Capital Ship Bomb

[dogsbody]

With all the Lancaster builds going on at the moment, I've been doing a bit of research into that aircraft. One bit of intel that has come up is about the 

CSB or Capital Ship Bomb. Unfortunately, other than written information, there are no photos or drawings of this weapon.

 

Does anyone have anything on this?

 

 

 

 

Chris

[brewerjerry]

Hi chris 

              according to this thread

 

 

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/32368-lancaster-the-capital-ship-bomb-variant

 

 

 

qoute

 

“There is an Appendix on the Capital Ship Bomb on pp. 404-405 of Putnam's "The British Bomber since 1914".
This has a photo and a diagram,

showing that this is not the Grand Slam or its cousins.”

 

 it seems the thread may have photos, but i cant for some reason personally log into the site

 

  i dont have a copy of the book but hopefully someond here does ? 

 

    cheers

       jerry

Edited March 16, 2020 by brewerjerry

[Seahawk]

There are 2-3 pages on its concept, development and (such as it was) operational use in W/C John McBean and Maj Arthur Hogben's Bombs Gone but no photos or drawings, which are what you are after.  NB it was manufactured in 3 different diameters.

[Seahawk]

44 minutes ago, brewerjerry said:

Hi chris 

              according to this thread

 

 

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/32368-lancaster-the-capital-ship-bomb-variant

 

 

 

qoute

 

“There is an Appendix on the Capital Ship Bomb on pp. 404-405 of Putnam's "The British Bomber since 1914".
This has a photo and a diagram,

showing that this is not the Grand Slam or its cousins.”

 

   sorry i dont have a copy of the book but hopefully someond here does ? 

    cheers

       jerry

Quite true: it's the 1994, larger format version.  Odd that the one appendix in the whole book is devoted to this one rather abstruse subject.  Afraid I don't have the means to post it.  Also gives serials and crews of 2 106 Sq Lancasters which dropped them on Gdynia on the night of 27-8 Aug 42: says they had enlarged bomb-bays, the SABS bombsight (with bomb aimers from the Armament School at Manby) and no mid-upper turrets.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Seahawk

[brewerjerry]

Hi

    link to a thread that may interest

 

http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/showthread.php?17461-Capital-Ship-Bombs-vs-Graf-Zeppelin&p=102683#post102683

 

 

anyone know the code matches for 

L5574 

and

R5551 

 

interesting no upper turrets

 

and that the third aircraft was W4118   ‘ admiral prune  ‘ and Gibson 

 

could make an interesting model,

    presumably the bombay doors are the same ones in the lanc asv thread i posted earlier

 

 

 

  cheers

   jerry

Edited March 16, 2020 by brewerjerry

[Ossington 2]

L5574 was a Fairey Battle, allocated to 88 Sqn. Do you mean R5574? Alloc. to 106 Sqn, missing 22/12/42 but I can't put a code to it ATM.

 

R5551, To 97 then 106 Sqn. as ZN-V. Missing 15/6/43.

[Seahawk]

Think a typo has crept in along the way: Whamond's aircraft was R5574, not L5574 (which was a Battle).  Mason mentions the Gdynia raid for this aircraft (without further comment) but no code. 

 

Mark Postletwaite's Lancaster Squadrons In Focus has (p57) a photo of R5573 ZN-B with "a non-standard bulged bomb-bay.  This local modification was introduced to allow 8000lb bombs to be carried long before the standard bulged bomb bays were introduced."  Unfortunately the crew walking away from the aircraft prevent a decent view.

[dogsbody]

1 hour ago, brewerjerry said:

Hi chris 

              according to this thread

 

 

https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/32368-lancaster-the-capital-ship-bomb-variant

 

 

 

qoute

 

“There is an Appendix on the Capital Ship Bomb on pp. 404-405 of Putnam's "The British Bomber since 1914".
This has a photo and a diagram,

showing that this is not the Grand Slam or its cousins.”

 

 it seems the thread may have photos, but i cant for some reason personally log into the site

 

  i dont have a copy of the book but hopefully someond here does ? 

 

    cheers

       jerry

 

Yeah, I seen this. I've been a member of this forum for years now, but last year sometime, they went to a new format that sucks dog dangles and those images are unseeable now.

 

 

 

 

Chris

[brewerjerry]

29 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

Think a typo has crept in along the way: Whamond's aircraft was R5574, not L5574 (which was a Battle).  Mason mentions the Gdynia raid for this aircraft (without further comment) but no code. 

