Talk:Tallboy (bomb)

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / British / European / World War II C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Aviation: Aircraft C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

C

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[fuze#Aerial bomb fuze|firing mechanisms]] The anchor (#Aerial bomb fuze) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Misc.[edit]

Deatailed history of use a really unique and valuable text, i am just not sure the source/voice relationships sometimes. For instance w/gender classes, citation would righly cite "her" pronoun for place/object, whereas passive/neutral voice suggest "it". -dkz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkz999 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whidbey the first sentence in the History section does not complete the thought.

Photo[edit]

I have doubts about the caption for the photo of the bombs at RAF Bardney: The caption says it's November but the trees appear to be in full leaf.216.52.207.104 (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

"Barnes Wallis had considered the strategic use of bombs to destroy the enemy's capacity to wage war by hitting its infrastructure and manufacturing bases and to this end developed improved bomb designs based on large single bombs early in the war."

What did Wallis consider about the strategic use of bombs? As being a better use of them then on the battlefield or dropped on citzens to induce fear, or as the solution to the winning the war?

The terminal velocity mentioned in the article can not be acchieved when the bomb is dropped form a Lancaster bomber. If dropped from 6100m, the terminal velocity is about the speed of sound, bot only if you ignore drag. ${\mbox{speed in }}m/s={\sqrt {\frac {2*6100m}{9.81m/s^{2}}}}9.81m/s^{2}=346m/s$

Roland

Tirpitz[edit]

Tirpitz was not tranferred to Tromso for reparation. It schould serve as a floatig coastal battery.--WerWil 13:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bombing of 'The eagles nest' is well footnoted as 'apeared to have been effective' from a proper historical source... but it's questionable how effective it really was, the building is still standing, and it's own history page claims to have never been bombed. (both the wikipedia entry, and the official website) 65.49.176.158 13:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that on the day that 617 Squadron tried to find the Eagle's Nest it was covered in clouds, so that instead they bombed the SS garrison's quarters. Darkmind1970 16:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Brickhill's book certainly says that 617 flattened the nearby SS barracks rather than the Eagle's Nest. And there’s plenty of photos of the latter taken post-war, not to mention my own memory of visiting the place as a tiny Mr Larrington in the summer of 1969. Mr Larrington (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tailfin size[edit]

The text says that the tail was about half the length of the bomb, but it's obviously much shorter than this. Is the picture of an earlier design or is the text talking about the "tail" as in the non-explosive part, and not just the fins? It should be clarified. KarlM 02:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karl

Have a look at the pictures of the Grand Slam which is simply a scaled up version of Tallboy, and you can see clearly how long the tail is. I have prepared these bombs (both sizes) and the tail, which is all one piece, really is around half the length of the bomb 84.71.178.213 (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not logged in. Sorry Laurie53 (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bomb portrayed in the image associated with this article is NOT a Tallboy. As mentioned above, the Tallboy was visually identical, overall, to the larger Grand Slam. Not sure what the bomb in the image here IS, but it's not a Tallboy. Images of an actual Tallboy may be found here: http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/s,tallboy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.94.46 (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impact velocity[edit]

For the sake of ending edits like [1], here’s a quick calculation of the speed at impact without air resistance. From high school physics, for constant $g$ we have

v=\int gdt=gt

and hence

y=\int vdt={\frac {g}{2}}t^{2}

from which we get

v(y)=g{\sqrt {\frac {2y}{g}}}={\sqrt {2gy}}

.

For the altitudes given in the article, $v(7700m)=390m{\mbox{/}}s$ and $v(12200m)=490m{\mbox{/}}s$ . Solving for $v(y)=330m{\mbox{/}}s$ (the speed of sound; it varies with air density, but we only want an estimate anyway), $y=5600m$ . This does not actually give any estimate of the terminal velocity, but should be enough to refute that edit. —xyzzy_n 15:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi xyzzy, I have a serious problem with this sentence: "It was ballistically perfect and in consequence had a very high terminal velocity, variously estimated at 3,600 and 3,700 feet per second (1,100–1,130 m/s or about 2,500 mph / 4,022 km/h), which was, of course, a good deal faster than sound so that, as with the V-2 rocket, the noise of its fall would be heard after that of the explosion." This seems to imply that the bomb is reaching a velocity of 1,100–1,130 m/s. This is wrong!!!! The maximum velocity the bomb hit the ground with (in WWII) is much, much lower - see my edit above. Regards, Greg

The article makes it clear that the source you have taken issue with is, in fact, an external quote. I do not think Wikipedia should be in the habit of amending external sources of quotes. Either find a better quote or make it clear via the text that doubt exists. It's a good quote, so I suggest leaving it. Cheers, Martin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.165.90 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the terminal velocity figures refer to the design performance when dropped from 40,000 ft (the original designed dropping height) but the Lancaster was unable to lift the store that high, so the reduced performance was accepted, and from the results, seems to have proved more than adequate.

This 40,000 ft design dropping height was only achievable for both Tallboy & Grand Slam when the Handley Page Victor entered service much later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.237.114 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The fact is that the 40,000 ft terminal velocity is v(12200 m) = 490 m/s (see above), which is less than half the 1100 m/s referred to in the design performacne. Regards, Greg.

Great point made by xyzzy! I was cleaning up the Chinese version of this article today and traced down to here! This is by all means a silly quote, although I believe the original author probably meant that such aerodynamic design allows (in theory) a maximum speed of 1100 m/s in air, not that of a 12,000 m delivery——a very ambiguous style of writing, thumbs down.　　SzMith randir ❈ Ered Luin ❈ 04:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Henry Midgley[edit]

A H Midgley was my great grandfather. He designed the fuse for the Tall-Boy and the W Bomb and, although I'm yet to confirm it on the internet, the Bouncing Bomb. He was a British inventor who specialised in valve switches, having previously designed a number of switches for organs, cookers, cars etc. At the time of designing the fuse for the Tall-Boy he worked through h Midgley Harmer Ltd in Middlesex.

86.131.64.72 (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Andrew Lloyd Midgley andymidgey@mac.com[reply]

Tallboy (and its big brother Grand Slam) did not have a fuze (with a z) but a pistol. A fuze contained its own little explosive charge to initiate the main charge. A pistol was an inert mechanical device (easier to store and handle) which simply triggered, normally by impact, a separate detonator. Laurie53 (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relative size in image?[edit]

It'd be helpful if we could get the relative size of the bomb (compared to a human) in the image. Any pictures which show personale and the bomb at the same time? Oberiko (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image in this article does not show an actual Tallboy bomb. Not sure WHAT it is, but it's not a Tallboy, which was visually identical, overall, to the larger Grand Slam bomb. A good shot of the Tallboy (with humans in the frame for reference scale) may be found here: http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/s,tallboy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.94.46 (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heligoland bombings[edit]

It just seems like too much of a coincidence that the number 617 would appear in both the squad number and the number of airplanes. I suggest removing the 969 number before that is confirmed. Should also be removed from the heligoland article. Although operations with 1000 bombers were probably not uncommon, i wonder if heligoland would be such an important target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.45.59 (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked with the Bomber Command War Diary (Middlebrook and Everitt) which confirms the numbers, so I have added the same reference for the numbers as for the losses. Heligoland commands the approached to Hamburg, which the British were just about to take, and could have prevented the use of the port. OK the port was largly ruined, but we are at a stage of the war when on land two Hitler Youth with a WWI rifle get a full artillery barrage to remove them, so 900+ aircraft is just showing what the RAF can do. Andrewshobley (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So exactly what height was it designed to be/actually dropped from ?[edit]

Quote : Tallboy was designed to be dropped from an optimal altitude of 18,000 feet .....

...and the bomb-bay doors had to be adapted. Even then the Lancaster was not capable of reaching the bomb's intended dropping height of 40,000 ft (12,200 m) but only around 25,000 (7,700 m).

Huh ?Rcbutcher (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Tallboy and Grand Slam were intended to be dropped from an optimum height of 40,000ft but until the Victor there was no bomber capable of carrying either bomb to that height.

