Dambusters film
Discussion
Emanresu said:
There is nothing big or clever about an imperialist country bursting a dam and flooding a valley killing thousands of innocent people. I still don’t understand why people glorify it?
It isn't a question of glorifying the killing of actually about 1500 people, it's a question of respecting a very dangerous and demanding mission combined with no small measure of technical ingenuity. Emanresu said:
Maybe a few hundred years ago, Britain was a force to be reckoned with. Now it’s just a tiny, backwards island that can’t even make trains run on time and nobody wants to trade with. It’s time people realised it. Britain is nothing now. Just an insignificant little island dragging part of Ireland into its bulls
t.
You are Eric AICMFPt. Dr Jekyll said:
Emanresu said:
There is nothing big or clever about an imperialist country bursting a dam and flooding a valley killing thousands of innocent people. I still don’t understand why people glorify it?
It isn't a question of glorifying the killing of actually about 1500 people, it's a question of respecting a very dangerous and demanding mission combined with no small measure of technical ingenuity. Emanresu said:
Maybe a few hundred years ago, Britain was a force to be reckoned with. Now it’s just a tiny, backwards island that can’t even make trains run on time and nobody wants to trade with. It’s time people realised it. Britain is nothing now. Just an insignificant little island dragging part of Ireland into its bullst.
You are Eric AICMFPt. I do not know if I could do what those lads did night after night, at their age I was more interested in @rsing around not climbing into a thin metal tube and waiting for a terrible end. Brave indeed and a time of the nation fighting for its existence. Gibson was 25.
[quote=Emanresu
Maybe a few hundred years ago, Britain was a force to be reckoned with. Now it’s just a tiny, backwards island that can’t even make trains run on time and nobody wants to trade with. It’s time people realised it. Britain is nothing now. Just an insignificant little island dragging part of Ireland into its bullst.
[/quote]
Strange how many people from all over the world want to come and live on a 'insignificant little island'
Maybe a few hundred years ago, Britain was a force to be reckoned with. Now it’s just a tiny, backwards island that can’t even make trains run on time and nobody wants to trade with. It’s time people realised it. Britain is nothing now. Just an insignificant little island dragging part of Ireland into its bulls
t. [/quote]
Strange how many people from all over the world want to come and live on a 'insignificant little island'
eccles said:
Emanresu said:
Maybe a few hundred years ago, Britain was a force to be reckoned with. Now it’s just a tiny, backwards island that can’t even make trains run on time and nobody wants to trade with. It’s time people realised it. Britain is nothing now. Just an insignificant little island dragging part of Ireland into its bullst.
Strange how many people from all over the world want to come and live on a 'insignificant little island' t. Vipers said:
eccles said:
Emanresu said:
Maybe a few hundred years ago, Britain was a force to be reckoned with. Now it’s just a tiny, backwards island that can’t even make trains run on time and nobody wants to trade with. It’s time people realised it. Britain is nothing now. Just an insignificant little island dragging part of Ireland into its bullst.
Strange how many people from all over the world want to come and live on a 'insignificant little island' t. 
Me or Mr glass half empty?
Dr Jekyll said:
Emanresu said:
There is nothing big or clever about an imperialist country bursting a dam and flooding a valley killing thousands of innocent people. I still don’t understand why people glorify it?
It isn't a question of glorifying the killing of actually about 1500 people, it's a question of respecting a very dangerous and demanding mission combined with no small measure of technical ingenuity. Emanresu said:
Maybe a few hundred years ago, Britain was a force to be reckoned with. Now it’s just a tiny, backwards island that can’t even make trains run on time and nobody wants to trade with. It’s time people realised it. Britain is nothing now. Just an insignificant little island dragging part of Ireland into its bullst.
You are Eric AICMFPt. Halb said:
TonyToniTone said:
Are Hollywood films now used for historical reference?
Must be, otherwise why bother!The bomb and method of delivery were still top secret at the time. Few other minor details amiss but overall pretty good considering.
Of course newer publications shed more light on what went on in development and leading up to the attack and are a fascinating read. Think the bomb was de classified in the 70s?
There were quite a few "simplifications", let's say, in the film.
The mechanism for suspending the bomb was never shown
the fact that the bomb was spun was never shown
Test footage of the bomb was doctored (badly) to obscure the bomb itself
No details of the weight of the bomb were disclosed (nor the fact that it was really a very heavy depth charge" rather than a bomb
The fact that on one dam, the bomb was dropped parallel to the parapet
Although the "catapult" style aiming device was correct, most bomb aimers preferred to use chinagraphed markings on the plexiglass as it was steadier
The idea of using lights to assess altitude above the reservoir surface was not inspired by Gibson attending a show in London. It was based on a technique already being used by Coastal Command
The crews weren't picked because they were "the best" in Bomber Command. Harris hated the whole idea of "creme de la creme" crew selections. He wanted expertise spread around Bomber Command rather than concentrated in elite units,. Gibson basically grabbed who he could from the crews he had known.
I still love the film, but it does contain a number of "simplifications". It would be nice if a new film was used to clarify some of the above points.
The mechanism for suspending the bomb was never shown
the fact that the bomb was spun was never shown
Test footage of the bomb was doctored (badly) to obscure the bomb itself
No details of the weight of the bomb were disclosed (nor the fact that it was really a very heavy depth charge" rather than a bomb
The fact that on one dam, the bomb was dropped parallel to the parapet
Although the "catapult" style aiming device was correct, most bomb aimers preferred to use chinagraphed markings on the plexiglass as it was steadier
The idea of using lights to assess altitude above the reservoir surface was not inspired by Gibson attending a show in London. It was based on a technique already being used by Coastal Command
The crews weren't picked because they were "the best" in Bomber Command. Harris hated the whole idea of "creme de la creme" crew selections. He wanted expertise spread around Bomber Command rather than concentrated in elite units,. Gibson basically grabbed who he could from the crews he had known.
I still love the film, but it does contain a number of "simplifications". It would be nice if a new film was used to clarify some of the above points.
jmorgan said:
Had early 70's for some reason. I stand corrected. Was that just the mine or the delivery as well?
(feel a re read of later material coming on).
Scalemates ( a model history website) does show that the Dambuster version of Revell's original Lancaster kit was issued in 1971 - so I think you are correct. I certainly remember seeing ads for the release in "Aviation News", "Speed and Power" etc around 1972/73.(feel a re read of later material coming on).
The original "standard" Revell Lancaster kit was issued in 1963.
1963 release
1971 release
You can see that Revell made great play on the "classified" nature of the bomb details on their packaging.
The Revell Dambuster kit did indeed show the suspension mechnism for the bomb and a reasonably accurate portrayal of the bomb itself.
The kit itself is a bit iffy by modern standards and since those days Revell, Hasegawa and Airfix have all released more modern and accurate toolings of Lancasters - including the Dambuster variant.
I was reading that they are working on later material for the script to be more accurate to the events.
Found it interesting reading Gibsons book where he mentions his stints on night fighters and using radar, or rather not mentioning radar but it was obvious today what he was talking about.
Found it interesting reading Gibsons book where he mentions his stints on night fighters and using radar, or rather not mentioning radar but it was obvious today what he was talking about.
Eric Mc said:
There were quite a few "simplifications", let's say, in the film.
The mechanism for suspending the bomb was never shown
the fact that the bomb was spun was never shown
Test footage of the bomb was doctored (badly) to obscure the bomb itself
No details of the weight of the bomb were disclosed (nor the fact that it was really a very heavy depth charge" rather than a bomb
The fact that on one dam, the bomb was dropped parallel to the parapet
Although the "catapult" style aiming device was correct, most bomb aimers preferred to use chinagraphed markings on the plexiglass as it was steadier
The idea of using lights to assess altitude above the reservoir surface was not inspired by Gibson attending a show in London. It was based on a technique already being used by Coastal Command
The crews weren't picked because they were "the best" in Bomber Command. Harris hated the whole idea of "creme de la creme" crew selections. He wanted expertise spread around Bomber Command rather than concentrated in elite units,. Gibson basically grabbed who he could from the crews he had known.
I still love the film, but it does contain a number of "simplifications". It would be nice if a new film was used to clarify some of the above points.
+1The mechanism for suspending the bomb was never shown
the fact that the bomb was spun was never shown
Test footage of the bomb was doctored (badly) to obscure the bomb itself
No details of the weight of the bomb were disclosed (nor the fact that it was really a very heavy depth charge" rather than a bomb
The fact that on one dam, the bomb was dropped parallel to the parapet
Although the "catapult" style aiming device was correct, most bomb aimers preferred to use chinagraphed markings on the plexiglass as it was steadier
The idea of using lights to assess altitude above the reservoir surface was not inspired by Gibson attending a show in London. It was based on a technique already being used by Coastal Command
The crews weren't picked because they were "the best" in Bomber Command. Harris hated the whole idea of "creme de la creme" crew selections. He wanted expertise spread around Bomber Command rather than concentrated in elite units,. Gibson basically grabbed who he could from the crews he had known.
I still love the film, but it does contain a number of "simplifications". It would be nice if a new film was used to clarify some of the above points.
I'd also like more explanation of why there was a 'bouncing bomb' at all. IE that it wasn't a case of inventing a bomb that bounced. More of recognizing that any bomb dropped into a lake from sufficiently low altitude to achieve the accuracy required was going to bounce away from the initial impact point, so turn that into a virtue by controlling the bounce.
Eric Mc said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Emanresu said:
There is nothing big or clever about an imperialist country bursting a dam and flooding a valley killing thousands of innocent people. I still don’t understand why people glorify it?
It isn't a question of glorifying the killing of actually about 1500 people, it's a question of respecting a very dangerous and demanding mission combined with no small measure of technical ingenuity. Emanresu said:
Maybe a few hundred years ago, Britain was a force to be reckoned with. Now it’s just a tiny, backwards island that can’t even make trains run on time and nobody wants to trade with. It’s time people realised it. Britain is nothing now. Just an insignificant little island dragging part of Ireland into its bullst.
You are Eric AICMFPt. 
Eric Mc said:
Scalemates ( a model history website) does show that the Dambuster version of Revell's original Lancaster kit was issued in 1971 - so I think you are correct. I certainly remember seeing ads for the release in "Aviation News", "Speed and Power" etc around 1972/73.
The original "standard" Revell Lancaster kit was issued in 1963.
1963 release
1971 release
You can see that Revell made great play on the "classified" nature of the bomb details on their packaging.
The Revell Dambuster kit did indeed show the suspension mechnism for the bomb and a reasonably accurate portrayal of the bomb itself.
The kit itself is a bit iffy by modern standards and since those days Revell, Hasegawa and Airfix have all released more modern and accurate toolings of Lancasters - including the Dambuster variant.
Pretty sure the ones used in the raid didn't have ventral guns though!The original "standard" Revell Lancaster kit was issued in 1963.
1963 release
1971 release
You can see that Revell made great play on the "classified" nature of the bomb details on their packaging.
The Revell Dambuster kit did indeed show the suspension mechnism for the bomb and a reasonably accurate portrayal of the bomb itself.
The kit itself is a bit iffy by modern standards and since those days Revell, Hasegawa and Airfix have all released more modern and accurate toolings of Lancasters - including the Dambuster variant.
Dr Jekyll said:
+1
I'd also like more explanation of why there was a 'bouncing bomb' at all. IE that it wasn't a case of inventing a bomb that bounced. More of recognizing that any bomb dropped into a lake from sufficiently low altitude to achieve the accuracy required was going to bounce away from the initial impact point, so turn that into a virtue by controlling the bounce.
Or that it was an admiralty led enterprise to sink ships.I'd also like more explanation of why there was a 'bouncing bomb' at all. IE that it wasn't a case of inventing a bomb that bounced. More of recognizing that any bomb dropped into a lake from sufficiently low altitude to achieve the accuracy required was going to bounce away from the initial impact point, so turn that into a virtue by controlling the bounce.
Edit.
Came across this a few years ago. Nothing new as such but real material.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/dambusters/furt...
Edited by jmorgan on Monday 5th March 08:44
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff