A friend who was a bomb aimer on 617 Squadron during WW2 dropped at least 2 Grand Slam bombs that I know of. His 22,000lb bomb was the one which collapsed the Bielefeld viaduct, and the other one he dropped blocked the Namur rail tunnel. He was part of Flt Lieutenant Squires crew. Both him and his wife are buried in the graveyard 200 yards from my House.
Straight forward facts with documentation and revelant archival film footage is a level of excellence all its own! You have set the bar high, keep doing what you're doing.
On another note, somebody asked how they could be that accurate. According to my father, one of the aircraft commanders that flew some of those missions, they had just enough fuel to get to altitude, make three wind triangles and then make the bomb run. So, the bombardier had timely and accurate info on the winds aloft when on the bomb run. Smooth, steady and nobody trying to shoot you down had a lot to do with the accuracy they achieved.
I read somewhere that the test they did to see the accuracy and flight of the Grandslam was a bust as they put a camera in the centre of the bullseye and the bomb went right into it so they never saw the footage of it fly.
@mightaswellbe • So then for the most part ( given everything was a go , ofc ) , these particular missions were a one and done ?? Don't misunderstand me for assuming this or anything else for that matter, but what I am saying is this.. considering the fuel capacity ( or limitations ) , the current weather conditions , enemy activity in or around the " target zone " ( < if applicable ) , among other possible factors...also , when the making or building of these bombs then deploying them first came to mind , were civilian casualties ever taken into consideration ?? With these particular bombs and missions , I mean ?? I've already read reports and some quoted remarks made by Truman , talking about that sometimes, civilian casualties were a " condition " of war... regardless of whose administration the or a particular war was being fought or engaged... I know that with him say that , it didn't exactly make him the most loved man in America , at the time...
And on one more note. They lost one of those monsters. Dad mentioned it and it's also mentioned in part 2 of the Harken project report. According to dad they lost power on one side which, because they were carrying max power just to stay at altitude, caused the plane to yaw, which caused a bank which upped the G-load and the shackles failed and the bomb departed the aircraft. The approximate location is mentioned in the report. According to dad it landed in some farmer's back forty and buried itself so deep they didn't bother trying to dig it up, so it is probably still out there. These things were inert, concrete filled.
What amazes me is that after penetrating 24 feet of reinforced concrete, the casing will be intact. However what amazes me even more is that this u-tuber was able to find all of these tests and video. The amount of research he has gone to so we can be further educated on the war. I salute you sir for your dedication.
Really interesting stuff, thank you 🙂 The Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs were designed by Barnes Wallis, who also invented the bouncing bomb and the Vickers Wellington bomber.
@HailAnts He did. He also came up with the idea. It's codename was upkeep and there was a smaller version called Highball to be used against ships and tunnels.
As an engineering 16 year old apprentice, I had the honour of shacking hands with Barnes Wallace. Some time later, I saw him having a coffee alone in the college canteen. I politely asked him if I might sit with him, he said "please do, I could do with a bit of company". It seems that after his speech he was left. We sat there and had 3 coffees. I insisted in getting them despite his protestations. That hour or so will stay with me (I'm 78) until it's lights out. He was a very gentle, quiet gentleman, now it sometimes seems unreal. No wonder we won the war.
If you are going to struggle to hit the bunker, I would think the Tallboy & Grandslams would be a better bet. Causing damage via their shockwaves. Great video again!
Excellent observation! I wonder what the bomb-aimers dropping Tallboy/Grandslam used as their aimpoint? The target itself, which they didn't want to actually hit dead-on, or an offset point? I would imagine aiming directly at the target would be pretty safe, since odds of a "shack" from drop altitude are pretty slim.
@@garibaldo110 Well obviously the target was the aiming point! But it would have been near impossible to hit from speed at high altitude, until the advent of smart bombs in the late 1980s.
This channel is really good. Also check out “Greg’s airplanes and automobiles” for absolutely incomparable WWII content. It’s more aviation focused but might be some of the best content ever. Tell me what you think.
That's too cool. Project Harken, my father and his crew were one of three crews and their B-29s that were modified and sent over to do this project. At 5:22 is one of the bombs my dad dropped, you can see where the crew wrote their names on the after cone and the name of their B-29, Wun Hung Lo on the pointy end. I have pictures. Hey WWII US Bombers, would you like a copy of what I have?
Your videos are really incredible, on a whole different level. Instead of sensationalism and emotion, you show facts that are encompassing and technical yet also understandable and in context. No funny business, no drama. Your channel is excellent
Also greatly improved bombsights and related equipment became available at the end of the war and in the years that followed. What a vast change from the early years of WW2!
Bottom line is that they really couldn’t hit a target with a single bomb from 30k’ consistently. That was the fundamental problem with day light precision bombing in WWII - it wasn’t precise enough. There was a single statement in this video about recommending that the ‘azimuth steering’ device be used. They had experimented with radio guided bombs during the war; the bomb had steerable fins and a smoke trail enabling a bombadier to steer a single bomb on to a target. That technology didn’t quite work well enough to be used at the time but that recommendation is consistent with the critical need for such a capability. I’m sure that not only did the engineers have an accurate ‘wind triangle’ calculated, but the test were done in unusually calm, stable conditions to enable them to hit the test targets without too many misses (look at the many misses in the video). The winds between the surface and 30k’ are rarely predictable or constant. The Noreen bomb sight and post war develops were never good enough hit strategic targets with enough precision. The capability to hit strategic targets precisely, e.g. a bridge, was not available until the smart bombs that came out during the Vietnam conflict. Smart bombs are required for these tasks.
In WW2, Germany built a concrete defensive u-boat factory, designed to withstand Tallboy and Grand Slams. The building is still standing. While Grand Slam bombs did not destroy the building, they ensured production within the facility effectively ceased. The impacts upon the building are immense, and was featured in a recent documentary.
This is the Valentin bunkered facility that is in the video. It was supplied by a railway that ran inside to deliver the completed sections of the TypeXXI u-boats to then be assembled into complete u-boats. They were then to be launched via a floodable lock into the adjacent river basin. It was never finished, and the British wanted the Germans to tie up resources and manpower building it as they had already determined that it's weakness was in fact the railway line to the facility. Any u-boats leaving would have been vulnerable on the surface of the river as well, due to it not being deep enough for them to leave submerged.
Good stuff and great to see the video, I live in Bremen, near Farge and have visited Bunker Valentine several times. For general information, although it was stripped of most equipment, it has been turned into a museum so you can go inside and even see the bomb holes.
Tallboy and Grand Slam were designed by British aeronautical engineer Barnes Wallace, who famously had previously designed the bouncing (water-skipping) bombs used against the dams in the German Ruhr. The bouncing bombs were dropped from only 60 feet above the water by bombers of 617 squadron, stationed at RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire. The same squadron also dropped the Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs.
As Tallboy and Grand Slam were NEVER INTENDED as concrete penetration bombs, their inclusion here is superfluous. They were designed by Sir Barnes Wallis, inventor of the Upkeep mine or bouncing bomb used in the famous Dams raid of 1943. They were designed as "earthquake bombs" to destroy targets by disrupting or cavitating the ground next to or beneath a target structure. Originally, they were meant for the dams but Barnes Wallis realised the bouncing bomb was a better method.
Very interesting , wasn't aware of the Amazon bomb until now . Was aware of the others from watching Mark Felton Productions . I used to work in engineering and quality control so I found all the details and diagrams insightful as they were useful when watching the footage .