 

Mark Postletwaite's Lancaster Squadrons In Focus has (p57) a photo of R5573 ZN-B with "a non-standard bulged bomb-bay.  This local modification was introduced to allow 8000lb bombs to be carried long before the standard bulged bomb bays were introduced."  Unfortunately the crew walking away from the aircraft prevent a decent view.

Hi

    thanks for the serial correction, just found in 97 Sqn records, the lanc in my asv thread was on the raid ( R5609 ) 

   presumably without the asv 

 

97 sqn records seems to say 5,600 lb bombs were used and the s/ldr used 1x 8,000 lb 

 

 so seems maybe their lancs were modified as well ? 

      cheers

         jerry

   

Edited March 16, 2020 by brewerjerry

[brewerjerry]

35 minutes ago, Ossington said:

L5574 was a Fairey Battle, allocated to 88 Sqn. Do you mean R5574? Alloc. to 106 Sqn, missing 22/12/42 but I can't put a code to it ATM.

 

R5551, To 97 then 106 Sqn. as ZN-V. Missing 15/6/43.

Hi

     thanks for the correction, i just copied, but should have checked 

   cheers

     jerry

[AltcarBoB]

I found this image not sure if its the right bomb but it seems to have right dimensions

 

 

From this website https://www.mycity-military.com/Opste-vojne-teme/Vojni-kviz-Nagradno-prisustvo_1090.html

 

The carbon steel disc seems to indicate that the Misnay-Schardin effect is being utilised to punch a steel disk at supersonic speeds through the ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misznay–Schardin_effect

Edited March 17, 2020 by AltcarBoB
extra info

[dogsbody]

Nice! That's the best I've seen yet. Actually, it's the only thing I've seen yet.

 

Thank you, AltcarBoB!

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

[stevehnz]

10 hours ago, AltcarBoB said:

Misnay-Schardin effect

Possibly not the M-S effect but a self forming penetrator or EFP device. My reading of these things is the Misnay-Schardin effect was being developed by the "other side" & was not perfected before the end of hostilities whereas shaped charges & self forming or explosive forming penetrators were in use by most of the combatants through out the war.

Steve.

[AltcarBoB]

27 minutes ago, stevehnz said:

Possibly not the M-S effect but a self forming penetrator or EFP device. My reading of these things is the Misnay-Schardin effect was being developed by the "other side" & was not perfected before the end of hostilities whereas shaped charges & self forming or explosive forming penetrators were in use by most of the combatants through out the war.

Steve.

EFP devices use a soft iron or copper liner in front of the explosive to form the penetrator.  It would take a lot of energy to turn a slab of hardened steel that looks to be several inches thick into an Explosive formed penetrator. An M-S effect device uses a solid backing and a flat platter of explosive to fire a projectile forwards, the projectile can be the aforementioned thin Copper or Iron liner of an EFP device which is a variant of the M-S effect but equally the projectile can be steel balls or Flechettes as in the famous Claymore mine or a steel disc as in several types of anti tank mine to defeat Chobham style composite armour.

 

The M-S effect was known pre war it just wasnt as well known or understood as the Munroe Effect hollow charge. It wasnt a Nazi Vunder Veapon.

[FinnAndersen]

7 hours ago, AltcarBoB said:

...An M-S effect device uses a solid backing and a flat platter of explosive to fire a projectile forwards, the projectile can be the aforementioned thin Copper or Iron liner of an EFP device which is a variant of the M-S effect ...

To my eye, the Capital ship bomb does not employ neither a solid backing nor a flat platter., so must be something else.

 

But my understanding of the CSB was that it was quite a disappointment?

 

/Finn

 

 

[Seahawk]

The drawings in post 11 are those in The British Bomber Since 1914.  (Is there nothing in the print media that hasn't been looted and plundered?)  The photo is of a 45" dia version, the drawing of a 38".

 

From Bombs Gone, the CSB was tested with 3 different types of shaped charge: hollow charge, using the Munroe effect; plastic nose (later known as squash head); and disc or ring charge using the Misnay Schardin Effect.  The disc ring method was chosen and the bomb became known as the Bomb CS Type DR.  I would imagine that the drawing shows the production version. 

 

A limitation was that the bomb had to strike the armour at not more than 30 degrees and preferably less than 15.  To achieve this a 30" dia version was developed which could be stabilised by a drogue parachute.  However the need to drop the larger (45" and 38" dia) one from greater heights put it in direct competition with the 2000 lb AP bomb which could, dropped from 10000 ft, achieve the same degree of penetration as the CS Bombs but with less damage.  The Air Staff felt that the chances of achieving a direct hit from high level were remote and were reluctant to risk crews at low-level with only marginal chances of success.  C in C Bomber Command supported these sentiments, having been advised that the Lancaster could carry only one CS bomb as opposed to six 2000lb AP bombs.  Making all allowances for the increased damage expected from the CS bombs, he was advised that, by virtue of the larger load of 2000lb bombs, the relative chance of damage from  a direct hit or near miss was 2.7 to 1 in favour of the AP type.   This swung the balance and most probably denied the CS Bomb further opportunities of proving its worth or otherwise.

 

Apart from the Gdynia sortie on 27-28 Aug 1942 against Graf Zeppelin, there was at least one other occasion when CS bombs were carried on an operation sortie: in early 1943 a squadron of Lancasters took off with the intention of attacking the Scharnhorst reportedly off Norway.  On both occasions bad weather thwarted location of the target: if either of these targets had been sunk or disabled, the time spent in design and development might have been vindicated.  It is now difficult to assess the worth of the CS bombs and their development appears to have been a waste of time and effort.  A wartime Director of Naval Construction claimed them to be "the most effective anti-ship weapon yet seen, if operationally practicable".  Clearly the Air staff felt they were not: not only did the bomb require a direct hit but one in the right part of the ship and in the correct attitude to ensure satisfactory detonation.

 

On 19 July 1943 the Assistant Chief of Air Staff (Operations) ruled that there was no further operational requirement for the CS Bombs and no further orders were to be placed.  150 bombs were produced and by the middle of 1944 those remaining ( 6 x 45", 24 x 38" and 45 x 30") had been reduced to scrap.

 

A few snippets from the British Bombers article:

•  trials were flown using the 3rd production Lancaster L7529.  The necessary bulged bomb bay door modification was referred to as "the provisioning mod".  The same term was applied to several other Lancaster modifications including modifications for the 8000lb HC bomb and, more famously, to the UPKEEP modifications
• the first production examples were delivered to 106 Sq before end July 1942.  This squadron, regarded as 5 Group's "laboratory unit", was then currently receiving special Lancasters modified to carry the new 8000lb HC bomb and four of these aircraft were further slightly modified to accommodate the CSB.
• it is said that two examples of an improved version were dropped by 115 Sq in 1943 but no details of such use have been found.  [The Scharnhorst sortie?   My speculation.]

 

 

[brewerjerry]

7 hours ago, Seahawk said:

The drawings in post 11 are those in The British Bomber Since 1914.  (Is there nothing in the print media that hasn't been looted and plundered?)  

......     

 

 

Hi

    Yep ....

     looted and plundered, and most likely from original government sources or manufacturers drawings, for the books etc that we all read 

 

  lol 

 

but thanks for the extensive info you posted 

 

 

   cheers

     jerry

[Walter Lindekens]

Hi Chris,

 

Lancaster I R5609 was converted to carry the Capital Ships Bomb (requiring enlarged bomb bay doors with fairings front and aft, quite different to the standard "bulged" bomb doors) and it was fitted with a pair of big ASV Yagi aerials on its nose.

 

The Secret Years - Flight Testing at Boscombe Down 1939 - 1945 by Tim Mason has a bit of text but also two photos of R5609 and a colour side view.

 

If of interest, drop me a PM with your e-mail addy and I'll try and send you a scan of the relevant pages.

 

Cheers,

Walter

 

[dogsbody]

6 minutes ago, Walter Lindekens said:

Hi Chris,

 

Lancaster I R5609 was converted to carry the Capital Ships Bomb (requiring enlarged bomb bay doors with fairings front and aft, quite different to the standard "bulged" bomb doors) and it was fitted with a pair of big ASV Yagi aerials on its nose.

 

The Secret Years - Flight Testing at Boscombe Down 1939 - 1945 by Tim Mason has a bit of text but also two photos of R5609 and a colour side view.

 

If of interest, drop me a PM with your e-mail addy and I'll try and send you a scan of the relevant pages.

 

Cheers,

Walter

 

 

Ah! Member @brewerjerry posted a question regarding the aerial fit on the nose the that Lanc. I didn't realize this was a Capital Ship modified Lancaster.

 

 

There are a couple of photos as well;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

 

[Work In Progress]

I have today learned a considerable amount about things that yesterday I didn't even know existed as subjects.

