dam busters

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

those rice-paper torpedo nets were surprisingly effective during testing, but
failed miserably in operational use.

Guess the NKs didn't read RAM...

They get their info from Channel Only One; "All the news you'll ever get to
hear".

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

Kirk Stant wrote:
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?

Yep. Here's a photograph:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/g428678.jpg

Apparently they blew off one floodgate and damaged another.

The dam, however, remained intact.

-Marc

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

If you watch the 1953? film it pretty much explains the reasoning behind the
bomb, the torpedo nets plus they needed a minimum of 5000lb of high
explosives to have a chance of breaching the dams. In an interview given by
Wallace he stated that his famous 10 & 5 ton "Grandslam" an Tallboy bombs
were originally considered but would only work with a direct hit, any sort
of near miss would do no damge because of the water cushioning effect.
Interestingly the scale model dam used by wallace complete with test
blast damage still exists in the Grounds of the UK Building Research
Establishment in Hertfordshire just out side Watford in the UK.

Myc

Mycroft wrote:

If you watch the 1953? film it pretty much explains the reasoning behind the
bomb, the torpedo nets plus they needed a minimum of 5000lb of high
explosives to have a chance of breaching the dams. In an interview given by
Wallace he stated that his famous 10 & 5 ton "Grandslam" an Tallboy bombs
were originally considered but would only work with a direct hit, any sort
of near miss would do no damge because of the water cushioning effect.
Interestingly the scale model dam used by wallace complete with test
blast damage still exists in the Grounds of the UK Building Research
Establishment in Hertfordshire just out side Watford in the UK.

Myc

Just a nitpick.......

It's Barnes Wallis - Wallace was the guy played by Mel Gibson in Braveheart
!!!!!!

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

Oooooohhhhh eeeeeererrr, I ave treblle tribble wid my Wallllllllacccceess
Whoops Wallis's.

Myc


"Ken Duffey" wrote in message
...
Mycroft wrote:

If you watch the 1953? film it pretty much explains the reasoning behind
the
bomb, the torpedo nets plus they needed a minimum of 5000lb of high
explosives to have a chance of breaching the dams. In an interview given
by
Wallace he stated that his famous 10 & 5 ton "Grandslam" an Tallboy
bombs
were originally considered but would only work with a direct hit, any
sort
of near miss would do no damge because of the water cushioning effect.
Interestingly the scale model dam used by wallace complete with
test
blast damage still exists in the Grounds of the UK Building Research
Establishment in Hertfordshire just out side Watford in the UK.

Myc

Just a nitpick.......

It's Barnes Wallis - Wallace was the guy played by Mel Gibson in
Braveheart
!!!!!!

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

"Mycroft" wrote in message
...
If you watch the 1953? film it pretty much explains the reasoning behind
the
bomb, the torpedo nets plus they needed a minimum of 5000lb of high
explosives to have a chance of breaching the dams. In an interview given
by
Wallace he stated that his famous 10 & 5 ton "Grandslam" an Tallboy bombs
were originally considered but would only work with a direct hit, any sort
of near miss would do no damge because of the water cushioning effect.

IIRC, the Paul Brickhill book mentions the 12,000 lb Tallboy being used
against the dam at Kembs in Germany; afraid that the sluice gates would be
opened and flood the area of the Allied advance, the powers that be
despatched 617 Sqn to drain the reservoir first. The bombs were dropped from
low level with delayed fuses and succeeded in destroying the sluice gates,
for the loss of two aircraft.

Jon.

Just a nitpick.......

It's Barnes Wallis - Wallace was the guy played by Mel Gibson in Braveheart
!!!!!!

I remember that one - his dog was named Gromit, right? )

(Marc Reeve) wrote in message
Apparently they blew off one floodgate and damaged another.

The dam, however, remained intact.

-Marc

Nice photo. The gates were the targets, not the dam itself.

Rich

From: (Rich)
Date: 2/19/2004 6:08 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Marc Reeve) wrote in message
Apparently they blew off one floodgate and damaged another.

The dam, however, remained intact.

-Marc

Nice photo. The gates were the targets, not the dam itself.

Rich

Hey, watch the dam language.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ...
"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?

I was just reading 'Bombs Gone', an interesting history of
British bombs. Chapter 7 (well, I had not reached that) is
devoted to the dam-busting bomb, as well as appendices
4 and 5.

Gravity dams are very hard to destroy because a small crack
will be closed by the water pressure, instead of opened.
A large hole must be made. Trials on miniature dams and
on a disused dam in Wales indicated that it would take 6,500
pounds of HE exploding in direct contact, of 30,000 pounds
exploding at a distance of 50 ft. The replacement of Amatol
by Torpex HE later allowed the bomb to be smaller. Still,
this was much more than a torpedo could contain: The Mk.XII
torpedo contained 545 lb of Torpex, about 1/10 of what was
required.

The RAF never bothered to properly document a bomb that
was modified almost every other day and was used only once,
so the best documents are apparently of German origin,
descriptions of an unexploded example recovered from
Fl.Lt Barlow's aircraft. 'Upkeep' weighed around 3900 kg
and contained 2600kg of Torpex, had three water pressure
fuses and a time fuse. Backspun at around 500 rpm and
dropped 400 to 500 yards from its targt, it bounced four
or five times before it hit the dams and sunk against it.

One of the side effects of the Dam busters on German FLAK was the
instigation of a 5.5cm FLAK cannon that could with one hit bring down
a heavy bomber and opperate effectively from short range to medium
altitudes with high accuracy and rate of fire. The weapon was to be
servo driven and automatically pointed by computer. It had a high
rate of fire and low recoil be the action of firing of the cannon
while the barrel was still returning to its home position: thus the
subsequent recoil would have to arrest the forward motion of the gun
as well as overcome the recoil shock. It was nearin completion or
entering production as the war ended.