British post-war 5000 lb HC and 10000 lb HC bombs - any info?

Speedy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
10 November 2007
Messages
58
Reaction score
12
Such bombs are mentioned in some books or articles about V-bombers and Canberra. E.g. in Aerofax "Vickers Valiant" as a alternative loads (beside of nukes) are 1 x 10000 lb HC or 2 x 5000 lb HC bombs. Maybe someone have some information about these bombs? Are they really existed, or only in project stage?
 
I think such bombs were studied, probably as a back-up to nuclear weapons. Generally the 5,000lb and 10,000lb HC bombs seem to have formed the basis of the larger Blue Boar TV-guidance and Red Cheeks inertial-guidance guided-bomb research projects. The larger versions never even reached the aerodynamic trials stage, so the bombs themselves probably didn't exist at the time.
I doubt the Air Staff seriously considered such bombs to be useful without guidance to hit their intended targets.
 
A 5,000lb HA/HS bomb (a larger version of the Mk.6 1,000lb bomb) was developed for the Canberra (and dropped in trials) but was cancelled on cost grounds circa 52. The 10,000lb bomb (for V-bombers) had finished development by 1955 but was canned (on cost grounds, and doubts regarding its employment) in mid-year.

(Edited after consulting files)
 
there are a few large unidentified casings at Dumfries aircraft museum, one in particular looks to be a slightly smaller 'Tallboy', il see if I can manage to upload some pics
 
pics from Solway Air Museum at Dumfries.

I have photos of the manufacturer's plates (Scottish Aviation) but they are a bit worn and don't tell (well, don't tell me) much.

I seem to recall there was a pair of reasons the Tallboy wasn't intended for the V-bombers. The first was they needed new tail units for carriage in Vulcan and Victor and the second was that the explosive (Torpex) might deteriorate if stored for more than two years.

Chris
 

Attachments

  • L1020037.png
    L1020037.png
    665.9 KB · Views: 468
  • L1020044.png
    L1020044.png
    605.2 KB · Views: 443
Thx alot for info and pictures.

In the book "British bombers since 1914" by F.K.Mason, Tallboys are mentioned as a HP Victor bombload (one 22000 lb Grand Slam or two 12000 Tallboys).
 
Of course they were. The files say different when it came to practicalities.

Chris
 

Attachments

  • Image4.png
    Image4.png
    200.4 KB · Views: 409
  • Image2.png
    Image2.png
    395.3 KB · Views: 390
Is it just me or did the below sentence seem rather passive aggressive? As if the author might have been exasperated that he was having to seriously consider this?

"There seems little chance of us raising such a force of aircraft after our atomic stockpile has been expended"

Great thread by the way and thanks for the photos of the casings, they certainly look late or post-war.
 
According to deterioration of explosives, there was some accidents with Tarzon (American Tallboy-based guided bomb) in the Korean War. The bombs exploded even if were safe dropped from low altitude. Deterioration could be a reason. On other hand, US Tallboy had some version and I don't know which one was converted to Tarzon. Early models were build exactly as British, with cast warhead and filled with torpex in TNT mantle, then they switch to cheaper technique with warhead made from rolled plates in process similar to manufacturing high-pressure vessels, steam boilers etc., and tritonal explosive. Breaking the shell when hit the ground could also caused explosion.
 
JFC - I read it as there being no aircraft left to carry them, since there appears to be some scepticism about the V-force returning to base. Weren't the crews issued with instructions to head elsewhere rather than back to Blighty?

Chris
 
Probably not in 1955. Maybe in the late 60s/70s?
 
I'm not sure that the two sides aren't incompatible. For the Air Ministry to write about the requirement no longer being valid strongly implies that it was a requirement at some previous point.
 
The file says that it could take 56 Tallboys to sink a cruiser, (based on Tirpitz experience I think) so not worth the effort. Also by 1955 Green Cheese was on the cards for use by Valiants against ships.


Chris
 
[quote author=JF] broken-backed warfare was UK strategic thinking up to 1955/56, it assumed a period of conventional war after initial nuclear war.
[/quote]

I agree that such scenario is very improbable. After exchanging nuclear strikes probably no one would be able to continue the war. But how about limited wars, without using the nukes? After ww2 British forces fight in some such conflicts, in Greece, Malayan Emergency, Korean war and Suez Crisis (the last was in 1956 so a year after attached documents). I think the heavy conventional bombs could be quite useful in such wars.
 
Ah, yes, the Kaiserfarht - running from the Stettiner Haff to Swinemunde. Nice stretch of waterway.

I've sailed over that bomb.
 
Last edited:
Which airforces still have the capability to drop a weapon in the Tallboy and Grandslam class. I would image the US, Russian and Chinese AFs', as they are the only AFs' with "bombers" rather than strike aircraft?

