Allied/Axis Bomb-Shapes

[Zipper730]

I'm starting to set-up the list. It's interesting that the RAF and USAAF have some differences in categories.

 

[wuzak]

I'm starting to set-up the list. It's interesting that the RAF and USAAF have some differences in categories.

Such as?

 

[Zipper730]

Such as?

If I recall, the RAF had the following categories of bombs

• Fragmentation
• General Purpose & Medium Capacity
• High Capacity
• Armor Piercing / Semi-Armor Piercing
• Anti-Tank
• Deep-Penetration
• Anti-Submarine
• Depth-Charges
• Buoyancy Bombs (Mines)
• Smoke & Target Identification
• Light-Case (Chemical Warfare)
• Incendiaries
• Practice
• Miscellaneous

The USAAF had the following

• General Purpose/Demolition
• Light Case
• Armor/Semiarmor Piercing
• Depth-Bombs
• Chemical: Incendiary / War Gas
• Fragmentation
• Clusters
• Practice / Drill

Differences

• The US designation for General Purpose would cover the UK's deep-penetration category
• The RAF's light case would go under part of the US's chemical category
• The US doesn't seem to have an anti-tank category, so I guess AP/SAP and possibly some cluster munitions might be covered there
• The US doesn't seem to have a mine category listed, though we dropped an enormous amount in WWII.

The following sources I have are as follows

 

[GrauGeist]

I believe the USN used the Mark 12 and Mark 13 mines.

The USAAF also mined Japanese waters extensively with their B-29s, so I might think that they would have used USN Mark 12s for the job.

 

[wuzak]

If I recall, the RAF had the following categories of bombs

Differences

• The US designation for General Purpose would cover the UK's deep-penetration category
• The RAF's light case would go under part of the US's chemical category
• The US doesn't seem to have an anti-tank category, so I guess AP/SAP and possibly some cluster munitions might be covered there
• The US doesn't seem to have a mine category listed, though we dropped an enormous amount in WWII.

Since the US didn't have any deep penetration bombs in WW2, I doubt that they would fit into the GP bomb category.

RAF's High Capacity (HC) would be equivalent to US Light Case.

 

[Zipper730]

So I guess one could place

• USA light-case w/ RAF's high capacity
• USA depth bombs w/ RAF's anti-submarine bombs

Should mines used by the US be put under the UK depth-bombs / anti-submarine bomb category or put under something else? Some were basically torpedoes, so...

 

[wuzak]

So I guess one could place

• USA light-case w/ RAF's high capacity
• USA depth bombs w/ RAF's anti-submarine bombs

Should mines used by the US be put under the UK depth-bombs / anti-submarine bomb category or put under something else? Some were basically torpedoes, so...

I would think "depth bombs" would be in the same category as "depth charges".

 

[pbehn]

So I guess one could place

• USA light-case w/ RAF's high capacity
• USA depth bombs w/ RAF's anti-submarine bombs

Should mines used by the US be put under the UK depth-bombs / anti-submarine bomb category or put under something else? Some were basically torpedoes, so...

Well a mine isn't a depth charge or anti submarine bomb but usage can change, the Germans dropped mines on cities by parachute.

 

[Zipper730]

The US's Depth Bomb category seems to include the UK's Anti-Submarine and Depth Charge category.

The UK buoyancy bombs are basically mines, but they don't appear to be self-propelled, but some of the mines we used in WWII were self-propelled. I suppose buoyancy bombs and mines could be put together. Do you or anybody else here have anything on types of torpedoes deployed from airplanes either used by the USAAF, USN, RAF/RN:FAA?

 

[GrauGeist]

The USN's Mark 13 could be used as a bomb, too.
So perhaps if you are categorizing bombs in groups like AP, HEI and such, maybe create a maritime category that covers depth-charges, mines and torpedoes?

 

[Zipper730]

The USN's Mark 13 could be used as a bomb, too.

So, they just took the screws off and all the associated equipment and hooked it onto a bomber and dropped it on it's way?

So perhaps if you are categorizing bombs in groups like AP, HEI and such, maybe create a maritime category that covers depth-charges, mines and torpedoes?

Well, I was thinking of going from general to specific and from explosive to non-explosives.

So I figured

1. General purpose
2. High Capacity
3. SAP / AP / Anti-Tank
4. Deep-Penetration
5. Depth-Bomb/Anti-Submarine & Torpedoes/Anti-Submarine
6. Blast-Frag
7. Incendiaries
8. Smoke & Target Identification
9. Chemical Warfare
10. Letter Bombs
11. Practice & Drill

Sound good?

 

[GrauGeist]

So, they just took the screws off and all the associated equipment and hooked it onto a bomber and dropped it on it's way?

Appears that it didn't need any mods, it was designed to be air-dropped outright.
Even though It had a magnetic trigger, being dropped on a target simply removed the "wait for it..." portion of it's original mission.

Follow this link, the Mark 13 is aboit halfway down:Mines of the United States of America - NavWeaps

Well, I was thinking of going from general to specific and from explosive to non-explosives.

So I figured

1. General purpose
2. High Capacity
3. SAP / AP / Anti-Tank
4. Deep-Penetration
5. Depth-Bomb/Anti-Submarine & Torpedoes/Anti-Submarine
6. Blast-Frag
7. Incendiaries
8. Smoke & Target Identification
9. Chemical Warfare
10. Letter Bombs
11. Practice & Drill

Sound good?

Looks great!

 

[nuuumannn]

I have often wondered why some German bombs were stored vertically tail down.

As Tomo stated, it was just the He 111 that had vertically stowed bombs, out of the German aircraft. The reason behind this was that it's bomb bay was essentially created by having holes in the floor structure and building containers to stow the bombs within the confines of the fuselage. The bay doors were rubber and it was not uncommon for the fins to strike the doors on the way out. This comes from the dual intent of the type being designed as a transport as well. The He 111 could carry larger bombs on exterior pylons as well, but these increased drag and reduced its good performance for the mid to late 30s bomber set.

Bomb doors

The Italian SM.79 had similarly configured bomb stowage for essentially the same reason; it too had a dual purpose of sharing its airframe between airliner and bomber.

Bomb bay

In terms of affecting accuracy, depends on what you are trying to do. In terms of carpet bombing, doesn't really make much of a difference if the intent is a large number of aircraft to level city blocks, but if you are wanting to attack smaller targets, like a ship or an aircraft hangar, it doesn't appear to have made too much of a difference in some cases, as the Luftwaffe used the He 111 in these scenarios and scored successful hits, although not in every occasion. Within days of the war's outbreak an He 111 dropped bombs on and sank two Kriegsmarine destroyers during a naval exercise, the pilot thinking the German ships were British. Of course, things like wind speed, wind direction, altitude, aircraft speed etc all affect bomb delivery.

 

[Airframes]

Note that the Ju-52, when fitted for bombing ( and some were in WW2), also used the "vertical cell" type of bomb stowage, as in the He-111.

 

[Snautzer01]

Note that the Ju-52, when fitted for bombing ( and some were in WW2), also used the "vertical cell" type of bomb stowage, as in the He-111.

And a very few wing mounted bombs. I have a photo.

 

[Koopernic]

Well a mine isn't a depth charge or anti submarine bomb but usage can change, the Germans dropped mines on cities by parachute.

That claim is common but has been called into doubt or at least contested. Parachute retarded anti shipping mines were deliberately aimed at and dropped into the harbours of British ports to disrupt and sink shipping. The ones that missed the water and landed on land self destructed (about 10 seconds latter) in part to protect the secrets of the trigger. It appears they were never dropped on land targets deliberately (expensive and probably less accurate). Of course the many that hit warehouses and port side dwellings would have been perceived as deliberate and perhaps . To an extent this collateral damage may have been deliberate side effect. Likely in my view.

In German usage the term "mine" is used for a munition designed to destroy entirely by blast rather than splinters or penetration.

 

[Koopernic]

Since the US didn't have any deep penetration bombs in WW2, I doubt that they would fit into the GP bomb category.

RAF's High Capacity (HC) would be equivalent to US Light Case.

They had the Disney bomb similar to the German rocket boosted bombs

 

[Juha3]

That claim is common but has been called into doubt or at least contested. Parachute retarded anti shipping mines were deliberately aimed at and dropped into the harbours of British ports to disrupt and sink shipping. The ones that missed the water and landed on land self destructed (about 10 seconds latter) in part to protect the secrets of the trigger. It appears they were never dropped on land targets deliberately (expensive and probably less accurate). Of course the many that hit warehouses and port side dwellings would have been perceived as deliberate and perhaps . To an extent this collateral damage may have been deliberate side effect. Likely in my view.

In German usage the term "mine" is used for a munition designed to destroy entirely by blast rather than splinters or penetration.

22 second self-destruction time. And definitely they were deliberately dropped on land targets, Central London etc, because of their blast effect.

 

[Juha3]

.

 

[pbehn]

That claim is common but has been called into doubt or at least contested. Parachute retarded anti shipping mines were deliberately aimed at and dropped into the harbours of British ports to disrupt and sink shipping. The ones that missed the water and landed on land self destructed (about 10 seconds latter) in part to protect the secrets of the trigger. It appears they were never dropped on land targets deliberately (expensive and probably less accurate). Of course the many that hit warehouses and port side dwellings would have been perceived as deliberate and perhaps . To an extent this collateral damage may have been deliberate side effect. Likely in my view.

In German usage the term "mine" is used for a munition designed to destroy entirely by blast rather than splinters or penetration.

If you can show me the harbour and docks in Coventry Manchester and Birmingham you have a point.