MOAB vs. Grand Slam
Discussion
I was getting slightly irked when listening to the news last night at reports of 'MOAB' being "the largest non-nuclear bomb ever dropped", or words to that approximate effect. By my reckoning Grand Slam was about 5% heavier, but whatever. Question is, given the apparent need for such a weapon, do we (as in us or US) still possess the ability to construct a Grand Slam, and aside from sliding it out the back of an MC130, any aircraft capable of dropping it accurately?
A suitable modified B-52 could carry a Grand Slam. But I don't think in any "bomber" current inventory could lift a Grand Slam. It would have to be acrried aloft in a transporty aircraft (like the MOAB).
As for accuracy, fitting a laser nose on it and steerable fins should get it close to the target.
Don't forget, Grand Slams and Tallboys were designed to actually miss the target.
As for accuracy, fitting a laser nose on it and steerable fins should get it close to the target.
Don't forget, Grand Slams and Tallboys were designed to actually miss the target.
There are a couple of Lancs still flying, and one or two B29s.
Also this:
https://theaviationist.com/2013/10/28/b-2-mop/
Perhaps more realistically.
Also this:
https://theaviationist.com/2013/10/28/b-2-mop/
Perhaps more realistically.
A standard Lanc couldn't carry a Grand Slam as the bomb was bigger than the normal bomb bay. The version adopted for the task was called a Mk I "Special". The bomb bay doors were removed and aerodynamic fairings fitted at either end of the bomb bay. The bomb was effectively slung externally.
Even a B-29 would struggle to carry a Grand Slam.
Even though both the Lanc and the B-29 could lift the weight, the big problem is modifying the bomb bay, shackles etc to carry the thing.
Even a B-29 would struggle to carry a Grand Slam.
Even though both the Lanc and the B-29 could lift the weight, the big problem is modifying the bomb bay, shackles etc to carry the thing.
Great thread. Bomb top trumps. 
Is it simply down to which bomb has the most amount of lbs?
Assuming the RAF could get the grand slam in the right place would it cause more damage than the MOAB?
Are there other factors like materials or other bomb jiggerypokery that make the MOAB a bigger bomb in any way?
Is it simply down to which bomb has the most amount of lbs?
Assuming the RAF could get the grand slam in the right place would it cause more damage than the MOAB?
Are there other factors like materials or other bomb jiggerypokery that make the MOAB a bigger bomb in any way?
Even though the two bombs are broadly similar in weight, they were designed to do two very different jobs.
The MOAB is an air burst weapon designed to do damage by its massive over pressure and shock wave.
The Grand Slam was an earthquake bomb - designed to ground penetrate and shake structures down.
I would suggest that the MOAB is more similar in principle to the RAF's WW2 Cookie.
The MOAB is an air burst weapon designed to do damage by its massive over pressure and shock wave.
The Grand Slam was an earthquake bomb - designed to ground penetrate and shake structures down.
I would suggest that the MOAB is more similar in principle to the RAF's WW2 Cookie.
Eric Mc said:
Even though the two bombs are broadly similar in weight, they were designed to do two very different jobs.
The MOAB is an air burst weapon designed to do damage by its massive over pressure and shock wave.
The Grand Slam was an earthquake bomb - designed to ground penetrate and shake structures down.
I would suggest that the MOAB is more similar in principle to the RAF's WW2 Cookie.
Wiki block buster. The fuses werent too goodThe MOAB is an air burst weapon designed to do damage by its massive over pressure and shock wave.
The Grand Slam was an earthquake bomb - designed to ground penetrate and shake structures down.
I would suggest that the MOAB is more similar in principle to the RAF's WW2 Cookie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb
Edited by saaby93 on Friday 14th April 17:08
Yertis said:
I was getting slightly irked when listening to the news last night at reports of 'MOAB' being "the largest non-nuclear bomb ever dropped", or words to that approximate effect. By my reckoning Grand Slam was about 5% heavier, but whatever. Question is, given the apparent need for such a weapon, do we (as in us or US) still possess the ability to construct a Grand Slam, and aside from sliding it out the back of an MC130, any aircraft capable of dropping it accurately?
Different bombs designed to do different things. Grand Slam may weight slightly more, but less than half it's weight is actually explosives. The rest is the shell of the bomb, in particular the hardened nose cone. This is because it was designed to bury deep into the ground before a delayed fuse triggered, The reason being so that the explosive wave would travel through the earth, liquifying the ground and causing any nearby structures to collapse. They weren't designed to hit a target directly but the ground nearby. Typical targets would be bridges or viaducts etc, fixed constructions. It wasn't designed as an anti-personnel or material weapon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Mm-zFW_nAThe latest MOAB however, has twice the explosives weight and yield of the GS, as it designed to detonate upon impact (or slightly above) the ground. So it doesn't need a reinforced, heavy shell. It's just a massive conventional bomb.
I almost posted eaxactly the same thread this morning.
'Biggest bomb dropped in combat' they say.
MOAB: 20-21,000lbs
Grand Slam 22,000lb.
= win to the RAF 70+ years ago.
But it depends what you mean by biggest. The Grand Slam was heavier but what about explosive force? a bit of digging shows it had a kiloton yield of about 7.5. By comparion the MOAB comes in at about 15.
That said, curiously the MOAB is not a penetrator so not designed for the same job.
I see the anti-Trump brigade are viewing its use as the end of the world. I see it as a bomb dropped on 34 now-dead ISIS fighters.
'Biggest bomb dropped in combat' they say.
MOAB: 20-21,000lbs
Grand Slam 22,000lb.
= win to the RAF 70+ years ago.
But it depends what you mean by biggest. The Grand Slam was heavier but what about explosive force? a bit of digging shows it had a kiloton yield of about 7.5. By comparion the MOAB comes in at about 15.
That said, curiously the MOAB is not a penetrator so not designed for the same job.
I see the anti-Trump brigade are viewing its use as the end of the world. I see it as a bomb dropped on 34 now-dead ISIS fighters.
Simpo Two said:
I almost posted eaxactly the same thread this morning.
'Biggest bomb dropped in combat' they say.
MOAB: 20-21,000lbs
Grand Slam 22,000lb.
= win to the RAF 70+ years ago.
But it depends what you mean by biggest. The Grand Slam was heavier but what about explosive force? a bit of digging shows it had a kiloton yield of about 7.5. By comparion the MOAB comes in at about 15.
That said, curiously the MOAB is not a penetrator so not designed for the same job.
I see the anti-Trump brigade are viewing its use as the end of the world. I see it as a bomb dropped on 34 now-dead ISIS fighters.
GBU-43 MOAB is 22,600lbs so heavier than Grand Slam. And 11tonnes to 6.5tonnes TNT equivalent.'Biggest bomb dropped in combat' they say.
MOAB: 20-21,000lbs
Grand Slam 22,000lb.
= win to the RAF 70+ years ago.
But it depends what you mean by biggest. The Grand Slam was heavier but what about explosive force? a bit of digging shows it had a kiloton yield of about 7.5. By comparion the MOAB comes in at about 15.
That said, curiously the MOAB is not a penetrator so not designed for the same job.
I see the anti-Trump brigade are viewing its use as the end of the world. I see it as a bomb dropped on 34 now-dead ISIS fighters.
Eric Mc said:
I would suggest that the MOAB is more similar in principle to the RAF's WW2 Cookie.
Yup, MOAB is more directly related to the UK's 4000lb Cookie 'Blockbuster' in terms of desired effect, and construction. The 'thin-case' Cookie was 3000lbs TNT vs. 4000lbs weight, compared to the more usual 50:50 ration of bombs of the time. It was also non-aerodynamic, and was designed to work in conjunction with incendiaries bombs. Lancs would often carry a mixed load of a single Cookie, and incendiaries. The idea was the blast from the Cookie's would blow off roofs/roof tiles allowing for the incendiaries following down to thus drop through into the buildings and creating the massive fires in the mass area attacks. Something we learned from the Blitz, where a high proportion of dropped German incendiaries didn't penetrate buildings.The Cookie was actually a modular design as well (way ahead of its time in fact) as 2 or even 3 could be joined together to create a 8000lb bomb, or a 12000lb bomb!!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff