Dambusters film

[Eric Mc]

jmorgan said:

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.

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

The initial problem perceived was the Torpedo Nets that were deployed across the lakes. That precluded dropping any sort of torpedo device. The Lancaster was designed with a very spacious bomb bay partly because torpedo dropping was part of the spec built into the design of the Manchester. So, a torpedo based design might have been feasible for a modified Lancaster but the nets ruled this out.

The next problem was getting an explosive to detonate on or near the dam wall. Indeed, it was quickly found that no conventional explosives would have any effect on the dams if simply dropped on the dam itself.

Wallis combined a number of features in the design of the bomb -

as large a bomb as pssible
using water to magnify the blast effect
skipping the bomb to leap the torpedo nets
spinning the bomb to enhance its skipping ability
using the spin to ensure the bomb remained close to the dam face as it sank

Altogether it was an amazing sequence of innovative ideas.

The idea of trying to destroy Germany's dams actually predated World War 2 by a number of years. Hydro-electricity was seen as a key strategic target in the 1930s so government committees were set up to look at how this part of the German industrial economy could be damaged or put out of use. It was from these early deliberation that the notion of the dams raids was born.

There is another little white lie in the film - although it does make for an excellent one liner.

When Wallis is trying to convince the "man from the ministry" that they should use a Wellington bomber to carry out initial tests, the civil servant claims that they can't spare any Wellingtons. He then asks Wallis what he might be able to do to persuade Bomber Command to release a Wellington for the tests. Wallis says" Would it help if you said I designed it?".

This conversation never took place. Indeed, Wellington were used for all sorts of tests during the war so getting one for tests would not have been that difficult.

And, of course, Wallis didn't actually design the Wellington. The chief designer on the Wellington project was Reginald Pierson. Wallis's contribution to the project was his original introduction of geodetics to airframe design - first used on the Wellesley and stemming from Wallis' experience working on airship design.

[AMG Merc]

Fascinating, thanks.

[Russian Troll Bot]

AMG Merc said:

stichill99 said:

If it is alright for Quentin Tarantino to use the N word quite often in his movies it's surely quite acceptable to use it in the Dambusters.......it's surely ok to use it for historical purposes.

Agree and Django Unchained springs to mind.

I was going to suggest that the best compromise would be to have the dog but not mention its name, just have characters say "here boy, where are you boy?" But that assumes his dog identified as male, so is just as bigoted.

[Eric Mc]

Russian Troll Bot said:

I was going to suggest that the best compromise would be to have the dog but not mention its name, just have characters say "here boy, where are you boy?" But that assumes his dog identified as male, so is just as bigoted.

It's not the dog that's the issue. It's the important code word used at the seminal point in the story - when the first dam is breached. That's why it should be included. If it was only about the dog it wouldn't really matter.

[Russian Troll Bot]

Eric Mc said:

Russian Troll Bot said:

I was going to suggest that the best compromise would be to have the dog but not mention its name, just have characters say "here boy, where are you boy?" But that assumes his dog identified as male, so is just as bigoted.

It's not the dog that's the issue. It's the important code word used at the seminal point in the story - when the first dam is breached. That's why it should be included. If it was only about the dog it wouldn't really matter.

I think it would cause more trouble than its worth to be honest. Although it may be historically accurate, 99% of the people watching the film wouldn't know that was the code word, and even if you did it's quite hard to switch your mindset from today, where it's seen as one of the most offensive words you can say, to a time when it could be used in a more innocent manner. Then you would have the professionally offended brigade taking to Twitter to try and get the film boycotted and abuse all involved.

[AMG Merc]

So should we also amend the Bible, Torah, Koran etc. to suit current PC?

[DMN]

Eric Mc said:

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 thought that Gibsons book, Enermy Coast Ahead, states that he did chose the very best and was given leave to so by Harris? At the time Gibsons squadron (106) had the best bombing accuracy in Bomber Command, so a lot of the crews came from there. Gibson was also well know by Harris, as Gibson served under him pre-war. It certainly seems that he had a clique of crews that he favoured over others. In the book he mentions two crews where binned out of 617 for no real reason. Its also faily certain that a lot of ground crew couldn't stand him.

Its also a shame that his own arrogance got himself and another killed in the end. Desperate for one last mission before the wars end (having already 175+) he named himself Master Bomber for a raid (having never flown that role in a stream before) and then commandeered another crews Mosquito as he didn't like the one he had been given. He had only 10 hours of experience on Mosquitos. The plane crashed on the way back from the raid. Locals in Holland who saw it come down said the light was on in the cockpit and its thought he simplay ran out of fuel. The light was on as they must have been trying to find the switch the change fuel tanks.

[Eric Mc]

Exactly. People will get offended about what they want to get offended about.

I think it's an absolutely crying shame that this whole project has been completely derailed by fools and cretins who cannot take on board the need to be truthful, accurate, informative, honest and above all, respectful of the people involved in the mission (including those on the German side and how they coped in the aftermath) all because of an insane hangup over one word that MIGHT offend some people.

[AMG Merc]

Eric Mc said:

...all because of an insane hangup over one word that MIGHT offend some people.

Right, and is unlikely to upset any Labradors

[Eric Mc]

DMN said:

I thought that Gibsons book, Enermy Coast Ahead, states that he did chose the very best and was given leave to so by Harris? At the time Gibsons squadron (106) had the best bombing accuracy in Bomber Command, so a lot of the crews came from there. Gibson was also well know by Harris, as Gibson served under him pre-war. It certainly seems that he had a clique of crews that he favoured over others. In the book he mentions two crews where binned out of 617 for no real reason. Its also faily certain that a lot of ground crew couldn't stand him.

Its also a shame that his own arrogance got himself and another killed in the end. Desperate for one last mission before the wars end (having already 175+) he named himself Master Bomber for a raid (having never flown that role in a stream before) and then commandeered another crews Mosquito as he didn't like the one he had been given. He had only 10 hours of experience on Mosquitos. The plane crashed on the way back from the raid. Locals in Holland who saw it come down said the light was on in the cockpit and its thought he simplay ran out of fuel. The light was on as they must have been trying to find the switch the change fuel tanks.

Later books discount that he selected "the best". At most, he selected the best who were available to him. A number of crews who took part in the raid were actually fairly inexperienced. I think "Enemy Coast Ahead" has to be read in the context of why the Air Ministry and the RAF allowed Gibson to write it at the time. It was a propaganda piece (as was a large aspect of how the whole mission was portrayed for many years).

One aspect of the film that is absolutely correct is that Wallis was deeply affected by the loss of so many airmen in the raid (around 50% - which was terrible by Bomber Command standards). In fact, he became so averse to putting men's lives in danger that it was partly his influence on the dangers of supersonic research that persuaded the Air Ministry to cancel the M52 supersonic project. There were other reason too, of course, but Wallis was a very influential figure.

[Russian Troll Bot]

AMG Merc said:

So should we also amend the Bible, Torah, Koran etc. to suit current PC?

We do when it comes to historical films, for us to sympathise with a character they need to reflect the contemporary mindset. For example, not many WW2 films like to remind us of the fact the US Army was segregated, or Churchill's views on how to deal with unruly tribesmen.

[Eric Mc]

Russian Troll Bot said:

AMG Merc said:

So should we also amend the Bible, Torah, Koran etc. to suit current PC?

We do when it comes to historical films, for us to sympathise with a character they need to reflect the contemporary mindset. For example, not many WW2 films like to remind us of the fact the US Army was segregated, or Churchill's views on how to deal with unruly tribesmen.

Hmmm - I can think of two films that deal explicitly with segregation in the US military in World War 2.

In fact, make that three.

[Russian Troll Bot]

Eric Mc said:

Russian Troll Bot said:

AMG Merc said:

So should we also amend the Bible, Torah, Koran etc. to suit current PC?

We do when it comes to historical films, for us to sympathise with a character they need to reflect the contemporary mindset. For example, not many WW2 films like to remind us of the fact the US Army was segregated, or Churchill's views on how to deal with unruly tribesmen.

Hmmm - I can think of two films that deal explicitly with segregation in the US military in World War 2.

In fact, make that three.

But the people who are pro-segregation will invariably be displayed in a negative light and proven wrong by the end of the film. Whilst such views are considered unacceptable today, they would have been quite common at the time.

[WinstonWolf]

The bomb killed countless Germans yet people get their knickers in a twist about a dog called . I'm a little surprised by people's priorities...

[Eric Mc]

WinstonWolf said:

The bomb killed countless Germans yet people get their knickers in a twist about a dog called . I'm a little surprised by people's priorities...

Absolutely. War is serious and bad. Telling the truth about it - even in the movies - should be a priority.

[Europa1]

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?

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.

We have an early runner for "Most random thread to try and shoehorn a Brexit post in to".

[AMG Merc]

Eric Mc said:

Absolutely. War is serious and bad. Telling the truth about it - even in the movies - should be a priority.

+1 Absolutely, no one has the right to alter history except perhaps Captain Kirk

[waynecyclist]

From what I understand they rebuilt the dams within 10 weeks, was it really a success ?

[WinstonWolf]

waynecyclist said:

From what I understand they rebuilt the dams within 10 weeks, was it really a success ?

Well we won...

[Eric Mc]

waynecyclist said:

From what I understand they rebuilt the dams within 10 weeks, was it really a success ?

In war, how do you define success? I think for the effort required in putting it all together and the high loss rate suffered by the crews as well as the fact that only some of the dams were breached - and the fact that those dams that were breached were back in operation after only a few weeks, I would say that the immediate aims of the mission were not actually met successfully.

However, other factors did emanate from the mission.

There is no doubt that it was a massive propaganda success for Britain at that particular point in the war.

The Germans did bolster their defences of the dams and beefed up other aspects of their overall defence systems - which of course, tied up valuable men and resources that they were beginning to run short of.

It did demonstrate to Harris that specialist squadrons and missions could be pursued so he was less antagonistic to future requests for such missions to be flown. However, his general demanour was against missions like this - which he derided as "panacea targets".