Tallboy and Grand Slam went supersonic on the way down. The tail fins induced a spin for an accurate trajectory. They were used on railway viaducts, tunnels and gun bunkers. They avoided a direct hit. The disruption of foundations destroyed the targets. Tallboys sank the Tirpitz Only two hut the ship but near miss concussion caused tremendous damage and disrupted and banks built to prevent her rolling over. She rolled over.
The Samson bomb penetrated 19 feet of a 25 feet roof, but it was inert. Had it been filled with explosive and detonated, it probably would have done the job well as the concrete likely had many stress cracks from the impact and was likely held together with the rebar in the concrete.
they weren't expicitly 'designed' to, but they sure did a hell of a good job at it! Assuming it was within range of 617 squadron's Lancasters, there was no U-Boat pen or bunker in the Reich that was safe. This post war test seems more focused on the 'one bomb, one hit' approach that is used today with modern guided bombs, but back in WW2 there was NEVER just one bomb, even when you were talking about Tallboys and Grand Slams. If one bomb couldn't bust the roof by itself, the next one or the one after that would.
Although the Grandslam did not penetrate the roof of Valentin, one dropped in March 45 did penetrate half way and on detonation the blast did enter the building and brought down some 1000 tons of debris.
As soon as a new video is released, I watch it. I even go back to older videos I have seen because the information is very concentrated. The author of these videos could teach a class in technical writing.
An 8 inch artillery gun barrel was used in operation desert storm to penetrate a bunker and destroy its occupants. The army didnt have any bombs capable of penetrating this particular command bunker. So the actually had to rig up these huge gun barrels and pack them with explosives. Former Delta Force EOD operator Mike Vining told the stoy on the reconnaissance cast.
This sounds a bit far fetched. I know the Americans used old large gun barrells filled with explosive and they were excellent bunker busters. Do you know what aircraft had dropped these old WW2 items?
@@jeremyrichards8327 The initial batch of GBU-28 bunker busters was indeed made from 203 mm howitzer barrels. It was a quick way to build up the weapon for Desert Storm.
Great period film and great period data. I have to imagine the effect of that Samson - penetrate 20-ish feet of reinforced concrete then 3900 lbs of boom-boom does its job.
Nothing says the force of the explosive would be down, or in fact, any direction. The path of least resistance would be right back the way it came from/the big new hole.
@@AndrewBlacker-t1dbefore blowing out of the new hole the shockwave will spread inside the building. And since it was so sturdy, there will be a huge pressure buildup inside
When you consider manufacturing is all about money then making a bomb that will get near to a concrete target and remove the foundations will cause more damage than making a bomb to penetrate concrete, as, that will come at a higher cost and less impact. We see weapons today go through targets and come out the other side, whereas you could make a far cheaper weapon that removes its base and it falls into the hole completely destroying its capability to function. Barnes Wallis recognised this and didn't try to make a bomb to penetrate 20ft of concrete, he designed it to go under it and successfully blew a U-boat out of the water and onto the quay. When it came down to the logistics, it wasn't about the bombs, it was the capability of the delivery system.
As a Bomb tech, i want to thank you.! I like to stay up on all ordnance, and in fact had never heard of the Amazon and Samson. I learned 2 new bombs today ! THANK YOU !
that bunker is massive and allies let the construction continue till near finish and than hit it hard when concrete still soft. I have been inside and is a very interesting construction.
Excellent!!! A lot of people don't really realize how much research went into weapons systems from back in the day! Similarly, plane and ship design performance, predictions, and subsequent evaluations were paramount before approving any design! Back in the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, many designers and engineers were killed trying to figure out how thick a cannon's casing must be to lob a projectile a particular distance with desired lethality or structural damage without blowing itself apart upon firing!
I suppose it falls a bit outside the time coverage of the channel, but if I remember correctly the AZON equipped sampsons saw use in korea against power plants in the Yalu river
Hi, I am a hoɓby historian and living next to the U-boot bunker in Bremen. My grantparents told me about the tests but I've never seen pictures of it or find any information. Where do you get the footage from? Is there more than the few seconds you use in your video?
