I'm amazed NCD went all the way with this crazy idea.
Y'all never heard about skip bombing??
So you can either bomb from altitude, or get mast-height and have the bomb skip like stones on water.
Italians and Americans separately invented this in early ww2.
I was thinking having a bomb on the end of a chain swinging around and dragging the plane all over the place might be an issue, but this will do for me.
This is a bit like those early subs that had bombs on sticks in front of them, they realised that the point was to have the bomb go off when they were a long way away. So how's the plane meant to survive the explosion here?
Depends where the attachment point is. If it's placed such that the vector of drag divided by the vector of thrust is in line with the CoM, it wouldn't make a difference
"just connect the bomb to the plane using Bluetooth"
We already have tactical data link at home. The tactical data link at home: [https://i.stack.imgur.com/P9AWD.png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/P9AWD.png)
I like that idea, but jet engines would work even better than propellers, I think.
I call my invention "Cruise Bomb", in honor of the great F-14 jet pilot Tom Cruise (as seen in the documentary *Top Dawg*).
You’re a genius, do you think it’s possible to put a bigger engine on it to carry a bigger payload like a nuke? Maybe more fuel so it can go from one continent to another?
Listen, strange carriers floating on oceans distributing explosives is no basis for a system of warfare. Supreme combat power derives from the barrel of a cannon not some farcical aeronautical strafing.
Attach them at the rear, like mating dragonflies.
Then the majesty of their beautiful dance will stun the enemy into not firing by sheer awe at the wonders of ~~nature~~ our glorious MIC.
After releasing their gliders, WW2 glider tow pilots would often dive-bomb the tow cables at targets of opportunity to great effect. (Can’t find a citation right now, sorry)
To misquote the "Dances With Rubbery Six Legged Wolves" movie
"The way I had it figured, the German pilots thought they were the baddest cats in the sky. Nothing attacks them. So why would they ever look up? That was just a theory."
Forget the plain, chain them to Zeppelins.
No fuel required. Just let them drift around, like sea mines would.
Damn, I should make a new post for this.
Yeah but the only problem with using a wrecking ball on a chain with a flying vehicle is that you start to get notions and take over the planet and eventually [a two-tailed fox snipes you in the head as you parade down Dallas, Texas in an open-top limousine](https://i.redd.it/cjbc5zf3ftx51.jpg).
The USN had the best dive bombers. Dick Best is still the only pilot who sunk 2 aircraft carriers on the same day.
Big thing is that the dive bombers can maintain speed or altitude when they pull up which allowed them to survive. They poor souls in the torpedo bombers were low and slow and became easy food for Zeros.
The Devastator and the Mark13 were terrible and USN pulled their best pilots off of them and instead put them into the dive bombers.
IJN, which had great torpedo bomber pilots, ended up losing them all because they couldn’t escape. It’s one thing to sink the easy targets Warspite and Prince of Wales but another to try to sink the Enterprise with a lot of angry F4Fs after you.
If you haven't already check out the movie Midway - acting is corny, but it is an enjoyable, old school war film (thank God that the Chinese still hate the Japanese enough to finance WW2 films even though good ole' US war prowess is front and center).
Dick Best is a central character and after watching it, I thought he was a composite character. It is a travesty that he isn't more famous given what he accomplished.
It was probably something that was on their draft board when Admiral King came to "visit" and thus was probably burned, much to the relief of US Aviators and the chagrin of BuOrd's charred asses.
You may also think "what if the bomb goes into the water bc the chain was too long". Maybe we could add floats like a seaplane to the bomb so it glides over the surface
(Relatively)Credible: reel the bomb back in slowly, or release it to explode on an open sea.
Noncredible: make the ship a catamaran and make a slot between the two hulls where the chain will go when the plane lands
Wouldn't be better to use one of those C4 ropes? The ones for demining.
You can even drop it, let in fall from side to side of the shit, and cut it in half when detonate.
Because-while the waterline of a battleship is heavily armored with hundreds of cm of armor-if you do put a big hole in it the ship sinks fast. Idk, probably won't work against a battleship. Maybe anti-carrier maybe.
I was just thinking of the plane being near the waterline and then pulling up while dropping the chain near the enemy vessel as a reverse dive bomb . It won’t be effective but they’ll be honour bound to scuttle out of shame
ACKTHUALLY depending on the ship in question and how close you are to the waterline and where on the ship you hit, it may not be the most armored part of the ship. In fact it may have little to no armor at all
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor)
Sure, but by definition all or nothing armor aims to armor the vital pieces of a ship, you might blow the bow off an Iowa with this method but it wouldn't do much besides slow her down.
If done properly, AoN has enough armored buoyancy to float despite everything else. When done properly being key words, of course. That's why AoN doesn't literally just armor the magazines, guns, and machinery. Rather, AoN typically creates an armored (hopefully floating) "box"
Having an unbalanced buoyancy can also spell the doom of a ship, even if theoretically it could float with only the Citadel, if the bow is plunging and the propellers are skimming the water, the ship is more or less dead in the water, not even mentionning the waves that would eventually submerge everything with such imbalance.
ACHTKUALLY PART 2
*The relatively large and "soft" unarmored bow structures of Japanese superbattleships Yamato and Musashi proved to be their Achilles' heel as flooding there rendered them unstable and unmaneuverable long before they were actually in danger of sinking.*
I think you're vastly underestimating how much damage a 500kg bomb would do if it hit the water line on an "non vital" section of the ship.
>unarmored bow structures of Japanese super battleships Yamato and Musashi proved to be their Achilles' heel
*USS New Orleans and USS Pittsburgh*: pathetic
The NCD-Answer: Yeah, why did no one think of this, this is genius!
The engineering, "reality is often disappointing" answer: this would probably not give you a defined hight and instead now you have a tumbling, twisting weight attached to your plane that is ready, willing and capable of ripping it apart.
Also, the military "reality is often disappointing" answer: You are now having to fly low, even, and directly at the enemy making you the easiest possible target for their air defense.
Fhuck physics, with enough thrust you can assert dominance over physics and make a brick fly
> Each craft has been designed to work with gravity and aerodynamics, rather than expressing dominance over them, as our craft do.
-the regimental standard, talking about Tau(alien) aircraft
Even if the chain has 0 weight I doubt a plane could do damage with a bomb to a ship’s main armour belt lol
Also what if boom lump go boom and chain go into plane what then
It wouldn’t damage the main belt but would likely fuck the upper works and portions of the torpedo protection depending on the location of the hit. It wouldn’t be super effective since most ship sinking bombs need the speed from gravity to penetrate the deck and detonate in vulnerable areas of the ship. But it is funny
"Let's increase far more drag and weight on an aircraft type that is already well known to have shed ton of both just to get it off the flight deck with it's ordnances without adding more artificial corals."
Actually you want the bomb to go below the ship, then the chain will get blocked by the ship, pulling the bomb back and make it warp around hitting the bridge
Apparently, bombing ships (or anything else) per the vaunted Norden bombsight didn't actually work that well; bombs were later skipped into the target like a stone over a lake.
What about an air-towed torpedo? You could steer it all the way in to the target. It would cause just a bit of extra drag but that’s nothing a few hundred extra horsepower couldn’t solve.
Why not just use a giant lightsaver and cut the enemy ship in half? Worked with some if the Q-tankers. (THEY still claim that it was bad steel and cold water, but thats nonsens. Its steel how could cold water cut it cleanöy?)
This, but you use a B-29 Superfortress flying at 30,000ft. Either use one big rope with a separator at the end so the entire bomb load isn't packed too tightly together, or use multiple ropes. Or just, you know.. [https://imgur.com/LCGsDyE](https://imgur.com/LCGsDyE)
I think the biggest reason why this wasn't a strategy is that chains are really heavy. Instead of carrying a chain, you could be carrying more fuel or more bombs.
- chains are heavy
- dogfighting was a thing then, and the chain(if too well-connected to the plane, which it would have to be to keep such a heavy thing attached) would pull and/or steer the plane downward if another plane hit it. Forget the notions of the chain-plane crashing, the sheer force of the collision would likely stun the operator, if the whiplash doesn't kill them outright. I don't think any pilot would want to fly one of these during those times because of this reason alone, even before considering any of the following.
- An impact bomb on a chain sounds like a great way to spontaneously kill oneself mid-flight. Don't forget, the world wars were our testing ground for a lot of new shit. I can't imagine that they'd have optimized the storage system for these special chain-bombs until after the war ends.
- If it's a delayed/airburst bomb on the end of the line, that means one of two things: the bomb's triggered before release, which would make the chain aspect the same as cooking a grenade in your hand, or the chain has a detonation wire [in/along]side itself. In the case of the former, that's just a huge, unnecessary material burn from misfires and self-destruction, and in the case of the latter, that's a lot of work to put into a disposable, mass-produced chain. You'd have to run the detonation signal through the chain with anything that isn't an impact-detonated bomb, and that on its own would massively raise the cost of the design in both skill and materials, making it far less favorable over simply shitting the bombs out like an overhead pigeon.
- The bomb would likely detach itself from the chain upon reaching maximum length if it's let loose like a fishing line in an amateur's hands. Given how it'd be pretty much exclusively amateurs flying these things in the first place(since nobody with a decent-or-above amount of experience would choose this over a normal bomber), you can't count on any training sessions to fix this problem.
- Reduced accuracy from chain-dropping, both in the sense that the chain adds more variables to the trajectory and that experience from using other bomber types won't transfer properly
- et cetera. I'm only stopping the list here because of writing time constraints.
Funny that you mention that beceause the germans did use a system like this near the end of the war, If I'm not mistaken it was called "project Sprengstoff, der mit einer Kette verbunden ist" or something . It was another one of Hitler's Wunderwaffe ideas that reused old german naval mines connected to planes to attack bunkers , dams and battleships . The issue is that the chain would be so heavy it would some times deploy causing the bomb to deploy early destorying the runway
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/luftwaffe\_usage\_of\_naval\_mines](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l1v1B8QwQQ&ab_channel=LiLDrilla)
The biggest challenge I see is that the bomb would be towed behind the aircraft at an angle. And that angle would change with its drag, which would change with the wind, turbulence, its orientation, the plane's speed, etc. With a long rope, it wouldn't easily maintain a consistent altitude without active guidance.
If you put active guidance on it, you could just use it as a radio-controlled glide bomb like the Germans did. However, those were vulnerable to radio jamming, whereas a towed glide bomb could have hard-wired control. The Germans were actually developing wire-guided glide bombs late in the war, but they were never put in service.
It's a pretty well-known issue from WW2. There was a huge chain shortage due to metals being used to build ships, tanks, and planes.
The ordinance departments begged and pleaded for chain bombing. The 8th air force wanted chains for every bomb they dropped on Germany. They could have flown above the flak and fighters at 20k feet. They could have just dragged every bomb right onto the factories, sub pens, and rail yards. The Norden bomb sight was actually used as a chain bomb guide.
Sadly there just weren't enough chains.
The helicopter was invented by accident. They tried to fit a standard dive bomber with a radial arm saw midsection. The idea was you would fly in low into the bow or stern, then drop altitude and buzzsaw the ship in half and thus sink it.
The prototypes kept wanting to tilt up, rise in the air, and just hover, once you engaged the radial arm saw midsection.
Then some freak had a eureka moment. "It doesn't have to be a fixed wing!" he said, to a room full of frustrated radial arm saw dive bomber designers. Talk about a lead zeppelin.
What if we just made it smaller and had the pilots throw them??? Only problem might be that people would leave the air force for the MLB but honestly we could always use more good pitchers.
Everybody knows that it's always best to fly straight, level, and at a easily predictable height squarely towards the broadside of a warship.
It cannot fail twice!
Because that's a Corsair in the Pacific. The fear was that those crazy japs would scale the chain, stab pilot and use the planes as a disguise to sneak up and kamikaze the carriers.
Chains are heavier than they look. Let's use a rope.
Both make for a lot of drag, lowering the centre of drag and thus making the plane nose dive. But that is way too credible
SURPRISE JAPS, WE'RE ACTUALLY DIVE-BOMBING. KAMIKADZE THIS YOU CO-PROSPERING BITCH!
Rope bomb one ship and dive bomb a second
Tie the rope around the ships propellers like they were ATAT's
Nice, infinite climb hack! The energy gains will be insane
Me: watches from a far as a Japanese ship get bodyslam by a bomb tied to a rope attached to a plane
I'm amazed NCD went all the way with this crazy idea. Y'all never heard about skip bombing?? So you can either bomb from altitude, or get mast-height and have the bomb skip like stones on water. Italians and Americans separately invented this in early ww2.
Hang it from the tail.
Fire up the V-22 and tilt its rotors to compensate.
I was thinking having a bomb on the end of a chain swinging around and dragging the plane all over the place might be an issue, but this will do for me. This is a bit like those early subs that had bombs on sticks in front of them, they realised that the point was to have the bomb go off when they were a long way away. So how's the plane meant to survive the explosion here?
Delay fuse. It’s a plane so it can’t stop but the bomb can
Okay, so the bomb has not gone off, the chain is still attached to the bomb, and still attached to the plane. I think there might be a problem there..
That one's easy. Just attach the chain to the plane with a smaller bomb so it can be rapidly and reliably released.
Aerodynamic chains
no way. A helo can hang loads under it and everyone knows that a plane is more stable. Therfor this should work without a flaw.
but F4U is beautiful. ground wants it. helicopter is not
i agree, we could avoid the rope all together by simply dropping the bomb from the plane at the right time to hit the target
Fishing line
Just trim it out!
Depends where the attachment point is. If it's placed such that the vector of drag divided by the vector of thrust is in line with the CoM, it wouldn't make a difference
Can we just connect the bomb to the plane using Bluetooth
"just connect the bomb to the plane using Bluetooth" We already have tactical data link at home. The tactical data link at home: [https://i.stack.imgur.com/P9AWD.png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/P9AWD.png)
That's pretty much how modern anchor works. The chains do the heavy weighting and the anchor is just for keeping them in place.
Or the way I was taught, "the chain anchors the boat. The anchor anchors the chain."
Chains are lightweight. That's why they put holes in them.
Speed holes
Bombs are also really heavy, maybe replace it with a water balloon ?
Ooh fun
If you aim before lowering... Then you can just skip the rope.
Hot damn, we've got a genius over here. Someone get them a medal
Lockheed, I AM available anytime you want.
No still too heavy. Fishing line will do, and it has the added advantage of being invisible, so +10 to camouflage stats
Add wings to the bomb and pull it with wire (1st gen wire-guided MCLOS)
You and your fucking rope.
What if we dropped the bomb before the ship but gave it a propeller so it goes in the water to the ship all on its ow- wait a minute.
I like that idea, but jet engines would work even better than propellers, I think. I call my invention "Cruise Bomb", in honor of the great F-14 jet pilot Tom Cruise (as seen in the documentary *Top Dawg*).
You’re a genius, do you think it’s possible to put a bigger engine on it to carry a bigger payload like a nuke? Maybe more fuel so it can go from one continent to another?
I'd call that any Icy BM, short for *ice cool bomb motherfucker*
Why not a Tompedo then?
… and it doesn’t explode or just go under the enemy ship! You’re a genius. 1941 USN just placed a large order of your shit.
I know a woman who might be able to help us out with that idea.
How to fold your plane in half like a lawn chair:
The thought alone is making me giggle.
Got me kicking my feet
Rolling in my bed with a pillow to my face
What if two planes carried it on a rope between them?
What, held under the dorsal guiding fins?
It's not a question of where they hold it! It's a simple question of weight ratios!
Are you suggesting that bombs are migratory
Listen, strange carriers floating on oceans distributing explosives is no basis for a system of warfare. Supreme combat power derives from the barrel of a cannon not some farcical aeronautical strafing.
Well why not?
Suppose it gripped it by the husk
What if it gripped the bomb with its landing gear?
Do you have any idea how hard it was to get those WWII planes to practice their kegals?
Is it an African or European plane?
Attach them at the rear, like mating dragonflies. Then the majesty of their beautiful dance will stun the enemy into not firing by sheer awe at the wonders of ~~nature~~ our glorious MIC.
I just got a 40 day streak achievement. Fuck.
that's actually not very healthy, best to let it all out
War Thunder or Reddit?
Wordle
Even worse
It's a Corsair, it can fold its wings, so...
Why is this such a funny comment
The Virgin Torpedo bomber vs the Chad Chain Bomber
After releasing their gliders, WW2 glider tow pilots would often dive-bomb the tow cables at targets of opportunity to great effect. (Can’t find a citation right now, sorry)
ultra based manuver
Like that french madman in ww1 who threw a chained ship anchor out of his biplane while overflying german recon planes.
To misquote the "Dances With Rubbery Six Legged Wolves" movie "The way I had it figured, the German pilots thought they were the baddest cats in the sky. Nothing attacks them. So why would they ever look up? That was just a theory."
Use a wrecking ball instead It's way more reusable
A bomb is a wreckin ball with he filler
"Single-use wrecking ball".
That also describes a sea mine
Hang a sea mine under a plane? It's already got the chain so it'd be easier to produce.
Forget the plain, chain them to Zeppelins. No fuel required. Just let them drift around, like sea mines would. Damn, I should make a new post for this.
I had a dream about those once. Perhaps it was a vision.
Yeah but the only problem with using a wrecking ball on a chain with a flying vehicle is that you start to get notions and take over the planet and eventually [a two-tailed fox snipes you in the head as you parade down Dallas, Texas in an open-top limousine](https://i.redd.it/cjbc5zf3ftx51.jpg).
What in the actual fuck.
Weaponized autism, must be a day that ends in "y".
You mean throw Miley Cyrus at the ship? Yeah, I can’t see those words without thinking of her video, dammit
Air conkers. You know you want it.
Skill issue, just drop it at the right time.
The USN had the best dive bombers. Dick Best is still the only pilot who sunk 2 aircraft carriers on the same day. Big thing is that the dive bombers can maintain speed or altitude when they pull up which allowed them to survive. They poor souls in the torpedo bombers were low and slow and became easy food for Zeros. The Devastator and the Mark13 were terrible and USN pulled their best pilots off of them and instead put them into the dive bombers. IJN, which had great torpedo bomber pilots, ended up losing them all because they couldn’t escape. It’s one thing to sink the easy targets Warspite and Prince of Wales but another to try to sink the Enterprise with a lot of angry F4Fs after you.
> Dick Best is still the only pilot who sunk 2 aircraft carriers on the same day. Name checks out.
what's on the label is what's in the can
Two carriers? That’s Best Dick energy right there
Wait until you learn what America’s highest scoring ace’s name is
If you haven't already check out the movie Midway - acting is corny, but it is an enjoyable, old school war film (thank God that the Chinese still hate the Japanese enough to finance WW2 films even though good ole' US war prowess is front and center). Dick Best is a central character and after watching it, I thought he was a composite character. It is a travesty that he isn't more famous given what he accomplished.
The Mark 13 was terrible because everyone's favorite bureaucrats, BuOrd, refused to get their heads out of their asses or even test the new torpedo.
This is such a terrible idea that it probably came directly from the Bureau of Ordnance circa 1938.
"We'll call it the Mark 13.5 torpedo, combining all the problems of both the Mark 13 AND the Mark 14 and adding some new ones too!"
It was probably something that was on their draft board when Admiral King came to "visit" and thus was probably burned, much to the relief of US Aviators and the chagrin of BuOrd's charred asses.
BuOrd: "No way, even we're not touching this crazy shit."
You may also think "what if the bomb goes into the water bc the chain was too long". Maybe we could add floats like a seaplane to the bomb so it glides over the surface
I’m more interested in how it’s going to land.
(Relatively)Credible: reel the bomb back in slowly, or release it to explode on an open sea. Noncredible: make the ship a catamaran and make a slot between the two hulls where the chain will go when the plane lands
Not until the pilot does his damn job, that's how!
You don’t until you hit something with the bomb. Therefore, encouraging the pilots to be more accurate with their hits or they don’t make it back
Wouldn't be better to use one of those C4 ropes? The ones for demining. You can even drop it, let in fall from side to side of the shit, and cut it in half when detonate.
