Use of WW2 bombs in Vietnam
Juan S.
the conflict in SEA. But the only munition I've ever seen in pictures that
looks even close to something from that era is the M-117 GP bomb. For a few
pics of what Im talking about look at :
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7002/photo5.html
and:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/m117.htm
Ive always wondered exactly what it means..... when a pilot is talking
about that they loaded WW2 bombs on their aircraft. The M-117 is a high
drag bomb....but it doesnt really look like a WW2 or even a Korean era type
munition. Are they talking about another type of bomb or are they talking
about the M-117? Did the DOD mass produce the M-117 or some other GP bomb
after WW2 and stockpile this weapon for future use and thats why aircraft
like the B-52 and F-105 / F-4 used this munition?
Juan
Mike Thompson
seems that we sold many of our dumb bombs to the German gov as scrap.
Afterall it was a pushbutton future and nukes would solve our
difficulties by other means. But when Nam started up for real then we
had to purchase back the scrap bombs at 10X the price the Germans paid
for them. Isn't free enterprise a wonderful thing. It seems that old
bombs were used since it took time to get factories up to speed to
produce a new series of bomb casings.
Mike Thomposn
MARK ATKINS
conventional warfare was thought to be obsolete. As a result modern
conventional bombs of that decade were produced in relatively small
quantities. Then came 'conventional' Vietnam, Rolling Thunder bombing
quickly depleted the small stockpile of the then modern conventional
bombs.
Luckily the US government still had a stockpile of conventional
bombs from the World War 2 era.The US had also sold several thousand
tons of World War 2 ordanance to the German government at scrap price,
then during Rolling Thunder bought it all back from Germany at a much
higher price ($2000 per bomb if memory serves me correctly).
The bombs you see hanging on the racks of F-4's and F-105's are
the very same bombs that were carried by B-17's and other bombers of the
40's. There were literally thousands of tons of bombs that had been
produced for the war effort of the 40's that never had been dropped, the
war ended before stockpiles were depleted.
I would also like to add that during the bomb shortage of
Rolling Thunder many F-4's went to North VIetnam with 2, I repeat 2,
World War 2 vintage bombs hung underneath it. Not to produce military
results but to keep sortie rates up. A waste of a resource and at a
unnessecary risk to an aircrew.
Regnirps
>I have often heard and read that the USAF and USN used WW2 era bombs during
>the conflict in SEA. But the only munition I've ever seen in pictures that
>looks even close to something from that era is the M-117 GP bomb. For a
>few pics of what Im talking about look at :
I belive the big problem on the Carrier Forestal was that the WWII bomb loads
cooked off at much lower tempertures in a fire than the state of the art
explosives available at the time.
Charlie Springer
MCSTEVE34
until the 90's. Is this correct?
Stephen McCullough
"I can only take one s**t at a time"
Churchill's responce to the announcement that
a bore was at the door while he was otherwise occupied.
side...@my-deja.com
> I would also like to add that during the bomb shortage of
> Rolling Thunder many F-4's went to North VIetnam with 2, I repeat 2,
> World War 2 vintage bombs hung underneath it. Not to produce military
> results but to keep sortie rates up. A waste of a resource and at a
> unnessecary risk to an aircrew.
I just spent a few hours with the PBS coverage of Rolling Thunder. The
operation was covered from the original McNamara plan of March 1965
through 1968. Included was 1.) the original McNamara plan to phase in
ever increasing bombing pressure to produce a negotiated settlement,
2.) the ridiculous rules of engagement and 3.) the Presidential target
selection fiasco. It looks like somebody borrowed the play book for the
Kosovo air operation.
Any idea about bomb shortages for Linebacker II? If I remember right
the B52 Ds out of Utapao were usually loaded out with 108 M117s per.
The earlier in the year ops (Laos) were heavier on CBU (24 b/b?). That
was a long time ago and the memory does fade.
I wonder if we are experiencing similar problems with this
current operation.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Leif Hellström
>I have often heard and read that the USAF and USN used WW2 era bombs during
>the conflict in SEA. But the only munition I've ever seen in pictures that
>looks even close to something from that era is the M-117 GP bomb. For a few
>pics of what Im talking about look at :
(Snip)
The A-26As definitely used some WWII bombs in the late 1960s. (I think
they were the ones called the "funny bomb", possibly the M-30?)
/Leif
------------------------------------------------------
"There are no experts. Only varying degrees of ignorance."
Ed Rasimus
>
>> I would also like to add that during the bomb shortage of
>> Rolling Thunder many F-4's went to North VIetnam with 2, I repeat 2,
>> World War 2 vintage bombs hung underneath it. Not to produce military
>> results but to keep sortie rates up. A waste of a resource and at a
>> unnessecary risk to an aircrew.
It was regularly stated when I was at Korat flying 105s in '66 that
the M-117 and M-118 were WWII bombs. Since then, I've seen a lot of
footage of WWII and the bombs might have slight similarity in profile,
but I'm not convinced that they are the same mod. My suspicion (and
that's all it is, no facts involved) is that the 117 series were
produced in the '50s using traditional dimensions but filled with a
higher yield explosive, tritonal.
The "bomb shortage" period was roughly 2nd quarter of '66, at least
that was the only time I saw any significant impact on loads. At that
time we had occasional (make that FEW) sorties that went with 2xM117
and even some that went to NVN with nought but full 20MM gun. But,
that was rare.
More often, the aircraft were loaded with other, less desireable types
of ordinance. Among the cats and dogs I carried during '66 were
BLU-27B finned napalm (finned for high angle delivery), 4xLAU-3 rocket
pods (frangible nose cones that came apart if you went through any
rain resulting in a sudden "speed-brake effect" on an outboard station
when they came off), the MLU-10B land mine (with a battery that held a
relay open to keep the weapon safe--as the battery wore down the bomb
became less stable. You couldn't return to land with unexpended
mines), and the AGM-12C Super Bullpup.
>Any idea about bomb shortages for Linebacker II? If I remember right
>the B52 Ds out of Utapao were usually loaded out with 108 M117s per.
>The earlier in the year ops (Laos) were heavier on CBU (24 b/b?). That
>was a long time ago and the memory does fade.
We had plenty of ordinance for tactical ops during Linebacker. Bomb
carrying F-4s were typically loaded with 12xmk-83 or 5xmk-83 and
occasionally 2xmk-84. Those of us in SAM suppression carried 4xCBU-52,
not because of shortage of weapons, but because of the requirement for
3 tanks to get sufficient endurance for "first-in, last-out"
operation. The Weasels had plenty of Shrikes and Standard ARMs.
There were also plenty of AIM-9Js, AIM-7E-2s, Mk36 Destructors, LAU-68
(Fast FAC rocket marking pods) Chaff bombs, etc. IOW, no shortages
during LB and LB II.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
wal...@oneimage.com
>My understanding was that their were still some WWII bombs in the inventory>until the 90's. Is this correct?
The M35 and M36 incendiary cluster bombs were used in Nam but I don't
know if they were actually left over from WW2 or were later production
of what were pretty effective munitions. I have read that 20th AF was
affected by bomb shortages towards teh end of the war although I remember
seeing stack after stack of B29 type 4000# GPs stored on Bolo Pt Airfield
on Okinawa in '55. Again, don't know if they were WW2 vintage or ex-Korean
War munitions.
Knowing the services, Ill bet the only outfit that saved anything from
WW2 were the Marines; they retrograded everything they coudl lay their hands
and stored it all in the California desert.
Walt Bj ftr plt ret
Juan S.
>It was regularly stated when I was at Korat flying 105s in '66 that
>the M-117 and M-118 were WWII bombs. Since then, I've seen a lot of
>footage of WWII and the bombs might have slight similarity in profile,
>but I'm not convinced that they are the same mod. My suspicion (and
>that's all it is, no facts involved) is that the 117 series were
>produced in the '50s using traditional dimensions but filled with a
>higher yield explosive, tritonal.
Thanks Ed....I think that was about what I was looking for.....cant get much
better than getting the straight dope from an ex Thud driver.
Juan
Jim Herring
had been buried in Okinawa after WW2. He said that they tended to spiral.
--
Jim
carry on
Regnirps
>A retired USAF pilot who flew B-52's in VN told me that they used bombs
>that
>had been buried in Okinawa after WW2. He said that they tended to spiral.
When John McCain's plane was hit by a missile on deck on the Forrestal, they
say the fire could have been controlled if the deck wasn't full of WWII bombs
that cook of at lower temperatures than newer explosives of the time. You have
probably seen the tape.
Charlie Springer
Ralph Savelsberg
Aren'tthe bombs currently used by the USN different from those used by the USAF?
Even modern bombs of the Mk.80 series that were used in Vietnam exploded under
the conditions on Forrestal. The fact that some older bombs were used might not
have contributed much to this disaster. I remember reading that Navy bombs from
after the Forrestal fire have an extra heat- and flameresistant coating in order
to prevent them from cooking off. Bombs with that coating have two yellow rings
around the nose instead of one.
Ralph
g_al...@hotmail.com
thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
> side...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> >> I would also like to add that during the bomb shortage of
> >> Rolling Thunder many F-4's went to North VIetnam with 2, I repeat
2,
> >> World War 2 vintage bombs hung underneath it. Not to produce
military
> >> results but to keep sortie rates up. A waste of a resource and at a
> >> unnessecary risk to an aircrew.
>
> the M-117 and M-118 were WWII bombs. Since then, I've seen a lot of
> footage of WWII and the bombs might have slight similarity in profile,
> but I'm not convinced that they are the same mod. My suspicion (and
> that's all it is, no facts involved) is that the 117 series were
> produced in the '50s using traditional dimensions but filled with a
> higher yield explosive, tritonal.
Ed's correct, the M117/M118 were postwar bombs (and it also seems to be
the case that most crews thought they dated from WW2). There's a quote
in some source I have (I think maybe David Anderton's book on the 105)
from an Air Force paper extolling the low-drag (!) characterisitics of
the M117 compared to those dirty old WW2 bombs. The standard WW2 era GP
series were the M30s, M40s, and M60s. The latter were widely carried by
fighter bombers in Korea; IIRC, the M64 was the 500 lber, the M65 the
1,000 and the M66 the 2,000 lber. There was also a 4,000 lber., the
designation of which I forget.
Easiest way to recognize the WW2 era bombs is that they have box tails
instead of the cruciform tails of the M117/M118. I believe the latter
also have a higher fineness ratio as well; certainly the fins are
longer. All of this was necessary to decrease drag for external
carriage at jet speeds. It does appear to have been a sort of quick fix
by the Air Force, as conventional ordinance got very little attention in
the '50s.
Douglas designed the Mk80 series under a navy contract, and they were
really designed for external carriage at transonic speeds, and their
drag is much lower than the M117/M118; a Mk. 82 500 lber. is almost the
same length as an M117 750 lber. (actually 823 lb.), but much smaller
diameter. A Mk. 82 has less than half the drag of a M117, and the Mk.
83 1,000lber is just about half the drag or a bit more.
There's no doubt that some WW2 era bombs were used in Vietnam, by the
navy at least; I have photos showing A-4s carrying some, as well as A-1s
and even some on F-4s. I imagine the A-26 and maybe the B-57s might
have carried them internally as well.
<snip>
>and the AGM-12C Super Bullpup.
Speaking of the Bullpup, how in hell did you guide the sucker in the
Thud? The F-4 has a small joystick just forward of the throttles for
that purpose, but I can't find one anywhere in the 105.
As to the bombs on the Forrestal and other carrier fires, as someone
mentioned they exploded because they were uncoated. It was because of
these conflagrations that the crackle finish was developed for the navy
versions of the bombs (recognizable both by the rough-looking exterior
and the two instead of one ring on the nose, as someone mentioned).
IIRC, the finish roughly doubled the time available before the bombs
would overheat, and instead of the explosive cooking off it would just
melt and turn liquid.
Guy
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
><snip>
>
>>and the AGM-12C Super Bullpup.
>
>Speaking of the Bullpup, how in hell did you guide the sucker in the
>Thud? The F-4 has a small joystick just forward of the throttles for
>that purpose, but I can't find one anywhere in the 105.
Ed would be the guy who'd know, but I seem to remember it being
awkwardly placed near the driver's hip joint on the right-hand
"console". ( Definitely not sure about this...it's been a long time.
However - it was the same ARW-77 unit used in F-4s.)
BTW - I now have finally located and scanned the pics of two Korat
F-4E jets carrying 2xAGM-12C and 6xMk82. One bird ( 283, which later
got bent during a nose gear collapse ) taken from about 10:00 o'clock
and another (67-370) from the rear as he taxied out.
They haven't been uploaded anywhere yet, however. Rare pics for the
net; I have yet to find one with AGM-12s loaded on *anything*.
- John T.
Ed Rasimus
>On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 20:55:40 GMT, g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>and the AGM-12C Super Bullpup.
>>
>>Speaking of the Bullpup, how in hell did you guide the sucker in the
>>Thud? The F-4 has a small joystick just forward of the throttles for
>>that purpose, but I can't find one anywhere in the 105.
>
>Ed would be the guy who'd know, but I seem to remember it being
>awkwardly placed near the driver's hip joint on the right-hand
>"console". ( Definitely not sure about this...it's been a long time.
>However - it was the same ARW-77 unit used in F-4s.)
I've been missing messages in several threads (could it be a Serbian
dis-information plot???)
I tried to verify my recollection by checking my dog-earred 105 -1,
but the index reference to the AGM-12 points to page 4-140, which I
find was deleted (pp. 97-140) in a -1 change dated 1 Jan 1966. So,
we'll have to go with the best I can recall.
The joystick controller was a small, about 4x4x4 inch cube with a
rubber boot and about a four inch tall stick topped with a metal cube.
It stowed in a holder on the left rear console and when used was
mounted in a small sliding bracket by the left knee--it was flown with
the left hand--just one more factor adding to the inaccuracy.
No pictures of the controller head appear in my dash-1.
Strangely, I never recall seeing one of the joysticks in the F-4.
g_al...@hotmail.com
thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
> wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 20:55:40 GMT, g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
My thanks to both Ed and John for their replies. I've never seen
anything remotely like what Ed describes on any of the 105 cockpit shots
I have, or the diagrams and illustrations from the -1 (from the Detail &
Scale book on the F-105). Since the whole thing was dismountable, I
guess it's understandable.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>The joystick controller was a small, about 4x4x4 inch cube with a
>rubber boot and about a four inch tall stick topped with a metal cube.
>It stowed in a holder on the left rear console and when used was
>mounted in a small sliding bracket by the left knee--it was flown with
>the left hand--just one more factor adding to the inaccuracy.
A perfect description. The knob on the top was a 1-inch cube.
>
>No pictures of the controller head appear in my dash-1.
>
>Strangely, I never recall seeing one of the joysticks in the F-4.
These were forward of the throttle, just before the panel sloped up.
On the F-4, the base was submerged in the console, so only the
joystick portion was visible.
Though I doubt it was ever used for the purpose by the front seater,
it was rigged in to the the AGM-65 Maverick and Walleye circuits for
the purpose of slewing the TV head. The drivers found it too easy to
move the jet's nose, rather than the Maverick head.
"New" maintenance toads - who had to test the operation of the
controllers in both seats - often didn't realize that the EL channel
was reversed between front and rear cockpits. The rear seater moved
the radar hand control forward to move "up" the screen - while the
in the front, pushing the joystick forward brought the TV scene
"down".
- John T.
g_al...@hotmail.com
g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <3756bb65....@news.rmi.net>,
> thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
> > wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 20:55:40 GMT, g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> My thanks to both Ed and John for their replies. I've never seen
> anything remotely like what Ed describes on any of the 105 cockpit
shots
> I have, or the diagrams and illustrations from the -1 (from the Detail
&
> Scale book on the F-105). Since the whole thing was dismountable, I
> guess it's understandable.
>
> Guy
I've checked cockpit shots of the 105, and there's a metal braket
installed on the I/B side of the throttle quadrant that serves no
obvious purpose, and is right about level with the knee. It appears
that whatever fits in it slides in from the top, and it appears to me
that the joystick would stick out horizontally, rather than vertically
as it does in the F-4.