Liked the video? Keep the good times rolling by buying me a pint! 🍺 Tip with a Super Thanks or via PayPal: bit.ly/47p3xNT - Your support means a lot! Also check out my new channel membership.
@concise707 Жыл бұрын
Hopgood's Story. Flt Lt John Hopgood DFC, (M - Mother), #2 in the attack on the Möhne and shot down during his attack run, had suffered significant damage on the very low-level transit to the target. The port outer engine was hit and feathered, the front gunner (Gregory) was probably killed in this early engagement as nothing more was heard from him for the rest of the operation. The wireless operator (Minchin) reported being ‘hit in the leg’; it was actually nearly severed, but that was not known about until sometime later when the rear gunner (Burcher) found him crawling up the fuselage and assisted him to abandon the aircraft. During the intervening time Minchin never uttered any complaint. Burcher, too, had been hit in the groin and stomach, which must have stung just a wee bit. Hopgood himself was badly hit in the head and continued to fly with the Engineer (Brennan) holding a pocket handkerchief to the head wound in an effort to staunch the serious blood loss. Remember, these guys were at a max height of about 100' and routinely flying UNDER electricity cables - in the dark. Despite these serious setbacks and wounds, Hopgood continued to the target, with Gibson and Martin, without a murmur and attacked unhesitatingly when ordered to do so. On only 3 engines, with no suppressive fire from the front turret, he flew an accurate attack into the now thoroughly alerted defences and paid the price of being '2nd in'. The aircraft was badly hit in the port wing again and the other engine on that side was also put out of action; the petrol tanks were hit, ruptured, and burst into flames. However, even then, Hopgood’s heroism knew no bounds and he remained in control of a now blazing, fully asymmetric, aircraft while he tried to gain height and encouraging his crew to abandon the mortally hit Lancaster. Due to Hopgood’s gallant efforts, 3 of his crew DID get out, although the seriously injured Minchin did not survive the very low-level abandonment despite the equally gallant efforts of Burcher; if you see pictures of the inside the Lanc's fuselage, imagine crawling along the fuselage with your leg hanging off, especially if you had to negotiate the infamous main spar from the wireless operator’s position to the rear escape door. Bomb aimer Fraser and rear gunner Burcher did get away with it to become POWs, Burcher with a broken back after hitting the tailplane, having previously bailed out Minchin through the side door. They both only survived because they had the presence of mind to pull their ‘chutes INSIDE the aircraft and feed the canopy into the slipstream and be dragged out by it.; in the case of Burcher, he may have been assisted by being blown out of the aircraft as it exploded. The whole episode probably took less time in actuality than the time you've spent reading this. Finally, Dave Shannon recalled during the gut-tightening time between kitting-out and getting airborne, sharing a cigarette with Hopgood ‘round the back of the hangar’, where Hopgood confessed that he didn’t think that he would return; he’d reasoned - logically - that being number 2 ‘in’ was the poisoned chalice as the element of surprise would have gone and the defences would not have been degraded to any degree yet. And so it proved; but he went anyway and pressed on in the finest traditions, despite having unassailable reasons for turning back. In memorium of Flt Lt John Vere Hopgood DFC and Bar, on his second tour of 30 Operations - he was 21 years old and had never even had the opportunity to Vote……
@gangleweed Жыл бұрын
In the light of nowadays facts about the Dam Buster's raid I think a new film/video should be made to give credit where credit is due and put the real efforts of the squadron into perspective.
@nickabbott6278 Жыл бұрын
Well written. Although Tony Bircher never mentioned getting hit by ground fire and that it was the impact with the ground that broke his neck (the tailplane seems unlikely as the rear gun position is behind the tailplane). Tony also said that he for many years held the record for the lowest recorded parachute jump of 300'. He was found in a culvert by a Hitler Youth member who kicked him but did get the local doctor who for a lack of plaster set him in cement for three months. Despite withdrawal from the "vitamins" and in cement for three months, Tony stated that by refusing Gestapo requests to "interview him" this he felt the doctor saved his life. He said that there were two other survivors who both later committed suicide after being "interviewed". I have since heard that this may not be accurate. Tony was a very experienced tail gunner who removed the perspex from his position, despite the intense cold, to aid in vision. This may have aided the blast funnelling down the length of the plane which is what he credited with inflating his parachute. He and his wife were charming guests who enthralled my parents and a 19 year old me (I'm now 54), a conversation I will never forget. An exciting video and an excellently researched post, both of which I have learned much from.
@markbowman2890 Жыл бұрын
@@gangleweed Unfortunately films are never long enough to include all the personal stories. I do not think that they could make a movie as good as the original, which is why it was remastered. The production team did an amazing job with detail throughout. The professionalism was exceptional and the right people were employed. Hollywood had proposed to do their version which was far too 'dramatised'. If there was to be a sequel to the original Dambusters, then I think that it would be better served as a mini-series depicting the history and legacy or 617 Squadron. Could they do this without censoring parts or rewriting history to suit modern beliefs? I doubt it because the latest version of the original comes with a warning about 'offensive content.' This appears to be levelled at the name of Gibson's dog, _igger, a black Labrador.
@501sqn3 Жыл бұрын
I have never understood how it was that this operation did not result in a significant amount of V.C awards??, Especially "Hoppy" Hopgood and crew, bravery to the most outstanding degree.
@markbowman2890 Жыл бұрын
@@501sqn3 In thinking this over, I believe that the VC given to Gibson was on the merit that he performed more than one bomb run. During these runs he was drawing the flak towards his plane so that the bomb carrying plane could focus upon its job without being shot down. Hopgood's plane went down for a number of factors but the most telling was that the gunners poured all their fire into his plane. Gibson's response was to place himself between the enemy and the planes he was leading. That was probably why he was such a great leader. I wonder how the rest of his crew felt when he made the decision to make multiple attack runs to draw enemy fire. Maybe they should have got a VC as well, but they were not the one responsible for the success of the raid and the safety of the squadron. Hopgood certainly deserved some award, but I am not sure if medals like the DSO were awarded posthumously.
@gsmdo8836 Жыл бұрын
There are a couple of unanswered questions about the dams raid - firstly, why were there no German night fighters scrambled to investigate what was happening? The attackers were over the targets for several hours in total, yet they never encountered night fighters? 🤔 Secondly - why weren't the dams subjected to conventional raids during the months of repair? Having breached the dams at such great cost of life - surely conventional attacks to disrupt and delay the repairs would have been a good investment? I have a feeling that Harris's utter inflexibility to consider anything other than city bombing is probably the answer to the latter point. Excellent piece - thank you.
@PORRRIDGE_GUN Жыл бұрын
WRT your first point. In 1943 I believe, German night fighter force was still in its early days and had been designed with ground control to intercept bomber streams arriving at higher altitudes. Larger fighters like the Me110 and Do217 were controlled by operators onto the ground and vectored onto the bomber streams. Smaller single engined fighters were given a 'box' to patrol and would be alerted if aircraft approached them. There were also 'flak alleys' which LW aircraft were directed away from. These raids were conducted at low level in valleys and ground control radar would be innefective and full of ground clutter. Also directing LW aircaft into those valleys would expose them to flak and create more confusion. The Germans had not developed anti-aircraft missiles to the operational stage, something they could have done earlier in the war as they had the electronic technology to develop radar and IR guided missiles if they had put effort into it. An IR guided or beam riding missile would have been lethal at both high and low level to allied aircraft, night or day.
@stephenarbon2227 Жыл бұрын
Perhaps the construction sites didn't rate high enough. But also their high level bombing wasn't accurate enough, lucky if they could hit the right city, hence the reason for the formation of the 617.
@bfmcarparts Жыл бұрын
From what I gleaned from this video, the Germans were concerned of attacks by torpedo type bombing (see the net in pre-raid photos). Were the night fighters able to be operational at such low altitudes? Finally were conventional high altitude bombers accurate enough to be effective during the dams repair time? I recall the massive 'moon craters' bombing by conventional bombing against the railway viaducts to little effect until 617 used Tallboys later in the war. So easy to think by retrospect without taking all the other things going on, good questions though.
@kenattwood8060 Жыл бұрын
At this time in the war the Nactjagdwaffe was set up on the Himmelbet system in which each aircraft patrolled in a pre-ordained box. if no boxes matched the positions of the damns then the aircraft could not be intercepted.
@stevetheduck1425 Жыл бұрын
Night fighters did fly to intercept, and this was expected, which is why the approach and exit was flown at low level. Ideally, with hindsight, they should have flown at random heights and descended once they had the target spotted, chances are, they would have been even harder to shoot at, and harder still for the fighters to intercept. But, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
@michaelcatherwood4088 Жыл бұрын
The most amazing detail about Chastise was the navigation
@robbierobinson8819 Жыл бұрын
I have always been fascinated by the dams raids and 617 squadron in general and had delayed watching this video. What a mistake on my part - you have done a wonderful job in giving balance to coverage of an epic wartime operation. Please keep producing materials like these.
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
Thanks Robbie!
@cirrus19644 ай бұрын
@@CalibanRising Well written!
@georgekirkwood7976 Жыл бұрын
Guy Gibson , (who was regarded as an old man by his crews), was a 26 year old Wing Commander at the time of the Dams Raid. For his leadership and courage he was awarded the Victoria Cross and the Distinguished Service Order.
@user-oe8rx4qh8v11 ай бұрын
Gibson was actually 24 (born in August 1918)
@cirrus19644 ай бұрын
Have you more BS to post here?
@gwtpictgwtpict4214 Жыл бұрын
Thanks for using the dogs correct name. Wouldn't happen today but 80 years ago was a different world.
@thethirdman225 Жыл бұрын
A story like this and you're raving about the bloody dog, FFS...
@glazersout427210 ай бұрын
@@thethirdman225 it was the codename of the successful breaching of the first dam, given in memoriam of Wing Commander Guy Gibson's dog, who had been run over shortly before the raid. So it is fairly significant.
@thethirdman22510 ай бұрын
@@glazersout4272 Everyone knows already. Go back to sleep.
@patriciaspafford1648 Жыл бұрын
My cousin was a dambuster F M Spafford.He was lost to us later on the Dortmund Sortie..I am more oroud of him than I can say .
@marcusgibson38992 ай бұрын
A glorious connection, thank you for stating it. So sad so many did not survive the war.
@juleshammond5652 Жыл бұрын
RAF Scampton should really be considered hallowed ground for the service and the country in general. The plan to make it into a refugee centre is at best misguided?
@DavidSmith-fs5qjАй бұрын
Kind of ironic then that this raid and the war in general have led to the migrant invasion, karma.
@josiecarl4671 Жыл бұрын
thank you for calling the dog by its proper name. it would be disgrace to call it anything else.
@thethirdman2254 ай бұрын
Let me see if I've go this right. In this whole story, where 53 aircrew were killed and a lot of innocent civilians and slave labourers also lost their lives, the only thing you're worried about is the name of the f***ing dog? A disgrace? SMH...
@charlietango4924 Жыл бұрын
Great work!! Used to live in Derby. Nearby, is the Derwent Dam and was where 617sqd would practice dropping their bouncing bombs on to dam. One could only visualize how difficult the mission would be…..especially in the dark. Nevertheless, a walk by the Derwent dam make makes one appreciate and value the sacrifices made by the RAF
@oesypum Жыл бұрын
I can say that as a young 12 year old I attended a talk given by him in Horsham around 67/68, with a lot of footage shown of the trials, with some going to plan, others that things weren't quite ready, the whole event lasted for about two hours. My father's intention, was attending would inspire me to join the RAF; instead a couple of years later I was a boy soldier, embarking on a military career
@brianwillson9567 Жыл бұрын
Well done. You dared to mention the code word, Gibson’s dog. History cannot be erased by wokism.
@mbryson2899 Жыл бұрын
Nicely done, sir. Having read so many war accounts that were written 1945-1965-ish I appreciate you reporting facts, without slant or propaganda. 👍
@davidferrara1105 Жыл бұрын
wut
@johnstirling6597 Жыл бұрын
A friend of my mothers was an RNZAF pilot by the name of Noel Toms, ( flew Wellingtons in Egypt in the war) one of his best mates was Les Munro who had to turn back from the Dams raid with mechanical issues.
@albertbrowne8997 Жыл бұрын
I used to know an ex-Lancaster bomber pilot. DFC and bar. I had been watching the dam busters documentary. I mentioned this to him. Yes, he said they asked me to be on that squadron. I said no. When I found out what they did I was glad I did.
@anthonyeaton51539 ай бұрын
Almost all of the crews on Chastise knew nothing of the raid until just before it took place.
@thethirdman225 Жыл бұрын
Also not widely known was that the famous 'threepenny bombsight' didn't work very well. At the altitude they were flying at, the bomb aimers couldn't hold it steady enough due to turbulence. Some improvised by using a length of string attached to the bolts on the nose bubble and grease pencil marks on the flat plate to indicate the towers on both the Moehne and Eder dams.
@turkeytrac1 Жыл бұрын
There was a tv show here in canada called "Ice Pilots: NWT" about Buffalo airways and their business serving the far north of Canada. The accepted a challenge to recreate the dambusters one season, it was a interesting watch, well worth finding on youtube.
@bfmcarparts Жыл бұрын
I remember this particular episode of Ice Pilots. During the Dambuster movie and watching the bouncing bomb explode, the half-plume produced looked so fake. Then when in Ice Pilots, the ground crew set off the charge to make the dam fail, the plume look exactly like the film. WOW! Like Ice Pilot Arnie said, "Hold on to your hat Saigon!"
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
I watched that episode, great effort by a pilot born the same year as the raid.
@bfmcarparts Жыл бұрын
Yep, Arnie was a great character. Too bad the big C caught him...
@vincentlefebvre925510 ай бұрын
Out of the 133 men who took off on this night there were 30 Canadians.
@timsmith5339 Жыл бұрын
I read the book that the 1955 film was based on and was very surprised to find that at the end of the 'dam busters' raid, I was only half way through the book. 617 squadron went on to become an elite precision bombing unit working closely with Barnes Wallis to make the best use of his grand slam and other ordnance requiring precise targeting. They were as unimaginably brave as any other wartime service person and then some. Incredible feats of daring, skill and shear determination. Perhaps their further contributions to the allied victory could be another excellent video by yourself.
@anthonyeaton5153 Жыл бұрын
Tim Smith 617 were elite but suffered horrendous losses attempting to bomb at low level.
@garywaterson3147 Жыл бұрын
Read the book when I was 7. Still have it. Now 67. Have read other sources. Other detail: 'Mick' Martin , P for Popsie, born in Edgecliff, Australia, became an Air Marshall in RAF
@thethirdman225 Жыл бұрын
The original Paul Brickhill book is quite inaccurate because many of the raids details were still secret when it was written. Some of the details were declassified in the late 1960s. John Sweetman's book _'The Dambusters Raid'_ and Max Hastings' _'Operation Chastise'_ are both good. Sweetman updates a lot of the detail and Hastings opens the book on a few of the individuals involved.
@timsmith5339 Жыл бұрын
@@thethirdman225 I will look out for those, thanks.
@Cloudman5729 ай бұрын
If it is the book I am thinking about it has the amazing dam buster raid and background covered as well as was possible at the time but also has Leonard Cheshire's later command of 617 and his observer roll on one of the atom bomb raids following up with his awesome work forming the Cheshire Homes hospices.
@finndebrodelegh21810 ай бұрын
I was privileged to meet some of these men at a signing event of a commemorative painting by J. Wooton at the Petwood House Hotel (which became 617’s mess later in the war). The official historian had brought the operations book, and it showed some fascinating details. McCarthy’s crew had attacked a train on their way there, but were quite resentful of the fact they had been tasked with the Sorpe, which could not be breached with the upkeep bomb. We got to ask them questions, and I remember someone asking if Gibson was anything like Richard Todd, who portrayed him in the film. They all answered as one that they thought Gibson was a better actor! Regardless of the military value of the target, the real victory, like the Doolittle raid, was the incredible propaganda value and the effect it had on the general public, at home and abroad. It was a spectacular victory, and very much needed at the time, and for once the ministry men realised it and the press have full reign.
@Outlier99910 ай бұрын
Doolittle's raid was not just a propaganda victory. I caused Japan to divert many fighters and AAA batteries that would have been more valuable at the front. Instead they waited for more air raids, which didn't come for another 2 years.
@nickjoy8868 Жыл бұрын
I'm giving you a standing ovation for this- superbly researched and presented. I've had a fascination with the Dams raid all my life, yet quite a lot of your video was news to me! Ah now the 4th damn attacked I believe was the Ennerpe - one of those stray facts I've picked up and have no idea where from. Well done Phil, a masterpiece of research 😀
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching Nick! Your 90% right on the dam, but even now there's some debate about it.
@buckshotaaa Жыл бұрын
We owe them all a big debt of gratitude.
@asullivan404711 ай бұрын
Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job enabling viewers to better understand what//whom the orator was describing. Special thanks to engineers & dam buster flight crews. Making this war time documentary more authentic and possible.
@MervynPartin Жыл бұрын
Thank you for setting the facts right for this operation, and dispelling a few myths. I have learned quite a lot through watching this video. On the whole, I would regard Chastise as successful, having achieved disruption, albeit with such a tragic loss of life in carrying it out. One thing that cannot be disputed is the bravery of the aircrews both on this operation and in Bomber Command as a whole. They all deserve our respect.
@thomasevans2958 Жыл бұрын
Very well researched. As you mention Winterbotham and Collins were important to Wallis,s quest as was Portal in overruling Harris. Another important factor was a German engineer named Magnus who's observations enabled Wallis to place the bomb up against the wall of the dam and to be detonated at a depth of 30 feet. The "Magnus Effect" Tom
@simoncains8595 Жыл бұрын
There were certainly plenty of wacky ideas going around, and getting attention of the war leaders. See "Churchill's Iceman" , Geoffrey Pyke's plan to create giant iceberg aircraft carriers. Churchill and Eisenhower were also very keen on his idea to use a fleet of yet-to-be-invented snowmobiles across Norway. And the rocket-powered Catherine wheel Panjanderum which nearly ran over the watching admirals and generals ...
@mikeprzyrembel Жыл бұрын
Interesting fact about the crews, Douglas Webb, front gunner in Bill Townsend's AJ-O and Len Sumpter, bomb aimer in David Shannon's AJ-J were the only two that took part in the first and last 617 raids. The final raid was on Hitler's lair at Berchtesgaden in April 1945.
