Talk:Grand Slam (bomb)

The original design plans are important, and these were for a bomb designed to use the earth underground as a shockwave transmission medium. This scomes form the paul brickhill book on the dambusters.

"The design was very aerodynamic with a tail which caused it to spin. This allowed it to break the sound barrier as it fell."

How? - Omegatron 03:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

No expert on aerodynamics, but I'd take a guess there are two factors. Firstly, and most importantly, the spin produces a gyroscopic effect so that the bomb is kept upright as it falls. If this did not happen then the very high turbulence experienced as the speed of sound is approached would cause the bomb to tumble off its axis and to slow. Secondly, I think the spinning will probably produce some sort of effect around the bomb that will reduce the resistance to the fall. That second point may be wrong, though.

The article also quotes 2,358kg of explosive, the same number as for the Tallboy bomb. Is that right?

--203.103.42.106 03:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated content

"he redesigned the Tallboy accordingly. The design was very aerodynamic with a tail which caused it to spin. This allowed it to reach supersonic speeds as it fell. It had a much thicker case than the typical World War II bomb so that it would survive the impact of hitting a hardened surface. Its hardened casing was cast in a single piece in a sand mold, using a concrete core. When dropped onto compacted earth it would penetrate over 40 meters into the ground. The explosion would leave a 'cavern' which would undermine foundations of structures above causing collapse."

This is a bit misleading. It reads as if this description relates specifically to the Grand Slam, but most of it also features in the Tallboy article. TheMadBaron 09:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge

keep separate as different weapons with different missions. GraemeLeggett 20:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep separate

They are different bombs. If we merge these, then we must merge Fat Man and Little Boy to be consistent. Does not compute./ Moriori 22:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not a good analogy: those used radically different bomb architecture (plutonium/implosion and uranium/gun), while Grand Slam was just an upsized version of Tallboy.

Try the .50 calibre round and .30-06. Virtually the same, except one is larger. Should they be merged? Moriori 19:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Was one literally an adaptation of the other, a development by the same designer? I haven't said Grand Slam and Tallboy should be merged, just that the duplication because of common origin should be snipped. Tearlach 23:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think one would have been literally an adaptation of the other, but I don't know which was chicken or egg. ):- Moriori 00:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say keep them separate, but cut the duplicated material in Grand Slam and refer to Tallboy for the general background principles. Tearlach 19:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep then seperate do not cut the duplicate material as it is not a lot and was true for both bombs. It is not as if it uses either a lot of disk space, bandwidth or screen space. Philip Baird Shearer 00:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also the paragraph mentions the only type of British bomber which could carry the Grand Slam.I have also mentioned that the fist use against the enemy involved destroying the foundations by a proximity drop not a direct hit. Philip Baird Shearer 01:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"CLOUDMAKER" IRRELEVANT TO THIS PAGE

I don't think that tagging on to the bottom of this page, "the US developed an even bigger bomb"(that was never used operationally)serves any useful purpose. I'll remove it unless some one can justify it's relevance. Uncool 1 17:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]