This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Chastise article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 17, 2005, May 17, 2006, May 17, 2007, May 17, 2008, May 17, 2009, May 17, 2010, May 16, 2012, and May 16, 2013. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
"One of the squadron's photo-reconnaissance Spitfires, piloted by Flying Officer Frank "Jerry" Fray,[14] took off from RAF Benson at 07:30 hours and arrived over the Ruhr River immediately after first light" - this nonsense is also stated in the Carmel College article. At this time of year, it would have needed to be a time-machine and not an aircraft to take off at 07:30, travel east that distance and still get there by 'first light'. It would have been late morning by then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.238.154 ( talk) 11:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If you read the books "The Dam Busters and Enemy Coast Ahead" you will find the aircraft landed back in the UK at about 07:30. At the latitude of the Moehne Dam (approx 51.5 degrees North" sunrise in May is about 04:00 local time (GMT + 2 hours) which is also why Britain adopted double Summer time during the war - to ensure that aircraft arrived over the target in darkness. The actual time difference between London and the Moehne dam is about 32 minutes and Germany used GMT + 1 hour as its standard time hence during the war daylight saving time added an extra hour making Berlin Summer Time GMT +2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.233.127 ( talk) 15:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
True, Jerry Fray's Spitfire XI would have arrived over the Moehne, about an hour after take-off, at 08:30 Double BST and local time (both being GMT+2), which would be four and a half hours after sunrise. Townsend's Lancaster was the last to land at Scampton at 06:15 and Townsend had covered much of the return journey in daylight. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 17:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"Dinghy" was Young's nickname, a reference to the fact that he had made many forced landings at sea, requiring him to use the rubber dinghies stowed on RAF aircraft.
The page on Young says that he acquired the nickname "Dinghy" after being shot down over the sea twice and surviving in inflatable dinghies. So, it was exactly two, not "many", and he had been shot down, rather than landed. First of all we, of course, just want to make it correct, but it is also of concern because it can give the impression that it was relatively commonplace to survive a crash at sea, when in fact the odds were highly against it.
Recommend that it be changed to to ""Dinghy" was Young's nickname, a reference to the fact that he had twice survived a crash at sea in an inflatable dinghy
Javaman59 ( talk) 22:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
His nickname was a result of also having been given his "Blue" at Trinity College, Oxford University for rowing pre-war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.233.127 ( talk) 15:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
What is the point of this section, referring to international agreements thirty years later? B0YC0TT ( talk) 22:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the point is that the British didn't agree not to target dams and the implication is that that refusal was partly a consequence of Operation Chastise. A reference showing that it really was a consequence would be good. -- Shimbo ( talk) 09:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as international 'law'. The Geneva conventions are not 'law'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.238.154 ( talk) 16:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
True the Geneva Convention is not law per se, but no soldier, sailor or airman can hide behind the fact that something covered by the Geneva Convention is not law. The convention is based upon law by international agreement, which is how the captured NAZI High Command were prosecuted proving that it is illegal to claim "...I was only obeying orders..." They knew that certain acts were illegal under German law (pre-Hitler) and the laws of other nations. Once a nation has ratified the convention it is law and as such is classed as International Law - meaning it applies internationally.
In the attack on the Möhne one of the bombers made a running commentary on the attack, relayed to base by an airborne TR. 1142 (Transmitter Receiver) manufactured by GEC, the distance being too great for direct VHF transmission.
This is complete and utter nonsense written by someone who knows nothing about how the Royal Air Force then went (and still goes) to war. It still does to this day take off in complete silence and only uses HF / VHF / UHF communications when it absolutely needs to - it can even refuel in silence. Even the station radar would be switched off, all take off's would be cleared by the flashing of a green signal lamp.
No transmissions were made at anytime from before take off until the code word "Dinghy" to indicate that the weapon had been dropped but no breach or "Nigger" to indicate a successful breach. The frequency used was 3.885 MHz, and the method of communication back to Scampton was WT - CW or Morse Code. The VHF equipment was solely for communication between the aircraft during the actual operation. Full details are included in both Brickhill's and Gibson's books and are supported by the comms log for the raid, which still has the original handwritten texts as received by the wireless operator. Until the word "Nigger" was received no-one not even the station cat knew what was happening over the dam. The Royal Air Force took off then, and indeed still does on operations, in complete and utter radio silence; unlike the USAAC / USAF who relayed then and now, everything back to their base and were and still are controlled at a distance, Wing Commander Gibson had complete operational control and no-one back at Scampton had any idea which aircraft was returning until it was on approach for landing.
What led planners to try an approach along the length of the Sorpe dam with no rotation instead of using the same approach as with the gravity arch dams?
I first thought it might have been because the lake takes a turn, affording not enough space for the final approach. Using the measuring tool on Google maps though, they would have had a comfortable final approach of nearly 1.8 miles over water - the Möhne is much narrower at 1.1 miles to the bank across from the dam.
That first Lancaster must have woken every German in a six mile radius in its ten approaches before finally dropping. I had the story told to me by a guy who lived below the dam at the time.-- Cancun771 ( talk) 12:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The page for the Möhne dam claims that that particular attack resulted in more deaths than the total for both dam breaches claimed on this page. Is it because some of the Moehne victims weren't civilians? LaFoiblesse 2009-03-17 14h40 (GMT).
There is a discussion thread (which I started) on the article Aircraft in fiction about whether its mention of the Lancaster in the film "The Dam Busters" is correct, i.e. is the film correctly categorised as being "fiction". Some editors believe that the film is a fictionalised account, others that it is a (largely accurate) dramatisation of real events. If anyone here has views to express, one way or the other, they'd be welcome. -- TraceyR ( talk) 16:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
"The diplomatic view" begins with "An important reason for planning the raid was to persuade Stalin that Britain was capable of being an effective ally. This was the middle period of the war, when the United States had recently entered the war on Britain's side due to the attack on Pearl Harbour."
In fact, by May of 1943, there was already a massive bombing campaign being conducted against Germany by the RAF and U.S. Army Air Corps. The first "thousand bomber raid" had taken place a year earlier and in less than two months, the deadliest air raids of the war would occur against Hamburg. Invading Italy and the air raid appeased the Soviets to a degree but the suggestion here that sending a squadron of bombers in a single raid helped placate the Soviets' request for a 2nd front is absurd.
The second sentence begins, "The United States had recently entered the war" makes it sound like it was January 1942 when by this time the U.S. had invaded North Africa, Sicily and would, along with the British, soon be invading Italy. This is without even mentioning victories in the Pacific such as Midway and Guadalcanal that had completely put Japan on the defense. It is also misleading to write the U.S. "entered the war on Britain's side due to the attack on Pearl Harbor." First of all, Germany declared war on the U.S. not vice-versa. Second, the German declaration was made because the U.S. was already on "Britain's side" with lend-lease and their operations in the Atlantic. This section cites Churchill's Chapter 25 as its sole source and what he wrote never said all of what this section implies.-- TL36 ( talk) 09:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
in the table section on Aircraft" it states for G-George: "Raid leader. Mine exploded short of dam. Used aircraft to draw anti-aircraft fire away from other crews but crashed. The place he crashed is now a street called Gibsonstraat in Steenbergen in honour of him." Since Gibson survived the raid and picked up his VC later, isn't this incorrect? -- TraceyR ( talk) 09:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The animated illustration depicts a level lake bottom, right to the base of the dam. Also, the concept of the bomb describes it rolling down the dam to its base and exploding there.
Instead, there was quite a lot of silt buildup on the lake's bottom at the base of the dams. The bombs were to roll down to the top of the silt and explode there. This was about 1/3 to 1/2 way up from the actual bases of the dams as seen when looking at them from their faces.
My observation is based on the depictions of the bombs in the Nova (TV series) episode Bombing Hitler's Dams.
- Dorsey Drane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddrane ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
"One of the squadron's photo-reconnaissance Spitfires, piloted by Flying Officer Frank "Jerry" Fray,[10] took off from RAF Benson at 07:30 hours and arrived over the Ruhr River immediately after first light. Photos were taken of the breached dams..."
That can't be right. In May it was already light in England at 0730 hours, let alone in Germany further east. Then there is the flight time of several hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 ( talk) 13:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
And by the time it reached Germany, it was very late morning and broad daylight. The nonsensical statement about 'first light' is also in the Carmel College article. Time to correct this, which I'll do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.238.154 ( talk) 14:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Britain and Germany were on the same time, GMT+2. Jerry Fray took off at about 07:30 and reached the target an hour later.. Sunrise was about 04:00 GMT, 06:00 Double BST. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
" The destroyed dam poured around 330 million tons of water (687 cubic meters) into the western Ruhr region."
As a ton of water is 1 m3, this sentence should be changed.
62.23.87.194 ( talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This page is in Category:Lincolnshire articles missing geocoordinate data but I can't work out what co-ordinates would make sense. Should we remove the missing co-ord template:?-- Robert EA Harvey ( talk) 11:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Since WP prefers the most commonly used name, shouldn't this whole article be under 'Dambusters Raid'? Onanoff ( talk) 17:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I have removed Template:External links from that section. Considering how important the raid was during the war, after the war, and to this day (important culturally, not just militarily) A staggering amount of well-written and meaningful stuff is out there. We can't copyvio, we can't plagarise, we can only point to it. This list, as it stands, is but one tithe of one tithe of one tithe of what is worthy of inclusion.
Anyone who disagrees, can you present a reasoned argument (not just blind re-statemement of policy) here?-- Robert EA Harvey ( talk) 18:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't say how many were captured, and how many of those escaped, or got home in the ordinary way. Valetude ( talk) 18:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe that sadly with one or two exceptions, all the crews whose aircraft were shot down or crashed were killed due to the low height that the aircraft were flying at. 300 feet was considered to be the absolute minimum height at which someone could bale out, and their parachute open - it would have had less than 3 seconds to deploy, they would survive but be badly injured, after hitting the ground in a very heavy landing. I don't have the two books "Enemy Coast Ahead" and "The Dam Busters" to hand but they do contain an account of who survived being shot down or crashing. Of those who did survive, none made a "Home Run," and had to wait for liberation by the allied armies before being repatriated.
While only three dams were actually attacked, six dams were selected as targets.
http://www.thedambusters.org.uk/dams.html 77.86.117.208 ( talk) 17:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
"McCarthy's bomber developed a coolant leak and he took off in the reserve aircraft 34 minutes late.[9] " - yet in the list of the aircraft, he is listed as part of the second wave, not the reserve! What is correct? 80.151.9.187 ( talk)
We have a glaring omission here. I know what upkeep was, but I didn't learn this from this article. Readers won't get a clue here, and only people who already know a lot about this raid can follow the multiple upkeep references at all. The word is used here without any introduction, or even the slightest explanation. Was upkeep a bomb, or something else? Was it just for this raid? What made upkeep special? Was it based on other bombs? Who designed it? When and how? Is it upkeep or Upkeep, or UPKEEP? Why is it named that? -- A D Monroe III( talk) 12:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The "Background" section says the dams provided "pure water for steel-making". It seems dubious that pure water is used in steel-making -- the "Steelmaking" article doesn't even contain the word "water". BMJ-pdx ( talk) 06:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I am open minded about the inclusion of this link User:GraemeLeggett so will leave it to another to replace if thought fit. The bulk of the effect of chastise other to morale, was caused by flooding; the oponent's casualties being perhaps two orders of magnitude higher from 1938YRf. Excluding as 'not attack on enemy infrastructure/means of production' seems rather selective. SovalValtos ( talk) 19:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Chastise article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 17, 2005, May 17, 2006, May 17, 2007, May 17, 2008, May 17, 2009, May 17, 2010, May 16, 2012, and May 16, 2013. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
"One of the squadron's photo-reconnaissance Spitfires, piloted by Flying Officer Frank "Jerry" Fray,[14] took off from RAF Benson at 07:30 hours and arrived over the Ruhr River immediately after first light" - this nonsense is also stated in the Carmel College article. At this time of year, it would have needed to be a time-machine and not an aircraft to take off at 07:30, travel east that distance and still get there by 'first light'. It would have been late morning by then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.238.154 ( talk) 11:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If you read the books "The Dam Busters and Enemy Coast Ahead" you will find the aircraft landed back in the UK at about 07:30. At the latitude of the Moehne Dam (approx 51.5 degrees North" sunrise in May is about 04:00 local time (GMT + 2 hours) which is also why Britain adopted double Summer time during the war - to ensure that aircraft arrived over the target in darkness. The actual time difference between London and the Moehne dam is about 32 minutes and Germany used GMT + 1 hour as its standard time hence during the war daylight saving time added an extra hour making Berlin Summer Time GMT +2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.233.127 ( talk) 15:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
True, Jerry Fray's Spitfire XI would have arrived over the Moehne, about an hour after take-off, at 08:30 Double BST and local time (both being GMT+2), which would be four and a half hours after sunrise. Townsend's Lancaster was the last to land at Scampton at 06:15 and Townsend had covered much of the return journey in daylight. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 17:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"Dinghy" was Young's nickname, a reference to the fact that he had made many forced landings at sea, requiring him to use the rubber dinghies stowed on RAF aircraft.
The page on Young says that he acquired the nickname "Dinghy" after being shot down over the sea twice and surviving in inflatable dinghies. So, it was exactly two, not "many", and he had been shot down, rather than landed. First of all we, of course, just want to make it correct, but it is also of concern because it can give the impression that it was relatively commonplace to survive a crash at sea, when in fact the odds were highly against it.
Recommend that it be changed to to ""Dinghy" was Young's nickname, a reference to the fact that he had twice survived a crash at sea in an inflatable dinghy
Javaman59 ( talk) 22:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
His nickname was a result of also having been given his "Blue" at Trinity College, Oxford University for rowing pre-war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.233.127 ( talk) 15:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
What is the point of this section, referring to international agreements thirty years later? B0YC0TT ( talk) 22:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the point is that the British didn't agree not to target dams and the implication is that that refusal was partly a consequence of Operation Chastise. A reference showing that it really was a consequence would be good. -- Shimbo ( talk) 09:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as international 'law'. The Geneva conventions are not 'law'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.238.154 ( talk) 16:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
True the Geneva Convention is not law per se, but no soldier, sailor or airman can hide behind the fact that something covered by the Geneva Convention is not law. The convention is based upon law by international agreement, which is how the captured NAZI High Command were prosecuted proving that it is illegal to claim "...I was only obeying orders..." They knew that certain acts were illegal under German law (pre-Hitler) and the laws of other nations. Once a nation has ratified the convention it is law and as such is classed as International Law - meaning it applies internationally.
In the attack on the Möhne one of the bombers made a running commentary on the attack, relayed to base by an airborne TR. 1142 (Transmitter Receiver) manufactured by GEC, the distance being too great for direct VHF transmission.
This is complete and utter nonsense written by someone who knows nothing about how the Royal Air Force then went (and still goes) to war. It still does to this day take off in complete silence and only uses HF / VHF / UHF communications when it absolutely needs to - it can even refuel in silence. Even the station radar would be switched off, all take off's would be cleared by the flashing of a green signal lamp.