What would the RAF use to undertake the targets the earthquake bombs undertook.
 
According to deterioration of explosives, there was some accidents with Tarzon (American Tallboy-based guided bomb) in the Korean War. The bombs exploded even if were safe dropped from low altitude. Deterioration could be a reason. On other hand, US Tallboy had some version and I don't know which one was converted to Tarzon. Early models were build exactly as British, with cast warhead and filled with torpex in TNT mantle, then they switch to cheaper technique with warhead made from rolled plates in process similar to manufacturing high-pressure vessels, steam boilers etc., and tritonal explosive. Breaking the shell when hit the ground could also caused explosion.

The differences in construction between the British and US bombs is noted here.

But I have a recollection that Tallboys/Grand Slam built in wartime in the US were constructed in 3 parts. Note the use of the future tense regarding the T10 and its 5 parts.

All the Tallboys and Grand Slams constructed in the US for the RAF were filled in Britain.
 
Which airforces still have the capability to drop a weapon in the Tallboy and Grandslam class. I would image the US, Russian and Chinese AFs', as they are the only AFs' with "bombers" rather than strike aircraft?

What would the RAF use to undertake the targets the earthquake bombs undertook.
Such large bombs can be dropped by large cargoa ircraft from a ramp. It's actually easier than adapting a heavy bomber for it.
 
Which airforces still have the capability to drop a weapon in the Tallboy and Grandslam class. I would image the US, Russian and Chinese AFs', as they are the only AFs' with "bombers" rather than strike aircraft?

What would the RAF use to undertake the targets the earthquake bombs undertook.
I knew that MOABs were dropped from C130's didn't realise that Equake bombs could be dropped from them as well.
 
the SAL. made casing at Dumfries & Galloway Aircraft Museum looks to be a British 22,000Lb Block Buster ? ref. https://bombfuze.net/gallery.html

I was starting to wonder if it may have been connected with Violet Club due to the 'flip out' fins ? ref. https://www.google.com/search?q=blu...rlz=1C1CHBF_enGB853GB853#imgrc=HnRe73DFpKSV-M
View attachment 665803
Not really. Violet Club casings were simply modified Blue Danube casings with the flip-out tails manufactured at the former Blackburn Aircraft works in Leeds. Similarly, all the Christmas Island H-bomb test detonations all used modified Blue Danube casings for essentially two reasons. Firstly to avoid mounting additional and expensive ballistic drop trials for a new Violet Club weapon that was no more than a temporary stopgap weapon until Yellow Sun casings became available for Yellow Sun Mk1. Only 37 were built so drop trials for such a low production run would be unseemly expensive.

Secondly, for the H-bomb tests, the tested Blue Danube casings were large enough with minimal changes to accommodate anything that the Aldermaston boffins were likely to want to test, and thirdly to avoid any need for those expensive drop tests. As an aside, in the tail assembly shop, each tail bound for Christmas Is in 1958 had a topping out ceremony not unlike those done by builders of high-rise blocks of flats. Except the alcohol-free ceremony consisted of the workers leaving their signed fingerprints inside the tail skins. So every example shipped out to Christmas Island had my fingerprints on it.

The photo shows a flip-out tail, but it certainly ain't a Blue Danube tail. It isn't in proportion to the bomb. The BD tail measured 50% of the o/a length of BD that had a centre section much shorter than the photo at little more than the BD diameter of 62". The density of BD as compared with most iron bombs was much lower because they were not almost completely filled with explosive and other things. Much of the internal space was empty of anything except air at ambient pressure. The rest being used for the nuclear package and gadgetry. That low density was related to a number of difficult to resolve ballistic issues. Red Beard casings were similar in design but much smaller, and were produced in the same former Blackburn Aircraft plant.
 
Violet Club was often referred to in the National Archives material as The Interim Megaton Weapon, hence only a small number were needed at a minimum cost.
 
It's going back a long time, probably very late 1980s (88/89ish) at the Cosford Museum before it was rebuilt. There was a "Bomb MC 5000lb" on a stand outside the old café. Looked very much like the picture in Tsr Joe's post with flip out tail fins but was on what looked like a display stand rather than a bomb trolley. I haven't seen it for years but the museum might still have info on it.
 
JFC - I read it as there being no aircraft left to carry them, since there appears to be some scepticism about the V-force returning to base. Weren't the crews issued with instructions to head elsewhere rather than back to Blighty?

Chris
Interestingly, per this thesis, within a month of this memo, planning for nuclear operations assumed that the survivors would be able to be turned around for another two goes at the Soviet Union. Though one assumes at that point loading half the force up with conventional bombs to go cruiser-hunting wouldn't be high up on the list.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom