The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 2, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Warplane Weapons Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: DAM BUSTERS?
wagner95696    3/14/2004 10:10:23 PM
Has anyone ever fielded a conventional (high explosive) air launched guided missile capable of breaching a modern reinforced concrete dam with a single hit?
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Thomas    RE:DAM BUSTERS?   3/15/2004 2:09:43 AM
I know the chinese are worried about this problem.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:DAM BUSTERS?   3/15/2004 2:16:58 AM
I would be too if I had the Three Gorges Dam in my country. In fact, it would not have to be a missile - imagine a terrorist attack on the dam, by flying a Boeing 747 into it! A large heavily populated and fertile area of China would be flooded. China is lucky not to be on the Islamist priority list.
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:DAM BUSTERS?   3/15/2004 2:56:12 AM
The famous Wallis rolling skip bomb was high technology when it first came out, but 3 years latter, the same squadron (617th) were dropping 6,000kg and 12,000kg 'Earthquake' bombs (also a Wallis invention) that did a far better job (and also took out bridges, reinforced sub-pens and the Tripitz). A Tomahawk with a penetrating warhead, or a B2 with GPS'bunkerbuster' bombs would do the same job quite handily now.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Dam breaker   3/15/2004 3:19:42 AM
3 Gorges would require something a little more substantial than an "asssisted" 747. I would assume that 4-5 multiple PGM strikes at the same point and at least 1 on the control room would be a minimum In fact I would think that a tactical nuke dialed up for 3 Gorges would be better than targeting a city.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:Dam breaker   3/15/2004 4:21:22 AM
The reason that the bouncing bomb (6,000lb of torpex) was required was that there was no precision guided weapons available at the time , it this is regarded as the first precision bombing mission. Today three or four weapons could be dropped on the target, however, you would actually require a greater bomb to destroy the dam, as the upkeep (as the bouncing bomb was known) was designed to blow up under the water, and so use the effect of the water behind it. Though a deep penetration weapon would have a similar effect.
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:Dam breaker   3/15/2004 4:57:18 AM
Actually, Barnes Wallis originally wanted a ten ton bomb, but came up with the bouncing bombs as something more practical. He was never was satisfied with the bouncing bomb concept, as it took a direct placement on the dams to drop them. Then there was the cost of all those dead Lancaster crews who had to fly low, slow, and with two spotlights aimed at the water to get an exact height. The bouncing bomb was a one off, but gave him enough prestige to push his Earthquake bomb concepts through, first the 12,000 lb Tallboy, then the 22,000 lb Grand Slam. These bombs were designed to penetrate concrete, rock or earth, and explode under their target, causing shock cavities that were equivalent to a sudden, very localised earthquake. They were dropped from a 'relatively' safe height, and a near miss from a Grand Slam was usually enough to bring down a viaduct.
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:Dam breaker   3/15/2004 4:03:28 PM
The main reason for the "bouncing bomb" is that a bomb's explosive force is greatly amplified when under water. I seriously doubt a Tomahawk would stand much of a chance at breaching the dam, even if fitted with a shaped-charge warhead. A much better option would be a "bunker buster" (GBU-28).
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:Dam breaker   3/16/2004 12:12:07 AM
Undoubtedly a 'Bunker Buster' would give more penetration but I specified a 'missile' in order to provide more stand-off range. I sort of hoped the pilot might live long enough to fly a second mission.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Dam breaker   3/16/2004 7:49:35 AM
link A little incident from the Korean War not too well known
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Dam breaker   3/16/2004 7:55:19 AM
If memory serves me: Mosquitoes with bouncing bombs were operational against shipping target up to about 1960.
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:Dam breaker - torpedoes   3/16/2004 10:11:40 PM
The raid on the Rhur dam couldn't use torpedoes because of anti-torpedo nets, which is why they used skip bombs. I would surmise that a Mk.50 anti submarine torpedo would hardly scratch a modern dam. Most likely you'd need something bigger, and no aircraft currently carries anything bigger than lightweight torpedoes. I still think Tomahawk TLAMs or SLAM-ERs would do the job pretty well. you could program a salvo of them to hit the exact same spot, and Tomahawks have proven hardened target attack capabilities.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:Dam breaker - torpedoes   3/31/2004 8:25:18 AM
Mospquitos were never actually used,a nd the idea for the anti ship role was quickly dropped, during the last gulf wasr, there was apparently an idea to destroy some dams inteh Tigris to flood baghdad if they released WMD's or soemthing (not 100% sure how true this was), I wonder if 617 sqn would have been given the task?
 
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    RE:Dam Busters   3/31/2004 7:36:55 PM
The Dam Buster wasn't designed to blow up the dam, rather damage it - crack it, shatter supports, etc. After that, the sheer weight of the water would do the rest. So if someone wanted to blow up the PRCs Big dam, they'd just have to crack it in several places, preferably towards the base of it. Pucka
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:Dam Busters-Pucka   3/31/2004 7:41:19 PM
Depends on the dam. The Three Gorges dam is massive. I don't think that anything short of a penetrating nuke would be able to cause it signigicant damage.
 
Quote    Reply

friend2all    RE:Dam Busters-Pucka   3/31/2004 8:49:17 PM
I bet they could take a B-1A, pack it to the gills with explosives, stick a hardened nosecone on it, program the flight computer so now it's a giant cruise missle, and send it on full burner into the base of the dam.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy