rosie Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Sorry if this has already been posted but noticed what looks like an interesting programme on later tonight. Dambusters Declassified (8pm BBC2)-A look at one of the most famous stories of them all with Martin (God he's gorgeous!) Shaw. I think it is looking at how the film compared to the actual event. If you prefer to watch X-Factor, and I know you all do really! :shocked: its repeated again tomorrow night at 11.20 still on BBC2 :kiss: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G506 Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Hello my darlin'! Couldnt tape it for me, could you? Dont get home til Thursday Big hugs from Saudi! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 I'm sure this is a repeat, and I saw it first time around..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosie Posted October 17, 2010 Author Share Posted October 17, 2010 Hello my darlin'!Couldnt tape it for me, could you? Dont get home til Thursday Big hugs from Saudi! already doing so! Hope Saudi is looking after you ok, no more trying to escape to other countries?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fv1609 Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Seemed a bit thin on historical revelations, largely seemed to revolve around a series of trips out for Martin Shaw. Although the contributor John Sweetman is always worth listening to. He was modestly described as "Historian" but he was the former head of Defence & International Studies RMA Sandhurst. His research is always meticulous & profound, particularly in the Crimean era. I would recommend his book "War & Administration - the Significance of the Crimean War for the British Army". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Seemed a bit thin on historical revelations, largely seemed to revolve around a series of trips out for Martin Shaw. Although the contributor John Sweetman is always worth listening to. He was modestly described as "Historian" but he was the former head of Defence & International Studies RMA Sandhurst. His research is always meticulous & profound, particularly in the Crimean era. I would recommend his book "War & Administration - the Significance of the Crimean War for the British Army". Nothing at all about the highly criticised self destruction mechanism, that seldom if ever gets a mention.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Nothing at all about the highly criticised self destruction mechanism, that seldom if ever gets a mention.... Tell us more Mike! I assume it didn't work too well and that's why the Germans were able to obtain a nearly complete bomb. No real mention of why the Germans never went further with their plans for a copy cat attack on the Sheffield dams. Was it just that they were considered too heavily defended afterwards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcspool Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) All, I stumbled over this programme and must say I think it is excellent! You Brits are lucky to have the BBC. It is a mix of a documentary and a personal journey into the past by comparing history as depicted in a movie, historical facts and personal recollections. Martin Shaw is not suggesting he is rewriting history, but he is merely making annotations about the raid and the people who were in it by showing their strenghts and weaknessess. By flying the route to the dams himself he shows this was no mean feat. Overall an hour very well spent! I recommend it. Hanno Edited October 18, 2010 by mcspool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteor mark 4B Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Agreed. A good bit of TV, something of a rarity in these days of all the reality rubbish! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon_M Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Agreed. A good bit of TV, something of a rarity in these days of all the reality rubbish! I would suggest that this WAS reality TV, much more so than a bunch of losers locked in a house... ? Gordon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 I actually thought the previous documentary (about 12mths previously) was better, -in which the same survivor of the Skorpee Dam attack explained how they did it and the narrator went on to what happened to the other aircraft scheduled for the Skorpee Dam attack -the loss of which led to the failure of the attack leading to the perception that the over all raid was a pyrrhic victory. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) Tell us more Mike! I assume it didn't work too well and that's why the Germans were able to obtain a nearly complete bomb. No real mention of why the Germans never went further with their plans for a copy cat attack on the Sheffield dams. Was it just that they were considered too heavily defended afterwards? The bombs/mines were so secret a device was fitted which was supposed to explode the bomb if the plane crashed, but the device was so sensitive that the crews feared it might detonate when taxiing, taking off or in flight, The ministry demanded the device was fitted and armed before leaving the dispersals, in the end there was so much disquiet about the detonator , that crews were given permission to take off without arming it, but they had to reach down through a hole on the fuselage to arm it before crossing the enemy coast. It is suspected that many crews so feared the device they