Talk:Grand Slam (bomb)

message: 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.
:Your second point is incorrect, I think, but you're spot on wit hthe first. To say "it allowed" it to break the sound barrier is a little misleading, though, since the spinning slowed the bomb directly (resistance with the air is used to produce rotational motion), but the consequences of that spinning (not tumbling as it falls, as well as being less vulnerable to drafts and breezes) would probably improve the top speed. Of course, it it was dropped in dead air and from a stationary position such as a tower or zeppelin, it would fall faster with regular flights. This is an unliekly situation, so I'll exclude it for now. Oceanhahn 05:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grand Slam contained approx 9,200 lb of Torpex. Tallboy, 5,200 lb.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The original design plans are important

message: As so often, regarding the Valentin submarine pens, the german article claims they only had 5 metres thick roofs and the Grand Slam bomb could not break through them (and the RAF website times out). -- Darklock 00:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different facts 

message: :"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)
thread_title:  Duplicated content 

message: keep separate as different weapons with different missions. GraemeLeggett 20:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "CLOUDMAKER" IRRELEVANT TO THIS PAGE 

message: See RAF_Scampton for a short bit on the last Grand Slam to be detonated after it was discovered that one loaded with torpex had been put on display as a gate guardian at the airbase.
The source for this story doesn't give a reference, and the paragraph in question begins "Apparently...", so I'm not sure how much credence should be given to it.VirtualDave (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last one detonated 

message: The Bombs did not hit that part of the Pen with the 7 m roof as the text seems du say. So the Grand Slams "only" penetrate 4,5 m of concrete (as the subtitle of the Pcture correctly sais)--WerWil 20:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? --PBS 18:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Farge U-boat Pen

message: The development history section says both that the grand slam would detonate "some 30m" below the ground and "over 40m". What is the real fact here? I imagine it is a fuzzy range and dependant on the ground material but please...--Lomacar 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 30 meters or 40?

message: These sites: http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Mm-zFW_nA and http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=EhP7uL-gvgg  have this bomb.Both have sound in English.Agre22 (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vídeos with this bomb

message: < After the Allied Operation Undergo[8] captured the Watten V-2 rocket facility in October 1944, a single Avro Lancaster attempted to bomb the bunker's dome from 10 November-20 November with a Grand Slam at precisely midday.[9] >
This is impossible to believe and should in my view be deleted. The first, trial, drop of a Grand Slam was not until 13th of March 1945.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.42.217 (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watten 

message: Just curious - if this was the biggest bomb around, why was its official name 'Bomb, Medium Capacity'?   Were there plans for something even bigger?86.185.225.11 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Medium Capacity refers to the ratio of bomb case to explosive filling, not the absolute size of bomb . See Blockbuster bomb for British "High Capacity" bombs.  this website has articles on the various bombs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and incorporated this as a parenthetical footnote in the main body of the article (and also in the article on the Tallboy). 167.88.10.180 (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medium Capacity? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Grand Slam (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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917143217/http://www.constable.ca/caah/bombs.htm to http://www.constable.ca/caah/bombs.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: CE, added references, citations, homogenised citation style. Auto edded and rm dupe wikilinks Keith-264 (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Added more detail but wonder if anyone has Flower, Stephen (2004). Barnes Wallis' Bombs: Tallboy, Dambuster & Grand Slam? Cooper gets a little vague about which hits were Slams and which were Tallboys. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: It mentions the difference between GP and MC many times, word for word.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:1008:2C3:E2CB:4EFF:FE88:1A2C (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? Keith-264 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: Why did you remove URL to cited page? --Happyseeu (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No need since you gave the page number. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Sfn#Adding_a_URL_for_the_page_or_location says "If a specific link to the page or section is available, a URL can be added to the location or page number. " So there is nothing against including a page URL. --Happyseeu (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's nothing for it either. They aren't included in the other sfns so it goes against the article style. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL for citation 

message: I have a new source which promises to resolve some of the citation and detail failings of the eisting article. More to follow tomorrow. Keith-264 (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: More to mine from Flower 2013 on the bombings and revision to the lead to follow. Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Three more raids and the lead to complete. Keith-264 (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I'm unconvinced that April 9th is indeed “Poets Day” in Germany, and reckon this ought to be referenced.  In Britain “POETS Day” is an irreverent term for Friday, meaning “Piss Off Early, Tomorrow’s Saturday”; however April 9th 1945 was a Monday. Mr Larrington (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't write that bit and would be happy to see it go. Thanks for repairing the typos Mr L. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamburg, 9 April 

message: I don't think this should be said in the lead without defining to what standard effective refers to. Typically the effectiveness of a munition refers to its Circular error probability, which this sentence does not seem to make reference to. I think the sentence should be eliminated from the lead or context be given. Personnongratia (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead reflects the information in the article, it isn't the place to discuss niceties. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't characterize this as a nicety. Does "most effective bomb" refer to explosive power, circular error probability, minimization of civilian casualties, or the total strategic effect of its use? All are plausible definitions... All I ask for is some reference to what "effective" refers to. Yes the lead should not contain specifics, but this is not an excuse to use ambiguous terminology in ways that can cause a reader to jump to an incorrect conclusion about this specific weapon. The "effectiveness" of a bomb has no standard definition and can be interpreted in multiple ways, so it is our duty to inform a reader about what we mean we use the term. Personnongratia (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What readers have jumped to wrong conclusions? Keith-264 (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Asking that question misrepresents what the OP said. I'm with the OP here. Yes, the claim of "most effective" is repeated later in the article, in the Analysis sub-section, but it's not explained or defined there either. There's a link to a source, but it's a book; not easy for most readers to access. One assumes the book makes that claim, but we still have no idea what it means. HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

text: That's where the difficult to access source becomes a problem. I don't know what it actually says. Guessing is dangerous. It would at least be better explicitly assigning the claim to the author rather than writing it as an absolute claim in Wikipedia's voice. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the source so probably paraphrased that bit but it's an e-pub and I can't copy it; I'll have to transcribe it tomorrow so you can have a look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The most effective bomb" in lead