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.

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.

@@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.

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.

@@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks Robbie!

@@CalibanRising Well written!

Gibson was actually 24 (born in August 1918)

Have you more BS to post here?

A story like this and you're raving about the bloody dog, FFS...

​@@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.

@@glazersout4272 Everyone knows already. Go back to sleep.

A glorious connection, thank you for stating it. So sad so many did not survive the war.

Kind of ironic then that this raid and the war in general have led to the migrant invasion, karma.

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...

wut

Almost all of the crews on Chastise knew nothing of the raid until just before it took place.

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!"

I watched that episode, great effort by a pilot born the same year as the raid.

Yep, Arnie was a great character. Too bad the big C caught him...

Out of the 133 men who took off on this night there were 30 Canadians.

Tim Smith 617 were elite but suffered horrendous losses attempting to bomb at low level.

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

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.

@@thethirdman225 I will look out for those, thanks.

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.

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.

Thanks for watching Nick! Your 90% right on the dam, but even now there's some debate about it.

I'd be interested to hear more details of your father's project.

@@marcusgibson3899 Sadly, that's all I can remember.

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.

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.

In 1951, when the book was written, that was probably true.

I agree with you, even more amazing!

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.

People throw that term around without really understanding it. All it does is cheapens things.

@@thethirdman225 Which term?

I watch very good history programmes on the BBC.

Yeah. Destroying dams and causing civilian casualties is a war crime now.

On the contrary, the BBC have a hardon for "The War".

Stop talking like a victim.

The book ‘Sliderule’ by Nevil Shute covers some of this, he worked there for a while.

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!!

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 😞

​@@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.

@@nickjoy8868 I do not think the original could be bettered and so would be futile!

@@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.

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?.

That was really the film that portrayed that line.

You could mention, that the Wellington came via the RN as the RAF were less than interested in the beginning.

@@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.

@@richardvernon317 perhaps you want to check contemporaneous writtings, Nevil Shute Norway, or Charles Goodeve on the RN involvement.

@@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.

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.

@@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.

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!

@@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.

@@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. 👍

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.

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.

Thanks Derek!

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.

Thanks for the correction, Working on assumption; Keen to state the situation as regards Tom Jaye

@@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.

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.

@@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.

A good point. Something to discuss in the future.

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.

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.

@@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.

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.

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

@@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

@@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.

@@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

@@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]

Thanks Maribel!

Thanks for watching Donald, I appreciate it!

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!

@@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.

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.

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!!

He could have been taking the picture

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.

Thanks Tony!

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.

Thanks for listening

Getalife pratt

lol

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.

@@tomedge1044 They also correctly identified it as a 'revolving depth charge'. Whatever else it was, it wasn't a mine.

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.

@@concise707 Yes it does, thank you.

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.

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.

@@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.

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.

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).

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..

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..

Major Hobart - and ALL his 'funnies' (including the canvas bridge system)... and the list goes on........

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.

@@markstratton1679 and yet people still repeat myth number 2.

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.

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.

@@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.

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.

@@JamesRichards-mj9kw Stop talking rubbish. Funny how his given occupation on websites is "historian and broadcaster". He writes books on WW2 history.

Wouldn't tracer rounds also cause damage ? The two spotlights must have also been a bit of a giveaway.

Since a Lancaster was rather big, and the German flak crews varied between competent and a complete bastard to face, they probably noticed quickly.

Tracer rounds still hurt, not sure why you think they dont

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.

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.

@@gregnikoloff5488 Thanks for the info, I will check out "We have ways"

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?

@@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.

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.

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.