Operation Chastise

[MikeMeech]

So - in use against ships, Highball was expected to slam into the ship's hull, bounce off, sink, then explode? I guess they wouldn't work unless under water then. If on land or stuck on a ship's superstructure - it wouldn't detonate?

Hi
The point of the weapon was to explode beneath the water which would enhance the effect and cause more damage to the capital ship. The HIGHBALL was for use against ships in harbour or at anchor with it 'bouncing' over anti-torpedo nets (as with UPKEEP when used against the dams) and exploding about 30 feet down therefore avoiding the ships main armour protection on the sides and decks.

Mike

 

[buffnut453]

Sounds like a similar approach to modern torpedoes which can be set to explode beneath a ship instead of trying to punch a hole in it. An explosion beneath a ship generates an upward force that the ship's structure is simply not designed to take, often causing the target to split into two sections.

Here's a fun video for those interested:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6zQ0wBvh18

 

[EwenS]

Hi
The point of the weapon was to explode beneath the water which would enhance the effect and cause more damage to the capital ship. The HIGHBALL was for use against ships in harbour or at anchor with it 'bouncing' over anti-torpedo nets (as with UPKEEP when used against the dams) and exploding about 30 feet down therefore avoiding the ships main armour protection on the sides and decks.

Mike

See my post #11. Also intended originally for ships on the open sea and later against land targets. Not sure how the fuzing would have worked in the latter case.

 

[EwenS]

Sounds like a similar approach to modern torpedoes which can be set to explode beneath a ship instead of trying to punch a hole in it. An explosion beneath a ship generates an upward force that the ship's structure is simply not designed to take, often causing the target to split into two sections.

Here's a fun video for those interested:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6zQ0wBvh18

Magnetic exploders for torpedoes allowing them to run under the target vessel have been around since the 1930s. However they did not always prove reliable. Hence the problems experienced by Ark Royal's Swordfish in May 1941 when they mistakenly attacked the Sheffield. For the next, and successful, attack on Bismarck they reverted to contact pistols. Other nations experienced similar reliability issues.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Magnetic exploders for torpedoes allowing them to run under the target vessel have been around since the 1930s.

The other aspect is that aside from exploding under the unarmored underside, for a brief moment the explosion evacuates water from its location, meaning that for a brief moment there's very little water there and the ship's keel lacks support from aforementioned water and is much more susceptible to breaking. It's kind of an artificially-induced sagging effect, accompanied by the damage imparted by the charge itself.

 

[33k in the air]

Magnetic exploders for torpedoes allowing them to run under the target vessel have been around since the 1930s. However they did not always prove reliable. Hence the problems experienced by Ark Royal's Swordfish in May 1941 when they mistakenly attacked the Sheffield. For the next, and successful, attack on Bismarck they reverted to contact pistols. Other nations experienced similar reliability issues.

The U.S. also (in)famously had problems with the magnetic detonator on its torpedoes during WWII . . . along with a host of other problems.

 

[WATU]

So - in use against ships, Highball was expected to slam into the ship's hull, bounce off, sink, then explode? I guess they wouldn't work unless under water then. If on land or stuck on a ship's superstructure - it wouldn't detonate?

Correct. It needed the water pressure at a depth of 30ft to cause a detonation.