Talk:Operation Chastise

message: "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)
thread_title:  "first light" 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Dinghy" Young's "many forced landings" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Sorpe lengthwise approach 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Deaths

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Dam Busters film 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The pistols on the Upkeep mines were set to 30' (~9·15m). Astronomy Explained (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lake bottoms weren't flat. The bombs didn't explode at the base of the dams. 

message: " 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)
replies: text: I would guess that these are long tons, so 1m3 isn't relevantthat 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)
replies: text: A long ton differs only a little of the metric ton --Quirrlicht (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 weightif that's really what's going on. It's muddled. Perhaps it should read something like "N tons, or N cubic yards (N tonnes, or N cubic metres)". It needs sourcing and checking, anyway. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

text: DuhI 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  unit conversion error 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prisoners? 

message: While only three dams were actually attacked, six dams were selected as targets.
=== Primary ===
* Mohne Dam
* Eder Dam
* Sorpe Dam
=== Secondary ===
* Lister Dam
* Ennepe Dam
* Diemel Dam
http://www.thedambusters.org.uk/dams.html
77.86.117.208 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six dams selected, three attacked 

message: * Lister Dam
* Ennepe Dam
* Diemel Dam
http://www.thedambusters.org.uk/dams.html
77.86.117.208 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary 

message: "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)
thread_title:  McCarthy´s Bomber 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What's "Upkeep"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  See also [[1938 Yellow River flood]]