The Disney (Royal Navy), Tallboy and Grand Slam (RAF) were not Allied developments, not USA at all but British and classified UK Eyes Only. The USA only got British shaped charge explosives quite late in the Manhattan Project. Consequently they USAAF only got to use Disney in 1945. The B-17 couldn't lift a Tallboy nevermind a Grand Slam.
Yes, another example of a British development given over to America for testing and research. The USA had nothing similar. This film comes over as to denigrate the British blockbuster earthquake bombs which were never designed to penetrate concrete so why bang on about penetration depths. Hitting a relatively small target from height was recognised as near impossilble. But .... with HE at the penetration depth shown for the Grand Slam, massive damage would have resulted. The later postwar 44,000lb T-12 Cloudmaker US bomb was produced from Grand Slam data passed over.
Considering Britain was broke at the end of the war, they probably appreciated the USAAF conducting tests like this and passing along the information. After all, we were still Allies and the Cold War had already started. Not sure the reference to the B-17, the only aircraft shown is a B-29 which could carry the Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs.
@@patrickmccrann991 Only one B-29 ever toured Britain, none were flown over Europe. In the closing stages, british troops scampered in to Peenemunde and made off with all the equipment which ended up at Woolwich Arsenal (I was still using one of the precision balances in the 80s), the russians got the workers and the scientists and engineers had already decamped, the americans mopped them up. And note Britain already had a lot of the german rocket tech as more than a few of the german donations did not go off, like the doodlebug that landed in the road front of my dad when he was on top of the factory on fire watch (reserved occupation, when he was on active RAF duty, Lanc tail gun, his chaps did their best to obliterate Peenemunde with blockbusters). Much of the tech was given to the americans as lease-lend payment, we had already studied it. You may notice the Disney was rocket assist, british rocketry was not far behind the german and well ahead of the american. British under-wing rockets were accurate with devastating 40-lb penetrating shaped charge, the american 80-lb did not do as much damage and went like a shotgun.
The colour picture is of Lorient U Boat Pens. These drops were conducted on the U Boat production facility at Farge, near Bremen, Germany. It was never finished as 617 Squadron put a Grand Slam through the roof. It penetrated, but not with the sort of damage expected.
The beauty of the Barnes Wallace's Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs, was that they didn't need to directly hit the target. Which considering the technology and the circumstances under which most were dropped, is a good thing. During WW2, accuracy was never that good or consitent. A concrete penetrating bomb is of little use if it can't reliably hit the target. The "Earthquake" bombs made sense at the time.
I’ve got a book on the development of the B-47 and B-52 and various variants and offshoots and there’s notes and illustrations on a projected 80,000+ pound Bomb to be carried on the B-52. Does anyone have any more info?
Fascinating. I recall the improvised bunker busters made for the Gulf War I being made from old 8" artillery barrels, hand filled with buckets of molten TNT.
If you're ever in the UK, the RAF testing ground for the first grandslam dropped was at Ashley Walk in the New Forest National Park. The crater of that first bomb is still there. It's a pond now - New Forest ponies drink from it. The whole area is littered with other bomb craters and concrete structures used as targets. A reminder of past times.
so in the 40s the largest bombs were 22000 lbs and after 77 year the largest gbu 43 is 21000 lbs and performs significantly worse? isnt it strange the military hasn't improved the platform in all those years?
So could steam engines and sailing ships. But every technology has some point at which its development potential is less than other cheaper technologies. Propellers simply can't go as fast as jets, not climb as high, and their complexity makes them expensive. It was routine for four engine propeller passenger planes to land across the Atlantic with one engine out. Jet engines are far more reliable. You probably could make radial engines as reliable, but they would cost a fortune, be slower, not be able to fly above the weather, and carry fewer passengers. You could probably build a pontoon bridge across the Atlantic for 500 mph steam engines too, but why?
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 Piston engines cannot be made as reliable as turbines. The fundamental reciprocating action of the pistons, rods and crank create stresses that cannot be designed away. Pistons represent more parts and higher cost with lower reliability.
As the power is increased the weight increased too much and cooling became more and more difficult and reliable decreased. For high power applications it really was a dead end.
The ultimate radial powered bomber was the 1949 Convair B-36. It was supposed to be the USA's cold war bomb delivery platform, but it really rammed home to the USAAF that it was just too difficult to maintain. It had so many spark plugs, at least one would fail on nearly every flight, so they had to change all the plugs before every mission. That alone meant the end of piston engined bombers. Jets need a lot less maintenance labour and are scalable - that is, a bigger one is just as reliable as a small one, unlike piston engines, whose failure rate fundamentally rises in direct proportion to size.
Gas turbine engines are inherently more reliable than internal combustion engines. Internal combustion engines are however more fuel efficient (particularly diesels). Gas turbine (turboprop) engined versions of the WW2 Lincoln bomber were built and used operational post war.
Thanks for an interesting documentry. Is there an explanaition for the relative high accuracy of these superheawy bombs ? If you compare with general purpose bomb, in WWII, it is a very high percentage that are direct hits.
This was under controlled peacetime conditions. The plane was not being shot at and could take as long as it wanted to line up or make several passes if necessary. The crew were also likely familiar with the target so could sight it much easier
Well, not all that much time. My father was one of the pilots and told me they carried just enough fuel to get in the air, up to altitude and make three wind triangles to establish the winds aloft before the bomb run itself. Nothing to spare time wise so if they could not drop on the target, they were supposed to go ditch it in the North Sea, do not land with that thing on board.
Sailing up to Hamburg in 1978, I saw a submarine pen which had been hit by a very big bomb. The roof of about 20 feet thick had been broken and had collapsed. For once they had actually hit something important and not the town. Lorient for example.
That B-29 tail marking is of the 509th(were they still 'Composite'?) Group; I suspect their bomb aiming was improved after LeMay hit the roof over the miss at Bikini😉
i know the tallboys and grand slams were not designed to target concrete, but they did penetrate some of the uboat pens. one bomb actually went throgh and exploded next to a moored submarine throwing up onto the dock inside. i've seen pictures of the holes in the uboat pens made by these bombs. the germans after the war thought they were rocket propelled. sure some did breakup on the concrete, but there is archival footage of their effectiveness.
I live not far from the Valentin bunker. I had no idea that the front part of the bunker was also used as a target. A marine depot was later located there. The rear part of the bunker was no longer used because it was too damaged by the tests.
They may not be great but I bet they would give you a headache my dad flew in Lancasters radio operator he said when they dropped a bomb called a cookie it was that heavy it felt you we’re going up in a lift he did 31ops 8 times to Berlin.
I wonder how effective a multiple shaped charge bomb would be on penetration? What if you had a half dozen back detonating shaped charges stacked up one behind the other and upon impact they detonated sequentially from the front to back. I know it has been done with two shaped charges like this but what about more than that?
And now, I am really curious, if you have any films about the T-12 Cloudmaker bomb, which was 44k lbs, designed for the B-36 Peacemaker (what a names... :) ) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-12_Cloudmaker
The German 800mm cannon about 31.5 inches Dia. and it penetrated deeper than this, I think. Not sure but I believe it was the Dora or something like that.
It's strange that such a weapon wasn't never used again, at least 'til the end of 20th century. Either in Korea and in Vietnam surely there were targets that justified such a devastating bomb.
Probably not. You need a point target, either one with massive protection above it (to justify the Samson's concrete penetration) or one that can be destroyed by the enormous crater made by a Tallboy/Grand Slam exploding at depth. Bridges, deep large tunnels and underground installations being prime targets. For anything on the surface, something like an 8000-pound thin-walled 'cookie' with its blast effect would be more effective.