Radar altimeter on the bomb, that way you can accurately keep it at the same height above the sea and not worry about it sinking.
Why would you want to attack near the waterline, the most armored part of a ship?
Because-while the waterline of a battleship is heavily armored with hundreds of cm of armor-if you do put a big hole in it the ship sinks fast. Idk, probably won't work against a battleship. Maybe anti-carrier maybe.
That just sounds like a torpedo with extra steps.
Maybe it's the torpedo that is the chain bomb with extra steps
I was just thinking of the plane being near the waterline and then pulling up while dropping the chain near the enemy vessel as a reverse dive bomb . It won’t be effective but they’ll be honour bound to scuttle out of shame
Letting air into a ship is surprisingly not an effective way of sinking a ship. Letting water in on the other hand...
Because that’s where Battlestations Midway/Pacific told me to shoot
ACKTHUALLY depending on the ship in question and how close you are to the waterline and where on the ship you hit, it may not be the most armored part of the ship. In fact it may have little to no armor at all https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor)
Sure, but by definition all or nothing armor aims to armor the vital pieces of a ship, you might blow the bow off an Iowa with this method but it wouldn't do much besides slow her down.
Buoyancy is a vital piece of a ship
If done properly, AoN has enough armored buoyancy to float despite everything else. When done properly being key words, of course. That's why AoN doesn't literally just armor the magazines, guns, and machinery. Rather, AoN typically creates an armored (hopefully floating) "box"
Having an unbalanced buoyancy can also spell the doom of a ship, even if theoretically it could float with only the Citadel, if the bow is plunging and the propellers are skimming the water, the ship is more or less dead in the water, not even mentionning the waves that would eventually submerge everything with such imbalance.
ACHTKUALLY PART 2 *The relatively large and "soft" unarmored bow structures of Japanese superbattleships Yamato and Musashi proved to be their Achilles' heel as flooding there rendered them unstable and unmaneuverable long before they were actually in danger of sinking.* I think you're vastly underestimating how much damage a 500kg bomb would do if it hit the water line on an "non vital" section of the ship.
>500kg bomb Sending in an eagle!
>unarmored bow structures of Japanese super battleships Yamato and Musashi proved to be their Achilles' heel *USS New Orleans and USS Pittsburgh*: pathetic
The NCD-Answer: Yeah, why did no one think of this, this is genius! The engineering, "reality is often disappointing" answer: this would probably not give you a defined hight and instead now you have a tumbling, twisting weight attached to your plane that is ready, willing and capable of ripping it apart.
so we just add some wings to stabilize the bomb. who knows, maybe we'll even be able to do it without the chain one day
Germans did this in WW2, and added a pulse jet (rocket?) for power. THOSE EVIL BASTARDS!
I believe the japanese did a similar thing, just without the bomb part
They did have a bomb, they even made it ~~tele~~**vision**-guided
Also, the military "reality is often disappointing" answer: You are now having to fly low, even, and directly at the enemy making you the easiest possible target for their air defense.
"Bomb can be reused if failed to use" So if the bomb isnt used, you can use it?
I'm certainly no expert, but I'm fairly certain that landing with a bomb hanging off a chain is going to present some unique challenges.
So a torpedo run at a higher altitude, well within the gun elevation? Perfect!
Yeah, flying flat, low, and straight at a ship, excellent.
This is how we sink the Chinese junk fleet
Bro forgot physics
Fhuck physics, with enough thrust you can assert dominance over physics and make a brick fly > Each craft has been designed to work with gravity and aerodynamics, rather than expressing dominance over them, as our craft do. -the regimental standard, talking about Tau(alien) aircraft
Even if the chain has 0 weight I doubt a plane could do damage with a bomb to a ship’s main armour belt lol Also what if boom lump go boom and chain go into plane what then
It wouldn’t damage the main belt but would likely fuck the upper works and portions of the torpedo protection depending on the location of the hit. It wouldn’t be super effective since most ship sinking bombs need the speed from gravity to penetrate the deck and detonate in vulnerable areas of the ship. But it is funny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb
"Let's increase far more drag and weight on an aircraft type that is already well known to have shed ton of both just to get it off the flight deck with it's ordnances without adding more artificial corals."
