Talk:Operation Chastise/Archive 1

• Operation Downwood - is a redirect to Operation Chastise (The Dambusters raid). But it's an incorrect redirect. For some reason long ago someone on Wikipedia said that the Dambusters raid was called Operation Downwood; but it wasn't and has never been called that. The mistake remained in Wikipedia for more than a year, before someone noticed and moved the page. Put Operation Downwood into Google and all you get are references that have been copied from Wikipedia and nothing else. Time to expunge this. Mintguy (T) 01:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • This appears to be the case. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:00, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anthony DiPierro 17:14, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. . And they should know. 62.254.0.14 20:31, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Clearly there at least exists a possibility of confusion. Redirect should stay. Anthony DiPierro 22:28, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • That last one was me - I forgot to turn my cookies on again. Average Earthman 20:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually I am now persuaded that this should stay. My logic is: is someone thinks that 'Downwood' may be the correct name, and comes to Wikipedia to check it, it is better that they should find an article giving the correct name than find nothing. DJ Clayworth 15:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • That was my reasoning too :). Sorry I didn't express it more clearly. Anthony DiPierro 15:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • This argument could hold for all sorts of incorrect names for things. Clearly Downwood is completely wrong, and has only propagated because that's what it said in Wikipedia for a long time. It should be expunged Mintguy (T) 09:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, it certainly could. In fact, it holds for mispelling and other misconceptions on a regular basis on this page. If it's demonstrably wrong, then add that fact to the article. But unless you think the professor from stvincent's was using Wikipedia as the source for his lecture notes, it's a redirect which aids in accidental linking, and should therefore be kept. Anthony DiPierro 20:31, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Mispellings are one thing, and popular misconceptions fall into the same catergory. I completely agree with maintaining redirects in these circumstances. However I am almost certain that this incorrect name originated in Wikipedia. As for the "professor" at St. Vincent, this page appears to be the only link that can be found through Google that doesn't clearly originate from Wikipedia. Given that the gentleman in question is a Professor of English and not History, (his home page - http://facweb.stvincent.edu/academics/english/faculty/wissolik/wissolik.html) I think it is a credible possibility that he sourced his information from Wikipedia or another site that copied the information from Wikipedia. Mintguy (T) 11:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • I think we're relying far too heavily on google, here. Without an explanation of the derivation of this term (in Wikipedia, or on that professor's notes), I'm not convinced. Anthony DiPierro 16:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Well I've asked User:TwoOneTwo, who appears to be the first petrson to have used the term to come here and comment. Mintguy (T) 16:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote - Creating incorrect links to valid articles with correct spellings will only encourage and validate links with and to the wrong name. You end up spreading the corruption of an incorrect name. (I have no opinion if that is the case in this article.) - Texture 20:42, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but not as redirect. Since this was an error perpetuated by Wikipedia over an extended period, and since there is apparently no separate need for a page entitled "Operation Downwood", we should make this an article that admits our mistake and corrects it, with a link to the correct page. This seems to me to be the only responsible thing to do. -Rholton 15:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Until we have positive evidence that this name is incorrect (and why it is incorrect), I think it would be a really bad idea to claim it is. Anthony DiPierro 15:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • more links Anthony DiPierro 15:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • this one is interesting
    • This is ridiculous! Your links [3] and [4] have EXACTLY the same content. And they are both a copy of this. The latter doesn't mention the name of the operation. It seems more than probable that the name was copied from Wikipedia or a clone, thereof. And if you look at you link 5 and scroll to the bottom of the page, it says .... "This is content from Wikipedia and it is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. HOME - Help build the worlds largest free encyclopedia.". This could well accoutn for the old Prof's error. As for 6, this is the lamest one yet, it's a homemade map for a shoot'em up. What more evidence to you require that Wikipedia is the source of this false information. The name is incorrect because it IS incorrect. How can this be "proved" any more? Mintguy (T) 16:14, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't see how a homemade map for a shoot'em up is evidence that Wikipedia is the source. Whether or not it matters if Wikipedia is the source is a more interesting question, though. Anthony DiPierro 16:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I regret to say that I'm not sure where I got the term from. It was a long time ago ;). I don't have quick access to most of my source texts, but possibly it came from The Dambusters (1951) by Paul Brickhill - A quick flick through (rubbish index) produced this, a conversation between Wallis and Gibson includes: "We'll work out some way of doing it. Now I'll tell you more about this Downwood business." "Downwood?" "The code name for the raid." TwoOneTwo 23:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My copy of Brickhill's book (Australian paperback) consistently referred to Operation Downwood and never to Chastise. It was mentioned both in the aforementioned conversation with Barnes Wallis introducing Gibson to the concept, and in a telephone call announcing the operation's success. As I read it about fifteen years ago, I can conclude that the term 'Operation Downwood' definitely did not originate initially on Wikipedia. --q, 14 Jan 2006

