Tallboy explodes in Poland
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Age: 54
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Tallboy explodes in Poland
Sorry, can't fathom links but the Beeb are reporting that a WW2 Tallboy bomb that was being defused in Poland has exploded.
No casualties and the bod in charge says " The bomb no longer poses a risk."! Which is one way of looking at it!
No casualties and the bod in charge says " The bomb no longer poses a risk."! Which is one way of looking at it!
I don't know how it was situated on the canal bed, but I can't help but feel the bang would have been bigger if all 2.5+tons of explosive had gone off with the full, original as-new blast energy. Perhaps some of it had degraded, or perhaps it was quite well embedded in the mud (they were designed as ground penetrators), or (just as likely) I don't know what 2.5 tons of explosive looks like when it goes off under water!
Still, pretty impressive none the less, nice of someone to put up a camera drone, and clearly it was a disposal job professionally done
Still, pretty impressive none the less, nice of someone to put up a camera drone, and clearly it was a disposal job professionally done
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: somewhere
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=msbbarratt;10903934]I don't know how it was situated on the canal bed, but I can't help but feel the bang would have been bigger if all 2.5+tons of explosive had gone off with the full, original as-new blast energy. Perhaps some of it had degraded, or perhaps it was quite well embedded in the mud (they were designed as ground penetrators), or (just as likely) I don't know what 2.5 tons of explosive looks like when it goes off under water!
Still, pretty impressive none the less, nice of someone to put up a camera drone, and clearly it was a disposal job professionally done[/QUOTE
Imagine that seventy-five years ago, hundreds of them, falling and exploding all over the place😮
Still, pretty impressive none the less, nice of someone to put up a camera drone, and clearly it was a disposal job professionally done
[/QUOTEImagine that seventy-five years ago, hundreds of them, falling and exploding all over the place😮
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Hants
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Neektu;10903949]
The Tallboy was an earth penetrating bomb designed by Barnes Wallace for use on specific targets. They were never hundreds exploding all over the place. It could penetrate 16 feet of concrete, which gave a surprise to those in U boat pens.
I don't know how it was situated on the canal bed, but I can't help but feel the bang would have been bigger if all 2.5+tons of explosive had gone off with the full, original as-new blast energy. Perhaps some of it had degraded, or perhaps it was quite well embedded in the mud (they were designed as ground penetrators), or (just as likely) I don't know what 2.5 tons of explosive looks like when it goes off under water!
Still, pretty impressive none the less, nice of someone to put up a camera drone, and clearly it was a disposal job professionally done[/QUOTE
Imagine that seventy-five years ago, hundreds of them, falling and exploding all over the place😮
Still, pretty impressive none the less, nice of someone to put up a camera drone, and clearly it was a disposal job professionally done
[/QUOTEImagine that seventy-five years ago, hundreds of them, falling and exploding all over the place😮
The Tallboy was an earth penetrating bomb designed by Barnes Wallace for use on specific targets. They were never hundreds exploding all over the place. It could penetrate 16 feet of concrete, which gave a surprise to those in U boat pens.
[QUOTE=Fourteenbore;10903986]That depends on the pen I suppose. I did a tour of the Keroman base in Lorient last year. It took a direct hit from a tallboy. The bomb went through the first few 2 metres of concrete but then dissipated in the blast void above the main 4 metre roof.
The article states,
How would they attempt to deflagrate the bomb, and why would the process then fail and cause an explosion?
Deflagration and detonation are two ways energy may be released. If the combustion process propagates outward at subsonic speeds (slower than the speed of sound), it's a deflagration. If the explosion moves outward at supersonic speeds (faster than the speed of sound), it's a detonation.
While the action of deflagration is to push the air in front it, objects do not explode because the rate of combustion is relatively slow. Because the action of detonation is so rapid, however, detonations result in shattering or pulverizing objects in their path.
Naval forces used a remote-controlled device to try to "deflagrate" the bomb - a technique that if successful burns the explosive charge without causing a detonation, the deflagration process turned into detonation.
Deflagration and detonation are two ways energy may be released. If the combustion process propagates outward at subsonic speeds (slower than the speed of sound), it's a deflagration. If the explosion moves outward at supersonic speeds (faster than the speed of sound), it's a detonation.
While the action of deflagration is to push the air in front it, objects do not explode because the rate of combustion is relatively slow. Because the action of detonation is so rapid, however, detonations result in shattering or pulverizing objects in their path.
Tis OK, found the answer to my question. In some situations, a subsonic flame may accelerate into a supersonic flame. This deflagration to detonation is difficult to predict but occurs most often when eddy currents or other turbulence are present in the flames. This can happen if the fire is partially confined or obstructed.
