Dambusters film

[EarlOfHazard]

davepoth said:

Starfighter said:

My concern with the new film is not the dog’s name but the possible Americanisation as Hollywood is want to do. US pilots on secondment, US engineering support etc.

I'm sure it'll be very realistic right down to using the period correct model of B-17 to drop the bombs.

[Eric Mc]

Vipers said:

I am guessing a hydrostatic switch. As it sunk, water pressure increases, when reaches a predetermined setting, kaboooooooom.

Like AMG says.

Someone will know for sure soon.

P.S, update, from Wikipedia.

The bomb is dropped close to the surface of the lake. Because it is moving almost horizontally, at high velocity and with backspin, it bounces several times instead of sinking. Each bounce is smaller than the previous one.

The "bomb run" is calculated so that at its final bounce, the bomb will reach close to the target, where it sinks. A hydrostatic pistol causes it to explode at the right depth, creating destructive shockwaves.

Edited by Vipers on Monday 5th March 19:11

The original tests did not include backspin. However, it was discovered that a larger number of bounces could be achieved with backspin. The other advantage was that the bomb continued to rotate even as it came up against the dam wall and the spin ensured that as the bomb sank, it remained nestled against the wall.

[Evangelion]

Dr Jekyll said:

Anyone know how an operational version was supposed to explode when it hit the target but not before?

A hydrostatic charge set it off when it got to a predetermined depth. If that didn't work, it was also timed to go off 30 seconds (I believe) after it left the aircraft. The one the Germans recovered intact didn't go off because it never left the aircraft; it crashed with the bomb still attached.



(Sorry, mine!)

[Eric Mc]

Was it a bomb?

Was it a mine?

Was it a depth charge?

It shared the attributes of all three. I would say it was closet in operation to a depth charge - although it was a lot bigger and heavier than a normal depth charge.

[jmorgan]

Ayahuasca said:

jmorgan said:

Ayahuasca said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-kx2Vpvxk4

Testing the bouncing bomb. Looks like one of them bounced along land, not water.

Think there was a test after the war by the US and it took the tail off an aircraft, it was fatal.

Edit. Found it, 1945 and it was fatal. Not posting the youtube link but its out there.

Edited by jmorgan on Monday 5th March 17:57

Is that the one with the '633 Sqd' theme?

Given the aircrew died I do not think there is any music. They are using a Douglas A 26 C and are too low (according to a few people here and there((prune etc.)), 8' but I am not an expert). It was in the States in 1945.

The bomb bounces right back up through the bit that connected the tail to the main body and it crashes straight away.

Not sure what the etiquette on posting vid where people die so google "highball test aircraft crash"

[jmorgan]

Evangelion said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Anyone know how an operational version was supposed to explode when it hit the target but not before?

A hydrostatic charge set it off when it got to a predetermined depth. If that didn't work, it was also timed to go off 30 seconds (I believe) after it left the aircraft. The one the Germans recovered intact didn't go off because it never left the aircraft; it crashed with the bomb still attached.



(Sorry, mine!)

For highball, where there is less depth to ships, how accurate can these hydrostatic fuses be? Reading somewhere that timing was one option, realest and 30 seconds to bang or whatever the travel time will be at the release point.

[Vipers]

Halb said:

bad company said:

Has anybody mentioned the dog that was part of the story?

Not sure, but I think it was called Trigger, that's what history says anyway...but it's not really important.

Edited by Halb on Monday 5th March 20:05

And the code word for a hit was "Roy", and if they screwed up "Roger", or was it "Del Boy" can't remember now.

Makes perfect sense now

[yellowjack]

ash73 said:

As featured here (don't, it's awful)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064699/

Are you disrespecting Mosquito Squadron though, innit, bruvv?

It might be a crappy war film, made in the 1960s with all the female actors wearing 1960s hairstyles and the usual soggy love triangle bit in the middle. But it was made locally to me, at least a large part of the screen time features Minley Manor, which 'plays' the part of the French chateau that is the target for the mission. As "right on" and "of the 60s" as it is, there are some decent flying sequences and lots of footage of Mosquitos, so it can't be all bad...

[jmorgan]

Still a crap film but with Mosquitos. Only reason to watch it is to fast forward through it.

[Halmyre]

Halb said:

bad company said:

Has anybody mentioned the dog that was part of the story?

Not sure, but I think it was called Trigger, that's what history says anyway...but it's not really important.

Edited by Halb on Monday 5th March 20:05

Ah yes, Gibson's pet horse.

It was Barnes Wallis who had the dog - Grommet, I think it was. He invented the rubber sealing ring and named it after the dog. Or was it the other way round?

[Evangelion]

yellowjack said:

... Mosquito Squadron ... some decent flying sequences and lots of footage of Mosquitos, so it can't be all bad ...

Worst bit is right near the beginning when one of the aircraft gets shot down and the model disappears behind the (fake) scenery.

Just think how much better it would look if shot now with decent CGI.

As demonstrated here - love the sunset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bdoWZbvXps

[Halb]

Halmyre said:

Ah yes, Gibson's pet horse.

It was Barnes Wallis who had the dog - Grommet, I think it was. He invented the rubber sealing ring and named it after the dog. Or was it the other way round?

He flew the plane, they had to have a special stealth fighter designed for it

[Ayahuasca]

jmorgan said:

Ayahuasca said:

jmorgan said:

Ayahuasca said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-kx2Vpvxk4

Testing the bouncing bomb. Looks like one of them bounced along land, not water.

Think there was a test after the war by the US and it took the tail off an aircraft, it was fatal.

Edit. Found it, 1945 and it was fatal. Not posting the youtube link but its out there.

Edited by jmorgan on Monday 5th March 17:57

Is that the one with the '633 Sqd' theme?

Given the aircrew died I do not think there is any music. They are using a Douglas A 26 C and are too low (according to a few people here and there((prune etc.)), 8' but I am not an expert). It was in the States in 1945.

The bomb bounces right back up through the bit that connected the tail to the main body and it crashes straight away.

Not sure what the etiquette on posting vid where people die so google "highball test aircraft crash"

Here is the '633' bouncing bomb test footage. Mossies and Lancs, different varieties of bouncing bombs. One bounces within yards of watching spectators. It does include the A26 crash, but I think military a/c crashes are acceptable viewing here and in some very small way it is a tribute to the brave crew.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6xgX0edfugU

[jmorgan]

Yeah, I have seen the above.

This is the crash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCGpzRzY7fY

[FourWheelDrift]

Bit of a tall water splash as this one was dropped in 2011.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJGY6ao-V9E

[AMG Merc]

Some interesting activities around the country today and tomorrow.

Also this site's worth a read, infographic and all: https://www.rafbf.org/dambusters?gclid=EAIaIQobChM...

[AMG Merc]

I wonder if they'll do any PC correctness canine editing...

[rscott]

AMG Merc said:

I wonder if they'll do any PC correctness canine editing...

They aren't. Their Facebook post about this is pretty much full of people complaining that it's going to be edited to appease snowflakes too. Some of them seem desperate for it to be edited so they can be upset about it...

[Halb]

rscott said:

They aren't. Their Facebook post about this is pretty much full of people complaining that it's going to be edited to appease snowflakes too. Some of them seem desperate for it to be edited so they can be upset about it...

sounds familiar.

[Vocal Minority]

Halb said:

rscott said:

They aren't. Their Facebook post about this is pretty much full of people complaining that it's going to be edited to appease snowflakes too. Some of them seem desperate for it to be edited so they can be upset about it...

sounds familiar.

Yep - the world of the anti-pc snowflake is a tricky one.

I remember when it was on TV once (it may well be in the contents of this thread somewhere) - and the announcer said 'contains language some may find offensive' - before showing the movie in full, un-edited and unabridged.

So ITV4 basically shoo all the 'snowflakes' away for them and then give them what they want. So the anti-right-on anti-PC brigade were out in force moaning their arses of about the warning.


I just put it down to cross old men being cross that its no longer the fifties and its not like it was when they were young and mostly that they're not young anymore and they are feeling a bit left behind. Which is why I can't take them seriously, in the same way I can't take the people who have been accusing the Israeli Eurovision entry of being racist seriously.


Honestly, they are just as much snowflakes and virtue signalling - its all just the other side of the same coin. Moaning about views that aren't their own and the modern world because they believe there is value in it and want to be seen doing it.

Edited by Vocal Minority on Wednesday 16th May 12:15