air Corps through the 1930s, Ordnance engineers strengthened demolition bomb cases by forging them as nearly as possible in one piece, with a minimum of welding, and substituted for the long fins of World War I short box fins that gave greater stability in flight"
Can you post any picture where US bombs have fins that stick out beyond the largest diameter of the bomb body ?
Of course they had slip rolls back then, it's easier to assemble about any structure out of flat panels than curved.
The way bombs in the early 20's and 30's was made didn't have a lot to do with the methods the manufactories went to when they had to start mass producing bombs.
I've had close contact with plenty of WW2 munitions, one word that describes them best is crude.
- Thread starter
- #34
I don't have dimensions readily on hand...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Several of the AP/semi-AP bombs had fins that extended beyond the body of the bomb, like the AN-M58 (500lb), AN-M59 (1,000lb) and so on.
Here's an image of the AN-M59, used by both the USN and USAAF:
- Thread starter
- #36
What I meant was the diameter of the fins, not their length. The fins are way bigger than the diameter of the rest of the projectile
fubar57
General
You mean exactly as the photo in Post #34 shows?
- Thread starter
- #38
Maybe my memory has failed me on this, I just don't remember those fins sticking out hardly any beyond the bombs girth.
Those fins extend maybe 6 inches beyond the biggest diameter of the bomb.
If they extend too much, they interfere with mounting the bombs externally on bomb racks. The fins will touch the aircraft's structure underneath the wing.
The bombs I'm familiar with could have the fins rotated, either inline with the hanging lugs, or on either side of the lugs.
Those fins extend maybe 6 inches beyond the biggest diameter of the bomb.
If they extend too much, they interfere with mounting the bombs externally on bomb racks. The fins will touch the aircraft's structure underneath the wing.
The bombs I'm familiar with could have the fins rotated, either inline with the hanging lugs, or on either side of the lugs.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Probably not a failure of memory at all.
I'm sure that most WWII ordnance (in the way of bombs, at least) were used up in Korea or at least equipped with a new tailfin standardization by the time of the Vietnam war. With the advent of the jets, there had to be a uniform (more compact) shape that would allow for mounting on various jet's hardpoints without danger of damage to the wing surface.
I recall perusing Long Beach surplus when I was a kid in the 70's and they had a mountain of tailfin assemblies piled up out back that were WWII and Korean war vintage.
I'm sure that most WWII ordnance (in the way of bombs, at least) were used up in Korea or at least equipped with a new tailfin standardization by the time of the Vietnam war. With the advent of the jets, there had to be a uniform (more compact) shape that would allow for mounting on various jet's hardpoints without danger of damage to the wing surface.
I recall perusing Long Beach surplus when I was a kid in the 70's and they had a mountain of tailfin assemblies piled up out back that were WWII and Korean war vintage.