I've never seen Downwood before, after 25yrs' reading on the war (which isn't proof of much; I've only recently come across Chastise). I'm inclined to agree, keep the redirect; if somebody has, send them to the right place. One possibility occurs to me: like Anvil (among others), the codename may've changed in progress; history records it as Chastise, but in planning, it may well've been Downwood. It bears confirming, if somebody has access to original codename lists or early planning docs. On another ish, I'm inclined to mention part of the failure to have the anticipated effect was RAF's indifferent follow-up: they let the Germans rebuild in peace, rather than bombing the reconstruction efforts. I'd include it, but I'm not really clear what the writer intended in the July 27 'graph; that seems the place to put it, but... If somebody can clarify when/if the reconstruction was underway/complete, I'd add "no follow-up". There's also a "sources" problem: I can't cite a specific one. Terraine in Right of the Line probably mentions it, Dean's RAF & 2 World Wars, & Harris' Bomber Offensive, too, among others. Suffice it to say, it's been raised before. Trekphiler 02:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

IIRC the History channel claimed that the Germans wasted a lot of resources trying to reverse engineer the unexploded bomb they recovered. But I don't know much about it so I didn't make any changes about this in the article. Does anyone know about this and care to add it if appropriate?

I removed a sentence that said that the aircraft flew at altitude of 75ft on route to the targets. This would be stupid and dangerous (remember that flying at 60ft to deliver the bombs was considered reckless). If anyone can come up with a source for this it can go back. DJ Clayworth 13:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I found these quotes which suggest they were flying pretty low:

"We were flying so low that more than once Spam (P/O Spafford, the bomb-aimer) yelled at me to pull up quickly to avoid high-tension wires and tall trees." - W/C Gibson.

"If the wires in the moonlight were 'up here' (motioning above his head) we knew we'd have to go under them. If they were to flutter 'down there' (motioning below his head) we knew we'd go over them. It was that quick." - F/Sgt. Ken Brown

"Right under the bloody thing!" - P/O George Gregory (F/L Hopgood's front gunner) after passing under a power line

Also the article says one of the aircraft lost its bomb after hitting the water and two aircraft were lost after hitting power lines so they must have been very low.

I think they were flying very low in order to avoid radar and night fighters.

--Shimbo 09:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The in and out parts of the operation were flown at between 75 and 120 feet so as to be under the German radar cover, with the actual attack being from 60 feet. The higher figure was used when flying over land and having to fly over obstacles, the aircraft then descending back down to 75 ft when safe to do so.

The aircraft that hit the water on the way in was Rice's and divers discovered his bomb (it was still unarmed when it was torn-off) on the seabed sometime in the 1990's.

If you get the chance to see the Dambusters you'll find its flying scenes accurate Ian Dunster 14:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I will add a paragraph about this unless anyone has any objections. --Shimbo 19:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. DJ Clayworth 20:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to make this category more specific. Does this fit better under "Strategic bombing" or "Raiding operation"? I've read the article and can't quite decide (though I'm leaning towards the latter). Oberiko 12:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Since the allegation that George Lucas documented that he lifted the climax of Dam Busters wholesale (funny, I don't remember Star Wars clicking into B&W) is itself without documentation, I have removed that tidbit, along with the assertion that there is no equivocation (whatever that's supposed to mean). If the original contributor would care to provide further information re: GL's discussion of his sources of inspiration, that would be grand! JHCC 19:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggest the whole 'Notes' section which is purely about the film 'The Dambusters' should be moved to the page about the Dambusters film and just referenced from here especially as there is information here which isn't on the page about the film. The section currently called Conclusion should prehaps be renamed Notes as it talks about things that people/organisations did after the raid not the raid itself. --Shimbo 21:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw a TV programme a while ago about Star Wars (not something I would usually watch!) in which Lucas was being interviewed. Apparently the 'Dam Busters' film was played to the backers/production team and used to explain what the scenes in the finished film would be like. Lucas's team had made some rough models of the scene and Lucas wanted to show how he wanted the scene shot. Actually Lucas called the film 'The Battle Of Britain' but the film clip shown was obviously the 'Dam Busters' Ian Dunster 15:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but that all belongs in the page The Dam Busters (film) (where it is already mentioned) not on this page which is about the historical Operation Chastise.--Shimbo 23:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The article says The Moehne and Eder lakes poured around 330 million tons of water into the western Ruhr region. This needs to be stated more accurately, because the Moehne is a tributary of the Ruhr but the Eder is not. The Eder river flows from west to east through the Sauerland massif and joins the Fulda near Kassel. This in turn runs north to join the Weser, which eventually flows into the North Sea at Bremerhaven. Waters from the breached Eder dam would therefore have passed more than 100 km east of the industrial areas of the Ruhr.

Why then did the British choose to bomb the Eder dam? It caused great loss of life (the majority of which was Allied POW's and civilians), but seemed to have little effect on the German war-effort other than loss of hydro-electric power generation capacity. It seems inconceivable that British planners were unaware of the geography of the area. Perhaps the true reasons were to achieve a propaganda victory and make a diplomatic point, as mentioned in the article. Anyway, it seems to me that the article should make mention of this strange anomaly.

If I may speculate (which is all we can do, since we weren't there) there might be several reasons. Firstly let us not underestimate the value of a 'propaganda coup'. Every military leader will tell you that morale of those fighting is as important as weapons or strategy. Convincing friends, and enemies, that Britain had the capacity to destroy German industrial infrastructure would be no small thing.

Secondly Britain would not have known how quickly the Germans would respond to a dam breach. Had the loss of hydro-electric capacity loss been permanent the raid would probably have been worth it for that result alone. DJ Clayworth 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Eder was listed as the secondary target for thos aircraft who still had bombs after the primary was breached. Having gone to all the expense of developing the bomb and sending the aircraft over it made no sense to bring them back with unused ordnance onboard - the attempts could possibly also give useful infomration for a subsequent attack. The aircraft and their bouncing bombs were only set up to attack dams so the secondary target HAD to be a dam. Presumably there was a choice of dams that could have been the secondary and there were reasons that made the Eder be picked. I would suspect distance, approach terrain, defences there and en route and the result of a breach (or even an attempt on the dam) were all factors that were considered by the planners. GraemeLeggett 09:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Should these be combinded or linked?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elan_Valley_Reservoirs> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise>

The keywords "Dam + Breach" were used to find these refs.

I've put a heading on this, because it is nothing to do with the last point. Also, I think the person who posted this is getting confused between Eder and Elan. I don't think the RAF bombed the Elan Valley during WW2! --Portnadler 19:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In case any one is wondering this is because the IMDB reference is about the movie. This is a page about the historical operation not the movie. The IMDB reference is still available at The Dam Busters (film). Shimbo 07:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reversed the change that was made from mine to bomb. The upkeep weapon was officially described as a mine, probably because it exploded underwater. Shimbo 09:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

i cant believe the rampant racism of that era this article should be deleted so people dont think its okay to do:@

Why don't you try to identify this supposed "rampant racism" and offer a rational explanation as to why the entire article "should be deleted" on the strength of it. Please be sure to differntiate between sentiment and the plain reporting of the facts of a historical event. Nick Cooper 13:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that Peter Jackson is going to make a movie, there will probably be lots more visits to this article, so some cleanup might be a good idea. Though there are a couple of external citations, overall the sourcing is very poor. I've added citation tags at a few obvious spots: conflicting figures for the dead on the ground, with the Möhne number of 1579 greater than the total figure of 1294 given later (this may be for the Eder dam, but the context is confusing); also, the "Effect on the War" section verges on POV. I changed the lone citation to a footnote. There's only one item in the footnote list now, but hopefully more will be added.

Also, I see my internal footnote restarts the numbering, I guess because the internal and external formats are slightly different.

— J M Rice 15:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The bizarre rank abbreviations were first - but there are still the bizarre first person 'notes' in the table to deal with. Are these direct quotes from flying logs? This needs to be made clear.Michael Dorosh^Talk 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What seems to have been overlooked in the earlier discussion is that Brickhill's account was published in 1951 - when details were still classified Most Secret, under the thirty-year rule. It therefore makes perfect sense that he would not have been allowed to use the actual name for the operation - the sort of silly, piffling thing that keeps cropping up when one is dealing with declassification. Perhaps a note to the effect that the operation was referred to by an invented name in the book as true details were still classified would be in order? 86.11.124.189 21:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

to the British, still suffering under German bombing.

A long time ago I read a book saying that German bomber aircraft were pulled back from Britain by 1941 for Operation Barbarosa. The text also says it needs citation. I would therefore like to voice my questioning over whether Britain was still bombed by Germany. Anyone know?Tourskin 02:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that the citation is requested for the claim that morale was raised, not that Britain was still being bombed, which she certainly was. Operation Barbarossa began on 22 June 1941, while Chastise was on 17 May 1943. To take an specific target city, Kingston upon Hull was bombed twenty times between those two dates; the heaviest raid, on 18 July 1941, killed 140 and seriously injured 108 (A North-East Coast Town - Ordeal and Triumph, T Geragthy, 1951, Kingston upon Hull Corporation). More well known, between the commencement of Barbarossa and the execution of Chastise there was the Baedeker Blitz on historic English cities, starting with Exeter on 23 April 1942, and ending with Canterbury on 6 June the same year. Nick Cooper 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

True, we need a source for the claim that "morale was raised." It probably was, but we need a source for that. 1943 seems to have been the only year when the Germans pretty much gave up on bombing Britain: there was the The_Blitz, of course, in 1940 and 41; 1942 saw the Baedecker Blitz you talk about; and 1944-45 saw the V-1 and V-2 campaigns take off. WikiReaderer 00:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

please can you help im looking for a picture of his man who was a bomerdea on the raide my reason is in 1962 i was a boy and this man used to talk to me and site me on his lap and my farther was a good friend to him trying to help him overcome what he went though the raide.shame he died and was berried in an un marked grave . does any one know of this man and have a picture of hi so that i can show my sons im allways talking about him to them regards SEjones stephan.jones@btinternet.com thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.17.108 (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph about the report comparing the raid with Kamikaze attacks worries me. While I don't doubt the accuracy of the quote, but I think we need to make sure the quote is in context. Remember we are quoting a book which is not about the dam raids, and it is quoting a report which is not about the dam raids; presumably the context in the book is discussing kamikaze attacks, not discussing the dam raids. It's one thing to say "Kamikaze attacks were not logically different from the dam raids" and quite another to say that "the dam raids were like suicide attacks". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You´re sure the bomb rotated backwards? I think I´v read some years ago a book where it´s mentioned it rotated forward. This sounds reasonable for me, because rotating backwards, the drum might tend to jump high and slows down rapidly, but flat jumps and a constant speed were needed, since a high jumping drum could fly right over the wall´s top or could be slowed down too fast so it might couldn´t reach the wall at all. Am I wrong?84.138.46.228 (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

some months later, but i hope its still relevant. The bomb rotated backwards, as part of the reasoning for the rotation was that when the bomb struck the wall of the dam the rotation caused the bomb to roll down the inside face of the dam. A bomb rotating forward would tend to rise up when it struck the dam. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"One of the squadron's photo-reconnaissance Spitfires, piloted by Flying Officer Frank "Jerry" Fray,[14] took off from RAF Benson at 07:30 hours and arrived over the Ruhr River immediately after first light" - this nonsense is also stated in the Carmel College article. At this time of year, it would have needed to be a time-machine and not an aircraft to take off at 07:30, travel east that distance and still get there by 'first light'. It would have been late morning by then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.238.154 (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read the books "The Dam Busters and Enemy Coast Ahead" you will find the aircraft landed back in the UK at about 07:30. At the latitude of the Moehne Dam (approx 51.5 degrees North" sunrise in May is about 04:00 local time (GMT + 2 hours) which is also why Britain adopted double Summer time during the war - to ensure that aircraft arrived over the target in darkness. The actual time difference between London and the Moehne dam is about 32 minutes and Germany used GMT + 1 hour as its standard time hence during the war daylight saving time added an extra hour making Berlin Summer Time GMT +2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.233.127 (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

True, Jerry Fray's Spitfire XI would have arrived over the Moehne, about an hour after take-off, at 08:30 Double BST and local time (both being GMT+2), which would be four and a half hours after sunrise. Townsend's Lancaster was the last to land at Scampton at 06:15 and Townsend had covered much of the return journey in daylight.Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"Dinghy" was Young's nickname, a reference to the fact that he had made many forced landings at sea, requiring him to use the rubber dinghies stowed on RAF aircraft.

The page on Young says that he acquired the nickname "Dinghy" after being shot down over the sea twice and surviving in inflatable dinghies. So, it was exactly two, not "many", and he had been shot down, rather than landed. First of all we, of course, just want to make it correct, but it is also of concern because it can give the impression that it was relatively commonplace to survive a crash at sea, when in fact the odds were highly against it.

Recommend that it be changed to to ""Dinghy" was Young's nickname, a reference to the fact that he had twice survived a crash at sea in an inflatable dinghy

Javaman59 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

IIRC Young and his crew had ditched on two separate occasions when returning from operations and had been picked up from their inflatable liferaft by either the RAF Air-Sea Rescue Service or by the RN. The fact that he was given the ironic, but good-humoured nickname, Dinghy, gives some idea how unusual the 'achievement' was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

His nickname was a result of also having been given his "Blue" at Trinity College, Oxford University for rowing pre-war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.233.127 (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of this section, referring to international agreements thirty years later? B0YC0TT (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the point is that the British didn't agree not to target dams and the implication is that that refusal was partly a consequence of Operation Chastise. A reference showing that it really was a consequence would be good. --Shimbo (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no relevance to this page in the international law addition as it was not relevant to Operation Chastise and appears to be politically biased. I suggest it is removed. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In the absence to anyone objecting by the 14th of January then I will edit the article to remove the international law section.Trevor Marron (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as international 'law'. The Geneva conventions are not 'law'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.238.154 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

True the Geneva Convention is not law per se, but no soldier, sailor or airman can hide behind the fact that something covered by the Geneva Convention is not law. The convention is based upon law by international agreement, which is how the captured NAZI High Command were prosecuted proving that it is illegal to claim "...I was only obeying orders..." They knew that certain acts were illegal under German law (pre-Hitler) and the laws of other nations. Once a nation has ratified the convention it is law and as such is classed as International Law - meaning it applies internationally.

I believe the only people prosecuted for war crimes at Nuremberg were the ones who:

• A - originated the order(s) knowing them to be illegal.

.. or;

• B - knew the order(s) was(were) illegal.

.. and;

• C - obeyed the order(s) willingly and without protest to their superiors.

Generally, German and other Axis officers and men who protested but still carried out the orders were not prosecuted for war crimes becasue they were not expected to risk their own lives, which is almost certainly what they would been doing if they had refused to obey, or not obeyed, the orders, i.e, they would have been risking being summarily shot.

Any reasonable person can see that given a choice between unwillingly-committing a war crime, or being immediately and with certainty shot dead, even the most decent-and-humane people will understandably choose the former. The courts were there to try, and to punish, the indecent and the inhumane who willingly and eagerly carried out a war crime, not everyone present when a war crime was being committed.

That's why certain people were arraigned at Nuremberg, and others were not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.137 (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

In the attack on the Möhne one of the bombers made a running commentary on the attack, relayed to base by an airborne TR. 1142 (Transmitter Receiver) manufactured by GEC, the distance being too great for direct VHF transmission.

This is complete and utter nonsense written by someone who knows nothing about how the Royal Air Force then went (and still goes) to war. It still does to this day take off in complete silence and only uses HF / VHF / UHF communications when it absolutely needs to - it can even refuel in silence. Even the station radar would be switched off, all take off's would be cleared by the flashing of a green signal lamp.

No transmissions were made at anytime from before take off until the code word "Dinghy" to indicate that the weapon had been dropped but no breach or "Nigger" to indicate a successful breach. The frequency used was 3.885 MHz, and the method of communication back to Scampton was WT - CW or Morse Code. The VHF equipment was solely for communication between the aircraft during the actual operation. Full details are included in both Brickhill's and Gibson's books and are supported by the comms log for the raid, which still has the original handwritten texts as received by the wireless operator. Until the word "Nigger" was received no-one not even the station cat knew what was happening over the dam. The Royal Air Force took off then, and indeed still does on operations, in complete and utter radio silence; unlike the USAAC / USAF who relayed then and now, everything back to their base and were and still are controlled at a distance, Wing Commander Gibson had complete operational control and no-one back at Scampton had any idea which aircraft was returning until it was on approach for landing.

There was no running commentary, no, the article is wrong. But each attacking aircraft sent a code group on its Marconi T1154 set, in Morse on HF, back to Scampton to indicate the result of the attack. For instance Gibson's 'Goner 68A' meant bomb released (Goner), exploded five yards from dam (6), no apparent result (8), at Target A. The two successful crews at the Moehne, Young's and Maltby's, sent 'Goner 78A', meaning 'bomb exploded in contact with dam' (7) but still no apparent result (8), because nobody could see what had happened in the mist caused by the explosions. Gibson then saw that the dam had gone and his wireless operator sent the name of Gibson's dog, meaning, 'Moehne Dam breached.' The same procedure was followed at the Eder Dam, except the target code was B and the success code was Sqn Ldr Young's nickname, 'Dinghy'. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, the crews were given 'fighter' VHF sets (R/T) for communication between themselves when in the air, but you are correct, the signals sent back to the UK would have been in Morse W/T. These 'fighter' VHF sets were the ones in general use in Fighter Command, although they were not as-yet in use by Bomber Command at the time.

IIRC, the 'running commentary' was made by Gibson during the raid itself over VHF to the other crews, to give the other crews a guide as to what was happening, and to tell each crew when to attack, radio silence by then being somewhat superfluous. Radio silence was resumed however for the flight back.

IIARC, R/T (as opposed to W/T) was later fitted to all Bomber Command aircraft generally, due to the introduction of the Master Bomber who needed it to give the Main Force crews instructions during a raid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.137 (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The Chastise aircraft were indeed specially fitted with fighter VHF R/T for talking among themselves. But there was no 'running commentary', and certainly none relayed to base. Gibson just gave orders over the R/T and the other skippers conversed as necessary. During the Eder attack, Les Knight got fed up with all the advice and told his W/Op, Flt Sgt Kellow RAAF, to switch the R/T off. Knight then cracked the dam, of course. The only signals sent to base were the T1154 Morse code groups from each aircraft after each attack, and the success codewords sent by Hutchison from Gibson's aircraft, 'Nigger' for the Moehne, 'Dinghy' for the Eder. Hutchison's 'Dinghy' signal reached 5 Group six minutes before Kellow's 'Goner 710B' indicating bomb gone (Goner), explosion in contact with dam (7), large breach (10), at Target B (Eder Dam). (John Sweetman, The Dambusters Raid, p.172.) Later in the war, when 5 Group had its own Pathfinder squadrons attached (Nos. 83, 97 and 627), one aircraft was fitted with a wire-recorder to capture the R/T talk during the target-marking, and staff at 5 Group would listen to the playback next day. The actual VHF signals could never be relayed back to England in real time and, with the enemy listening, it wouldn't have been a good idea anyway. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

What led planners to try an approach along the length of the Sorpe dam with no rotation instead of using the same approach as with the gravity arch dams?

I first thought it might have been because the lake takes a turn, affording not enough space for the final approach. Using the measuring tool on Google maps though, they would have had a comfortable final approach of nearly 1.8 miles over water - the Möhne is much narrower at 1.1 miles to the bank across from the dam.

That first Lancaster must have woken every German in a six mile radius in its ten approaches before finally dropping. I had the story told to me by a guy who lived below the dam at the time.--Cancun771 (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw a TV programme that said (IIRC) it was because the Sorpe was an earthen dam and hence the spalling effect of the underwater explosion wouldn't cause a breach in the same way it did against the concrete dams. The hope was that if the mine hit the apex and exploded then it would make a hole, water would pour through, eating away at the dam's earthen core, widening the breach and causing the dam to empty. An approach along the length the the dam was more likely to result in the mine hitting the dam's apex. The reason they crew took multiple trial runs was to try and ensure a hit and they got away with it because the dam had no defences. However, it was a desperation measure and highly unlikely to result in a breach.--Shimbo (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is correct, Sorpe as an earth dam needed to be washed away by water flow by cutting a channel at its apex, while the other dams where gravity dams than need to be collapsed from their base. There is a length explanation of this on the Dam Busters organisation website. http://www.thedambusters.org.uk/secondwave_sorpe.html 77.86.117.208 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The page for the Möhne dam claims that that particular attack resulted in more deaths than the total for both dam breaches claimed on this page. Is it because some of the Moehne victims weren't civilians? LaFoiblesse 2009-03-17 14h40 (GMT).

Based on the German Wiki article, I added that later estimates put the total death toll as high as 1,600. Cf.: Die Zahl der Toten unterhalb der Möhnetalsperre liegt zwischen 1284 und über 1600 Menschen.

Sca (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This number has been challenged, and cites the non-German sources as incorrect. (this is on the Edersee Dam article. he POWS are said to have died in unrelated circumstances. I do not know myself either way, but its an important point. Ottawakismet (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.lwl.org/westfaelische-geschichte/portal/Internet/finde/langDatensatz.php?urlID=493&url_tabelle=tab_websegmente

There is a discussion thread (which I started) on the article Aircraft in fiction about whether its mention of the Lancaster in the film "The Dam Busters" is correct, i.e. is the film correctly categorised as being "fiction". Some editors believe that the film is a fictionalised account, others that it is a (largely accurate) dramatisation of real events. If anyone here has views to express, one way or the other, they'd be welcome. --TraceyR (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The film is largely accurate with a bit of 'artistic licence' taken here and there. The number of aircraft taking part in the raid is reduced in the film, presumably due to the lack of airworthy Lancasters. The Upkeep mines used were still secret at the time the film was made and so the mockups fitted to the Lancasters were inaccurate. The flying scenes were most accurate apart from a few scenes where models had to be used, however the low-flying scenes of the aircraft on the outward journey were real and presumably flown during the day with a filter used over the camera lens to make it appear to be moonlight. The low flying is one of the most impressive things about the film (and the real operation) as the aircraft used were heavy bombers, and not more manoeuvrable types, such as fighters. IIRC, the Lancaster had a ~102ft wing span and the outward trip was flown at around 120ft altitude, coming down to 60ft for the attack itself, so the operation was flown very low indeed. The film can't be classed as 'fiction' as, compared to some notorious Hollywood war filmes, it's almost completely true with just a few justifiable alterations because of resources, information available, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.50.54 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the film is based on both Guy Gibson's book Enemy Coast Ahead, and on Paul Brickhill's The Dam Busters which were both non-fiction books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"The diplomatic view" begins with "An important reason for planning the raid was to persuade Stalin that Britain was capable of being an effective ally. This was the middle period of the war, when the United States had recently entered the war on Britain's side due to the attack on Pearl Harbour."

In fact, by May of 1943, there was already a massive bombing campaign being conducted against Germany by the RAF and U.S. Army Air Corps. The first "thousand bomber raid" had taken place a year earlier and in less than two months, the deadliest air raids of the war would occur against Hamburg. Invading Italy and the air raid appeased the Soviets to a degree but the suggestion here that sending a squadron of bombers in a single raid helped placate the Soviets' request for a 2nd front is absurd.

The second sentence begins, "The United States had recently entered the war" makes it sound like it was January 1942 when by this time the U.S. had invaded North Africa, Sicily and would, along with the British, soon be invading Italy. This is without even mentioning victories in the Pacific such as Midway and Guadalcanal that had completely put Japan on the defense. It is also misleading to write the U.S. "entered the war on Britain's side due to the attack on Pearl Harbor." First of all, Germany declared war on the U.S. not vice-versa. Second, the German declaration was made because the U.S. was already on "Britain's side" with lend-lease and their operations in the Atlantic. This section cites Churchill's Chapter 25 as its sole source and what he wrote never said all of what this section implies.--TL36 (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Germany declared war on the US because of the Tri-Partite Pact which required Germany and Italy to declare war on Japan's enemies, the clause-of which came into effect with the Japanese invasions in the Far East and simultaneous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

No. Hitler was already hopping mad at the U.S. for supporting his enemies and U.S. Naval convoys blasting U-boats. He jumped at the chance for war. This technicality had no effect on someone of his disturbed psychology. Japanese involvement meant that the U.S. was also fighting a 2-front war, and military resources could not be solely concentrated on Germany - so this was a "good" time to counter-attack. 50.111.52.57 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The only diplomatic aspect of the Dams raid was the hope that it might counteract some of the negative propaganda that had been put out previously in the US by the US ambassador in London, Joseph Kennedy, and which had led to him eventually being withdrawn from his post in London as being persona non grata.

There was no need to "persuade Stalin that Britain was capable of being an effective ally" as at the time the Soviet Union was still losing its war against Germany and no-one in the UK government knew whether Stalin would be worth continuing to support or not - Britain was at the time sending tanks and fighter aircraft to the Soviet Union and would continue to do-so for the remainder of the war.

The purpose of the Dams raid was to empty the Ruhr reservoirs thus denying Nazi Germany the hydro-electric power used by the steel production plants in the Ruhr Valley and to also flood these plant's blast furnaces thus extinguishing the fires and causing the furnace linings to collapse. Repairing these brick furnace linings and then re-lighting the furnaces and bringing them up to temperature would take weeks if not months and reduce German steel production considerably.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.137 (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

in the table section on Aircraft" it states for G-George: "Raid leader. Mine exploded short of dam. Used aircraft to draw anti-aircraft fire away from other crews but crashed. The place he crashed is now a street called Gibsonstraat in Steenbergen in honour of him." Since Gibson survived the raid and picked up his VC later, isn't this incorrect? --TraceyR (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, an unidentified users keeps reposting this misinformation. Although Gibson ulimately was KIA later on during the war, he definately survived the Dam raids - which is the subject of this article - and was awarded a VC for it, which he personally collected from Queen Elizabeth. -- fdewaele, 19 April 2010, 11:40 CET.

Gibson crashed his Mosquito in Steenbergen in Sept. 1944, and both he and his navigator, James Warwick, were killed. The town now has streets named after both Gibson and Warwick, and also after the Mosquito and the Lancaster: includes a picture of the street sign. --TraceyR (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The animated illustration depicts a level lake bottom, right to the base of the dam. Also, the concept of the bomb describes it rolling down the dam to its base and exploding there.

Instead, there was quite a lot of silt buildup on the lake's bottom at the base of the dams. The bombs were to roll down to the top of the silt and explode there. This was about 1/3 to 1/2 way up from the actual bases of the dams as seen when looking at them from their faces.

My observation is based on the depictions of the bombs in the Nova (TV series) episode Bombing Hitler's Dams.

- Dorsey Drane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddrane (talk • contribs) 03:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The Upkeep mine had a hydrostatic pistol to detonate the explosives and so the bomb was set to explode at a certain depth, some way down the dam wall before it reached the reservoir bottom. Technically the Upkeep was basically a depth charge, but it was usually referred-to as a mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The pistols on the Upkeep mines were set to 30' (~9·15m). Astronomy Explained (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

"One of the squadron's photo-reconnaissance Spitfires, piloted by Flying Officer Frank "Jerry" Fray,[10] took off from RAF Benson at 07:30 hours and arrived over the Ruhr River immediately after first light. Photos were taken of the breached dams..."

That can't be right. In May it was already light in England at 0730 hours, let alone in Germany further east. Then there is the flight time of several hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The given times of the period can be confusing - Britain was using British Double Summer Time during the war-time summers, (GMT+2) so times can be out by as much as a couple of hours depending on who the source is, and whether they are aware of this fact. Then there are the RAF navigators, who, IIRC, may have used GMT exclusively in their calculations. So different time zones can sometime account for discrepancies like you describe.

People can also get the date wrong, as Bomber Command operations were often carried out overlapping midnight, where the day changed, hence dates for operations such as "17/18 June 1944" - meaning they took off for the raid on the evening of the 17th and then landed back home on the morning of the 18th.

I suspect that the PRU Spitfire took off at first light at RAF Benson in which case the actual (i.e., solar) time would have been 05:30hrs GMT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And by the time it reached Germany, it was very late morning and broad daylight. The nonsensical statement about 'first light' is also in the Carmel College article. Time to correct this, which I'll do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.238.154 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Britain and Germany were on the same time, GMT+2. Jerry Fray took off at about 07:30 and reached the target an hour later.. Sunrise was about 04:00 GMT, 06:00 Double BST. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

" The destroyed dam poured around 330 million tons of water (687 cubic meters) into the western Ruhr region."

As a ton of water is 1 m3, this sentence should be changed.

62.23.87.194 (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would guess that these are long tons, so 1m³ isn't relevant – that would be "tonnes". But I could be wrong, this does need clarification and the information seems to be unsourced, that would fix it. While I'm here, I noticed lots of "meters", which in British English would be "metres", but I didn't see anything about a preference for type of English: does this need work for consistency, anyone…? Just mentioning it. Nortonius (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A long ton differs only a little of the metric ton --Quirrlicht (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

True, so there wouldn't be much difference; but its irrelevance is in the use of a metric volume of water to illustrate an imperial weight – if that's really what's going on. It's muddled. Perhaps it should read something like "N [[Long ton|tons]], or N cubic yards (N [[tonne]]s, or N cubic metres)". It needs sourcing and checking, anyway. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Duh – I only just noticed that the fixers have been at it again: it's 687m (or whatever number that eventually settles at) cubed, not cubic. I've seen this changed before, it used to be much more accessibly described in the article as a cube measuring so many metres, in so many words, I'll change it back to that for now. Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As this is primarily a British subject page, British-English spelling shoudl be used, so I've dealt with the "meters" issue accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This page is in Category:Lincolnshire articles missing geocoordinate data but I can't work out what co-ordinates would make sense. Should we remove the missing co-ord template:?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see that a single location is relevant. There is however the possibility of someone marking with multiple locations, RAF Scampton, the routes taken, targets attacked, crash sites. I'd be tricky, but possible, but that's more complicated that an "it's there" single marker. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've commented out the template(for now?)--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Since WP prefers the most commonly used name, shouldn't this whole article be under 'Dambusters Raid'? Onanoff (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, for a start "Dams Raid" is better alternative title to "Dambusters Raid" which is very awkward, and that's what it's generally known as in the academic circles. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed Template:External links from that section. Considering how important the raid was during the war, after the war, and to this day (important culturally, not just militarily) A staggering amount of well-written and meaningful stuff is out there. We can't copyvio, we can't plagarise, we can only point to it. This list, as it stands, is but one tithe of one tithe of one tithe of what is worthy of inclusion.

Anyone who disagrees, can you present a reasoned argument (not just blind re-statemement of policy) here?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say how many were captured, and how many of those escaped, or got home in the ordinary way. Valetude (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that sadly with one or two exceptions, all the crews whose aircraft were shot down or crashed were killed due to the low height that the aircraft were flying at. 300 feet was considered to be the absolute minimum height at which someone could bale out, and their parachute open - it would have had less than 3 seconds to deploy, they would survive but be badly injured, after hitting the ground in a very heavy landing. I don't have the two books "Enemy Coast Ahead" and "The Dam Busters" to hand but they do contain an account of who survived being shot down or crashing. Of those who did survive, none made a "Home Run," and had to wait for liberation by the allied armies before being repatriated.

While only three dams were actually attacked, six dams were selected as targets.

"McCarthy's bomber developed a coolant leak and he took off in the reserve aircraft 34 minutes late.[9] " - yet in the list of the aircraft, he is listed as part of the second wave, not the reserve! What is correct? 80.151.9.187 (talk)

The "reserve aircraft", ie spare, not allocated for use. He was still part of Wave 2, just late getting into the air. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

We have a glaring omission here. I know what upkeep was, but I didn't learn this from this article. Readers won't get a clue here, and only people who already know a lot about this raid can follow the multiple upkeep references at all. The word is used here without any introduction, or even the slightest explanation. Was upkeep a bomb, or something else? Was it just for this raid? What made upkeep special? Was it based on other bombs? Who designed it? When and how? Is it upkeep or Upkeep, or UPKEEP? Why is it named that? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 12:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The bomb, a backspun revolving depth charge of 9,250lb including 6,600lb of RDX explosive, fitted with firing pistols sensitive to water pressure so as to ensure detonation at the correct depth against the dam wall, was codenamed Upkeep. The name, which would normally mean 'living expenses' or 'maintenance costs', is intentionally meaningless in the context. British military codenames are chosen, as a rule, at random, to be as uninformative as possible. The name 'Window', for radar-blinding tinfoil chaff, was chosen by a scientist who just looked around the room. A notable exception during the war was Operation Robinson, the RAF attack on the Schneider arms complex at Le Creusot. Some bright spark imagined that the Germans had never heard of Robinson Crusoe, when in fact Defoe's novel is a byword across Europe. Fortunately the Germans never got wind of that codename. But it's probably true that the article should explain more about the bomb. Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I am open minded about the inclusion of this link User:GraemeLeggett so will leave it to another to replace if thought fit. The bulk of the effect of chastise other to morale, was caused by flooding; the oponent's casualties being perhaps two orders of magnitude higher from 1938YRf. Excluding as 'not attack on enemy infrastructure/means of production' seems rather selective.SovalValtos (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The flooding of the Yellow River to affect ground movement is same principle as German Inundation of the Wieringermeer and Allied Inundation of Walcheren. The attack on the Dams was to strike industrial production by removing the water as a source of power not to use the water against the enemy.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)