US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Postwar' started by CL1, Apr 13, 2017.

  1. CL1

    CL1 116th LAA and 92nd (Loyals) LAA,Royal Artillery Patron

  2. idler

    idler GeneralList

    I take it they mean the 'largest non-nuclear bomb in service', as it's 800lb short of Grand Slam - the 'grandmother of all bombs'!
    canuck and Recce_Mitch like this.
  3. CL1

    CL1 116th LAA and 92nd (Loyals) LAA,Royal Artillery Patron

    Drew5233 and Recce_Mitch like this.
  4. idler

    idler GeneralList

    The other unreported aspect is that they dropped the bomb in Afghanistan but they were trying to hit Syria...
  5. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    Well it was CNN that reported the story. Reporters in general these days aren't known to be sticklers for details or getting the facts straight anyway. They should've said that it was the largest non-nuclear bomb used in combat since WW2, but fact checking in wiki is just too hard for millennials. Those of us who are "in the know" about such things really notice faux pas like this when posted.

    Regardless of whether or not it was a record breaking or record setting bomb/explosion, I imagine that it made a pretty big boom and left a really large hole in the ground.
    canuck and Recce_Mitch like this.
  6. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    Just a bit funny, so I give it just one ha. It's not funny enough for a ha ha, or much less a ha ha ha.
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2017
  7. Blutto

    Blutto Plane Mad

    I had to look up the figures and assuming my sources are correct, the actual sums are:

    Grand Slam: Total weight 22000lbs or 9979kgs Fill weight 9136lbs or 4144kgs
    GBU-43: Total weight 22,600lbs or 10,250kgs Fill weight 18,200lbs or 8500kgs

    Of particular interest, it shows that the US bomb uses a tiny proportion of the total weight for the bomb case compared with Grand Slam.

    Now the caveat on those figures is that some sites have not converted the lbs to kg figures correctly, so with those errors and rounding, who knows (or probably cares) what the absolutely exact figures are.
    A-58 likes this.
  8. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer Pearl Harbor Myth Buster

    The Grand Slam was meant to be an earthquake bomb, MOAB is an over-pressure device. Comparing apples and cobras. Dick sizing about weight is irrelevant to the professionals among us, including this august company.
    A-58 likes this.
  9. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    The local news here in Baton Rouge was referring to the bomb as "The Mother of All Bombs". Actually in the short report the reporter mentioned the MOAB term 3-4 times. Really, that term is soooooooooooooo 90s. He should've called it a "big ass bomb", or a "hell of a noise maker" or something like that. There is very little imaginative creativity in anything these days.
  10. canuck

    canuck Token Colonial Patron

    True, but most of the posts were simply in response to the "largest bomb" quote.
  11. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    Last edited: Apr 14, 2017
    redtop and amberdog45 like this.
  12. amberdog45

    amberdog45 Senior Member

  13. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    Never heard of him. I guess he's real popular in Britain.
  14. idler

    idler GeneralList

    I've always been more funny peculiar than ha-ha, anyway.

    I did make the effort to pull a book on the Grand Slam - only the one, mind - that gave its actual weight as 22,400lbs. That supports the G43 being 22,600lb as they must have taken GS into account when 'going for the record'.

    There is the argument to be had whether a 10t blast bomb is less efficient as 10x 1t or 100x 200lb blast bombs, but I can't say I've looked to see what it's meant to target/do.

    As to the name, it's blindingly obvious isn't it? In principle, it's just a big brother to the British cookie, so the Yanks really should call it 'Biscuit'. Barrel bombs are for the bad guys, after all.
    A-58 likes this.
  15. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Did any ground troops go in after the bomb was dropped to mop up ?
  16. 51highland

    51highland Very Senior Member

    Makes me wonder what size Wallace's bomb would have been if he'd had access to the same materials in WW2!!!
  17. Steve Mac

    Steve Mac Very Senior Member

    Nah, just a lefty who thinks he's simultaneously an intellectual and a comedian.

    I can't understand why the average Syrian wont stay and fight for a free Syria. They want what you and I have got, i.e. freedom, and they want to come to the west to be handed/given it. The history of my own and your country shows that you have to fight for freedom.
    A-58 likes this.
  18. Harry Ree

    Harry Ree Very Senior Member

    As said, the bomb owes its presence to the RAF Cookie going back 75 years ago.

    This bomb is a development derived from the (HC) 4000lb Blockbuster,a specialist bomb for building targets,commonly referred to as the Cookie, a blast bomb, first dropped by the RAF on Emden on 31 March 1941.The advantage was that in addition to its effectiveness it could be carried by the Wellington, a year before Lancasters entered squadron service.It was developed further by increasing its capacity to 8000lbs but transport considerations required the bomb to be two 4000 pounders bolted together on the airfield. The special bomb development was a solution in response to the finding in 1941 that Luftwaffe bombs of similar size to British GP bombs were twice as effective against buildings as RAF variants.

    Further development took place with the introduction of the 12000 pounder,fitted with a ballastic nose and a finned tail to overcome stability problems.It was first dropped on the Dortmund-Ems Canal in September 1943 as an experimental device but was considered unsuccessful.However further trials enabled the device to be cleared for general service by March 1944 but it had a disadvantage in that it could only be carried by modified Lancasters at a time when the policy was maximum availability of front line Lancasters for the offensive against Germany.The USAF have a similar problem in that the their blast bomb cannot be carried by a conventional bomber.The delivery solution being the C 130 dropped in pallet load fashion from the aircraft's rear.

    While the RAF HC bombs had thin mild steel casings,the USAF bomb has an aluminium casing,probably to maximise the blast propagation...I would think that during the Second World War,aluminium was discounted for RAF HCs,being an essential requirement for aircraft production.

    The USAF bomb has GPS precision for delivery and I would think that the pinch point in bomb design is the physical dimension which is determined by the capability of the carrier aircraft to deliver it.
  19. smdarby

    smdarby Well-Known Member

    Steve - unfortunately, it isn't that simple. There are so many factions fighting in Syria and so much foreign influence that it is a complete mess. It is difficult to figure out who is actually fighting for what and why. As always, it's the civilians who are the losers in a situation like this. They don't necessarily want to be refugees, but they have no choice. If I was in the same situation I'd do the same and get my family the hell out.
  20. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    Something's just not quite right with the make-up of the refugees in question. Most or more than the normal age group seems to be male and of military age. Far too many to be considered as "4F" than the population spread of any country.

    Yes and I agree that if I were in the same situation, I'd want my family out of harm's way as well. I'd first see to that, but then I'd go back to fight tooth and nail for my home and country. And for what's right too you know, the same "truth, justice and the American way" thing that Superman was fighting for but that's just me.
    Steve Mac likes this.

Share This Page