@Digmen1 Жыл бұрын
My father was a mechanic who worked for Barnes Wallis on a project to make the Spitfire fuel lines less likely to catch fire., saving lots of pilots lives.
@marcusgibson38992 ай бұрын
I'd be interested to hear more details of your father's project.
@Digmen12 ай бұрын
@@marcusgibson3899 Sadly, that's all I can remember.
@Ob1sdarkside Жыл бұрын
That was an incredible vid, well researched and full of information. You deserve way more subs, keep growing! Just joined your patreon, low level but it's worth it.
@AnthonyBrown12324 Жыл бұрын
of course this subject has been covered to a great extent . apparently the strong winds were the main cause of the heavy losses being blown off course and flying so low at night but on the other hand most nightfighters flew at much higher level and would not expect or been be able to fly so low at night
@richardvernon3177 ай бұрын
8 Aircraft lost in order Outbound AJ-K flown by Byers - Wave 2, shot down over Texel by Flak at 22:57. AJ-E flown by Barlow - Wave 2. Hit HT power lines over Haldern at 23:50. Upkeep not armed and recovered. AJ-B flown by Astell - Wave 1, 3rd section. Likely damaged by Flak at Dülmen and then hit HT power lines at Marbeck at 00:15. Upkeep was armed and detonated on 90 second time fuze. AJ-M flown by Hopgood - Wave 1, 1st Section. Likely damaged by Flak at Dülmen and shot down over the Monhe at 00:34. Three Crew managed to Bail Out, one killed on landing due to parachute not being deployed fully. AJ-S flown by Burpee - Wave 3. Shot down by Light Flak over Gilze Rijen Airfield in Holland at 02:00. AJ-C flown by Ottley - Wave 3. Shot down by Light Flak near Hamm at 02:35. Tail Gunner survived impact. Return AJ-Z Flown by Maudslay - Wave 1, 3rd section. Damaged by bomb detonation on Eder dam crest. Shot down on return leg by Light Flak over Netterden at 02:36 AJ-A Flown by Young. Wave 1, 2nd Section. Shot down by Kriegsmarine Heavy Flak battery over the North Sea just off the Dutch coast at Castricum aan Zee at 02:58.
@pipandcol Жыл бұрын
The BBC described The Dambusters raid as "infamous"................ imagine my shock!.... and for those of you with an ALEXA... ask it "what was Guy Gibson's dog called"?...............jeeeez!
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
I was speaking to one of the docents at the International Bomber Command Center and she told me about a conversation she had with Johnny Johnson. His summary of reactionary history was "You weren't there, you don't know what it was like". It's something I will remember every time before I sit down and write a script from now on.
@MRCAGR1 Жыл бұрын
6:57 it’s possible that this decision was made not necessarily to elevate Barnes Wallis to be the sole boffin but use him as the named hero to shield other people who may have still been working on classified projects. Just a thought. I heard an anecdote about Wallis when I started working at the Tornado Central Design and Management Team back in the late 1970’s. One of my colleagues had started working as an apprentice in the same department as Barnes Wallis and Wallis bought this person a complete set of drawing equipment.
@thethirdman225 Жыл бұрын
In 1951, when the book was written, that was probably true.
@glazersout427210 ай бұрын
An enlightening video! Like everyone else, up until today, i believed that all of the crews were hand-picked elite airmen. Makes the story even more amazing.
@CalibanRising10 ай бұрын
I agree with you, even more amazing!
@macdodd9 ай бұрын
I had the privilage of walking the Mona Dam a few times during my 3 year tour at Raf Laarbruch from 1973 to 1976. I also visited a memorial erected to one of the aircraft from pieces of the wreckage.
@nicholasbell90173 ай бұрын
"Poor old Hoppy" was what someone said over the intercom as they watched his Lanc hit the ground and burn. Hopgood should have got a posthumous Victoria Cross for pressing home their attack with the aircraft and crew so badly mauled.
@waynesworldofsci-tech Жыл бұрын
Barnes Wallis was an incredible genius. His designs made amazing feats possible. Add in 617 Squadron and you had an incredibly deadly weapon. Of course geniuses tend to be very opinionated!
@MRCAGR1 Жыл бұрын
Barnes Wallis also came up with the idea of variable geometry wings. This was incorporated into the trinational MRCA Tornado. This aircraft was deployed to 9 squadron initially and thence to 617 squadron at RAF Marham.
@thethirdman225 Жыл бұрын
People throw that term around without really understanding it. All it does is cheapens things.
@waynesworldofsci-tech Жыл бұрын
@@thethirdman225 Which term?
@davidrobinson4553 Жыл бұрын
It's good to hear the true facts about brave young men on a dangerous mission unlike our BBC who seem to do nothing but bad mouth this and anything abour Britjsh history. As for the fact about film makers bending facts, that art is alive, thriving and being taken to Astronomical levels in the 21st century. Well Done Sir 👍🇬🇧🍺
@ericconnor8419 Жыл бұрын
I watch very good history programmes on the BBC.
@jamesoneill3922 Жыл бұрын
Yeah. Destroying dams and causing civilian casualties is a war crime now.
@indigohammer5732 Жыл бұрын
On the contrary, the BBC have a hardon for "The War".
@thethirdman225 Жыл бұрын
Stop talking like a victim.
@fredbloggs5902 Жыл бұрын
Wallace’s R100 airship was privately designed and built and successful. It was the competing government R101 that was an utter disaster and whose failure led to the ending of airships in the U.K.
@fredbloggs5902 Жыл бұрын
The book ‘Sliderule’ by Nevil Shute covers some of this, he worked there for a while.
@raymondyee2008 Жыл бұрын
Damn I didn't know on these indeed. Even the PC game "Bomber Crew" didn't even cover those facts above.
@anthonyeaton51539 ай бұрын
May I recommend a book written by Robert Owen the official historian of 617 Squadron The Dam busters. It is titled ‘Breaking the German Dams’ A minute by minute account of Operation Chastise. Dr Owen tells in real time the accounts of all the crews and their aircraft that attacked the main dams. It is fascinating in its detail and brings a fresh and unique narrative of that iconic operation.
@MultiAndrew1971 Жыл бұрын
The dams raids have fascinated me ever since I saw the dambusters when I was younger. I’ve read Paul brickhill the dambusters and gibsons own book enemy coast ahead. But the best book to read about the raid is by professor John sweetman the dambusters raid. In this he goes about dispelling the myths and legends surrounding it. After reading this it only made it more amazing what these men did. The other dam that was attacked was the ennepe dam. And the lister dam was targeted but no aircraft made it to that point. The Lancaster that dropped on the ennepe was o orange flown by Townsend. Although theoretically he may have mistakenly thought he was over the ennepe but actually hit the bever dam instead. Unfortunately when the book by brickhill and Gibsons book and the movie came out. The details of the raid were still heavily classified
@marcuswardle3180 Жыл бұрын
Although Gibson didn't do much training for the flight he had experience in flying low level attacks. He was picked as part of a squadron to attack a canal bridge that transported barges to be used in the forthcoming Operation Sealion. He did a vast amount of practise but at the last moment was given leave to visit a relative thereby missing the raid. It was on this raid that Bomber Command won their first VC. Also Gibson wasn't very amenable unlike portrayed in the film. He didn't mingle with them as is portrayed.
@richardvernon3174 ай бұрын
The mission was against the Dortmund-Elms Canal, flown by Hampdens from No 5 Group Bomber Command who's Air Officer Commanding was one Arthur Harris!! The weapon used was a modified version of the British Air dropped Sea Mine first proposed by a Staff Officer in the British Air Ministry...one Arthur Harris!!
@gergatron7000 Жыл бұрын
Two classic movies that each desperately need a remake, both for quality of effects and accuracy, are Battle of Britain and Dam Busters. These stories need to be told to a new generation
@nickjoy8868 Жыл бұрын
Peter Jackson had the rights and the intention to remake the Dambusters but never got around to it, the rights have now expired so if he did decide to pull his finger out and shoot the film he'd have to buy the rights all over again, silly Peter 😞
@throttlegalsmagazineaustra7361 Жыл бұрын
@@nickjoy8868Completely untrue. It was found to be impossible to retain historical facts such as the name of Gibson's dog, and impossible to keep the American bullshit out of it. Peter Jackson is an aviation nut and decided he couldn't do it justice. Stephen Fry was retained to do the screenplay and agreed with him.
@richardsymonds5159 Жыл бұрын
@@nickjoy8868 I do not think the original could be bettered and so would be futile!
@anthonyeaton5153 Жыл бұрын
@@richardsymonds5159Well said Richard, despite its faults the 1955 film version is a classic. I recall doing my square bashing at Padgate in that year while the station band was playing The Dam Busters March.
@501sqn3 Жыл бұрын
If there's two war films which should never, ever be meddled with its The Battle of Britain and The Dambusters!. Both films ooze pathos, atmosphere and tension, fear and relief. In addition where on earth would you find Character Actors, Actresses, and Director's of the quality of those in the originals?.
@drstrangelove49983 ай бұрын
Fascinating, I had no idea of the many passes on the Sorpe, which always seemed minimised. The Germans apparently reverse engineered upkeep and tested it successfully, but never employed it. Probably the juice wasn’t considered worth the squeeze?
@stevesgaming7475 Жыл бұрын
Staggeringly brave guys. I cannot imagine what they faced. Utter legends and Barnes Wallis, wow! what a genius. I enjoy the film still, but the original, not the new one that butchered the dogs name (yes, I know it's a horrible word and not a word I'd utter but I am very much against changing history because its 'uncomfortable'.)
