PDA

View Full Version : Dambusters question



Swanbourne1989
09-07-2007, 06:02 AM
This has been eating at me for a good hour and a half...

Why didn't the Dambusters just use torpedo's instead of inventing complicated bouncing bombs that had to be dropped a certain distance away from the dam wall for them to work properly.

In my opinion, torpedo's would be simpler, and would probably do the same amount of damage. The bombers could also carry more torpedo's.

Probably a simple answer I'm not thinking of....

Swanbourne1989
09-07-2007, 06:28 AM
Oh, never mind :rolleyes: they had torpedo nets.....duh

Rising Sun*
09-07-2007, 06:59 AM
I'm rusty on this, but I think the destructive power of the Barnes Wallis bomb was far greater than anything that could have been delivered by any torpedo at the time. My recollection is that he needed a huge explosion well below the surface to utilise the fact that water can't be compressed to direct force against the dam wall. Something along those lines, anyway.

Strangy
09-07-2007, 07:17 AM
here guys, im not sure if its 100% correct, but its a simple explination of the dambusting technique. haha i know the model looks simple and childish, but it works. haha paint lol

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/GreasyGreaser53/dambusters.jpg

Swanbourne1989
09-07-2007, 08:00 AM
Yep yep :mrgreen: my bad.

I really should have thought about that a little more before posting, yes ? :)

tankgeezer
09-07-2007, 08:57 AM
Yep yep :mrgreen: my bad.

I really should have thought about that a little more before posting, yes ? :)
I s'pose you could have, but its more fun doing it this way.

Rising Sun*
09-07-2007, 09:34 AM
here guys, im not sure if its 100% correct, but its a simple explination of the dambusting technique. haha i know the model looks simple and childish, but it works. haha paint lol

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b291/GreasyGreaser53/dambusters.jpg

Just a nitpicking point, but the dam wall was probably sloped the other way.

The base has to be a lot wider than the top, so the interior wall will usually be either vertical with a forward slope on the outside or triangular in section.

The greatest effect would be achieved by blowing the bottom of a dam but that's its thickest point, whille the least is achieved at the top of the dam at its thinnest point.

I seem to recall that the Barnes Wallis bomb needed to be something like 30 or 40 feet down before it exploded, to be at the optimum point to blow as low as possible and do the most damage, so it was designed to hit the wall and sink before exploding.

Strangy
09-07-2007, 10:29 AM
haha like i said, model isnt to scale or anything. lol just the basic idea.

Carl Schwamberger
09-09-2007, 02:00 AM
Heres a link to film of the 'Dambuster' crews in action. Note this recently discovered film shows a technique never before connected to this attack.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54837

redcoat
09-09-2007, 07:48 AM
Another thing of interest about the bomb, was that a small motor fitted to the aircraft spinned the bomb around, so the bomb was turning over when it hit the water, this spinning held the bomb against the side of the dam after it started to sink on hitting it.

Rising Sun*
09-09-2007, 07:50 AM
Heres a link to film of the 'Dambuster' crews in action. Note this recently discovered film shows a technique never before connected to this attack.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54837


There are some things that shouldn't be meddled with.

The original Dambusters film is one, at least as far as putting pointless Star Wars sound effects and dialogue over it is concerned.

I'm old enough to remember seeing the original film when it was fairly new, and being very upset as a little kid by Guy Gibson's dog being killed, giving a code word that can't now be used in America and, because modern political correctness often trumps historical accuracy, can't even be used for historical accuracy.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20432080-29677,00.html

Firefly
09-09-2007, 09:06 AM
I dont mind them remaking it as long as it doesnt turn out like U571 or others. We shall see.

Rising Sun*
09-09-2007, 09:11 AM
I dont mind them remaking it as long as it doesnt turn out like U571 or others. We shall see.

Well, whatever happens, we can be sure that none of them were or will be fair representations of what actually happened.

pdf27
09-09-2007, 06:23 PM
There was also a rather interesting weapon called Highball which used the same principle in smaller sizes. It was designed for use against anchored shipping, to be delivered by DH Mosquitoes, skip over torpedo nets and explode underneath the torpedo protection if possible.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Mosquito_Dropping_Highball.jpg

redcoat
09-10-2007, 04:50 PM
I dont mind them remaking it as long as it doesnt turn out like U571 or others. We shall see.
No doubt being Hollywood they will have to give an American a major role.

Oh..... errrr.... just a moment.....

http://www3.sympatico.ca/jimlynch/bharis32.htm

;)

rascman
09-21-2007, 09:06 AM
No doubt being Hollywood they will have to give an American a major role.

Oh..... errrr.... just a moment.....

http://www3.sympatico.ca/jimlynch/bharis32.htm

;)


Good find,................have read bits and pieces about this opperation, and hadn't picked up on the fact, as above.


Why anyone needs to meddle with the origional film, is quite beond me,....................