What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Single V Twin Bomb Shackles.

Sprockets

Well-Known Member
Why did the US standardise on the more expensive, heavier twin shackle suspension, with possibility of a bomb not releasing from one of the shackles?

I wonder if it is because a member of the US Army, Harry D Weed at McCook Field, Dayton, patented a most advanced system of storing bombs stacked internally horizontally, without crutches, which needed two suspension points for stability. US1396150 & US1385598, first registered in 1919. Very advanced, it eliminated having to carefully tighten stabilisers or crutches around a bomb, with always the possibility, with early releases, of overtightening causing a hang-up.It became a standard system in WW2.

Vertical storage in early machines, rather than below wings, was also ruled out for dive bombing, due to worries that the bomb would not have time to perform its "Danse Macabre" in becoming vertical before impact.

Recently I saw Russian planes taking off in Syria, I think, with bombs swaying around, as they had not had crutches tightened. Whether, apart from accuracy, this would have caused damage, I do not know.
 
Have I achieved a first on this website-not one single person has proffered an opinion as to the reasons behind the choice of single v twin shackles! Why has the US opted for twin suspension, and the UK for mainly single. It does suggest the pros and cons are evenly matched. Lost in the mists of time, and to the minds of those who normally can be relied on to answer the most abstruse question! I can only surmise it is never discussed on training courses, rather like why i c engines usually turn clockwise!
 
I suspect that it had more to do with the designs of the ordnance used by each country at the time, and what offered the most stability for those particular designs during flight. As the US and UK had very different designs during that period it would stand to reason that different methods to achieve stable carry might be explored. This would affect the evolution of things as other progress was made - increases in airspeed, carry capacity, etc. During that period there was no (apparent) anticipation for the need of interoperability, so single vs dual suspension was probably not a consideration or concern.
Just my guess.
 
Following U S -Subs idea, it would be interesting to know how many other countries utilised twin-lug suspensions. I can see that twin shackles would require bomb-bodies with a cylindrical mid-section, as otherwise over-long lugs, with resultant drag, would be required. Twin lugs would not be so critical in requiring crutches to prevent yawing. Perhaps the adoption of Harry Weed's bomb storage system in the States, having bombs stacked vertically, would have made it impossible to use crutches?Torpedoes, because of water-drag,do not usually have suspension lugs when air-dropped,and the Germans also in WW1 used bombs hung in rope-bights, because of concern about errors caused by lugs, which errors were found to be over emphasised. Another reason for perhaps using just one shackle is to minimise drag causing drift?
 
Top