Talk:Operation Chastise/Archive 1

Where did the information stating AJ-N being "N for Nuts" come from? The crew always refered to the plane as "N for Nan."

T. Sutherland 17:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• I made the change. Some records do show it as being N Nut but I have a very reliable source (the front gunner for this aircraft on the raid is a family member) that has always said that it was N Nan or N Nancy. As well, just added the call sign of the plane to the Eder section to make it more consistant with the other parts. T. Sutherland 05:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

---

What does the "BDA" header stand for? That might be good to spell out. -- John Owens 17:35 24 May 2003 (UTC)

'BDA' is mil-speak for Bomb Damage Assessment. (The post-strike photos). Paul, in Saudi

---

What the heck was the entry for Operation Downwood? I never heard of it.

Paul, in Saudi

There was a VfD argument a while back, because literally someone put Downwood as the name of the operation in a previous article version. When VfD tried to delete the redirect we found several sources that quoted that; most of them had clearly got the name from Wikipedia, some we weren't sure about (none were primary sources). Anyway, I put this sentence in in case anyone followed the redirect from Operation Downwood and was confused about why they had arrived where they were. DJ Clayworth 19:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed some sentences which claimed that the German war industry had not been affected at all, as the previous sentence said "factories, railroads and bridges were destroyed". Also removed POV 'terrorism' allegations. DJ Clayworth 19:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From redirects for deletion

• 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. [1] Anthony DiPierro 17:14, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. [2]. 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)
  • [3] [4] [5] 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)

effects on the war

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?

Low Flying

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)

Category

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)

Film

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 Eder does not flow into the Ruhr, so why was the Eder Dam attacked?

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)

Elan Valley?

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)

Removed the IMDB Reference

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)

Mine vs Bomb

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)

terrible

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)

Needs cleanup

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)

Downwood v. Chastise

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)

I don't think so

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)

charles franklin

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)

Kamikaze

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)

Rotating direction

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)