@noahwail2444 Жыл бұрын
Nice video, thanks. But no mention of Wallis´work on dessigning the Vickers Wellington? He used one initialy on the Upkeep, and when asked why they would give him one, he answered; Well, I dessigned it. And he got one..
@tonyknight9912 Жыл бұрын
That was really the film that portrayed that line.
@alanbrown5593 Жыл бұрын
You could mention, that the Wellington came via the RN as the RAF were less than interested in the beginning.
@richardvernon3177 ай бұрын
@@alanbrown5593 Wellington construction was based on the Vickers Wellesley, which in turn came a couple of other non UK aircraft designs and a German Airship. It was never used on the R-100 or any other airship built that Wallis was involved with. RN had nothing to do with any of it.
@alanbrown55937 ай бұрын
@@richardvernon317 perhaps you want to check contemporaneous writtings, Nevil Shute Norway, or Charles Goodeve on the RN involvement.
@richardvernon3177 ай бұрын
@@alanbrown5593 RN were most definitely onboard with Highball, pity that when it was trialled, it was found that any Sea State caused the weapon to veer off course massively. Turns out that even if 618 squadron had got the thing to work in May 1943, they couldn't have used it. The Tirpitz was moored in such a way, that there was not enough clear run in the Fiord to employ Highball.
@julianmhall Жыл бұрын
Regarding the 1955 film, the basis for which was Paul Brickhill's book 'The Dambusters', and Gibson's book 'Enemy Coast Ahead'. The latter written during the war suffered from censorship, whilst the latter could only rely on official records many of which were still confidential, and hearsay. Thus mistakes were made, such as: 1. Experienced crews, I think one of the aspects that the movie in 1955 got right was a comment made to Gibson that squadrons would be loathe to give up their best crews, and that proved to be the case as the video details. In fact I /think/ one crew at least was on their very first sortie. 2. As for Wallis being the only one to recognise the dams' significance, correctly detailed in the video a paper was written /before the war/ regarding potential targets in Germany and highlighted them specifically, so it /was/ known that they were a viable target. What wasn't at the time known was /how/ to successfully hit them. Phil, you mentioned that Wallis did have some official support; was that from the Royal Navy at first and only later Bomber Command? Bearing mind at the time the Tirpitz and its' defences still weighed heavily on RN minds. [I think Inglis was thinking of the tank's premature use in WWI when he advocated Upkeep not being used until it was tested properly.] 3. In light of the Butt Report of 1941 I think Wallis and his contemporaries can be forgiven for overlooking the effect of an explosion against the Dams, as the Report had suggested that bombers couldn't even /find/ a large target, much less precisely hit a small one. IIRC the Eder Dam was deemed by Germany to be too difficult to attack, as it was backed by a steep mountain, so it's 'defences' were its terrain. Therefore artillery was thought unnecessary. The Sorpe was an earth dam and Upkeep was designed to breach concrete hence the different method of attack. AFAIK there were five dams on the original list of targets. IIRC the Ennepe was the fourth but I forget the fifth.
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
In terms of support from the RN and RAF, from my research it seemed that the former were much more enthusiastic, especially Dudley Pound. That being said, he wasn't shown the reels until fairly early in 1943, so the bulk of Wallis' support really came from the Ministry of Aircraft Production To get an idea like his so far through the testing phase was a feat in itself. I would say that the RAF rapidly changed its tune around February 1943, and that the entire mission was seen as an affordable gamble.
@julianmhall Жыл бұрын
@@CalibanRising I /fairly/ recently read James Holland's book Dam Busters which - inevitably as it's much more recent with more sources available - puts the raid into context of the overall war effort, and its morale impact on Germany.
@concise707 Жыл бұрын
The other dams (as well as the Ennerpe) were the Lister and the Diemel. The Sorpe should never have been on the target list as - due to its earthern construction - it was almost immune from destruction with weapons available at the time. Indeed, 9 Sqn (617's GREAT rivals!) attacked the Sorpe in 1944 and scored 9 - yes 9 - Direct Hits with 12,000lb TALLBOYs and it still didn't breach!
@julianmhall Жыл бұрын
@@concise707 I think the Sorpe was included due to its importance to the German war effort, but it was recognised that it was earth hence a different method of attack was proposed. I forgot the Lister and Diemel. That would be why the original ops order has six targets, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z.
@concise707 Жыл бұрын
@@julianmhall Hi Julian, the Air Ministry insisted on the inclusion of the Sorpe due to its interaction with the Moehne water system: “[it] would be worth much more than twice the destruction of one”. (I'll correct the quote when I've looked it up. Done!). Wallis was unconvinced and only acceded to the 'request' reluctantly; he determined that no less than 6 UPKEEPs would be needed to breach the earthen ramparts and that it's destruction would be more likely caused by erosion rather than critical failure. Originally 6 crews were allocated but 2 crews were out due sickness and 1 airframe was US leaving 19 crews for 19 serviceable aircraft. Clearly, at least one of the 3rd wave was going to be allocated to the Sorpe! As it was, the losses on wave 2 required nearly all the 3rd wave (Townsend excepted) to be sent to the Sorpe. BTW, lest you think otherwise, I was NOT having 'a go' at you! Just trying to add more detail. 👍
@duncannapier31810 ай бұрын
11 VC's were awarded at Rorkes Drift. I believe more than 3 VC's could have been awarded for those in Operation Chastise. Speaking for myself, if our generation was 10% of what they were what a different place this world would be. 👍🇿🇦
@nzfreeski7 ай бұрын
well said sir.....and great to see the old foe flag there (for us AB fans). These characters were the greatest generation for a reason.
@alanwitton5980 Жыл бұрын
Great video very informative thanks for uploading it
@Roverswelsh Жыл бұрын
Was it the Ennerpe? Can’t remember which crew went but I think it gets mentioned by Paul Brickhill. Great video!
@stevetheduck14254 ай бұрын
The fourth dam attacked by one aircraft with one weapon is recorded as the Bever dam by the German records of the examinations to it and the repairs listed.
@dereksollows9783 Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your very detailed study on this subject. I am pinning it for future reference.
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
Thanks Derek!
@diannegooding873310 ай бұрын
The beach at Reculver in Kent was used for testing in 1943 for the operation. Chesil beach was also used .
@normannokes9513 Жыл бұрын
Possibly the first Lanc to fall was that of F.O burpee. Apparently straying off course and destrpyed by light flak. The navigator Tom Jaye Co. Durham colliery electrician a relative of my friend would direct according to flight plan. It later emerged that a strong evening wind had not been factored into the system. Hence a fatal deviation beyond the control of brave Tom.
@concise707 Жыл бұрын
Burpee was in the 3rd 'Reserve' wave so couldn't have been the first loss which was, undisputedly, Byers on ingressing the heavily defended Dutch coast.
@normannokes9513 Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the correction, Working on assumption; Keen to state the situation as regards Tom Jaye
@concise707 Жыл бұрын
@@normannokes9513 no worries - I always got/get Byers and Barlow mixed up; both wave 2, both lost on ingress, both begin with the letter B! Of course the real hero was John Vere Hopgood, who should (IMHO) have received a (posthumous) VC too.
@thethirdman225 Жыл бұрын
The weapon wasn't a 'mine'. It was a revolving depth charge. It sank to about 10 metres and was detonated by a hydrostatic pistol.
@stevetheduck14254 ай бұрын
British newspapers described it as a mine in the days after the raid. It was an underwater exploding casing filled with explosive, but that was where the similiarity ended.
@thethirdman2254 ай бұрын
@@stevetheduck1425 Yeah, I know. This was discussed in John Sweetman's book on the Dambusters. In technical terms, it's the best book I've read so for on the raid. There have been others written since that have other strengths: Max Hastings' more recent book certainly lifts a lid on a lot of the people involved but Sweetman was the first (for me) to blow away the myths that had been established by Brickhill and the movie.
@stefansikora518328 күн бұрын
The purpose of the Eder Dam is to provide water to the german canal system. So taking out the Eder meant sabotaging the transport of goods on the canals. Especially the Mittellandcanal which connects the Rhine to the river Weser and the river Elbe and further to Berlin.
@vicsaul54594 ай бұрын
Great documentary, many thanks for not adding monotonous background music, eg..annoying snare drum roll loops!!!, keep up the good work.
@MrLarryC11 Жыл бұрын
Interesting presentation of 'Chastise'. The question remains: were the raids effective? From a British morale point of view it was a success. From a military strategic stance the jury is still dam re=construction site.out. The dams were quickly re-built and the long term effect on the German war economy was minimal. Collateral damage was significant. (1650+ civilians killed, 1000 of these were POW's and forced labourers. The RAF failed to conventially bomb the dam repair site.
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
A good point. Something to discuss in the future.
@dougie1943 Жыл бұрын
The short term effect on German war industry appeared only minimal because there was still sufficient steel and armament production already fed into the logistical pipeline. That was quickly being consumed on all the fronts that Germany were fighting. In the long term , the three month curtailed production caused by Chastise would be felt later on as its depleted stockpiles were never sufficient to meet the demands put upon it as it retreated on all fronts. Nevertheless, the damage caused by such a small force in a single mission cannot be underestimated.
