GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
They were intended to be used against hardened Japanese positions but the war ended before they could be used.
Nothing "propeganda" about it.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They were intended to be used against hardened Japanese positions but the war ended before they could be used.At 22,000lbs, its not as if they can be dropped separately either, is it?
That on top of the penalties you describe, makes its difficult to imagine a sensible operational reason for carrying two Grand Slams. I suspect this was primarily and engineering challenge and a propaganda opportunity.
I'm very much aware of the point and purpose of a grand slam bomb.They were intended to be used against hardened Japanese positions but the war ended before they could be used.
Nothing "propeganda" about it.
I dont know the answer but what I do know is it took an age to put the explosive a bucket full at a time in and allow it to cool, according to wiki there were 4,200Kg of explosive in the Grand Slam's 10,200 total weight. Below pics of the bombs before explosive and tail added.This photo that has appeared many times has always puzzled me. With two Grand Slams totalling 44,000lb aboard, just how much fuel was it carrying? And therefore what was its potential range? Were they even filled with explosives or sand ballast or effectively just aerodynamic test shapes?
That's about the measure of it regarding B29 carriage.Tallboy(12,000lb.) tests - Feb 1945 - In time to be of use during the war.
Grand Slam(22,000lb.) tests - 1946? - Post-war testing?
Read the official report I posted in post #239. Tests STARTED in Feb 1945. The report was dated 30 JUNE 1945 and recommended training of a special unit to drop them and modifications to future aircraft conversions. So no way were they going to be capable of being used by the USAAF in a WW2 ending as historical in Aug 1945. It would have been 1946 before they could have been deployed.Tallboy(12,000lb.) tests - Feb 1945 - In time to be of use during the war.
Grand Slam(22,000lb.) tests - 1946? - Post-war testing?
By Oct 1944, US Tallboy monthly production had reached 110, rising to 150 per month by the end of the year with more in 1945. I'm not sure when it started. Production methods were different in the USA. Without US production the squadrons would have run out of bombs to drop.I believe development of the U.S. version of the Tallboy, the T-10 (which was further developed into the M121), was started in late 1944 - the VB-13 "Tarzon" started in February 1945.
Not sure how much development was left for the US to do. Construction methods were changed to ease mass production. IIRC British manufacturers had difficulties welding the steel thicknesses involved in making these bombs.I recall reading about the U.S. versions of the Tallboy/Grand Slam bombs in Bill Gunston's book (don't remember the title, but I'll search for it) and he covers development of the T-10, T-12, T-14 and their derivatives in pretty good detail.
The B-29 was the first bomber able to deliver the strategic effects the bomber advocates dreamed of.
It was the first bomber with the performance and bomb load to able to be used to smash cities at will.
Nothing was the same after B San.
It took a considerable amount of high-altitude observation thru balloons and aircraft to determine where they are at specific times.The monitoring of the fall out from the Krakatoa eruption showed there were strong winds in the upper atmosphere, and there were various reports pre WWII but it was not until post WWII the key data was determined. Like if they were seasonal, the average speeds, altitudes and so on.
In-flight refueling was in its infancy in WW II, and tests used the probe-and-drogue method.The RAF in-flight refuelling efforts had nothing to do with the atom bomb project. This was to aid the RAF's Tiger Force; its effort to supply bombers against Japan in the final months of the war once the war ended in Europe. Tiger Force was not going to be ready at least until the very end of 1945, but the atom bombs put an end to its use. It's worth noting that the Lancaster was never seriously considered for the mission, not by the Americans and no evidence exists the British put anything into place to support it. As mentioned above, the Lancaster was suggested as the only aircraft that could carry the Thin Man internally of existing bombers back in 1943. It was not stated anywhere that it was under consideration for the mission. This suggestion in a paper by Ramsey in 1943 has subsequently morphed into a desire to use it as the carrier aircraft through the magic of the internet, which is entirely fictitious. The Americans were adamant that the carrier aircraft was going to be the B-29 from the outset, despite whatever discussions Ramsey had with Chadwick. Ramsey did propose that Lancasters be used for trials owing to the lack of B-29s in 1943, but this was turned down and not actioned. Subsequent supply of the Silverplate B-29s negated this at any rate.
Why not? The U.S. had more ordnance than they knew what to do with. Give them two for the price of one.I'm very much aware of the point and purpose of a grand slam bomb.
But why for the sake of Pete carry two? Given they're mounted to either side of the centreline of the aircraft, you'd have to release both at the same time which (along with being potentially catastrophic I would have thought in the case of one hanging-up) seems more than a *just a little* redundant. And if the don't both drop at precisely the same moment, you're also going to throw the trim of the aircraft (to put it mildly!) and put accuracy way off - and that was one of the fundamental merits of the bomb.
No they didn't! Mature refuelling systems after the war were all hose systems, with the looped hose having a short period of use in the West (persisting in the USSR till the mid 60s), but hose and drogue systems were mature long before booms showed up!!Mature post-WW II refueling systems relied on dedicated tanker aircraft with booms.
Ok, but per this article the British and the Americans did little with air refueling in and before WW II other than testing and proposing --No they didn't! Mature refuelling systems after the war were all hose systems, with the looped hose having a short period of use in the West (persisting in the USSR till the mid 60s), but hose and drogue systems were mature long before booms showed up!!
B-50s and KB-50s also used the looped hose, to good effect when Lucky Lady II flew non-stop around the world in 1949. The flying boom system is inferior in the most part because it is limited to one aircraft at a time, unlike hose systems. Both systems have their problems, with hose & drogue relying on the skill of the pilot ("Do NOT chase the drogue, but follow the markings on the tanker") and the boom system relying on the skill of BOTH pilot and boom operator with a rigid connection opposed to a flexible connection for hose systems. On balance the hose drogue system is superior, but not by much.Ok, but per this article the British and the Americans did little with air refueling in and before WW II other than testing and proposing --
. . . . .Refueling through the century
By Erin Lasley, Air Mobility Command History OfficeSCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill -- It may be hard to believe, but nearly 100 years have passed since the first air-to-air refueling took place in 1923. Onwww.amc.af.mil
Excerpt:
Though refueling did not play an operational role in World War II, the Army Air Forces finally did see its potential and continued to experiment with new planes and equipment. By 1948, General Spaatz made air refueling the highest priority for the new Air Force and took advantage of the latest refueling technology the British had churned out. Using the British loop-hose refueling system, the Air Force and Boeing produced 40 KB-29M tankers and 40 B-29 receivers for the newly created Strategic Air Command (SAC). The SAC leadership made the decision that all new bombers in the future would have inflight refueling capabilities.