Dam Busters

[Spey_Phantom]

im surprised that no one here has mention Barnes Wallis his Bouncing Bombs yet.
we all know the story behind the famous Dambuster raids, and why it hassnt been done again decause its to dangerous.
although Barnes Wallis also created the "High Ball", a miniturised version of the bouncing bomb for the DH Mosquito, it came to late in the war to be of any vallue.

Looking toward the future, i have been looking at perfecting the technology and updated the dambusting role.

in the image below, i present to you, my latest creation, SODDS 
SODDS stands for "Stand-Off Dam Destruction System", its kind of a miniature dambuster lancaster in the form of a weapon, and its multy functional 

once the attacker finds its target dam, he can launch the weapon from a safe distance of up to 75 kilometers away.
once launched, the weapon will automaticly be guided by GPS to within a range of 5km before the internal giudance takes over control.
once the CPU detects that it is within the range for "bombs gone", it automaticly launches its 2 miniaturised High explosive bouncing bombs (about 200 meters from target).
the weapon launches 2 barrels, one as the primary warhead, and one as a backup or "final blow" weapon.
the dispencer itself is also packed with explosives, and self-destructs itsself the moment it passes over its target.
damaging or destroying any defensive systems that is stationed on the dam.

[Barry Krell]

Highball wasn't too late.  618 Sqn formed in March 1943 and started training with the weapon for a May 1943 attack on the Tirpitz.  Training problems and supplies of teh weapon proved problematical and the attack was cancelled (luckily for the crews - wooden aircraft going up against a battleship in a fjord?  Expect near wipeout casualty rates).  It was the fact that the US Navy didn't want the RAF attacking Japanese ships with a weapon that could be copied that did for 618 during Operation Oxtail. That and the US Admiral (King?) in charge in the region they would have operated hated the British and wanted them kept out of the war in the Pacific.

Highball was developed post war, first as Highball II and then as Card, for use with Mosquitoes and then Hornets.  I have heard mention of a nuclear version to be used by Buccaneers.

The Argentinians developed their own dam busting bomb in the late 1940s and early 50s for use with their Lancasters & Lincolns but development problems put a stop to it.

[jcf]

Highball wasn't too late.  618 Sqn formed in March 1943 and started training with the weapon for a May 1943 attack on the Tirpitz.  Training problems and supplies of teh weapon proved problematical and the attack was cancelled (luckily for the crews - wooden aircraft going up against a battleship in a fjord?  Expect near wipeout casualty rates).  It was the fact that the US Navy didn't want the RAF attacking Japanese ships with a weapon that could be copied that did for 618 during Operation Oxtail. That and the US Admiral (King?) in charge in the region they would have operated hated the British and wanted them kept out of the war in the Pacific.

Highball was developed post war, first as Highball II and then as Card, for use with Mosquitoes and then Hornets.  I have heard mention of a nuclear version to be used by Buccaneers.

The Argentinians developed their own dam busting bomb in the late 1940s and early 50s for use with their Lancasters & Lincolns but development problems put a stop to it.

Not forgetting that the skip-bombing techniques with standard bombs developed in the Pacific by the Americans worked just fine,
no special weapons were needed.

[Sauragnmon]

In a modern concept, one could imagine a weapon similar to the JSOW could be used for a low altitude deployment of the weapon without need to skip the warhead over nets, much like an ASROC delivering a depth charge warhead.  It could also be used as a two-punch knockout, with the key warhead in the depth charge, and a primary warhead to destroy the delivery vehicle and potentially cause some damage to the upper surface of the dam before the depth charge goes off and pops the core.

[jcf]

As I stated previously the 5th Air Force skip-bombing technique made specialized weapons redundant in the theater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_bombing

http://www.kensmen.com/combatlessons6.html

http://steeljawscribe.com/2007/06/29/flightdeck-friday-skipbombing-and-the-bismarck-sea

Skip bombing practice using logs:
http://www.enter.net/~rocketeer/13thaaf/13thaf_0244.html

[sequoiaranger]

Hardly. The skip-bombing technique was for soft-skinned and not-so heavily armed ships like merchant ships, coasters, and light military ships. The skipped bombs would hit at or above waterline, for the most part. Wouldn't be tried, or work against "fleet" ships like cruisers, etc.

The whole point of Highball was that it was a MINE that would bounce against and roll down the side of the ship (dam) and explode 20+ feet underwater, and use the mass of water to help drive the explosion into the ship below the waterline. The Highball could be launched much further out than the skip-bombs, too. They needed to be, as the targets of Highball were going to be big warships with lots of guns.

We could have used some Mosquitoes with Highballs at the Philippine sea battle where range was such that the Japanese fleet largely escaped.

[jcf]

Hardly. The skip-bombing technique was for soft-skinned and not-so heavily armed ships like merchant ships, coasters, and light military ships. The skipped bombs would hit at or above waterline, for the most part. Wouldn't be tried, or work against "fleet" ships like cruisers, etc.

The whole point of Highball was that it was a MINE that would bounce against and roll down the side of the ship (dam) and explode 20+ feet underwater, and use the mass of water to help drive the explosion into the ship below the waterline. The Highball could be launched much further out than the skip-bombs, too. They needed to be, as the targets of Highball were going to be big warships with lots of guns.

We could have used some Mosquitoes with Highballs at the Philippine sea battle where range was such that the Japanese fleet largely escaped.

Which were actually the majority of targets for US forces and strategically more important than the 'fleet' ships of the IJN, with the exception of the carriers. Take out the oilers and supply vessels and the armored sips are neutralized.

The escape of the Japanese Fleet was largely meaningless as sinking three carriers (the important ships) had done mortal damage as, frankly, the other IJN surface ships were largely irrelevant.

Anyhow Highball had a number of developmental problems (most seriously a lack of accuracy) and wasn't available at the time of the battle.  
It was not considered ready for use until the early summer of 1944, in other words in the period during which the battle
was being fought.  618 Squadron did carrier landing practice during the course of the summer of 1944 but didn't arrive in Australia until October, 1944. The squadron was disbanded in July 1945 without seeing action.
Nobody used Highball in action.

The biggest thing about so many wonder weapons is that, in many cases, you have to wonder why they bothered.
Highball was a solution looking for a problem.

[sequoiaranger]

>[re: light naval forces] Which were actually the majority of targets for US forces and strategically more important than the 'fleet' ships of the IJN, with the exception of the carriers. Take out the oilers and supply vessels and the armored ships are neutralized.<

I would agree in general, but the targets of the skip-bombing were not the auxiliary units serving the combat "fleet", but "peripheral" shipping. Whittling down the scarce logistic train of Japan was important, regardless of the targets, but those were the small ships, not the fleet combat units that the Carriers would be after. Though our carriers did indeed strike at harbor installations and anything that moved on the water therein, it was merely biding time doing good until the major units of the IJN could be engaged. Highball was intended to be a killer of large ships. Whatever were the targets of main US carrier strikes, those would also be the targets best suited for Highball attack.

>The escape of the Japanese Fleet was largely meaningless as sinking three carriers (the important ships) had done mortal damage as, frankly, the other IJN surface ships were largely irrelevant.<

I disagree, and I think Taffy 3 a few months later and Admiral Halsey would also. *IF* some long-range, Highball-equipped Mosquitoes had taken out the Zuikaku and Zuiho at Philippine Sea, then the Japanese carrier threat to the Leyte battle would be truly negligible, and the need for their destruction almost an afterthought. Granted there were no British carriers at Philippine Sea, but I am sure that Highball-equipped Mosquitoes could have been of great value. Of course, AFTER the Leyte battles, the major fleet units of the IJN stayed home and were hard to find. So in some sense, the era of the Highball would have been short-lived.

I *DO* plan to do a Highball Mosquito whif as if used in the Pacific/ SEA.  Griffons, 5-bladed props and bulged bomb-bay with two Highballs ready for a "roller derby"!

[Spey_Phantom]

here's a little question for all you soviet red star modellers out there (and yes, im pointing at you Corade AnthonyP  )

but what if the Soviet-Union had managed to rip-off the british bouncing bomb idea, and fit it onto a Tupolev Pe2, or even onto a loaned B-25, it could have also given a severe blow to german dams in the east of germany, amybe after D-day, i simltanious britich/Russian attack on a number of Dams in Germany 

[Barry Krell]

I *DO* plan to do a Highball Mosquito whif as if used in the Pacific/ SEA.  Griffons, 5-bladed props and bulged bomb-bay with two Highballs ready for a "roller derby"!

The Mosquito was pretty much designed around a pair of Merlins.  There were attempts to use the two stage Merlin for the fighter bombers (Canada built at least one) but the single stage Merlin was more optimised for the low level role.   Changing the engines for Griffons is going to upset the timeline - new engines plus untried weapons development is a recipe for disaster.

It's something I've found curious, since Spitfires with two stage Merlins were used in the close support role operating at low level.  Perhaps two stage Merlins optimised for low level with four blade props might be better?

As for the weapons, the bombs protrude from the bomb bay with fairings around them.  In place, they look not too disimilar to a standard bulged bay.

I may have some spare bits to help you.  PM me with your address and I'll send them off.

Nils, the Upkeep is a bit big for a Petlayakov Pe 2 or a Tupolev Tu 2.  I doubt a Mitchell could carry it either.  The US was interested in Highball though - there's footage somewhere of an Invader dropping it too low and the resulting bounce takes off the aircraft's tail!  Perhaps the Russians could capture a Highball equipped aircraft forced down on Soviet territory in the far east?

[sequoiaranger]

>Terrorists used a B-25 with what looked like a Torpedo for Dambusting. would Torpedoes have worked for Dambusting?  [and] The German dams had torpedo nets specifically to guard against torpedo attacks.<

In general, WWII-style aerial torpedoes do not have the blasting power to break a dam, and/do not go deep enough to be efficient. The "Upkeep" dam-busting weapon carried 6,600 lbs of explosive; the aerial torpedoes used by the Japanese in the assault against Pearl Harbor carried 452 pounds of explosive, or about 1/15th that of the Upkeep. The world's largest submarine/cruiser torpedo, the famous "Long Lance" Japanese one, had only about 1,100lbs of explosive, still only a sixth of Upkeep, and it was un-transportable by aircraft.

I think torpedo nets were put around the dams for "nuisance" sake---no one wanted damage to the dam that could so easily be prevented, but any torpedo damage would have been superficial and not threatening the integrity of the structure.

Dambusting video with Upkeep and Highball weapons:

http://www.spoems.com/video_qrN0iVJjLgU.html

At about 3:28 into it is a Mosquito Highball test where the Highball bounces along and then hits the British Battleship HMS Malaya!.

[jcf]

Torpedoes can be effective against a dam, its all in what you are trying to accomplish and sometimes you don't need to, or want to, 'take out the dam'.

The USN torpedo attack against the Hwachon Dam during the Korean War being a case in point.



http://tailhookdaily.typepad.com/tailhook_daily_briefing/2009/03/flightdeck-friday-torpedos-and-oob-thinking.html