@concise707 Жыл бұрын
It took 5 years to build the Moehne and Eder dams (each); therefore, reflect on the enormous resources that had to be marshalled to repair them both in 5 months. That resource had to come from somewhere, predominantly the Atlantic Wall project. Without Op CHASTISE, D-day might have comprised 5 x 'Omahas'. I'm absolutely sick and tired of all the post-war revisionist claptrap that gets regurgitated every year ad infinitum to denigrate what was a magnificent feat of arms at the time and remains so to this day. However, I will concede the failure to attack the reconstruction work using conventional bombing was a major blunder.
@dougie1943 Жыл бұрын
@@concise707 Clearly the Germans understood the importance of getting those dams repaired and production in the Rhur valley restored to something resembling normality. A good nights work well done by all concerned.
@ianthomson9363 Жыл бұрын
Another important point is that with the success of the Dams raid, Barnes Wallis was taken much more seriously by Arthur Harris and led to the development of first the Tallboy and later the Grand Slam. Without these, attacks on the U-boat pens, Tirpitz and V-weapons sites would not have been possible and London could have easily been flattened. I agree that failing to bomb the dams during their reconstruction was a missed opportunity that perhaps should have been taken, though I don't know what the defences were like.
@kaibroeking9968 Жыл бұрын
Bombing civilian targets was and is a barabarian thing. I am not saying that we Germans had not brought this upon ourselves by doing precisely the same thing all over Europe, and by committing even worse atrocities all over the continent. Let's just say this: My grandmother on my father's side lived downstream from the Ennepe Dam, in the middle of a smallish city crammed into a rather narrow valley, Luckily, the British did not find it that night, or I would probably never have been born.
@brucebartup6161 Жыл бұрын
Thanks, I hope I'm always willing to help peace and truth. I doubt if we can achieve much on you tube on this channel but wiilliing to give it a go.. Bombing civilians is barbaric agreed but then it was a barbaric war. As wars tend to be. Any less barbaric to starve people to death by embargo? What in your mind makes the victims of bombing more important than say civilia merchant marine sailors torpedoed by U-boat or civilian victims of artilllery barrage. Or resistance fighters, civilian forced to take up arms by the barbarism of illegal occupation atrocities (and could go further but possibly had better not) You see? We'd have to decide what is a civilian what is barbarism etc mostlly at your expense,. your pain When i think all you really wanted was an expression of sympathy or to think that it is all over because you and I can forgive each other for the barbarity of former generations. Well sorry but I think the lessons are harder than that. Only victims can forgive barbarties,. And yes undersrtand that if luck had been different you might not be here This is difficuilt - neither you nor i nor your grad mother deserve better. The only peace is that which we build. Nd it is al wazysa fragglkde ternporary. it''s never over
@brucebartup6161 Жыл бұрын
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw Armed merchant vessels. I think you are referring to Q-ships? Q-shjps were an anti submnarine warfare vessel. mostly of WW1 as their employment required an attack at short range by surfaced u-boat. and such surfacing being the common preludet lo to surface action by deck gun tio "finish off" an isolated torperdoed vessel I see no groouns for complaihnt Though tehnically the Q-shiop should raisze her battle ensign before cmmencnhg firea commio6tant of unrestrctd sbmasarinwarfare the surface and such attacks being a breach of "cruiser rules" estsblished by Hague converntion In WW! professioomal seamenn of he worlds navies and merchant flets alioke regsrded submarinees as near piracy. Most msrchant vssels ccraried some fire arms against pirate attacks esp in the South China seas.Almoast all germnan and britusjh mechant cvesells ain WW2 carried A A guns. The onluy vessels that were forbidden to carry ghns were hospital ships. The Stricken vessel that turns out to be azanythiong bu sstricjkern whgn aproachd hads been a legitimat ruse -deguerrre since bdefofre napoleon. Aas loonfg as you f,.uy your national flag to iddenbyify uuuiou as hsng hisxtil p[ostuerr t a nenemy n tkmde of wat ansd hoik yiu r battle endsgn identuifuying yiu a\s an enermy warship theres no problem
@brucebartup6161 Жыл бұрын
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw Ciiviliasn bombing? You refer to the provoking raids on Berlin hoping to, get a response of attckihg London? Those RAF raids were ilefgaslm but duix not kil anythiong llikde as many germans as WW1 goethe bomber asnd XZerpelin rasids on lonfdin of WW1. in WW2 prior to the RAF raids the LW had already bombed Rotterdam and townbnsd in OPLand ansdd sshopwn theifr dispsitiopn by machine giuning fleeing rerfugees. THe LW was the sam er fprce thasrt bombded Guernica in SPain rthis being0 the earluist examplde lof terror bombing" polkucy as such.
@brucebartup6161 Жыл бұрын
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw Regarding 0 armed merchanrtmen. 1. not a crime 2. beside the point Ammuniton as cargo : ALL ff,gged vesels ofd neny agtiomns arec lefgiituimate targers iun time of war BUR zaccrdubfg to the ekes a\s ern ented yiunbcanoyt trweat any ,mevchasnt vesel sass yiun nmiufgyt a warship,. f ypu wwdshb to deta\in a vessel thayt yiun believe is casrryiojnh contrabanded goods (likde ammuinitiion) yiu musgt annoybcce yur presece ius ir sendgheskfgnalti he\zve to andd preparegto be nboadeded for k nsppection,, sghiot aceross the nbows sas warnjning oif mion-vcomp,isant. THeesec ruls ere caslled criisr ruls andtthe bri5ts syucjk to them duruinfg rthweuioerv bliocjkades of Grmany in WW1 znd WW2. :Passngee vessels were assumed not to be carryiuing contraband materials and thuis normallyt ien free ppasare by6 erither sisde. If thety weeerre carryojnhgb troops diffferent attrree. rdunay shipsxs carryinhgb amminition wee just a llegsl tagr ass onesccarrying tamnkds or planes or anything else,. war masterial You may berererringb tl he specifioc case of the lucitania WW1 a ;pasenger liner that yes ssaad carryingvciontrabanfd ammiunitiion or had recently done so. Snmk lojut of hand, onwanng.. Thus bringinhg inb ftge UAC onn rthgre allioerfd side in WW1. SImialarv instance in WW2 torpedxdoed smal,. chilkderen being evactuated to Canada. I don't think that shio wasc carryiong ammuinition at the time bur had been doing so befiore. Again no warnnignbf given 0- thiascveinfg thec essence of submarinrc warfware a ds practised by Doenitz. You attackj all enemby nationbssl vesxserls everyheeem, yu kep he UK fromm berijnhg resupplied At all coasts. The l.aws do'rt matter, yuur own crews Don't matter. YIu aachievve your objective. NB - Repeating a claum dcesd nit maker it true. Your sourrecs plesse.. fotrrb tyr CHarge that WSC did anythingilldefagl wutbhg r5egsrd tio arnefc merrchgasnbtmern Regarding ammunition
@brucebartup6161 Жыл бұрын
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw here is afssutr sxo8urce on what i havec lsaimrdec fhgfasrdinbg cruiisde rules. i have masde soimerberriooerrs bui not many ui feel wikipedia Cruiser rules is a colloquial phrase referring to the conventions regarding the attacking of a merchant ship by an armed vessel. Here cruiser is meant in its original meaning of a ship sent on an independent mission such as commerce raiding. A cruiser in modern naval terminology refers to a type of ship rather than its mission. Cruiser rules govern when it is permissible to open fire on an unarmed ship and the treatment of the crews of captured vessels. During both world wars, the question was raised of whether or not submarines were subject to cruiser rules. Initially, submarines attempted to obey them, but abandoned them as the war progressed. Outline The essence of cruiser rules is that an unarmed vessel should not be attacked without warning. It can be fired on only if it repeatedly fails to stop when ordered to do so or resists being boarded by the attacking ship. The armed ship may only intend to search for contraband (such as war materials) when stopping a merchantman. If so, the ship may be allowed on its way, as it must be if it is flying the flag of a non-belligerent, after removal of any contraband. However, if it is intended to take the captured ship as a prize of war, or to destroy it, then adequate steps must be taken to ensure the safety of the crew. This would usually mean taking the crew on board and transporting them to a safe port. It is not usually acceptable to leave the crew in lifeboats. This can only be done if they can be expected to reach safety by themselves and have sufficient supplies and navigational equipment to do so.[1] History The cruiser rules evolved during the 17th century when the issuing of letters of marque to privateers was at its peak.[2] They were initially an understanding of the honourable way to behave rather than formal international agreements. A formal agreement between Great Britain and France at the end of the Crimean War was extended internationally at the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law in 1856. It was signed by all maritime nations except the United States and Spain.[3] A new international agreement was reached in 1909, the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War. The participants in this treaty were the main European powers, the United States, and the Empire of Japan. Article 50 of this treaty was what was meant by cruiser rules during World War I. Initially, the treaty was respected.[4] The first British merchant ship to be sunk by a German submarine was the SS Glitra in October 1914.[5] The submarine, SM U-17, allowed the Glitra's crew to board lifeboats first and then towed them to shore after sinking the ship. Abiding by the cruiser rules in this way was particularly problematic for submarines. They did not have the room to take captured crew on board and towing lifeboats prevented the submarine from diving. This put the submarine at considerable risk.[6] German submarines were further endangered by the British anti-submarine Q-ships. These looked like merchant ships, but were heavily armed with hidden weapons. The idea was to tempt a submarine to surface and confront the Q-ship, then reveal the guns and open fire. In German eyes, this meant that all British ships were potentially a danger and they started to move away from the cruiser rules. At the beginning of 1915 Germany declared a war zone around the British Isles in retaliation for the British blockade of Germany. Henceforth, all neutral shipping within the declared zone was liable to attack without warning. This led to a series of notorious attacks on passenger ships with the loss of civilian lives, some of them American. These included RMS Lusitania in May 1915, SS Arabic in August 1915, and SS Sussex in March 1916. Fearing that American deaths would lead to the US entering the war, after each of these incidents Germany made a new pledge not to sink merchant ships until they had witnessed that life boats had been launched. These pledges were never honoured for long, if at all, and finally Germany announced unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917. Germany believed that this strategy would win the war for them, but in reality it contributed to their defeat by causing, in part, the US to enter the war on the side of the Allies.[7] In hindsight, the experience of World War I should have told the UK that German submarines would not fight under the cruiser rules in World War II, but in fact British public opinion believed that Germany lost the war because of the unrestricted warfare, and therefore, under severe budgetary constraints of the 1930s ASW was not prioritized by the Admiralty,[8] (in March 1939 members of parliament were discussing anti-submarine guns as a solution for the "submarine menace"[9]). However, in September 1939 German submarine U-30 sunk the British passenger liner SS Athenia, apparently mistaking it for a military ship.[10] Admiral Dönitz pressed for unrestricted submarine warfare on a similar basis to World War I. Dönitz was starved of resources until after the Battle of Britain in 1940 when it became clear that Britain could not be successfully invaded. After this, submarine attacks on British merchant shipping commenced in force in the Battle of the Atlantic. These attacks were without warning and no attempt was made to save crews.[11]
@maribelfarnsworth4565 Жыл бұрын
An excellent video - well researched and clearly presented. Thank you!