decided not to arm the device, and fly with their own death ticket hanging below them. The mines that were retrieve, by the Germans, following crashes, might never have been armed either through oversight or deliberate rule breaking, by a crew who felt the device was just to sensitive and dangerous. Part of the story, and should have got a mention... The self destruct mechanism to which I refer was one of two, the second device armed automatically on release and was a timer that ran for 90 seconds, before detonation. This was in case all three Hydrostatic fuses failed, or the bomb failed to enter the water, ie bounced over the dam, or bounced onto the banks of the reservoir. The second self destruct is widely talked about. I have only ever seen one book about the first device, indeed it was the subject of the book, not just a topic within a broader overview of the bomb and the mission. I cannot remember the Author or book title, never read the book either so I hope I have got this right! Edited October 19, 2010 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 antarmike It is suspected that many crews so feared the device they decided not to arm the device, and fly with their own death ticket hanging below them. It's possible that the crews intended to arm the weapon on approach to the target, rather than lugging a large armed bomb across the continent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzkpfw-e Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 The German version, codenamed "Kurt", never got further than a few prototypes, which were proving to be as dangerous to the carrier aircraft as any potential target! One theory why Flt Lt Barlow's bomb didn't explode, was that it was never released from the aircraft and thus the triggers weren't armed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Pzkpfw-e The German version, codenamed "Kurt" ......which were proving to be as dangerous to the carrier aircraft as any potential target! But then again the British version was also dangerous to the carrier aircraft- and even as late as 1945 "eight ball" -the US version -based on the original British spherical weapon brought down a couple of A26s. One theory why Flt Lt Barlow's bomb didn't explode, was that it was never released from the aircraft and thus the triggers weren't armed. As you said one theory- I have heard it said that the primary self destruct was to operate in the event of an aircraft crashing- even if the weapon was not armed, but whether that is factually correct or just a myth I don't know. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) It's possible that the crews intended to arm the weapon on approach to the target, rather than lugging a large armed bomb across the continent. The bomb had three hydrostatic fuses that were armed on take off. These were intended to detonate the bomb when submerged to a given depth. They are pressure sensitive and would not have detonated a bomb on a crashed aircraft, or a bomb that bounced over the dam. The self destruct fuse was armed automatically on release, and could not be bypassed by the crew. If a bomb was recovered from bouncing over the dam, this is the device that should have detonated it to prevent the bomb falling into enemy hands. If the bomb remained on the suspensions points when the plane crashed. This would not have been armed, because it require separation of the bomb from the aircraft to arm it. The second Failsafe was in effect a sensitive trembler switch, which would have detonated the bomb if the bomb was still attached to an aircraft when it was shot down and crashed. The trouble is any violent shaking, hitting a tree, chimney pot, or power line, might have been a survivable event had this failsafe not been fitted, but it was so sensitive, any such incident would have detonated the bomb and killed the crew. It had to be disarmed shortly before the run into the dam, because the shock of hitting the water would have triggered it, destroying the bomb on the first bounce. Edit THIS is a load of rowlocks.....sorry, disregard this post... Edited October 19, 2010 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzkpfw-e Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 The second Failsafe was in effect a sensitive trembler switch, which would have detonated the bomb if the bomb was still attached to an aircraft when it was shot down and crashed. The trouble is any violent shaking, hitting a tree, chimney pot, or power line, might have been a survivable event had this failsafe not been fitted, but it was so sensitive, any such incident would have detonated the bomb and killed the crew. It had to be disarmed shortly before the run into the dam, because the shock of hitting the water would have triggered it, destroying the bomb on the first bounce. Now, since one of the bombs was lost when F/O Rice's Lancaster flew too low and touched the sea, this may be a distinct possibility. The Upkeep carried by AJ-K (P/O Byers), didn't explode until 4 weeks after the Lancaster was shot down into the sea off Texel, so another failure of the self-destruct mechanisms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) I think i have got story wrong, maybe this is what I was thinking of...... It was a few years ago I saw this.... for those who want more.... http://www.authorsonline.co.uk/book/49/Dambusters_Away/ SORRY FOLKS DEMENTIA SETTING IN.... Edited October 18, 2010 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.