dam busters

Not to take anything away from BarnesWallis but why does a simple torpedo not
do the same as the boune bomb, detonate against the dam wall at a pre set
depth?

Thanks in advance
H.

In article , Hamisha3
wrote:

Not to take anything away from BarnesWallis but why does a simple torpedo not
do the same as the boune bomb, detonate against the dam wall at a pre set
depth?

Thanks in advance
H.

Apparently the dams were protected by torpedo nets.

Pugs

In message , Hamisha3
writes
Not to take anything away from BarnesWallis but why does a simple torpedo not
do the same as the boune bomb, detonate against the dam wall at a pre set
depth?

1. There may have been anti-torpedo nets.

2. Because there were no torpedoes carrying about 4 tons of H.E.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

In article ,
Hamisha3 wrote:
Not to take anything away from BarnesWallis but why does a simple torpedo not
do the same as the boune bomb, detonate against the dam wall at a pre set
depth?

The simple torpedo runs into a simple anti-torpedo net before it reaches
the dam. The bouncing bomb skips over the net. The germans had thought
of torpedo attack against the dams and laid nets. The bouncing bomb,
it may fairly be said, must have come as something of an unpleasent
suprise.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

In article ,
M. J. Powell wrote:
In message , Hamisha3
writes
Not to take anything away from BarnesWallis but why does a simple torpedo not
do the same as the boune bomb, detonate against the dam wall at a pre set
depth?

1. There may have been anti-torpedo nets.

*Were*, IIRC. Aren't they visible in some of the recon. photographs?

2. Because there were no torpedoes carrying about 4 tons of H.E.

Could *possibly* have been done if you were content with a short/slow
run, maybe by starting with something like the big fortress torpedoes
which did for Bluecher in Oslofjord. It'd be a swine to lift, though
and probably even the lanc couldn't have hauled one that distance
and dropping it in a way which it was likely to survive would
be challenging to say the least and probably impossible.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:

In article ,
Hamisha3 wrote:
Not to take anything away from BarnesWallis but why does a simple torpedo not
do the same as the boune bomb, detonate against the dam wall at a pre set
depth?

The simple torpedo runs into a simple anti-torpedo net before it reaches
the dam. The bouncing bomb skips over the net. The germans had thought
of torpedo attack against the dams and laid nets. The bouncing bomb,
it may fairly be said, must have come as something of an unpleasent
suprise.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

I think you have all missed the point of the bouncing bomb.

Not only did it skip over the anti-torpedo nets, but its backwards spin then drove
it against the wall of the dam as it sank - it was actually a depth charge, not a
'bomb'.

It was designed to explode at the BASE of the dam - underwater.

Trials had shown that exploding that amount of explosive against the top of the
dam had little effect - but put the same charge underwater - and the water acted
like a buffer - forcing the blast against the dam wall.

It multiplied the force of the charge by a large factor.

They also waited for the reservoir to be at its fullest before attacking - to get
maximum benefit from the resultant flooding.

So, given that you needed to place a charge underwater at the base of the dam, you
only had a few choices.

Use divers to place the charge - how to insert and recover them ??
Drop a mine - you couldn't do it accurately.
A torpedo would not work - because of the nets and its blast effect would be
neglible.
etc etc

There was an early plan to land a Sunderland flying boat - filled with explosives
- on the lake and 'taxy' it towards the dam - after the crew had taken to their
dinghies.

Thank heavens that scheme was rejected!

No, Barnes Wallis' brilliant scheme was the only practical way of doing it given
the technology at the time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

Torpedos were thought of first, by both sides. So, the Jerries rigged
effective anti-torpedo nets in front of their dams, rendering the torpedo
threat moot. Enter Barnes Wallace....

In article ,
Ken Duffey wrote:
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:
The simple torpedo runs into a simple anti-torpedo net before it reaches
the dam. The bouncing bomb skips over the net. The germans had thought

I think you have all missed the point of the bouncing bomb.

Umm - request subtraction of "all" from that one, Ken

Not only did it skip over the anti-torpedo nets, but its backwards spin then drove
it against the wall of the dam as it sank - it was actually a depth charge, not a
'bomb'.

It was designed to explode at the BASE of the dam - underwater.

Not impossible, I'd have thought, to devise a torpedo that would drop its
head at end of run for the same effect. All added complication, of courrse
- and added weight, which is worse.

Trials had shown that exploding that amount of explosive against the top of the
dam had little effect - but put the same charge underwater - and the water acted
like a buffer - forcing the blast against the dam wall.

It multiplied the force of the charge by a large factor.

I've wondered whethewr a super-sized version of the Broach-Bomb - the
RN's super anti-ship weapon (so fearful a device that it was never used in
WW2, just in case the Germans picked up on the idea) would have worked
- this was a carefully-shaped free-fall bomb, designed to enter the water
off a ship's side, carry on underwater then rise up until it was resting
under then ship then boom. The 250lb was reckoned to be good for a
mission-kill (and impossible to protect against) on any ship. There were
also 1000lb and 2000lb versions.. (ouch). You'd need care in fusing
and obviously no point in having the bouyancy chamber, but a *big* broach
-bomb with a depth-fuse might have done it. Possibly not accurate enough.
The bouncing bomb was a brilliant solution to putting the bang where it
needed to be.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

Because the germans had put torpedo nets, either that or the RAF had thought
that torpedo nets would be there, he needed the bomb to hit the wall, then
sink to a certain depth before exploding, the idea being that the explosion
itself wouldnt actually burst the dam but it would cause lets say a space,
where the explosion was, and the water pressure as it took up the space
would do the damage., to do this, the bomb had to actually be ON the wall,
and by it hitting the wall at above the surface then sinking down the wall
this could be achieved.
"Hamisha3" wrote in message
...
Not to take anything away from BarnesWallis but why does a simple torpedo
not
do the same as the boune bomb, detonate against the dam wall at a pre
set
depth?

Thanks in advance
H.

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in message ...
Torpedos were thought of first, by both sides. So, the Jerries rigged
effective anti-torpedo nets in front of their dams, rendering the torpedo
threat moot. Enter Barnes Wallace....


Didn't the US Navy use Skyraiders (AD-2s or -4s, I believe) to
successfully torpedo a dam in North Korea during that war?

Guess the NKs didn't read RAM...

Kirk