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
Thanks Maribel!
@brianford8493 Жыл бұрын
Visited the Mohne many times as a sprogg...incredible display of leadership and elan with perhaps debatable results for such a loss of valuable and experianced aircrew....no way could they take a lancaster down to 200 feet at night then drop upkeep at 60 feet over water nowdays without satnav etc......just blows my mind how old those boys were and what they did with what they were given......Hats off!
@jstelzner Жыл бұрын
1993 before the internet it took me 3or4 weeks to find out that this was called operation Chastise! Went to Duxford to ask someone in the end.
@thethirdman225 Жыл бұрын
Yes, I knew about T Tommy. Max Hastings went into some detail about it.
@donaldfedosiuk1638 Жыл бұрын
REALLY well done! Thank you.
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching Donald, I appreciate it!
@GregWampler-xm8hv8 ай бұрын
Ahhhhh the life of the GENIUS. Oh really not all of his ideas panned out??????? The nay sayer the bane of progress. FYI Wallis worked on the R100 which was a smashing success. And he adapted the geodesic frame to the amazingly successful Wellington bomber. Wallis is a classic example of a Sigma Male, and the 99.9% of humanity just can't understand these quirky individuals who march to the tune of a different drummer. Sir Barnes Wallis I salute you as a scientist/engineer of unique talents and abilities. True geniuses are rarely recognized in their own time. 😎
@bucksboy20 Жыл бұрын
It saddens me that the often seen picture of Gibson presumably with his crew (0.49) shows only five when then crew numbered six. Could this be that the missing member, the Flight Engineer, who sat next to Gibson throughout his heroic action was an NCO. It appears that snobbery was and maybe still is alive and well in the RAF.
@concise707 Жыл бұрын
The crew complement on Op CHASTISE remained at 7 - the usual mid-upper gunner was re-deployed to man the front turret permanently as the bomb aimer (who usually manned the front turret when required) was otherwise engaged during the attack run when suppressive fire from the front turret was required and he was also essential in map-reading during the low -level transits. Therefore, there are 2 individuals missing from the line up you mention, one of which is certainly FLT LT Trevor-Roper, the rear gunner; his stature being unmistakeable - how he ever squeezed into a rear turret defeats me! Consequently, one of those in the picture must be either FS Deering or Sgt Pulford, although Deering was later commissioned as a Plt Off and it may be him as no 4 in the line-up. I think you are looking to criticise when it's not, perhaps, warranted; Pulford & Trevor-Roper away on leave, perhaps? Heaven knows they deserved it!
@bucksboy20 Жыл бұрын
@@concise707 Thank you for your reply. You are of course correct that the crews in the Dam Buster raid comprised of seven not six. The picture of Gibson and his crew boarding his aircraft confirms this. It also confirms that there were two NCO members of the crew as you have again correctly noted. As regards the photo at 0.46 I have to disagree. Having carefully studied the photo there is only one possible person who could have been an NCO and that is the fourth from the left. However I feel that he, whoever he was, was not an NCO since there are no chevrons on his sleeve, and had it been Flt Sgt Deering a crown would have been visible. There is just just a hint of braid on his shoulder but not enough to confirm one way of the other.Perhaps you could identify all those in the photo. I doubt Deering would have been promoted quite so soon after the raid. Why would a photo, presumably taken to show the crew, have been taken with only five crew members? It has no obvious purpose. Perhaps I am a little cynical about the Officer/NCO relationship but having served twenty five years in the RAF as ground crew and aircrew, I do have some experience of the snobbery to which I refer, and it has left me with some unhappy memories. Furthermore, having read many books on the matter, Guy Gibson's dislike of NCO's was well known. A trait seemingly shared with Bomber Harris. I will never understand the reason for this. Of course Guy Gibson's bravery, airmanship and leadership is not for a moment in doubt.
@Aindriuh Жыл бұрын
There were cases where the pilot of a Lanc was a sergeant and the rear gunner was an officer - in one case at least a Squadron Leader. In the air the pilot was in command, regardless of rank.
@brendonrutherford5118 Жыл бұрын
You can bet your bottom dollar that the 'Bloody Poms" are still into their snobbery & class shit after all these years as they always have been! In general terms they are so far up themselves that they can't get any further!! Thank goodness New Zealand has less & less to do with them & we don't need their disfunctional royal family shit complete with all they hanger-on's attached including the new king!! Heaven forbid!! It would be great if Charlie was the last damn king as we don't need any more parasites!! Enough is more than enough!!
@clivestraw1913 Жыл бұрын
He could have been taking the picture
@claywindscreenspeterjones7984 Жыл бұрын
The other dam us thought to have been the Ennerpe and I think the bonb aimer on that target is/was the last living member of the aircrew. You could also mention the speeder which the dams were repaired...16 & 18 weeks I think. Max Hastings book is so much more informative than Paul Brivkhill's.
@anthonyeaton5153 Жыл бұрын
It was the Ennepe Dam I met the WoP of that crew George Chalmers and he told me that their bomb/mine skidded to the left and exploded in the corner of the Dam.
@markwoods150410 ай бұрын
There's another subject which historians fail to mention when it comes to WW2 and interforce cooperation and that's the RAF Commandos which later became RAF Regiment. They were a formidable force with top-of-the-range equipment to monitor the dams.
@bigdmac33 Жыл бұрын
Excellent presentation.
@kiereluurs1243 Жыл бұрын
This is an enlightening story.
@tonyknight9912 Жыл бұрын
Very well researched and produced !
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
Thanks Tony!
@andrewmckenzie292 Жыл бұрын
Russia could flatten Ukraine if they wanted to and there'd be fu*k all NATO could do unless they wanted their main military assets and cities destroyed as well. More likely Putin underestimated Ukraine but is trying to use as few Russian resources as possible, while trying to limit damage to Ukrainian territory (yes compared to what Russia could do, its still relatively mild). The only one of those retreats that involved actual real battles was Kharkov and Lyman, the rest could be said to be to one degree or another voluntary retreats...perhaps Putin thought Zelenskyy would come to the table rather than risk more destruction to his country? The known corruption in Ukraine combined with Biden's own dealings there make it nigh on impossible to support the Ukrainian side. If you account for the fog of war on both sides, Russia still comes out on top. Ukraine is more important to Russia than it is to the west. Only Ukrainians themselves can decide if they want to fight to the last, nobody else can order or even encourage that. People can choose to support the decision by various means, but all indications seem to point to Ukraine being used by the west as a kind of buffer. The "no appeasement" argument is being used to justify expanding the NATO empire, as any alternative is deemed as the same as appeasing to Hitler...basically in which case, the west are always the good guys which is nigh on impossible as no power is perfect. If Ukraine joins NATO, that puts an already dominant power closer to eliminating another major rival (think another Iraq War for "freedom/democracy" which of course the US governments gets to define what freedom is), while if Russia either conquers Ukraine or is able to facilitate an acceptable regime there (similar to US role in Ukraine/2014) then that is less of a risk to the world.
@allegrofantasy Жыл бұрын
Wonderful content beautifully narrated.
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
Thanks for listening
@7732147 Жыл бұрын
The Ennerpe and the Lister dams were also targeted.
@pedemeyer Жыл бұрын
So now we are all experts!
@user-mv9ys9ic4rАй бұрын
Getalife pratt
@pincermovement72 Жыл бұрын
I know it was shortly before the war an engineer figured in a WW2 film , R J Mitchell in First of the few . Great reporting though.
