Jump to content

Grand Slam v MOAB


FatFlyHalf

Recommended Posts

The BBC radio news just described the oversized US bomb known as MOAB as the biggest ever conventional bomb used.

It says MOAB is 9800Kg in weight. 

I believe that Grand Slam was 10,000 Kg in weight.

 

So, is the BBC wrong and MOAB is not the 'largest' such ordnance ever used?   :yikes:

Anyone got a different view?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try standing underneath both and see which you prefer.

 

Seriously though I thought the Grand Slam was designed to penetrate the ground before exploding, an earth quake bomb.

I haven't read about the MOAB but assumed it to be a very large aerial mine or blast bomb designed to flatten everything around for miles like a daisy cutter.

I'm not really that interested in 21st killing methods, I'm a bit old school that way I'm afraid. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, charlie_c67 said:

However the MOAB has a bigger blast yield, equivalent of 11 tons of TNT compared to the 6.5 tons of the Grand slam.

 

45 minutes ago, charlie_c67 said:

It's been around since 2007 and has a blast equivalent of around 44 tons of TNT.

I've read in newspaper about this 44 ton TNT equivalent in MOAB also. Not sure which info is true. BTW - the Grand Slam had Torpex material inside which explodes with higher yield than TNT, I think.

J-W

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello

Old Thumper, thermobaric weapons have been around for at least half of a century, although they used to be know as aerosol bombs. Otherwise I agree with you, MOAB sounds like an oversized daisy cutter to me, too. I understand similar devices have been used in Afghanistan for the same purposes from very early on so why making the big news out of it? Cheers

Jure

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Hello

I understand similar devices have been used in Afghanistan for the same purposes from very early on so why making the big news out of it?

 

Its use was intended as an advisory to North Korea more so than its effect against ISIS -  hence the publicity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello

Now you mentioned it, Ejboyd5, I vaguely remember similar PR exercise back from 2003. I am not certain, but I think in this case the weapon in question was an improved Vietnam era daisy cutter. Catchphrases at presentation, though, were more or less the same as today. Nihil novi sub sole. Nevertheless, I would not like to find myself on the receiving end of such devices. Cheers

Jure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USAF developed the T-12, which was a deep penetration bomb, essentially being a scaled-up version of the Grand Slam; at 43,000 lbs it remains the heaviest conventional bomb developed and was carried by the B-36. It was tested in 1948 but was never used in combat.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Grand Slam was heavier than the MOAB, being 22,000lb compared to 21,600lb but the MOAB is bigger in size. 

Image result for moab bomb

Cheers

         Tony

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just worth the mensh,

MOAB is GPS guided.

Grand Slam had a re-enforced casing to allow for penetration before detonation. Can`t remember where this was on tele recently (may have been a Tallboy casing as seen on `Nazi Megastructures`).

 

Here`s the American B-36 being loaded with, what is reported to be, an American version of Grand Slam, then dropped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5tYPD0eafM

 

Cheers, Ian

(Edit- when watching the vid, one can be forgiven for imagining to hear the sound of Slim Pickens hollering)

Edited by ian buick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone.  So the answer is both yes and no.........

Grand Slam is heavier but not as long as MOAB.

They were designed to have different effects and one is plainly a free fall device the other self-guided.

But I bet they both went off with one heck of a bang!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Grand Slam and Tallboy were classed as semi-armour piercing bombs.  They were designed for deep penetration and on detonation to produce the trapdoor effect on any structures above them.  Apparently some GS bombs penetrated 30 feet of concrete on sub pen roofs and then exploded inside the pen itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Hello

Good one, Ian. One misses waving with the cowboy hat, though, Kubricks final touch to underline that scene. Cheers

Jure

 

It would be Slim Pickens for anyone that sat on one.

 

These things are no fun. 

Edited by old thumper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Old Thumper

It would be slim picking, indeed. Still, it should be written in the UN Charter that watching of Dr. Strangelove is mandatory for military academy cadets worldwide and for all politicians, running for an office above community level. Cheers

Jure

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello

MOAB is a blast weapon. Fragments of conventional weapons would not reach beyond the first curve of a tunnel and even if a cave or tunnel entrance would collapse under a direct hit of AP or SAP weapon, that would hardly block all exits as tunnels are inter-connected. Napalm would be more dangerous although its reach would be limited even in the case of direct hit into cave's entrance. Again, most of those not caught in the initial flash would escape through another exit. Blast, however, is traveling deep into tunnels complex, destroying everything in its path and killing tunnel occupants with a sudden increase of air pressure. Also, one MOAB would be destructive to many caves and tunnels in vicinity of its point of explosion. I have no idea of a lethal range of such a weapon in confined spaces but I imagine it must be considerably higher than in open because of much lesser dissipation of blast with distance. Certainly nasty weapon, although thermobaric bombs are even worse. Just my thoughts. Cheers

Jure

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because it's the closest modern equivalent to the Grand Slam and Earthquake bombs of old. I'd imagine these tunnels won't be especially well constructed, so the sudden increase in local pressure would cause more in the way of collapse and make those remaining structurally unstable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...