Talk:Operation Chastise

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

"first light"

"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)

"Dinghy" Young's "many forced landings"

"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)

International law

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)

Sorpe lengthwise approach

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)

Deaths

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

The Dam Busters film

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 Section

"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)

Gibsonstraat

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 lake bottoms weren't flat. The bombs didn't explode at the base of the dams.

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)

Reconnaissance

"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.

unit conversion error

" 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)

Hidden Category

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)

Name of article

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)