What was the One Thing that won WWII?

[the lancaster kicks ass]

we all agrred it could, i believe using it in the form of a earthquake bomb was proposed......................

 

[lesofprimus]

And dont forget the most very important fact about this whole hypothetical situation...

Britian didnt have an A-Bomb....

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that's not a factor in the discussion.................

 

[lesofprimus]

LOL it should be... Wasnt there a better Brit bomber that could carry it, drop it accuratly, and survive??

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the lancaster was our best bomber, MAYBE if there was a griffon engined mossie it may be able to carry 9,000lbs over a very short range, but i doubt it....................

 

[Lightning Guy]

I would think that even if the Mossie could be modified to handle the weight of an atomic weapon the physical sized of the bomb would cause serious difficulty. It was tough enough getting a 4000lb bomb into the Mossie's bomb bay.

 

[Gemhorse]

Disagree there LG - The Mossie bomber-variant was adapted as early as possible to take the 4,000 lb. 'cookie', hence the bulged-bomb bays....And les, we wrangled this bit about 'Britain and the A-bomb' earlier on...British scientists were involved from the beginning with the A-bomb, it was decided to build it the US, partly because of better facilities, and also security...there is quite alot of historical reading to get the full picture, but that's the facts of it....

 

[Lightning Guy]

I think you may have misunderstood my point Gemhorse. I know the modifications to the allow the Mossie to carry the 'cookie' was done rather early. My point was that the bomb bay had to be buldged considerably to fit a 4,000lb weapon. Where would a 9,000-10,000lb bomb go?

 

[Gemhorse]

Yeah, I guess I did miss that point...my original argument was and still is that the Lancaster could've, not the Mossie....

 

[Lightning Guy]

I don't doubt that Lancaster could have carried the bomb, I just down that it could survive the explosion.

 

[lesofprimus]

I agree...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that's why using it as a earthquake bomb was suggested.........................

 

[Gemhorse]

Ireckon it would've survived, they were real manoevrable and faster once the weight was gone....

 

[Lightning Guy]

An earthquake nuke would have been even heavier . . . possibly even larger than the 22,000lb Grand Slam. With the Grand Slam, the ceiling of the Lanc was fairly low. Even clean it was still considerably slower than the B-29 and the Superfort had to push it to clear the blast radius.

 

[Maestro]

that's why using it as a earthquake bomb was suggested.........................

Can somebody clarify the term "earthquake bomb" to a newbie like me, please ? I always thought there were only two types of bombs : the "normal bombs" and the A-bombs.

 

[Andrew]

Can somebody clarify the term "earthquake bomb" to a newbie like me, please ? I always thought there were only two types of bombs : the "normal bombs" and the A-bombs.

The Earthquake bomb was so called because it weighed in at 22,000lbs, and when it was dropped it penetrated into the gound before expolding, and created a local earthquake, which was enough to cause Railway Viaducts to shake themselves to pieces, or even colapse railway tunnels with trains in them.

Tha Lancaster was the only Allied Bomber used in the European Theatre that was capable of carrying it, although the B25 was more than capable of Carrying the Earthquake Bomb, I don't think it did until just after the war.

It was one of three bombs developed by Barnes Wallis
The Bouncing Bomb
The 12,000lb Tallboy
And The 22,0000lb Earthquake or Sometimes Known as the Grand Slam

 

[Lightning Guy]

I believe you mean the B-29, but yes it was tested post-war carrying a Grand Slam under each wing.

But there is another thing I've been thinking about. I'm not sure an "earth-quake nuke" would be all that effective. Much of the damage caused by an atomic weapon is caused by the massive presure waves it produces. It seems to be that denonating it below ground would degrade its effectiveness considerably.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but yes it was tested post-war carrying a Grand Slam under each wing

not even the B-29 could carry that, it could carry 1xgrand slam, or 2xtallboys, one under each wing................

and the tallboy was also a earthquake bomb, earthquake bomb wasn't a name for the grand slam, it was the type of bomb...............

 

[Maestro]

Thank you all for the info on the "earthquake bomb".

And I agree with LG concerning the A-bomb. I saw a few movies of nuclear tests. Most of the damages were made by the pressure of the explosion.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Lanc,

"Early summer 1945, three Boeing B-29s were modified to carry a 22,000 lb Grand Slam on external bomb racks under each wing between the inboard engine and fuselage. After experiments at Eglin AAF in Florida, an order for fifty modified aircraft was placed. If the war hadn't ended with the dropping of the atom bombs, dual Grand Slam B-29s might have been available to see action over Japan by the first week of September. Postwar publicity photographs never show more than three of the dual bomb modified B-29s flying in a formation. That may have been all that were built. Another B-29 was modified so that the lower part of the double bomb bay section would permit the semi external carriage of one large bomb (Tallboy, Grand Slam or T-12)."