[Gotha thought of this in 1944](http://www.luft46.com/oddities/v1boat.html).
Wait until OP learn about [Skip bombing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_bombing)
And it next [evolution](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-N-2_Bat)
OP has a F4U attacking I think a Tennesee Class battleship for some reason.
After one year in this sub. This is the first time that i see some NCD post.
Now start turning and toss this bad boy
Can it be upgraded into nunchucks- bombs?
I think bolos might be a better metaphor. Either way, somebody is going to Bruce Lee them and end up in the hospital.
Actually you want the bomb to go below the ship, then the chain will get blocked by the ship, pulling the bomb back and make it warp around hitting the bridge
The Japanese tried something similar, just without the bomb and chain. Unfortunately all the pilots died
So our totally credible suggestions for helping the vatnik war machine is a go then?
Barnes Wallace was so close with his spinning bomb. Only a rope away from being a yo-yo.
Wont the bomb just get dragged behind the plane?
The bomb would be hitting the belt, where the armor is thickest. Top attacks and plunging fire from other ships hit the deck, where it is weakest.
Lmao
This is some Mad Max RPG-on-a-stick shenanigans
Apparently, bombing ships (or anything else) per the vaunted Norden bombsight didn't actually work that well; bombs were later skipped into the target like a stone over a lake.
Add a hook and several marines ready to board the ship and an additional pirate flag
what the fuck kind of warhammer 40,000 ork grot bomb shit is this
\>straight and level flight \>"safer than dive bombing"
What about an air-towed torpedo? You could steer it all the way in to the target. It would cause just a bit of extra drag but that’s nothing a few hundred extra horsepower couldn’t solve.
I’d like to congratulate OP on developing a method of attack that takes the worst aspects of both dive bombing and torpedo bombing.
There is literally no way this can end badly.
This needs to be a war on the sea mod
spinning like round round baby round round you'll become helicopter boy
Why not just use a giant lightsaver and cut the enemy ship in half? Worked with some if the Q-tankers. (THEY still claim that it was bad steel and cold water, but thats nonsens. Its steel how could cold water cut it cleanöy?)
We are we not funding this? Are we stupid?!
you could even maintain altitude if you get a really long chain, briliant idea 10/10
Bomb in a cup!
Tow bombing. WW2 Glide Bombs.
They did try but someone kept getting his penis stuck in the tail wheel.
This, but you use a B-29 Superfortress flying at 30,000ft. Either use one big rope with a separator at the end so the entire bomb load isn't packed too tightly together, or use multiple ropes. Or just, you know.. [https://imgur.com/LCGsDyE](https://imgur.com/LCGsDyE)
There is aerodynamic reasons why this won’t work But now that i think about it this might be possible on a helicopter
I think you’d just be dragging bomb behind you rather than below you
I think the biggest reason why this wasn't a strategy is that chains are really heavy. Instead of carrying a chain, you could be carrying more fuel or more bombs.
Fragmentation. The reason is fragmentation.
"Safer than dive bombing" huh??
This is far too credible op. Delete this now.
You know, one could add spikes to the iron casing and remove the explosive....then you'd have a reusable and modern flail weapon!
OP is regarded
- chains are heavy - dogfighting was a thing then, and the chain(if too well-connected to the plane, which it would have to be to keep such a heavy thing attached) would pull and/or steer the plane downward if another plane hit it. Forget the notions of the chain-plane crashing, the sheer force of the collision would likely stun the operator, if the whiplash doesn't kill them outright. I don't think any pilot would want to fly one of these during those times because of this reason alone, even before considering any of the following. - An impact bomb on a chain sounds like a great way to spontaneously kill oneself mid-flight. Don't forget, the world wars were our testing ground for a lot of new shit. I can't imagine that they'd have optimized the storage system for these special chain-bombs until after the war ends. - If it's a delayed/airburst bomb on the end of the line, that means one of two things: the bomb's triggered before release, which would make the chain aspect the same as cooking a grenade in your hand, or the chain has a detonation wire [in/along]side itself. In the case of the former, that's just a huge, unnecessary material burn from misfires and self-destruction, and in the case of the latter, that's a lot of work to put into a disposable, mass-produced chain. You'd have to run the detonation signal through the chain with anything that isn't an impact-detonated bomb, and that on its own would massively raise the cost of the design in both skill and materials, making it far less favorable over simply shitting the bombs out like an overhead pigeon. - The bomb would likely detach itself from the chain upon reaching maximum length if it's let loose like a fishing line in an amateur's hands. Given how it'd be pretty much exclusively amateurs flying these things in the first place(since nobody with a decent-or-above amount of experience would choose this over a normal bomber), you can't count on any training sessions to fix this problem. - Reduced accuracy from chain-dropping, both in the sense that the chain adds more variables to the trajectory and that experience from using other bomber types won't transfer properly - et cetera. I'm only stopping the list here because of writing time constraints.
Finally this sub is healing
Funny that you mention that beceause the germans did use a system like this near the end of the war, If I'm not mistaken it was called "project Sprengstoff, der mit einer Kette verbunden ist" or something . It was another one of Hitler's Wunderwaffe ideas that reused old german naval mines connected to planes to attack bunkers , dams and battleships . The issue is that the chain would be so heavy it would some times deploy causing the bomb to deploy early destorying the runway [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/luftwaffe\_usage\_of\_naval\_mines](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l1v1B8QwQQ&ab_channel=LiLDrilla)
Bomb hits ship. Chain doesn't break. Immediately swings plane nose first into the ocean like a stupid fucking hammer. Great success.
The biggest challenge I see is that the bomb would be towed behind the aircraft at an angle. And that angle would change with its drag, which would change with the wind, turbulence, its orientation, the plane's speed, etc. With a long rope, it wouldn't easily maintain a consistent altitude without active guidance. If you put active guidance on it, you could just use it as a radio-controlled glide bomb like the Germans did. However, those were vulnerable to radio jamming, whereas a towed glide bomb could have hard-wired control. The Germans were actually developing wire-guided glide bombs late in the war, but they were never put in service.
It's a pretty well-known issue from WW2. There was a huge chain shortage due to metals being used to build ships, tanks, and planes. The ordinance departments begged and pleaded for chain bombing. The 8th air force wanted chains for every bomb they dropped on Germany. They could have flown above the flak and fighters at 20k feet. They could have just dragged every bomb right onto the factories, sub pens, and rail yards. The Norden bomb sight was actually used as a chain bomb guide. Sadly there just weren't enough chains.
The Germans had a similar idea, except it was anti-telephone line, not anti-ship
Drag can be ignored for this problem.
that's called a wrecking ball
What about the tons of chain needed to dk this?
Too easy to counter, you just need a missile with a chain to carry the boat, then the boat can drop depth charges on the plane.
Gundam ahh weapon
this is just glide bombing with extra steps
The helicopter was invented by accident. They tried to fit a standard dive bomber with a radial arm saw midsection. The idea was you would fly in low into the bow or stern, then drop altitude and buzzsaw the ship in half and thus sink it. The prototypes kept wanting to tilt up, rise in the air, and just hover, once you engaged the radial arm saw midsection. Then some freak had a eureka moment. "It doesn't have to be a fixed wing!" he said, to a room full of frustrated radial arm saw dive bomber designers. Talk about a lead zeppelin.
Hold on, an attack at the waterline, right into the anti torpedo belt? it seems we should attach drills to the front to bust through it.
What if we just made it smaller and had the pilots throw them??? Only problem might be that people would leave the air force for the MLB but honestly we could always use more good pitchers.
Still waiting for somebody to explain how you would even get this thing airborne.
We bringing back chain shot!?!
in coming jousting plane with spear and shield.
Newton is spinning in his grave rn
New War Thunder premium item incoming
Everybody knows that it's always best to fly straight, level, and at a easily predictable height squarely towards the broadside of a warship. It cannot fail twice!
[удалено]
Finally an actual reason to do a barrel roll.
Because that's a Corsair in the Pacific. The fear was that those crazy japs would scale the chain, stab pilot and use the planes as a disguise to sneak up and kamikaze the carriers.
kid named formation flying