RGJ/H. Alan Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 (edited) On September 15th, the Tirpitz was attacked by Lancaster bombers. One bomb hit her and peeled back her deck. She was now no longer seaworthy and it was decided to send the ship to be anchored off of Haakoy Island, three miles from Tromsö where she would operate as a floating fortress. On November 12th, 1944, the Tirpitz was attacked by 29 Lancaster's - including some from 617 Dambuster Squadron. Flying at 14,000 feet, their new Mark XIV bombsight gave them an excellent target to aim at. 'Blockbuster' bombs ripped into the ship and a 100 feet hole was ripped open. Her magazines exploded and the Tirpitz rolled over trapping over 1000 men in her as she turned turtle. A few - 80 men - managed to get to the bottom of the hull where a hole was cut through it and the men escaped. Many others were not so lucky. Though the career of the Tirpitz may have seemed a failure, she did succeed in tying up a great number of Home Fleet ships which had to be on a constant alert that she would not sail out into the Atlantic or harass the Artic convoys. The link shows you the footage! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=094_1265541160 Eddie Edited February 7, 2010 by RGJ/H. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abn deuce Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Thank you for posting the link , seems I ll have a long couple of nights after work to try and get through all the interesting clips also posted on the site :wow: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 (edited) http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?10407-12th-November-1944&highlight=Tirpitz Some stuff already on the forum follow this link Edited February 7, 2010 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?6174-12th-November-1944&highlight=Tirpitz and here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 The Royal Navy actually claimed the RAF hadn't sunk the Tripitz, the bottom was still above water! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Yes but the top wasn't above the surface, to me that is sunk! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 I think the Navy had the hump at the time. They were looking for a clean sweep of all German capital ships. :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 I think the Navy had the hump at the time. They were looking for a clean sweep of all German capital ships.:-D They would not have got Bismark, without RAF Strinbags to cripple it. After this Bismark didn't need sinking by them anyway, they could just have left it going round in ever deceasing circles until its stem dissapeared up its own stern, or was that the giant Oozlum Bird? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Flying at 14,000 feet, their new Mark XIV bombsight gave them an excellent target to aim at. 'Blockbuster' bombs ripped into the ship and a 100 feet hole was ripped open. Really? Every book I have read on the subject said they were using Tallboys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._617_Squadron_RAF : The task was given to No. 9 and No. 617 Squadrons, who operated from a staging base in Russia to attack Tirpitz with Tallboy bombs. They damaged her so extensively that she was forced to head south to Tromsø fjord to be repaired. This fjord was in range of bombers operating from Scotland, and from there, in October, she was attacked again, but cloud cover thwarted the attack. Finally on 12 November 1944, the two squadrons attacked Tirpitz. The first bombs missed their target, but following aircraft scored three direct hits in quick succession. Within ten minutes of the first bomb hitting the Tirpitz she turned turtle. Both squadrons claim that it was their bombs that actually sank the Tirpitz. All three RAF attacks on Tirpitz were led by Wing Commander J. B. "Willy" Tait, who had succeeded Cheshire as CO of No. 617 Squadron in July 1944.[1] I'll accept that this does not specify the use of Tallboys on the final mission, but everything I have read said Tallboys and why change bomb loads when the Tallboys had done the damage in the first place? And why precision-bomb with non-aerodynamic blockbusters from 14,000 feet when aerodynamic Tallboys would benefit from the height generating spin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 One more click and I'd have found it. Also from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_bomb Amongst many accomplishments by the Tallboy, the 24 June 1944 Operation Crossbow attack on La Coupole (along with Grand Slam bombing) undermined the foundations. A Tallboy of the 8-9 June 1944 Saumur tunnel attack passed straight through the hill and exploded inside the tunnel 60 feet (18 m) below the surface.