No transmissions were made at anytime from before take off until the code word "Dinghy" to indicate that the weapon had been dropped but no breach or "Nigger" to indicate a successful breach. The frequency used was 3.885 MHz, and the method of communication back to Scampton was WT - CW or Morse Code. The VHF equipment was solely for communication between the aircraft during the actual operation. Full details are included in both Brickhill's and Gibson's books and are supported by the comms log for the raid, which still has the original handwritten texts as received by the wireless operator. Until the word "Nigger" was received no-one not even the station cat knew what was happening over the dam. The Royal Air Force took off then, and indeed still does on operations, in complete and utter radio silence; unlike the USAAC / USAF who relayed then and now, everything back to their base and were and still are controlled at a distance, Wing Commander Gibson had complete operational control and no-one back at Scampton had any idea which aircraft was returning until it was on approach for landing.
What led planners to try an approach along the length of the Sorpe dam with no rotation instead of using the same approach as with the gravity arch dams?
I first thought it might have been because the lake takes a turn, affording not enough space for the final approach. Using the measuring tool on Google maps though, they would have had a comfortable final approach of nearly 1.8 miles over water - the Möhne is much narrower at 1.1 miles to the bank across from the dam.
That first Lancaster must have woken every German in a six mile radius in its ten approaches before finally dropping. I had the story told to me by a guy who lived below the dam at the time.-- Cancun771 ( talk) 12:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The page for the Möhne dam claims that that particular attack resulted in more deaths than the total for both dam breaches claimed on this page. Is it because some of the Moehne victims weren't civilians? LaFoiblesse 2009-03-17 14h40 (GMT).
There is a discussion thread (which I started) on the article Aircraft in fiction about whether its mention of the Lancaster in the film "The Dam Busters" is correct, i.e. is the film correctly categorised as being "fiction". Some editors believe that the film is a fictionalised account, others that it is a (largely accurate) dramatisation of real events. If anyone here has views to express, one way or the other, they'd be welcome. -- TraceyR ( talk) 16:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
"The diplomatic view" begins with "An important reason for planning the raid was to persuade Stalin that Britain was capable of being an effective ally. This was the middle period of the war, when the United States had recently entered the war on Britain's side due to the attack on Pearl Harbour."
In fact, by May of 1943, there was already a massive bombing campaign being conducted against Germany by the RAF and U.S. Army Air Corps. The first "thousand bomber raid" had taken place a year earlier and in less than two months, the deadliest air raids of the war would occur against Hamburg. Invading Italy and the air raid appeased the Soviets to a degree but the suggestion here that sending a squadron of bombers in a single raid helped placate the Soviets' request for a 2nd front is absurd.
The second sentence begins, "The United States had recently entered the war" makes it sound like it was January 1942 when by this time the U.S. had invaded North Africa, Sicily and would, along with the British, soon be invading Italy. This is without even mentioning victories in the Pacific such as Midway and Guadalcanal that had completely put Japan on the defense. It is also misleading to write the U.S. "entered the war on Britain's side due to the attack on Pearl Harbor." First of all, Germany declared war on the U.S. not vice-versa. Second, the German declaration was made because the U.S. was already on "Britain's side" with lend-lease and their operations in the Atlantic. This section cites Churchill's Chapter 25 as its sole source and what he wrote never said all of what this section implies.-- TL36 ( talk) 09:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
in the table section on Aircraft" it states for G-George: "Raid leader. Mine exploded short of dam. Used aircraft to draw anti-aircraft fire away from other crews but crashed. The place he crashed is now a street called Gibsonstraat in Steenbergen in honour of him." Since Gibson survived the raid and picked up his VC later, isn't this incorrect? -- TraceyR ( talk) 09:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The animated illustration depicts a level lake bottom, right to the base of the dam. Also, the concept of the bomb describes it rolling down the dam to its base and exploding there.
Instead, there was quite a lot of silt buildup on the lake's bottom at the base of the dams. The bombs were to roll down to the top of the silt and explode there. This was about 1/3 to 1/2 way up from the actual bases of the dams as seen when looking at them from their faces.
My observation is based on the depictions of the bombs in the Nova (TV series) episode Bombing Hitler's Dams.
- Dorsey Drane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddrane ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
"One of the squadron's photo-reconnaissance Spitfires, piloted by Flying Officer Frank "Jerry" Fray,[10] took off from RAF Benson at 07:30 hours and arrived over the Ruhr River immediately after first light. Photos were taken of the breached dams..."
That can't be right. In May it was already light in England at 0730 hours, let alone in Germany further east. Then there is the flight time of several hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 ( talk) 13:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
And by the time it reached Germany, it was very late morning and broad daylight. The nonsensical statement about 'first light' is also in the Carmel College article. Time to correct this, which I'll do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.238.154 ( talk) 14:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Britain and Germany were on the same time, GMT+2. Jerry Fray took off at about 07:30 and reached the target an hour later.. Sunrise was about 04:00 GMT, 06:00 Double BST. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
" The destroyed dam poured around 330 million tons of water (687 cubic meters) into the western Ruhr region."
As a ton of water is 1 m3, this sentence should be changed.
62.23.87.194 ( talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This page is in Category:Lincolnshire articles missing geocoordinate data but I can't work out what co-ordinates would make sense. Should we remove the missing co-ord template:?-- Robert EA Harvey ( talk) 11:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Since WP prefers the most commonly used name, shouldn't this whole article be under 'Dambusters Raid'? Onanoff ( talk) 17:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I have removed Template:External links from that section. Considering how important the raid was during the war, after the war, and to this day (important culturally, not just militarily) A staggering amount of well-written and meaningful stuff is out there. We can't copyvio, we can't plagarise, we can only point to it. This list, as it stands, is but one tithe of one tithe of one tithe of what is worthy of inclusion.
Anyone who disagrees, can you present a reasoned argument (not just blind re-statemement of policy) here?-- Robert EA Harvey ( talk) 18:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't say how many were captured, and how many of those escaped, or got home in the ordinary way. Valetude ( talk) 18:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe that sadly with one or two exceptions, all the crews whose aircraft were shot down or crashed were killed due to the low height that the aircraft were flying at. 300 feet was considered to be the absolute minimum height at which someone could bale out, and their parachute open - it would have had less than 3 seconds to deploy, they would survive but be badly injured, after hitting the ground in a very heavy landing. I don't have the two books "Enemy Coast Ahead" and "The Dam Busters" to hand but they do contain an account of who survived being shot down or crashing. Of those who did survive, none made a "Home Run," and had to wait for liberation by the allied armies before being repatriated.
While only three dams were actually attacked, six dams were selected as targets.
http://www.thedambusters.org.uk/dams.html 77.86.117.208 ( talk) 17:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
"McCarthy's bomber developed a coolant leak and he took off in the reserve aircraft 34 minutes late.[9] " - yet in the list of the aircraft, he is listed as part of the second wave, not the reserve! What is correct? 80.151.9.187 ( talk)
We have a glaring omission here. I know what upkeep was, but I didn't learn this from this article. Readers won't get a clue here, and only people who already know a lot about this raid can follow the multiple upkeep references at all. The word is used here without any introduction, or even the slightest explanation. Was upkeep a bomb, or something else? Was it just for this raid? What made upkeep special? Was it based on other bombs? Who designed it? When and how? Is it upkeep or Upkeep, or UPKEEP? Why is it named that? -- A D Monroe III( talk) 12:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The "Background" section says the dams provided "pure water for steel-making". It seems dubious that pure water is used in steel-making -- the "Steelmaking" article doesn't even contain the word "water". BMJ-pdx ( talk) 06:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I am open minded about the inclusion of this link User:GraemeLeggett so will leave it to another to replace if thought fit. The bulk of the effect of chastise other to morale, was caused by flooding; the oponent's casualties being perhaps two orders of magnitude higher from 1938YRf. Excluding as 'not attack on enemy infrastructure/means of production' seems rather selective. SovalValtos ( talk) 19:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)