@wbertie2604 Жыл бұрын
I think we can agree thst Collins delivered concrete results. I'll show myself out
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
lol
@shero113 Жыл бұрын
I seem to remember from a book I read years ago that some sergeant invented something but in the film it was Wallis shown as inventing it? Also, a Jewish scientist working at the minstry had a major role, but was cut-out too? Apparently the spot-lights were not from a night club, but were common in Coastal Command, and the bomb aimers didn't use the sticks, but drew on the glass, or something like that?
@tomedge1044 Жыл бұрын
According to Sweetman's book some of the bomb aimers distrusted the famous triangular bombsight and opted for two chinograph marks on the blister and a length of rope tied off at one end and with a knot in the loose end to define the sighting distance from the blister. My understanding is that spot lights for altitude setting had been experimented with by either Fleet air arm or coastal command but the results are a lot less satisfactory over open ocean due to chop and swell, neither of which were a problem over the dams. Makes me curious how Highball mosquitoes were to do it. One interesting fact about Upkeep is that the best available drawings of the weapon that survive were the ones the Germans did of the weapon they captured intact from one of the shot down aircraft.
@thethirdman225 Жыл бұрын
@@tomedge1044 They also correctly identified it as a 'revolving depth charge'. Whatever else it was, it wasn't a mine.
@ondrejdobrota73449 ай бұрын
20 000 for the poject was equivalent for Spitfire prototype 20838.
@SteveMrW Жыл бұрын
I enjoyed watching the video and have a question? Did the Lancaster modified for the Upkeep trials take part in the raid?
@concise707 Жыл бұрын
The one held at Boscombe Down for trials (ED825/G) was rapidly transferred to RAF Scampton on the afternoon of the 16th to serve as a 'spare' airframe as it was devoid of some of the more 'local' modifications ie the 'Light Altimeter' and VHF radio. Just as well the move was made, as it was pressed into service as AJ-T (Tommy) when McCarthy's Q-Queenie developed a glycol leak - that couldn't be fixed - on start-up. Fortuitously, McCarthy was allocated to the 2nd wave - targeting the Sorpe dam - that didn't need either of of those modifications. As history records, T-Tommy was the only aircraft of wave 2 to make it to the Sorpe and, after 9 dummy runs, successfully delivered its UPKEEP on attack 10. The bomb-aimer was the late Sgt (later Sqn Ldr) 'Johnny' Johnson who died only late last year at the ripe old age of 101 as the last Dambuster. T-Tommy was later lost on an arms-dropping operation to assist the French resistance; it was later the subject of a TV Documentary when a team of Aviation Archaeologists excavated it's remains; it was easily identified when they unearthed the single ball-mounted ventral .303" Vickers K installation, unique to this airframe. Hope this helps.
@SteveMrW Жыл бұрын
@@concise707 Yes it does, thank you.
@pierremainstone-mitchell8290 Жыл бұрын
Very good job indeed!
@clivewilliams366110 ай бұрын
The real benefit of the Dambuster's raid was not the damage inflicted, as strategically that was minimal but the huge PR benefit back home at a time when the War was not going very well and much of the news was negative. The damage caused by the Mohne and Eder breeches mostly killed slave labour, flooded a few houses and factories, all of which were up and running again within days. Had the concentration been on the Sorpe dam there would have been much more consequential damage.
@CalibanRising10 ай бұрын
The damaged inflicted by the breeched dams was significant to Germany if not substantial. The speed at which the repairs were made and the resources to achieve that were immense and not easy to replicate. In terms of bringing the nation to its knees, Operation Chastise certainly went some way to doing that. I'd be cautious of dismissing it just as a PR stunt.
@marcusgibson38992 ай бұрын
May I add - one key result was the removal from building the Atlantic Wall of up to 15,000 labourers to repair the dams - this diversion partly ensured the Wall was not completed in several key sections. Secondly, the Germans for the rest of the war put lots of heavy and light flak beside the dams - these guns could have been more useful elsewhere. But yes, the failure to bomb the dams again while they were being repaired was serious - Barnes Wallis pleaded with the RAF to attack them.
@clivewilliams36612 ай бұрын
@@marcusgibson3899 Repairing the dams was yet another reconstruction that had to be carried out along with the rectification of all the damage that the air raids brought, I doubt that the labourers building the Atlantic Wall (a monumental task) were specifically reallocated to the dams although the effect may have been the same. As was realised in the aftermath of the raid, there was little strategic value in bombing the dams because it had no more effect on the war machine of the Germans than bombing the factories directly, instead it was best described as terror bombing to more affect civilians than industry. Despite the huge flooding that the inundation brought, the limited number of factories in the Ruhr that were affected were back in production in a matter of days. As it turned out building the Atlantic Wall was to all intents and purposes futile as the invasion showed it was merely a collection of strong points that could be bypassed and once that had be done they were outflanked and useless. The Atlantic Wall was more propaganda than defensive fortification.
@runeulriksen Жыл бұрын
According to the late bomb-aimer “Johnny” Johnson, who flew in the raid, only 17 of the 19 planes flew that night.
@concise707 Жыл бұрын
617's establishment was 20 Type 464 Provisioning Lancaster IIIs and 21 crews (Ken Brown's was the surplus crew and were not originally slated for the 'Night Flying Programme'), but ED825/G was flown to Scampton on the 16th to provide a spare, making 21 aircraft available. However, Henry Maudslay's aircraft had been badly damaged around the tail by 'water splash' damage (film exists - how it stayed airborne is a miracle), a few days before when dropping a practise UPKEEP and, despite the heroic efforts of the ground crews, could not be repaired in time. Two crews were 'out' due sickness (Divall and Wilson) leaving 19 crews ("Brown!! Get your kit and crew - yer on!") for 20 airframes. As history records, McCarthy's Q-Queenie developed a coolant leak and went U/S on start-up, so he took the Boscombe Down spare (as T-Tommy) to the Sorpe. So 617 despatched 19 aircraft with 19 crews; it's easy to see how Johnny might have subtracted 2 U/S airframes from the number actually despatched (19-2) to arrive at the number you mention, 17.
@karlkirchweger4427 Жыл бұрын
Speer the Nazi Minister for armament reported in his memoirs that they were able to repair the dams before the autumn rainfalls and therefore there was no interruption of the arms production. He was of the opinion that a real success could have been reached by repeated attacts thus the german efforts to repair using cannibalisation of unimportant plants could be made sensless.
@stevetheduck1425 Жыл бұрын
Sadly, many things that Albert Speer 'the Nazis who said sorry' has said have been proven to be self-serving lies, like not knowing about the slave labour that built the V-Weapons. His impact on aircraft production for example was minimal, as the work had already been done, by someone who was not an architect, but a production manager and an aircraft production specialist. The 'repeated attacks' thing is a misquote, where he pointed out talking of events in 1943 (while speaking after the war was lost), when he made the point that the RAF's 1,000 plane raids on major cities should have been repeated. They were. Hamburg, for example was bombed a dozen times or more, and later in the war whole cities are recorded as being 100% destroyed, Chemnitz and Pforzheim among them. This by a force of about 800 night (in two waves a couple of hours apart) and 500 day bombers (a repeated attack on the same target to hit the bits that had survived).
@marcusgibson38992 ай бұрын
Speer's self-preening claims to have boosted German arms production are now seen by serious historians to be false, and falsified. He took exaggerated production figures to Hitler, who smiled, but at the Luftwaffe airfields they were asking 'Where are all those planes??' See books by Adam Tooze and Phillips O'Brien if in doubt. It was the RAF during 1943 that wrecked German industry from end to end - losing 200,000 tons of steel, etc, and latterly shells were only 30% filled with explosive.. tank engines didn't work, Luftwaffe prototypes all failed; the RAF were even responsible for delaying the Type 21 U-boat programme - by bombing the canals down which the sections were being floated, and by bombing a rubber plant - so the steel sections were never waterproof! The Americans really only became effective in late 1944. Prior to that their accuracy was horrendous and they could often only fly a few days a month cos they couldn't cope with clouds..
@johnhowe3772 Жыл бұрын
I believe that Frank Whirtle - inventor of the jet engine worked as an engineer throughout WWII: Equally, whilst RJ Mitchell died in 1937 his innovation nvention, the monoplane 'Spitfire' saw his name immortalised because of its role in WWII; Although Oppenhiemer isn't British, his infamous A-engineering makes him a notable person; as too is Sir Percy Cleghorn Stanley Hobart, who designed a string of "Oddities" to clear or breach defensive structure (such as Duplex Drive amphibious tank, the Crab and LVT rear door Buffalo, etc) ; and then tbere's Sir Donald Coleman Bailey - any guesses on his invention in 1940 - the Bailey Bridge. So sorry Barnes Wallace is not the only Engineer (British or otherwise) to become a household name due to their contrabutions in engineering during WWII. Ho yes, 1 more to add: Actress Hedy Lamarr patented a torpedo navigation communications system in 1942 - although it wasn't picked up and used by the USN until the 1950's - it's reiteration went into modern cellphone communication systems.
@marcusgibson38992 ай бұрын
Tizard and the genius Bernard Lovell on radar; Turing on software; Lancaster bomber designer at Avro, chap who engineered the Mulberry harbours, whose name escapes me.. The pair who invented the cavity magnetron. The chap who perfected the fibre optic amplifier in the 1980s doesn't even have a wiki page..
@johnhowe37722 ай бұрын
Major Hobart - and ALL his 'funnies' (including the canvas bridge system)... and the list goes on........
