Picture of the day
- Thread starter jwhc
- Start date
"Analysis of earlier aerial photographs showed two single 20mm flak gun on the roofs of each tower. Below the dam there were signs of a further three light flak guns on raised platforms on the northern bank. This was not a heavy defence by any means. In other words, seven guns defended the Mohne and those guns would be a problem for those attacking the dam."
The grand slams were so expensive, if they could not be dropped, they had to be brought back!
Imagine, landing with a ten ton live bomb!
Well I didnt get to fly with them so I dont know for sure ... I am only going by positions I had pointed out to me in the mid '50's (when I was pretty young!) one was near an area where they were putting little sailboats into the water - pretty clear recollection. I guess it is possible these were placed after the bombing and the dam was being reconstructed. Only seven guns you say ... well 'Pshaw!!' -- it must have been a walk in the park - bunch of shirkers! Obviously just tired of wenching and pubbing back in Jolly Olde ... so went for a late night swan!
Had there been more flak guns on the Mohne dam, the number of bombers hit would have been drastically higher. The guns that were there soon over heated and became unusable. The crews were firing their rifles as the bombers went over the dam. As it was, several were hit by flak and lost on the run into Germany. Others few into high voltage power lines.
A 'cake walk' it was not.
A 'cake walk' it was not.
Thats an interesting (and rather cunning) tactic - draw such intensive enemy fire at your aircraft that you cause their guns to overheat - and then they cant use them ..what a comfort!
https://www.raf.mod.uk/history/bombercommanddambusters21march1943.cfm ... this is the RAF site. Gibson was 24.
Just a few quotes:
"Some aircraft flew beneath power cables on their way to the target and others flew along roads below the level of the surrounding trees"..
"...There were no survivors from either aircraft. McCarthy’s aircraft also nearly came to grief when it strayed over the heavily defended marshalling yards of Hamm, flying through them so low that a member of the crew remarked that the Germans didn’t need flak they only needed to change the points"
the link describes the operation.... and highly recommended reading.
I skimmed the above link on this incredible raid.
One thing I didn't see/catch was instead of developing a new bomb and make a risky low approach, why didnt the Brits just bomb the dam from altitude with conventional or grand slam bombs?
One thing I didn't see/catch was instead of developing a new bomb and make a risky low approach, why didnt the Brits just bomb the dam from altitude with conventional or grand slam bombs?
Barnes Wallis had correctly calculated that a much smaller charge detonated under water would have the effect of a much larger conventional bomb. But - it would have to be delivered with the utmost precision. The saturation bombing accuracy of the RAF at the time was dismal, most bombs not falling within five miles of the intended target.
The "earthquake" bombs were employed later in the war against canals and underground coal mining chambers. The canals were main arteries for the transport of goods and German heavy industry was fueled by coal.
The "earthquake" bombs were employed later in the war against canals and underground coal mining chambers. The canals were main arteries for the transport of goods and German heavy industry was fueled by coal.
And the Lancaster of the time couldn't carry the grand slam etc even if they had been available.
I think it was pretty common knowledge at the time that a charge under water would have a better chance at breaching the dams .... but the 'bouncing bomb' (with 500rpm backspin!) could also avoid the anti-torpedo nets that the Germans used. Presumably the Germans had previously determined that a 'torpedo' attack - with sub surface detonation - would be problematic.
British air launched torpedoes of the time - like the 18 inch Marks XII and XV - had fairly small warheads of about 388 lbs and 545 lbs, respectively. Not enough to destroy a dam on their own, but they could potentially be dropped in large numbers and from further away (in order to avoid air defences). The torpedo nets were a cheap and reliable countermeasure against that risk.
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
Before the Lanc and Halifax, the heavy lifting of Bomber Comand was done by the Short Stirling:
Bigger than either of her younger sisters, she had a short life as a front-line heavy bomber, but served throughout the war as a mine layer, tow plane, transport, general dogsbody, and bomber when assembling the necessary thousand planes for a big op required a little creativity.
Not as pretty as a Lanc, but she did her job.
After the war in Belgian civvy dress:
Bigger than either of her younger sisters, she had a short life as a front-line heavy bomber, but served throughout the war as a mine layer, tow plane, transport, general dogsbody, and bomber when assembling the necessary thousand planes for a big op required a little creativity.
Not as pretty as a Lanc, but she did her job.
After the war in Belgian civvy dress:
Last edited:
Donny Fenn1
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- East Kootenays
Maybe this one? They also do a licensed version of the Embraer Tucano but I'm not sure if that counts. Surprise, surprise they are owned by Bombardier. Crap.
Attachments
My good friend's father was a tailgunner in a Short Sterling. He told me about the end of the war when they were flying back they had to get rid of all the ammo. They had a choice of either shooting it up or throwing it out the Bombay door's. They tossed it out the door's. 10's of 1000's of rds.....
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
Speaking of Bombay, here's another aesthetically challenged British kite, the Bristol Bombay:
Unfrtunately proportioned in the same way as the Handley Page Harrow:
They look like the homely sisters that made Cinderella stay home. But at least they weren't "Amiot 143" levels of homely...
The 1930s were a weird time to be an aircraft designer. Maybe there was a coffee shortage, or government contracts had way-out-there gudelines. When the real beauties of the age came along in the 1940's (Spit, Mustang, later Messerchmidts, Potez 693, Constellation, DH Albatross) it must have made going to the airfield a lot less stressful. Hell, Amiot redeemed themselves plenty with the stunner 351:
Hard to believe that gorgeous thing and the bus-with-wings 143 entered service within five years of each other. They don't look like they were created on the same planet, much less by the same company.
Unfrtunately proportioned in the same way as the Handley Page Harrow:
They look like the homely sisters that made Cinderella stay home. But at least they weren't "Amiot 143" levels of homely...
The 1930s were a weird time to be an aircraft designer. Maybe there was a coffee shortage, or government contracts had way-out-there gudelines. When the real beauties of the age came along in the 1940's (Spit, Mustang, later Messerchmidts, Potez 693, Constellation, DH Albatross) it must have made going to the airfield a lot less stressful. Hell, Amiot redeemed themselves plenty with the stunner 351:
Hard to believe that gorgeous thing and the bus-with-wings 143 entered service within five years of each other. They don't look like they were created on the same planet, much less by the same company.
Last edited:
