Warbird Information Exchange

... that I'm aware of ... were the two below. (of course we all know the Atomic Bombs had the bigger bang)

The Tallboy was a 12,000 lb bomb

Per Wiki: The T-10 was an American-made version of the 12,000 pounds (5,400 kg) Tallboy modified to use standard American components. Development was started in late 1944 and plans were made to drop them on the fortified island strongholds of the Pacific to aid in softening their defenses before amphibious assaults. None were ever used in combat, since the capitulation of Japan following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki negated their need. In the late 1950s the T-10 was re-designated the M-121. During the Korean War a number of T-10s were converted to the radio guided Tarzon bomb and were used to destroy railroad bridges and reservoir dams, being dropped by the Boeing B-29 Superfortress.

The Grand Slam was a 22,000 lb bomb

Per Wiki: Beginning in March 1946, Project Ruby was a joint, Anglo–American project to investigate the use of penetration bombs against heavily–protected, concrete targets. The target selected was the Valentin submarine pens, that had been rendered unusable and abandoned since 617 Squadron's attack on 27 March 1945. Grand Slams were carried by Lancasters from No. 15 Squadron RAF and US Boeing B-29 Superfortress. Around 140 sorties were flown, testing a range of different bombs.

The photos below state "Grand Slam" payload. Nice job working out the bomb bay doors.

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

Interesting, thanks for posting. Readily apparant how the split bomb bay/wing spar on the B-29 complicated long loads such as these. IIRC correctly when the "thin man" gun-type atomic weapon was in the mix, only the Lancaster had a long enough bomb bay to carry it internally.

It could be incorrect, but I remember reading somewhere that the modifications done for the carriage of Tallboy/Grand Slam came in very handy when it came to launching the Bell X-1. The X-1 was slung in a very similar way.

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

I thought the pre nuclear experimental "pumpkin bombs" were the heaviest, replicating the weight / shape dimensions of the "fat man" Nagasaki plutonium bomb.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Not quite, the pumpkins were 10,080 lbs, 12'5" long and max diameter of 60 inches.

Tall boy was around 12,000 lbs, 21' long and a bit skinnier at 38 inches.

A bit of trivia I just picked up from wiki- post war left over US tall boys were redesiganted as the M-121, and their warheads were used for the BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter" bomds made semi-famous in Vietnam at in the Gulf War. Guess we got our money out of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_(bomb)

The only aircraft then capable of delivering the world’s first nuclear bombs, newly modified Superforts joined their standard comrades on Tinian in the late summer of 1945. On August 6, the B-29 Enola Gay dropped a uranium bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima; three days later, Bockscar destroyed Nagasaki with a plutonium bomb. Before the Japanese surrender on August 14, another 800 B-29s bombed Japan with conventional explosives, but the Atomic Age had begun.


__________________________________________________
expandable batons amazon

So the B-29 never carried anything heavier than a Lanc did? Mind you, I imagine there weren't many payloads heavier than 22,000 lb.

I recall the B-36 carried some massive (nuclear?) weapon though? Not including the nuclear test done by Crusader that is.

The B-36 could carry the Mk 17, a 15 MT monster weighing in at 41,400 lbs. SAC even dropped one on Albuquerque.

_________________
Had God intended for man to fly behind inline engines, Pratt & Whitney would have made them.

CB

http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/Desrt_Wings.html

That's the one: thanks Clifford.

The B-29 did carry some loads heavier than that, but not in combat. How about 44,000 pounds?

Tallboy integration on the B-29 here: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b972848.pdf

There was a B-29 modified late in the war with provision of two tall boys, one under each inner wing. If you google B-29 Grand Slam you will see a picture showing a B-29 with two large bombs. The caption (and the refernce below) say this was for two Grand Slams, but I think the caption is incorrect- they were likely tall boys.

And then there was the mighty “Bomb, General Purpose, 44,000-lb., TI2.” The bomb dropped from the Superfortress in 1948 weighed almost 44,000 pounds.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... coker.html

Add some photos back to this thread








Avro Lancaster of 617 Squadron c 1945 carrying a 22,000 lb Grand Slam bomb

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

A little reading here.

http://www.thexhunters.com/xpeditions/m ... ident.html

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

OT, but why was the name Grand Slam used? Is it from the baseball term, or did the Brits have another source?

_________________
Had God intended for man to fly behind inline engines, Pratt & Whitney would have made them.

CB

http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/Desrt_Wings.html

Baseball borrowed the term from Contract Bridge. A Grand Slam was taking all of the possible tricks. Slam possibly came from 'slamming the door' on you opponent

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.