Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:22 am
Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:09 am
Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:38 pm
Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:09 pm
Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:41 pm
Richard W. wrote:I love Harris' letter.
Tried transcribing it and there are a couple words I can't guess at. Can anyone fill them in for me?
Richard W. wrote:
This is tripe of the wildest description. There are so may ifs + ands that there is not the smallest chance of it working. To begin with the bomb would have to be perfectly balanced round it's axis. Otherwise rotation at 500 RPM would wreck the aircraft or tear the bomb loose. I don't believe a word of it's supposed ballistics on the surface.
It would be much easier to design a "scow" bomb to run on the surface, bust it's nose in on contact, sink + explode. This bomb would of course be heavier than water + exactly fit existing bomb bays.
At all costs stop them putting aside Lancs + reducing our bombing effort on this wild goose chase. Let them prove the practicality of the weapon first. Another Toraplane -- only madder. The war will be over before it works -- + it never will.
Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:16 pm
Punisher05 wrote:Dumb question alert:
I assume the one found was inert, and wouldn't be considered UXO, correct? Hate to see a piece of history that had to be "disrupted" for safety purposes.
Another fantastic post Mark, thank you.
-Brandon
Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:18 am
Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:05 am
XL446 wrote:First of all many thanks to Mark Allen M for (again) posting such an interesting thread. I've read about the raid so many times, but I never realised that in addition to flying so low and so steady, the Lancs were carrying bright lights basically telling the German AA gunners on the dams 'This is where you have to aim'. Makes the crews' courage (or bravery) even more outstanding.Richard W. wrote:I love Harris' letter.
Tried transcribing it and there are a couple words I can't guess at. Can anyone fill them in for me?
Others have tried before, but some just copy mistakes:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalarchives/8746349405
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5733819/The-reaction-Bomber-Command-chief-Sir-Arthur-Harris-daring-bouncing-bomb-plan.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6033603/Bomber-Harris-thought-the-Dambusters-attacks-on-Germany-achieved-nothing.html
These are my suggestions:Richard W. wrote:
This is tripe of the wildest description. There are so may ifs + ands that there is not the smallest chance of it working. To begin with the bomb would have to be perfectly balanced round it's axis. Otherwise rotation at 500 RPM would wreck the aircraft or tear the bomb loose. I don't believe a word of it's supposed ballistics on the surface.
It would be much easier to design a "scow" bomb to run on the surface, bust it's nose in on contact, sink + explode. This bomb would of course be heavier than water + exactly fit existing bomb bays.
At all costs stop them putting aside Lancs + reducing our bombing effort on this wild goose chase. Let them prove the practicality of the weapon first. Another Toraplane -- only madder. The war will be over before it works -- + it never will.
As for the Toraplane, see https://weaponsandwarfare.com/british-aerial-ordnance-exotica/
By the way, I was a bit surprised that an Air Marshal and Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath wouldn't know the difference between its and it's, but apparently he didn't.
Roger
Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:23 am