[2] The last Kriegsmarine Bismarck-class battleship, the Tirpitz, was sunk by an air attack using Tallboys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 One more click and I'd have found it. Also from Wiki: Trust me Alien, all three missions used Tallboys, Group Captain Tait was my father in law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Trust me Alien, all three missions used Tallboys, Group Captain Tait was my father in law. Going back to this, one of the books I recently rescued describes in detail the attack on Tirpitz in September 1944 by 617 and 9squadron. In addition to 617 with Tallboys 9 were carrying the 'JW' or 'Johnny Walker' mine. These little gizmos were 6 foot long and 151/4 inch wide, Lancaster could carry 12. The way it worked is fascinating, After dropping a drogue chute deployed, if the weapon hit a solid surface an impact fuse operated exploding the 100lb Torpex/Aluminium charge. If however it landed in water, the drogue released and it sank to 60 feet. At this point a hydrostatic valve operated releasing Hydrogen gas. This caused the weapon to rise, due to fins attached to the casing it would rise nose first at an angle, causing it to displace about 30 feet horizontally. If it got up to about 20 feet with no target the gas was released the weapon turned nose down, safing the fuse and it sank back to 60 feet were the cycle began again. In addition the charge was shaped with an explosively forming slug liner. There was a futher nasty trick in the arsenal. The inclusion of powdered Ally in the charge gave rise to a large gas formation. the idea was to bodily lift the hull of Tirpitz several feet and when the pressure collapsed drop her again. Unfortunately none were successful and self destructed. Never heard of this great little toy before now. this from an earlier thread on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 this from an earlier thread on the subject. I was pointing out to Alien that he was correct in assuming that the bombs used were Tallboys and not Blockbuster Cookie type bombs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Exactly, Grand slam could not have been used against Tirpitz. Tirpitz was sunk on 12th November 1944. Grand Slam was not available for operationaluse until 13th March 1945 You can't sink a ship with a bomb that doesn't yet exist. Who mentioned Grand Slam? Alien referred to Blockbuster, otherwise known as Cookie, the thin cased bomb which was basically a 4000 pounder but which could be used in multiples of 2 or 3 welded together. You posted a good picture some time ago of the various large bombs used by the RAF which showed both Tallboy and it's big brother Grand Slam, both being essentially 'earthquake' type devices with a heavy streamlined casing enabling a high terminal velocity and the ability to penetrate steel/concrete before detonating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Who mentioned Grand Slam? Alien referred to Blockbuster, otherwise known as Cookie, the thin cased bomb which was basically a 4000 pounder but which could be used in multiples of 2 or 3 welded together. You posted a good picture some time ago of the various large bombs used by the RAF which showed both Tallboy and it's big brother Grand Slam, both being essentially 'earthquake' type devices with a heavy streamlined casing enabling a high terminal velocity and the ability to penetrate steel/concrete before detonating. Jack did! (in an earlier thread,) Thought that one had re-appaered. Also though I had deleted the post. Sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Good picture showing 617 squadron toys: Tallboy, Upkeep and Grand Slam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Now they are big! Wern't Tallboys also employed on teh V3 site? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Now they are big! Wern't Tallboys also employed on teh V3 site? Yes, at Mimoyecques putting the site beyond repair, although the 'high pressure pump' was never developed to a point where the shells could have reached London. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) True Mike, the RAF made sure it never had the chance! La Capoule bunker also has some intresting archeology showing the effectiveness of RAF bombing. Grand Slam and Tallboy, to some extent, were originally designed by Wallis to Camouflot. That is bury themselves completly before exploding. The reasoning was that the explosion, confined by the earth would result in siesmic damage and a considerable distance from impact and the resulting cavity would cause the target to cave into it rather than be blown apart. I belive these were originally presented to attack large industrial targets, such as German Dams. He also designed an aircraft to cary them, called the Victory Bomber. Edited February 9, 2010 by Tony B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGJ/H. Alan Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) Originally Posted by RGJ/H. Alan Flying at 14,000 feet, their new Mark XIV bombsight gave them an excellent target to aim at. 'Blockbuster' bombs ripped into the ship and a 100 feet hole was ripped open. Really? Every book I have read on the subject said they were using Tallboys. Blockbuster or cookie was the name given to several of the largest conventional bombs used in World War II by the Royal Air Force (RAF). The term Blockbuster was originally a name coined by the press and referred to a bomb which had enough explosive power to destroy an entire city block. "Blockbuster" may also refer to a bomb designed to destroy a blockhouse. Bombs which can penetrate reinforced concrete of a blockhouse are also referred to as bunker busters. The two World War II bombs which best fit the description of bunker busters are the Tallboy bomb 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) MC and the Grand Slam bomb 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) MC both designed by Barnes Wallis for the RAF. The Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs had a thick skin to withstand the initial impact of hitting hardened targets. More about them here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb Eddie Edited February 9, 2010 by RGJ/H. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) Blockbuster or cookie was the name given to several of the largest conventional bombs used in World War II by the Royal Air Force (RAF). The term Blockbuster was originally a name coined by the press and referred to a bomb which had enough explosive power to destroy an entire city block. "Blockbuster" may also refer to a bomb designed to destroy a blockhouse. Bombs which can penetrate reinforced concrete of a blockhouse are also referred to as bunker busters. The two World War II bombs which best fit the description of bunker busters are the Tallboy bomb 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) MC and the Grand Slam bomb 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) MC both designed by Barnes Wallis for the RAF. The Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs had a thick skin to withstand the initial impact of hitting hardened targets. More about them here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb Eddie http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...apr/coker.html http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?9670-B29-super-Fortress-and-Grand-Slam&highlight=grand+slam Blockbuster was as you say a name given (particularly by the American press) to Tallboy and Grand Slam and their derivatives. American equvilent of Talboy and Grand Slam were T-10 and T-14 respectively. Grand Slam was developed by the Americans, improving the casing of the British bomb, so that it would penetrate further into Concrete before breaking up. The Britsh bomb often failed on the welds but the American casing was a one piece, weld free affair. America developed Grand Slam into a 20 ton (American 44,000 Lbs ) bomb. The twenty ton bomb was the T-12. The B-29 was initially used to carry a single T-12, tucked in the fuselage (similar to Lanc B1 Special), but later a pair of the 10 ton bombs were carried on wingroot pylons, (this arrangement was the proposed method of delivery against mainland Japan, had the A bombs not terminated the war.) Then it lofted the 20 ton T-12 .(although this picture claims to show 20 tonner it is actually a 10 tonner. That rather puts Lancaster B1 (special) with its ten ton bomb into perspective. Edited February 10, 2010 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schliesser92 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 They would not have got Bismark, without RAF Strinbags to cripple it. After this Bismark didn't need sinking by them anyway, they could just have left it going round in ever deceasing circles until its stem dissapeared up its own stern, or was that the giant Oozlum Bird? The "Stringbags" were actually Fleet Air Arm, not RAF. The only RAF involvement with the Bismark was long range maritime recce, mainly with Catalinas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 The "Stringbags" were actually Fleet Air Arm, not RAF. The only RAF involvement with the Bismark was long range maritime recce, mainly with Catalinas. With, kept very very quiet, a US Serviceman on an active srvice mission! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 (edited) The "Stringbags" were actually Fleet Air Arm, not RAF. The only RAF involvement with the Bismark was long range maritime recce, mainly with Catalinas. Yes you are correct, but I don't think saying RAF's only involvement was long range Recce is very fair. The Navy had lost Bismark, The RAF found it. Without the RAF the story might have been very different. The RAF having found it again the Fleet Air Arm decided to excell itself, with another Stringbag attck, this time against HMS Sheffield.. It was a lucky mistake by the Fleet Air arm, the torpedoes aimed at Shelfield had magnetic detonators, and non worked. The Torpedoes where re-fusedwith contact fuses for the attack on the Bismark. Morale- if you are going to attack your own ship, use duff equipment, it saves lives. Edited February 11, 2010 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Also remember that after the Swordfish strike, the first allied ship to find the Bismark was a Polish ship, The ORP Piorun. On 22 May 1941, Piorun, was one of a number of ships released from Convoy escort duties, to search for the Bismark. Piorun took part, along with British destroyers, in the search for the Bismarck (she was the first of the destroyers to spot the German ship). She joined in the shadowing of and torpedo attacks on the Bismarck during the night before Bismarck was sunk, and at one point they had an exchange of fire for half an hour. It wasn't an all Royal Navy affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.