[593jones]

It may be of interest that Guy Gibson, in Enemy Coast Ahead, makes mention of the Capital Ship Bomb:

 

'Meanwhile, after the episode of the Scharnhorst and Gneisnau slipping through the Channel, certain scientists had gone into action.  A new bomb had been designed.  It was known simply as the 'capital ship bomb'.  How it worked and what it was supposed to do were, and still are today, well-kept secrets.  But the rough idea was that one hit took care of one battleship.  It was very heavy, but like most new weapons it had it's limitations.  It was not a beautiful bomb, in fact, it was extremely ugly, and looked of all things rather like a turnip, and like most turnips its ballistics were not very good.  When it was dropped at high altitude, instead of following the path of a beautiful bomb it might easily  swing out of its course.  And to hit a ship from 8,000 feet would require a lot of luck, even though the bomb-aiming was extremely good.  The other alternative, and the only alternative, was to go in low.  Unfortunately, this bomb had to be dropped, if we went in low from exactly 1.000 feet if it was to do its stuff; and there is no future in flying straight and level over a battleships at 1.000 feet.'

 

Gibson then goes on to describe the raid on August 27th 1942 when twelve aircraft targeted the Graf Zeppelin in Gdynia. 

 

'We took off overloaded to the hitherto unprecedented weight of 67,000 pounds all up.  In my crew we were carrying S/L Richardson as a bomb-aimer.  He was a bombing instructor from Manley, and if anyone could drop a bomb accurately it was he, but he was making his first war flight since 1918...…….Hoppy was nearest.  He missed by about fifty yards, causing one of the largest craters they had ever seen in those parts.  We spent an hour over the target, and made twelve bombing runs.  We never saw the Graf Zeppelin - it was too well camouflaged - but the Gneisnau was there, and Dicky Richardson aimed at that.  Each time he made his run he was completely oblivious of the fact that the flak was all around.  I think he thought he was over the practice range on the East Coast.  The first time he said 'Dummy run' there was a silence; the tenth time he said it, a quick ejaculation came from Johnny Wickens in the rear turret.  In the end, we saw our huge bomb fall into the water about 400 yards from the Gneisnau.  Dicky's remark was rather laconic, considering that by  now we were alone over the target and the flack was giving us hell He said: 'That's killed a few fish for the ********', and added as an afterthought, 'Blast it.'...… That's the worst of one big bomb: you go a long way to do your best; then you miss,; then you have a five-hours bind on the way home.  It is an infuriating business.'

 

[Work In Progress]

I should have remembered it from Enemy Coast Ahead but failed to make the connection to the pictures and descriptions in this thread. It sounds like a nightmare to use. 

Presumably in practice anything it could do, a Tallboy was later able to do better and with much greater safety for the bomber? But of course in 1942 the Tallboy was still a couple of years from service.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

I almost wonder if the bomb wasnt designed for direct hits but to act like a depth charge but for surface vessels ? Maybe the point was to get close possibly in front of the target ship. Then when the bomb went off it would cause an explosion under the vessel and break the ships back ? 

[Graham Boak]

Not with that warhead - it required a direct hit, and even than only at a certain angle.    There was also another anti-ship bomb that was dropped ahead of the target and then bobbed up to explode under the hull with hopefully just the effect you describe.  This failed in trials and was not adopted.

 

The intended anti-shipping weapon was the 2000lb SAP bomb, around which the bombbays of most RAF wartime medium and heavy bombers were designed.  One in a Hampden, two in a Wellington, four in a Halifax and seven in a Stirling (if only that had been six, we might have ended up with a superior design).  The Manchester/Lancaster was designed around two torpedoes with Monoplane Air Tails,  The 2000lb SAP bomb was of classic prewar bomb shape, but elongated.  Thus all the bomber designs built around it suffered from shallow bombbays when the 4000lb cookies appeared.  The main problem with it - apart from the principle of high-level bombing of ships at sea - was that like other bombs of its type it had a low explosive charge.  It was used during the raids on Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in Brest but results were thought to be poor.  There had actually been a number of hits on Scharnhorst by had gone right through the hull and exploded on the harbour floor.  The ship was more severely damaged than thought, and left Brest for repairs in a safer port with a thousand or more unwanted tons of water ballast.  But the RAF wrote off the weapon as ineffectual - had it been less successful at armour piercing opinions might have been different!

[EwenS]

Graham

I think your first para refers to the B-bomb or “Johnny Walker” bomb or JW mine. It actually did see service, being dropped on the Tirpitz during Operation Paravane by 9 sqn. There is a description of it at the bottom of the page on this link.

 

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/british-aerial-ordnance-exotica/