When the Lancaster was used, a reduced dropping terminal velocity/penetrating power was accepted as this was still more than adequate. Wallis was hoping to be allowed to build his Victory Bomber to carry the Grand Slam up to 40,000ft but the design was not accepted and so it was never built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin bombing[edit]

February 8 [1944] (evening) Twelve British Lancaster bombers attack Limoges, France. They destroy most of the Gnome et Rhône airplane-engine factory. All planes return to England safely. A 12,000-pound bomb is dropped for the first time. [84.214,346] http://ww2timeline.info/ww21944.htm --37.190.52.21 (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12,000 Pounds is Five Tons?[edit]

Five times 2,000 is 10,000. Right? Tmangray (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The long ton -which in the UK is/was the ton used -is 2,240 lb. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_ton 1 long ton = 2240 lb ∴ 12,000 lb = 5.357 long tons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne 1 tonne ≈ 2204.6 lb ∴ 12,000 lb = 5.443 Metric tonnes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_(bomb) 12,000 lb "5 long tons (5.1 t)" NO WAY ! 12,000 lb ≠ 5 long tons ≠ 5.1 t 12,000 lb = 5.357 long tons = 5.443 tonnes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red.leaf.flyers (talk • contribs) 00:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox picture[edit]

I changed the infobox picture for the following reasons.

The picture is of a replica, if they're available, pictures of the actual topic of the article are better.
The picture is of a rubbish replica. If you look closely, it's shape is quite different to the wartime bombs pictured in the Tallboy category on Commons. The while body of the replica bomb is curved - actual Tallboys have a straight-sided, cylindrical section in the middle. I suspect it's a replica of something else entirely, and the picture's uploader has made a mistake.
The new picture includes people, this provides an immediate rough scale and gives a good idea of the bomb's size.

Catsmeat (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing the Watten Bunker - aka Blok Haus d'Eperlecques[edit]

In the section regarding operations in support of Operation Crossbow, mention is made of the bombing of the Watten Bunker. If the writer had taken the trouble to 1. READ the books "The Dam Busters" and "Cheshire VC" written by Paul Brickhill, 2. Visited the Blok Haus, and maybe 3. Tracked down several members of the RAF who took part in the bombing of the Blok Haus to which the writer refers (several are still 2016, still alive), they would then have learnt that the 617 Squadron went several times to attempt to bomb the blok haus, and on the 25th July 1944 the atmosphere was so clear that no marking of the target was required. From an altitude of 20000 feet and 2 miles back the Tallboys were released with 30 minute delays on the fuses - no explosions were noted. Photographs taken just over 30 minutes after the bombs had been dropped revealed that the Blok Haus received "... Five direct hits, and half a dozen very-very near misses..." When the advancing armies of the allies reached Watten "...They found that "tallboys" had smashed the roof and wrecked the building inside so badly the Germans abandoned it..." A visit to the Blok Haus shows the proximity of the near misses along with the hole in the roof and the wreckage inflicted by the penetration of the tallboys into the structure. The hole in the roof is clearly visible on Google Earth! 617 Squadron permanently put the Watten Bunker out of action and the evidence is still there to see. My late father in law was on the raid and was a tail gunner in one of the Lancaster bombers, I am also in regular contact with a dear friend who also was on the same raid and he too served as a tail gunner. When in 2013 my wife and I mentioned to him that we had visited the Watten Bunker he, completely unbidden, said "Did you see the hole in the roof which we put ther in July 1944?" As an aside the bunker also serves as a memorial to several hundreds of slave workers who were entombed in the structure and the local population of about 8000 people, less than 1000 came home after the war ended. If you wish to make remarks about a bomb raid please ensure you check your facts as otherwise you insult the very brave men who put their lives on the line and all too often paid a terrible price. To those who died at Watten and elsewhere may they all rest in peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.231.231 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tallboy (bomb). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tallboy (bomb). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

another failure found[edit]

Hi there

It seems like the second bomb failure has just been found: https://szczecin.onet.pl/swinoujscie-odnaleziono-bombe-tallboy-z-ii-wojny-swiatowej/gqnn9hg (article in Polish). Keep an eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witkacy26 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]