j_jza80 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Lancasters of the RAFs 617 squadron were on their way to destroy the Ruhr Dams with 'upkeep' bombs, more commonly known as the bouncing bomb. The event is still (only just) in living memory, due to the age of the veterans and how few of them returned They took off at 9.30, so at this point they were probably somewhere over the North Sea approaching the German coast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D8MOA Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 :Dlove a bit of history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupraDan24 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Pretty cool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Daaaa da de darn da de da Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupraFluff Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 My great uncle flew Lancaster bombers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony tt Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Awesome they got it right into ZE Germans! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted May 16, 2012 Author Share Posted May 16, 2012 Daaaa da de darn da de da I avoided using the term 'Dambusters' in my first post for that very reason The amazing thing about the mission, apart from the extremely complicated method of delivering the weapon, was that the 617 crews knew that to deliver the bombs they had to fly straight and level at the Dams at a very low altitude. Right into the firing arc of the defending AA guns. The Lancasters had 2 forward firing .303 machine guns to return fire, which may as well have been spud guns for the amount of use they were. The crews knew there was an extremely high probability that they would be killed, and still went and performed the mission to the best of their ability. If only they could see the fruit of their accomplishment, a significant chunk of society who live off benefits as full time work doesn't suit their lifestyle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I avoided using the term 'Dambusters' in my first post for that very reason Its a classic though If only they could see the fruit of their accomplishment, a significant chunk of society who live off benefits as full time work doesn't suit their lifestyle! Dont get people started on this, in the same situation now would you step forward to save queen and country, I bet most wouldn't When our army is running low I would be grabbing everyone on benefit and sticking them out there to earn some of the pennies they been pocketing, leave the workers back here to keep up their tax payments, either work and pay tax or get on the front line to earn your benefits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Hehe, '69' Good bit of history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkddav3 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 thats why the english remain great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy442 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 We will remember them. Ive been onboard the last flying Lancaster, totally removes the glamour I can tell you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted May 16, 2012 Author Share Posted May 16, 2012 Hehe, '69' Which are you Josh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted May 16, 2012 Author Share Posted May 16, 2012 thats why the english remain great That's why the BRITISH WERE great. As a nation we used to thrive under hardship, these days we roll over and let the government shaft us for every penny we earn, and are afraid to even speak our minds for fear of not being PC. For example, the Dams Raid leader, Guy Gibson. I can't even repeat his dogs name as some may take offence. For the forthcoming film they're having to change the dogs name as not to cause offence. Utterly ridiculous IMO, I'm sure people are intelligent enough to realise these are very different times we live in now and that word would be used in a historical context, not an offensive one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Lancasters of the RAFs 617 squadron were on their way to destroy the Ruhr Dams with 'upkeep' bombs, more commonly known as the bouncing bomb. In most of the stuff I've seen and read about the dams raid the bouncing bomb is referred to as the upkeep mine - ie. not a "bomb" at all. I've always wondered why this was. Maybe because for most of the attacks it was designed to sink adjacent to the dam wall and explode underwater, a bit like a limpet mine attached to the side of a ship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy442 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 The dog was called Nigger, his grave is still at RAF Scampton (albeit not at the place he got run over) The dogs name was changed before that in a book, whee it was called Blackie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy442 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 In most of the stuff I've seen and read about the dams raid the bouncing bomb is referred to as the upkeep mine - ie. not a "bomb" at all. I've always wondered why this was. Maybe because for most of the attacks it was designed to sink adjacent to the dam wall and explode underwater, a bit like a limpet mine attached to the side of a ship? Thats exactly how it was designed to work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Thats exactly how it was designed to work Yeah, I know. I was just wondering whether that was the technical reason why upkeep is usually referred to as a mine, or if there was another reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted May 16, 2012 Author Share Posted May 16, 2012 In most of the stuff I've seen and read about the dams raid the bouncing bomb is referred to as the upkeep mine - ie. not a "bomb" at all. I've always wondered why this was. Maybe because for most of the attacks it was designed to sink adjacent to the dam wall and explode underwater, a bit like a limpet mine attached to the side of a ship? Mine is a more accurate description, though I thought using the word mine would cause confusion. Where a limpet mine would normally have a magnetic trigger, the Upkeep was triggered by depth. But just like a limpet mine, the warhead was only relatively small, relying on the compression qualities of water (or lack thereof) to focus the explosion against the target. While the whole raid was a testament to British ingenuity, it's the simple solutions that always impress me the most. They had a real problem getting the aircraft in the correct position to release the weapon, as the altimeters of the day were highly inaccurate at low altitudes, and even a slight pitch change of the aircraft would seriously effect the bombs trajectory. The solution was found by shining two spotlights down from different locations of the underside of the aircraft. The beams were set to converge only at the correct altitude and pitch. Compared to the amount of calculation required by Barnes Wallis regarding the size of the bomb, release speed, backspin (the bomb was spun by a chain mechanism on the aircraft prior to release) and many other variables, such a simple solution must have come as quite a relief Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 While the whole raid was a testament to British ingenuity, it's the simple solutions that always impress me the most. They had a real problem getting the aircraft in the correct position to release the weapon, as the altimeters of the day were highly inaccurate at low altitudes, and even a slight pitch change of the aircraft would seriously effect the bombs trajectory. The solution was found by shining two spotlights down from different locations of the underside of the aircraft. The beams were set to converge only at the correct altitude and pitch. ...and the range to the dam was judged by lining up two pins on a wooden "coathanger" sight with the towers on the dam, although there was a documentary (BBC I think?) a few years back that suggested the bomb aimers found them too awkward to use and rigged up something else instead. Its a terrific mix of ingenuity, engineering and bravery against all odds, which is why its my favourite film of all time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted May 16, 2012 Author Share Posted May 16, 2012 ...and the range to the dam was judged by lining up two pins on a wooden "coathanger" sight with the towers on the dam, although there was a documentary (BBC I think?) a few years back that suggested the bomb aimers found them too awkward to use and rigged up something else instead. Its a terrific mix of ingenuity, engineering and bravery against all odds, which is why its my favourite film of all time. George Lucas agrees with you, the death star scenes towards the end of the original Starwars film were heavily influenced by that film. I'm looking forward to the new film, I'm not looking forward to the CGI Lancasters (though several full size mockups have been made for the static work from fibreglass, and are currently sat in a warehouse in New Zeland) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supra Gaz Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 A good bit of history there, I tilt my cap to the brave men who set of knowing they were flying quote literally I to harms way. A brave few to which we ow so much, if I could meet them, I would buy them all a drink. I'm going to avoid getting into the discussion about unemployed lazy scum as i have had enough of them for today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supra Gaz Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Double post. I suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Great thread mate, very interesting. Sometimes I feel that our forefathers shame us with what they did (mine all fought in North Africa, a long way for lads from the East End of London) but as someone else pointed out it's typical to think that it would be us honest working people that would step up to the plate again if needed whilst the sponges talked about what they would do if only they could get out of bed before midday. Anyway, as said, a good and interesting thread, cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted May 16, 2012 Author Share Posted May 16, 2012 [video=youtube;uVhF8l4O-Qg] Seems quite fitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 George Lucas agrees with you, the death star scenes towards the end of the original Starwars film were heavily influenced by that film. ...and Star Wars is my second fave film of all time Have you noticed that a few lines of dialogue for the SW trench run scenes is lifted almost directly from The Dambusters? [/anorak] Hopefully that doesn't mean that the new Dambusters film will have JarJar Binks in it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.