@alantoon5708 Жыл бұрын
Great, super information and analysis.
@nzfreeski7 ай бұрын
incredible man, all of them - tip of the hat to 617 squadron leader les Munro, a kiwi!
@jonathanpersson1205 Жыл бұрын
Really good
@neiloflongbeck5705 Жыл бұрын
There are lots of myths about WW2 and the aircraft flown in that conflict. The most famous are: 1. De Havilland came up with the concept of the unarmed high-speed bomber. George Volkert did that ling before de Havilland started designing the Mosquito. 2. The wingspan of the RAF's heavy bombers was limited to 100ft because of the hangar doors. The Type C hangar of 1936 (the same year the specifications for the Stirling, Halifax and Manchester were released) had hangar doors that opened to 120ft. Also both specifications required most maintenance on these aircraft to be carried out in the open. The experts also didn't believe that an aircraft with a wingspan of more than 100ft could be controlled by a single pilot as there is a limit to upper body strength.
@markstratton1679 Жыл бұрын
Number 2 is a long ago debunked myth. The most common RAF hangar before the 1934-39 expansion was the Type A and the Bellman. Type A was 120 feet wide, 25 feet high and 250 feet long, the Bellman was 113 feet 6 inches wide, 25 feet high and either 135 feet or 239 feet long. The Type C was introduced in 1934 to replace the Type A and the Bellman, it was 152 feet 5 inches wide, 35 feet 4 inches high and 300 feet long. Over 200 still survive.
@neiloflongbeck5705 Жыл бұрын
@@markstratton1679 and yet people still repeat myth number 2.
@stevetheduck1425 Жыл бұрын
Aircraft have been moved on 'skates' under each wheel to permit it to be pulled at an angle into a hangar, to avoid having to build new hangars all the time, for many years. Most of all, the largest planes, which were flying boats, which had removeable wheels so that they could be handled on land, this very reason is also another reason why the width of the hangar doors myth is a myth.
@Dalesmanable Жыл бұрын
Ref 2. Indeed. The 100 ft was in the specification to keep down the proposals’ size, and hence cost and resource use. Only 2 proposals were put forward and the Short Stirling was Hobson’s Choice as the other dropped out. The later Halifax and Lancaster came from 2-engine design specifications that failed and were therefore not subject to that 100ft limitation.
@neiloflongbeck5705 Жыл бұрын
@@Dalesmanable the Lancaster wasn't subject to the 100ft span limitation as this design came about during the war. But the Manchester it came from and the Halifax were subject to the same span restriction that helped to cripple the Stirling's performance. However, the Stirling and the Supermarine Type 316 plus proposals from Vickers, Boulton and Paul, and Armstrong Whitworth were all intended to be four-engined bombers. That makes 5 proposals (and from Supermarine there were 3 engine choices - RR Merlin, Bristol Hercules and Napier Dagger. From these the Air Ministry selected Short and Supermarine, which is surprising as the Supermarine proposal was below those from the companies not selected. The Type 316 was redesigned into the type 317 powered by 4 Bristol Hercules and 2 prototypes were ordered, as you said, with the Stirling as back up. They also continued with the Merlin-powered Type 318. The 2 still incomplete prototypes plus the construction plans were destroyed in an air raid on 23-9-1940 and within 2 months the order for the Type 317 was cancelled. As for the Halifax, it was those short-sighted men at the Air Ministry who asked Handley Page in July 1937 to stop working in the HP.56 twin-engine medium bomber and redesign it into a 4-engined bomber with different engines. The men from the ministry had doubts about the RR Vulture and didn't want to out all their eggs in the same basket. Handley Page was happy to accede to this request and the HP.56 became the HP.57 or Halifax. This foresight, which many who criticise the Air Ministry ignore, made sure we had at least 1 effect long-range, although far from perfect, bomber in the earlier part of WW2.
@matthewlok3020 Жыл бұрын
Les Munro was probably the last pilot to die
@alancondell3618 Жыл бұрын
And what about the Soviets who drowned, at the base of the dams, in their POW camps? I have NEVER seen it mentioned in historical narration. Did B. Harris know they were there? Or, is this "dirty laundry "? Someone, please reply.
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
I'd recommend Max Hasting's Operation Chastise as he goes into some details about the aftermath of the raid. Personally I would doubt very much if the presence of slave labourers would have halted this mission. The potential net gain for this daring operation compared to the resources needed to launch it was huge.
@markstratton1679 Жыл бұрын
O for Orange piloted by Townsend officially attacked the Ennepe Dam, but evidence and witnesses would suggest that it was actually the Bever Dam that was attacked. There were 1 and a half Americans on the raid. Melvin "Dinghy" Young had an American mother! :-). There is an excellent book on Youngs life called "The Dambuster who Cracked the Dam" by Arthur G. Thorning. Young had officially completed two tours but his first tour was mostly convoy escort duties and his second was in the Middle East. The Dams raid was his first operational flight in a Lancaster. It is also quite apparent from this book and James Hollands book on the Dams Raid that Young is not given enough credit for the organization and training that the squadron received as Gibson was often called away for meetings, in fact Gibson and his crew was one of the least trained that took part in the operation.
@markstratton1679 Жыл бұрын
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw Stop talking rubbish. Funny how his given occupation on websites is "historian and broadcaster". He writes books on WW2 history.
@mabbrey Жыл бұрын
well done cali
@MarkloopRAF Жыл бұрын
@28:00 you state the the Lancs gave their position away using their "largely ineffective" 303 machine guns. They were not "largely ineffective", they were totally ineffective on purpose. The squadron fitted totally tracer rounds only, in order to scare the defences.
@simoncains8595 Жыл бұрын
Wouldn't tracer rounds also cause damage ? The two spotlights must have also been a bit of a giveaway.
@rogerduncan2603 Жыл бұрын
Since a Lancaster was rather big, and the German flak crews varied between competent and a complete bastard to face, they probably noticed quickly.
@KP-viking88 Жыл бұрын
Tracer rounds still hurt, not sure why you think they dont
@sobobwas6871 Жыл бұрын
If you are going to reference success as an engineer perhaps you should reference the geodetic construction technique used in constructing the most produced British bomber during the war. So maybe not such a time waster as you suggest
@rogerpattube Жыл бұрын
6.00 Ballsy - well done.
@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын
I debated it in my head because it's a word I would never use myself, but history shouldn't be changed and you can't talk about this raid without mentioning it.
@kenharris5390 Жыл бұрын
Great stuff, thank you. If only the Sorpe had been breached it would have had a significant effect on production.
@gregnikoloff5488 Жыл бұрын
James Holland who wrote the recent (and excellent) Dambusters book, using modern analysis - has a podcast named "We have ways" on Audible. He recently (last week) did an episode on the bombing of the Sorpe dam as part of the 80th centenary of the raids. He stated that while it wasn't breached - it was damaged and had to be drained of all water in the dam in order to repair the bomb damage. So in effect it was breached - just not on the night of the raid.
@kenharris5390 Жыл бұрын
@@gregnikoloff5488 Thanks for the info, I will check out "We have ways"
@achitophel5852 Жыл бұрын
Flying 60 feet at night is near miraculous.
@MRCAGR1 Жыл бұрын
Especially since it was manually by eye, and not on computerised autopilot using terrain following radar or radar altimeter as it was on Tornado. I don’t know but wouldn’t the Lancaster have been a pig to fly at low altitude, relatively low speed with a not particularly aerodynamic hunk of machinery hanging below the fuselage?
@markbowman2890 Жыл бұрын
@@MRCAGR1 To a private pilot, flying at 500 feet is called low flying and below that is illegal. Sixty feet is incredibly low because the closer you get to the ground, as a point of reference, the noticeable the small deviations in height or direction are. Furthermore, if you fly over water, especially still water, it becomes even more dangerous to ascertain your height. many good pilots have died doing it. As for instruments, the VSI (vertical speed indicator) would have been useless because of the lag time with the indicator. Helicopters would use a modified IVSI that is more sensitive before the modern radar instruments were invented. This means that all the low flying would have been done by the seat of the pants. I bet they were exhausted from this at the end of the mission and scene late in the movie shows them falling onto their bunks for a well earned sleep.
@m1t2a1 Жыл бұрын
Ice pilots proved it from a C-47.
@roberthunter9674 Жыл бұрын
AJ-O Flight sergeant Bill Townsend attacked the Ennepe dropping their mine successfully which failed to breach the dam they were the last crew back flying home in day light
@ondrejdobrota73449 ай бұрын
The result was failure due to high losses and not all targets destroyed with results predicted. It wasnt repeated again.
@richardvernon3177 ай бұрын
Oh so Wrong!!!! Damage done against losses were massive on a monetary level. The raid was never going to knock Germany out of the war and the RAF did attack other dams after this raid. The is an RAF Battle Honour for attacks on dams and 617 Squadron isn't the only Squadron to hold it.
@stevetheduck14254 ай бұрын
The Germans made extremely thorough studies, and totaled up the damage done, and the cost of remedial work. These reports ae easily found. Translations of them, too. Due to the many who claim that the raid was a failure. That many men and aircraft were lost did not prevent a similarly costly raid on the Dortmund-Ems canal some days later, by the reconstituted squadron. Or the many later missions using specialist weapons developed by the same team and Squadron, such as the Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs. Which rarely had high losses. It's worth looking up.